03/29/11 SISTEMA DE EVALUACIÓN DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL SEIA SEIA MODIFICADO POR LEY 20.417 .
Social and environmental impacy assesment SEIA for Urirama Wind Farm Aruba
208
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR : URIRAMA WIND FARM, ARUBA 8 June 2012
-
Upload
aruba-protest -
Category
Documents
-
view
232 -
download
4
description
Official MER (Milieu Effect Rapportage - SEIA) by KEMA june 8 2012 as released to Aruba Parliament on july 2th 2012.
Transcript of Social and environmental impacy assesment SEIA for Urirama Wind Farm Aruba
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT FOR :
URIRAMA WIND FARM, ARUBA
8 June 2012
KEMA Nederland B.V. Utrechtseweg 310, 6812 AR Arnhem P.O. Box 9035, 6800 ET Arnhem The Netherlands
T +31 26 3 56 91 11 F +31 26 3 89 24 77 [email protected] www.kema.com Registered Arnhem 09080262
74101509-PGR 12-7312
Social and Environmental Impact Assessment
for Urirama Wind Farm, Aruba
Arnhem, June 8, 2012
By order of Vader Piet Beheer NV
© KEMA Nederland B.V., Arnhem, the Netherlands. All rights reserved. It is prohibited to change any and all versions of this document in any manner whatsoever, including but not limited to dividing it into parts. In case of a conflict between the electronic version (e.g. PDF file) and the original paper version provided by KEMA, the latter will prevail. KEMA Nederland B.V. and/or its associated companies disclaim liability for any direct, indirect, consequential or incidental damages that may result from the use of the information or data, or from the inability to use the information or data contained in this document. The contents of this report may only be transmitted to third parties in its entirety and provided with the copyright notice, prohibition to change, electronic versions‟ validity notice and disclaimer.
-3- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
CONTENTS
page
CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... 3
1 Summary ............................................................................................................. 7
2 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9
2.1 History of the Project ............................................................................................ 9
2.2 Equator Principles ................................................................................................ 9
2.3 Objective .............................................................................................................10
2.4 Directions for Reading .........................................................................................10
3 Project approach .................................................................................................12
3.1 General ...............................................................................................................12
3.2 Equator Principles: Project Categorization ..........................................................12
3.3 Community Consultations ...................................................................................12
3.4 Information of the "Staten van Aruba" .................................................................14
3.5 Consultation with Government Services ..............................................................14
3.6 Consultation with Catholic church .......................................................................14
3.7 Consultations with NGOs ....................................................................................15
4 Project description...............................................................................................16
4.1 Location of Urirama Wind Farm ...........................................................................16
4.2 Turbine Type .......................................................................................................18
4.2.1 Specifications ......................................................................................................19
4.2.2 Construction ........................................................................................................19
4.2.3 Grid Connection ..................................................................................................20
4.2.4 Wind Farm Monitoring and Control ......................................................................20
4.3 Layout of Wind farm ............................................................................................21
4.4 Operation of Wind Farm ......................................................................................22
4.5 Expected Energy Gain ........................................................................................23
4.6 Construction of the Wind Farm ............................................................................23
4.6.1 Site preparation at each turbine location .............................................................24
4.6.2 Construction of Foundations ...............................................................................25
4.6.3 Transport of the turbine parts to the site ..............................................................26
4.6.4 Assembling the Wind Turbines ............................................................................28
4.6.5 Grid connection ...................................................................................................30
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -4- 5 Relevant laws and regulations ............................................................................32
5.1 State and Legislative system Aruba ....................................................................32
5.2 Local legislation for the protection of the Environment and Natural Resources ...32
5.3 Legislation for Spatial Planning ...........................................................................34
5.4 IFC Environmental, Health and Safety guidelines ...............................................37
5.4.1 Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) General Guidelines ............................37
5.4.2 EHS Guidelines for Wind Turbines ......................................................................38
5.5 Required Permits ................................................................................................39
6 Baseline situation ................................................................................................40
6.1 Social situation ....................................................................................................40
6.2 Electricity production Aruba .................................................................................41
6.3 Landscape ..........................................................................................................43
6.4 Flora ...................................................................................................................44
6.5 Fauna in general .................................................................................................45
6.6 Surface Water .....................................................................................................45
6.7 Soil and Groundwater .........................................................................................45
6.8 Background noise ...............................................................................................46
6.9 Cultural and Historical Elements .........................................................................47
7 Social and economic impacts ..............................................................................49
7.1 Impacts Caused by Construction Activities ..........................................................49
7.2 Saving Fuels .......................................................................................................50
7.3 Electricity Rates ..................................................................................................50
7.4 Employment ........................................................................................................50
7.5 Impacts on Air Traffic ..........................................................................................50
7.6 Impacts on Telecommunication Systems ............................................................51
7.7 Overview of Social Impacts .................................................................................51
8 Impact on nature .................................................................................................52
8.1 Impacts on Flora .................................................................................................52
8.2 Impacts on Birds .................................................................................................53
8.3 Impacts on Bats ..................................................................................................56
8.4 Impacts on other fauna elements ........................................................................57
8.5 Overview Impacts on Nature ...............................................................................57
9 Environmental impacts ........................................................................................58
9.1 Impacts on the Landscape ..................................................................................58
9.1.1 Impacts Caused by Construction Activities ..........................................................58
-5- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 9.1.2 Impacts Caused by Operation of Wind Farm .......................................................58
9.2 Impacts on Surface Water ...................................................................................62
9.3 Impacts on Soil and Groundwater .......................................................................62
9.4 Effects on Climate Change ..................................................................................62
9.5 Impacts on Ambient Air Quality ...........................................................................63
9.5.1 Impacts Caused by Construction of Wind Farm ..................................................63
9.5.2 Impacts Caused by Operation of Wind Farm .......................................................63
9.6 Noise impact .......................................................................................................63
9.6.1 Impacts Caused by Construction of Wind Farm ..................................................63
9.6.2 Impacts Caused by Operation of Wind Farm .......................................................64
9.7 Shadow flicker and blade glint .............................................................................67
9.8 Impacts on Cultural and Historical Elements .......................................................68
9.9 Impact on Waste .................................................................................................69
9.9.1 Waste from Construction of Wind Farm ...............................................................69
9.9.2 Waste from Operation of Wind Farm ...................................................................69
9.10 Overview of impacts on the Environment ............................................................70
10 Health and Safety ...............................................................................................71
10.1 Safety Requirements ...........................................................................................71
10.2 Community Health and Safety .............................................................................71
10.2.1 Impacts Caused by Construction of Wind Farm ..................................................72
10.2.2 Noise Impact of wind turbines .............................................................................72
10.2.3 Safety Impacts Caused by Operation of Wind Farm ............................................73
10.3 Occupational Health and Safety ..........................................................................75
11 Mitigation measures ............................................................................................76
11.1 Mitigation Measures for Traffic ............................................................................76
11.2 Mitigation Measures for Flora and Fauna ............................................................76
11.3 Mitigations measures for bats .............................................................................77
11.4 Mitigation measures for birds ..............................................................................77
11.5 Mitigation Measures for Soil and Groundwater ....................................................77
11.6 Mitigation Measures for Waste ............................................................................77
12 Action Plan and Management System.................................................................78
12.1 Action Plan ..........................................................................................................78
12.2 Management System ..........................................................................................78
12.2.1 Management program .........................................................................................78
12.2.2 Training ...............................................................................................................78
12.2.3 Monitoring ...........................................................................................................79
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -6- 13 Gaps in Knowledge .............................................................................................80
-7- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
1 SUMMARY
The government of Aruba has requested Vader Piet Beheer N.V. to investigate the possibility
of a next wind farm on Aruba in order to increase the amount of sustainable electricity that is
generated on the island. This investigation has been performed in very close cooperation
with WEB Aruba. The wind farm will consist of 10 turbines of about 3 MW situated in one line
along the north east coast.
The wind park will reduce the island dependency on fossil energy sources and keep the CO2
emissions of energy consumption limited. The farm will generate on average 170 GWh per
year, which is about 18% of the power generated by WEB Aruba in 2010. The farm will
contribute to affordable and more stable prices for electric power and labor opportunities.
The location of the wind farm has been a compromise between various factors. It has been
selected based on:
Avoidance of residential areas
Avoidance of National parks
Clustering the required number of turbines in one farm
Biggest practically possible distance to the other big wind farm Vader Piet in the south
east of the island to avoid too sudden power drops when thunder storms or large rain
showers approach the island
This has lead to the location at the north east part of the island. The minimum distance to
houses is about 1000 m.
Some impacts of wind farms, like traffic disturbance, occur only during the construction of the
farm. However, the most important impacts are to be expected during operation.
The most important impact of an operational wind farm on people regards visual impact on
the coast and noise. The present perception of the barren coast will change. However, the
area has not a protected status.
A noise model was used to calculate the noise levels from the wind farm. These were
expressed as Lnight, the most modern unit for sleep disturbance during the night. The Lnight at
the nearest house is 39 dB(A). This is under the Lnight standard limit of 41 dB(A) as well as it
is under the measured level of back ground noise of 43 to 45 dB(A) at the location of the
nearest house
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -8- Low frequency noise appears not to be a relevant issue1.
Investigations have been executed to establish the possible impact on Aruban wild life. The
most relevant animals prove to be bats and birds. Ecologists specialized in bats and birds
respectively have conducted site investigations and have drafted reports to assess the
expected impacts from the wind farm. The full reports of these investigations are attached as
appendices VI and VII.
As to bats it is concluded that in spite of extensive efforts, nearly no bats were found during
the field investigation in April 2012. This is caused by the absence of food ( nearly no plants
for nectar feeding bats and small presence of insects) and absence of nearby roosting areas
like caves. The risks for bats are therefore estimated to be low. Though not expected it can
not be excluded fully that in the autumn at low wind speed more insect feeding bats will visit
the area. This will be examined separately. Should considerably more bats be present, Vader
Piet Beheer will during periods of low wind speed (< 6m/s) adopt the operations to avoid
harming to the bat population. By doing so the protection of bats is guaranteed the whole
year through.
In the area also very few birds were found and are not expected during different seasons.
Birds could be affected by the wind farm by disturbance, the so called barrier effect and
collisions with the turbine blades.
Disturbance is assessed as minor due to the low presence of birds. The barrier effect is also
nearly absent as no migration routes cross the area and no other opportunities for birds like
feeding, breeding or soaring are present.
Collision risks are estimated low as only small numbers of birds pass the area. Moreover it
was concluded that as regionally or globally threatened species are absent, the wind farm
will not influence the populations of these species.
There will be no impact on public health. All potential impacts are detailed in the full report.
1 Paragraph 10.2.2 demonstrates that even the not applicable Danish standard for low frequency noise
is complied with
-9- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 History of the Project
Aruba
The Caribbean Island of Aruba, which forms part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, is
located in one of the world‟s region with the highest potential for cost-effective use of wind
energy resources for energy generation.
Aruba has initiated the transition away from imported fossil fuel dependency and is in the
process of implementing a whole range of sustainable energy technologies, such as solar
energy, wind energy, waste to energy and other instruments like for instance the reduction of
import duties on wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars. The latest renewable energy
technology introduced on the island in 2010 is the 30 MW "Vader Piet" wind farm that meets
18 percent of the islands current electricity demand. The ambition is to expand the current 30
MW wind energy with additional capacity at another location.
Vader Piet Beheer NV
Vader Piet Beheer is a company active in the development of wind energy and the operation
of wind farms in Aruba and has developed and is operating the 30 MW wind farm Vader Piet
The Aruban government follows a renewable energy policy. For this reason the Aruban
government has requested Vader Piet Beheer to develop a second wind farm in Aruba in
close cooperation with WEB Aruba. The project will consist of 10 turbines of approximately 3
MW, at the Urirama location in the northern part of the island (see Figure 4.1).
2.2 Equator Principles
Local laws on Aruba do not require a Social and Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA).
However, Vader Piet Beheer wants to be prudent with the environment, since clean energy is
its main objective. Therefore Vader Piet Beheer decided to do the SEIA on a voluntary base,
based on the international accepted Equator Principles. The Equator Principles are a set of
environmental and social benchmarks for managing environmental and social issues in
development and project finance globally. These principles are adopted by various banks
and other financial institutions. These institutions which adopt the Equator Principles commit
to refrain from financing projects that fail to follow the processes defined by the principles.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -10- The Equator Principles were developed by private sector banks – led by Citigroup, ABN
AMRO, Barclays and WestLB – and were launched in June 2003. The banks chose to model
the Equator Principles on the environmental standards of the World Bank and the social
policies of the International Finance Corporation (IFC). In July 2006, the Equator Principles
were revised which enlarged their scope and strengthened their processes.
2.3 Objective
The objective of this Social and Environmental Assessment is to serve as a source of
information for the permit application process and to fulfill the requirements of the Equator
Principles which are:
To identify and assess social and environment impacts, both adverse and beneficial, in
the project‟s area of influence
To advise on possibilities to avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, to minimize,
mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts on workers, affected communities, and the
environment
To ensure that affected communities are appropriately engaged on issues that could
potentially affect them
To promote proper social and environmental performance by drawing up a management
system and an action plan.
2.4 Directions for Reading
A summary of conclusions and recommendations is provided in Chapter 1.
Following the introduction and objective (Chapter 2), as well as the project approach
(Chapter 3) of this report, general information about this project is provided in Chapter 4.
In Chapter 5, policies and guidelines relevant to this project are outlined. The report then
describes the current state of the environment regarding landscape, flora and fauna, surface
water, groundwater, soil, air, noise, public safety, cultural and historical elements and waste
(Chapter 6).
In Chapter 7, the report addresses important social and economic impacts as a result of this
project, such as saving fuels, control electricity rates and enhance employment.
Chapter 8 describes that impact on nature such as flora and fauna, like birds and bats.
-11- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
Chapter 9 covers the potential environmental impacts of construction and operation of the
wind farm on landscape, flora and fauna, surface water, groundwater, soil, air, and noise.
Impacts on community and occupational health and safety are discussed in Chapter 10.
Mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts on the above mentioned environmental
aspects are described in Chapter 11.
The action plan and the management system are outlined in Chapter 12.
Gaps in knowledge are explained in Chapter 13.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -12-
3 PROJECT APPROACH
3.1 General
This Social and Environmental Assessment has been prepared by KEMA Nederland N.V.
and is based on design and technical information provided by Vader Piet Beheer.
3.2 Equator Principles: Project Categorization
According to Principle 1, the project must be categorized. These categories are:
Category A
Projects with potential significant adverse social or environmental impacts that are
diverse, irreversible or unprecedented
Category B
Projects with potential limited adverse social or environmental impacts that are few in
number, generally site-specific, largely reversible and readily addressed through
mitigation measures
Category C
Projects with minimal or no social or environmental impacts.
The Urirama project is considered to be a category B project. Similar wind energy projects
like Vader Piet on Aruba, Playa Kanoa and Tera Kora on Curacao have also been
categorized as a category B project.
3.3 Community Consultations
A community public hearing was held in Oranjestad for residents who live within 1.5 km of
the Urirama wind farm and other stakeholders. The purpose was to inform the community
about the project and about the approach of this Social and Environmental Assessment.
Invitations for the public hearing were delivered to these residents.
The public hearing was held on May 15, 2012 and attended by 83 citizens (officials not
included).
The main concerns they expressed are summarized in the following table.
-13- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 Table 3.1 Overview of comments from public hearing and response Vader Piet Beheer
Issue Comment Reaction Vader Piet Beheer
Visualizations Chapel Alto Vista should be
visible at visualizations
Visualization has been adapted in final
report
Visualizations Photo's for visualizations have
been taken on cloudy days, which
are rare at Aruba
Visualizations have been adapted in
final report
Birds Site visit of 3 days too short for
bird investigation
Longer visit would not result in other
impacts on birds. No adaptation.
Legal
procedure
SEA should be part of formal
procedure, which will be adopted
soon
Not Vader Piet Beheer, but government
will decide on procedure
Presence
responsible
parties
The public complained that WEB
and government were not present
Vader Piet Beheer will communicate
this reaction to the responsible parties
Religious
value Alto
Vista Chapel
The religious value of the Alto
Vista Chapel was not highlighted
enough
Is supplemented in final report. The
remarks led to a redesign of the wind
farm which will lead to less impact on
the function of the chapel.
Earlier
information
The public complained that it was
not informed earlier
Vader Piet Beheer explained that Henk
Hutting had some informal
communication with inhabitants last
February, but this was little since the
various impacts were unknown then.
Low-
frequency
noise
Public expressed health concerns
about low-frequency noise
Issue will be treated more
comprehensively in final report
Low-
frequency
noise
Public complain about outdated
reports (2008)
Report is supplemented with 2011/2012
reports.
Effect on
landscape
Public complained about effect on
landscape
The effect on the landscape will be
almost of same magnitude, wherever
the wind farm will be built along the 30
km North coast. The North coast is the
best from wind perspective, but also the
only piece of land that can create
sufficient distance between turbines and
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -14-
dwellings. Somewhere a piece of land
(landscape) has to be scarified to
facilitate a wind farm and the selected
site has the least overall impact of all
possible sites.
The full report of the public hearing is attached as appendix VIII.
3.4 Information of the "Staten van Aruba"
On 15 May KEMA (on behalf of Vader Piet Beheer) presented a draft of the Social and
Environmental Impacts Assessment (SEIA) in the Staten van Aruba (parliament of Aruba).
As a reaction several members of the Staten formulated questions to Vader Piet Beheer.
These questions are given in appendix X.
As time was too short on 15 May, an extra meeting of the Staten was held on 16 May during
which (amongst others) the questions on the SEIA were answered orally., This final SEIA
has been adapted to address the issues raised related to environment and health.
3.5 Consultation with Government Services
Meetings were held on May 16 and 23 th 2012 with government services of Aruba to provide
information on the Urirama wind farm and on the implementation of the Social and
Environmental Assessment. These government services were also invited to share their
questions and views about the projects. The reactions are summarized in appendix IX
3.6 Consultation with Catholic church
On March 26th , 2012, a meeting was held with the pastor of the village of Noord, mr.
Santiogo Tomasik, who is responsible for the Alto Vista chapel. A general overview of the
project was presented as well as the process of the SEIA. On May 18th a meeting was held
with the Vicar of Aruba, mr.Daniel Aspila. A brief summary of the SEIA was presented and
more details were given on the impact of the wind farm on the chapel. Based on the
community reactions the government ordered to change the lay-out design of the wind farm
and this modified design was presented and discussed. Mr. Aspila was pleased with the
adaptions and was of the opinion that the function of the chapel would no longer be affected.
-15- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 On May 22nd a meeting was held with the bishop of Aruba, Monseigneur Secco, at his
residence on Curaçao. The content and the result of that meeting was identical to that of the
meeting with the vicar.
3.7 Consultations with NGOs
Birdlife Aruba was consulted by the bird research specialist performing the bird study (see
appendix 1 of Bird Assessment).
Stimaruba, Olinda Rasmijn, was interviewed during the quick scan phase of the SEIA by
EcoVision. Mrs. Rasmijn indicated that bats are being disturbed by the wind farm at Vader
Piet. Since the erection of the wind farm, bats at the caves close to that wind farm have
disappeared. Also at the location of Urirama bats exist. They roost here in wells, old
dwellings and rocks and they forage on the cacti. At that time no up to date information of bat
behavior and existence at Aruba was available (Ecovision, 2011). Based on this input from
Mrs. Rasmijn, the bat study was executed as part of the full SEIA.
Other NGO‟s were invited to share their questions and concerns about the projects at the
public hearing. Apart from the input during the public hearing no response was received from
NGO's.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -16-
4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4.1 Location of Urirama Wind Farm
The wind farm is located in the northern part of Aruba, near the northeastern coast roughly
between the residential area Noord and the touristic area of Tierra del Sol (see Figure 4.1)
Figure 4.1 Proposed location Urirama marked green
Why this location
For wind farms generally locations at a certain distance of populated areas are preferred. At
Aruba the northeast coast is populated least. For technical and economic reasons a location
is preferred that is as far as possible from the existing wind farm Vader Piet in the south east
part of the island. The reason for keeping distance is the following: at moments that the front
of a thunderstorm reaches the wind farm, the production of the wind farm decreases rapidly
due to the sudden decrease of the wind behind the front of the thunderstorm. This sudden
change in electricity production has to be covered by spinning reserve capacity of WEB's
generation park in order to prevent a black out. The current WEB units can not cover a
simultaneous change of production from Vader Piet and a big new wind farm in the same
area since both farms will then be affected by the thunderstorm at the same time. In order to
prevent a simultaneous decrease of both wind farms, the wind farms have to be located as
far as possible from each other. Very comprehensive feasibility studies have been executed
Tierra del Sol
Noord
-17- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 by order of WEB Aruba by two different consultancy firms to investigate the technical and
economical pros and cons of expansion of the Vader Piet wind farm versus building the wind
farm near the North. Based on these feasibility studies the government of Aruba expressed
their preference for the Urirama site, provided that the Social and Environmental Impacts
would be low.
A scan was made of the North coast to look for areas with a minimum distance of 850 meter
to the nearest dwelling in order to avoid the wind turbine to be heard annoyingly near those
dwellings. For the new wind farm a stretch of land of about 3.000 meter is required. This
investigation showed that the Urirama site is the only site at the North coast having both
sufficient space and sufficient distance to dwellings.
In the picture below the circles are the areas to avoid for reason of distance to dwellings,
while the yellow lines mark the National Park, where building activities of any kind are
prohibited.
Figure 4.1 Excluded areas for wind farms on north Aruba
So the present location (north of Tanki Leendert) is the best possible compromise.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -18- The location can be described as having a quite rough landscape with lots of rocks scattering
the terrain and little vegetation. The area is most visited by tourists in jeeps or trucks or on
quad bikes, enjoying a rough ride. The picture below gives an impression of the main use of
this area. The picture is taken near turbine location 6, looking North.
Figure 4.3 Typical touristic ride in the area
4.2 Turbine Type
The new wind farm will be equipped with Vestas V112 turbines of about 3 MW in power
output each. This concerns turbines with a rotor diameter of about 112 meter and a hub
height of about 80 meter.
-19- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 4.2.1 Specifications
The rated output of the Vestas V112 turbine is 3 MW. The wind turbine has full span pitch
control and a variable rotor speed to optimize output, reduce loads and refine control of
power output. An overview of the specifications of this turbine is given below:
Rotor
Diameter: 112 m
Area swept: 9,852 m2
Nominal revolutions: 13.8 rpm
Operational interval: 8-18 rpm
Number of blades: 3
Power regulation: Pitch/OptiSpeed®
Air brake: Full blade pitch by three separate hydraulic pitch cylinders
Tower
Hub height: 84 m
Operational data
Cut-in wind speed: 3 m/s
Nominal wind speed: 12.5 m/s
Cut-out wind speed: 25 m/s
4.2.2 Construction
Figure 4.4 gives an overview of the main parts of the wind turbine.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -20-
Figure 4.4 Overview of the main parts of the wind turbine
4.2.3 Grid Connection
For this project, taking into account that the wind farm will be operating on an island system,
the wind turbines will be equipped with a specific Grid Option. This enables the turbines,
through the use of advanced power electronics, to control active and reactive power and give
the turbine fault ride through capabilities. Therefore, the turbines will not go offline
immediately when the grid experiences some short term voltage dips.
4.2.4 Wind Farm Monitoring and Control
The wind farm will be equipped with a modern SCADA system. With this SCADA system all
relevant data can be monitored and stored and all wind turbines can be controlled on an
individual basis. The Park Control Module will be added to the standard software of this
system. This module enables instantaneous control of both power and reactive power of the
wind farm. This allows the island utility company, Water- en Energiebedrijf Aruba N.V. (WEB)
to control the output of the wind farm up to the limits of the wind speed.
-21- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
4.3 Layout of Wind farm
The wind farm follows the coast line with a general NW-SE orientation (see Figure 4.5). The
length of the wind farm (distance from Wind Turbine 1 to Wind Turbine 10) is 2180 meters.
The distances between the turbines range from 180 meters in the NW to 310 meters in the
SE part. Toward the SE the distance increases in order to allow for the wake impact from the
next turbines. The NW part of the wind farm is almost perpendicular to the prevailing trade
wind which allows the turbines to be placed at shorter distances from each other.
The wind farm lay-out is displayed in Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5 Overview of the wind turbine locations (red dots)
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -22-
Figure 4.6 Bird's eye view (looking W)
4.4 Operation of Wind Farm
The wind farm will be owned and operated by Vader Piet Beheer. For daily operation,
maintenance and service of the wind turbines, a team of four well-educated mechanics from
Aruba, will be employed. This will guarantee a minimum reaction time to any alarm from the
turbine computers. This crew will perform watch shifts from 07.00 hours to 23.00 hours.
During the night, the turbines will be monitored from the central control room of the producer
of the wind turbines. There will be daily communication and feedback between the local
maintenance staff and the control center of the producer. Most of the errors that could occur
can be reset remotely from the control center.
During the day, this crew will perform corrective maintenance when required. Preventive
maintenance will be done during the months of August to October during a period of low
winds and when the output of the wind farm is low.
In addition, a comprehensive set of spare parts will be stored in a warehouse near the site.
This will assure that downtime is minimized. The facilities for the crew will also include a
watch room with computers to monitor and control the operations of the wind farm, a
workshop, kitchen, washroom, shower etc.
-23- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
4.5 Expected Energy Gain
To determine the expected energy gain of the wind farm a power curve (PV curve) is
measured for each turbine. In Figure 4.8, a PV curve for a Vestas V112 wind turbine is
shown to exhibit the correlation between wind speed (at the hub height) and power
generated by the turbine.
Figure 4.5 Power generated by the wind as a function of wind speed at the hub height
The expected annual energy output is estimated at 170 GWh. This estimation is based on:
the PV curve
production data and measurement data available from the Vader Piet wind farm
wind speed measurements at the Urirama location
lay out of the farm.
4.6 Construction of the Wind Farm
The entire construction process of the wind farm includes the following key steps:
1. Site preparation at each turbine location;
2. Digging to install connection cables;
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -24- 3. Construction of the foundation;
4. Transportation (hauling) of turbine parts;
5. Assembling the turbine;
6. Connection of the turbine to the grid.
4.6.1 Site preparation at each turbine location
In order to facilitate the construction of the foundation and the assembly of the wind turbines,
each location has to be prepared for construction. Vegetation and protruding rocks will be
removed from each location. Figure 4.6 shows a blueprint of the area of construction.
For each turbine, an area of a minimum of 40 m x 15 m will be required for the crane, which
will be appropriately leveled. The space for the main beam (12 x 110 m) and for the blades
(55 x 16 m) will be cleared of any vegetation. In total, the area that is cleared of vegetation
will be approximately 3,000 m2 for each wind turbine. For a wind farm of a total of 10 turbines
this means that an area of about 30,000 m2 will need to be cleared of vegetation, if any. Most
turbine locations have none or almost none vegetation. The picture below shows location nr
4 looking to locations 5 and further.
Leveling for the crane will be prepared by filling the appropriate area which will be used. For
filling the area, soil that has been excavated for the new foundations will be used.
-25- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 Along the existing road to the wind farm, an extra strip that is 7 m wide must be cleared of
vegetation for the movement of the crane from one location to the other. Since the total
length of the new wind farm will be about 2 km, an additional area of 14,000 m2 must be
cleared of vegetation.
Figure 4.6 Blueprint of the construction of the wind turbine
4.6.2 Construction of Foundations
Construction of the foundations will start with digging a hole of a depth of 0.6 m for the
foundation of each wind turbine. The foundation will be 16 m in diameter and have an
average thickness of 2.3 m.
The ground in the hole will be leveled after digging the hole. The leveled ground in the hole
will then be smoothed out by depositing a layer of concrete. Pipes will be laid to lead all
electricity and telecommunication cables through the foundation up to the top where the
tower will be installed.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -26-
Figure 4.7 Example of a foundation, pictures are from the Vader Piet wind farm
A steel frame for the foundation will be built on the concrete layer and, subsequently, the
foundations will be filled in with a total of 600 m3 of concrete for each foundation. This
concrete will be delivered by approximately 75 concrete transport trucks (of 7 m3 each) for
each foundation which amounts to approximately 750 transport trips for the entire wind farm.
The concrete will be supplied locally by a concrete factory. The steel frame of each
foundation serves to resist against any external forces on the wind turbine, such as strong
winds, and to balance the force evenly over the concrete foundation. Before the wind turbine
can be placed, the completed foundation has to cure for about one month.
4.6.3 Transport of the turbine parts to the site
For each turbine, the following large parts will be transported:
3 tower parts (with respective lengths of 30 m, 30 m and 20 m);
3 blades (with a length of 45 m per blade)
Nacelle
Hub
All parts will be delivered by deep loading trailers similar to those seen in Figure 4.8.
-27- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
Figure 4.8 Pictures of transport of tower part, blade and nacelle
The transport route to the wind farm leads from the harbor, through Noord, to the wind farm
location (see Figure 4.9).
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -28-
Figure 4.9 Transport route from harbor to wind farm site
4.6.4 Assembling the Wind Turbines
To assemble the wind turbine, the lower tower section, which is 20 m long, will first be
attached to the foundation. Subsequently, the next two tower sections will be attached to the
top of the lower tower. The nacelle will then be connected to the top of the upper tower
section. Next, the hub will be hoisted and connected to the nacelle. Finally, each blade will
separately be attached to the hub.
All crane activities will be performed by a 1300 ton hoisting crane (for an example see Figure
4.9) which must be placed on a stable crane site. This site has to be located right next to the
base of the foundation of the wind turbine. The area where the crawler crane will be
positioned has to be flat and level. Also, a smaller crane is required for the tag line to
stabilize the load during lifting (see Figure 4.10).
-29- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
Figure 4.9 A crawler crane which will be used to assemble the wind turbines
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -30-
Figure 4.10 Hoisting of a blade
4.6.5 Grid connection
The turbines will be interconnected by a 30 kV interconnection cable and connected to a
transformer and subsequently to the WEB-grid with a 60 kV underground cable. Figure 4.11
shows the routing of the cables and the location of the transformer.
-31- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
Figure 4.11 Routing of the connection cable to the substation in red
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -32-
5 RELEVANT LAWS AND REGULATIONS
5.1 State and Legislative system Aruba
Aruba is a former Dutch colony, which since 1986 functions independently ("Status aparte")
within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The constitutional and legal system is modeled to
that of the Netherlands. The state of Aruba has no administrative subdivisions however, but
for census purposes is divided into 8 regions. The enactment of legal rules takes place
through "Landsverordeningen" (National Ordinances) and supporting decrees and
regulations ("Besluiten"). The legislation must be in line with the citizens' fundamental rights
in Aruba's Constitution.
5.2 Local legislation for the protection of the Environment and Natural Resources
The following legislation with relevant environmental and nature requirements for the
development of the wind farm is considered relevant.
Nuisance Ordinance (Hinderverordening) and implementing decrees
The original Ordinance (AB 1998, no GT 27, updates: AB 1997 no. 33 and 34) is from the
1950‟s and it is not significantly modernized since. The ordinance does not include a
definition of the term “environment”. The scope of action is limited to “nuisance” (i.e. stench,
dust, smoke, noise, etc.). However, since more sophisticated legislation is lacking, the permit
system by this Ordinance is currently the main instrument for Government for inhibiting and
mitigating pressure on the environment.
The Decree on industrial and commercial activities (Hinderbesluit, AB 1995, no GT 20)
appoints industrial and commercial activities subject to a (basic) environmental permit. A
wind farm is not appointed as such but could be covered under “joint electric power more
than 2 HP”.
(Draft) Environmental Protection Ordinance (Ontwerp Landsverordening milieubeheer)
The Environmental protection ordinance will substitute the Nuisance Ordinance and –at the
same time- have a wider scope of action, i.e. with a broad definition of the term
“environment”. It will include regulations on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Furthermore, regulations for waste management are being included together with a definition
of hazardous waste.
-33- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 The Ordinance is a national instrument for the (full or partial) implementation of the
Cartagena Convention (Protocol on Land Based Sources), the Basel Convention
(international transport of hazardous wastes) and the Montreal Convention (on CFC‟s). Kyoto
agreements will not be implemented with this ordinance.
To date the Ordinance has not entered into effect so legally the EIA Regulation does not
apply to the underlying SEA. However most provisions are also met in this SEA, such as:
description of the activities
description of possible alternatives (limited description)
description of current environmental situation
description of possible impacts on the environment
gaps in knowledge
summary
disclosure and public consultation.
Police Ordinance (Algemene Politieverordening)
The Police Ordinance (Algemene Politieverordening, AB 1995 GT8, wijzigingen 1997 no. 18,
AB 1997 no. 34; AB 2005 no. 5; AB 2011 no.23). Any building activity at or next to the public
road is prohibited without a permit by the Minister of Public Works (article 1 sub 1 in
conjunction with article 15 c).
Nature Conservation Ordinance (Natuurbeschermingsverordening) and implementing
decrees
The Nature Conservation Ordinance (AB 1995 no. 2, update: AB 1997 no. 34) is a framework
act aiming to protect local flora and fauna as well as internationally protected flora and fauna.
Under this Ordinance nature reserves can be designated and be established. The Ordinance
is the basis for the implementation of the Cartagena Convention (SPAW Protocol) and the
CITES Convention.
It is supplemented by a number of implementing decrees of which the designation of Parce
Nacional Arikok as a nature reserve is one (AB 2000, no 59).
Of specific interest is the drafting of a new decree that will appoint flora and fauna specimens
that need special protection. This decree is currently in preparation. Species assigned by this
decree are protected. Only by exemption of the minister these flora and fauna species may
be removed.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -34- The Marine Environment Ordinance of Aruba (Marien Milieuverordening, AB 1980, No.
18)
This ordinance was scheduled to be withdrawn upon the enactment of the Nature
Conservation Ordinance. However, to date the ordinance is still effective together with a
number of implementing decrees. On the basis of this legislation it is prohibited to take
specified species of turtles, calco, and reef fish from Aruban waters. The legislation has little
significance for the development of the wind farm.
5.3 Legislation for Spatial Planning
Also the legislation with respect to the relevant legal spatial planning requirements for the
development of the wind farm is considered important.
Ordinance for Spatial Planning (Landsverordening Ruimtelijke Ontwikkeling (LRO), AB
2006 no. 38)
The ordinance gives the legislation framework for spatial planning on Aruba. The key
regulation is the establishment of a Zoning Plan for Aruba, including all legal procedures
involved. The Zoning Plan of Aruba –on the basis of article 4 of the ordinance- was drafted in
2008 and was approved by the Governor of Aruba for a period of 10 years (Decree of May 7,
2009). This zoning plan gives the main preferred spatial developments.
Zoning Plan (Ruimtelijk OntwikkelingsPlan (ROP), april 2009)
The Zoning Plan is an integral policy plan of the Aruba government, which in itself does not
comprise binding provisions for the use of the space. It is intended to be used for drafting (a)
zoning plan(s) with designations and regulations through the instrument of "Ruimtelijk
Ontwikkelingplan met Voorschriften" (ROPV). The drafting of the zoning plans with binding
regulations on ROPV level has not started yet.
Figure 5.1 shows the zoning map of the Zoning Plan. Most relevant is that the entire
northeastern coastline is assigned as conservation area ("Salt Spray2 Park"). This zone is
almost entirely open with only a few historic buildings and touristic attractions. Maintaining
and strengthening the nature values of this area is the key policy for this area, which will
improve at the same time the quality of the attractions.
2 The term "Salt spray" originates from wave action of sea water on the coast which is carried inland
by the southwesterly trade winds
-35- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 Reviewing the above information it can be stated that the status of the Salt Spray Park is
somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand the Zoning Plan has assigned the area as
conservation zone ("natuurgebied"). On the other hand, concrete and biding regulations have
not yet been enacted. Moreover, the area has not been designated as nature reserve,
equally like the Parke Nacional Arikok.
Other relevant Zones
Relevant is also that the residential area "Noord" has been designated as "urban area" of
secondary order. The policy is to allow new residences only within the borders of the urban
area. There are also residential areas of tertiary order ("woonkernen", like Seroe Pela), for
which the policy is to maintain their identity and not to let them grow together.
Ordinance on issuance of governmental parcels (Landsverordening uitgifte gronden)
This ordinance regulates the issuance of governmental parcels. Main relevant aspect is the
possibility of requesting additional conditions by the minister of Public Works. In many cases
an environmental assessment is requested upon the issuing of the parcel.
The issuance of parcels should “provide a contribution to the sustainable development and
the improvement of the life of anyone living on Aruba”, says the Zoning Plan (quoting LB
2003-no. 1: besluit II).
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -36-
Fig. 3.1 Zoning map of the Zoning Plan
-37- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
5.4 IFC Environmental, Health and Safety guidelines
According to Principle 3 of the Equator Principles, the assessment must refer to the
International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards. The IFC is an institution
closely associated with the World Bank.
The Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines issued by the IFC are part of the
technical reference documents with general and industry-specific examples of Good
International Industry Practice (GIIP). The applicable standards for this wind farm project are
the General Guidelines and the Wind Energy Guidelines. These guidelines are shortly
described in the following section.
5.4.1 Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) General Guidelines
The General guidelines give performance standards on the following aspects:
Environmental
Air Emissions and Ambient Air Quality
Energy Conservation
Wastewater and Ambient Water Quality
Water Conservation
Hazardous Materials Management
Waste Management
Noise
Contaminated Land
Occupational Health and Safety
General Facility Design and Operation
Communication and Training
Physical Hazards
Chemical Hazards
Biological Hazards
Radiological Hazards
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Special Hazard Environments
Monitoring
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -38- Community Health and Safety
Water Quality and Availability
Structural Safety of Project Infrastructure
Life and Fire Safety (L&FS)
Traffic Safety
Transport of Hazardous Materials
Disease Prevention
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Construction and Decommissioning
Environment
Occupational Health & Safety
Community Health & Safety
The most relevant environmental standard mentioned in the general guidelines is the
standard for noise. In Table 5.1 the maximum allowed noise impacts are given.
Table 5.1 Noise Level Guidelines
One Hour LAeq (dBA)
Receptor Day
07:00 - 22:00
Night
22:00 - 07:00
Residential; institutional;
Educational
55 45
Industrial; commercial 70 70
The maximum allowed noise impact on residential receptors is 45 dB(A) during night time,
according to the EHS General Guidelines. An equivalent, more modern standard Lden will be
used for the noise assessment in this report.
5.4.2 EHS Guidelines for Wind Turbines
According to the EHS Guidelines for Wind Turbines, the environmental issues specific to the
operation of wind energy projects and facilities include the following:
Visual impacts
Noise
-39- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
Species mortality or injury and disturbance
Light and illumination issues
Habitat alteration
Water quality
Occupational health and safety hazards specific to wind energy facilities and activities
primarily include the following:
Working at heights
Community health and safety hazards specific to wind energy facilities primarily include the
following:
Aircraft and marine navigation safety
Blade and ice throw
Electromagnetic interference and radiation
Public access
5.5 Required Permits
For the execution of this wind farm project the following permits are required (see table 5.2).
Table 5.2 Overview of required Permits and Competent Authorities
Permit Description Competent authority
Nuisance Permit
(Hindervergunning)
Required for electricity generating
installations
Objections possible by stakeholders
Ministerie van Justitie en
Onderwijs -
Directie Wetgeving en
Juridische Zaken (DWJZ)
Building Permit
(Bouwvergunning)
Drawings and construction of the
wind turbines checked before
issuing the permit. Permit can
contain various restrictions and
conditions
Ministerie van Integratie,
Infrastructuur en Milieu -
Dienst Openbare
Werken (DOW)
Letter of no objection Check on potential safety impacts
on air traffic.
Directie Luchtvaart
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -40-
6 BASELINE SITUATION
6.1 Social situation
The project area is part of the Salt Spray conservation area, a strip of land alongside the
northern coastline with beaches, rock formations and a hilly hinterland. The landscape is
rough with locally some overgrowth. The wider area is nearly undisturbed with a landscape
consisting of hills with dense vegetation at the leeward side of the hills, catchment areas with
ecological values, rock formations, trees, rare vegetation and the area inhibits various kinds
of animals.
There are no residential areas in the immediate vicinity3. The nearest residential area is
Seroe Pela, north of the Noord urban area, at a distance of 9400 m. Second nearest is Alto
Vista at a distance of about 1250 m. Other neighborhoods like the dwellings at Tierra del Sol,
Kurimiauw, Topaz and Safir lie at a distance of at least 1500 m (see Figure 6.1).
The above mentioned residential areas mainly consist of villa type homes with a residential
and partly touristic (vacation house rental) function. For economic, recreational and shopping
activities the communities are predominantly oriented to the hotel and beach zone on the
west coast. The north coast is scarcely visited by surfers and by tourists attracted by an
undeveloped countryside and coastline. The coastline is rocky and has no beaches to offer.
There is hardly any infrastructure -limited to a few footpaths and jeep tracks- or (beach)
accommodation.
3 The project name Urirama refers to a cove off the coast, which is a recommended (sport) fishing
location.
-41- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
Figure 6.1 Overview of residential areas near the project area, with Alto Vista in the
south east map area.
6.2 Electricity production Aruba
W.E.B. Aruba N.V. produces electrical energy at the production site at Balashi (see Figure
6.2). N. V. ELMAR is the sole provider of electricity on Aruba.
WEB's conventional electricity production park consists of boilers and diesel engines, fueled
by Heavy Fuel Oil (see Figure 6.3). Total installed capacity amounts to almost 200 MW
(excluding backup gas turbine). Average demand is around 100 MW (WEB website).WEB is
planning a fuel change from heavy fuel to natural gas and expansion with wind power
capacity. Also waste to energy and solar power are on the agenda.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -42-
Figure 6.2 Production site W.E.B. Aruba N.V.
Figure 6.3 WEB Production Park (source WEB)
-43- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
6.3 Landscape
Aruba has three main types of landscape in direct relation with the geological history:
the central hills
the weak rolling countryside
the limestone plateau.
In the hilly middle section are the highest peaks of the island, including the 189 meter high
Jamanota and the almost as high Arikok. This hilly central part of Aruba is almost entirely
designated as park (Parke Nacional Arikok) under the conservation regulation.
The weak rolling countryside forms the largest part of the surface of Aruba. The area is
relatively flat with isolated hills, such as Jaburibari (90 m), Alto Vista (70 m), Hooiberg, Cero
Biento and Cero Warawara. The weak rolling landscape is largely cleared and cultivated,
which strongly determines the landscape. The original natural vegetation has been disturbed
and is difficult to recognize in the landscape.
The limestone plateau is mainly found in the southwestern part of Aruba, with a transition to
coastal terraces to the north and the south. Along the north coast the limestone terrace is
much narrower than on the south coast, and at some places is absent. The windward north
coast is constantly subject to strong wave action on the rough rocky coast. The coast is
frequently indented with large and small bays, which usually are an extension of dry valleys
which only have run off from heavy rains. Some of these bays have a small sandy beach.
This rough northern coast, where wind and salt water are dominant, lacks almost any
vegetation (see Figure 6.4 for impression).
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -44-
Figure 6.4 View in northwesterly direction of coastline near project area (source Google
Earth)
Another characteristic landscape element is represented by the saliñas of which some
examples can be found near the project area, like Tiera del Sol. These are formed in low-
lying coastal areas which are not directly connected to the sea. The saliñas act as water
storage of rainwater runoff. Spread over the whole year period the evaporation exceeds the
fresh water influx, explaining the high salinity.
6.4 Flora
The main eco-type of the Salt Spray zone is the xeric scrubland. Xeric scrublands are
characterized by plants with adaptations to the dry climate, which include small leaves to limit
water loss, thorns to protect them from grazing animals, succulent leaves or stems, storage
organs to store water, and long taproots to reach groundwater. Candelabra cactus are
scattered across the landscape, along with thorny bushes.
As a consequence of the dry climate in combination with the soil conditions and the
continuous strain of salty winds the coastline is barren. The vegetation at the project site is
very limited.
There is no local regulation in place indicating species which have to be protected.
-45- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
6.5 Fauna in general
Wild life on Aruba is adapted to the natural circumstances, especially plants and water
reservoirs. Reptiles like iguanas, lizards and snakes feel comfortable here. Rabbits like the
cottontail rabbit thought to originate from Venezuela, are widely spread. Even bigger animals
like wild donkeys and goats can survive in the wild. However, all these animals may be
disturbed temporarily but will not be endangered by the wind farm project.
The highest risks of the wind farm on wild life are for bats and birds. For this reason special
investigations have been conducted on bats and birds on the island and the possible impact
of the wind farm on these species. For the present situation of bats and birds is referred to
chapter 8.
6.6 Surface Water
There is no surface water other than the sea that is present in the vicinity of the project site.
Furthermore, no impact is expected on seawater.
6.7 Soil and Groundwater
The ground at the location of the wind farm mostly consists of limestone. There is no
information available about the quality of the soil or the groundwater. Due to limited use of
dangerous substances and careful handling of these, no impact from the project is expected
on soil or groundwater.
Although no surface water exists in the area of the wind farm, fresh water wells (pos) and
pools (tanki) exist in this area. They are of great importance to the local flora and fauna. This
water is not affected by the project either.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -46-
6.8 Background noise
In order to be able to compare the natural noise levels with the noise levels from the wind
farm, background noise levels have been established by Polytechnisch ingenieursbureau
(Pib, 2012, see appendix II).
At three representative positions with houses near to the wind farm, measurements of
background noise levels were made, including wind measurements. The measurements
were taken during the night in order to guarantee minimum levels. The wind speed during the
first measurement campaign varied between 2 and 6 m/s, which is very low for the regular
circumstances. This guarantees also that the background levels are relatively low.
The positions of the measurements are given in figure 6.5)
Figure 6.5 Measuring points for background noise measurements
The measurement results are presented in the following table:
-47- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 Table 6.1 Overview of background measurements
Maesuring point L95 in dB(A) Wind velocity in m/s
1 41-45 2,9-5,5
2 39-42 2,2-4,7
3 39-46 2,2-4,0
At 2 and 3 June some additional background noise measurements have been done in order
to get a realistic impression of background levels during average wind circumstances. As the
expected noise levels from the wind farm will be the highest near Seroe Pela, the
measurements have been executed near Seroe Pela only. (Pib, 2012a, see appendix IIa)
Table 6.1a Overview of extra background measurements
Maesuring date L95 in dB(A) Wind velocity in m/s
2 juni (11:30-11:40) 45 4,1-9,2
2 juni (18:00-18:10) 45 4,8-9,1
3 juni (07:45-07:55) 44 3,6-9,3
The measured values at average wind speeds are a bit higher than those measured during low wind speeds. The average wind speed at Aruba at 10 meters height is 7.3 m/s (www.meteo.aw). The wind
is rather constant almost all year. A wind speed of 5 m/s is exceeded for 85% of time.
Therefore the back ground level of 45 dB(A) will be exceeded also 85% of time and can
therefore be regarded as representative for the local situation. The source of the back ground
noise is mainly the noise of the waves breaking on the coast and some wind induced noise in
vegetation, cables and around the houses.
6.9 Cultural and Historical Elements4
An important cultural and historical element is situated at a distance of about 600 m of the
southern part of the project area, the Alto Vista Chapel. The chapel was built in 1952 on the
site of the original, and first, Catholic church built in Aruba in 1750 by a Spanish missionary,
Domingo Antonio Silvestre.
4 Source: Wikepedia
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -48- The new chapel was built in 1952 at the location of an old chapel, with the same orientation.
The chapel is encircled by semicircular pews. There are also stone pews on the outside in
order to accommodate additional worshipers. It has a few crosses enshrined in it; the ancient
Spanish one is one of the oldest European pieces of art in the Dutch Caribbean. An altar
statue of Virgin Mary installed after the earlier one was vandalised has local devotees. The
structure does not have any stain glass panelled windows but presents a very serene
atmosphere for offering prayers. At the border of the old chapel marked by stones, a few
graves are also seen. White graves with crosses marking the stations of the Cross surround
the chapel. Graves of Domingo Antonio Silvestre and Miguel Enrique Albarez are located
near the chapel.
The present church is visited by Christians and non-Christians for meditation. Services are
held weekly by the priest from Noord
A pilgrimage is undertaken on foot by local Catholics of Aruba on Good Friday (Friday before
Eastern) from Oranjestad to Alto Vista Chapel.
The yellow chapel (see Figure 6.6) is reached by a winding road lined with white crosses
marking the stations of the cross. .
Figure 6.6 Alto Vista Chapel
The Alto Vista chapel is popular under tourists and local people. From the chapel location
one has a broad view over the project area. The area is also popular for round trips with 4-
wheel drive jeeps.
-49- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
7.1 Impacts Caused by Construction Activities
Acces Road
One of the first project activities will include constructing/rehabilitating access roads to the
project site. The proposed infrastructure and transport route for heavy and special transport
is shown in Figure 4.9.
Traffic
Transportation activities include approximately:
750 concrete trips from the concrete factory to the project site
40 special deep loader trips for the turbine parts from the harbor to the project site
20 special transportation trips for the crane from the harbor to the project site
15 transports of containers with rebar.
For the transportation of the turbine parts, particularly the blades, temporary modifications to
roundabouts, road crossings, and some areas of the access road may be required. This
transportation will be executed under police guidance and roads will be blocked temporarily
to ensure safe transportation.
Transportation activities for this project will have a social impact because of the increased
traffic on the roads, especially due to the road blocks of about 10 minutes for each of the 60
special transport activities. In order to minimize this impact, an appropriate information
campaign will be organized for the general public and governmental services that have
concerns about this impact. These governmental services will include at least the local head
of police, the public service department (Dienst Openbare Werken DOW), the spatial
planning department (Directie Infrastructuur en Planning (DIP) and the environmental service
(Inspectie voor Milieu, IVM).
In order to minimize the impact an appropriate information campaign towards the general
public and the governmental services concerned will be set up.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -50-
7.2 Saving Fuels
Based on information made available by the Vader Piet Beheer, the annual energy yield of
the Urirama wind farm can be estimated at approximately 170 GWh on average over 20
years. With this production an equivalent of about 40 metric ktons per year of fossil fuel
(heavy fuel oil) use by WEB Aruba can be saved. This corresponds with a CO2 emission
prevention of 130 ktons per year.
7.3 Electricity Rates
Wind power technology utilizes the wind resource to produce energy and is therefore a
sustainable form of energy production. Since Aruba has proven to have a good wind climate,
the Urirama wind farm is expected to perform very efficiently. The costs of wind power are
not linked to the fluctuations of the oil price which means that the price of electricity
generated by the wind farm will not change over time. This will have a stabilizing effect on
the costs of electricity production.
7.4 Employment
The project is likely to create job opportunities for the different phases. The wind turbine
sector is highly specialized and, therefore, requires skilled personnel that are trained in this
field of expertise. Skilled labor may be imported if not available on Aruba. Some parts of the
construction process, and road improvement will require local employment which will have a
positive effect on employment.
7.5 Impacts on Air Traffic
The International airport of Reina Beatrix lies approximately 9 km south of the Urirama wind
farm. To address all potential negative impact of the wind farm on the safety of the current
and future air traffic, Vader Piet Beheer is consulting the Aviation department.Based on
detailed investigations performed for two wind farm on the neighboring island of Curaçao, no
impact is expected.
Construction will only start after their permission is received..
-51- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
7.6 Impacts on Telecommunication Systems
Electromagnetic interference with communication systems and television broadcast centers
is a potential impact of a wind farm. The Urirama wind farm is not expected to cause
interference since it is not located between senders and receivers of the telecommunication
systems.
A transmitter/receiver of the navy is located at a distance of more then 7 km from the wind
farm. So it is expected that the wind farm will not have any influence on the functioning of
that transmitter/receiver.
7.7 Overview of Social Impacts
In Table 7.1, an overview of all of the social and economic impacts is given. Each impact is
specified as being either positive (+ or ++), negative (- or --) or equal (0).
Table 7.1: Summary of the potential social and economic impacts of the proposed project
Construction Operation
Social (+) Restoration of access road
(-) Increased traffic and possible
congestion due to transport
(-) Decreased access to site
during transportation
(+) maintaining access road in good
condition
Economic (+) Local workforce required (++) Considerable saving of WEB's
total fuel use
(+) Four technicians will be
employed
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -52-
8 IMPACT ON NATURE
8.1 Impacts on Flora
Impacts Caused by Construction of Wind Farm
The following surfaces will have to be cleared from vegetation:
footprints and (crane) platforms of the ten turbines
access road alongside the wind turbines
access road to the wind farm
The vegetation at the project site is scarce to virtually non existent (see Figure 8.1). Clearing
of vegetation might be necessary for foundations, roads and cable routes.
Figure 8.1 Impression of the vegetation at the project site (from position Turbine No.8
looking west)
In the case of widening the road alongside the wind turbines, some trees, bushes or cacti
may need to be removed. This will be done with consent of the appropriate governmental
departments. The overall impact on the vegetation is considered to be minimal as only a very
small fraction of the area is stirred. In the case of any removal of columnar cacti, it is possible
-53- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 to replant them horizontally on other sites because the cacti will easily re-sprout. More
(general information on flora of Aruba is provided in appendixIV.
Impacts Caused by Operation of New Wind Farm
The operation of the new wind farm will not have any direct impact on local vegetation.
8.2 Impacts on Birds
A special report on the impact of the wind farm on birds has been drafted by a bird expert of
bureau Waardenburg and can be found in appendix VI (Waardenburg, 2012).
The assessment on birds is based on general knowledge on bird (movements) and wind
farms, and the site visit in March 2012. The visit cannot be regarded as a thorough research
but in combination with general knowledge on bird presence and movements, an
assessment according to the Equator Principles can be made.
It is clear that local bird densities around the proposed wind farm area are extremely low.
Daily bird movements are, apart from some incidents, lacking. The area has been visited in
March, a period with wintering birds still present as well as local breeding birds. It is unlikely
that during other parts of the year the situation is substantially different in bird numbers and
movements. The habitat is almost without vegetation due to salt spray and strong onshore
winds. Cliffs that can be used for gliding or thermals are lacking. During the time of the visit
the wetlands had relatively high water levels so were optimal for birds. No regional or global
birds species with a conservation concern occur within the wind farm area. The only species
categorised as “near threatened” is the Caribbean coot, which occurs on wetlands such as
Tierra del Sol and Bubali all at large distances from the wind farm area. This species does
not perform regular (nocturnal) flights over terrestrial habitat. Endemic (sub)species like
Aruba burrowing owl Athene cunicularia arubensis and Aruba brown-throated parakeet
Aratinga pertinax arubensis, do not occur within the proposed wind farm area or its
surroundings.
On one evening heron departure from the Tierra del Sol wetland had been recorded. The
migration of these herons (departure) was not northwards as expected beforehand, but
westwards. Probably the birds head for the Venezuelan coast or stopovers in Central
America. But anyway as expected based on the likely origin of wintering birds (north
America), not in the direction of the wind farm area (east to southeast). The arrival migration
of ducks at Tierra del Sol wetlands from the east has been observed in autumn by G.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -54- Peterson. As breeding ranges are to the north, west and east, arrival will not be restricted to
the eastern part of the island. Migrant warblers and other birds (shorebirds, cuckoos) will be
comparable as the breeding ranges of these species are to the north and migration follows a
broad front, the arrival will be widespread from northern directions. In general densities of
warblers and shorebirds are low on the island, restricted to a few spots such as the
temporary ponds on the western and southern part of the island (shorebirds) and mangrove
forests or scrubs e.g. near Spanish Lagoon or Arikok National Park in the south. This will all
lead to broad front arrival and dispersal to the west or southern part of the island.
The following effects are relevant for this project: disturbance (on resting or feeding birds),
barrier effects (flying birds) or collision risks.
Disturbance
As bird densities around the wind farm area are almost zero, disturbance of local feeding or
resting or breeding birds is absent. Areas with higher densities are situated more than 1,000
m from the wind farm (e.g. Tierra Del Sol wetland complex) or hold very low bird numbers,
e.g. the ponds near Boroncana. The effects at sites slightly more to the south will be
comparable. Disturbance effects will be minimal to zero. To the north (close to Tierra del Sol
plains) minor disturbance effects might be present if the turbines would be situated close to
the wetland, such as the beach near Druif.
Barrier effect
Hardly any local bird movements around the wind farm occur and the wind farm length is
restricted giving the few passing birds enough space to reach their preferred areas. So
individual birds might need to change their routes, but according to the definition, a barrier
effect of the wind farm (meaning that birds cannot reach their preferred areas) is for local
birds absent. For birds on season migration the wind farm is no barrier due to its restricted
size and the absence of corridor migration (routes) or a spot essential for migration like a
thermal soaring area. The site is within a broad front migration route and has no cliffs or
other specific soaring options. So for birds on seasonal migration the barrier effect is also
zero. For sites more to the south barrier effects for local birds and seasonal migration will be
comparable (absent). More to the north minor effects might be possible if turbines would be
situated near Druif as the beach and plains area might be used by shorebirds moving to and
from the Tierra del Sol wetland.
Collision risks
As local bird movements around the wind farm are almost absent, collisions of local birds will
be highly incidental. The wetlands and ponds are situated at relatively large distances and
-55- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 the wind farm takes no position between these wetlands and roosts or other feeding areas.
During seasonal migration (spring and autumn) birds might pass the wind farm area. Since
the breeding ranges are to the north (-east and –west), the migrants will arrive from all these
directions and on a broad front. However passage through the proposed wind farm area
must be relatively small as arrival habitats are lacking. Spring departure in the direction of the
wind farm is highly unlikely as birds seldom depart against the wind. Given these
considerations, it cannot be excluded that small numbers might pass the wind farm area and
this might lead to a few collisions on a yearly basis. The wind farm will be based in a relative
dark area (minor background light). This will mainly be the case for migrants with large flyway
populations such as blue-winged teal Anas discors and warblers. In areas with high local bird
numbers and intense seasonal migration an average numbers of victims per year can vary
between 4 and 58 birds per turbine per year. In such occasions light circumstances may be
comparable but weather conditions can be worse as on Aruba situations with poor visibility
are absent. So in the case of Aruba, local bird numbers are almost zero and numbers of
migrants are much lower so for the entire proposed wind farm (10 turbines), the average
number of collision victims will not exceed a several individuals on a yearly basis. As no
regional, or global threatened birds species live or fly near the wind farm area, there is no
risk for impacts on endangered species whatsoever. So the total effects of collision risks are
categorised as minimal with at maximum a few collision victims per turbine on a yearly basis
of species with large flyway populations. So effects on population size of these species are
also absent.
The effects of a wind farm situated a few hundred meters to the north or south is qualitatively
assessed. In this case it is assumed the wind farm is situated close to the seashore in all
hypothetical situations. For a site located a bit more to the south the assessment is the
same: minor risks for seasonal migration with low numbers of collision. For a site more
northwards the collision numbers are expected to be low, but a bit higher than at the
proposed Urirama site. This is caused by the fact that more north, there is an exchange of
local birds, such as killdeer Charadrius vociferus, between the wetland and the plains near
Druif.
Due to the low densities of birds and the absence of endangered species or species
important for Aruba, disturbance of birds during the construction phase can be regarded as
minimal.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -56-
8.3 Impacts on Bats
Also a special investigation on the impact of the wind farms on bats has been drafted by a
bat expert from the Venezuelan Institute for scientific investigations in Caracas. This expert
conducted earlier investigations on bats at Aruba.
The bat survey had three main goals: (1) to determine if bats actively use the area where the
new wind park will be constructed, (2) to identify the species of bats foraging in the area and
their relative abundances there, and (3) to infer the potential impact of the new wind farm on
the survival of bats at Urirama. The fieldwork was conducted between April 13th and April 18th
of 2012. Two methodological approaches were used to detect bat activity in the study area:
bat captures using mist nets and detection of bat calls using an ultrasound detector. Based
on the results obtained, and understanding that they are representative of the conditions of
the area during a specific time window during the year characterized by particular ecological
and environmental circumstances, it was concluded that the wind farm area at Urirama, in
general terms, is not a suitable habitat that could be particularly attractive to bats of any of
the species present on the island, and therefore, a wind farm in this area should be
considered safe to the bat populations inhabiting this and the surrounding zones. As the field
work took place in a period of high wind speeds in April, it was not possible to assess periods
of low wind speeds, when potentially more bats could be flying in the study area. Shall bat
fatalities occur in the wind farm facility at Urirama at wind speeds lower than 6 m/s, Vader
Piet Beheer is prepared to stop the turbines temporarily. Taking this into account, a low risk
for bats during the whole year is guaranteed.
Further to this, it is important to follow a general recommendation concerning the monitoring
of potential bat fatalities associated with the wind farm at Urirama. As soon as the wind farm
starts its operations, a monitoring program should be implemented to determine if bat
fatalities could occur during those months of the year when the wind speed decreases in
Aruba (September-November). Based on the results of that monitoring program, the
company operating the wind farm at Urirama will have the possibility to implement (if needed)
mitigating actions to reduce bat fatalities, one of them being the temporal curtailment of
operations during occurrence of low wind speeds.
As nearly no bats are present in the area, the disturbance of bats during construction can not
be but very small.
-57- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
8.4 Impacts on other fauna elements
As long as the groundwater is not contaminated by leakage of chemicals and oil from the
wind turbines, or during deconstruction and construction, the effect on the groundwater fauna
will be negligible.
8.5 Overview Impacts on Nature
In Table 8.1, an overview of all of the impacts on nature is given. Each impact is specified as
being either positive (+ or ++), negative (- ), small negative (0/-) or neutral (0).
Table 8.1: Summary of the potential impacts on nature of the proposed project
Construction Operation
Flora (-) Limited removal of
vegetation
(0)
Birds (0/-) Disturbance of small
numbers of birds
(0/-) Disturbance of small numbers of birds
(0) Barrier effect near to zero
(0/-) Collision risk for small numbers of
birds
Bats (0/-) Disturbance of small
numbers of bats
(0/-) Small impact on small numbers of
bats. Nectar feeding bats fly below the
tips. Small impact on insect feeding bats to
be monitored and (if needed) mitigated.
Other fauna (0) (0) Attention must be paid to handling of
waste oil, with respect to groundwater to
protect crustacean fauna
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -58-
9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
9.1 Impacts on the Landscape
9.1.1 Impacts Caused by Construction Activities
The visual impact of construction activities is temporary and is primarily caused by:
Increased traffic
Presence of heavy equipment at the construction site
Presence of laborers at the construction site
Presence of construction material and waste at the construction site.
Figure 9.1 Construction of a Vestas V90 wind turbine
9.1.2 Impacts Caused by Operation of Wind Farm
An overview of the permanent visual impacts is given in the following paragraphs in which
the visual impact of the wind farm is explained. The color of the wind turbines will be off-
white. This color was also used for the turbines of the first wind farm of Vader Piet Beheer.
-59- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 The color is generally appreciated as rather neutral and reduces visibility in partially clouded
skies with white clouds, a very common sky on Aruba
From three points of view (see figure 9.2) a realistic visualization of the appearance of the
wind farm is given in figures 9.3 to 9.5. This gives an idea of the visual impact the wind farm
will have from different perspectives.
Figure 9.2 Project site and photo points
Visualizations have been drafted in such a way that for each point the most unfavorable
conditions are presented as far as reasonably possible. These conditions vary from point to
point as the angle between the sightlines to the wind farm with the north arrow have different
values. The chosen conditions are motivated for each point seperatel as follows.
Alto Vista Chapel 3:
From the pews before the Chapel, the angle of the view on the wind turbines is rather small
due to the revised design of the farm. Within the Chapel the turbines will not be visible at all
as the screen windows prevent the sight to the turbines. A big free viewing angle to the sea
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -60- prevents also distraction outside the Chapel. By visualizing the turbines perpendicular to the
orientation of the chapel, the worst case perspective in this area has been provided.
Figure 9.3: Visualization of wind farm at point south of Alto Vista Chapel
Figure 9.4: Visualization of wind farm at Alto Vista residential area
-61- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 Sero Pela:
The point is chosen close to the nearby dwellings. No whether conditions can be imagined
under which the turbines can be seen better. Backlighting never occurs there. When cloudy,
the turbines are gray and during sun the turbines are light due to the white paint. Under both
circumstances these colours match the tone of the air.
Figure 9.5 Visualization of wind farm at Sero Pela (houses closest to the wind farm)
Caya Mesa 26:
The minimum distance is over 1,5 km. Due to atmospheric circumstances (dust and vapor in
the air) the turbines will be hardly visible most of the time. The worst case condition at this
location (best visibility) is during sun shine as presented in the visualization.
9.6 Visualization of wind farm at Caya Mesa, (houses closest to the wind farm within the
Tierra del Sol area)
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -62-
9.2 Impacts on Surface Water
No impacts are expected on surface water during the different phases of the project.
9.3 Impacts on Soil and Groundwater
The possible impact of the project on groundwater is limited to erosion and oil leakage from
vehicles and generators.
Erosion
During the construction phase of the project, a landslide may occur causing the shifting of
soil and stones. In principle, this debris will be reused immediately.
In the event of construction during heavy rains, loose soil may be washed away. The worst
effect this could have is if the soil is washed into the sea or other body of water. The wind
farm and the planned cable route are relatively far from the sea, reducing the risk associated
with surface run-off.
Oil leakage
During the construction of the wind farm, heavy vehicles and generators will be used so there
will be a risk of small oil spills. However, this will not have a significant impact on soil or
groundwater. During the operation of the wind farm, drip trays, etc. will be used for any
activities involving the handling of oil so the risk of soil and groundwater pollution will be
minimized.
9.4 Effects on Climate Change
The wind farm will produce electricity (on average 170 GWh5 annually) without any release of
greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2. This production will replace the electricity which is
produced by WEB using heavy fuel oil. For every GWh conventional electricity to be reduced,
a reduction of CO2 emissions is achieved. Therefore, the wind farm will achieve a CO2
reduction of 130.0006 metric tons of CO2 per year.
5 The slightly lower yield due to the new design is neglected in this SEIA
6 Estimated associated fuel consumption of 1,7 PJ. With a specific emission of 74 kg CO2/GJ, the
prevented emission is 130.000 ton CO2.
-63- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
9.5 Impacts on Ambient Air Quality
9.5.1 Impacts Caused by Construction of Wind Farm
During construction of the new wind farm the main impact on air quality will be dust caused
by various digging activities.
In addition to the dust, exhaust gases from various types of transportation vehicles and
operational machines will have some local effect on air quality. This impact is very slight and
only temporary (during construction).
9.5.2 Impacts Caused by Operation of Wind Farm
Similar to the impact on climate change, the impact on ambient air quality is positive since
the operation of the wind farm reduces the need for conventional energy production.
Table 9.1 Overview of prevented emission (metric tons) of pollutants due to new wind
farm (t/y)
SO2 NOx
Prevented emissions due to
Urirama wind farm
2100 1500
9.6 Noise impact
9.6.1 Impacts Caused by Construction of Wind Farm
The description of noise impacts is based on a characteristic work site situation at the
building site. This situation represents high noise generation on a remote site and will be
present for a limited amount of time. During construction of the wind farm, different phases
can be distinguished.
As a characteristic work situation, the following conservative conditions are assumed with
respect to time and source values:
Construction work only during the day (12 hours)
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -64-
1 shovel (Lw7 = 106 dB(A)), during 12 hours in operation (or 2 shovels for 6 hours each,
etc.)
1 hydraulic crane / excavator (Lw = 109 dB(A)) during 8 hours in operation
1 demolition hammer (L2 = 114 dB(A)) during 6 hours in operation
1 concrete mixer (Lw = 111dB(A)) during 2 hours in operation
According to the local noise standard indicated in a Netherlands Antilles study (Mina-Vomil-
Werkgroep Milieunormen Nederlandse Antillen, 2007), the noise impact on residential homes
outside the urban area with low traffic is permitted to be a maximum of 50 dB(A) during the
day.
For a work situation as described above, the noise impact level of 50 dB(A) will be at a
distance of about 410 m from the work location (turbine location). The closest house at Seroe
Pela, is at a distance of about 1000 m from the wind farm. The noise level LAeq will be less
than 43 dB(A) This means that, during the construction phase, the standard of a maximum
allowed noise level at a noise sensitive object of 50 dB(A) during the day will be met.
9.6.2 Impacts Caused by Operation of Wind Farm
The noise impact of the wind farm in operation is assessed against the standards which have
been laid down in EU Directive 2002/49/EC and which since 1 January 2011 are also applied
in the Netherlands. The regulation has two standards:
1. Lden; the annual average noise level as a result of a wind turbine or wind farm at nearby
residences may not exceed 47 dB. This standard is related to the avoidance of
annoyance.
2. Lnight; the annual average noise level as a result of a wind turbine or wind farm during the
night period may not exceed 41 dB. This standard is related to the avoidance of sleep
disturbance.
The advantage of use of an annual average value is the averaging of the weather conditions.
The ambient noise of a wind turbine is dependent on the wind speed (at higher elevations),
and the wind direction. In addition, the perception of sound by human beings is also
dependent on the environmental noise which is partly dependent also on the wind speed at
low altitude. In this particular case where wind turbines are running all day and wind is
blowing almost all year, the difference between maximum noise level and yearly average is
just 1 dB(A), a difference that is not noticeable by humans.
7 Lw sound power level
-65- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
The limits of 47 and 41 dB respectively for Lden and Lnight are based on the dose-effect
relation. The limit is associated with the limits of other sound sources, such as road traffic.
The limit is a tradeoff between space for a sound source and reducing nuisance for local
residents.
In practice the standard for Lnight is met, when the standard for Lden is met. For communication
reasons Lnight has been chosen in the noise pictures of this SEIA, because Lnight is a real level
(without corrections)
The calculated noise levels Lnight are presented in figure 9.1. These are based on the noise
level data from Vestas and the noise model Windfarmer. Details of the calculations can be
found in appendix III. As a conservative approach the soil is modeled as reflective and no
meteo correction (as described in the Dutch protocol) has been applied. Should absorbing
vegetation haven been taken into consideration, easily 1 to 2 dB(A) lower levels could have
been calculated.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -66-
Figure 9.1 Calculated noise levels (Lnight)
For the dwelling areas table 9.2 gives a summary of the noise levels
Table 9.2 Summary of noise measurements and calculations at nearest houses
Point
(see figure
9.1)
Distance
to wind
farm
Background
noise (dBA)
Calculated
Lden in
dB(A)
Calculated
Lnight in dB(A)
1 (Sero Pela) 940 43-45 45 39
3 (Alto Vista) 1250 (> 40) 39 33
-67- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 The results show that the calculated noise levels are lower than the background levels. This
means that under these circumstances the wind turbines will be audible only slightly.
However it should be noted that the noise levels have been calculated at high wind velocities
and the background levels have been measured at low to average wind velocities. In practice
for the most of the time the noise levels of wind turbines will be lower than the back ground
noise and will be masked by the noise of the waves for most of the time.
Comparing the calculated noise levels with the noise standard for Lden of 47 dB(A), one can
conclude that even at the most sensitive point 1 (Seroe Pela) the calculated level is below
the standard. For the noise standard Lnight one can also conclude that the calculated levels
near houses are meeting the standard of 41 dB(A).
9.7 Shadow flicker and blade glint
Shadow flicker occurs when the sun passes behind the wind turbine and casts a shadow. As
the rotor blades rotate, shadows pass over the same point causing an effect called shadow
flicker. Shadow flicker may become a problem when these shadows overcast houses.
In the case of the Urirama wind farm, the nearest homes are located in Seroe Pela which lies
west of the wind farm, at an east to west distance of about 940 m. The sun will be in the east
in the early morning, casting shadows to the west. In order to cast a shadow 940 meter from
the foundation, the sun must be lower than 8 degrees in the sky. Only during the first half
hour before sunrise is this the case. Due to its very low position, the sun light is strongly
scattered by the sky and the clouds, causing shadows to be very dull. The impact of this
effect will be very limited, if it ever occurs.
Similar to shadow flicker, blade or tower glint occurs when the sun strikes a rotor blade or the
tower at a particular orientation. Blade glint is prevented by applying a non-reflective coating
on the blades.
Illumination
At the existing wind farm no illumination is used and for the new wind farm no illumination will
be used either. The existing turbines have red marking lights on the nacelle and so will the
new turbines. This is not a dominant light source and inevitable since it is a requirement of
the airport authorities.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -68-
9.8 Impacts on Cultural and Historical Elements
The only cultural and historic element in the neighborhood of the project site is the Alto Vista
Chapel. As also expressed by the population during the hearing, the Chapel and it's
surroundings are highly appreciated as a religious area. Due to it's reference to the history of
the Catholic Church on the island (see paragraph 6.9) it is valued extra above other churches
at Aruba.
In the original design of the wind farm, wind turbine no. 10 was just opposite of the chapel at
about 450 m. Out of consideration for the religious feelings of the population and after
consultation of the bishop, the design of the wind farm was adapted so that sight from the
pews in front of the church to the see will nearly not be affected by the wind turbines. This
has been accomplished by moving the nearest wind turbine to the north east and condensing
the other locations. This of course at the cost of the electric yield. The distance to the Chapel
has become at least 600 m and the undisturbed view to the see has a left angle of at least 55
degrees.
This monument will not be affected by the wind farm but the perception might be influenced
indirectly.The southernmost turbines will be clearly visible from outside the Chapel (see also
Figure 9.3) but only in a small angle of 250 (out of 3600). It may change the perception of the
Chapel by visitors slightly.
The function of the Chapel is a mix of rest, contemplation and tourism. After a period of
habituation the impact of the wind farm on these functions is expected to be small.
At the project site itself no cultural heritage of any importance is present, thus no impact can
be expected.
In the area no valuable archeological traces have been found as far as known. Archeological
findings are (generally speaking) unlikely there since the area is relatively unsuitable for
living and working.
-69- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
9.9 Impact on Waste
9.9.1 Waste from Construction of Wind Farm
The waste streams will, as much as possible, be reused on site or offered for reuse
elsewhere. The following waste streams will be reused:
Ground soil from digging the foundation holes will be reused on site to level the crane
platform
Wood used for transporting the turbine parts will be offered to the general public.
The remaining waste streams that will not be reused, will be disposed of at the landfill. These
are:
Removed vegetation (as far as not replanted)
All kinds of packing material.
9.9.2 Waste from Operation of Wind Farm
The operation of the wind turbines does not produce a significant amount of waste. The wind
turbines are equipped with a direct connection between the rotor (blades) and the generator.
The wind turbines are equipped with a gearbox which will need an oil change and,
consequently, there will be a waste flow from used oil. These waste flows will be disposed of
in an appropriate way through the reuse of it.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -70-
9.10 Overview of impacts on the Environment
In Table 9.2, an overview of all the environmental impacts is given. Each impact is specified
as being either positive (+ or ++), negative (- or --) or neutral (0).
Table 9.2: Summary of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project
Construction Operation
Landscape (-) Visual of crane and
working activity
(--) Significant visual impact
Surface water (0) (0)
Soil and Ground water (0) Attention must be paid to
handling of waste oil
(0) Attention must be paid to
handling of waste oil
Climate change (-) Slight emission of CO2 by
traffic and equipment
(++) Reduction of a significant
amount of CO2 per year
Air quality (-) Slight emission of gases
by traffic and equipment
(++) Significant reduction of
pollutants from electricity
generation with diesel engines
Noise (-) Some noise during day,
but within standard and
limited in time
(0/-) Some noise impact, but
substantial below standard
Shadow flicker (0) No shadow will reach homes
Waste (-) As much waste streams
as possible will be reused
(0) Hardly any waste will be
produced; only some waste oil
which will be captured and
processed
-71- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
10 HEALTH AND SAFETY
10.1 Safety Requirements
IEC61400-1 Standard
The Vestas V112 wind turbine complies with the safety requirements stated in the
international standard on wind turbines, IEC61400-1 standard. This international standard
deals with safety philosophy, quality assurance and engineering integrity. It also specifies
requirements for the safety of Wind Turbine Generator Systems, including design,
installation, maintenance, and operation under specified environmental conditions. Its
purpose is to provide the appropriate level of protection against damage from all hazards of
these systems during their planned lifetime. This standard concerns all subsystems of the
turbine such as control and protection mechanisms, internal electrical systems, mechanical
systems, support structures, foundations and the electrical interconnection equipment.
Building Permit
The department for building permits of the governmental service, DOW, will judge the
construction and infrastructure based on safety aspects. Only after a positive judgment a
permit will be issued.
10.2 Community Health and Safety
Aruba has not established laws on the external safety of developments and installations. In
the Netherlands, a compendium for wind turbines based on the principles of the general
safety decrees has been published titled, Compendium on Risk Zoning of Wind Turbines
(Handboek Risicozonering Windturbines, H. Braam et. al, 2005). This compendium describes
the community risks involved in the operation of wind turbines.
The principle for the safety decisions mentioned above is that the risk that occurs mainly
towards sensitive and less sensitive objects due to the risk source is tested against the risk
standard. A risk analysis is required to measure this risk. The central question for a risk
analysis is twofold: Is the presence of the device a significant risk to nearby objects and
activities and, if so, is the sum of this risk and the existing risk lower than the valid criteria?
Since the aspect of community health and safety has been studied extensively world wide,
for this assessment no detailed risk analysis will be conducted. The risks to public safety will
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -72- be considered and described based only on the main aspects described in literature.
Buildings will mainly be considered as being sensitive or less sensitive objects. Roads will
not be considered as sensitive or less sensitive objects.
In (RIVM, 2008) the impact of wind turbines on the perception and health of neighboring
people were investigated. The conclusion was that there is no evidence for significant health
effects on the population from these wind farms.
Recently a similar extensive study titled "Wind Turbine Health Impact Study" was executed
by an independent expert panel in Massachusetts (Mass., 2012). It was prepared at the
request of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts
Department of Public Health. For this project only the conclusions with respect to noise and
vibrations are relevant. It concluded that no evidence has been found for any impact on
health when distances between dwelling and wind farm are larger than 400 m. In this case
the nearest dwelling is at 940 meters.
10.2.1 Impacts Caused by Construction of Wind Farm
The major risk of a potential disaster occurring during the construction of the wind turbines is
the collapse of one of the cranes or turbine towers. The maximum height of the crane or
turbine is approximately 100 meters. There are no risk sensitive objects (residences) within a
100-meter radius of the base of the wind turbines, thus concluding that there are no
significant risks to public safety.
In order to prevent any hazard to the general public the working area will be closed to the
general public and will be guarded.
Another significant impact on community safety during construction of the new wind farm is
heavy transport to and from the work site. The risk to safety will be mitigated as much as
possible by using only well known transport companies with adequate trucks for required
transport. Special transport of the turbine parts to the project location will involve police
guidance to prevent any risk to the general public.
10.2.2 Noise Impact of wind turbines
Compared to noise from other sources, like traffic, the noise from wind turbines is slightly
more annoying (RIVM, 2008). People that are able to see the wind turbines express more
nuisance than people that do not see the turbines at the same noise levels.
-73- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
At outdoor levels above 45 dB(A)8 sleep disturbance can take place. Conservatively
calculated the maximum noise levels at houses nearby the Urirama wind farm are 40 dB(A)
or less (see table 9.2). This is too low to cause sleep disturbance in general.
Another issue that is sometimes raised is that of low frequency noise. In (RIVM, 2008) is
concluded that no scientific proof has been provided for the impact of low frequency noise
from wind turbines. However, sometimes, low frequency variations of the noise level do
occur. When the noise is assessed as "zooming" or "swishing" the nuisance was deemed
relatively high. The British Wind Energy Association has stated that low frequency noise is
generated only at wind turbines with the blades located downwind of the turbine tower. The
Vestas V112 has the blades upwind of the tower, so no low frequency noise is to be
expected at the Urirama project.
Recently a Danish standard (DK, 2011) on low frequency noise from wind turbines appeared.
This standard is not applicable to this project as Dutch legislation is the only environmental
reference. Purely for the reader's information a calculation was made according to this
standard. For the nearest houses (Seroe Pela) a low frequency noise level of 15 dB inside
was calculated according to the Danish calculation rules. This level complies with the Danish
standard of 20 dB for this frequency range.
10.2.3 Safety Impacts Caused by Operation of Wind Farm
Potential accidents during the operation of the wind farm will be described in this section. For
each potential accident, a short description is outlined on the measures that will be taken
during the design and construction process in order to limit the occurrence of an incident.
Further elaboration of potential incidents and how to manage a disaster, should it occur, will
be described in a Disaster Plan. The Disaster Plan will be ready prior to the start of
construction activities.
The following disasters could possibly occur at the wind farm:
Breaking off of small parts due to a storm (or wear)
Breaking off of blades as a result of lightning or storm
Collapse of the tower
Fire in the turbine or transformer station
8 This level is deemed equivalent with 30 dB(A) inside.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -74- The major cause of the potential occurrence of a disaster at the wind farm is a storm or
hurricane. Hurricanes have never hit Aruba. The turbines have been designed to withstand
Hurricane class 4.
Breaking Off of Small Parts
Breaking off of small parts can mainly be caused by wear or corrosion. This risk will be
mitigated with proper maintenance of the turbines by an assigned team of well trained
maintenance technicians. Also regular maintenance inspections will be performed for parts
that can possibly break off.
Breaking Off of Blade
Storm, lighting or rampant operation of the generator and rotor can cause a blade to break
off. During a storm with a wind velocity above 25 m/s, the rotor will be completely stopped by
the air brake (full blade pitch control by three separate hydraulic pitch cylinders). When
lighting strikes a blade, there is a risk of the blade tearing and breaking into pieces. For this
project, all blades are equipped with an integrated lighting protection system in order to
prevent this from occurring.
Collapse of the tower
Extreme high wind speeds will result in excessive forces on tower and foundation. Due to
these forces a slight chance will arise on collapsing of the tower. According to Braam et al
(2005), the risk of collapsing of the tower is 6 times less than the risk of breaking off of a
blade. These figures are based on historical failure information of Danish, German and Dutch
wind farms. No statistical information is available on the most recent types of wind turbines.
According to Braam et al it is expected that the new generation of wind turbines is safer than
the predecessors, but no proof is available.
Fire
The risk of a fire occurring in the turbines is very small. However, if a fire does occur in one
of the turbines under unexpected circumstances, damage will primarily occur to the
electronic control system. Depending on where the fire is located, the turbine will still be able
to turn by the force of the wind but it will not produce any electricity. The other unaffected
wind turbines will be able to remain in operation.
In the wind turbines no automatic fire extinguishers are present, but there are smoke
detectors. In the case of smoke detection, the turbine can remotely be switched off and the
fire brigade can be alerted. Since it is not advisable to enter the wind turbine in the case of
fire, the fire can only be extinguished from the outside.
-75- 74101509-PGR 12-1738
10.3 Occupational Health and Safety
The protection of the health and safety of workers is regulated in the National Safety
Ordinance. This ordinance stipulates measures that must be taken with respect to prevention
of accidents, fire prevention and working circumstances. Before the start of the construction
phase, a construction plan must be submitted to the responsible department, which is the
Safety Inspection Department.
Hoisting equipment must be properly chosen and maintained, while hoist operators must be
properly trained. The Safety Inspection Department will review and verify these items and
issue a certificate of compliance upon approval. The manufacturer of the wind turbines,
Vestas, will be the main contractor for the construction of the wind farm.
According to the policy of Vestas (Vestas, 2007), its employees are considered to be its most
important resource for achieving its stated goals and give the highest priority to safety during
the performance of individual tasks, whether or not these tasks may have to do with the
development, sale, production, installation or servicing of wind turbines.
The Vestas policy states a.o.:
To give the highest priority to safety
To achieve continuous improvements in the fields of the environment and occupational
health and safety
Vestas implements this policy by:
Maintaining a certifiable management system in accordance with ISO 14001 and OHSAS
18001
Communicating knowledge about the environment, occupational health and safety and
improvement of health of the employees and other stakeholders
For maintenance during the operation of the wind farm, a staff of four local technicians will be
trained, also on safety aspects and working at considerable heights.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -76-
11 MITIGATION MEASURES
11.1 Mitigation Measures for Traffic
Information to general public
Since a lot of traffic is involved in the project during construction it is strongly recommended
as a mitigating measure to inform the general public as much as possible about the expected
traffic congestion due to special transports. This information must include:
For Special Transport
The date and time of the special transport
The route of the special transport
The roads that will be blocked
Alternative routes for the general public.
For Heavy Transport
Indication of amount of transportation per day
Period (in days) of transportation
Route of transportation.
11.2 Mitigation Measures for Flora and Fauna
Modify road and positioning of beam to presence of important flora elements
In the surroundings of the wind farm, some important flora elements have been assessed
which include cacti. In order to preserve as much of these important flora elements as
possible, it is advised to avoid these plants when scheduling roads, cables and turbine
location. The valuable plants should be marked before construction starts.
The road can have some bends in order to pass around important flora elements. Also, the
beam can be positioned in a way that minimizes the destruction these flora elements.
Replanting of Cacti
Cacti that had to be removed during the construction activities should be replanted on
suitable locations. In particular, the columnar cacti can easily be replanted. Replanting
involves placing the cactus on the ground which will subsequently grow roots and new
shoots. In order to make this possible, the columnar cacti that are removed must be collected
and carefully saved for replanting.
-77- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 Leaving roots of the Wabi
The wabi is a fast-growing bush. If its roots are intact, the bush will grow again. If it is
necessary to cut wabi, it is advised to cut the plants on ground level and not remove the
roots so that it can sprout again.
11.3 Mitigations measures for bats
Based on the bat investigation it is expected that no mitigation measures will be needed. An
additional bat survey will be held in the period September-November once the wind farm is
operational to verify that also in that period with low (< 6 m/s) wind speeds no substantial
amounts of bats are present. Should by accident this prove not to be true, Vader Piet Beheer
will limit the operations of the wind farm then during these low wind velocity periods to avoid
bat victims.
11.4 Mitigation measures for birds
The bird investigations report concludes that no mitigation measures to protect birds are
needed.
11.5 Mitigation Measures for Soil and Groundwater
During construction of the wind farm, leakage of oil onto the ground must be prevented. The
use of leak collection trays must be encouraged. Also, during operation of the wind farm,
changing oil in the gear box should be done carefully and should be instructed to the
operators including preventive and corrective measures.
11.6 Mitigation Measures for Waste
Offering Wood Waste
During the construction of the wind farm, large amounts of wood from packaging will be
accumulated. This wood waste will be offered for free to companies and private persons who
can use it. This will help to reduce the amount of waste.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -78-
12 ACTION PLAN AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
12.1 Action Plan
The identified mitigation and compensation measures, as described in chapter 11, are
summarized, prioritized and planned in an Action Plan (see appendix V for the Action Plan).
The Action Plan includes the following information for each measure:
Description of the actions needed to implement the various types of mitigation measures
or corrective actions
Timeline of the implementation process of measures
12.2 Management System
12.2.1 Management program
According to Performance Standard 1 of the IFC performance standards, a management
program must be established for mitigation and performance improvement measures and
actions are to be formulated which address the identified social and environmental risks and
impacts.
The only risks and impacts that are identified and relevant to management are:
Impact of the turbines on bats
Handling of oil during oil change of gearbox.
12.2.2 Training
The service and maintenance team is qualified to carry out the regular service jobs on the
turbines. In addition, the team members are trained, certified and capable to perform work on
the high voltage electrical system according to European standards (ISO certificate). The
field crew reports to the operations manager but is able to have direct contact with senior
management if necessary.
-79- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 12.2.3 Monitoring
Monitoring plan bats
In line with the report on bats Vader Piet Beheer will after construction conduct a bat survey
in the period September-November to confirm that also in that period no big numbers of bats
are present. In the unlikely event that this is not confirmed, appropriate measures will be
taken.
Monitoring of noise impact
Noise level measurements will be executed, not later than 3 months after start up of the wind
farm. These measurements have to be executed according to Handleiding meten en rekenen
industrielawaai 1999 (VROM, 1999) and the standard IEC 61400-II „wind turbine generator
systems part II: Acoustic noise measurements techniques‟. The measurements will
especially verify the calculated noise levels near residential areas.
Technical monitoring
The monitoring plan also implies monitoring of:
Wind velocity and direction by Vader Piet Beheer and Vestas for maintenance and
generation purpose
Electricity generation by Vader Piet Beheer and WEB for billing purposes
Condition of cables on a regular base.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -80-
13 GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE
Behavior of insect-feeding bats
Hardly any knowledge about the flying height during foraging of insect feeding bats is known.
As these bats have not been found, this gap is not essential in assessing the impact from the
wind farm.
As mentioned sometimes earlier, the absence of big number of insect feeding bats during
low wind speeds in the autumn, will have to be confirmed.
Birds
No relevant gaps in knowledge on birds have been identified.
Impact on bats due to noise and vibration
Hardly any knowledge is available about the disturbance level or attraction of bats due to
noise and vibrations of wind farms.
-81- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 REFERENCES
Braam H., G. J. van Mulekom, R. W. Smit. January 2005. Handboek Risicozonering
Windturbines (SenterNovem)
BWEA, 2005. Briefing sheet "Low Frequency Noise and Wind Turbines". British Wind Energy
Association, February 2005.
Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/. 1992.
Debrot, A. O. 2003a. The freshwater shrimps of Curaçao, West Indies (Decapoda, Caridea).
Crustaceana 76 (1): 65-76.
Debrot, A. O. 2003b. A review of the freshwater fishes of Curaçao, with comments on those
of Aruba and Bonaire. Car. J. Sci. 39: 100-108
Debrot, A. O., 2006. Preliminary checklist of extant and fossil Endemic Taxa of the ABC-
Islands,Leeward Antilles. Carmabi document.
DK, 2011. Statutory Order on Noise from Wind Turbines. Translation of (Danish) Statutory
Order no. 1284 of 15 December 2011
Ecovision, 2011. Quick Scan of aspects for Social and Environmental Assessment for wind
farm Aruba. Ecovision report P11/ECO.328 of 21 October 2011.
SEA for the Renewal of Playa Kanoa Wind Farm Curaçao - 79 of 80 -
Equator Principles. July 2006. A financial industry benchmark for determining, assessing and
managing social and environmental risk in project financing. http://www.equatorprinciples.
Haviser, J. B., Jr. 1987. Amerindian cultural geography on Curaçao. Natuurwet. Studiekr.
Suriname Ned. Ant. 120: 1-212.
Haviser, J. B. Jr. 1989. A general description of archaeological sites recommended for the
Curaçaomonuments inventory list. AAINA, report 6 pp.
Hisschemöller M., A. Correljé , J. de Jong, I. Boas, R. Bode, C. van der Linde and E. van der
Velden. 2009. Een energiebeleid voor Curaçao, Beleidsvisie, doelstellingen en maatregelen.
Husson, A. M. 1960.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 -82-
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 2005. International Standard for Wind
Turbines IEC 61400-1 ed. 3.0: Design requirements.
International Finance Corportation (IFC). 2006. International Finance Corporation‟s
Performance; Standards on Social & Environmental Sustainability.
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/PerformanceStandards.
KEMA and Royal Haskoning. 2008. Aqualectra, Update of Utility Plan 2030.
RIVM, 2008. Windturbines: invloed op de beleving en gezondheid van omwonenden, G.P.
van den Berg | N.M. van Kuijeren ; Briefrapport nr. 609333002/2008
Mass., 2012. "Wind Turbine Health Impact Study" by independent expert panel in
Massachusetts, USA. January, 2012.
Mina-Vomil-Werkgroep Milieunormen Nederlandse Antillen. 2007. Eindrapport Milieunormen
Nederlandse Antillen, Lucht en Geluid, water en Afvalwater, Afval.
Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu. 2001. Besluit voorzieningen
en installaties milieubeheer.
Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu. 2004. Besluit Externe
Veiligheid Inrichtingen, Bevi (Decree on External Safety of Devices). Ministerie van
Volksgezondheid, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu. 1999.
Besluit Risico’s Zware Ongevallen, Brzo (Decree on Risks of Severe Accidents).
Nassar, J.M. Bat activity at the Urirama wind farm area. An assessment of risk on the bat
fauna. May 1, 2012.
Pib, 2012. Report on Background sound measurements for planned wind park Urirama, May
2, 2012.
Royer, A. 2009. Rapport Natuurwaarden Tera Kòrá en Playa Kanoa. Curaçao, Netherlands
Antilles.
SEA for the Renewal of Playa Kanoa Wind Farm Curaçao
-83- 74101509-PGR 12-1738 Stoffers, A. L. 1956. The Vegetation of the Netherlands Antilles. Uitg. Natuurwetensch.
Studiekr. Suriname Ned. Ant., No. 15.
Stoffers, A. L. 1980. Flora and Vegetation of the Leeward Islands of the Netherlands Antilles.
I. General Introduction and Coastal Communities. Miscellaneous Papers, LH Wageningen.
The Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php. 1997
Timmers, W. W. 1979. Wetgeving natuurbeheer op de Nederlandse Antillen in 1978. Stinapa
Doc. Ser. 6. 304 pp.
Vestas. 2007. Policy for the environment and occupational health & safety.
http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/principles/sustainability/policy.aspx.
Waardenburg, 2012. Assessment of the potential effects of Wind Farm Urirama, Aruba, on
birds. Winden, J. van der and Collier, M.P. May, 1, 2012.
Westermann, J. 1949. Overzicht van de geologische en mijnbouwkundige kennis der
Nederlandse Antillen, benevens voorstellen voor verdere exploitatie. Koninklijke Vereeniging
Indisch Instituut. Mededelingen No. LXXXV (Afdeling Tropische Producten No. 35)
74101509-PGR 12-7312
APPENDIX I GELUID http://www.windenergie.nl/onderwerpen/milieu-en-omgeving/geluid
Als windturbines draaien, maken ze geluid. Er zijn afspraken gemaakt over hoeveel geluid zij
mogen produceren. Mensen ervaren geluid in de nacht als hinderlijker dan overdag. Sinds 1
januari 2011 vallen alle windturbines onder de geluidregelgeving voor windturbines van het
Activiteitenbesluit.
Het geluid van windturbines
Windturbines zijn de helft van de tijd nauwelijks hoorbaar. Als het zacht waait, staat de
windturbine nagenoeg stil en maakt hij (bijna) geen geluid. Als het hard waait, neemt het
achtergrondgeluid (van bijvoorbeeld wegen en blaadjes aan de bomen) sterk toe en wordt de
turbine daardoor overstemd. Bij windkracht 3 tot 6 is de windturbine in de meeste gevallen
wel hoorbaar.
Windturbines maken geluid, dit komt door:
De bewegende delen in de gondel, zoals de generator en de tandwielkast. Of en
hoeveel geluid die onderdelen maken, hangt af van het type turbine.
De draaiende rotorbladen. De hoeveelheid (aerodynamisch) geluid is afhankelijk van
de rotordiameter, het toerental en de vormgeving van de rotorbladen.
Het waargenomen geluid bij een windturbine is afhankelijk van:
de windsnelheid;
het type turbine;
de omgeving (invloed achtergrondgeluid).
De afgelopen jaren is veel geïnvesteerd in de ontwikkeling van geluidsarme windturbines. Dit
is bereikt door :
een betere geluidsisolatie van de gondel;
verlaging van het toerental;
verbeterd ontwerp van de rotorbladen.
De normen voor de hoeveelheid geluid op de gevel (van nabij liggende woningen) worden op
dit moment weergegeven in dB(A). Dat is de maat voor het geluidsniveau, aangepast aan de
gevoeligheid van het menselijk oor. Volgens de huidige regels mag het jaargemiddelde
geluidniveau in de nachtperiode van een windmolenpark niet meer dan 41 dB(A) zijn. Ter
vergelijking: het geluidniveau van een gesprek is 60 dB(A), een drukke verkeersweg op 100
meterafstand 80 dB(A), een opstijgend vliegtuig op 200 meterhoogte 100 dB(A) en een
drilboor op 1 meterafstand 110 dB(A).
Huidige regelgeving
Sinds 1 januari 2011 vallen alle windturbines onder de geluidregelgeving voor windturbines
van het Activiteitenbesluit. Er wordt nu geen onderscheid meer gemaakt tussen
vergunningplichtige en meldingplichtige windturbines of windparken. Voor nog meer
windturbineprojecten is de vergunningplicht vervallen door de ruimere werkingssfeer (o.a. het
wegvallen van het afstandscriterium van 4 maal de ashoogte). Sinds 1 januari 2011 geldt dus
een en dezelfde norm voor windturbinegeluid in Nederland.
Voor 1 januari 2011 gold voor de meldingplichtige windturbines de WNC40-normcurve, die
per windsnelheid een verschillende norm stelde. Deze is nu vervangen door een norm die
voor alle windsnelheden gedurende het jaar geldt. Dit maakt de normstelling eenvoudig: het
jaargemiddelde geluidniveau Lden als gevolg van een windturbine of windpark dient bij een
woning van derden niet meer te bedragen dan 47 dB. Daarnaast geldt een ten hoogst
toelaatbare waarde voor het jaargemiddelde geluidniveau in de nachtperiode van 41 dB.
Voor de huidige typen windturbines geldt in het algemeen dat deze laatste norm minder
relevant is. Als aan de Lden van 47 dB wordt voldaan dan wordt (‘automatisch’) ook aan de
Lnight van 41 dB voldaan. In praktijk komt het niet of nauwelijks voor dat deze stelling niet
opgaat. Hiervan kan namelijk alleen sprake zijn in situaties waarbij een turbine voornamelijk
’s nachts in bedrijf is en niet of nauwelijks in de dagperiode. Het akoestisch effect van het feit
dat het ’s nachts vaak harder waait op grotere hoogte is dermate gering (ca. een halve dB),
dat de Lden in het algemeen maatgevend is.
Dosismaat Lden De nieuwe normstelling op basis van de grootheden of dosismaten Lden en
Lnight is niet alleen gekozen vanwege de eenvoud en duidelijkheid, maar ook vanwege de
Europese regelgeving. De Europese richtlijnen stellen deze grootheden ook voor bij de
evaluatie en beheersing van omgevingslawaai (richtlijn 2002/49/EG). Het voordeel bij
windturbinegeluid van het gebruik van een jaargemiddelde waarde is de middeling van de
weersomstandigheden. Het geluid van een windturbine is afhankelijk van de windsnelheid
(op grotere hoogte) en de windrichting. Daarnaast is de beleving van het geluid door de
mens ook afhankelijk van het omgevingslawaai waarbij dit mede afhankelijk is van de
windsnelheid op lage hoogte. Deze afhankelijkheid van weersomstandigheden is een
moeilijke factor bij zowel prognoseonderzoeken, metingen als ook de handhaving van geluid.
De nu gekozen jaarmiddelingsmethode houdt rekening met deze wisselende
omstandigheden.
Grenswaarde Lden Bij een nieuwe normstellingsystematiek en dosismaat hoort ook een
nieuwe grenswaarde. De grenswaarden van 47 en 41 dB voor respectievelijk Lden en Lnight
zijn gebaseerd op onderzoek door TNO in de dosis-effect-relatie van windturbinegeluid. De
grenswaarde is gebaseerd op een aandeel ernstig gehinderden, zodanig dat dit aandeel
overeenkomt met dat behorende bij de grenswaarden van andere geluidbronnen,
bijvoorbeeld wegverkeer. Dit betekent dat bij het voldoen aan de grenswaarde het niet zo is
dat de windturbines onhoorbaar zijn, of dat er in het geheel geen gehinderden zijn te
verwachten. Zoals bij alle geluidnormstellingen is de grenswaarde een afweging tussen
ruimte voor een geluidbron en beperking van hinder bij omwonenden.
Activiteitenbesluit en -regeling algemeen Zoals gebruikelijk in de nieuwe
wetgevingssystematiek bestaat het Activiteitenbesluit uit:
een Besluit, het Besluit algemene regels inrichtingen milieubeheer (Barim), en
74101509-PGR 12-7312
een Regeling, de Regeling algemene regels inrichtingen milieubeheer (Rarim).
De nieuwe geluidvoorschriften zijn vastgelegd in het Barim onder artikel 3.14a.
De wijze van bepaling van de Lden en Lnight is vastgelegd in een nieuw reken- en
meetvoorschrift dat specifiek voor windturbinegeluid opgesteld is. In artikel 3.15 uit het Barim
wordt verwezen naar dit reken- en meetvoorschrift voor windturbines dat via artikel 3.14 b als
bijlage 4 gekoppeld is aan de Rarim.
APPENDIX II BACKGROUND SOUND LEVELS
Table of content Page 1. Summary. ................................................................................................................... 1 2. Situations at the measuring locations. ........................................................................ 1 3. Area conditions at each measuring location. .............................................................. 3 4. Applied instrumentation. ............................................................................................. 5 5. Measuring conditions. ................................................................................................. 5 6. Measuring results. ...................................................................................................... 6
1 Wind park Urirama p-1123-19/mr/LH
1. Summary. On request of KEMA, the company preparing the MER for wind park Urirama, Polytechnisch Ingenieursbureau N.V. (PIB ) performed background measurements at three locations in the area close to the future wind park Urirama. The measurements were made between 23.20 hours and 02.54 hours on April 21, 22 and 23, 2012. To demonstrate the relation between the sound pressure and the wind, the wind direction and wind velocity were also recorded.
2. Situations at the measuring locations. Locations of the projected windmills at Urirama are shown on figure 1. Measuring locations are shown on the Google maps figures 2, 3, 4. Distances of the nearest windmill to the measuring location are indicated. Distances of the measuring location to the nearest dwelling are also shown.
Figure 1, Locations of the projected windmills at Urirama
2 Wind park Urirama p-1123-19/mr/LH
Figure 2, Measuring location no. 1 Sero Pela, distance to windmill ca. 816 meters.
Figure 3, Measuring location no. 2, Sero di Pos di Nord, distance to windmill ca. 814 meters.
3 Wind park Urirama p-1123-19/mr/LH
Figure 4, Measuring location no. 3, Calabas, distance to windmill ca. 904 meters.
3. Area conditions at each measuring location. Measuring point 1. Almost flat terrain with low vegetation at the first 100 meters from the measuring point. No sound obstructions. No disturbing sources in the area during measurement. Measuring point is located at a sand path. Distance to closest dwelling about 15 meters. Distance to nearest projected windmill ca. 816 meters. Wind direction stable East to West (90 degrees).
Picture A Measuring point 1 to windmills Picture A1 Measuring point back side
4 Wind park Urirama p-1123-19/mr/LH
Measuring point 2. Accidented terrain with vegetation and trees up to 2 meters high. These conditions cause wind turbulences and some sound damping in the direction of the windmills. No significant other wind or sound obstacles. No disturbing sound sources in the area during measurements. Noise of the sea was observed at low wind speed conditions. Measuring point is located at a sand road. Three houses are located in the back of the measuring point. Distance to the closest dwelling is about 20 meters. Distance to nearest projected windmill is ca. 814 meters. Wind direction stable East to West (90 degrees).
Picture B, Measuring point 2 sand road Picture B1, Measuring point 2 back side
Measuring point 3. Accidented terrain with a big sand excavation pit at a distance of 50 meters in the line from the measuring location to the windmills. No significant vegetation in the windmills direction. No disturbing sounds sources in the area during measurements. Close pig farm was quite. Measuring point is located at a sand road to the excavation pit. One shadow shed is located in the back of the measuring point at a 6 meter distance (picture C2). Distance to the nearest dwelling is ca. 75 meters. Distance to nearest projected windmill is ca. 904 meters. Wind direction stable East to West (90 degrees).
Picture C, Measuring point 3, sand road Picture C1, Measuring point 3, nearest dwelling
5 Wind park Urirama p-1123-19/mr/LH
Picture C2, Measuring point 3, back side
4. Applied instrumentation. • Sound meter on tripod stand:
Manufacturer RION Model NA-24 With windscreen WS-10
• Sound calibrator: Manufacturer RION
Model NC-73
• Wind speed anemometer: Manufacturer TESTO
Model Testo 417 with Testo 452 measuring device. Note : some inaccuracy as calibration date passed.
• Compass:
For wind direction.
5. Measuring conditions. • Sound meter calibrated : Calibration on 94 dB(A) Sound meter settings : Scale A Fast record Height measuring points : At height 2,8-3,0 meters Temperature : 28 degrees C Humidity : No rain, 80% humidity Sky : Partly clouded Wind direction : East to West
6 Wind park Urirama p-1123-19/mr/LH
6. Measuring results. Measuring point 1 Date Time dB(A)
min m/sec dB(A)
max m/sec Remarks
22-04-2012 00:40 39,4 2,7 43,2 3,6 22-04-2012 00:44 45,1 4,4 47,8 5,0 22-04-2012 00:48 45,0 3,2 47,8 5,1 22-04-2012 00:54 40,8 2,0 45,1 3,8 22-04-2012 00:59 40,8 3,2 45,7 5,5
22-04-2012 02:40 46,4 2,6 49,0 5,0 22-04-2012 02:42 46,3 2,6 48,4 4,6 22-04-2012 02:45 40,6 2,6 47,3 4,8 22-04-2012 02:50 40,3 2,6 45,6 4,6 22-04-2012 02:54 40,7 2,8 46,9 4,9
23-04-2012 00:25 36,8 2,6 41,3 3,3 23-04-2012 00:28 39,8 2,9 43,7 4,5 23-04-2012 00:29 41,0 3,0 44,6 4,7 23-04-2012 00:32 39,4 1,3 40,9 2,9 23-04-2012 00:35 39,2 2,9 40,1 3,3
Measuring point 2 Date Time dB(A)
min m/sec dB(A)
max m/sec Remarks
22-04-2012 00:00 38,7 1,5 41,5 3,8 22-04-2012 00:02 38,3 1,3 41,0 2,9 noise of the sea 22-04-2012 00:07 38,1 1,5 40,5 3,6 22-04-2012 00:10 37,8 1,8 43,7 4,7 22-04-2012 00:13 38,1 1,5 40,4 3,0 22-04-2012 02:10 40,6 2,6 45,0 3,5 22-04-2012 02:14 38,7 1,7 40,0 2,2 22-04-2012 02:18 37,9 1,1 44,0 4,7 noise of the sea 22-04-2012 02:22 47,3 4,6 57,1 6,0 22-04-2012 02:25 40,0 2,6 46,8 4,2
22-04-2012 23:50 38,1 1,9 41,7 3,7 22-04-2012 23:53 40,5 1,4 43,3 2,2 noise of the sea 22-04-2012 23:56 37,7 2,2 40,3 3,1 23-04-2012 00:00 37,0 1,2 40,4 2,5 noise of the sea 23-04-2012 00:03 37,6 1,5 38,2 2,2
7 Wind park Urirama p-1123-19/mr/LH
Measuring point 3 Date Time dB(A)min m/sec dB(A)
max m/sec Remarks
21-04-2012 23:30 39,1 1,7 39,9 2,3 21-04-2012 23:35 38,3 1,5 40,2 2,2 21-04-2012 23:37 39,1 1,7 43,0 4,0 21-04-2012 23:40 38,6 1,5 40,6 2,2 21-04-2012 23:42 38,8 1,1 41,4 3,3
22-04-2012 01:30 44,4 1,5 49,0 3,0 22-04-2012 01:34 42,0 1,1 48,3 3,2 22-04-2012 01:40 45,5 1,1 48,2 3,2 22-04-2012 01:45 45,2 2,2 48,8 3,0 22-04-2012 01:50 46,7 2,0 50,0 5,1
23-04-2011 23:20 40,1 1,7 43,1 2,9 23-04-2011 23:23 36,8 1,4 39,0 2,2 23-04-2011 23:26 40,6 1,3 41,5 2,5 23-04-2011 23:30 35,7 1,0 38,9 2,4 23-04-2011 23:33 38,4 1,0 40,1 2,4
The resulting L 95 values are Measuring point L 95 dB(A) 1 42 2 40 3 42
74101509-PGR 12-7312
APPENDIX IIA ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND SOUND LEVELS
Project : WINDPARK URIRAMA Subject : Report on Background sound
measurements for planned wind park Urirama
Additional measurements on measuring location no. 1
Sero Pela Ref.nr : p-1123-29/mr/LH Date : June 5, 2012 Author: ing. L.H.M. Hamers
Table of content Page 1. Summary .................................................................................................................................................1 2. Measurement location no. 1 Sero Pela ...................................................................................................1 3. Measuring results. ...................................................................................................................................2
1 Wind park Urirama p-1123-29/mr/LH
1. Summary On request of KEMA, background measurements for planned Wind Park Urirama were made on April 21, 22 and 23, 2012. Refer to Report ref. p-1123-19/mr/LH As wind velocities were low in April 2012, additional measurements were made on measurement location no. 1, Sero Pela, on June 2 and 3, 2012. The average wind speed was ca. 6.3 m/sec. The L95 sound levels were 43.5 / 50.3 47.9 dB(A).
2. Measurement location no. 1 Sero Pela
Measuring location no. 1 Sero Pela, distance to windmill ca. 816 meters.
2 Wind park Urirama p-1123-29/mr/LH
3. Measuring results. Sound
Pressure level Average
Wind speed Wind velocity Resulting L95
Sound level Remarks
Date Time dB(A) m/sec m/sec dB(A) June 2, 2012 11:30 am 49,6 5,2 51,8 6,5 51,3 5,4 56,7 6,6 55,7 7,8 53,3 6,3 42,8 4,2 51,7 4,9 54,9 4,6 48,5 5,9 52,7 5.8 7,9 L = 43.5 55,1 5,9 52,2 6,3 44,8 4,1 49,7 7,2 51,6 7,6 46,1 5,6 54,7 9,2 51,2 7,4 44,6 4,0 45,0 4,6 11:40 am 44,4 6,1 June 2, 2012 18:00 pm 54,7 6,4 53,3 5,0 53,9 5,8 51,7 7,5 57,4 7,4 46,0 7,6 54,5 6,5 50,5 6,8 49,2 6,2 50,3 8,6 52,8 6.6 6,0 L95 = 50.3 57,8 9,1 49,6 7,1 50,2 7,6 51,4 7,0 43,8 6,4 51,0 5,8 53,9 7,3 47,3 5,1 49,6 4,7 48,7 4,8 18:10 44,5 5,4
3 Wind park Urirama p-1123-29/mr/LH
Sound
Pressure level Average
Wind speed Wind velocity Resulting L95
Sound level Remarks
Date Time dB(A) m/sec m/sec dB(A) June 3, 2012 07:45 am 50,2 7,6 53,3 7,1 49,9 6,6 57,3 8,1 47,7 7,3 56,9 9,3 46,9 5,0 57,6 6,3 42,5 5,2 55,4 6.5 6,1 L = 47.9 55,0 9,0 50,8 7,9 52,5 7,4 46,3 5,2 44,9 5,6 43,8 4,2 48,5 7,4 46,3 5,9 43,1 3,6 07:55 am 44,0 4,6
APPENDIX III CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS
New regulation (operative since the first of January 2011) states a maximum yearly average
of 41 dB Lnight. The Lnight is chosen because of the European Directive 2002/49/EG for the
assessment of environmental noise.
The turbines that are used for the calculations are Vestas V112-3.0 MW 50Hz offshore with a
hub height of 84 meters and a rotor diameter of 112 meters.
Table 1 Location of turbines
Turbine ID Eastings (m) Northings (m) Height of base
(m)
Nearest turbine
ID
Distance to
nearest turbine
(m)
1 389168.0 1392880.0 9 2 185
2 389216.0 1392701.0 14 1 185
3 389273.0 1392513.0 8 2 196
4 389345.0 1392324.0 9 3 202
5 389430.0 1392127.0 9 4 214
6 389534.0 1391927.0 9 5 225
7 389659.0 1391718.0 8 6 243
8 389805.0 1391503.0 7 7 259
9 389973.0 1391285.0 10 8 275
10 390183.0 1391061.0 19 9 307
According to new regulation the yearly average sound power level has to be used, in stead of
the levels at 8 m/s. The yearly average wind speed at Urirama is around 9 m/s. The Weibull
distribution parameters a=9,9 and k=5 result in a yearly average sound power level of 105.7
dB(A). The averaged sound power levels of the V112-3.0 MW turbine are as follows.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 Table 2 Sound Power Level for V112-3.0 MW 50 Hz Offshore
Octave band
(Hz)
Sound Power
Level
(dB(A))
31.5 76.8
63.0 88.9
125.0 94.2
250.0 96
500.0 97.7
1000.0 100.8
2000.0 99.4
4000.0 94.6
8000.0 77.4
Form of noise model to be used: Complex (ISO9613) Alternative
Ground Effect: Hard Ground
Ground Effect: ISO9613 Alternative
Height above ground for noise mapping 5.00m
Tonal penalty -
Meteorological correction factor -
Table 3 Atmospheric Attenuation for Octave Bands of Noise
Octave band
(Hz)
Attenuation
coefficient
(dB/km)
31.5 0.00
63.0 0.10
125.0 0.40
250.0 1.00
500.0 1.90
1000.0 3.70
2000.0 9.70
4000.0 32.80
8000.0 117.00
Table 4 Noise prediction at near by dwellings Dwelling ID Dwelling
name
Distance to
nearest
turbine
(m)
Eastings
(m)
Northings
(m)
Altitude
(m)
Noise
Lnight
dB(A)
Noise Lden
dB(A)
1 Seroe Pela 940.2 388627.0 1391638.0 20.0 39.4 45.4
2 Chapel 614.0 390185.0 1390447.0 27.7 39.5 45.5
3 Dwelling
chapel
1116.6 390485.0 1389986.0 20.0 33.5 39.5
4 Caya mesa
Vista
1605.0 387620.0 1393304.0 13.9 31.4 37.4
5 Dwelling
chapel 2
1240.8 389767.0 1389892.0 35.7 33.3 39.3
Figure 1 Noise calculations wind farm Urirama, Lnight
74101509-PGR 12-7312
APPENDIX IV FLORA OF ARUBA1
While Aruba is not the stereotypical tropical island of lush, steamy forests and constant rains,
it does host fascinating animal and plant life, some of which is found nowhere else but on the
island. The Divi-Divi Tree, called Watapana in the Arawak language, is perhaps the most
recognizable Aruban icon. It's an endemic bush in the ABC Islands (Aruba, Bonaire, and
Curacao), and you'll see images of it on tourist T-shirts, mugs, hats, and on several place-
names around the island.
The divi-divi, usually never more than a dozen or 50 feet tall, is permanently bent, at nearly a
right angle, with its Medusa-like branches seemingly swept back by the wind. All divi-divi
trees point to the west, in the direction of the trade winds that come from the northeast.
Dozens of species of cactus are present that have adapted well to the islands dry conditions.
The towering Kadushi Cactus, tall with hundreds of needles, is used to make soup. The Yatu
Cactus is also tall but has fewer needles, and is often used to make fences. The priclily Pear
Cactus and many others, some as small as a golf ball, are prevalent all over the island.
The Bringa Mosa Bush has lots of needles and beautiful white flowers. The common Seida
Bush has small green leaves that look like lips. Aloe Vera, another plant common to semiarid
conditions, still grows in abundance on the island, but not in the quantities it did in the early
part of the 20th century when it was harvested for use in medicine and cosmetics.
Along the southern coast, where resorts and hotels have made their home, you'll find
imported tropical flora such as Frangipani, Poinsettia, Hibiscus, Bougainvillea, Flamboyant,
Oleander, Allamanda, Manila Palm, Coconut Palm, and much more, as well as Coconut,
Papaya, Mango, Lemon, Almond, and other fruit-bearing trees.
1 Bron: http://www.aruba-travelguide.com/about/flora_fauna.html
APPENDIX V ACTION PLAN
In order to perform all actions that are needed for an environmentally and socially
responsible project the following actions have been scheduled. The responsibility for the
fulfillment of the action plan lies with Vader Piet Beheer B.V.
Nr. Protected interest Action Period
1 Information about
traffic congestion
Inform people via local
newspaper and signs along the
road about congestions to be
expected: times, delays and
alternative routes
One week before
expected congestion till
end of congestion
2 Protection of cacti and
wabi
Mark cacti:
To be left intact
To be removed for
replanting
Mark wabi that will be cut just
about the ground
Instruct contractor laborers about
right approach. Check correct
execution daily during leveling.
One week before start
of leveling of terrain
3 Monitoring plan bats Monitor the possible presence of
insect feeding bats
One week in
September-November
74101509-PGR 12-7312
APPENDIX VI ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF WIND FARM URIRAMA, ARUBA, ON BIRDS
Assessment of the potential effects of Wind Farm Urirama, Aruba, on birds
An assessment following the Equator Principles
J. van der Winden M.P. Collier
Assessment of the potential effects of Wind Farm Urirama, Aruba, on birds An assessment following the Equator Principles J. van der Winden M.P. Collier
commissioned by: KEMA, The Netherlands 16 April 2012 report nr 12-057
2
Status: draft report
Report nr.: 12-057
Date of publication: 16 April 2012
Title: Assessment of the potential effects of Wind Farm Urirama, Aruba, on birds
Subtitle: An assessment following the Equator Principles
Authors:
Drs. J. van der Winden M.P. Collier MSc.
Number of pages incl. appendices: 036
Project nr: 12-079
Project manager: Drs. J. van der Winden
Name & address client: KEMA Nederland BV; P.O. BOx 9035; 6800 ET Arnhem
Reference client: E-mail 13 March 2012
Signed for publication: Adjunct-director Bureau Waardenburg bv drs. S. Dirksen
Initials:
Bureau Waardenburg bv is not liable for any resulting damage, nor for damage which results from applying results of work or other data obtained from Bureau Waardenburg bv; client indemnifies Bureau Waardenburg bv against third-party liability in relation to these applications.
© Bureau Waardenburg bv / KEMA Nederland BV
This report is produced at the request of the client mentioned above and is his property. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted and/or publicized in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the client mentioned above and Bureau Waardenburg bv, nor may it without such a permission be used for any other purpose than for which it has been produced.
The Quality Management System of Bureau Waardenburg bv has been certified by CERTIKED according to ISO 9001:2008.
3
Preface
KEMA Nederland bv has commissioned Bureau Waardenburg to provide expertise as to the possible ecological effects of a proposed wind farm in Aruba on birds. KEMA is undertaking a Social and Environmental Assessment following the Equator Principles, which includes an assessment on nature and ecology. As part of this study Bureau Waardenburg has assessed the possible effects on birds. As well as gathering information from published sources a field visit was undertaken to assess the area and its birds. This report reviews the known effects of wind turbines on birds, the key bird species of Aruba and the sites recognised as being important for birds. Based on available knowledge and impressions gained during a site visit, an assessment of the potential effects on birds of the proposed wind farm was made according to the Equator Principles. This project was lead by Jan van der Winden and the report written by Jan van der Winden and Mark Collier, both of Bureau Waardenburg. During the Field visit, mr H. Hutting gave information on the location of the initiated project. Mr. G. Peterson (Birdlife Aruba) kindly explained the situation regarding birds in Aruba and showed important bird areas on the island. S. Dirksen and xxxx provided valuable comments on previous drafts of this report. The authors thank everyone who has contributed to this report.
4
5
Table of contents Preface...............................................................................................................................................3 Summary ...........................................................................................................................................7 Nederlandse samenvatting..............................................................................................................9 1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 11
1.1 Aruba............................................................................................................................ 11 1.2 Urirama wind farm ...................................................................................................... 11
2 Birds and wind farms.............................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Collisions..................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Disturbance ................................................................................................................ 14 2.3 Barrier effects............................................................................................................. 15
3 Birds on Aruba ........................................................................................................................ 17 3.1 Breeding and resident species.................................................................................. 17 3.2 Migrant and vagrant species..................................................................................... 18
4 Legislation and important bird areas..................................................................................... 19 4.1 Legislation.................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Important Bird Areas .................................................................................................. 19
5 Methods of assessment......................................................................................................... 21 6 Results Urirama ...................................................................................................................... 23
6.1 Impacts on birds......................................................................................................... 24 7 Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 27 8 Literature.................................................................................................................................. 29 Appendix 1. Field visit Aruba 2012 .............................................................................................. 33
6
7
Summary
As part of a proposed wind farm development on the northeast coast of the island of Aruba, KEMA is undertaking a Social and Environmental Assessment following the Equator Principles. This includes an assessment on nature and ecology. As part of this study Bureau Waardenburg has assessed the possible effects on birds of the proposed wind farm. As well as gathering information from published sources a field visit was undertaken to assess the area and its birds. The known effects of wind turbines on birds, the key bird species of Aruba and the sites recognised as being important for birds were reviewed. Based on available knowledge and impressions gained during a site visit, an assessment of the potential effects on birds of the proposed wind farm was made according to the Equator Principles. Wind farms are known to have three main effects on birds: collisions, displacement or habitat loss and barrier effects. The scale of the effect depends not only on the size and layout of the wind farm but also on the location. Wind farms located in areas with high densities of birds and a high level of flight activity having a greater effect than similar wind farms in areas with few or no birds. Aruba holds one species that is listed as near threatened, the Caribbean coot Fulica caribaea. Further, the island holds several aggregations of breeding waterbirds. These breeding colonies and nearby feeding areas are located on the southwest shores. According to the equator principle, the effects of the proposed wind farm at Urirama is categorised as low (category C). The effects of disturbance and barrier effects are even zero. Effects of collision for local birds are about zero and for seasonal migrants minimal. No regional or local (Aruban) endangered birds species will be affected at population level by the proposed wind farm.
8
10
11
1 Introduction
1.1 Aruba
Aruba is a Caribbean island within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The island lies around 25 km north of the Paraguaná Peninsula on Venezuela’s north coast and around 75 km west north west of Curacao. North of Aruba lies the Caribbean Sea and the Dominican Republic is some 600 km away. The island is around 30 km long and 8 km wide with the axis lying northwest/southeast (figure 1). The prevailing north-easterly winds influence Aruba’s semi-arid climate. Average temperatures area around 28oC with seasonal variations of only several degrees. Rainfall averages around 400-500 mm per year, mostly between October and January (van Belle et al. 2003; Wege & Anadon-Irizarry 2008). Aruba is largely flat with some hills inland, the highest of which is 188 m above sea level. Vegetation is sparse and dominated by cactus and scrub. Most of Aruba’s urban development is on the leeward shores. Tourism is a key industry and supplements the resident population of just over one hundred thousand people.
1.2 Urirama wind farm
The location for the proposed Urirama wind farm is close to the northern tip of Aruba on the northeast coast. The proposed wind farm consists of ten 3MW turbines located parallel to the coast (KEMA 2012) (figure 1.). The locations and specifications of the ten turbines are detailed in KEMA (2012). This report also qualitatively assesses the potential effects for birds if the proposed wind farm were located several hundred metres to the north or south. It is assumed in this report that in each situation the turbines will be located close to the seashore. The habitat of the area is limited to scrub and low bushes. The vegetation is heavily influenced by the strong wind, salt spray and arid conditions. Further inland a few semi-permanent pools are present (see appendix 1.)
12
Figure 1. Aruba, showing the general location of the proposed Urirama wind farm
(red line) and key urban areas.
13
2 Birds and wind farms
Research into the effects of wind turbines on birds has revealed three types of effects on birds, namely the collisions of flying birds, habitat loss and disturbance, and barrier effects on flying birds.
2.1 Collisions
Direct mortality of birds can result from injuries sustained during collisions with the rotors, tower or from the turbulence behind the moving rotors. The numbers of collisions are related to the collision risk and the intensity of bird flights through the area. Collision risk The collision risk is chance of collision with a wind turbine for a bird passing through a specified wind farm. Collision risk is thought to be dependent on a number of factors including the location and configuration of the wind farm, dimensions and characteristics of the turbines, characteristics of the surrounding landscape, visibility conditions and weather, and the behaviour and morphology of the species concerned. Winkelman (1992b) estimated a collision risk of 0.09% for all passing birds and of 0.17% for species performing nocturnal behaviour. Recent research however, has shown that relatively many victims are diurnal and mostly local birds (Thelander et al. 2003; Grünkorn et al. 2005; Krijgsveld et al. 2009; Krijgsveld & Beuker 2009), possibly due to their foraging behaviour (Krijgsveld et al. 2009; Martin 2011). Furthermore, many species fly at greater heights during migration, whereas local birds usually fly at lower altitudes, often at the heights of turbines. An individual that makes numerous flights through a wind farm (largely local birds) increases its cumulative collision probability. Flight intensity The numbers of collision victims is strongly related to the number of flights through the area and thus varies greatly between sites. It can be expected that fewer birds would collide with a wind turbine in an area with a low numbers of flight movements than in an area with a high level of flight activity. Relatively high numbers of victims can be found during migratory periods, when large numbers of birds pass through an area. Alternatively, also in areas with a high level of local flight movements can local birds fall victim to collisions. Numbers of collisions The documented average numbers of collision victims is between 3.7 and 58 birds per turbine per year, with a maximum of 125 recorded (Winkelman 1989, 1992a; Still et al. 1996; Everaert et al. 2002; Thelander et al. 2003; Everaert & Stienen 2007). An average of 11.1 birds per MW per year has been estimated at terrestrial wind farms in North America (Smallwood 2011). These studies have controlled for the probability of finding victims through the search efficiency of observers and through disappearance
14
through predation. Studies of larger modern turbines (≥1.5 MW) have revealed that the numbers of victims are comparable to at smaller turbines (Everaert 2003; Barclay et al. 2007; Krijgsveld et al. 2009). This means that an increase in rotor surface area (up to 5 times larger) does not necessarily lead to an increase in the numbers of collisions; larger turbines are typically higher and placed further from each other meaning that it is easier for birds to fly between or underneath. Effect at the population level For most species evidence is lacking that collision-related mortality has a general effect on the population level (Poot et al. 2011; Krijgsveld et al. 2009; Krijgsveld & Beuker 2009). Exceptions are for relatively high numbers of victims in slowly reproducing species, examples of which include seabirds (Stienen et al. 2007), vultures (Janss 2000; Lekuona 2001) and raptors such as eagles (Hunt et al. 1998; Thelander et al. 2003; May et al. 2010). So effects at the population level could only be expected when a wind farm is located in an area with high level of movements of species vulnerable to collision with restricted population size.
2.2 Disturbance
Disturbance responses in birds can include changes in physiology, behaviour and location choice. For example, as a result of the noise and movement of a turbine, birds may use the area around the turbine less or leave the area altogether. Disturbance can also influence reproduction and survival, which can eventually lead to changes at the population level. Disturbance has the potential to influence more individuals than collisions, although the effects have been studied less. Key factors The distance and the extent to which birds are disturbed varies with species, season, location and function of the area as well as the size of the wind farm. For most species outside of the breeding season it is assumed that the distance at which birds can be disturbed increases with wind farm size, such as is true for some species of waterbirds (Hötker et al. 2006). Some studies have revealed that birds can habituate to wind turbines (Kruckenberg & Jaene 1999; Madsen & Boertmann 2008), while other studies show no recovery in bird numbers (Hötker et al. 2006). Turbine size is thought to have little affect on the level of disturbance; a study by Schekkerman et al. (2003) showed no difference in the levels of disturbance between 1MW turbines and smaller turbines. According to recent data more disturbance may occur during installation than during subsequent operation (BirdLife Europe 2011). Breeding birds There is less evidence for disturbance effects on breeding birds than for non-breeding birds, however, this is possibly as these birds are more attracted to their breeding area than foraging or resting areas, especially if they have a nest with eggs or young. In general, distances at which breeding birds can be disturbed have been estimated at 100-200 m. These studies have only covered a short period after the turbines were
15
operational (see Winkelman et al. 2008). For breeding passerines there has been little or no evidence to suggest disturbance <50 m (Sinning 1999; Walter & Brux 1999; Reichenbach et al. 2000; Bergen 2001; Kaatz 2001). Species in open landscapes might be more sensitive to new structures that limit the openness. Although this has been suggested for some species, only one out of 16 studies for the Skylark showed significant disruptive effects of up to 200 m (Reichenbach & Steinborn 2006; Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009). Birds outside of the breeding season The effects of disturbance are greater for non-breeding birds. A distance of 600m is generally used as the distance at which birds can be disturbed, although distance and percentages are strongly dependent on the species (Langston & Pullan 2003; Drewitt & Langston 2006; BirdLife Europe 2011). Studies from Europe have revealed disturbance distances of around 150 for small waterbirds, 200-400 m for geese and 500-600m for swans (Petersen & Nøhr 1989; Winkelman 1989; Kruckenberg & Jaene 1999; Fijn et al. 2007). Devereux et al. (2008) found that turbines had little effect on the distribution of most species outside of the breeding season. Not all birds leave the “disturbance area”, in general numbers are lower than in comparable areas. This difference will depend on the attractiveness of the area, such as for foraging and the availability of similar habitat further from the turbines.
2.3 Barrier effects
When approaching a wind farm virtually all birds adjust their flight paths to avoid the entire wind farm or individual turbines, which in turn reduces the collision risk. These reactions are not only dependent on the type of turbines as well as the size and layout of the wind farm but also differ between species. If a wind farm is particularly large or built in a long line, it may form a barrier to flying birds. This may render the area behind the wind farm as unavailable. There might also be an increased energetic and time cost associated with this avoidance behaviour. For wind farms of up to tens of turbines, barrier effects are typically considered negligible (Krijgsveld et al. 2009). Nevertheless, for species that show strong avoidance behaviour even a few turbines might form a barrier if positioned on a regular flight route, such as between roosting and foraging areas. The level of effect can also be influenced by existing infrastructure (Poot et al. 2001; Krijgsveld et al. 2003; Dirksen et al. 2007). Barrier effects can be minimised by avoiding very long unbroken lines of turbines.
16
17
3 Birds on Aruba
Figures given for the total number of bird species recorded on Aruba vary from 207 to 214 (Wege & Anadon-Irizarry 2008; Lepage 2012). This variation likely comes from the fact that the majority of these species are migrant or vagrants. Nevertheless, the relatively recent discovery that the American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus breeds on the island suggests that more is still being learned about local and breeding birds (van Belle et al. 2003; Wege & Anadon-Irizarry 2008). Nevertheless, the key species and areas for birds are generally known and are details in the following chapter. Although no species is restricted in its distribution to Aruba, two endemic sub-species occur on the island. The Aruban burrowing owl Athene cunicularia arubensis and ‘Aruban’ brown-throated parakeet Aratinga pertinax arubensis have distinct forms that occur on the island.
3.1 Breeding and resident species
Wege & Anadon-Irizarry (2008) suggest that up to 70 species breed, or have bred, on the island. Possibly the most noteworthy species is the Caribbean coot, which is classified as near threatened and is the island’s only globally threatened species. Aruba supports around 280 individuals of Caribbean coot (Wege & Anadon-Irizarry 2008). The species occurs throughout the Caribbean region and although there are no current total population estimates, between 5,000 and 10,000 are estimated in the Dominican Republic alone (BirdLife 2012a). Aruba also supports around 30,000 breeding terns (individuals), almost two thirds of which are sooty terns Onychoprion fuscata and one-third Cayenne terns Thalassus acuflavidus eurygnatha (Wege & Anadon-Irizarry 2008). Other species include royal Sterna maxima, roseate Sterna dougallii, common Sterna hirundo, least Sternula antillarum and bridled terns Sterna anaethetus, which together comprise around one thousand individuals (Wege & Anadon-Irizarry 2008). Laughing gulls Larus atricilla and brown Anous stolidus and black noddies Anous minutus also breed on the island. The main breeding colonies for these species are on the southwest shores of the island (see chapter 4). The shallow waters and leeward position of this part of the island provides ideal foraging habitats close to the breeding colonies, though large numbers of these terns move to offshore feeding areas. Wege & Anadon-Irizarry (2008) also mention the island as being important for the bare-eyed pigeon Patagioenas corensis. Although described as ‘fairly common’, this species is restricted in its range across northern South America (Birdlife 2012b). Van Belle et al. (2003) describe the species as being fairly common on Aruba and was mostly noted in gardens, orchards, scrub, urban areas and mangroves, the latter being the key breeding habitat. Van Belle et al. (2003) considered a total of 23 species to be vulnerable breeding species. This assessment was based on species being:
18
- locally rare or declining (yellow oriole Icterus nigrogularis, black-whiskered vireo Vireo altiloquus, mangrove warbler Setophaga petechia, brown-crested flycatcher Myiarchus tyrannulus, brown-throated parakeet, burrowing owl, groove-billed ani Crotophaga sulcirostris, American oystercatcher, bridled tern, brown noddy, crested bobwhite Colinus cristatus, brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis, crested caracara Caracara cheriway, Cayenne tern, black-faced grassquit Tiaris bicolor and roseate tern) - limited in range globally (white-tailed nightjar Caprimulgus cayennensis, bananaquit Coereba flaveola, American kestrel Falco sparverius, tropical mockingbird Mimus gilvus, southern scrub-flycatcher Sublegatus modestus, eared dove Zenaida auriculata and rufous-collared sparrow Zonotrichia capensis). This categorisation was made for sub-species and populations of birds and includes species that are abundant or widespread in other parts of their range.
3.2 Migrant and vagrant species
The majority of bird species that have been recorded on Aruba are migrants or vagrants (birds that occur irregularly). Most migrant species are nearctic-neotropical passerines, which pass through the area to or from their North American breeding grounds. A number of the species recorded on Aruba are South American species. Furthermore a number of waterbirds are likely to pass through the area during migration, such as shorebirds and ducks. Also a few species over-winter on Aruba. Migration of passerines and other birds through the area is likely to be in relatively low densities. Several migration flyways from North America are recognised. In general birds from western North America follow the Central American landmass, birds from central North America follow the east coast of Central America, while most birds migrating from eastern North America take a more easterly route over the West Indies before using the trade wind to end up in South America (Newton 2010). Birds passing the southern Caribbean Sea are likely to be in relatively low densities across a wide area and many of the species recorded on the Aruba are likely to represent a small fraction of the total population. During northward migration many species possibly take a more westerly route through Central America. Many species typically migrate at altitudes with favourable conditions; this is typically from 1.5 km to over 3 km in altitudes (Newton 2010).
19
4 Legislation and important bird areas
4.1 Legislation
In 1986 Aruba became a separate country under the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Island Ordinance of the Netherlands Antilles (Eilandenregeling Nederlandse Antillen) states that environmental and nature management and nature conservation are the responsibility of the Island of Aruba (Overheid.nl 2006). The island also follows the Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten Nature Ordinance, Framework act nature Management and conservation BES (CMS Report 2011). Within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Aruba is a signatory to international treaties concerning the protection of wildlife and natural areas, including the Bonn Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Ramsar Convention. The Bonn Convention, also known as the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), aims to improve the awareness and protection of migratory species (CMS 2012). Aruba is a signatory to the Convention within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The international treaty of the Ramsar Convention aims to highlight wetlands of international importance with the aim of promoting the wise use of the resource (Ramsar 2012). Aruba is a signatory to the Convention within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Convention recognises one Ramsar site on Aruba, Het Spaans Lagoen (figure 2). Located on the southwest coast between Oranjestad and Savaneta, this narrow coastal inlet is bordered by tidal mudflats and mangrove swamps and provides a foraging and breeding area for waterbirds. Aruba’s largest protected area is the Parke Nacional Arikok, which is located in the southern half of the island and covers some 3,400 ha (figure 2). The park was established in 2000 and includes part of the islands windward shoreline and large areas of cactus scrub and inland hills. The park is funded by the Aruban Government and administerd by the Arikok National Park Foundation (Wege & Anadon-Irizarry 2008; Arikok National Park Foundation 2012).
4.2 Important Bird Areas
Important Bird areas (IBAs) are areas recognised under the BirdLife International IBA programme. These areas meet certain criteria, such as holding significant numbers of a globally threatened species, a suite of range-restricted species or large assemblies birds. The IBA programme provides no formal protection itself, although it aims to highlight conservation priorities and can lead to site protection through local means. A total of four Important Bird Areas have been recognised on Aruba: Bubali Wetlands; Tierra del Sol Salina; Oranjestad Reef Islands; and San Nicolas Bay Reef Islands (Wege & Anadon-Irizarry 2008) (figure 2). Two of these areas, Oranjestad Reef
20
Islands and San Nicolas Bay Reef Islands, are noted for colonial breeding birds, particularly cayenne, common, royal, least, bridled and sooty terns, and brown and black noddys. Both of these sites are located on the southwest shores of Aruba and together cover 557 ha of the island’s 610 ha of IBAs. Bubali Wetlands is a state owned nature reserve, which is situated on Aruba’s west coast, west of the city of Noord and north of Oranjestad. This 53 ha wetland is largely covered with vegetation and supports a breeding population of the near-threatened Caribbean coot. Other species recorded at the site include Neotropic cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus and the biome restricted bare-eyed pigeon. Tierra de Sol Salina is located close to the northeast coast at the northern tip of the island. The site is privately owned and is located within a golf course. This 2 ha area of semi-permanent wetland and scrub holds a number of waterbirds including Caribbean coot, white-cheeked pintail Anas bahamensis, roosting herons, egrets and terns, as well as migrant shorebirds. The bare-eyed pigeon is also present in the area.
Figure 2. Aruba, showing the locations and names of the key areas identified for
birds (IBAs and Ramsar) and the national park.
21
5 Methods of assessment
In order to assess possible effects of the wind farm at Urirama, information has been collected on bird numbers and distribution in the area. In general bird numbers and distribution is based on available knowledge on bird concentrations and species composition on the island (chapter 3). Additionally, the island of Aruba was visited between 25 March and 28 March 2012 (appendix 1). This visit was used to get a picture of the project area, the available habitat near the wind farm area and possible bird communities and their movements. Apart from this, Mr G. Peterson has been interviewed. He is an ornithologist at Aruba studying the birds of Aruba such as the wetlands of the Northern part of the island, for many years (see http://www.lago-colony.com/BIRD_LIFE_ARUBA/ARUBA%20BIRDLIFE/ARUBA_BIRDLIFE_PAGE.htm). Based on the available information an assessment of the impacts has been made for the subjects “collision risks”, “disturbance”” and “barrier effects” (see chapter 2). In conjunction with the Equator principles method (Kema 2012) the risks for birds are categorised in A (high risk), B (moderate risk) and C (low risk). In this classification the criteria to assess the risk as follows: A: absolute high collision numbers or high collision numbers related to the relevant
population size, or comparable qualifications for the subjects disturbance or barrier effects
B: as A, but moderate C: as A but low In order to judge the effect of the wind farm, the effects of the study site are compared with potential wind farm locations slightly (less than 2 km) more to the north and slightly more to the south of Urirama. This is a qualitative comparable assessment. Voluntary guidelines have been released for use in assessing the potential effects of land-based wind farms in North America (see www.fws.gov/windenergy). These guidelines highlight migratory and threatened or endangered species of birds as requiring attention and the stated potential impacts include collisions, habitat loss and displacement. These factors have been assessed in this report (see chapter 2 and above).
22
23
6 Results Urirama
6.1 Introduction
The assessment is based on general knowledge on bird (movements) and wind farms (chapter 2), and the site visit in March 2012 (Appendix 1). The visit cannot be regarded as a thorough research but in combination with general knowledge on bird presence and movements, an assessment according to the equator principle can be made. It is clear that local bird densities around the proposed wind farm area are extremely low. Daily bird movements are, apart from some incidents, lacking. The area has been visited in March, a period with wintering birds still present as well as local breeding birds. It is unlikely that during other parts of the year the situation is substantially different in bird numbers and movements. The habitat is almost without vegetation due to salt spray and strong onshore winds. Cliffs that can be used for gliding or thermals are lacking. During the time of the visit the wetlands had relatively high water levels so were optimal for birds. No regional or global birds species with a conservation concern occur within the wind farm area. The only species categorised as “Near threatened” is the Caribbean coot, which occurs on wetlands such as Tierra del Sol and Bubali all at large distances from the wind farm area. This species does not perform regular (nocturnal) flights over terrestrial habitat. Endemic (sub)species like Aruba burrowing owl Athene cunicularia arubensis and Aruba brown-throated parakeet Aratinga pertinax arubensis, do not occur within the proposed wind farm area or its surroundings. On one evening heron departure from the Tierra del Sol wetland had been recorded. The migration of these herons (departure) was not northwards as expected beforehand, but westwards. Probably the birds head for the Venezuelan coast or stopovers in Central America. But anyway as expected based on the likely origin of wintering birds (north America), not in the direction of the wind farm area (east to southeast). In autumn, the arrival migration of ducks at Tierra del Sol wetlands from the east has been observed by G. Peterson. As breeding ranges are to the north, west and east, arrival will not be restricted to the eastern part of the island. Migrant warblers and other birds (shorebirds, cuckoos) will be comparable as the breeding ranges of these species are to the north and migration follows a broad front, the arrival will be widespread from northern directions. In general densities of warblers and shorebirds are low on the island, restricted to a few spots such as the temporary ponds on the western and southern part of the island (shorebirds) and mangrove forests or scrubs e.g. near Spanish Lagoon or Arikok National Park in the south. This will all lead to broad front arrival and dispersal to the west or southern part of the island.
24
6.2 Impacts on birds at Urirama
Following the method of effects (chapter 2) by disturbance (resting or feeding birds), barrier effects (flying birds) or collision risks, the effects of the proposed wind farm at Urirama are classified and judged. The effects of a wind farm situated a few hundred metres to the north or south is qualitatively assessed. In this case it is assumed the wind farm is situated close to the seashore in all hypothetical situations. Disturbance As bird densities around the wind farm area are almost zero, disturbance of local feeding or resting or breeding birds is absent. Areas with higher densities are situated more than 1,000 m from the wind farm (e.g. Tierra Del Sol wetland complex) or hold very low bird numbers, e.g. the ponds near Boroncana (appendix A1, figure A2). The effects at sites slightly more to the south will be comparable. Disturbance effects will be minimal to zero. To the north (close to Tierra del Sol plains) minor disturbance effects might be present if the turbines would be situated close to the wetland, such as the beach near Druif. Barrier effect As local bird movements around the wind farm are almost absent and the wind farm length is restricted giving the few passing birds enough space to reach their preferred areas. This means that a barrier effect of the wind farm is for local birds is zero. For birds on season migration the wind farm is no barrier due to its restricted size and the absence of corridor migration (routes) or a spot essential for migration like a thermal soaring area. The site is within a broad front migration route and has no cliffs or other specific soaring options. So for birds on seasonal migration the barrier effect is also zero. For sites more to the south barrier effects for local birds and seasonal migration will be comparable (zero). More to the north minor effects might be possible if turbines would be situated near Druif as the beach and plains area might be used by shorebirds moving to and from the Tierra del Sol wetland. Collision risks As local bird movements around the wind farm are almost absent, collision risks for local birds will be highly incidental. The wetlands and ponds are situated at relative large distances and the wind farm takes no position between these wetlands and roosts or other feeding areas. During seasonal migration (spring and autumn) birds might pass the wind farm area. Since the breeding ranges are to the north (-east and –west), the migrants will arrive from all these directions and on a broad front. However passage through the proposed wind farm area must be relative small as arrival habitats are lacking. Spring departure in the direction of the wind farm is highly unlikely as birds seldom depart against the wind (Newton 2010). Given these considerations, it cannot be excluded that small numbers might pass the wind farm area and this might lead to a few collisions on a yearly basis. The wind farm will be
25
based in a relative dark area (minor background light). This will mainly be the case for migrants with large flyway populations such as blue-winged teal Anas discors and warblers. In areas with high local bird numbers and intense seasonal migration an average numbers of victims per year can vary between 3.7 and 58 birds per turbine per year (chapter 2). In such occasions light circumstances may be comparable but weather conditions can be worse as on Aruba situation with poor visibility are absent. So in the case of Aruba, local bird numbers are almost zero and numbers of migrants are much lower so for the entire proposed wind farm (10 turbines), the average number of collision victims will not exceed a several individuals on a yearly basis. As no regional, or global threatened birds species live or fly near the wind farm area, there is no risk for impacts on endangered species whatsoever. So effects on population size of these species is zero. So the total effects of collision risks are categorised as minimal with maximal a few collision victims on a yearly basis of species with large flyway populations. For a site located a bit more to the south the assessment is the same: minor risks for seasonal migration with low numbers of collision. For a site more northwards the collision numbers are expected to be low, but a bit higher than at the proposed Urirama site. Local birds, such as killdeer Charadrius vociferus, exchange between the wetland and the plains near Druif.
26
27
7 Conclusions
According to the equator principle, the effects of the proposed wind farm at Urirama is categorised as low (category C). Effects of disturbance for feeding, resting and breeding birds as well as barrier effects are even zero. Effects of collision for local birds are about zero and for seasonal migrants minimal. No regional or local (Aruban) endangered birds species will be affected at population level by the proposed wind farm. Hypothetical sites a few hundred metres to the south are comparable in effects as the Urirama site. Sites more to the north (near Tierra del Sol) will have somewhat higher effects on birds than the Urirama site due to minor exchange of birds from the plains and beaches near Druif with the Tierra del Sol area.
28
29
8 Literature
Arikok National Park Foundation, 2012. Arikok National Park Foundation, Aruba, www.arubanationalpark.org; accessed 12-4-2012.
Barclay, R. M. R., E. F. Baerwald & J. C. Gruver, 2007. Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 85(3): 381-387.
Bergen, F., 2001. Untersuchungen zum Einfluss der Errichtung und des Betriebs von Windenergieanlagen auf Vögel im Binnenland. Dissertation. Ruhr Universität Bochum, Bochum.
BirdLife Europe, 2011. Meeting Europe’s Renewable Energy Targets in Harmony with Nature. The RSPB, Sandy, UK.
BirdLife International, 2012a Species factsheet: Fulica caribaea. http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=2947; accessed 12-4-2012.
BirdLife International, 2012b Species factsheet: Patagioenas corensis. http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=2478; accessed 12-4-2012.
CMS, 2012. Convention on Migratory Species, the Bonn Convention. www.cms.int; accessed 12-4-2012.
CMS Report, 2011. The CMS Report for The Netherlands for 2011. http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop10/national_report/059_netherlands_e.pdf; accessed 12-4-2012.
Devereux, C. L., M. J. H. Denny & M. J. Whittingham, 2008. Minimal effects of wind turbines on the distribution of wintering farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 45(6): 1689-1694.
Dirksen, S., A.L. Spaans & J. Van der Winden, 2007. Collision risks for diving ducks at semi-offshore wind farms in freshwater lakes: A case study. In: M. de Lucas,G.F.E. Janss &M. Ferrer (eds). Birds and wind farms. Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Blz. 275. Quercus. Madrid, Spain.
Drewitt, A.L. & R.H.W. Langston, 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148(1): 29-42.
Everaert, J., 2003. Windturbines en vogels in Vlaanderen: voorlopige onderzoeksresultaten en aanbevelingen. Oriolus(69): 145-155.
Everaert, J., K. Devos & E. Kuijken, 2002. Windturbines en vogels in Vlaanderen. Voorlopige onderzoeksresultaten en buitenlandse bevindingen. Rapport 2002.3. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud, Brussel.
Everaert, J. & E. Stienen, 2007. Impact of wind turbines on birds in Zeebrugge (Belgium). Significant effect on breeding tern colony due to collisions. Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 3345-3359.
Fijn, R.C., K.L. Krijgsveld, H.A.M. Prinsen, W. Tijsen & S. Dirksen, 2007. Effecten op zwanen en ganzen van het ECN windturbine testpark in de Wieringermeer. Aanvaringsrisico’s en verstoring van foeragerende vogels. Rapport 07-094. Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg.
Grünkorn, T., A. Diederichs, B. Stahl, D. Dorte & G. Nehls, 2005. Entwicklung einer Methode zur Abschätzung des Kollisions Risikos von Vögeln an Windenergieanlagen. Regport for Landesamt für Natur und Umwelt Schleswig-Holstein,
30
http://www.umweltdaten.landsh.de/nuis/upool/gesamt/wea/voegel_wea.pdf accessed 25-11-2010.
Hötker, H., K.-M. Thomsen & H. Köster, 2006. Impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of renewable energy sources: the example of birds and bats. Facts, gaps in knowledge, demands for further research, and ornithological guidelines for the development of renewable energy exploitation. Michael-Otto-Institut im NABU, Bergenhusen.
Hunt, W.G., R.E. Jackman, T.L. Hunt, D.E. Driscoll & L. Culp, 1998. A population study of golden eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: population trend analysis 1994-1997. NREL/SR-500-26092, Subcontract No. XAT-6-16459-01. Predatory Bird Research Group University of California, Santa Cruz, California.
Janss, G., 2000. Bird Behavior In and Near a Wind Farm at Tarifa, Spain: Management Considerations. PNAWPPM-III. Proceedings National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego, California, May 1998. Blz. 110-114. LGL Ltd., Environmental Research Associates. King City, Ontario Canada.
Kaatz, J., 2001. Zum Empfindlichkeit von singvögeln und Weißstorch gegenüber Windkraftanlagen. Voordracht op het symposium “Windenergie und Vögel – Ausmaß und Bewältigungen eines Konfliktes” op 29/30-11-2001 in Berlijn
KEMA, 2012. Social and environmental assessment for Urirama wind farm, Aruba. 2012. Kema report 74101509-PGR 12.Arnhem
Krijgsveld, K.L., K. Akershoek, F. Schenk, F. Dijk, H. Schekkerman & S. Dirksen, 2009. Collision risk of birds with modern large wind turbines: reduced risk compared to smaller turbines. Ardea 97(3): 357-366.
Krijgsveld, K.L. & D. Beuker, 2009. Vogelslachtoffers bij windpark Anna Vosdijk op Tholen. Onderzoek naar aanvaringen onder trekkende steltlopers en overwinterende smienten. Rapport 09-072. Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg.
Krijgsveld, K.L., S.M.J. van Lieshout & M.J.M. Poot, 2003. Windturbines op het Hellegatsplein en mogelijke effecten op vogels. Een risicoanalyse op basis van bestaande informatie en aanvullend veldonderzoek met radar. Rapport 03-037. Bureau Waardenburg bv, Culemborg.
Kruckenberg, H. & J. Jaene, 1999. Zum Einfluss eines Windparks auf die Verteilung weidender Blässgänse im Rheinland (Landkreis Leer, Niedersachsen). Natur und Landschaft(74): 420-424.
Langston, R.H.W. & J.D. Pullan, 2003. Windfarms and birds: an analysis of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. RSPB/BirdLife report. BirdLife / Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
Larsen, J.K. & M. Guillemette, 2007. Effects of wind turbines on flight behaviour of wintering common eiders: implications for habitat use and collision risk. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 516-522.
Lekuona, J.M., 2001. Uso del espacio por la avifauna y control de la mortalidad de aves y murciélagos en los parques eólicos de navarra durante un ciclo anual. Gobierno de Navarra, En Pamplona.
Lepage, D. 2012. Avibase, bird checklists for the whole world, Aruba. http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/checklist.jsp?lang=NL&list=ioc&synlang=NL®ion =ANaw&version=text; accessed 12-4-2012.
Madsen, J. & D. Boertmann, 2008. Animal behavioral adaptation to changing landscapes: spring-staging geese habituate to wind farms. Landscape ecology 23(9): 1007-1011.
31
Martin, G.R., 2011. Understanding bird collisions with man-made objects: a sensory ecology approach. Ibis 153(2): 239-254.
May, R. & Bevanger, K. (eds), 2011. Preceedings of Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, 2-5 May 2011, Trondheim, Norway. NINA report 693, pp140.
May, R., P.H. Hoel, R. Langston, E.L. Dahl, K. Bevanger, O. Reitan, T. Nygard, H.C. Pedersen, E. Røskaft & B.G. Stokke, 2010. Collision risk in white-tailed eagles. Modelling collision risk using vantage point observations in Smøla wind-power plant. NINA, Trondheim.
Newton, I. 2010. Bird Migration. Collins, London, UK. ISBN 978-0-00-730732-6. pp598.
Overheid.nl, 2006. Koninklijk Besluit van 3 Maart 1951, houdende de eilandenregeling Nederlandse Antillen. http://decentrale.regelgeving.overheid.nl/cvdr/XHTML output/Historie/Nederlandse%20Antillen/7402/7402_1.html; accessed 12-4-2012.
Pearce-Higgins, J.W., L. Stephen, R.H.W. Langston, I.P. Bainbridge & R. Bullman, 2009. The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1323-1331.
Petersen, B.S. & H. Nøhr, 1989. Konsekvenser for fuglelivet ved etableringen af mindre vindmøller. Ornis Consult, Kopenhagen, Denmark.
Pettersson, J., 2005. The impact of offshore wind farms on bird life in Southern Kalmar Sound, Sweden. A final report based on studies 1999 – 2003. Swedish Energy Agency, Lund University.
Poot, M.J.M., I. Tulp, L.M.J. van den Bergh, H. Schekkerman & J. van der Winden, 2001. Effect van mist-situaties op vogelvlieggedrag bij het windpark Eemmeerdijk. Zijn er aanwijzingen voor verhoogde aanvaringsrisico's? Rapport 01-072. Bureau Waardenburg bv, Culemborg.
Ramsar, 2012. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. www.ramsar.org; accessed 12-4-2012.
Reichenbach, M., K.-M. Exo, C. Ketzenberg & M. Castor, 2000. Einfluß von Windkraftan-lagen auf Brutvögel – Sanfte Energie im Konflikt mit dem Naturschutz. Teilprojekt Brutvögel. Institut für Vogelforschung "Vogelwarte Helgoland" und ARSU GmbH, Wilhelmshaven und Oldenburg, Deutschland.
Reichenbach, M. & H. Steinborn, 2006. Windkraft, Vogel, Lebensraume – Ergebnisse einer funfja hrigen BACI-Studie zum Einfluss von Windkraft- anlagen und Habitatparametern auf Wiesenvogel. Osnabrucker Naturwissenschaftliche Mitteilungen 32: 243-259.
Schekkerman, H., L.M.J. van den Bergh, K. Krijgsveld & S. Dirksen, 2003. Effecten van moderne, grote windturbines op vogels. Onderzoek naar verstoring van watervogels bij het windpark Eemmeerdijk. Alterra, Wageningen.
Sinning, F., 1999. Ergebnisse von Brut- und Rastvogeluntersuchungen im Bereich des Jade-Windparkes und DEWI-Testfeldes in Wilhelmshaven. Bremer Beiträge für Naturkunde und Naturschutz, Band 4. Blz. 61-69. Bund Freunde der Erde, Landesverband Bremen. Bremen, Germany.
Smallwood, S. 2011. Comparing avian and bat fatality rate estimates amoung North American wind energy projects. in May & Bevanger 2011.
Stienen, E.W.M., J. van Waeyenberge, E. Kuijken & J. Seys, 2007. Trapped within the corridor of the Southern North Sea: The potential impact of offshore windfarms and seabirds. M. de Lucas,G.F.E. Janss &M. Ferrer. Birds and wind farms. Risk assessment and mitigation. Quercus. Madrid.
Still, D., B. Little & S. Lawrence, 1996. The effect of wind turbines on the bird population at blyth harbour. ETSU W/13/00394/REP. ETSU
32
Thelander, C.G., K.S. Smallwood & L. Rugge, 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA.
Tulp, I., H. Schekkerman, J.K. Larsen, J. van der Winden, R.J.W. van de Haterd, P.W. van Horssen, S. Dirksen & A.L. Spaans, 1999. Nocturnal flight activity of sea ducks near the wind park Tunø Knob in the Kattegat. Rapport 99.64. Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg.
van Belle, J., A.J. Schilstra, D. Strijker & K. Bettels, 2003. Development of an environmental assessment method for Aruba. Part B, Inventarisatie Terrestrich Milieu van het Eiland Aruba. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands. pp104.
Walter, G. & H. Brux, 1999. Ergebnisse eines dreijährigen Brut- und Rastvogelmonitorings (1995 - 1997) im Einzugsbereich von zwei Windparks im Landkreis Cuxhaven. Bremer Beiträge für Naturkunde und Naturschutz Band 4. Blz. 81 – 106. Bund Freunde der Erde, Landesverband Bremen. Bremen, Germany.
Wege, D.C. & Anadon-Irizarry, V. (Eds) 2008. Important Bird Areas in the Caribbean. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. ISBN 0946888655. 348pp.
Winkelman, J.E., 1989. Vogels en het windpark nabij Urk (NOP): aanvaringsslachtoffers en verstoring van pleisterende eenden ganzen en zwanen. RIN-rapp. 89/15. RIN, Arnhem.
Winkelman, J.E., 1992a. De invloed van de Sep-proefwindcentrale te Oosterbierum (Fr.) op vogels. 1. Aanvaringsslachtoffers. RIN-rapp. 92/2. IBN-DLO, Arnhem.
Winkelman, J.E., 1992b. De invloed van de Sep-proefwindcentrale te Oosterbierum (Fr.) op vogels. 2. Nachtelijke aanvaringskansen. RIN-rapp. 92/3. IBN-DLO, Arnhem.
Winkelman, J.E., F.H. Kistenkas & M.J. Epe, 2008. Ecologische en natuurbeschermingsrechtelijke aspecten van windturbines op land. Alterra, Wageningen.
33
Appendix 1. Field visit Aruba 2012
As part of the impact assessment, Aruba was visited between the 25th of March and the 28th of March. During this visit the wind farm project area at Urirama or the surroundings were daily visited to get an impression of available habitats, bird communities and movements. In table A1 the visits and study aims are presented. The site visits were used to get an impression of local bird movements. As local bird movements are most concentrated at dawn or dusk, as birds move to and from roosts, the site was visited in the morning and late afternoon (table A1). During these visits no bird movements were recorded apart from one osprey Pandion haliaetus at 16:35 on the 26th of March. This raptor foraged shortly at sea and passed southwards through the proposed wind farm area. Local breeding birds were absent apart from some songbirds and one American oystercatcher feeding along the shore. The area is scarcely vegetated due to salt spray and strong winds (figure A1). The landscape therefore has low bird densities. Concentrations of birds (e.g. colonies) or daily movements are lacking. The surrounding areas slightly more to the north and the south are comparable. The coastal area near Tierra del Sol holds slightly higher bird numbers. Local daily bird movements are present between the wetlands of Tierra del Sol and Bubali or the temporary waters at Westpunt and Rooi Santo. For example, tens of Neotropic cormorants and herons (great egret Ardea alba and snowy egret Egretta thula) exchanged between these wetlands in the morning or evening. Among these were also night herons and osprey. Along the west coast of Aruba birds are more common with regular movements of terns, frigatebirds, pelicans and gulls. Near the important tern colonies at the south point of the island, tern movements are intense. The ponds of Boroncane were visited on the morning of the 28th of March (figure A2). These are situated at 500 to 600 m from the proposed wind farm area. Very few birds were present. Just two blue-winged teals, a common gallinule and a killdeer were at the ponds. All species without substantial daily (nocturnal) flight activity at larger distances from the daily feeding areas. During the evening (around sunset) of the 27th of March, bird migration was studied near the lighthouse at the north of the island. In that period, few small flocks of herons departed from the Tierra del Sol wetland in a western direction. Based on the height (> 300 m) migration take off was likely. These birds might profit from the eastern winds to reach the Venezuelan coast instead of heading north. During the visits at the proposed wind farm area, the ground surface around the meteorological mast (metmast) was searched for possible bird victims on two occasions. No carcasses, feathers or other remains were found. The area is dark with little background light from the tourist centres of Palm Beach and Noord.
34
Interview with Mr G. Peterson Mr. Peterson has good knowledge on birds occurring on Aruba. He visits the Tierra del Sol wetlands on a regular basis and confirms a regular daily movement of herons, egrets and cormorants between the wetlands at Aruba. No daily movements of birds between the wetlands and sea at the east part of the island are known. He has also observed duck (autumn) migration (arrivals in August-September) from an eastern direction. Table A1. Visits to Urirama wind farm project area and surroundings in March 2012
and study aims.
Date study aim
26th of March morning habitat availability and general impression (figure A1); bird victims search at the metmast
26th of March evening possible evening movements of birds
27th of March early morning visit to Tierra del Sol wetland to study local movements
27th of March evening visit to lighthouse to study migration of birds and light conditions
28th of March early morning Bubali and ponds near Boroncane (figure A2) for early morning bird movement; bird victims search at the metmast
35
Figure A1. Sparse vegetation due to prevailing wind and salt spray in the area of the
proposed wind farm.
Figure A2. Habitat and one of the ponds near to Boroncane, adjacent to the area of
the proposed wind farm and showing the metmast in the background.
36
APPENDIX VII BAT ACTIVITY AT THE URIRAMA WIND FARM AREA, ARUBA: AN ASSESSEMENT OF RISK ON THE BAT FAUNA
FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT
BAT ACTIVITY AT THE URIRAMA WIND FARM AREA, ARUBA:
AN ASSESSMENT OF RISK ON THE BAT FAUNA
Prepared for: KEMA Prepared by: Jafet M. Nassar, Ph.D. Centro de Ecología Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas Carretera Panamericana, km 11, Aptdo. Postal 20632 Caracas 1020-A Venezuela Phone: +599 785 2599 (phone in Kralendijk, Bonarie) E-mail: [email protected]
Willemstad, May 3rd, 2012
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
2
As the author of the Technical Report entitled “Bat activity at the Urirama Wind Farm Area, Aruba: An assessment of risk on the bat fauna”, I hereby declare that this is the only authorized version of the mentioned document.
Signed on Willemstad, Curaçao, on May 3rd, 2012
Jafet M. Nassar H., Ph.D. Associate Researcher Centro de Ecología Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas Altos de Pipe, Edo. Miranda, Venezuela
Jafet M. Nassar ©. All rights reserved. It is prohibited to change any and all versions of this document in any manner whatsoever, including but not limited to dividing it into parts. In case of a conflict between the electronic version (e.g. PDF file) and the original version created by Jafet M. Nassar, author of this report, the latter will prevail.
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
3
CONTENTS
page
Contents……………………………………………….………………………..…..3
1. Summary……………………………………………………………………..…..4
2. Introduction……………………………………………………………………...6
3. Study area and methods………………………………………………………...10
3.1 Study site………………………………………………………………...……10
3.2 Detection of bat activity with mist nets……………………………………….12
3.3 Detection of bat activity with ultrasound detector…………………........……15
4. Results and discussion…………………………………………………………17
5. Concluding remarks……………………………………………………………21
6. Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………….25
7. Cited literature……………………………………………………………….…25
8. Appendix I……………………………………………………………………...29
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
4
1. SUMMARY
The company Vader Piet Beheer is initiating the development of the second wind
farm facility on Aruba Island in an area known as Urirama, in the northeastern part
of the island. Before the actual construction of the facility, Vader Piet Beheer
decided, with the assistance of KEMA, to conduct a Social and Environmental
Impact Assessment (SEIA) to determine potential negative effects that the turbines
could have on the human communities, and also on the flora and fauna associated
with the natural habitats represented in the area. In relation with the fauna, the
SEIA seeks to identify and estimate the magnitude of potential negative effects of
the wind farm facility on the populations of bats inhabiting the Urirama area. The
present bat survey had three main goals: (1) to determine if bats actively use the
area where the new wind park will be constructed, (2) to identify the species of
bats foraging in the area and their relative abundances there, and (3) to infer the
potential impact of the new wind farm on the survival of bats at Urirama. The
fieldwork was conducted between April 13th and April 18th of 2012. We used two
methodological approaches to detect bat activity in the study area: bat captures
using mist nets and detection of bat calls using an ultrasound detector. Based on
the results obtained, and understanding that they are representative of the
conditions of the area during a specific time window during the year characterized
by particular ecological and environmental circumstances, I conclude that the wind
farm area at Urirama, in general terms, is not a suitable habitat that could be
particularly attractive to bats of any of the species present on the island, and
therefore, a wind farm in this area should be considered safe to the bat populations
inhabiting this and the surrounding zones. As the field work took place in a period
of high wind speeds in April, it was not possible to assess periods of low wind
speeds, when potentially more bats could be flying in the study area. Shall bat
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
5
fatalities occur in the wind farm facility at Urirama at wind speeds lower than 6
m/s, Vader Piet Beheer should be prepared to stop the turbines temporarily. Taking
this recommendation into account, a low risk for bats during the whole year is
guaranteed. Further to this, it is important to follow a general recommendation
concerning the monitoring of potential bat fatalities associated with the wind farm
at Urirama. As soon as the wind farm starts its operations, a monitoring program
should be implemented to determine if bat fatalities could occur during those
months of the year when the wind speed decreases in Aruba (September-
November). Based on the results of that monitoring program, the company
operating the wind farm at Urirama will have the possibility to implement (if
needed) mitigating actions to reduce bat fatalities, one of them being the temporal
curtailment of operations during occurrence of specific wind speeds.
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
6
2. INTRODUCTION
The company Vader Piet Beheer is initiating the development of the second wind
farm facility on Aruba Island. This project comprises the construction of 10 Vestas
V112 turbines of approximately 3 MW each, in the northeastern coast of the island,
in a location known as Urirama. This company developed and is currently
operating the 30 MW wind farm at Vader Piet, in the southeastern coast of Aruba.
Previous to the construction of the new wind farm in Urirama, Vader Piet Beheer
decided voluntarily to conduct a Social and Environmental Impact Assessment
(SEIA) to determine potential negative effects that the turbines could have on the
human communities established in the vicinities, and also on the flora and fauna
associated with the natural habitats represented in the area. This SEIA is based on
the international accepted Equator Principles (www.equator-principles.com), a set
of environmental and social standards for managing environmental and social
issues in connection with the development of projects financed globally.
In relation with the natural resources present in the area where the wind farm
facility will be constructed, the SEIA seeks to identify and estimate the magnitude
of potential negative effects on the flora and fauna present in the site and to
propose management strategies to minimize and/or compensate those effects. On
this regard, the specific focus of this survey was to estimate the potential impacts
of this facility on the populations of bats present in this part of Aruba.
Aruba Island is inhabited by seven species of bats (Bekker 1996 and personal
observations), which represent the majority of the native species of mammals
known for the island. Bats play key ecological roles on Aruba, Curaçao and
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
7
Bonaire as pollinators of columnar cacti, seed dispersers, and insect predators
(Petit, 1995, 1997; Sosa and Soriano, 1996; Nassar et al., 1997; Linares, 1998).
The main threats to bats on these islands are habitat reduction and fragmentation
and disturbance of caves used as diurnal roosts (Petit 1996, Petit and Pors 1996,
Petit et al. 2006, and J.M. Nassar personal observations). Natural zones on Aruba
are declining rapidly due to the continuous expansion of urban areas. As a
consequence of this, each time less natural habitats remain available for bat
populations. Based on these facts, it is very important to evaluate how the
construction of a new wind farm facility in one of the few natural areas still
undisturbed in Aruba is going to affect the local bat fauna.
It has been proved that wind turbines in wind energy facilities across the world
can generate negative effects of variable magnitude on the survival of birds and
bats (Ericsson et al. 2003, Bat Conservation International 2004, Barclay et al.
2007, Kunz et al. 2007, Arnett et al. 2008, Curry 2009). Compared to the relatively
low annual death rates of birds associated with turbines, several studies suggest
that the impacts of wind farm developments on bat populations can be
comparatively more severe (Kuvlesky et al. 2007). Besides death due to collision
with the blades, bats flying through them can die due to barotrauma, ruptures in the
bats’ lungs and hearts caused by the low-pressure zones blades create in their wake
(Curry 2009). Bat death tolls in direct association with operating turbines can be as
high as several thousand animals (1,500 - 4,000) in a few months (unpublished
data cited by Kuvlesky et al. 2007); however, the lack of systematic multiyear
studies and previous, possibly biased, estimates of fatalities at existing wind-
energy facilities, make it difficult to formulate general conclusions about the long-
term effects of bat deaths associated with turbines on the status of bat populations
(Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects 2007).
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
8
Recent reviews of the available literature on bat fatalities associated with wind
energy facilities are helping us to elucidate some of the major information gaps
that still exist in relation with this problem. One of the emerging patterns is that
migratory species of bats (Lasionycteris noctivagans, Eptesicus fuscus, Myotis
lucifugus, Pipistrellus subflavus, Tadarida brasiliensis and several species in the
genus Lasiurus) are particularly susceptible to turbines during the migration season
(Dürr and Bach 2004, Kuvlesky et al. 2007, Arnett et al. 2008, Baerwald and
Barclay 2009). This is due in part to the fact that, when migrating, bats can fly at
higher elevations above ground, within the blades’ range (Committee on
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects 2007, Curry 2009). Some wind
farm facilities are constructed in the middle of routes normally used by bats during
their annual migrations, and that increases the chances of fatalities during the long-
distance movements of the populations. In addition to this, there is evidence that
shows that turbines can attract bats by the sounds produced from the blades in
movement or because these tall structures can be interpreted as temporal roosts for
bats during their migratory movements (Committee on Environmental Impacts of
Wind-Energy Projects 2007).
In summary, even though our knowledge on the potential effects of turbines on
bats has increased substantially during the last decade, we still do not understand
well the magnitude of the impact these energy facilities have on bat populations
and the long-term consequences for their survival. In particular, the available
literature is mainly referred to temperate zones of Europe and North America, but
the demand for construction of wind farms in tropical areas in the Caribbean and
South America is increasing (Barros and Marques 2011, H. Hutting, NuCapital,
personal communication), and we need to start examining the effects of eolic parks
on tropical bats.
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
9
The effect of turbines on the bat fauna of Aruba was a matter of concern when
the first wind farm was planned at Vader Piet, a few years ago. In 2005, WEB
Aruba and Parke Nacional Arikok financed an environmental assessment study to
investigate the potential impacts that the projected wind park could have on the
resident populations of bats in Aruba (Nassar 2005). The report generated from
that impact assessment helped to determine several relevant points: (a) important
diurnal roosts used by bats exist close to the site (< 2 km) where the wind farm
operates now, (b) two nectar-feeding bats, Leptonycteris curasoae and
Glossophaga longirostris, one of them migratory, foraged actively in part of the
area where the wind farm is now, (c) part of the wind farm area was categorized as
a ‘fluctuating risk area’, with possibilities for occurrence of periodical bat
fatalities, and (d) several recommendations were formulated to minimize negative
impacts to bat populations and to conduct a program to monitor bat and bird kills
due to wind turbines. It is important to mention that, previous to the execution of
the present impact assessment, the author of this report had the opportunity to
examine the cave known as “Tunnel of Love”, which is at 700 m from the wind
park at Vader Piet, and confirmed the presence of a colony of 800-1000 individuals
of L. curasoae. This finding indicates that this particularly vulnerable species of
bat is being able to survive in close proximity to the turbines.
The general purpose of the bat survey at Urirama was similar to the one
conducted at Vader Piet in 2005, and had three main goals: (1) to determine if bats
actively use the area where the new wind park will be constructed, (2) to identify
the species of bats foraging in the area and their relative abundances there, and (3)
to infer, based on the results of the bat survey, the potential impact of the new wind
farm facility on the survival of bats in the Urirama area.
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
10
3. STUDY AREA AND METHODS
3.1 Study area
Urirama is located in the northern part of Aruba, between the residential area
Noord and the touristic area of Tierra del Sol. The specific area where the wind
farm is planned corresponds to a coastal band of approximately 3,000 m long (Fig.
1) with the following geographic coordinates at both extremes: 12°35’52.28”N,
70°01’13.37”W and 12°34’40.88”N, 70°00’28.26”W.
Rather than following a straight line, the turbines were positioned following the
Figure 1. Location of the area assigned for the wind farm facility at Urirama, in northern Aruba. curve made by the coastline in that part of the island (Fig. 2). The turbines were
numbered in ascending order, from the one located at the northwestern extreme of
the wind farm to the one located at the southeastern extreme. The distance between
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
11
Figure 2. Planned locations for the ten turbines to be constructed at Urirama, Aruba. Each turbine is identified with a number.
contiguous turbines varies from 500 m in the east extreme to 180 m in the west
extreme.
The wind park area and lands surrounding it are mostly open habitat, deprived of
vegetation. Less than 10% of the total surface in the zone has some type of plant
life. The species growing there are mostly herbaceous, less than 30 cm tall, with
some thorny woody elements (Vachellia tortuosa) and very few columnar cacti of
the species Stenocereus griseus, locally known as ‘datu’. This is the only species
that could be attractive to nectar-feeding bats there (Nassar et al. 1997), but their
local density is very low.
The bat survey was conducted from April 13th to April 18th 2012. We chose five
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
12
of the ten turbines as focal points to conduct the two procedures implemented to
detect bat activity: # 2 (12°35’34.07”N, 70°01’11.77”W), # 4 (12°35’34.07”N,
70°01’07.35”W), # 6 (12°35’20.35”N, 70°01’00.63”W), # 8 (12°35’03.38”N,
70°00’48.94”W) and # 10 (12°34’36.96”N, 70°00’30.91”W). With this selection,
we obtained an adequate representation of the total area where the wind park will
be constructed. Sites # 10 and # 8 are located in the eastern extreme of the farm,
close to vegetation patches; site # 2 represents is located in the western extreme,
close to irregular topography, and sites #4 and #6 represent the center of the area,
located on flat terrain.
The wind speed recorded at the site at ground level (Kestrel 4000 Weather
Tracker, Boothwyn, USA) during our study was on average 4.9 m/s. A detailed,
still unpublished, report on the energy yield estimate at the Urirama wind farm area
(L. Verhees, KEMA, Arnhem, March, 2012), indicates that the yearly average
wind speed in the site is always above 8.0 m/s (range: 8.1 m/s - 10.15 m/s). The
second part of the year always presents comparatively lower wind speeds (range:
7.0 m/s - 9.8 m/s). And the months with the lowest average (1979-2011) wind
speeds are comprised between September and November (range: 7.5 m/s - 8.3
m/s). Specifically, during 2010 and 2011, the lowest average monthly wind speeds
recorded were 4.6 m/s (September 2010) and 6.4 m/s (October 2011).
3.2 Detection of bat activity with mist nets
The first methodological approach used consisted in the setting of ten 12 m X 2.6
m nylon mist nets (50/2 38 mm mesh Avinet Inc., Dryden, NY, USA) positioned
within a radius of 200 m from the base of each of the five selected turbines. Since
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
13
Figure 3. Turbines selected to conduct monitoring of bat activity in the wind farm area at Urirama, Aruba. The chosen turbines were #2, #4, #6, #8 and #10. Indicated on these turbines are the four 200 m transects set to identify bat activity using ultrasound detection. Mist nets to capture bats were set inside the semi-circle depicted by those transects in each turbine location.
the turbines are located along a line parallel and very close to the seashore, all the
mist nets were located within the semi-circle facing towards the land, having as
center the base of the turbine (Fig. 3).
Mist nets were set individually or in pairs, parallel to the direction of the wind
(Fig. 4). Distance of separation between mist nets varied between 50 m and 400
m, approximately. Each night, the ten mist nets were set in a sampling site
according to the following chronological order: site # 10 (April 13th), site # 8
(April 14th), site # 6 (April 15th), site # 4 (April 16th), and site # 2 (April 17th). The
nets were opened at 19:30 h and closed at 00:00 h every night. No moonlight was
observed during the five nights of sampling, because the period chosen for the bat
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
14
Figure 4. Mist net setting at sampling sites in the Urirama wind farm area, Aruba. The hard rock found on the ground had to be broken with nail and hammer to install the aluminum pools (A). Shown in the figure are sampling sites # 2 (B), # 6 (C) and # 8 (D).
survey corresponded with calendar days during the new moon interval. This is the
ideal condition to conduct bat captures in open habitats, because several species of
Neotropical bats show moonlight aversion (Morrison 1978) and nets are easier to
detect by bats during moonlight periods.
Mist nets were monitored every hour, after falling into the nets, bats were
removed from them, kept in cloth bags, processed, marked by clipping their hair in
a small area on the lower back, and finally released.
A B
C D
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
15
3.3 Detection of bat activity with ultrasound detector
During the same nights used to capture bats, bat activity was monitored in each
of the five sites selected along the wind park area using a Pettersson Ultrasound
Detector model D240X (Pettersson Elektronik AB, Uppsala, Sweden).
This is a heterodyne and time expansion detector that can be connected to
headphones to monitor bat passes on the site, and it can also be connected to a
digital recorder (ZOOM H2) to register the time expanded (amplified duration)
ultrasonic echolocation bat calls for analysis on a PC. If bat calls are recorded, they
can be analyzed using the software Avisoft (Avisoft Bioacoustics, Berlin,
Germany), which allows comparing the recorded calls against referential calls
stored in a database. One week previous to the bat survey at Urirama, we generated
a database of bat calls of the most common bat species present in Aruba
(Mormoops megalophylla, Myotis nesopolus, Glossophaga longirostris and
Leptonycteris curasoae). We used those calls to identify the species of bats
detected during this survey.
From each one of the five sampling sites shown in Fig. 3, four transects of 200 m
in length were set taking in consideration the actual terrain and trying to maximize
the surface covered around the base of each turbine (inland and parallel to the
shore), and keeping a minimum distance of 50 m to the sea. The azimuths of the
selected transects are shown in Table 1, where the first number indicates the
identity of the turbine and the codes T1 to T4 indicate the transect number in a
North to South direction. The system of four transects was covered four times
(rounds) during the night. Each round consisted of a walk conducted by the
observer along the four transects holding the ultrasound detector, at forehead
height, at an angle of approximately 45° with respect to the ground. Each transect
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
16
Table 1. Azimuths of the selected transects to conduct monitoring of bat activity using ultrasound detection. The first number indicates the identity of the turbine and the codes T1 to T4 indicate the transect number in a North to South direction (see Fig. 3).
was walked in the two directions during 9-13 min (Fig. 5) for a total walked
distance of 1,600 m/round. During the walk along each transect, we selected four
intervals of frequencies in the ultrasound detector: 20-40 kHz, 35-55 kHz, 50-70
kHz and 65-85 kHz. We allowed an overlap of 5 kHz between successive intervals.
These intervals cover fairly well the spectrum of frequencies used by the bats
present in Aruba (Bekker 1996, Estrada et al. 2004, Vaughan et al. 2004) when
flying and echolocating. Every 100 m walked along a transect we switched the
interval of frequencies in the ultrasound detector. The chronological order in which
the four intervals of frequencies were used changed for the four transects within a
round: T1 (20-40 kHz→35-55 kHz→50-70 kHz→65-85 kHz), T2 (35-55
kHz→50-70 kHz→65-85 kHz→20-40 kHz), T3 (50-70 kHz→65-85 kHz→20-40
kHz→35-55 kHz), and T4 (65-85 kHz→20-40 kHz→35-55 kHz→50-70 kHz).
Each round to detect bat passes lasted 40-50 min. A ‘bat pass’ is defined as an
echolocation call detected, including feeding buzzes (Thomas and La Val 1988,
Estrada et al. 2004). After a full round to detect and count bat passes ended, we
spent 10-15 min of recognition along the same transects to register bat calls. The
first round always started at 19:30 h and the last one started between 22:30 h and
23:00 h, depending on the day.
TRANSECT AZIMUTH TRANSECT AZIMUTH TRANSECT AZIMUTH
2- T1 355 6-T1 5 10-T1 360 2-T2 270 6-T2 285 10-T2 274 2-T3 215 6-T3 265 10-T3 210 2-T4 165 6-T4 205 10-T4 153 4-T1 360 8-T1 330 4-T2 300 8-T2 298 4-T3 245 8-T3 250 4-T4 185 8-T4 155
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
17
0 m 100 m 200 m Figure 5. Transect of 200 m showing the directions in which the recordings of bat passes and calls were performed. Each arrow represents a 100 m path and boxes at each arrow indicate the intervals of frequencies set in the ultrasound detector to detect bat passes and to record bat calls.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results obtained from the two methodological approaches used, bat mist
netting and ultrasound detection, indicate that bat activity in the wind park area at
Urirama was negligible (WM # 10: 0.33 bat passes/h, WM # 8: 0.32 bat passes/h,
WM # 6: 0 bat passes/h, WM # 4: 0 bat passes/h, WM # 2: 0 bat passes/h) during
the five days of monitoring.
The total sampling effort used to capture bats at Urirama was 7,800 h·m2 of mist
netting, which is a considerable amount of survey effort to detect presence of bat
species that fly at ground level in the study area. Only two nectar-feeding bats in
the Phyllostomidae family were captured, one male individual of Miller’s Long-
Tongued bat, Glossophaga longirostris (Glossophaginae), at WM # 10 during the
first night, and one individual of the Curaçoan Long-Nosed bat, Leptonycteris
curasoae (Glossophaginae), at WM # 8 the second night that escaped before we
were able to take it out of the net (Fig. 6).
20-40 kHz
35-55 kHz
50-70 kHz 65-85 kHz
200 m TRANSECT AND ULTRASOUND FREQUENCIES
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
18
Figure 6. The two species of bats detected in the wind park area at Urirama, Aruba. (A) Glossophaga longirostris, captured in WM # 10 and (B) Leptonycteris curasoae, captured in WM # 8.
The presence of nectar-feeding bats in the two studied sites located at the east
extreme of the area examined is probably correlated with the presence in that area
of a few individuals of the cactus Stenocereus griseus, one of the columnar cacti
used by the two species as primary source of food in arid zones in Northern South
America (Petit, 1995, 1997, Nassar et al. 1997, Nassar et al. 2003). The specimen
of G. longirostris captured presented pollen on its snout and head, suggesting that
the animal was foraging for food in the surroundings. The rest of the sites within
the wind park area were mostly deprived of vegetation, and the few plants
observed are not included in the diet of these bats. Thus, it makes sense that no
plant-feeding bats were observed in the rest of the sites studied.
G. longirostris is a fairly common species, broadly distributed from arid zones to
dry forests and savannas in northern South America (Webster et al. 1998, Linares
1998) and it is frequently observed in the ABC islands year round (Petit 1995,
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
19
1997, J.M. Nassar, pers. observation). L. curasoae, on the other hand, is a species
categorized as “Vulnerable” A2c ver 3.1 in the IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species (IUCN 2011); however, its presence in Urirama is markedly low compared
with the Vader Piet area, where a colony of approximately 1,000 individuals of this
species was observed two weeks (March 27th, 2012) before this study was
conducted. Therefore, if we have to compare risk levels associated with this
species between Urirama and Vader Piet, we have to assume that the former area
represents a comparatively lower risk to this species than the latter, because L.
curasoae does not seem to be attracted to Urirama.
In relation with the monitoring conducted with the ultrasound detector, only two
bat passes were recorded during the five days of observations (Appendix I). Again,
bat activity was detected in WM # 10 and WM # 8, in concordance with the results
obtained using the mist netting approach. Both of these detections occurred when
the ultrasound detector was set at the interval 20-40 kHz. Based on our own
records of ultrasound frequencies used by the bat species present in Aruba, we
have three potential candidates as the most probable species flying in the area:
Molossus molossus (Molossidae) and the two nectar-feeding bats already
mentioned. The calls of the former species, which is an insect-feeding bat, fit very
well within the 20-40 kHz range, but considering the intensive and permanent
winds with sea spray we observed in the study area during the entire period of
observations, we think that it is very unlikely that this species is using that area to
forage for insects. Part of the call of G. longirostris and L. curasoae is above 40
kHz, but the last segment of it falls within that frequency range. Based on this and
on the fact that we captured both species in the area, we assume that the calls
recorded belong to those species and confirm that they can fly sporadically in the
eastern portion of the wind park area at Urirama.
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
20
In general, our knowledge on the heights at which bats fly is quite limited. The
two species of nectar-feeding bats identified in this study, while foraging, should
spend most of their time flying below 10 m, because most columnar cacti and
agaves on Aruba are below that height. If we consider that the hub height of the
Vesta V112 turbines that will be installed at Urirama is 80 m and the rotor
diameter is 112 m; that means that the minimum tip height of the turbines is
approximately 24 m. This is 10 m above the hypothetical height limit at which G.
longirostris and L. curasoae should be flying while foraging. However, we do not
know if the sounds of the turbines in movement could attract these species of bats,
like they do with other species in the temperate zones (Arnett et al. 2008).
Furthermore, in the case of L. curasoae, a potential migratory species in parts of its
distribution in northern South America (Soriano et al. 2000, Newton et al. 2003),
there is the possibility that, while migrating, these animals could fly at higher
elevations, entering the height range at which the blades of the turbines operate.
How do we translate the reported results in terms of potential negative impacts of
a wind park facility at Urirama on the bat populations of Aruba? Compared with
the results of a similar risk assessment study conducted at the Vader Piet wind
energy facility in eastern Aruba (Nassar 2005), the level of bat activity recorded
for the segment of coastal line examined at Urirama is markedly lower. Even if for
technical reasons the turbines had to be moved over a few hundred meters (100-
500 m) north or south from the current position, I consider that the level of bat
activity will remain low, because the general landscape of the area does not change
significantly within that distance range. At Vader Piet, in a single night, 13 nectar-
feeding bats (4 L. curasoae and 9 G. longirostris) were captured using 6 mist nets.
In Urirama we only captured two bats with a comparatively higher sampling effort.
Besides this, several of the main diurnal roosts used by bats in Aruba are located at
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
21
a short distance (0.7-1.6 km) of the wind park facilities at Vader Piet. In the case of
Urirama, we are not aware of important caves used by bats as diurnal roosts near
the location selected for the wind park. In the case of Vader Piet, as it was
mentioned above, despite of the existence of the wind park, there is a colony of
nearly 1,000 animals of L. curasoae at the “Tunnel of Love” cave. This colony size
is comparatively larger than the one reported by Nassar in 2005 (N= 400-500) for
the same cave before the construction of the wind farm at Vader Piet.
As it was mentioned in the Introduction section, one of the emerging patterns in
relation with bat fatalities in wind farms is that migratory species of bats are
particularly susceptible to turbines during the migration season. This is because,
while migrating, some species can fly at higher distances from the ground, within
the blades’ range (Dürr and Bach 2004, Committee on Environmental Impacts of
Wind-Energy Projects 2007, Kuvlesky et al. 2007, Arnett et al. 2008, Baerwald
and Barclay 2009, Curry 2009). The migratory behavior of L. curasoae in northern
South America has not been well established yet. It is possible that part of the
population of this species in Aruba migrates seasonally to Venezuela or to the
nearby islands (Curaçao or Bonaire), looking for safe maternal roosts or abundant
food resources; but if this were true, Urirama would be a fairly unlikely site within
the potential migratory routes of L. curasoae when leaving or entering the island,
because it is located in the northwestern extreme of the island, far away from
Curacao and the Paraguana Peninsula.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is important to caution the users of this report in relation with the accuracy of
the conclusions that can be derived from the results obtained in this study. They are
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
22
based on the observations conducted during five days during an interval of time
when plant resources used by nectar-feeding bats on Aruba are very abundant all
over (personal observation) and winds are strong in the island. Ideally, additional
surveys using the same sampling effort should be conducted during parts of the
year with contrasting conditions, in terms of food availability and weather
parameters. With certain confidence I can predict that, since bat plants are very
scarce at Urirama, the presence of Leptonycteris curasoae in the zone should not
increase significantly for the rest of the year. It is likely also that this prediction
can be extended to Glossophaga longirostris to some degree, although not totally,
because this species feeds heavily on cactus products, but also eats insects.
However, this species generally flies at low elevations and should not be affected
by the wind turbines, unless they fill attracted by their sound. Remaining open
questions include: What is the level of activity regarding insect-feeding bats in the
area when the winds decrease in speed between September and November? Can
wind speeds at Urirama drop to a level at which wind turbines become lethal to
bats? Historically, the lowest wind speeds in Aruba occur between September and
November (L. Verhees, KEMA, Arnhem, March, 2012). During the last two years,
the lowest monthly average wind speeds recorded for the Urirama area varied
between 4.6 m/s (September 2010) and 6.4 m/s (October 2011). According to a
recent review paper on bat fatalities associated with wind farm facilities, Arnett et
al. (2008) found that most of these fatality records occur when wind speeds drop
below 6.0 m/s. In the case of Aruba, and more precisely, in the case of Urirama,
the average monthly (1979-2009) wind speed for September and October have
been above that threshold level; however, it is important to mention that during the
last two years, monthly wind speed values fell within the range in which bat
fatalities are normally reported at wind farm facilities. We need to keep these
figures in mind, but if wind speeds at Urirama remain most of the time above 6.0
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
23
m/s, we should not expect substantial bat fatalities in that area, even if bats are
flying and foraging there.
Despite the present gaps of information, this study produced results that can help
predict the potential risk to bat populations in relation with the eventual
construction of a wind farm facility at Urirama. Overall, the location is not
considered a suitable habitat that could be attractive to bats of any of the species
present in the island, because: a) the scarce vegetation present in the area is not
considered of dietary importance for the bat species that rely on fruits, pollen or
nectar in Aruba; b) the proximity of the area to the sea (< 50 m) and the dominant
windy conditions (wind speeds ≥ 6.0 m/s) in the site, in combination with the
abundant sea spray that reaches the first hundred meters toward land, makes this
zone of little value as a foraging area or commuting route to both insect-feeding
and plant-feeding bats during most part of the year; c) the absence of caves that
could be used as diurnal roosts by bats in the vicinities, makes this area even less
attractive to them; and d) its location, opposite to Curaçao and the Paraguana
Peninsula, makes it an unlikely point within the potential migratory route used by
Leptonycteris curasoae when leaving the island or returning from other locations
outside Aruba. Therefore, based on the preceding arguments, I consider the wind
farm area at Urirama of low risk to the bat populations inhabiting this and the
surrounding areas. As the field work took place in a period of high wind speeds in
April, it was not possible to assess periods of low wind speeds, when potentially
more bats could be flying in the study area. Shall bat fatalities occur in the wind
farm facility at Urirama at wind speeds lower than 6 m/s, Vader Piet Beheer should
be prepared to stop the turbines temporarily. Taking this recommendation into
account, a low risk for bats during the whole year is guaranteed. However, I
encourage an additional survey during those months of the year when the wind
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
24
speed drops below the annual average values (September-November) to confirm
that the results obtained in this study are maintained over time.
In relation with the necessity to formulate and implement a mitigating plan to
counteract the potential negative impacts that the wind park could have on the bat
populations of Aruba, the current results suggest that, for most part of the year, a
mitigating plan should not be necessary. If insect-feeding bats become active in the
area between September and November and significant fatalities occur at the wind
farm facility, then some mitigating actions might have to be taken. One of the most
successful ones in reducing bat fatalities is the curtailment of operations during
periods when high levels of bat activity in the area are expected. This strategy has
proved to be very effective decreasing bat fatalities in wind farms (Kunz et al.
2007, Arnett et al. 2008). The turbines’ blades can be set parallel to the wind but
allowed to spin freely, in what is called a ‘feathered’ condition. The blades in this
position move very slowly, allowing bats to avoid fatal collisions against them.
Independently of the fact that a second survey be conducted or not during a
different part of the year at Urirama, I do recommend developing a 1-year
monitoring program to estimate bat fatalities associated with the wind farm facility
as soon as it starts its operations. This is the usual approach that has been used
across many wind farms in the temperate zones, and thanks to this programs we
have today a robust database that helps us to understand in detail the problem
associated with bat fatalities in the temperate zones (Committee on Environmental
Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects 2007, Kunz et al. 2007, Arnett et al 2008). It is
time to start measuring bat fatality levels in wind farms in the tropical zones; but
this action should not be the unique responsibility of the companies involved in
wind generated energy. Local institutions involved in the protection of the natural
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
25
environments of Aruba, like for example, Fundación Parke Nacional Arikok, the
Aruba’s Department of Agriculture and the Veterinary Service, should be active
part of this monitoring program.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was possible thanks to financial support provided by KEMA, Mr. José
Lecler assisted in the field work with bat mist netting and M.Sc. Fernando Simal
helped to design and conducted the monitoring of bat activity with the ultrasound
detector.
7. CITED LITERATURE
Arnett, E.B., Brown, W.K., Erickson, W.P., Fiedler, J.K., Hamilton, B.L., Henry, T.H., Aaftab, J., Johnson, G.D., Kerns, J., Koford, R.R., Nicholson, C.P., O’Connell, T.J., Piorkowski, M.D., Tankersley Jr., R.D. 2008. Patterns of fatality of bats at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 61-78. Baerwald, E.F. and R. Barclay, R.M. 2009. Geographic variation in activity and fatality of migratory bats at wind energy facilities. Journal of Mammalogy 90: 1341-1349. Barclay, R.M.R., Baerwald, E.F, and Gruver, J.C. 2007. Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85:381-387. Barros, M.A.S and Marques, R.V. 2011. A importância do monitoramento de parques eólicos para a conservação de morcegos na América Latina. Boletín de la Red Latinoamericana para la Conservación de los Murciélagos 2(1): 2-4. Bat Conservation International. 2004. Wind energy and bats. Bats – Newsletter 2: 9.
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
26
Bekker, J.P. 1996. Basisrapport zoogdierkundig onderzoek Aruba. Veere. Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. National Research Council of the National Academies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 267 pp. Curry, A. 2009. Deadly flights. Science 325: 386-387. Dürr, T., and Bach, L. 2004. Bat deaths and wind turbines -a review of current knowledge, and of the information available in the database for Germany. Bremer Beiträge für Naturkunde und Naturschutz 7: 253-264. Ericsson, W., Kronner, K., and Gritski, B. 2003. Nine Canyon Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Monitoring Report. Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc. Pendleton, Oregon, US. Estrada, A., Jiménez, C., Rivera, A., Fuentes, E. 2004. General bat activity measured with an ultrasound detector in a fragmented tropical landscape in Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 1-9. IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 23 April 2012) Kunz, T.H., Arnett, E., Erickson, W.P., Hoar, A.R., Johnson, G.D., Larkin, R.P., Strickland, M.D., Thresher, R.W., Tuttle, M.D. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 315-324. Kuvlesky, W.P. Jr., Brennan, L.A., Morrison, M.L., Boydston, K.K., Ballard, B.M., and Bryant, F.C. 2007. Wind energy development and wildlife conservation: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2487-2498. Linares, O.J. 1998. Mamíferos de Venezuela. Sociedad Conservacionista Audubon de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela. Morrison, D.W. 1978. Lunar phobia in a Neotropical fruit bat, Artibeus jamaicensis (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae). Animal Behavior 26: 852-855 Nassar, J.M. 2005. Bat activity in the wind park area at Vader Piet, Aruba: An assessment of risk on the bat fauna. Water – En Energiebedrijf Aruba N. V., Aruba. 21 pp.
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
27
Nassar, J.M., Ramírez, N., and Linares, O. 1997. Comparative pollination biology of Venezuelan columnar cacti and the role of nectar-feeding bats in their sexual reproduction. American Journal of Botany 84: 918-927. Nassar, J.M., Beck, H., Sternberg, L., and Fleming, T.H. 2003. Dependence on cacti and agaves in nectar-feeding bats from Venezuelan arid zones. Journal of Mammalogy 84: 106-116. Newton, L., Nassar, J.M., Fleming, T.H. 2003. Genetic population structure and mobility of two nectar-feeding bats from Venezuelan deserts: inferences from mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Ecology 12: 3191-3198. Petit, S. 1995. The pollinators of two species of columnar cacti on Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles. Biotropica 27: 538-541. Petit, S. 1996. The status of bats on Curaçao. Biological Conservation 77: 27-31. Petit, S. 1997. The diet and reproductive schedules of Leptonycteris curasoae curasoae and Glossophaga longirostris elongata (Chiroptera: Glossophaginae) on Curaçao. Biotropica 29: 214-223. Petit, S., and Pors, L. 1996. Columnar cactus survey and carrying capacity for nectar-feeding bats on Curaçao. Conservation Biology 10: 769-775. Petit, S., Rojer, A., and Pors, L. 2006. Surveying bats for conservation: the status of cave-dwelling bats on Curaçao from 1993 to 2003. Animal Conservation 9: 207-217. Soriano, P.J., Ruiz, A. and J.M. Nassar. 2000. Notas sobre la distribución e importancia ecológica de los murciélagos Leptonycteris curasoae y Glossophaga longirostris en zonas áridas andinas. Ecotropicos 13: 91-95. Sosa, M., and Soriano, P.J. 1996. Resource availability, diet and reproduction in Glossophaga longirostris (Mammalia: Chiroptera) in an arid zone of the Venezuelan Andes. Journal of Tropical Ecology 12: 805-818. Thomas, D.W., and La Val, R.K. 1988. Survey and census methods. In: Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of bats (ed. Kunz, T.H.) pp. 77-90, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
28
Vaughan-Jennings, N., Parsons, S., Barlow, K.E., and Gannon, M.R. 2004. Echolocation calls and wing morphology of bats from the West Indies. Acta Chiropterologica 6: 75-90. Webster, Wm.D., Handley Jr. C.O., and Soriano, P.J. Glossophaga longirostris. Mammalian Species 576: 1-5.
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
29
8. APPENDIX I. Results of the monitoring process to detect bat activity using ultrasound detection.
Wind turbine #: 10 Date: April 13th , 2012
Observer: Fernando Simal ([email protected])
Location: N12°34’36.96” W70°00’30.91” Temperature : 27.1 °C
Max wind speed: 14.7 km/h
Rel. hum.: 79.8 %
0-100 m 101-200 m 201-300 m 301-400 m
TRANSECT START TIME kHz PASS kHz PASS kHz PASS kHz PASS END TIME T1 19:30 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 19:40 T2 19:42 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 19:52 T3 19:54 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 20:04 T4 20:06 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 20:16 T1 20:30 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 20:40 T2 20:42 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 20:52 T3 20:54 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 21:04 T4 21:06 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 21:16 T1 21:40 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 21:50 T2 21:52 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 22:02 T3 22:04 III 0 IV 0 I 1 II 0 22:14 T4 22:16 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 22:26 T1 22:45 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 22:55 T2 22:57 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 23:07 T3 23:09 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 23:19 T4 23:21 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 23:31 Intervals of frequency: I (20-40 kHz), II (35-55 kHz), III (50-70 kHz) and IV (65-85 kHz)
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
30
Wind turbine #: 8
Date: April 14th, 2012 Observer: Fernando Simal
Location: N12°35’03.38” W70°00’48.94” Temperature: 27.1 °C
Max. wind speed: 17.0 km/h
Rel. hum.: 77.0 %
0-100 m 101-200 m 201-300 m 301-400 m
TRANSECT START TIME kHz PASS kHz PASS kHz PASS kHz PASS END TIME T1 19:31 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 19:40 T2 19:42 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 19:55 T3 19:57 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 20:09 T4 20:10 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 20:20 T1 20:35 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 20:45 T2 20:47 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 20:57 T3 20:59 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 21:12 T4 21:13 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 21:22 T1 21:45 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 21:55 T2 21:56 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 22:05 T3 22:06 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 22:19 T4 22:20 IV 0 I 1 II 0 III 0 22:30 T1 20:48 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 22:57 T2 22:59 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 23:09 T3 23:10 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 23:22 T4 23:23 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 23:32 Intervals of frequency: I (20-40 kHz), II (35-55 kHz), III (50-70 kHz) and IV (65-85 kHz)
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
31
Wind turbine #: 6
Date: April 15th, 2012 Observer: Fernando Simal
Location: N12°35’20.35” W70°01’00.63” Temperature : 25.5 °C
Max. wind speed: 15.7 km/h Rel. hum.: 85.9 %
0-100 m 101-200 m 201-300 m 301-400 m
TRANSECT START TIME kHz PASS kHz PASS kHz PASS kHz PASS END TIME T1 19:30 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 19:40 T2 19:42 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 19:52 T3 19:54 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 20:04 T4 20:06 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 20:16 T1 20:30 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 20:40 T2 20:42 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 20:52 T3 20:54 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 21:04 T4 21:06 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 21:16 T1 21:40 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 21:50 T2 21:52 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 22:02 T3 22:04 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 22:14 T4 22:16 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 22:26 T1 22:45 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 22:55 T2 22:57 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 23:07 T3 23:09 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 23:19 T4 23:21 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 23:31
Intervals of frequency: I (20-40 kHz), II (35-55 kHz), III (50-70 kHz) and IV (65-85 kHz)
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
32
Wind turbine #: 4
Date: April 16th, 2012 OBSERVER: Fernando Simal
Location: N12°35’34.07” W70°01’07.35” Temperature: 26.9 °C Max. wind speed: 21.9 km/h
Rel. hum.: 81.2 %
0-100 m 101-200 m 201-300 m 301-400 m
TRANSECT START TIME kHz PASS kHz PASS kHz PASS kHz PASS END TIME T1 19:30 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 19:40 T2 19:40 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 19:50 T3 19:51 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 20:01 T4 20:01 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 20:11 T1 20:30 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 20:40 T2 20:40 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 20:50 T3 20:50 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 21:00 T4 21:00 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 21:10 T1 21:34 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 21:44 T2 21:45 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 21:55 T3 21:55 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 22:06 T4 22:06 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 22:16 T1 22:30 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 22:40 T2 22:40 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 22:50 T3 22:51 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 23:01 T4 23:01 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 23:11 Intervals of frequency: I (20-40 kHz), II (35-55 kHz), III (50-70 kHz) and IV (65-85 kHz)
Nassar - Bat activity and risk assessment at the Urirama Wind Farm Area
33
Wind turbine #: 2
Date: April 17th, 2012 Observer: Fernando Simal
Location: N12°35’34.07” W70°01’11.77” Temperature: 26.6 °C
Max wind speed: 18.8 km/h
Rel. hum.: 82.8 %
0-100 m 101-200 m 201-300 m 301-400 m
TRANSECT START TIME kHz PASS kHz PASS kHz PASS kHz PASS END TIME T1 19:35 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 19:45 T2 19:46 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 19:56 T3 19:57 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 20:07 T4 20:09 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 20:19 T1 20:47 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 20;57 T2 20:58 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 21:08 T3 21:09 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 21:19 T4 21:19 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 21:29 T1 21:50 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 22:00 T2 22:00 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 22:10 T3 22:10 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 22:20 T4 22:20 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 22:30 T1 23:00 I 0 II 0 III 0 IV 0 23:10 T2 23:10 II 0 III 0 IV 0 I 0 23:20 T3 23:21 III 0 IV 0 I 0 II 0 23:31 T4 23:31 IV 0 I 0 II 0 III 0 23:41 Intervals of frequency: I (20-40 kHz), II (35-55 kHz), III (50-70 kHz) and IV (65-85 kHz)
74101509-PGR 12-7312
APPENDIX VIII REPORT PUBLIC HEARING Verslag Hoorzitting Urirama Windpark
Locatie: Dr. Edward Cheung Center
Datum: 15 Mei, 2012
Notulist: Mevr. D. Arends-Geerman
Doel: informatie verschaffen en compleetheid en juistheid van informatie toetsen. Er wordt geen
beslissing genomen gedurende de hoorzitting.
Moderator: Fernando Rigaud.
Presentatie: Wim Kok van KEMA en Henk Hutting van Vader Piet Beheer.
Aanwezigen: groot aantal vertegenwoordigers van Boroncana, Sero Pela, vertegenwoordigers van
Tierra del Sol bewoners en ngo’s ondermeer Rainbow Warriors en Aruba Birdlife Conservation,
alsook MEP leider Evelyn Wever Croes en aanhangers, pers. Voorzitter van Staten Paul Croes kwam
later in de avond de hoorzitting bijwonen, zie presentielijst.
Henk Hutting verwelkomde aanwezigen, en legde uit dat de bedoeling van de hoorzitting is om
informatie te geven en aanvullende informatie van de kant van het publiek te krijgen. Hij gaf aan dat
Vader Piet Beheer deze MER op vrijwillige basis uitgevoert. Hutting maakte duidelijk dat er rekening
zal worden gehouden met zowel de informatie die KEMA namens Vader Piet Beheer heeft verzameld
als ook de gezienswijze van de bewoners. Uiteindelijke beslissing voor het doorgaan van het
windpark ligt in de handen van de regering als vergunningverlener en grondeigenaar.
Presentatie Wim Kok over de MER wordt onderbroken door Voorzitter Milton Ponson met de vraag
waarom er niet vooruitlopend de Arubaanse MER wetgeving die in een maand door het Parlament
wordt beslist, rekening gehouden wordt. Ponson had vragen welk raamwerk voor de Urirama MER
gebruikt werd.
De moderator stelt voor om de vraag aan het eind van de presentatie van de heer Kok te
beantwoorden.
Kok gaf een beschrijving van KEMA, de fusering met DNV, een certificerend bedrijf van Noorwegen
actief op gebied van windturbines. Hij beschreef het doel van de MER voor het Urirama project,
onder meer om een beeld te geven hoe het project op de locatie bij Urirama eruit zal zien, het effect
op het landschap en de sociale culturele effecten. Vader Piet Beheer had op vrijwillige basis KEMA
verzocht de MER op te stellen, aangezien Aruba nog geen wettelijke vereisten heeft. VP Beheer wil
transparant zijn voor wat betreft de keuze van Urirama en de MER is een uitstekende middel
hiervoor. Doel van VP Beheer is om als verantwoordelijk bedrijf de buren van te voren te informeren
over het project. De MER op zich zelf maakt op dit moment geen deel van het besluitvormings
proces, dat volgens Arubaanse procedures gevolgd moet worden. De informatie van de MER als ook
de bezwaren van de buren, zal wel deel maken van het besluitprocedure
Kok legde uit dat KEMA bij gebrek aan wettelijke regels op Aruba de Equator Principles heeft gebruikt
voor de MER. Dit aangezien internationale banken ook de Equator Principles opeisen voor grote
projecten. Daarnaast moesten er specialisten op gebied van vogels, visualisaties, geluidsoverlast, en
vleermuizen ingeschakeld worden. Kok legde uit dat in alle aspecten waarbij onzekerheden
onstonden, de keuze was om de situatie zo pessimistisch mogelijk te beschrijven, bijv effect van
geluid werd gemeten alsof het om een stenen bodem ging, zonder rekering te houden met
begroeiing. KEMA koos voor voorzichtigheid.
Het project op zich is een wens van de Arubaanse regering om de energie voorziening te
diversificeren en prijzen stabiel te houden. Het project bestaat uit 10 turbines van 3 MW elk, totaal
30 MW, een standaard eenheid grootte waarmee WEB opereert. De V112 turbines worden
gefabriceerd door Vestas, hebben een masthoogte van 84 meter en een rotor diameter van 112
meter.
Meer windenergie opwekken op de lokatie Vader Piet lokatie is onbetaalbaar gebleken, vooral als
gevolg van de kosten van draaiende reserve die het elektriciteitssyteem moet behouden voor een
black-out als de wind plotseling weg valt. Zeer uitvoerige technisch/econimische studies van WEB
gedurende 18 maanden hebben tot dit inzicht geleid. Na het bestuderen van alle kustgebieden kwam
uiteindelijk Urirama er uit als de meest geschikte. Dit vooral gezien dit de plek is met de grootste
afstanden tot woonbebouwing om geluidhinder te voorkomen en om zo ook voldoende afstand te
creeeren met de vogeldrinkplaats gelegen in het gebied van Tierra del Sol.
Publiek werd heel onrustig tijdens deze uitleg en verschillende mensen begonnen hun mening tegen
de bevindingen te uiten, vooral op het moment dat de visualisaties op de scherm kwamen. Er waren
de visualisaties van hoe het gebied eruit zal zien vanaf het parkeerplaats van het Kapel Alto Vista,
vanaf Seroe Pela en vanaf de TdS golfbaan. Publiek eiste visualisatie met kapel in beeld.
Geluid:
Vervolgens legde Kok uit hoe de geluidbelasting berekend en gemeten wordt, rekening werd
gehouden met Nderlandse standaarden en eisen die een van de stengste normen in de wereld zijn.
Kok verzekerde dat de buren zelden het geluid van de turbines zullen horen
Vogels:
Plaatsing van de turbines zal de aanwezige vogels niet storen en er blijft voldoende terrein open.
KEMA heeft een erkende vogel specialist, bioloog Jan van der Winden ingehuurd om de eventuele
impact op de vogel migratie te evalueren. De bioloog is in Maart op Aruba geweest, heeft met Greg
Peterson van Aruba Birdlife Conservation gesproken en heeft ook andere literatuur bestudeerd. Zijn
conclusie was dat er relatief weinig vogels gebruik maken van het gebied. Zijn argument is dat er niet
voldoende voedsel aanwezig is in het gebied. Hij is van mening dat zelfs gedurende de verschillende
seizoenen niet veel vogels bij het gebied aanwezig zijn. Verder zouden de turbines geen hinderlijke
74101509-PGR 12-7312 barriere vormen tussen de broed/rust plaats van de aanwezige vogels en het gebied waar ze naar toe
zouden moeten vliegen om hun aan hun voedsel te komen. Daarnaast zijn de turbines geen
biologische bedreiging voor het uitroeien van vogelsoorten. Een paar zouden wel tegen de turbines
kunnen botsen, maar het getal zal niet groot genoeg zijn om een bedreiging te vormen voor de
vogelpopulaties.
Het publiek reageerde boos.
Vleermuizen;
Dr.Jasef Nassar, Venezolaanse vleermuizen expert werd aangetrokken om te bestuderen of de
turbines een gevaar kunnen vormen voor vleermuizen. Nassar had een soortgelijke studie gedaan
voor het gebied van Vader Piet. Na veel moeite, kon Dr. Nassar alleen maar twee vleermuizen
vangen met zijn netten en het waren laag vliegende, nectar zoekende vleermuizen die dus geen
gevaar van de turbines mogen verwachten. Dr. Nassar maakte wel een voorbehoud vwb vleermuizen
die insecten eten. Die kunnen hoger vliegen, vooral als er weinig wind is.
Effecten gezondheid.
Techniek van windturbines is zodanig verbeterd dat de risico van het afbreken van de rotor bladen
klein is. Vooral omdat de korste afstand van huizen 900 meter is. Verder wekken de nieuwe turbines
amper laag frequente geluiden op. Het Rijks Instituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM) heeft
wel erkend dat wind parken hinderlijker zijn dan verkeerwegen en dat mensen meer hinder van
windparken hebben als ze het kunnen zien. En aangezien de turbines onder de norm van 45dB
blijven, vormen de turbines geen bron van slaapverstoring en ook geen gevaar voor gezondheid,
volgens de normen van de RIVM. Publiek lachte sarcastisch.
VRAGEN:
Julia de Ruiter bracht naar voren dat alhoewel de heer Hutting aangaf dat de moderne V112 geen
overlast zullen zijn, dat studies in Denemarken juist aangaven dat het wel het geval is. Namelijk dat
er wel laagfrequente geluiden geproduceerd wordt en aan de hand daarvan heeft Denemarken haar
normen verscherpt. In Maastricht heeft de rechtbank dus ook aangegeven dan een soortgelijke wind
park niet meer gebouwd kan worden ivm met nieuwe data over het gevaar van geluidoverlast. Mevr.
De Ruiter kreeg veel steun van het publiek die ontstemd reageerde toen Wim Kok zei dat hij de zaak
anders ziet. Hij gaf aan dat er overal studies zijn gedaan, niet alleen in Denemarken, maar ook in
Frankrijk en Canada. Kok verzekerde dat de informatie in de MER van goede kwaliteit is, gebaseerd
op wetenschappelijke en onafhankelijke bronnen zoals de RIVM wiens belang niet is om wind energie
te promoveren. Kok zei dat hij niet kan ontkennen dat de turbines geluid zullen veroorzaken, ook
niet dat er geen laagfrequentie geluid is. Maar het zal niet van zo’n niveau zijn dat ze hinderlijk zullen
zijn voor mens en dier.
Julia de Ruiter gaf aan dat het rapport van de RIVM van 2008 dateert, terwijl de bewoners recente
data gebruiken. Publiek werd onrustig en Henk Hutting verzekerde dat er wellicht rekening
gehouden zal worden met alle grieven en argumenten van de bewoners. De MER is nog niet klaar, zei
hij.
Een andere buurtbewoner gaf aan dat hij begreep dat Vader Piet Beheer niet de beslissing neemt
maar alleen de meningen aanhoort en hopelijk dat er ook rekening mee gehouden zal worden. Maar
vroeg zich wel af waarom er niet vooruitstrevend is gehandeld, vooral nu dat Nederland de norm
voor geluidoverlast heeft verscherpt, van 45 naar 40 dB. Verder had hij vragen over de effecten van
de turbines voor kitesurfers.
Vertegenwoordiger van Tierra del Sol bewoners is van mening dat de hoorzitting op zich zelf geen
garantie is dat er rekening gehouden zal worden met de wensen en zorgen van de buren, aangezien
dat de regering toch kan beslissen. Vond het flauw dat de hoogte van de turbines niet duidelijk naar
voren is gebracht en met de cijfers werd gespeeld. Rotor en mast hoogte betekenen in feite een
turbine van rond 140 meter. De vertegenwoordiger was ook niet blij met de visualisaties, omdat de
fotos genomen zijn op een dag met veel bewolking en dus de witte turbines bijna niet te zien zijn op
de fotos. Dat is een onjuiste weergave van het werkelijke beeld van het landschap, was zijn mening.
Kok gaaf aan dat het inderdaad moeilijk was om goede fotos te nemen, maar verzekerde dat er een
eerlijke presentatie is voorgelegd.
TdS vertegenwoordiger ging vervolgens verder met het kritiek dat het project een van de mooiste
ongerepte gebieden van Aruba gaat aanpakken. Men zou niet tegen duurzaam energie zijn, maar de
lokatie is niet acceptabel.
Andere buurtbewoner haalde aan dat Henk Hutting zelf aangaf de voorkeur aan Vader Piet te geven
voor uitbreiding, en vroeg waarom dat niet kon. Hutting legde uit dat het voor de WEB
economisch/technisch moeilijk was om alle wind turbines te concentreren bij Vader Piet. Voor Vader
Piet Beheer is het makkelijker om alles in een plek te hebben. Maar de beslissing ligt niet aan Vader
Piet Beheer maar is des regering. Hij herhaalde dat er nu alle informatie geaccumuleerd wordt om
aan de regering te geven. Publiek reageerde met ongeloof.
Journalist Sharina Henriquez vroeg hoe het mogelijk is het MER rapport als objectief te zien, als
Vader Piet Beheer die voor de regering een project moet opzetten, de opdracht gaf voor de MER.
Wim Kok van KEMA benadrukte dat zijn bedrijf geen belang heeft en dat het bedrijf geen aandelen
heeft in Vader Piet Beheer, maar uitsluitend als consulent heeft gewerkt voor de WEB. KEMA is
totaal onafhankelijk, zei Kok.
Verder had Henriquez vragen of de metingen wel representatief waren, zoals aangegeven in pagina
15 van het MER document,waarbij staat dat er geen metingen hebben plaatsgenomen onder
74101509-PGR 12-7312 normale omstandigheden. Kok legde uit dat hier om de lage windsnelheden, maar dat er expres voor
een pessimistisch beeld heeft gekozen om de achtergrond geluiden te kunnen vergelijken. Vestas
heeft de verantwoordelijkheid om turbines te leveren die aan alle eisen voldoen, ondermeer de
geluidsbelasting. Monitoring van het werkelijk geluid zal dan na een eventuele installatie
plaatsvinden.
Over electrische/magnetische stralen: deze zijn niet in gevaarlijke mate aanwezig bij wind turbines.
Greg Peterson had kritiek over observatie van de bioloog Van Winden. Volgens Peterson kan en mag
de situatie op Aruba niet in mondiaal context beschreven worden, omdat het eiland dan helemaal
verdwijnt. Er passeren over 65 miljoen vogels over Nederland, en Aruba heeft niet zoveel. Maar voor
Aruba zijn een paar vogels al veel. Peterson had veel kritiek op de studiemethode die gebruikt werd,
en vind dat het onmogelijk is om in drie dagen tot een conclusie te komen. Zowel Kok als Peterson
verweten elkaar geen inhoudelijke argumenten te hebben gebruikt. Peterson bracht andere
argumenten, los van de studie over voedsel barrier, botsing. Publiek reageerde ontsteld dat er maar
drie dagen uitgetrokken werd om een vogel studie te doen. De vraag was waarom de studie niet
gedurende de vogel trek seizoenen heeft plaatsgenomen. Peterson klaagde over het feit dat hij bij
naam is genoemd in de MER, maar dat hij het rapport nooit heeft mogen ontvangen en nam totaal
afstand van de studie over vogels in de MER.
Milton Ponson van Rainbow Warriors legde uit wat zijn organisatie is, en de affiliatie met andere
internationale organisaties. Volgens hem is met de huidige MER over Urirama, twee verdragen
geschonden, onder meer het Cartagena Verdrag. Vroeg waarom er tijd genomen werd met Vader
Piet en waarom het zo nodig is om Urirama door te drukken. Ponson vond dat er op de Arubaanse
MER landverordening vooruitlopend rekening gehouden moest worden.
Verder viel Ponson NuCapital aan, minderheidsaandeelhouder in Vader Piet Beheer, die op Curaçao
een wind park aanlegt, tegen alle bezwaren van ngo’s op dat eiland. Hij had ook vragen over een
eventuele faillissement van Vestas die waarschijnlijk door de Chinezen zal worden opgekocht.
Ponson zei ook dat Rainbow Warriors een van de 27 ngo’s die stelligmatig genegeerd worden.
Volgens Ponson zijn het de financierders (van de WEB) die voor het zeggen hebben. Hij zei de indruk
te hebben dat maar drie banken het voor het zeggen hebben, en dus niet de WEB noch Hutting.
Wim Kok verwees Ponson om de vragen over de Arubaanse MER wetgeving aan de Arubaanse
regering te richten.
Henk Hutting legde uit dat NuCapital 30 procent eigenaar is van Vader Piet Beheer, en dat hij ook
betrokken is bij het project in Curaçao. Net zoals het geval was bij Vader Piet en Urirama, werden de
Equator Principles gebruikt in Curaçao en dat het project daar volgens de wetten van dat land
uitgevoerd wordt. Verder staat het nieuwe windpark in Curaçao op een plaats waar voorheen al een
wind park stond.
Publiek vroeg waarom de haast. Henk Hutting zei dat het op verzoek van de regering is, maar dat
Vader Piet Beheer uit eigen wil en verantwoordelijkheid zowel de MER heeft laten opstellen en de
informatie met de Arubaanse volk delen. Vervolgens worden alle documenten en argumenten die
het publiek naar voren bracht als pakket aan de regering voorgedragen.
Milton Ponson benadrukte dat niemand tegen Vader Piet Beheer is, maar dat men wel eist dat
volgens regels gewerkt moet worden. Hij vond dat de regering de partijen tegen elkaar uitspeelt,
vooral omdat de regering als opdrachtgever niet aanwezig was bij de hoorzitting. Zelfs de WEB die
mede de uitnodiging uitstuurde, was officieel niet aanwezig. Vanuit het publiek kwam de opmerking
dat iedereen voor spek en bonen aanwezig was, omdat WEB zelf niks in het debat bracht.
Ponson vroeg zich af waarom de WEB bang is om uit te leggen waarom het park bij Vader Piet niet
uitgebreid kan worden. Hij zei geen vijand te zijn. Verder had hij ook vragen over het roest proces bij
Urirama, aan de hand van de sterke oxidatie process die metaal aantasten.
Vanuit het publiek werd aangegeven dat Kapel Alto Vista een bedevaarts oord moet blijven. Alto
Vista wordt door vele mensen op Aruba opgezocht, vooral om innerlijke rust to zoeken. Het is al voor
meer dan 250 jaar erkend als een bedevaarts oord, van generatie tot generatie. Met de komst van de
turbines wordt dat van de inwoners weggenomen. Verder zullen de duizenden toeristen niet meer
van het Kapel en het gebied kunnen genieten, omdat ze alleen de turbines zullen zien. De
visualisaties die gepresenteerd waren lieten niet eens het kapel zien, terwijl ook van de Watertank bij
Alto Vista vaak fotos genomen worden van de bedevaarts oord. Dus de visualisaties zijn niet
kompleet.
Verder had men kritiek over het feit dat de MER Alto Vista niet als een gebedsoord aangeeft, en dat
KEMA er langs gaat alsof er niets bestaat. De directe vraag was hoe groot de kans is dat het project
niet door gaat als de meningen van buurtbewoners negatief tegenover de wind park zijn.
Kok zei dat het woord ‘religie’ inderdaad niet in de MER voorkomt, maar deel uitmaakt van het
cultureel aspect van Alto Vista. Hij zei geen problem te hebben om het woord in de MER te zetten,
maar dat waar het om ging, is eerbied. Kok verzekerde dat er geen kabels langs de weg naar het
kapel gelegd zullen worden.
Er was ook een vraag waarom al met het uitzetten was begonnen, als er nog geen beslissing is
genomen over Urirama, en er werd getwijfeld of er wel rekening gehouden wordt met de meningen
van het publiek. Henk Hutting legde uit dat the pinnen bij Urirama nodig waren om aan te wijzen
waar de grond boringen plaats moesten nemen. Dat was nodig om teneinde een volledig beeld te
krijgen van het terrein dat nog niet in de handen is van Vader Piet Beheer.
Er was ook kritiek dat de zaal waar de hoorzitting plaats vond, te klein was en dat veel mensen niet
naar binnen konden. Daarbovenop was de hoorzitting niet volledig als er geen economisch-
technische vragen gesteld mochten worden. Henk Hutting antwoorde dat voor de Vader Piet wind
park er maar 10 mensen aanwezig waren voor de hoorzitting. Reactie was dat Vader Piet geen
emotionele waarde heeft, zoals nu het geval is voor Alto Vista.
Het publiek stond erop te noteren dat mensen in Noord bezorgd zijn over de turbine park en vroeg
waarom niet eerder contact met de bewoners nam. Wim Kok zei dat de MER studie in februari
74101509-PGR 12-7312 begon en er was toen weinig zin om met de bevolking te praten, want er was toen geen informatie
beschikbaar. Echter, het publiek onderbrak Kok verontwaardigd op het moment dat hij zei dat er
weinig zin was om met de bevolking te praten. Kok vroeg om de kans te krijgen zijn zin af te maken,
en herhaalde dat de MER nog niet helemaal af is.
Publiek accepteerde het argument niet. Een paar zeiden hardop dat twee en een half maand voor
onderzoek, niet voldoende is, en hebben kanttekeningen over de kwaliteit van het onderzoek. Kok
van KEMA zei dat de periode voldoende is, en dat alleen Dr. Nassar een voorbehoud had. Henk
Hutting herhaalde zijn belofte dat alle tegenargumenten van de buurt bewoners aan de regering
geleverd zullen worden. Alle argumenten zullen in de reportage komen te staan.
Maar het publiek vond dat er onmogelijk was een totaal beeld te krijgen van het project aangezien
noch de regering, noch de WEB hun kant lieten zien. Henk Hutting maakte duidelijk dat de
hoorzitting over de MER ging.
Een ander vraag was over de onderhoudskosten van de turbines, vergeleken met bronnen voor
zonenergie. Hutting zei dat de onderhoudskosten geen relevante informatie voor het publiek is
aangezien dat deze kosten voor de rekening van Vader Piet Beheer zijn. Publiek reageerde met
ongeloof, en reacties waren dat het onmogelijk was te geloven dat de onderhoudskosten niet
doorberekend zullen worden. Henk Hutting verzekerde dat de prijs voor de wind energie vast ligt.
Verder zei hij dat energie via zonnepanelen vier keer zo duur zal uitvallen, vergeleken met de wind
turbines. Iemand merkte op dat hij zelf 22 zonnepanelen heeft en dat het uitstekend werkt. Hutting
zei dat de turbines toch meer energie produceren.
Mevrouw Nancy de Vries kon niet begrijpen waarom het op een klein eiland, als wind weg valt, dat
het niet overal op hetzelfde moment ook zou gebeuren. Hutting legde uit dat wind niet overal op het
eiland wegvalt, behalve dan in de maanden Augustus, September. Als het in San Nicolaas regent,
betekent dat niet dat het elders op het eiland ook regent. En regen komt altijd met eerst een
windvlaag en daarna met het wegvallen van de wind en dat kan per regio op Aruba varieren. Door
de wind parken apart te zetten krijgt de WEB de nodige tijd, rond 15 minuten om extra diesel
generatoren op te starten zonder dat de electriciteit uitvalt. Julia de Ruiter vroeg over de
mogelijkheid van de installatie van een radar die de winduitval op korte termijn zou kunnen
aangeven, opdat de WEB toch voldoende tijd krijgt om de dieselturbines op te starten. Dat zou ook
in de MER moeten, volgens haar.
Verder had Mevrouw de Vries kanttekeningen over waarom het onderzoek over de trekvogels in
Maart heeft plaatsgenomen ipv herfst. Volgens Wim Kok, geen onderzoek is perfect en op gegeven
moment moet een onderzoek toch afgerond zijn. Hij begreep dat er nog onzekerheden zijn, maar dat
KEMA wel open staat voor specifieke en objectieve informatie.
Mevr. De Vries had ook moeite met de hoogte van de turbines, en concludeerde dat hun top tot 150
meter vanaf zee niveau zullen reiken.
Een bodyboarder klaagde dat de turbines de windvlagen gaat verstoren en stelde dat de surfers noch
KEMA noch Vader Piet Beheer vertrouwen.
Vraag werd gesteld of KEMA nu een advies gaat geven aan de regering nu er zoveel argumenten
tegen het project zijn, of het een ‘done deal’ is en of de regering al voor het project heeft betaald.
Henk Hutting verzekerde dat het project geen done deal is. Hij legt uit dat Vader Piet een goede
locatie is en blijft, maar dat de regering van Aruba als bescherming tegen stijgende olie prijzen meer
gebruik wil gaan maken van duurzaam energie en dat door het zeer gunstige wind regime voor Aruba
windenergie de goedkoopste optie is.
Een buurtbewoner reageerde emotioneel en zei dat zijn huis minder dan 800 meter van een turbine
zal komen te staan, en dat hij in een klap 40 procent van zijn huiswaarde kwijt is. Hij beschreef de
MER als een leugen.
Henk Hutting herhaalt dat alle bevindingen gedurende de hoorzitting in de MER zullen komen te
staan en dan aan de regering worden overgedragen.
Paul Croes
Voorzitter van de Staten Paul Croes kwam later in de hoorzitting en gaf bij de afronding zijn
commentaren. Hij had wel waardering voor de hoorzitting, maar gaf wel aan dat hij eerder die dag
zowel de heer Kok als de heer Hutting al had aangegeven er vele dingen ontbraken in de MER.
Onderzoek naar aantal vogels kan niet in drie dagen plaatsnemen. Vandaar dat het gedeelte waar
drs. Greg Peterson en Aruba Birdlife Conservation benoemd wordt als waardeloos moet worden
beschouwd. Het rapport moet herbekeken worden aldus Croes.
Hij had ook problemen met het feit dat een religieus gebied verstoord zal worden. Het feit dat er
maar twee passages zijn in het hele rapport over Alto Vista is blijk dat er geen waarde aan het gebied
is toegekend. Paul Croes benadrukte dat hij aan de kant van de bevolking staat, en dat de rust die de
omgeving geeft aan mensen die even weg willen van alle drukte onbetaalbaar is. Dat gevoel, de zorg
hoort ook in een hoorzitting. Over afstand valt er wel te debatteren, maar de gevoelens en zorg van
de bevolking ziet Croes niet terug in de MER en die moeten ook meegewogen worden. Volgens Croes
zijn de aanwezigen maar een klein deel van een grotere groep die tegen het project zijn. Vanuit de
Staten wordt het bericht wel naar de regering gestuurd. Croes beschouwde het belachelijk dat er
veel aandacht werd geschonken aan decibels, afstand maar dat er weinig over het cultureel aspect in
de MER staat en dat de economische aspecten helemaal niet besproken warden. Hij vond dat
selectief.
Henk Hutting haalde aan dat de heer Croes bij de presentatie van de WEB was en degelijk informatie
heeft gekregen over de economische aspecten.
Parlamentarier Evelyn Wever Croes haakte aan bij wat de Statenvoorzitter naar voren bracht, en
vroeg wat het Parlament gaat doen. Parlament kan het project stoppen en vroeg of de opponenten
met de steun van Paul Croes kunnen rekenen. Een groep mensen in het publiek begonnen met leuzes
zoals Biba MEP te schreeuwen.
74101509-PGR 12-7312 Paul Croes zei dat hij en Mevrouw Wever Croes niet altijd op dezelfde lijn staan, maar dat hij op dat
moment de functie heeft als Statenvoorzitter. Hij gaf aan dat de buurtbewoners op zijn steun kunnen
rekenen. Hij praatte niet namens zijn fractie. Maar verzekerde dat de presentatie van de
buurtbewoners wel een sterk indruk hebben gemaakt op mensen die hun twijfels hadden. Volgens
Paul Croes hebben leden van zijn fractie veel begrip voor de zorg van de buurtbewoners.
Hoorzitting werd beëindigd om 21:30.
Lijst ingekomen stukken hoorzitting
A Brieven
1 Aruba Birdlife Conservation betreffende: Tweede windmolenpark en vogel migratie routes
2 Petitie van bewoners van Tierra del Sol
A Milieu gerelateerde rapporten en artikelen
1 Wind turbine Health impact study, jan 2012, Massachusetts
2 Le retentissement du fonctionnement des éoliennes sur la santé de l’homme. Académie
National de Médicine. 2006.
3 Wind turbines, noise and Health. De Amanda, Harry. February 2007
4 The sounds of high winds. G.P. van den Berg. Proefschrift 2006
5 Responses of the inner Ear to Infrasound. Alec N. Salt and Jeffery T. Lichtenhan. Fourth
International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, 2011
6 Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evedince about the Health effects of Industrial
Wind Turbines on nearby residents. Carl V. Philips, Populi Health Institute
7 Wind Turbine Syndrome & the Brain. Nina Piermont. 2010
8 Your guide to Wind Turbine Syndrome. Calvin Luther Martin. 2010
9 Wind turbine noise, sleep and health. Dr. Christopher Hanning. 2010
10 The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Barber, Crooks & Fristrup.
2009
11 A summary of new evidence: Adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines. Carmen
Krogh & Brett Horner. 2011
12 Letter from Vestas: low frequency noise and wind turbines. Detlef Engel. Dec 2011
B Overige rapporten en artikelen
1 Impact of wind energy in a future power grid. Phd thesis Joris Soens, 2005, University of
Leuven
2 De schaduw van wind door Arno Brand. 2010
3 Brandstofmix in beweging, Energieraad 2008
4 Electricity generation costs. DECC UK. 2009
5 Electricity costs: the folly of wind power. Ruth Lea, 2012
6 Supplying baselaod power and reducing transmission requirements by interconnecting
wind farms
7 Hoge Raad. WOZ, Slagschaduw- en geluidhinder van nabijgelegen windmolen drukken
WOZ waarde.
8 Speech at general meeting Vestas. Mauri Johansson. 29 Maart 2012
Presentielijst hoorziting
74101509-PGR 12-7312
74101509-PGR 12-7312
APPENDIX IX REPORT GOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION
Minutes of meeting
Date: 23 May, 2012
Location: offices Department of Infrastructure & Planning (DIP)
Subject: Social and Environmental Impact Assessment wind farm Urirama
Present: for the department: Mrs. I. Dammers, managing director DIP; Ir. N. Fransen, Head
of section Spatial Planning Policy and drs. T. Oord, senior policy maker Spatial
Planning; for Vader Piet Beheer NV: H.K. Hutting, managing director
Objective: clarification to the SEIA and exchange of information.
1 Intro: After the presentation on the SEIA made by KEMA on 16 May 2012 to all
relevant departments of the government of Aruba, an additional meeting with DIP was
arranged to enable discussions on the SEIA in more detail, especial from a planning
perspective.
2 Issuance of land: DIP will prepare for swift issuance of land, once government has
made a positive decision, but only on 11 small parcels dedicated to wind turbines and
substation only.
3 Why not more power at or near existing wind farm: By order of WEB Aruba very
comprehensive studies by two independent consultancy firms and based on actual
measurements have demonstrated that it is not technically/economically feasible to
build near the existing wind farm, in spite of it being the preferred location for all
involved on forehand. The cost of spinning reserve would become too high and fuel
saving/avoidance of pollution will be limited due to oil burned for spinning reserve.
4 Why not areas suggested by DIP during SEIA quick scan, Annex 2:
a. Offshore: at least twice as expensive and no yield gain to be expected. Does
not comply with demand of government to lower cost of power.
b. Near refinery: too close to both Vader Piet and many dwellings (noise)
c. Close to Vader Piet: see 2
d. Too close to Tierra del Sol lake (Birds)
e. Part of current design: could be suitable
5 North/South line within Urirama area: advice of DIP during quick scan phase was
followed and only area near coast was investigated in more detail in full SEIA.
6 Why not area near Natural Bridge: Unfavourable direction of coast line towards wind
requires more space for wind farm, space which is not available within the constraints
set by noise standards.
7 Other areas: not available due to lack of sufficient space in relation to required
distance to dwellings. Except being too small, the area near Lighthouse has also a
much higher value in respect to landscape then the Urirama site.
8 Impact on landscape: will be high along the entire North coast but will differ only
marginally from place to place.
9 General: DIP expressed that they never received a formal request for advice from the
government on the spatial planning issues related to the wind farm.
74101509-PGR 12-7312
APPENDIX X QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE STATEN OF ARUBA TO VADER PIET BEHEER ON THE SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Questions asked on 15 May and answered orally on 16 May 2012 in the Aruban parliament
("Staten van Aruba")
1 Waarom zijn geen metingen gedaan bij Vader Piet ipv berekeningen voor geluid
2 Zijn er alternatieven onderzocht in het MER; welke en waarom is daar niet voor gekozen
3 Kan aangegeven worden wat de tijdelijke en permanente schade ten gevolge van het
transport zullen zijn.
4 Is de geluidcirkel van 850 meter in het locatie-onderzoek een kwestie van beleid
5 Hoe zijn de afstanden in verhouding met die bij Vader Piet.
6 Worden elders wind parken in de bebouwde kom aanvaard
7 Worden de bewoners niet laat geïnformeerd
8 Er zijn pinnen gevonden; hebben die met het windpark te maken
9 We hebben te korte tijd gehad om te reageren.
10 De heer Peterson stelt dat hij niet wist waarom Jan van der Winden met hem gesproken
had en wat zijn opdracht was
11 Het Mer (p 65) benoemt de culturele en historische waarde van de Alta Vista Chapel. De
beschrijving is te beperkt.
12 In het MER staan geen foto's met de kapel er op.
13 Wat is de hoogte van de turbines
14 Hoe zou het MER er uit zien onder Nederlandse wetgeving
15 Welke geluidstandaard legt het RIVM aan voor windturbines
16 Er is een brief van de kitesurf vereniging die hinder van de turbines verwacht. Wat zal het
effect voor hen zijn
17 Er staat niet in het Ruimtelijk ontwikkelingsplan dat windturbines toegelaten zijn. Hoe
gaat u hiermee om
18 Er is een motie uit Maastricht waarin op de gezondheidseffecten van windturbines wordt
ingegaan. Hoe vertaalt deze motie zich naar dit park
19 Er is internationaal nieuwe regelgeving voor windturbines ontwikkeld. Hoe verhoudt deze
regelgeving zich tot die welke bij dit project is gehanteerd.
20 In de ruimtelijke plannen is het bewust gebied als groen aangemerkt. Zijn er adviezen
van de departementen ivm een eventuele toewijzing
21 Wordt rekening gehouden met inspraak van bewoners in het kader van de ROB
22 Welke grenswaarden zijn gehanteerd ten aanzien van laagfrequent geluid
23 Er is sprake van gezondheidseffecten tot 2 km. Bij o.a. Sero Pela is de afstand maar 900
m. Kunnen geen gezondheidsaspecten optreden.
24 In de lezing was sprake van een "compromis". Een compromis tussen welke dingen of
personen
25 Hoe weegt u economische voordelen af tegen economisch gewin
26 Er is volgens sommigen een risico op slaapverstoring, gezondheid, invloed op ongeboren
vruchten en impotentie. Hoe beoordeelt u die risico's.
27 In wiens opdracht is het MER gemaakt
28 Wat gebeurt met het batterij afval dat na de constructie achter blijft
29 Hoe duurzaam is wind. Hoe onderhoudsgevoelig zijn windturbines
30 Is het juist dat ze bij overproductie van het net gehaald moeten worden
31 Is er een alternatief voor Urirama
32 Welke invloed heeft het project op de bezoekers van de Alta Vista Chapel
33 Is het niet mogelijk het windpark op zee te plaatsen
34 Kan het niet opschuiven naar het noorden. Is dat een ernstig bezwaar voor vogels
35 Hoe zou het MER er in Nederland uitgezien hebben
36 Is de nabootsing/visualisatie wel reëel. Overdrijven niet beide partijen
37 Jammer dat er geen metingen bij Vader Piet zijn op 900 m
38 Kun je wel conclusies trekken uit een bezoek van drie dagen. Met name over trekvogels.
39 De wet Milieubeheer schrijft nieuwe normen voor van 40 dB(A). Moet het project hier niet
aan getoetst worden
40 Wat stelt de norm van 47 dB(A) voor
41 Het RIVM stelt dat windturbines eerder hinder geven. Is daarin het effect van
laagfrequent geluid wel voldoende meegenomen
42 Er zijn verbeteringen nodig. Het effect van vibraties en gevoel is niet voldoende
meegenomen. Er moet meer ingegaan worden op de gezondheidseffecten
43 Wat is het effect op schade aan planten en dieren. Is de gezondheid van de bevolking
wel voldoende onderzocht
44 Er is tegenstrijdigheid van informatie o.a. over trekvogels. Hierover is meer info nodig.
45 Is de hoorzitting geen mosterd na de maaltijd.
46 De Bird life conservation vindt het rapport slecht.
47 De bewoners worden nu pas betrokken bij het project. Is dat niet veel te laat.
48 Kunt u uitleggen waarom de vogels wel of niet over de 3 km van Urirama vliegen tov de
gehele kustlengte van 30 km
49 Door middel van metingen zou de ideale plek gevonden moeten worden
50 Hoe kan het dat er zulke grote verschillen in de mening van Aruba Birdlife conservation
en bureau Waardenburg zijn
51 Er is een geluidnorm van 47 dB(A) gehanteerd. Er zijn echter ook publicaties die van een
verschillende beleving uit gaan.
52 Bent u bereid onderzoek te doen naar de beleving van de mensen
53 Er is sprake van een compromis. Is er geen beter ideaal te vinden
74101509-PGR 12-7312 54 Wordt het geluid gemitigeerd door de golven
55 Vernomen is dat burgers in Nederland op bepaalde afstand van windturbines niet
ontvankelijk worden verklaard. Wat is de relevantie voor dit project
56 Er is meer behoefte aan informatie over gezondheidsaspecten
57 Hoeveel geld aan onderzoek is tot nog toe besteed en zou geen onderzoek naar de
gevoelens van de locale bevolking uitgevoerd moeten worden
58 Windsurfers zijn bezorgd over de invloed van het project op de wind voor de surfers.
Welke effecten verwacht u.
59 Welke internationale standaarden zijn van toepassing en welke zouden voor Aruba
moeten gelden
60 De heer Peterson heeft het rapport van bureau Waardenburg waardeloos genoemd.
Langer onderzoek dan drie dagen is nodig om migratiepaden vast te stellen.
61 De beleving van Alta Vista Chapel krijgt onvoldoende aandacht. Daarbij moet ook
ingegaan worden op het religieuze aspect.
Oranjestad, 15 mei 2012.
