Tag Archives: James Bradley Environment

Amherst Island community groups files lawsuit

07 Friday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The wind turbines on Wolfe Island are partially obscured by blowing snow during a cold and windy winter day in Kingston recently.<br /> IAN MACALPINE/KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD/QMI AGENCY

The wind turbines on Wolfe Island are partially obscured by blowing snow during a cold and windy winter day in Kingston recently. IAN MACALPINE/KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD/QMI AGENCY

WIND TURBINES

Amherst Island group files lawsuit 22

By Elliot Ferguson, Kingston Whig-Standard

Thursday, March 6, 2014 6:20:44 EST PM

AMHERST ISLAND – The group opposed to a wind energy development on Amherst Island is going to court to challenge a recent government ruling that permitted the project to move ahead.
In an application filed Thursday with the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, the Association to Protect Amherst Island (APAI) asked for a judicial review of the Jan. 2 decision by the Ministry of the Environment to declare complete the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) submitted by Windlectric Inc., the company seeking to build the Amherst Island wind project.
Windlectric plans to build a 75-megawatt wind energy project on the 70-square-kilometre Amherst Island, involving up to 36 turbines.
The January ruling meant the project was entering the technical review stage, during which the different reports filed by the company in support of the development are reviewed.
An REA deemed complete also allowed the project to proceed into 65 days of public comment, a phase set to conclude March 8.
In its application, which named Windlectric, the director of environmental approvals and the provincial ministries of the environment, natural resources and tourism, culture and sport, APAI stated the REA did not contain key components.
“The decision to deem the project application complete surprised the Association as substantial evidence as to why the project should not proceed to the technical review stage of the process,” the association stated in a release Thursday.
The association stated the application for the review is “consistent” with the position of Loyalist Township.
In October, Loyalist Township council passed a motion that called for the rejection of “incomplete” project applications.
APAI said the technical details of the Windlectric REA were far from complete.
The items missing included…

Read the full story here.

Our note: errors are not uncommon in these applications. The application Prowind filed for the South Branch project south of Ottawa originally had the project in the wrong county! Communities are taking a hard look at these documents, and consulting with lawyers.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Wrong, wrong, wrong

27 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The Times

Wrong to assume

Blanding-SmallThe Prince Edward County Field Naturalists are wrong. Ontario Nature. Nature Canada. Both wrong. Dr. Robert McMurtry is wrong. The South Shore Conservancy is wrong. So too is the Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory. Alvar, bird, butterfly, turtle and bat experts are all wrong. The municipality of Prince Edward is wrong. As are the majority of County residents who believed Crown Land at Ostrander Point should be preserved—rather than industrialized for the profit of one corporation.

And now we have learned that Ontario’s own Environmental Review Tribunal is wrong. A Toronto court has said so. This ought to keep Premier Kathleen Wynne up at night.

The Tribunal’s Robert Wright and Heather Gibbs spent more than 40 days hearing evidence, challenging testimony and witnesses and weighing competing claims. They began their task in a snowstorm in February; and delivered their decision on a hot July day last summer. Wright and Gibbs visited Ostrander Point. They walked around. They saw, with their own eyes, what was at stake.

They dug deep into the evidence. They weren’t satisfied that the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) had sufficiently scrutinized the developer’s plans before issuing it a permit to “harm, harass and kill” endangered species, including the Blanding’s turtle.

They discovered that mitigation measures proposed by the developer to ensure overall benefit to the species were untested and worse, according to evidence presented before them—unlikely to work, particularly for the population at Ostrander Point.

However, the Toronto court ruled that Wright and Gibbs should have given the MNR the benefit of doubt.

“In my view, the Tribunal ought to have assumed that the MNR would properly and adequately monitor compliance with the ESA (Endangered Species Act) permit,” wrote Justice Ian Nordheimer in the decision.

But Wright and Gibbs, after listening to 40 days of testimony and examining nearly 200 documents entered into evidence, concluded they could not make that assumption.

The Tribunal’s error was that it didn’t believe the MNR would adequately look out for the Blanding’s turtle.

Wright and Gibbs had gone backward and forward through the proposals prepared and submitted by the developer and accepted by the MNR. They concluded the “Blanding’s turtle at Ostrander Point Crown Land Block will not be effectively mitigated by the conditions of the REA [Renewable Energy Approval].”

The court didn’t say Wright and Gibbs were wrong about their conclusions, but that they should have “accepted the ESA permit at face value” or explained better why their conclusions were different than the MNR.

“The Tribunal was obliged to explain how the fact that the MNR had concluded under the ESA that the project would lead to an overall benefit to Blanding’s turtle (notwithstanding the harm that would arise from the project) could mesh with its conclusion that the project would cause irreversible harm to the same species,” wrote Justice Nordheimer.

This is the bit that ought to send a cold shiver through Premier Wynne and anyone else who is worries about the welfare of endangered species in this province.

Read the full article here.

Ontario citizens expect environment to be protected

25 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Ontario citizens want wildlife protected from wind power plants

Monday, Feb 24, 2014

TORONTO, Feb. 20, 2014 /CNW/ – Ontario citizens expect government to protect wildlife, according to a recent poll. Results of an online public poll hosted by Wind Concerns Ontario showed that 97.38 percent of the more than 1,300 people responding said they did not support the killing of birds and animals for wind power development.

“We think Ontario citizens are unaware of the government’s policy on wildlife, even endangered species, and wind power,” said Jane Wilson, president, Wind Concerns Ontario. “They don’t know that wind power developers are allowed to show that the ‘overall benefit’ of their projects trumps the need to protect birds and animals.”

At the Ostrander Point wind power project to be built on Crown land, the developer proposed to build a “compensation area” for endangered Blanding’s turtles, Wilson said. “We’re not sure how the turtles were going to get the message about that,” Wilson said. “The real message is, this government supports wind power developers, no matter what the cost.”

SOURCE Wind Concerns Ontario

windconcerns@gmail.com

NOTE: the South Branch wind power plant, which is about to begin operations soon just south of Ottawa, received a permit to kill, harm or harass the protected Bobolink.

Rick Conroy on Amherst Island wind power project: the terrible prospect

01 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

There are very few independent newspapers left in Canada. Most are now part of chains, and as a result, their editorial content follows whatever line the ownership decrees. Here then is the refreshing view of wind power in Ontario from editor of The Wellington Times, the “must-read” tab in Prince Edward County.

The Times

Last defence

The channel that separates Amherst Island from Prince Edward County is scarcely two kilometres wide. The island itself is tiny—just 20 kilometres long and seven kilometres across at its widest point. It is likely that in some ancient past Prince Edward County and Amherst Island were connected.

Now these communities share a common threat—a threat to the birds that stopover on their way north and south. To the animals that live here and make this unique habitat their own. To a pastoral way of life. And to the very health and well-being of the folks who who call these island communities home.

Earlier this month, the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) deemed complete an application by a company controlled by Algonquin Power to construct as many as 37 industrial wind turbines on this small and fragile island. Thirty seven turbines. Each soaring more than 400 feet into the air— blades sweeping the sky over a span of 10,000 square metres (equal to two acres of sky for each turbine).

Once erected— there will be no escape. No place to avoid the unrelenting thrum or flicker from blades swooshing overhead. No safe passage for migrating birds seeking to avoid the treacherous minefield of turbines stretching across the island.

The playground for the only elementary school on the island lies within 550 metres of one of the proposed turbines. Hydro One won’t allow wind turbines that close to its transmission lines for fear of damage—but the Ontario government deems school children less valuable, it seems.

The simple truth is that it is impossible to cram 37 turbines onto this tiny island and avoid putting humans, animals and natural habitat at risk. It is why the developer, in a report prepared by a consultant on the threat posed by this project to more than 14 endangered or threatened species, stresses that it will work to minimize the impact of its project, but that its first obligation is to “ensure the commitments of the contract” and “ensure renewable energy is delivered to the province”. The developer has made it clear what its priorities are.

We know too, from experience in this community, what the province’s priorities are. The MOE and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is already running ahead to clear the regulatory path for the developer. Endangered species and human health concerns are merely check boxes on a form to be filled in.

Once the turbines are erected Amherst Island will be lost for at least a generation—disfigured and devastated for the duration of the developer’s guaranteed 20-year contract with the province. For species on the brink of survival, the damage may well be permanent.

Read the full article here.

Ostrander Point appeal: citizens vs government in court next week

17 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Final chapter

Fair-Fight

PECFN and APPEC are represented by Eric Gillespie and Natalie Smith. The MOE is represented by Sylvia Davis and Sarah Kronkamp. Gilead Power’s case will be argued by Doug Hamilton, Chris Wayland and Sam Rogers of Mc- Carthy Tetrault.

Ostrander Point victory to be tested in appeal court next week

There are many people will be nervously watching developments in a Toronto courtroom beginning next Tuesday. It is here that likely the last chapter of the industrial wind turbines on Ostrander Point is to be written.

HOW WE GOT HERE
In 2009, the Green Energy Act was made law. The sweeping legislation comprised an array of measures designed to ease the development of more renewable energy projects in the province. It reduced or eliminated regulations and processes used by its safeguarding agencies, including the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Energy Board. It replaced several regulatory appeals with one—the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Politicians, such as former MPP Leona Dombrowski, assured anxious rural Ontario residents, communities and their local leaders that the ERT, or Tribunal, would be independent, thorough and their conclusions would be final. Many residents were unsettled by the assurances—viewing the ERT as merely the last checkbox for a developer to tick before being released to plunder the provincial treasure and lay waste to the rural countryside. It was viewed as a cynical contrivance by a government fixated on seeing thousands of industrial wind turbines spinning in the provincial countryside. It would be Premier Dalton McGuinty’s legacy to Ontarians.

To ensure ERT adjudicators weren’t being led astray by sympathetic arguments by those defending their communities, livelihoods and natural environment, the Green Energy Act dictated that the legal test for the ERT would be impossibly high.

To be successful an appeal to this panel would have to prove “serious harm to human health” or in the case of birds, animals and their habitat the requirement is to prove “serious and irreversible harm.”

OSTRANDER POINT
Late in 2011 the Ministry of Environment issued a Renewable Energy Approval to Gilead Power Corporation, enabling it to proceed with its plan to erect nine industrial wind turbines, each soaring 423 feet into the flight path of the millions of birds that migrate through the region each spring and fall. It granted the approval on Crown Land—essentially industrializing a rugged and largely wild bit of the south shore of Prince Edward County.

Two appeals were made to the province’s ERT.

The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County presented witnesses who described the damaging effects of living near industrial wind turbines. They presented scientific and medical evidence to support their position that wind turbines were hurting Ontario residents and that no other project should be permitted until a thorough and independent study of the health effects was conducted and shown to be safe.

The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists presented expert evidence on the rare and sensitive alvar habitat at Ostrander Point. Evidence showed that a number of endangered species of birds and animals shared this unique ecosystem, and that tipping the balance to industrial development would put the survival of endangered species in peril.

Read the full article here.