Tag Archives: wind farm environmental damage

Picton barge incident highlights wind developer attitude to environment

02 Sunday Apr 2017

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The recent sinking of a commercial barge near Picton, Ontario, in Prince Edward County, has resulted in a spotlight on the activities by wind power developer Algonquin Power, and its controversial Windlectric project on Amherst Island.

The project will virtually subsume the little island, which is home to 34 at-risk or endangered species of wildlife, and change life for its residents dramatically. However, that wasn’t enough to sway the Environmental Review Tribunal, which dismissed a citizen group appeal. The project is still before the courts, with a new phase beginning in Toronto this week, before Divisional Court.

One of the requirements in a power developer’s Renewable Energy Approval or REA is a marine logistics plan, which documents how marine safety will be managed as construction proceeds, and equipment and material such as gravel are transported over water.

Windlectric had no Marine Logistics Plan in place.

Until the day after the barge sank.

The barge was to transport gravel from Prince Edward County across the water to the Windlectric site but encountered ice which “sandpapered” a two-foot by two-foot hole in the hull, and partially sank.

Windlectric hastily issued a Marine Logistics Plan which, interestingly, made no mention whatsoever of the use of Picton Bay, and how the barge traffic was going to work with the Glenora Ferry trips every 15 minutes. Picton elected officials also expressed surprise at the use of the Picton Terminal: they had no idea that Algonquin Power was getting gravel from Prince Edward County, and there had been no agreements for road use.

Use of the Picton facility has now been halted, and Prince Edward County remains under a Boil Water advisory due to the spill of diesel fuel, although the state of emergency has been revised from earlier this week.

This weekend, the power developer issued a statement saying the barge sinking was “unfortunate” but “outside the project’s boundary at the time of the event.” So, not our concern.

Algonquin Power is also seeking the use of a stretch of parkland near Millhaven and Bath to use as a construction staging area; the company claims it will return the parkland to its original state after it is finished.

Barge carrying construction equipment and material: no plan in place at the time of accident [Photo Jay Pickerel/Facebook]

The fact remains that the construction of wind “farms” is actually construction of huge power plants, no matter what bucolic photos of benign “windmills” are used.

Questions should be raised about the environmental impact of these construction activities not only of the developers but also the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, which citizens have a right to expect is overseeing events and confirming that mandated conditions for environmental protection and safety are being met.

Advertisement

Prince Edward County in state of emergency following pollution incident

29 Wednesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

Barge carrying construction equipment and material: no plan in place at the time of accident [Photo Jay Pickerel/Facebook]

A barge carrying construction materials to the Windlectric wind farm site on nearby Amherst Island sank this past weekend, polluting Picton Bay with diesel fuel. The bay is the source of drinking water for Picton; at the time of the incident, the wind power company had not yet filed a mandatory Marine Logistic Plan to document safety measures.

The Amherst Island group says in light of violations of terms of the power developer’s agreement with the government, the project –which will cost Ontario electricity customers $500 million over 20 years–should be cancelled.

A news story from CTV is here:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/picton-water-treatment-plant-reopens-but-water-emergency-remains-in-place-1.3345517

The Association to Protect Amherst Island issued this statement today.

Dear Premier Wynne

Prince Edward County Mayor Robert Quaiff has declared a water emergency as a result of contaminants approaching the Picton-Bloomfield water intake due to a partially sunken barge in Picton Harbour under contract to McNeil Marine and ultimately under contract to Algonquin Power/Windlectric for the proposed Amherst Island Wind Project.
The silence from Algonquin Power/Windlectric is deafening.
Indeed Algonquin/Windlectric had the audacity to attempt to continue aggregate delivery from Picton Terminals to Amherst Island yesterday (Tuesday March 28 2017) but was thwarted either because either the water was too low or the dock too high, yet another example of the comedy of errors associated with this ill-conceived project.
The Association to Protect Amherst Island reiterates its request for MOECC to issue an immediate stop work order for the Amherst Island Wind Project until such time as a comprehensive report is available for the Picton Harbour incident and a preventative action plan is is place to address the high risk to public and environmental safety of all aspects of the project. and to address the need for a Major Design Modification to address the changed project location to include Picton Terminals.
 
At the same time, the Association reaffirms its request to reject the proposed amendment to the Certificate of Property Use for the contaminated  Invista Lands on Bath Road (EBR 012-9749) designated as parkland.  Similar to the Picton Harbour situation, a water intake exists in proximity to the proposed mainland dock for the Amherst Island Wind Project and serves a local industrial park.  Algonquin/Windlectric in its Marine Safety Plan now advises that fuelling of barges is proposed at the mainland dock location.  Not only is the land contaminated with the possibility of pollution of Lake Ontario, the company plans to fuel in proximity to a water intake.

The same “Marine Safety Plan” fails to address any aspect of transport of materials from Picton terminals except for a vague reference that “The bulk barge and the ATV (Aggregate Transfer Vessel)  will approach and leave the island dock area from the west, . . . ” as if from the Land of Oz.  The Association is in the process of reviewing this “too little, too late” document and will have further comments about use of barges in ice conditions, the lack of traffic volume, lack of simulation of barges crossing the ferry path, incomplete information about the installation of the high voltage transmission line from the mainland to the Island and the total lack of risk assessment, failure to mention Picton Terminals,among other matters.

The use of an “Aggregate Transfer Vessel” was not identified in the REA submission and no stockpiling of aggregate was proposed other than in immediate proximity to the proposed cement batching plant by the Island school.
The Association has emphasized the importance of marine safety since this project was proposed and has pleaded with politicians, MOECC, Ontario’s Chief Drinking Water Official and the Chief Fire Marshall and Head of Emergency Preparedness.
Please take immediate action to stop the Amherst Island Wind Project before a tragedy occurs.
Thank you.
Sincerely
Michèle Le Lay
President
Association to Protect Amherst Island

Wind turbines do not trump natural environment, Tribunal says

07 Tuesday Jun 2016

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The long awaited decision of the Environmental review Tribunal on the appeal of a proposed wind power project at Ostrander Point in Prince Edward County was released yesterday. The Tribunal says that due to the clear danger to endangered species, the proposed project — approved by the Ontario government — is “not consistent” with the goals of renewable energy policy.

South Shore Prince Edward County: wind power does not trump protection of natural environment [Photo Point 2 Point Foundation]

South Shore Prince Edward County: wind power does not trump protection of natural environment [Photo Point 2 Point Foundation]

The Kingston Whig-Standard, June 6, 2016

By Bruce Bell

PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY – It appears the gates to Ostrander Point are closed and there will be no turbines allowed entry.
An Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) issued it’s ruling early Monday, upholding an appeal of the nine-turbine project by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN), saying the installation of gates on access roads won’t adequately protect the population or habitat of Blanding’s turtles.
In their decision, ERT members Heather Gibbs and Robert Wright found “the remedies proposed by Ostrander [Gilead] and the Director are not appropriate in the unique circumstances of this case. The Tribunal finds that the appropriate remedy under s.145.2.1 (4) is to revoke the Director’s decision to issue the REA [Renewable Energy Approval].”
The issue has raged on since Gilead Power received their Renewable Energy Approval (REA) in 2012 It was almost immediately appealed by PECFN. Another appeal by the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, based on potential harm to humans was dismissed by the ERT
“We feel so vindicated with the decision,” said PECFN president Myrna Wood shortly after news of the decision was received. “Especially since the Tribunal said it understands how important renewable energy is to the future, but it cannot override harm to the species and their habitat.”
In 2013, the ERT upheld the PECFN appeal of the REA to Gilead Power — the first time an appeal of an REA under Ontario’s 2009 Green Energy laws had been successful. A year later, an Ontario Court reversed the ERT decision, only to see the Court of Appeal side with the PECFN earlier this year, but did allow for Gilead to propose remedial action to circumvent environmental damage.
“Our south shore is so important to so many species and that environment simply cannot be destroyed for the development of renewable energy,” she said. “We were the first appeal on environmental grounds and I think that will likely have an effect going forward and I would think that’s why we were fought so hard by the Ministry of Environment.”
The project would require the construction of more than five kilometres of access roads to construct and service the nine turbines and as part of the remedy, Gilead proposed to reduce traffic by installing gates
Wood said she wasn’t certain if there was another step Gilead Power could take following Monday’s decision.  …

Read the full news story here.

Wind farm appeal an eye-opener on government oversight of wind power approvals

01 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Birds? What birds? MNRF "biologist" misses the fact the South Shore of Prince Edward County is a designated Important Bird Area. It is slated for a 29-turbine wind power project.

Birds? What birds? MNRF “biologist” misses the fact the South Shore of Prince Edward County is a designated Important Bird Area. It is slated for a 29-turbine wind power project.

There have been many appeals of wind power project approvals in Ontario —in fact, almost EVERY approval since 2009 has been appealed—but the two appeals ongoing in Prince Edward County currently are interesting as they focus on the approval process for power projects, and the expert oversight citizens expect is part of it.

The truth? There isn’t any oversight.

If the wind power developer says there are not at-risk or endangered species in the project area then, well, they must be right. According to the government, that is.

The Ostrander Point appeal is now in its fifth phase as the appeal has bounced from the quasi-judicial Environmental Review Tribunal to court and back; we learned there that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources at-risk species expert recommended a permit NOT be granted for the power project.

And now, testimony at the White Pines appeal, also in Prince Edward County, is showing that the developer and the government relied on inadequate and incomplete consulting reports, and the government never bothered to check. At yesterday’s hearing, the MNRF “biologist” (she has a BA in environmental studies) stated that she was “unaware” that the County’s South Shore was a site for thousands of migratory birds, or that the power project site had several species of at-risk or endangered wildlife.

We invite you to follow along the excellent reports of the White Pines appeal (Ostrander Point has now heard all the evidence and will see final submissions in mid-January) at both Wind Concerns Ontario and the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC).

It’s an eye-opener.

[To donate to APPEC’s legal fight click here.]

Ontario ignored recommendation not to build wind farm: government scientist

07 Monday Sep 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Did the McGuinty government ignore real science in favour of political ideology?

Did the McGuinty government ignore real science in favour of political ideology?

Report from the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists on stunning testimony at the Environmental Review Tribunal, September 4.

What began as a usual day in the extended Environmental Review Tribunal appeal of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change plan to allow development at Ostrander Point in the PEC South Shore Important Bird Area finished with an unexpected ruling.

The witness was Joe Crowley from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, who was qualified as a species at risk herpetologist with expertise in Blanding’s Turtles.  Mr. Crowley has a long history of interest in and working in the field of herpetology in Ontario and helped to develop the Ontario Herpetology Atlas, a citizen science project, while working with Ontario Nature before he started his tenure with MNRF.  At MNRF his responsibilities included being the species at risk expert on herpetology, giving advice to staff and partners and conservation groups on the development of species at risk protection plans.  He was instrumental in developing the provincial task team forestry policy regarding amphibians and reptiles. He is a member of the reptile and amphibian sub- committee of COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada), reviewing reports for that committee of technical and scientific information which informs decisions regarding listing species at risk.  He is the Vice President of the Canadian Herpetology Society responsible for web site development and communication.

Mr. Crowley’s witness statement was concerned with the attempts to mitigate harm to the indigenous turtle population at Ostrander Point through the installation of gates on the turbine access roads and a program of monitoring, signage and staff training.  Mr. Crowley answered many questions about the effectiveness of the various mitigation measures proposed to protect the turtles.  Gates are proposed on about 6 road intersections on the site including the intersection of Helmer Rd and Petticoat Point Lane.  Mr. Crowley indicated that he felt that those gates would reduce the risk of turtle mortality to public vehicular traffic; however the presence of roads would increase the probability of turtles nesting in a place that would make them more vulnerable to predation and the roads were unlikely to deter poachers.

The unexpected part of the day came when Mr. Crowley was asked about his role in the granting of the Endangered Species Act permit granted allowing the proponent to “kill harm and harass” the Whip—poor-will and the Blanding’s Turtle at Ostrander point.  Mr. Crowley stated that his advice at the time was not to allow the permit because the project roads would prove a risk to the site’s indigenous Blanding’s Turtles.

This new information caused an abrupt halt in the proceedings.  The legal argument was made by PECFN counsel, Eric Gillespie that it appeared that a senior manager at MNRF had advised against approval of the Ostrander project at the very onset. Mr. Gillespie requested documentation of that advice. Mr. Crowley was unable to produce any documentation and asserted that the final decision on the project was not his. Ultimately after much legal discussion the Tribunal issued a ruling:

That the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry witnesses produce forthwith all papers and electronic correspondence to date relating to roads and/or Blanding’s Turtle and this renewable energy approved project and site.

The Tribunal resumes on September 23, 24 and 25.

– See more at: http://www.saveostranderpoint.org/september-4-2015-day-3-at-the-ert-hearing/#sthash.lokjWGkK.dpuf

Is Ontario’s push for giant wind farms killing the green energy movement?

02 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

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

Print

Is Ontario’s rush to wind power killing the green energy movement?

TORONTO, CAN, September 2, 2015

Ontario’s stance as an environmental activist province in Canada and would-be leader in climate change action is taking a beating after the government approved two controversial wind power projects, and continues to fight environmental groups and citizens on a third.

Last week, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change approved a 75-megawatt power project on tiny Amherst Island in Lake Ontario. The island is home to several species of wildlife declared endangered or at-risk by the same government, and is also a resting place for migrating birds. The birds attract eco-tourists from all over the world.

The threat of the wind power project to the heritage environment is so great that Heritage Canada’s National Trust named the island one of Canada’s Top Ten Endangered Places.

“There are some places where wind power projects shouldn’t go,” says Michele LeLay, spokesperson for the community group the Association to Protect Amherst Island. “This is one of them.”

Abundance of birds at risk

Also on Lake Ontario, is Prince Edward County where the province recently approved another large wind power generation project for the South Shore. The environmental danger is undeniable, says Cheryl Anderson, of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists: “Data gathered over 20 years confirms the South Shore is a major migratory pathway for an astonishing diversity and abundance of birds. This unique blend of ecosystems supports numerous varieties of rare plants, eight species of at-risk turtles, Monarch butterflies and many amphibian species.  Because of its unique biodiversity, the value of Prince Edward County’s South Shore is unparalleled as an ecotourism venue.”

The Ontario government heads back to the quasi-judicial Environmental Review Tribunal in September, to hear the appeal of a wind power project at Ostrander Point, also in Prince Edward County, halted by the Tribunal in 2013 due to the danger to a rare species of turtle. After several sessions in court, the decision has been returned to the Tribunal where community groups are in the unusual position of spending hundreds of thousands to protect the environment from the Ministry of the Environment.

Prince Edward County Mayor Robert Quaiff is outraged at the approvals and has been trying to see the Premier of Ontario, so far with no luck. In a letter to her he said “efforts to implement the Green Energy Act [legislation pushing wind power] are becoming counter-productive through resulting negative impacts to endangered species, as well as the prosperity and well-being of rural Ontario Communities.”

The concern about Ontario’s pro-wind agenda and resulting environmental damage is not limited to the southern parts of the province. Canada is known around the world for its iconic landscapes in the Algoma region around Lake Superior, now also the site for unbridled wind power development. Hills and valleys made famous by Canada’s Group of Seven artists are now scarred by clear-cutting of trees, flattening of ridges, and the construction of roads and turbine foundations.

George Browne of Lake Superior Action Research Conservation (LSARC) says the devastation to the wilderness is immense. Wilderness, he says, “is a rare and unique feature, understood by many to represent the grandeur of nature; vastness is an essential part of the aesthetic appeal of the landscape. It is worthy of conservation.”

Approval of projects in fragile areas will tarnish green energy industry

Nature groups believe that Ontario’s inappropriate choices for wind power development will actually harm the green energy movement. Ontario Nature and Nature Canada jointly stated: “We sincerely believe [approval of the Amherst Island project] will further tarnish Ontario’s green energy industry, and ultimately undermine future projects in less controversial areas. The opposition of this project in the naturalist community is palpable. The risks of killing large numbers of raptors, swallows and bobolinks is high. Approval will further alienate a segment of Ontario’s population from the green energy agenda and tip an already fragile balance.”

Ontario is guilty of hypocrisy says Ontario’s premier community coalition, Wind Concerns Ontario. “The government’s recent decisions show they have lost their way,” says President Jane Wilson. “Killing birds and despoiling wilderness is not the way to save the environment.”

END

Contact: Wind Concerns Ontario www.windconcernsontario.ca

Email us here.

Prince Edward County South Shore: major pathway for migratory birds

Prince Edward County South Shore: major pathway for migratory birds

Deadline today in Addington Highlands vote

30 Tuesday Jun 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Property owners in Addington Highlands are reminded that the deadline to register your opinion on the issue of the proposed wind power project by U.S.-based NextEra is midnight TONIGHT.

Have your property tax roll number at hand and go to www.addingtonhighlands.ca

MPP Smith: end taxpayer support for wind farm environmental damage

24 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario, today. Todd Smith, MPP for Prince Edward-Hastings, rose in the Ontario Legislature yesterday with a question for Environment Minister Glen Murray. In lieu of the fact that the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal to rescind approval for a wind power development that would cause serious and irreversible harm to an endangered species, Smith said, would the Minister’s department now stop development on that site and further, stop aiding the wind power developer to destroy the ecosystem on the south shore of Prince Edward County? Minister Murray said he commended the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists for their activism (saying nothing about the hundreds of thousands of after-tax dollars spent by Ontario citizens to protect the environment form thew Ministry of the Environment), and offered to meet with the MPP on this issue. See the video of the exchange here.

Ontario Ministry of Environment fails to protect endangered species in West Grey

17 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

The endangered Redside Dace: wildlife doesn’t matter when Big Wind comes along

(C) Metro Toronto Zoo

In an interesting juxtaposition of events, the Metro Toronto Zoo has a program to protect a little fish in Ontario, the endangered Redside Dace, by conserving its habitat in the Toronto area Rouge River, but the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment are doing nothing whatever to protect the same fish in West Grey, where U.S.-based wind power developer NextEra is already at work on a wind power project.

The Ministry of the Environment actually has a taxpayer-funded “Recovery Strategy” for the little fish, which apparently doesn’t include standing up to a wind power developer.

But Ontario citizens are not letting this go: a West Grey community group called D.A.C.E.S. or, Dufferin Area Citizens for Endangered Species, are going to court this week to request a Judicial Review of the power project approval process which, they say, acknowledges the existence of the Endangered Species habitat, but which is allowing the power project to go ahead anyway.

Does legislation in Ontario mean nothing against Big Wind?

How can something that is (falsely) promoted as being “good” for the environment, be allowed to proceed when there is clear danger to the natural environment?

For more information on this project, on the court fight, and to donate to the struggle to protect Ontario’s environment against the Ministry of the Environment and Big Wind, go to: howgreenisthis.org

If you are in the area, or know someone who is, think about showing your support this Thursday morning: Brampton Courthouse, 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton. Court begins at 10 a.m.