RSS Feed

Reminder to submit your EBR comments

Posted on

If you have not submitted a response and you still wish to do so, or if you would like to encourage others to do so, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) will be accepting comments from the public until June 9’11. 

The link at the bottom of this e-mail is a direct link to EBR 011-3181.  We encourage you to review this posting as the information it contains will assist you in preparing your response. 

Two points in responding to EBR 011-3181:

 1. Reply in YOUR OWN WORDS.   If you use a few of the ideas below that are most meaningful for you try to change the wording as much as possible. We are now learning that letters are more highly regarded than e-mails but it is our original responses that are the most effective.
 

2. Encourage family and friends to reply particularly from outside the County.  If they are emailing ask them to specify where they are writing from and why they would want to protect our South Shore IBA.  Ask them to follow the suggestions in 1. above.   

  • Here are some points to cover in your letters:
  • Nature Canada quote:  EBR posting is flawed as a consultation process in that it does not allow for meaningful public engagement
  • clean green energy act that allows such destruction is neither clean nor green
  • naturalists agree that Ostrander Point is worst possible place for industrial wind turbines
  • reasonable steps suggested make no sense in light of the destruction proposed
  • winter construction plans seen to suggest that turtles migrate as well,   unfortunately they remain dormant and will be destroyed in the process involved
  • a significant number of birds winter over in Ostrander Point, they will also be harassed and possibly killed, this is not an hospitable time of the year in which to damage and destroy habitat
  • Wolfe Island has been a lesson, no red tailed hawks, short eared owls dispersed, how can you proceed to destroy an even more significant habitat
  •  South Shore IBA is the last of a significant undeveloped shoreline on the southern shores of Lake Ontario
  • net loss to the species even if other habitat acquired
  • other habitat would be at similar risk of a permit being issued to allow its endangered species to be killed, harmed and habits damaged and destroyed
  • collecting and publishing data alone is of no benefit. Data must be taken into account and used to have any effect
  • data on bird deaths and the disappearance of Short-eared Owls on Wolfe Island is being ignored in planning the Ostrander Point facility
  • When it comes to species at risk, the only reasonable alternative is to find a site they do not inhabit, not to try to kill fewer rather than more
  • Reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects will not prevent death and destruction. The only reasonable step is to leave Ostrander Point intact
  • This is not a 6 month permit for the purposes of building a highway or a bridge.  This permit essentially waives all protections for both of these species for the next 25 years or more
  • Only two of Ontario’s at-risk species have been partially recovered in the last decade.  Thus MNR has a track record of failed mitigation efforts, in other words of allowing species to decline towards extinction  
  • Ostrander Point lies at the centre of the Important Bird Area, which was set aside as a refuge for several threatened and endangered species.  Other endangered species that use the IBA include  Least Bittern, King Rail, Loggerhead Shrike and Henslow’s Sparrow.  Is MNR positive that  these other endangered species are not going to be killed, harmed and harassed in any  significant way over the next 25 years on this site
  • Blanding’s Turtles late maturity date (age 25 approx) and low reproduction rates means a 1% mortality over natural rates can cause gradual extinction of the population. The mortality rate at Ostrander Point is expected to significantly exceed 1%
  • MNR is not doing the job it is supposed to be doing, which is protecting endangered species.  MNR is basing decisions on social and economic gain rather than ecological basis 

 PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

Paula Norlock
Agreement Specialist
MNR Policy Division
Species at Risk Branch
300 Water St., 2nd Floor
Robinson South Tower
Peterborough, ON
K9J 8M5
 
E-MAILS TO:

esa.permits.agreements@ontario.ca  quote EBR 011-3181 in subject line of e-mail
cc: Linda Jeffrey 
ljeffrey.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
cc: Leona Dombrowsky  ldombrowsky.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

LINK TO EBR 011-3181
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTEyODc0&statusId=MTY5Mjg1&language=en

Advertisements

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: