Todd Smith MPP for Prince Edward Hastings challenges Minister of Environment and Climate Change to abandon further spending of tax dollars in support of wind development at Ostrander Point and the south shore of the county. See the video below.
Tag Archives: Prince Edward County
Toronto – April 20, 2015
The Ontario Court of Appeal has reversed a lower court ruling regarding a Renewal Energy Approval of the 9 turbine Ostrander Point industrial wind project. The decision reinstates the key initial finding of the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) that serious and irreversible harm to threatened Blanding’s Turtles will occur if the project operates as approved. “We’re very pleased. The court has ruled in favour of protecting the environment, which is what we’ve asked for throughout“ said Myrna Wood of the successful appellant Prince Edward County Field Naturalists. “The decision is undoubtedly important” said Eric Gillespie, its legal counsel. “This is the first renewable energy case to reach the Court of Appeal. The Court has supported our client’s fundamental concerns and affirmed a number of legal principles that clearly will be relevant to other appeals.” The question of remedy has been directed back to the ERT.
Prince Edward County South Shore Conservancy
P. O. Box 147
October 7, 2014
Premier Kathleen Wynne Gord Miller
Legislative Building Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
Queen’s Park 1075 Bay St
Toronto, ON Ste. 605
M7A 1A1 Toronto, ON
Toronto, ON M5S 2B1
(Sent via e-mail. Hard copy to follow.)
Dear Premier Wynne and Mr. Miller:
Re: wpd White Pines wind development, endangered species and World Wildlife Fund
This letter is public and may be shared.
We are writing to request your assistance in improving governmental process for renewable energy projects. Ontario’s guidelines for siting renewable energy projects are not aligned with policies of respected organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) or even with Environment Canada policies. Ontario’s standards and practices do not reflect global concern for wildlife in general and for species at risk in particular.
As you may be aware WWF has just released a new report on the state of the earth’s wildlife populations. According to WWF:
This latest edition of the Living Planet Report is not for the faint-hearted. One key point that jumps out is that the Living Planet Index (LPI), which measures more than 10,000 representative populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, has declined by 52 per cent since 1970.
Put another way, in less than two human generations, population sizes of vertebrate species have dropped by half. These are the living forms that constitute the fabric of the ecosystems which sustain life on Earth – and the barometer of what we are doing to our own planet, our only home. We ignore their decline at our peril.
In addition WWF states in its new report regarding population decline:
TERRESTRIAL LPI – living planet index
The terrestrial LPI contains population trends for 1,562 species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians from a wide range of habitats. The index shows that terrestrial populations have been declining since 1970 (Figure 12) – a trend that currently shows no sign of slowing down or being reversed. On average, in 2010 – the year for which the most recent comprehensive dataset is available – terrestrial species had declined by 39 per cent. The loss of habitat to make way for human land use – particularly for agriculture, urban development and energy production – continues to be a major threat to the terrestrial environment.
It is expected that the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change could issue a renewable energy approval for wpd’s White Pines Wind Project. This project is a prime example of how Ontario’s guidelines for renewable energy projects are not working.
Twelve of the project’s turbines are in the globally-significant Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area (IBA) and eight turbines are just outside its boundary. Five turbines are in very close proximity to a National Wildlife Area which was chosen because of its density and diversity of birds. In total, some 298 species of birds have been recorded with about 220 species being recorded during the average year. Most of these species are recorded during migration although at least 74 species nest within the area.
Wpd’s tweny-nine turbines are placed in the direct path of a major flyway that has the highest fall migration numbers of saw-whet owls in North America and the fourth highest migration numbers for raptors. This flyway receives large numbers of endangered Golden Eagles and Peregrine Falcons. The passing of a large percentage of the Golden Eagles that reside in North America through a project of this size will imperil this population as well as other populations of migrating species of birds and bats.
The wind project is located in Blanding’s turtle habitat which includes the Ostrander Point Crown Land Block. As you may know in 2013 an Environmental Review Tribunal revoked the renewable energy approval for Ostrander on the grounds that the wind project would cause serious and irreversible harm to Blanding’s turtles.
The wind project study area includes the Provincially Significant South Bay Coastal Wetland, 231 hectares in size, noted for supporting Blanding’s turtle as well as 17 wetlands (unevaluated by MNR) that are considered ‘significant’. 9 of these 17 wetlands qualify under the definition of Coastal Wetlands.
The White Pines Wind Project is a prime example of how proper siting of projects should be the first consideration. The document “Wind Turbines and Birds: A Guidance Document for Environmental Assessment, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service” lists 11 criteria for locations where turbines should not be sited. The south shore of Prince Edward County meets all of these criteria:
- The presence of a bird species listed as “at risk” by the SARA, COSEWIC or
provincial/territorial threat ranking, or the presence of the residence(s) of individuals of that
species if listed under the SARA, or of its critical habitat. To be of concern, either the bird or
its residence or critical habitat must be considered to be potentially affected by the project;
- Site is in an Important Bird Area;
- Site is adjacent to a National Wildlife Area;
- Site of fall migration of large concentrations of raptors;
- Site is on a known migration corridor;
- Site contains shoreline on a peninsula;
- Site will disrupt large contiguous wetland habitat;
- Site located close to significant migration staging area for waterfowl;
- Site contains species of high conservation concern, eg. Aerial flight displays, PIF/CWS
- Site is recognized as provincially important alvar habitat type;
- Site is adjacent to a heronry.
Environment Canada: Wind Turbines and Birds V. 8.2, p.21, 2007
The WWF POSITION ON WIND POWER 2004 states:
On the planning process for the development of wind power WWF believes that:
- The development of wind farms should be managed sensitively and framed within regional and local spatial planning guidelines. This should include development of national, regional and local wind targets, assessing high value habitats and identifying no-go areas for wind development. In this way, any environmental impacts and conflicts with other land or marine uses would be identified and minimised.
- Proposals for wind farm developments within IUCN 1-2 protected areas and/or national parks should not be allowed, unless a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) clearly indicates that the proposed development will not cause adverse effects on the integrity or conservation objectives of statutory protected area.
- Wind turbines can have a possible impact upon wildlife if sited in the wrong place and as such should not be placed in important bird nesting grounds or within identified bird migration routes, such as RAMSAR sites.
We acknowledge that there is an appeal process for Renewable Energy Approvals. However at the present time it appears futile to appeal a renewable energy approval on the grounds of serious and irreversible harm to plant and animal life or to the natural environment. The 2013 Divisional Court decision revoking the decision of the Ostrander Point Environmental Review Tribunal has ruled that the finding of irreversible harm cannot be made without population data. At the recent appeal for the Bow Lake Wind Project the Tribunal noted that:
 The impact of this approach is that irreversible harm cannot be shown for the numerous species of plants and animals in Ontario for which the current state of the science is such that population numbers are not well enough known for an “order of magnitude” to be calculated. Given that the finding of serious and irreversible harm is a threshold finding under the EPA, in that the Tribunal may not make any remedial order unless it is met, these species appear to be left without protection under the appeal provisions of s. 145.2.1 of the EPA. The Tribunal notes that the MNR Bird and Bat Guidelines, as well as the Alberta Guidelines referenced by the Appellant in this case, recognize the current limitations of scientific knowledge and as a result take a more flexible, contextual approach to determining harm. However,the Divisional Court ruling in Ostrander is currently the law in Ontario and is binding on the Tribunal.
Environmental Review Tribunal case Nos.: 13-145/13-146 Fata v. Director, Ministry of the Environment
The Divisional Court declared not only that population data is needed in order to make a finding of irreversible harm but that the onus is on appellants to provide this data. The Divisional Court decision has been appealed but if the decision is allowed to stand the onus will be on members of the public and small unfunded conservation groups to collect and provide population data.
It would take several years of scientific study to acquire population data on species on Prince Edward County’s south shore. The studies would have to be done however, because the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry does not possess any data on local plant and animal populations.
For the reasons identified it would be futile to appeal a renewable energy approval at this time.
The Environmental Review Tribunal process was the last line of defense for species that might be seriously harmed by renewable energy projects. This line of defense is broken. The government’s own Tribunal acknowledges that “species appear to be left without protection under the appeal provisions of s. 145.2.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.”
Clear policies are urgently needed in order to ensure the protection of species and the habitat that is required for these species to carry out their life processes.
With this in mind and understanding the government of Ontario’s desire to appear protective of the environment, the Conservancy respectfully requests that:
- no new renewable energy generation approvals be issued until the Ontario Court of Appeal issues a decision on the Ostrander appeal. This request seems reasonable as the Tribunal is currently prevented from making a finding of irreversible harm at this time even if it believes that the project will cause irreversible harm;
- renewable energy project developers be required to provide population data and/or that resources be provided to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry or to Nature Canada to conduct studies on population if the Ostrander appeal is allowed to stand; and
- a review of current provincial practices and policies on renewable energy generation projects be conducted using WWF and EC siting recommendations as good practice standards.
We appreciate your attention to these important matters and look forward to receiving a response.
Secretary, South Shore Conservancy
Hon Glen Murray, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Hon Bill Mauro, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
André Marin, Ombudsman of Ontario
The Prince Edward County South Shore Conservancy is a volunteer organization committed to protecting the flora, fauna and habitats encompassed by the South Shore Important Bird Area (IBA). The IBA includes species at risk, both breeding and migratory. It was founded in 2001.
From the Wellington Times
by Rick Conroy
The developer seeking to construct nine 50-storey industrial wind turbines at
Ostrander Point is now proposing to erect a series of gates on provincially
owned crown land—in a last ditch maneuver to persuade a provincial court to
overturn an Environmental Review Tribunal decision that took away the
developer’s permit to build the project in a landmark ruling issued earlier
In July, after more than 40 days of hearings, the Tribunal revoked a Ministry
of Environment approval of the project in which Gilead Power Corporation
proposed to develop a nine-turbine wind project on Crown land on the shores of
South Marysburgh. The two member panel ruled that the project would cause
serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding’s turtles that reside in this
rare alvar habitat at Ostrander Point. The Tribunal concluded, too, that
measures proposed by the developer to lessen the impact of the development on the
turtles were untested and unlikely to be effective. Given that the Blanding’s
turtle is an endangered species, they decided the potential harm was too great,
and once inflicted could not be undone.
It was a precedent-setting decision— not since the provincial government had
enacted legislation to reduce the administrative and regulatory hurdles for
wind and solar energy developers had an environmental review tribunal revoked
an approval permit. Conservation groups and environmentalists rejoiced— as did
everyone else opposed to Ontario’s natural heritage being spoiled by 500-foot
towers of carbon and steel structures.
The developer appealed the Tribunal decision, along with the Ministry of
Environment, seeking to uphold the approval of the project.
Among other things, the developer and the MOE will argue that the Tribunal
exceeded its jurisdiction. They will argue that the Ministry of Natural
Resources had given the developer the ability to “kill, harm or harass” the
endangered species. And that the Tribunal lacked the authority to second guess
the provincial ministry.
Gilead Power has a lot riding on the appeal, scheduled to be heard in January
in Toronto. It is clearly not willing to risk the outcome of this project on
jurisdictional interpretation. Instead it is seeking to take away the issue
raised by the Tribunal— specifically the well-being of the creatures at the
centre of the Tribunal’s decision—the Blanding’s turtle. Once again, it has the
Ministry of Natural Resources on its side.
On January 20 the developer will seek to present new evidence to the appeal
hearing. Specifically it will ask the court to consider a plan to erect a
series of gates securing access to the road network it wants to build on Crown
land at Ostrander Point.
“Restricting public access to the access roads would also provide enhanced
protection for wildlife, including species at risk, from traffic mortality,”
wrote Mike Lord to the Ontario Ministry of Resources (MNR) in August.
In September a MNR official agreed it would issue a lease of the Crown land to
the developer to enable it to build the fence, pending the approval of the
project. The MNR also sought a “Project Access and Control Plan” for the access
roads. That plan calls for six double swing gates to be erected at key points,
one at the entrance and at five other locations where pre-existing trails
intersect with the proposed access road. The gates would be locked from May 1
to October 15. Gilead staff will monitor and enforce access restrictions.
Gilead staff will report monthly on issues of public motor vehicles bypassing
Quoting from the Gilead access control plan: “Project staff will be trained on
how to answer questions from the public regarding the need for gated access on
the Project access roads.”
In its motion the developer will argue that it has taken these steps in order
to resolve the Tribunal’s “stated concern”. They will argue the Tribunal should
have given it the opportunity to address the issue, rather than revoke the
permit. And, that the provincial court should consider this new evidence to
satisfy “natural justice.”
Myrna Wood says the developer and the MOE have come far too late in the process
to present new evidence. Worse, she says, the developer and the MNR struck this
deal with MNR behind closed doors—without any public consultation about this
use of Crown Land.
She argues, too, that a few gates will not eliminate the threat the project
poses to the Blanding’s turtle’s habitat.
“Gilead’s emphasis on road mortality is an attempt to avoid the Tribunal’s main
concern, said Wood. “that is, the destruction of the whole habitat.”
Upping the ante, the developer has also asked the court to make the Prince
Edward County Field Naturalists pay the costs of making its motion should the
Field Naturalist oppose it.
Undeterred, Wood says Gilead’s and MOE’s intimidation tactics have not stopped
her organization so far, nor are they likely to now.
On December 20, 2012, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources approved nine wind turbines for Ostrander Point in Prince Edward County. The area has been described as “one of the worst possible places to construct a wind farm” (Ontario Nature). Successfully appealing the approval will save critical natural habitat from destruction and protect the endangered species, species at risk and rare ecosystems at Ostrander Point.
To learn more about Ostrander Point, click here
A project of Prince Edward County Field Naturalists
Endorsed by Nature Canada, Ontario Nature, Kingston Field Naturalists, Quinte Field Naturalists, the Audubon Society (New YorkState and United States) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (United Kingdom)
To donate to the Ostrander Point Appeal Fund click here
Letter written by County resident and business owner Carlyn Moulton, addressed to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, with copies to Dalton McGuinty, Jim Bradley (Minister of the Environment), Todd Smith and Peter Kent (federal Minister of the Environment.
December 22, 2012
It beggars belief that in the name of being “green”, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has approved the destruction of the southeastern portion of Prince Edward County for a wind turbine project known as Ostrander Point. Virtually every environmental group in the country has made detailed submissions pointing out that this is the worst possible location that could be imagined. It is an Important Bird Area, a critical migratory flight path and breeding habitat for millions of birds, many endangered. It would qualify as an ANSI, or area of natural and scientific interest, because of its unique features.
Then to add insult to injury, in a cynical and grinch-like act that can only be seen as calculated and manipulative, the announcement is made on December the 20th, allowing 15 days for the public to comment or appeal. If the current government had any interest in participatory democracy, it would have picked another date. As this is not the first time that this has been done (as you yourself have pointed out), we have to assume that this wasn’t merely inept or absent-minded ignorance of the calendar and holiday season, but a willful thumbing of the nose to those that might wish to spend the holidays with their children as opposed to with their lawyers.
The effects on the natural environment are not restricted to the Ostrander Point wind project and its nine turbines – wind projects are planned or proposed on many sites along the north shore of Lake Ontario at the eastern end. What is the cumulative effect of these projects? They can’t just be considered one by one. The following table of projects and turbines lists those along the shore or in the water of eastern Lake Ontario. Most would be located within or adjacent to Important Bird Areas. (In Prince Edward County four other projects, totalling 47 turbines, are also proposed and awaiting ECTs.)
|Wind Project||Status||No. Of Turbines|
|Ostrander Point||OPA Contract||9|
|White Pines||OPA Contract||29-30|
|Amherst Island||OPA Contract||30-35|
|Loyalist I and II||Awaiting ECT||21|
|White Pines II||Proposed||36|
|Dorland||Proposed on Gilead website||20-40|
|Wolfe Island Shoals||Subject to offshore moratorium||60-150|
|Trillium I and II||Subject to offshore moratorium||282|
|Total of land-based Turbines||199-227|
|Total of all proposed Turbines||541-659|
It’s impossible to conclude that such numbers would not be an obstacle to migrating birds or a transformation of the natural environment.
Prince Edward County is also well known for organic vegetable farms, wineries and other farms. Wind turbines cause a shift in air pressure that collapse bat lungs and kills them. Bats eat insects. Insects eat fruit and vegetables. Without bats, insect populations increase significantly, and therefore, so does pesticide use. This is not rocket science. So why would we, in the name of the environment, allow for an industrial development that is surely to trigger a rise in pesticide use?
One can only imagine that there must be some sort of staggering electrical power shortage, plunging us all into the dark without this sort of destructive and permanently damaging project – which must surely save us all?
Except of course, we have a surplus of power. Ontario is a net exporter of power and has been for years. http://www.sygration.com/gendata/today.html publishes our surplus on a daily basis. Today, as I write, we have a “capacity” of almost double our current need. And it is a surplus that far exceeds our current use of coal – so that is a red herring.
And if we needed more, Quebec seems to be awash in cheap, renewable, hydro power. Maybe they might sell us some for a fraction of the price that we will end up paying to Gilead Power while they destroy Ostrander Point.
It hardly seems that we have a crisis of such a magnitude that we are compelled to give up public lands that are magnificent, unique, and critical to sustaining the natural environment to a private company who will reap a handsome profit from its destruction, and reaping artificially high rates, guaranteed by our government (but paid for by the people) for years to come.
This project is unnecessary, irresponsible, and against the interests of the public good and the environment.
The government’s stubborn pursuit of a wrong-headed policy, despite all evidence to the contrary, is damaging the very communities it is meant to protect and represent.
If the government was serious about reducing carbon emissions, making sure a serious public transit system was implemented around the GTA or along the 401 would seem to me to be a much better investment. Most of Ontario’s emissions aren’t from energy generation, they are from transportation – as anyone who took a day to inform themselves would know.
WIND PROJECT APPROVAL A DISGRACE: RUNCIMAN
OTTAWA, Dec. 21, 2012 – Senator Bob Runciman has blasted the Ontario Ministry of Environment for its approval of a wind energy project at Ostrander Point in Prince Edward County.
“This decision goes against local wishes, it threatens migratory birds and bats and it makes no sense from an energy standpoint,” Runciman said. “And to grant approval just before Christmas is clearly an attempt to avoid scrutiny. It’s not only wrong-headed, it’s under-handed.”
On late Thursday afternoon, the Ministry of Environment announced it had approved Gilead Power’s proposal to erect nine giant wind turbines in an internationally recognized Important Bird Area at Ostrander Point. The approval gives Gilead permission to kill endangered species and destroy their habitat.
Runciman was the author of a 2011 motion unanimously endorsed by the Senate of Canada calling on the province of Ontario to institute a moratorium on wind-farm development along eastern Lake Ontario until the impact on birds and bats can be studied.
The Ontario senator’s concern stems from the experience with the wind farm on Wolfe Island, also in a designated Important Bird Area. That development has a kill rate for birds and bats that is seven times the industry average in Canada, primarily because it is located in the wrong spot. It is one of the deadliest wind farms in North America.
The same concerns apply to Ostrander Point, which has been described by Environment Canada as one of the best areas for birds in southern Ontario, Runciman said.
“The governing Liberals are in the late stages of a leadership campaign. The incoming premier may very well reconsider this failed policy – a policy that has alienated rural Ontario, bypasses environmental and land use policies, will cost electricity customers billions and is causing grave damage to the Ontario economy,” Runciman said.
“In light of this, it is an absolute disgrace that the Ministry has approved this project right now. I call on the government to step in and put a stop to this,” Runciman said.
For more information, please contact:
Barry Raison, Office of Senator Bob Runciman
(613) 943-4020 (office) or (613) 297-2069 (cell)
As many of you will already know from news reports, Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner issued a statement yesterday that industrial wind turbines should not be installed in Important Bird Areas.
The Environmental Commissioners’ statement is another major source of validation for our efforts to protect our globally-significant IBA and migratory bird route. The SSC Board will be meeting today to discuss a strategy to draw attention to the Prince Edward County South Shore IBA. We will be requesting your help and participation tomorrow. For now we would appreciate your participating in the Quinte News poll.
Quinte News is conducting a poll on this question: “Do you agree with the Environmental Commissioner’s recommendation to not allow wind turbines in Protected Bird Areas?”
Please vote “Yes…. Wildlife is important and the birds should be protected” at http://www.quintenews.com/category/polls/
Thank you for your support!
Toronto, October 2, 2012 – The Ontario government should put additional areas of the province off-limits to wind power projects to safeguard birds, bats and their habitats, says Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller, who released Part 2 of his 2011/2012 Annual Report, Losing Our Touch, today.
“I fully support wind power. Together with energy conservation, renewable sources of energy such as wind are necessary to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and protect the environment,” says Miller. “However, the use of wind power must be balanced by the equally important goal of protecting birds and bats. To accomplish that goal, we need to be smarter about where we place wind power facilities.”
The government has released guidelines for evaluating and reducing harmful effects on birds, bats and their habitats during the planning, construction and operation of wind power projects. The Environmental Commissioner praises the government for giving special attention to birds and bats as wind power development increases in the province, but notes “there are some significant shortcomings in the guidelines that continue to put birds and bats at risk.”
- Lack of protection for migratory bat species: Approximately 75 per cent of documented bat fatalities at wind turbines in North America are migratory bats, yet the provincial guidelines lack any criteria for identifying and avoiding bat migratory stopover areas during the selection of wind power sites. Three out of the eight species of Ontario’s bats are migratory.
- Development in Important Bird Areas not prohibited: Important Bird Areas are designated, using internationally accepted standards, as key areas supporting specific groups of birds. There are no special rules to prevent wind power development in Ontario’s 70 Important Bird Areas.
- No consideration of cumulative effects: Wind power project sites are evaluated and approved on an individual basis, with no regard for the potential cumulative effects on birds or bats from other nearby wind power facilities or other potential sources of bird and bat mortality.
Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner says “I am concerned that the current guidelines do not go far enough to ensure that wind power development is compatible with Ontarians’ objective of protecting wildlife. Given the importance of selecting sites that minimize the harm to birds and bats, it just makes sense to avoid building wind energy projects in these species’ most ecologically sensitive locations.”
“The Ministry of Natural Resources should rectify these shortcomings,” says Miller “and prohibit new wind power development within Ontario’s Important Bird Areas.” Important Bird Areas, such as Point Pelee and the Leslie St. Spit, cover only about two per cent of Ontario in total.
According to an article by journalist Paul Schliesmann, in the Kingston Whig-Standard on Friday, August 24, 2012, a recent report by the Kingston Field Naturalists states that an estimated 12 million migratory birds will be put at risk if two large offshore wind turbine projects are built in Lake Ontario.
Three members of the volunteer organization who conducted a year-long, unpaid study are particularly concerned about two offshore projects that would see the a total of 268 turbines planted to the north and south of Main Duck Island, a natural stopping off point for hundreds of species.
“We think 12 million is low because it’s based on birds being studied at Prince Edward Point. The ones which don’t stop at Prince Edward Point aren’t being included yet,” said Chris Hargreaves, who worked on the report with Erwin Batalla and Barrie Gilbert.
Read the rest of this informative article in thewhig.com