MNR posts notice of application affecting endangered species at Gilead Power site
Administrator | May 11, 2011 | Comments 59
The Ministry of Natural Resources posted a notice to the Ontario government Environmental Registry May 10, 2011 to invite public comment on a “Permit under section 17 of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) to allow Gilead Power Corporation to kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy the habitat of Whip-poor-will for the purpose of the development and operation of Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park in the Township of South Marysburgh, Prince Edward County.”
Members of the public are invited to submit their written comments by June 9, 2011 to the contact person listed on the sitet or by emailing esa.permits.agreements@ontario.ca and quote ER number 011-3181 in the subject line. Visit the site at http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/ then use the number 011-3181
The Ministry states the Environmental Bill of Rights does not require the notice to be placed on the Environmental Registry, however, section 6 of the Act does allow the Environmental Registry to be used to share information about the environment with the public.
“The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is voluntarily posting this notice to advise the public of the proposal and to invite the public to submit written comments on this proposal.”
Description:
Gilead Power Corporation has applied for a permit under clause 17(2)(c) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) to kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy the habitat of Whip-poor-will for the purpose of the development and operation of Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park in the Township of South Marysburgh.
The proposed Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park would consist of 9 wind turbines, up to 22.5 MW installed capacity, and is expected to produce enough electricity for approximately 6,000 homes. The project is proposed on 324 hectares of Crown land, along the shores of Lake Ontario, in Prince Edward County.
Purpose of the Notice:
The purpose of this notice is to ensure that the public is made aware of, and given an opportunity to comment on, the proposal, including the proposed conditions and outcomes of the permit for which the applicant is applying in order to kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy the habitat of Whip-poor-will for the purpose of the development and operation of Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park in the Township of South Marysburgh, Prince Edward County. The proposed permit would be issued under section 17 of the Endangered Species Act 2007. No MNR permits or authorizations will be issued until the Renewable Energy Approval has been issued by MOE.
Other Information:
Both Whip-poor-will (Caprimlugus vociferous) and Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), are listed as threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario List in Ontario Regulation 230/08 (O. Reg. 230/08) of the ESA. Clause 9 (1)(a) of the ESA provides that no person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take a living member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as extirpated, endangered or threatened.
Whip-poor-will currently has general habitat protection under the ESA. Clause 10(1)(a) of the ESA provides that no person shall damage or destroy the habitat of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario list as an endangered or threatened species.
The Minister of Natural Resources may issue a permit to an applicant under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA that authorizes the person to engage in an activity that would otherwise be prohibited by section 9 or 10 of the ESA if the Minister is of the opinion that the main purpose of the activity authorized by the permit is not to assist in the protection or recovery of the species specified in the permit, but,
* (i) the Minister is of the opinion that an overall benefit to the species will be achieved within a reasonable time through requirements imposed by conditions of the permit, and,
* (ii) the Minister is of the opinion that reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted, and,
* (iii) the Minister is of the opinion that reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on individual members of the species are required by conditions of the permit.
An overall benefit to both species would be achieved through the following activities:
* Proponent to acquire and manage a property outside the project area (that meets appropriate criteria as defined by the Ministry of Natural Resources) for the habitat preservation, rehabilitation and/or improvement of both Blanding’s turtle and Whip-poor-will.
* Publication of Whip-poor-will survey methodology and the results of pre-construction monitoring
* Financial support to fund graduate research related to Whip-poor-will for one of the following subjects of interest: variation in nesting success rates with proximity to turbines, variation in fledging dates with proximity to turbines, variation in territory size with proximity to turbines, foraging behaviour differences in response to turbines, and site fidelity. This research would be peer-reviewed and published.
* Beyond standard species monitoring, a benefit to the species will be achieved through value added monitoring for multiple years on both the newly acquired property, as well as the windpower site, to gather new information and knowledge about Blanding’s Turtles and how they use their habitat. Value added monitoring being considered includes; successful techniques and methods to restore damaged Blanding’s Turtle habitat, movement patterns between life-cycle sub-habitats such as hibernation and nesting. Other value added monitoring efforts are being considered by Gilead and will be agreed upon with the MNR district. Reports summarizing monitoring results will be submitted to MNR annually.
Reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect both species and the best alternative was chosen in considering six different site layouts to eliminate or reduce adverse impacts to Whip-poor-will and its habitat and Blanding’s Turtle. The best alternative to balance the development plans and achieve overall benefit for Whip-poor-will and Blanding’s Turtle was selected. Construction windows were adjusted to avoid adverse impacts to species during the active season.
Reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on both species would be taken and addressed as conditions of the proposed permit. Reasonable steps for both species include; education of workers and staff about Whip-poor-will and Blanding’s Turtle; speed limit signage would be installed and limits of 30km/h would be implemented on roads; prior to construction, the limits of vegetation clearing would be staked out where appropriate to ensure that no construction disturbance occurs beyond the staked limits; best management practices would be implemented for dust, spills and waste collection; educational signage would be installed where appropriate; speed bumps on roads with appropriate signage would be installed after construction and during the life of the operations to decrease potential for collisions with Whip-poor-will and Blanding’s Turtle; road maintenance would be completed at an appropriate time of year (outside nesting season) and include avoidance of chemical spraying; construction window (October – April) would avoid most critical life cycle periods for Whip-poor-will and Blanding’s Turtle; most construction would occur in areas not containing habitat which supports breeding; and mortalities and species sightings would be recorded and reported both during construction and operation/maintenance. Nesting habitat will be strategically created on the eastern side of the proposed windpower site to minimize the likelihood of Blanding’s Turtles being attracted to the roadway to lay their eggs. This would reduce new road mortality for adult and hatchling turtles after the roadways are upgraded.
Filed Under: Local News
– All sources of generation need alternate plants and sources on the grid as they are subject to shut down for maintenance/repair or breakdown or meltdown while wind and solar are subject mainly to the weather conditions/time of day. Multiple sources and locations are part of a mix that works. The cost of going forward with more nuclear is high but unknown as no developer can build a plant on a fixed contract price, buy liability insurance for it and manage the nuclear waste at their cost.
– Not sure where the idea of 40 cents/kwh number came from. The FIT contacts for wind pay 13.5 cents/kwh. Nuclear and gas producers get additional payments when the spot price is below their contracted minimums. This accounts for most of the global adjustment cost of about 4 cents/kwh currently in our bills. The market economy alone cant build the new infastructure that will be needed when we would wake up and find out that fossil fuel costs are too high and it takes many years to install the needed sustainable systems. Very little power is available to us when the spot price is low.
– In 2005, Ont got 16% of the power from coal, a huge emitter of the oxides of Nitrogen and Sulphur, Mercury, CO2 and particultes. We currently have 11 operatable coal burners listed on the Sygration website but they were used at a vey low level these last few days for example. Maybe they should all be shut off and kept on emergency standby reserve.
Hazel – have you signed a lease with one of the wind generation companies? You defend them so strongly and are afraid to state your full name. Come on, do you really ask us to accept that you beleive everything a company that stands to make $Millions has to say as 100% true? And you are willing to believe them over your own neighbours?
If you were really interested in the TRUTH, you would ‘follow the money’ and realize that the only “green” in these IWTs, with the contracts they have, is the folding type that goes in their pockets, directly from yours and mine.
(I’ve borrowed the “folding green” from someone who posted on CountyLive- thought it was a wonderful phrase!)
John, please explain how you justify saying “Although technically possible, I don’t see this in the public interest though. Better to turn down/off some more non renewable fuel using/heat generating units for a time.”
As a member of the “public” that buys electricity, I would much rather have to pay only for the cheap power when available, and when necessary pay for the expensive stuff only when there is no other choice. Isn’t that how our market eceonomy is supposed to work?
The wind generated electricity is currently costing us 40 cents per KWH, while on the open market, other forms of power generated costs about 2-3 cents per KWH. OPG is forced to pay for any and all power generated by wind – by the contractual agreements already in place, negotiated by McGuinty Conservatives.
This is NOT in the best interests of the public who has to pay for that wind power twice – once at the super-high, over-market price, then 2ndly to pay other provinces/states to take it off our hands before damaging our grid. If they could just shut down those other sources when the wind blows like it did last weekend, why didn’t they? I heard that it cost us about $14M for that excess power.
But John Wind and solar are not reliable. We have to have alternate kinds of power at our disposal to keep the province running–Wind/solar does not work in isolation so if we have to have the other kinds of power we might as well just have them. Nuclear power is becoming a better alternative. New methods of dealing with nuclear energy are being developed and they will serve us better in the long run.
Lori, I agree that wind/solar operators are not going to turn down their supply voluntarily just because demand may be low at a particular time. That is why I was saying that criteria for turn down could be developed “if need be.” In other words, there could be some contactual payment negotiated.
Although technically possible, I don’t see this in the public interest though. Better to turn down/off some more non renewable fuel using/heat generating units for a time. That is the current method.
John, you stated: “Although wind and solar can’t be turned up, they can be turned down or off if need be. This isn’t being done because the main cost is the capital for installation and they run without fuel once installed. ”
Do you think a company that has a guarantee that ALL power they produce will be purchased at well above current market price (and for 20 years), is going to voluntarily turn off the wind turbines (and reduce their profits) because the province is at overcapacity and will be forced to undersell it to someone else or even pay someone else to take the excess?
Not in any reality that I know.
Hazel – I am no naturalist or bird specialist, but don’t water birds in the Great Lakes build their nest and lay their eggs on land, not the open waters off shore? I’m pretty sure the whip-poor-will is not a water bird, but the fact that it is a threatened species, is why it is protected by Ontario law: Ontario Regulation 230/08 (O. Reg. 230/08) of the ESA. Clause 9 (1)(a) of the ESA provides that no person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take a living member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as extirpated, endangered or threatened.
I do know that turtles lay their nest in sandy areas that have little or no vegetation, so the sun can warm the nest (we used to have a snapper lay eggs every year on our cottage’s dirt driveway). In the winter they hibernate in the ground/mud, so I think blasting the bedrock around or near them would be the worse time of year to do it. Better for Gilead, though, since there wouldn’t be any visible carcases to account for.
And as for a previous comment that new roads would be good for the turtles, I still can’t figure the logic of that statement. Maybe if we post really low signs that say “no crossing”, or “use at own risk” ?.
Dayton, I think we all agree that power from wind and solar is not stored at present and we do need consistent power from the grid. However, that does not mean we need to put consistent power in any more than we are required to take consistent power out. Grid operators are able to adjust to the supply/demand factors by adusting output from the sources that can be varied on demand. Wind and solar are called supply driven sources and most other sources are called demand driven. A vialble power mix is possible up to a certain percentage of wind/solar and we are still far from that. Although wind and solar can’t be turned up, they can be turned down or off if need be. This isn’t being done because the main cost is the capital for installation and they run without fuel once installed. Criteria for shut down or reduced power could be developed if the need ever develops.
The economics of wind from established projects improves over time as the FIT per kw payments increase by only 25% of the inflation rate and the cost of fuel for thermal plants is expectd to continue rising more than inflation in general. The MicroFit solar payments are totally capped for 20 years and I think the same applies to FIT solar.
As per the farm question, brownouts/blackouts are a cost and inconvenience but animal welfare, economics and regulations require that we have backup generation similar to a hospital or municipal water system etc. We got through the 2003 blackout unscathed, but we know of dairy farmers on Eastern Ont who had no power for two weeks during the ice storm. That was tough as there was no assurance of being able to get a delivery of diesel fuel in time. In times of natural disaster, all systems go down.
Come on as Gary says we only have 4 coal fired plants operating in Ontario.
We get our pollution from the US which the prevailing winds blow our way.
They were putting special filters on the coal fired plants
How about our Cement Plant does it not burn coke. I can smell the sulphur smell at times
John, explain to me how wind driven turbine power is stored.As i see it we will always need a source of consistent hydro power. Are you prepared to accept intremittent “brownouts” in a farm operation? “Economics” are already showing up in monthly Hydro bills…
Rather than blaming most air pollution on the US, the Ont College of Family Physicians, the Asthma Society of Canada, the Lung Assoc and the Reg Nurses Assoc of Ont have been urging Queens Park to close of our coal plants. It’s stated that doing so would save nearly 1000 lives and prevent thousands of illnesses.
Keeping coal on standby reserve for emergency use would be better than exporting power to the US, even though exporting may be profitabe overall. Coal burners could be made cleaner in particluate matter, but the millions of tonnes of GHG emissions can’t be scrubbed out.
We should consider that wind energy has no large scale points of failure, no risk of meltdown and no worries about the handling of radioactive waste. The largest costs of nuclear waste management are being passed on to future generations who would not even using power from nuclear. The ethics of this don’t seem to be considered.
Risks and ethics aside, economics alone should prevent the building of any new Nuke plants in the Province.
Davton, your question about U.S. vs Canadian / Ontario pollution is a key one. Although I don’t have access to stats at the moment, I’ll make a few comments, all related to particulate pollution from electricy generation.
Each province of Canada is very different. BC, MB, QC and NL all get 95-100% of their power from non-polluting hydro.
Of the remaining provinces, Ontario is next best, with 75% of its power coming from clean nuclear and hydro and only 8% from coal and 14% from gas (2010 numbers.)
Alberta is worst, with about two-thirds of its power being generated from coal and gas.
The U.S. is very heavily dependent on coal, generating 45-55% of its electricity using this fuel (as compared to 8% in Ontario). And keep in mind that U.S. power generation is of the order of 10 times that of Canada.
The majority of the coal-fired plants are in the easter half of the U.S. and 700+ plants are located in the U.S., south and west of Ontario, as compared to 4 plants in Ontario. Given the prevailing southwest winds, 99% of the particulate pollution from coal and gas plants in southern Ontario comes from U.S. plants. When we shut down our remaining 4 plants, we will reduce pollution by only 1%.
Even with these 700+ coal plants sending their pollution our way, and factoring in pollution from all sources (including industry and transporation), the level of particulate pollution in the provinces is very low. For proof, refer to Ontario’s pollution monitoring system.
In the grand scheme of things, the particulate pollution generated by the 4 coal-fired plants in Ontario is absolutely minimal.
Ontario is a shining star in North America and worldwide in terms of clean electricity production.
Are there any numbers as to how much USA will reduce their coal fired consumption? We could be doing all the reductions necessary and still not see the desired air quality levels. We always see the smog and poor air quality every summer here in Ontario…is it all coming fom our own coal fired power plants? Reducing the greenhouse effect is well and good butperhaps putting more funds into the emmission control would be money well spent.At least it would indicate we Canadians are doing our part.
Gary, rather than say that Ontario has exported the wind power, I think it is time to be thankfull that we now have more coal free generation capacity than is needed for the projected peak demand. OPG continues to run coal plants, in effect selling that power to the US.
It’s time to put the coal plants on standby reserve now for emergencies and achieve over 50% of our Koyota GHG reduction targets, save billions on health care costs, lost work time and prevent hundreds of deaths per year. All of this thanks in part to renewables and we are getting new jobs as well! Lets be part of a sustainable future.
Douglas, Hazel and others: people will likely pay more attention to your arguments if you are willing to post using your your full name.
If saving threatened species and preserving habitat at Ostrander Point and the south shore is so important to everyone, why haven’t they been working to save them before this? Why haven’t they been down there for the past decade or more working on the 1997 proposal by David Bland for an environmental management plan to save the south shore grasslands for grassland birds? They should have been down there preserving the habitat by preventing succession, cutting down scrub trees, mowing the grasslands, stopping ATVs from destroying the habitat, protesting the building of cottages.
Why haven’t all these other important south shore habitat issues been a concern for the anti-wind people? Simple: they’re only concerned about keeping wind turbines out of their sight and out of their county.
With respect to capacity Mooney sounds just like Mike Harris. There was a recession in the early nineties that caused Harris to abandon stewardship of our electricity needs and leave us with significan power shortages after the economy recovered. The green energy act was in response to those power shortages.
Mooney also ignores that most conservation measures back into producing more electricity. You don’t run plug in cars, fuel cells, heat pumps and the like out of thin air. Somewhere in the line is the need for a whole lot of electricity.
And really Mr Mooney do you really expect us to believe we should size our generation capacity to meet avarage demand? Maybe council should pass a resolution offering PEC to be the first to shut down when demand exceeds the average since we don’t want to bear any responsibility for generation.
USFWS: http://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf
10 billion birds breed, 20billion migrate, 10 billion return to breed. Thats about 1000 deaths per square mile between South America and the Arctic. Turbines in PEC will not change that. Birds are just the latest excuse for the people who to paraphrase Mooney don’t want turbines in their back yards – put them somewhere else.
Mooney:If it is to be moved, there is no need to relocate it elsewhere in the County. Gilead is planning three projects totalling 554 MW in northwestern Ontario. Why not just expand those projects marginally?
Not in my back yard
Here’s a letter to the editor that will be published in local papers this week:
Kill, harm, harass, damage and destroy – for what?
Gilead Power Corporation has applied for an Ontario permit under the Endangered Species Act to “kill, harm and harass” two threatened species, whip-poor-will and Blanding’s turtle, at its 24 MW Ostrander Point wind energy project, and to “damage and destroy” habitat there.
Ostrander Point is Crown Land situated in the middle of Prince Edward County’s South Shore Important Bird Area. If this is not the worst location for a wind turbine project in the eastern Lake Ontario region, it’s right up there. This project should be cancelled or moved.
If it is to be moved, there is no need to relocate it elsewhere in the County. Gilead is planning three projects totalling 554 MW in northwestern Ontario. Why not just expand those projects marginally?
In any event, Ontario doesn’t need 24 MW of additional generation capacity. During 2010, with installed capacity excluding coal plants of 31 GW (= 31,000 MW), Ontario generated power at an average rate of 16 GW per hour, using about half of this capacity. Even during the 4 hours in 2010 when generated power peaked at 25 GW, there was still 6 GW of installed non-coal capacity in reserve.
As further evidence of a lack of need, Ontario got 2% of its power from wind in 2010, but exported 10% of the total power generated to neighbouring provinces / states. During almost every hour of the year, Ontario exported more power than was produced by wind. So, effectively, Ontario exported all of the wind power that it produced.
Why kill, harm and harass threatened species and damage and destroy habitat in order to generate additional power that is not needed in Ontario? Surely all Ontarians can agree that the province should keep wind turbine projects out of environmentally sensitive areas. And surely we can agree that Ostrander Point is a good place to start.
http://naturecanadablog.blogspot.com/2011/05/gileads-application-for-endangered.html?spref=fb
Ted Cheskey’s “Nature Canada” blog on Gilead’s request to the MNR.
“Wind energy projects should be about a good idea in a good place. Ostrander Point, in my view, is a terrible location for a wind project. Powers that be, please find an alternative location, that is not as risky to birds and other wildlife.” [Ted Cheskey]
I think it is ridiculous for the Minister to outline the areas where Gilead intends to mitigate the damage done. Let us be clear: they have requested permission to kill, maim, harm and harrass the endangered species. That means that they clearly expect to kill, maim, harm and harass these species. If you look at the studies Gilead themselves commissioned it is evident that the damage to these species will be widespread and devastating. The appropriate response of the Minister in charge of our natural heritage would be to fine them, which is the law. This law was put in place by the Ministry to protect endangered species, and there is absolutely nothing in Gilead’s plans to mitigate the harm done that will protect these species from harm.
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTEzMDAw&statusId=MTY5NDQ1&language=en
This is the link to the second MNR application mentioned Saturday covering:
Proposed tenure instruments may include:
– A temporary land use permit to facilitate the construction phase of the project
– A work permit for the construction of buildings associated with the electrical substation
– An easement for underground power lines
– A Crown land lease for turbine locations
– The sale of Crown land for the transformer substation.
Reference number is 011-3297 – comments before June 9 to
Eric R. Prevost
RENEWABLE ENERGY PLANNER
Ministry of Natural Resources
Regional Operations Division
Southern Region
Peterborough District
300 Water Street
Floor 1
Robinson Place South Tower
Peterborough Ontario
K9J 8M5
Phone: (705) 755-3134
Fax: (705) 755-3125
In an attempt to lighten things up.I must say this conversation is “for the birds”…Humor folks.Ironically this discussion is about the environmental impact of a evironmental solution. However discussion is needed to find a solution for the environmental solutions evironmental impact..Ok I’ve confused myself thoroughly.
The activities to provide an overall benefit to both species are explained in the article above.
Hazel, you automatically assume everything you hear from people opposed to an IWT project are quoting misleading facts or just making these things up (like health problems).
In the corporate world, a consultancy firm that does not provide a paid-for-report that supports the objectives of the corporation that employes them. They will omit or re-position facts to support their goals. A consultancy firm that does not, will not survive to write another report.
Just asking you to keep an open mind.
For a very good explanation of why Industrial Wind Turbines are NOT GREEN … watch this on you tube. http://youtu.be/JMklQLekg6E
Hazel, Just to let you know, ducks do fly over land as well.
If you were at the meeting yesterday, you would have heard the data that has been collected over the past 10 years at Point Traverse and it reinforces that millions of birds fly over this area twice a year and some zigzag back and forth over land at the height of industrial windmills when the rest here in The County.
What surprised me most about yesterday’s information meeting was that we, the taxpayers, in addition to paying to generate surplus energy at Wolfe Island, must also pay NY State to purchase it. The “Greenback Energy Act” benefits very few and if we follow the money, we’ll find the beneficiaries. Let’s start digging!
Here’s some more information from Wind Concerns Ontario:
WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO – NEWS RELEASE
Even though high winds are generating over 1000 megawatts (MW) of wind energy per hour in the province of Ontario today, it means little for Ontarians energy supply mix. Why? Virtually all of that energy is going to waste says Wind Concerns Ontario President John Laforet. “It is shocking that Ontario’s Green Energy Plan amounts to a ‘pump and dump’ corporate welfare transaction for wind developers and paid for by Ontarians. I’m sure ratepayers in New York, Michigan, Quebec and other jurisdictions we are give this energy to at a loss appreciate Dalton McGuinty’s fiscal incompetence; but Ontarian’s can’t afford it any longer!”
The Feed-in-Tariff scheme brought in as part of Ontario’s Green Energy Act requires the government of Ontario to purchase all industrial wind generated electricity at a rate of $135 per MW, regardless of whether there is or is not a demand for that power.
The price of industrial wind also isn’t subject to market rate fluctuations like forms of conventional, reliable power sources are.
Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) is currently exporting 1250 megawatts of power, with the market price at just $10.35. This means that taxpayers are buying industrial wind energy at ten times the rate we’re selling it for, to other jurisdictions. Yesterday, at 8pm wind output suddenly dropped by almost 400MW, forcing the IESO to purchase power from our neighbours at $410.70 per MW by 10pm all because of unreliable wind energy.
Even with this surplus of energy generation in Ontario today, coal fired generators are still operating, demonstrating how unrelated this industrial wind energy scheme is to closing coal power plants in Ontario.
“Buy high, sell low is a really bad strategy. It’s time the Premier of Ontario got real and recognized that Ontario does not need these massive industrial wind developments and that Ontarians cannot afford to subsidize wind developers who supply wind power to our neighbours. This industrial wind strategy has failed to meet any of its stated objectives and will continue to cost Ontario dearly going forward. This might be a sweet deal for industrial wind developers and American ratepayers in neighbouring states, but it isn’t for Ontarians. Just who is Dalton McGuinty looking out for?” John Laforet said.
Wind Concerns Ontario is calling on the Government of Ontario to halt all industrial wind development in the province of Ontario, end the feed-in-tariff program that is costing ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize through higher energy bills, restore local democracy and planning control to municipalities and support the completion and findings of an independent epidemiological health study on the negative health effects suffered by people living too close to industrial wind turbines.
Eighty municipalities representing more than two million Ontarians have also joined Wind Concerns Ontario’s call on the government of Ontario to introduce a moratorium to industrial wind development by passing motions of moratorium of their own. Wind Concerns Ontario is an independent, grassroots, volunteer driven coalition of fifty seven community groups in thirty five counties throughout Ontario.
For more information:
John Laforet
President — Wind Concerns Ontario
windconcerns@gmail.com
Gary Mooney said: “…locally, PEC Field Naturalists, Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory, the South Shore Conservancy and Terry Sprague are all opposed to Gilead’s Ostrander Point project because it is located in the middle of an Important Bird Area.” This comment spreads more misinformation to the general public.
This Important Bird Area’s criteria are for ‘congregatory waterbirds’ only. The Global Criteria for Important Bird Areas list Prince Edward Point as an IBA under A4i and A4iii:
A4. Congregations
i). Site known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, 1% of a biogeographic population of a congregatory waterbird species.
iii). Site known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, 20,000 waterbirds or 10,000 pairs of seabirds of one or more species.
These waterbirds congregate off shore, not on land.
To Whom It May Concern,
It has come to our attention that the Ministry of Natural Resources has decided that it is acceptable that a permit (EBR 011-3181) be approved to allow the Gilead Power Corporation to kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtles and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy habitat on The County’s alvar. I am appalled that this permit would have been even entertained let alone directed for approval. I have supported the government and its policies throughout my adult life believing, perhaps naively, that the people hired to make important decisions had our best interests at heart. I have supported MNR policies to protect threatened species and protect land that is considered Crown Land…land that we ultimately own as a taxpayer. To make exception to rules already in place for wind turbines along the south shore of Lake Ontario is not only short sighted but a travesty. Please be aware that we do not support this permit in any form.This project should STOP immediately.
I urge all readers to write their own letters to stop this project…urgent..by June 9th
quote ER#011-3181
Paula Norlock
esa.permits.agreements@ontario.ca
Doris, you made my point for me! The birds migrate across in smaller numbers in locations other than Prince Edward Point. The 12 million extrapolation is the (purposefully) misleading number.
Hazel maybe you should check David’s maps of the Dopler Radar system. Where is the chain of islands to the south of PEPoint. The Islands are to the East of the point.
There are birds coming across the whole south shore–ever go to Presquile point? They come across there as well by the hundreds.
Check what Suzanne had to say, it was excellent and makes perfect sense.
Congratulations suzanne on a well thought out statement.
Chris, any answers given by the anti-wind groups would be biased misinformation.
12 million birds?! This is a perfect example of how the presenters set you up. The birds migrate primarily through Prince Edward Point; they do so because there is a chain of islands leading to New York State. That is why Prince Edward Point is a National Wildlife Area. There are 3/4 million birds go through that particular area. It is 1 km long. The presenters then made the ludicrous leap that if 3/4 million birds pass through PE Point, then 3/4 million birds must pass through every kilometre of shoreline from Wolfe Island to Presqu’ile, a distance of 130km. That is where the 12 million comes from and is a ridiculous extrapolation!
Further, if you were paying close attention, you will remember the first presenter said that the reason the area is designated an Important Bird Area is ONLY because of the Long-tailed Ducks, not the Nightjars, not the Passerines, just the Long-tailed Ducks.
There are vital important pieces of information omitted by the presenters. For example, there are 12 billion migratory birds killed each year from the time they leave Canada until they arrive back; that’s an average of over 1500 per square mile between South America and the Arctic Ocean. Bird kills from 10,000 turbines in Southern Ontario would merely constitute a rounding error in the total number, no matter where the turbines are placed.
However, if we don’t solve our CO2 problem now, in 70 years there will be no boreal forest and no Passerine migration through Prince Edward County.
Chris, I am just wondering if “those who do not oppose wind turbines per se” have ever gotten together to brainstorm where in the County they would prefer that Gilead locate their project?
It is too bad everyone in the County did not see the presentation today at the church.
It was extremely informative and as Chris said it would answer a lot of questions that people might have.
Interesting that one man thought the permit to kill and destroy the Blanding Turtle and the whipoorwhill must be a misprint. Well indeed it is not. I refer you again to the article above where it gives you the site you can access to registerr your complaint about this permit. You only have until June the 9th to do this.
Only think about what David said about the thousands of birds that pass through the South Shore every Spring and Fall.
Someone asks what do the birds do? Remember we cannot destroy the balance of nature by man made means. Nature takes care of itself and we have to respect it and the great job it does for our environment
Hazel – it’s a pity you didn’t attend today’s meeting on Saving the South Shore Important Bird area – all of your questions would have been answered. There was a reporter from the Picton Gazette in attendance (and perhaps from other media as well) so hopefully you will get some information from their coverage.
Since the turtles do not fly south for the winter they will most certainly be affected by turbine construction. They also move around the area when they are not hibernating and are potential victims of the truck traffic associated with the turbines.
Lastly – you fail to understand the ecological significance of an area through which 12 million plus birds migrate every year. Opponents of this project do not oppose turbines per se, we oppose locating them in one of Canada’s most significant environmental areas.
Brenda said: “Where is it written how many whip-poor-wills and blanding turtles use this area for habitat? I see a lot written about them being endangered but it doesn’t comment on how many live there… I think they’re literally grasping for straws now in order not to have the turbines put up since nothing else has worked.”
The TRUTH is that neither Blanding’s Turtles nor Whip-poor-wills are endangered in Ontario. The government’s Species at Risk lists them both as threatened but not endangered. Keeping this area cleared of reforestation and providing gravel roads would actually benefit both species.
Well, at least with this shameful proposal put forward to the MNR, we can finally put a lie to the claim that the Ostrander Point turbines are a “green” energy project. Since any “green” claim must surely serve to protect the environment, not seek to destroy it. Those that now continue to support this project should now have to make the motives for their support clear. If they do not, then their support will most certainly be assumed to be based on the financial rewards such projects may bring to a small minority of people. I do not blame people for wanting to see a few thousand dollars added to their coffers, few of us are in a position to turn down such offers. But good governance must consider the greater good for everyone’s sake and with this proposal put forward to the MNR it is now abundantly clear that there is no “green” advantage to these turbines at Ostrander Point. I do not know how anyone could put their own possible financial gain ahead of the natural heritage of this county. It seems very selfish indeed to deny future generations this natural heritage while at the same time passing on the enormous cost associated with decommissioning these towers when they no longer produce any energy at all.
Agreed that the recommendations are not polar opposite to everyone that is in opposition to the Ostrander Point project. My post said that they are opposite to the positons of the “anti wind groups” as they are on record as opposing all wind development in the County, and have done so in Hallowell/Sophiasburgh.(not just Big Island)
We need to review the science and decide if the impacts of the project have more environmental impact than the effects of less sustainable energy development. Ulimitely, I expect that this decision will be made by the ERT.
Mr.Thompson: The following quote is from the WWF Report you mention – on page 33 –
“Both on- and offshore wind developments need to be sensitively planned to minimise the impact on marine life and birds, and more research is needed in this area.”
This is NOT the polar opposite to those of us who oppose turbines on Ostrander Point adjacent to an Important Birding Area. Sited sensibly, turbines certainly should be part of the energy production mix. Destroying an environmentally sensitive area for ANY reason should not be acceptable.
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/renewable_energy/sustainable_energy_report/
This is the recommended global energy strategy from the World Wildlife Fund. A must read I would suggest as it is the polar opposite of the views expressed by out anti wind groups!
http://www.gileadpower.com/pdf/ostrander-notices/Themed-Response-Document-Draft%20REA-Final-POH-(Dec%202010).pdf
This is the themed response report based on questions from the public meeting. Best that those with concerns read it.
If progress means destroying natural habitats for our fellow creatures on the ONLY planet we know of in the entire universe that supports life as we know it, then it is not only NOT progress, but UNIVERSALLY NOT progress.
Where are the scientific studies of the south shore regarding bird migration (aside from PE Point), Blanding’s Turtles, or Whippoorwills? Is it not true that there are greater threats such as the loss of habitat as fields revert to forest, pesticides, vehicles, coyotes, agriculture, and so on? If the turbines are constructed in the winter, they would not affect the turtles. Whippoorwills are low fliers so turbines wouldn’t affect them. Actually clearing the trees and brush on the land for construction would benefit both species.
In the above article is a website that you can visit to find out how you can make comments to the MNR about the permit that Gilead wishes to get so they can kill endangered species and destroy the natural landscape of this part of the County.
Please take the time to send a message about how you feel about this destruction to OUr County
Here is an excellent CBC News video segment featuring Myrna Wood and Cheryl Anderson of PEC Field Naturalists.
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/Toronto/1305549802/ID=1923287704
AN information meeting entitled “Save our South Shore IBA” is being held at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, PIcton on Sunday May 15 at 2 p.m.
To second Gary’s comments, the PEC Field Naturalists and Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory have been working hard to raise awareness of the threat posed by industrial wind development in the Important Bird Area. In fact, they are organizing a public information meeting on the topic this Sunday, 2-4 PM at St. Andrew’s Church in Picton.
Mandy, it’s true that nature and environmental organizations have felt conflicted between wishing to support wind energy and wanting to protect birds, bats and other wildlife. It took them a while to resolve the question within their organizations, but now most of them are expressing their opposition to wind turbines in areas that would unduly harm wildlife.
It is my understanding that, locally, PEC Field Naturalists, Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory, the South Shore Conservancy and Terry Sprague are all opposed to Gilead’s Ostrander Point project because it is located in the middle of an Important Bird Area. Also, I believe that Ontario Nature and Nature Canada are opposed to this project.
Where is it written how many whip-poor-wills and blanding turtles use this area for habitat? I see a lot written about them being endangered but it doesn’t comment on how many live there. Is it 2,22 or what? I think they’re literally grasping for straws now in order not to have the turbines put up since nothing else has worked.
“kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy the habitat of Whip-poor-will for the purpose of the development and operation of Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park”
This is pure insanity! Where are the wildlife organizations? Silent. The couldn’t possibly step in and risk being called anti-wind. Idiots.