Wind Concerns Ontario is a province-wide advocacy organization whose mission is to provide information on the potential impact of industrial-scale wind power generation on the economy, human health, and the natural environment.
Writing in yesterday’s National Post and for Postmedia, Michael Den Tandt puts the climate change discussion into perspective and in particular, has some advice for the new federal government on “clean” energy:
The Liberals will also need to take pains to avoid the multi-billion-dollar waste and anti-democratic outrages of Ontario’s Green Energy Act, which foisted inefficient, hugely expensive and environmentally harmful wind turbines on rural communities that in many cases did and do not want them.
Actually harm the environment they are supposed to be saving—that’s the lesson to be learned from Ontario about wind turbines. Only Ontario hasn’t learned it, as the government contracts for 300 more megawatts of wind in 2015 (well, turns out we have to wait now until 2016 to learn which communities are on the chopping block), and another 200 megawatts in 2016.
Worse, Big Wind has convinced the Ontario government that the 3-megawatt machines are actually “quieter” and so, new regulations for turbine noise, to be released shortly, will have zero mention of low-frequency noise or infrasound, because Big Wind says it isn’t a problem. Meanwhile, anecdotal reports out of communities where the 3-megawatt behemoths have begun operating show that people are getting sicker, faster.
Analysts such as Tom Adams, Scott Luft and Parker Gallant repeatedly offer data that shows wind power is not only high impact on the environment it is for very little benefit, and is costing Ontario in terms of competitiveness, and standard of living.
Ontario has a lot to learn, not the least of which is how to protect its citizens.
On November 19, 2015, the Environmental Review Tribunal released a decision in the Settlers Landing Wind Park hearing, finding that elements of the proposed wind project will cause serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment. This is only the second case in which the Tribunal has made such a finding and the first since the Court of Appeal decision in Prince Edward County Field Naturalists v. Ostrander Point GP Inc.
While the Tribunal dismissed several grounds of the appeal, it found that elements of the project, specifically the construction and decommissioning of Turbines 3 and 5 and the construction of certain access roads, will cause serious and irreversible harm to a woodland. Full reasons for the Tribunal’s decision were not issued and will follow in the future. This finding engages the Tribunal’s authority to revoke the approval, alter the Director’s decision (the Renewable Energy Approval) or direct the MOECC Director to take specified actions. It will be interesting to see both the process used by the Tribunal and the ultimate remedy resulting from this decision.
PICTON, ONTARIO. NOVEMBER 30, 2015. At the Ottawa Divisional Court, CCSAGE Naturally Green (CCSAGE NG) has filed notice for a Judicial Review of the process by which on July 16th the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change issued a Renewable Energy Approval for the White Pines wind energy project of 27, perhaps 29, turbines in Prince Edward County. As part of this REA approval process, on September 11th, 2015, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forests issued a permit for the project to kill, harm and harass endangered or threatened species at risk. Citing institutional bias, lack of science-based studies, disallowance of municipal input, and denial of natural justice, CCSAGE NG has prepared affidavit evidence exceeding 1500 pages claiming that the Ontario government’s approval process has violated several constitutional rights of rural citizens and communities as well as international treaties and agreements.
CCSAGE NG is a federally incorporated not-for-profit corporation.. It works with citizens and other groups to ensure that “Green Energy” initiatives of governments and industry are safe and appropriate for the citizens, the wildlife and the natural and heritage environments of Prince Edward County.
CCSAGE NG continues to support other groups appealing two wind energy projects in the County. However, Ontario’s Green Energy Act permits Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) appeals only on grounds of serious harm to humans or serious and irreversible harm to animal and/or plant life and to the natural environment. That Act does not permit ERT appeals on any other grounds such as biased approval processes, denial of natural justice, violation of constitutional rights, harm to local economies, harm to tourism, harm to heritage assets, diminution of property values, or violation of international treaties and agreements. CCSAGE NG has therefore filed its application for a Judicial Review of this project’s approval process, in an effort to restore equity, accountability and justice.
CCSAGE NG Chair Anne Dumbrille observed that, at an ERT, it is difficult for citizens to get a fair hearing of their grievances against government-approved wind projects because the ERT process is heavily biased in favour of the wind energy developer and the government ministries that approve its projects. “ERTs are government-appointed tribunals that follow government rules and use taxpayer-funded lawyers to permit destruction of environmentally sensitive areas and to deny natural justice to local citizens who have constitutionally assured rights and freedoms. Our only recourse is to Canada’s courts, where rules of equitable justice prevail,” she said.
In preparing the Application, CCSAGE NG has had the benefit of considerable research contributed by five students from the Osgoode Hall Law School at York University.
Here is the report from the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) on Day 13 of the appeal of the White Pines wind power project. Note that the MOECC’s expert witness claims the new noise regulations will be available shortly, and the appellant’s expert witness testified that the developer’s consultant failed to identify several features of the landscape that contribute to appropriateness of the site.
Report on the ERT Hearing on the White Pines Wind Project – Nov. 25, 2015
By Paula Peel, APPEC
Day Thirteen of the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) of the White Pines wind project focused on two witnesses: Denton Miller, a Senior Noise Engineer in the Environmental Assessment Branch of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), and APPEC witness Dr. Craig MacRae, a professional hydrologist.
Miller clarified the MOECC’s position that wind turbine noise is broadband, not impulsive, and that turbines have no low-frequency or infrasound emissions. Reports of “sensations” are among the complaints the MOECC receives. MOECC audits ensure that the sound power used in modelling is correct and complies with regulations. If compliance is an issue, there are options such as restricting operations to daytime or during certain wind conditions.
Miller explained that the MOECC’s Noise Assessment is predicated on the worst-case scenario and the model gives conservative results. Therefore, it is not a concern that sound output downwind of turbines is 6 to 7 db(A) higher than upwind, or night-time sound output may vary from 5 to 10 db(A) due to wind shear.
APPEC counsel Eric Gillespie asked Miller to consider that MOECC’s model is “practical,” not “conservative,” because acousticians suggest these scenarios happen all the time. Gillespie noted that the White Pines project is spread over a large area encompassing many receptors. At any given time would it not be possible that turbine blades will be turned away from some receptors while other receptors will be downwind? Miller replied that due to variable wind directions this might not happen and sustained impact is unlikely in any case.
Miller confirmed that the MOECC is issuing new guidelines in a few weeks to replace the 2008 Noise Guidelines. Among other things the revision includes a section on wind shear profiling and specific directions to ensure calculations are based on maximum output.
Dr. Craig R. MacRae, qualified as a hydrologist, has 32 years of professional experience in measurement and modeling of hydrologic systems, channel erosion, open channel flow hydraulics and sediment transport.
Dr. MacRae told the Tribunal that karst is an area of limestone characterized with crevices, fissures, sinkholes, and underground streams. Karst formation flows continuously throughout the Prince Edward County south shore, with different levels ranging from 2m up to 30m deep. He observed numerous karst features on his site visit of the White Pines project. Yet Stantec did not report the presence of karst and did not do any field work.
Dr. MacRae stated when karst is disturbed by construction, it is destroyed. The harm is irreversible and cannot be repaired. Underground water flows horizontally and the construction of the 16.7km access roads, cable trenches, excavations for wind turbine and crane pads, and upgrades to existing municipal roads all can damage and destroy the karst. Dr. MacRae also stated that trenching for the access roads and collector lines can drain the wetlands.
The damage is unpredictable and thus cannot be mitigated. A water management plan cannot be developed as flooding can occur in areas where there was none prior to construction. MacRae noted that the 20 culverts proposed along new access roads will not manage all the risk and more culverts would simply change the flooded areas. New access roads must be raised to allow for water flow ditches on both sides in order to prevent washouts.
Patrick Duffy, counsel for WPD, challenged Dr. MacRae in cross-examination, trying to show that there is no karst in the White Pines project area. He referenced high-level diagrams in public documents that show Prince Edward County has “unknown” karst. Dr. MacRae replied that these diagrams don’t tell the whole story and the documents describe characteristics on the south shore that are consistent with karst.
In Mr. Gillespie’s reply, Dr. MacRae identified many deficiencies in Stantec’s reports for the White Pines project. There was no field work, no methodology set out with established criteria, no physical measurements, and no topological mapping. Stream courses were insufficiently mapped, no high-water mark measurements were established, and the existing MNRF database is sorely lacking. Finally, Stantec did not identify three large sinkholes and 10 additional streams that Dr. MacCrae observed on his site visit.
ERT co-chair Hugh Wilkins asked Dr. MacRae to identify areas of concern. Dr. MacRae said that the areas of greatest risk are T1, T2 and T3 in the Black Creek Valley ANSI, T25 through T29 in the eastern portion of the township, and parts of Helmer Road and Babylon Road in the Provincially-Significant South Bay Coastal Wetland.
The long, long saga of the appeal of the Ostrander Point wind power project, in which members of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN) and the community fight to save the environment from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, is nearing its end.
Here is a report from Cheryl Anderson of PECFN:
Today was the end of a long and exhausting journey for the members of PECFN, the supporters of our fight to Save Ostrander Point, our legal team and probably the opposing lawyers and the tribunal panel as well. The last of the witnesses was heard this morning. Shawn Taylor, [Dillon Consulting] a witness for the approval holder (Gilead) gave testimony about his success in aquatic and terrestrial rehabilitation projects. In some projects, apparently, he was involved in creating artificial nesting sites for Blanding’s Turtles. There did not seem to be any evidence; however, that the turtles actually used these artificial sites. Most of Mr. Taylor’s work seems to have been in restoration of wetland habitat for road construction.
The second witness for the day was to have been Mike Lord, president of Gilead. After the lunch break the Gilead lawyers came back and announced that Mike Lord would not be giving testimony.
Everyone in the room gave a huge sigh of relief – we could not believe it was finally over.
Before January 15, the legal teams will be submitting written briefs and replies summing up the case.
On the 15th final oral submissions will be presented in Toronto and then the ERT panel will deliberate and write their final decision.
Meanwhile, PECFN continues raising funds. On January 16 we present Winter Wonderland Walk. This 3 km walk will proceed along Hilltop Rd and up Brewers Rd to Long Dog winery. Long Dog has graciously agreed to provide mulled wine for the walkers and we will make sure there is also hot spiced cider. We will also provide rides back to your car parked at the side of Hilltop Rd. All you have to do is register for the walk and get a few people to sponsor you. It should be a fun afternoon and we will raise some much needed money for the cause of keeping our South Shore Turbine free.
Report on Environmental Review Tribunal Hearing on White Pines Wind Project
Henri Garand, APPEC
On Day Twelve the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) on the White Pines wind project heard Dr. Cornelia Baines, witness for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).
After confirming the credentials and lengthy research experience of Dr. Baines, MOECC counsel Sylvia Davis asked her to respond to Dr. Hanning’s observations of bias in her witness statement. She said that the negative phrases were taken from the papers she had referenced and her focus was on following a good scientific approach in research. The Tribunal qualified Dr. Baines, MD, as a “physician and epidemiologist with special expertise in design, measurement, and evaluation of research studies.”
Dr. Baines reviewed the hierarchy of research design from the lowest quality (case series and case reports) to the highest (cohort and randomized control studies). She said that “compelling evidence” of adverse health effects would require that “complaints are specific to wind turbines,” “symptoms would be more frequent and severe than in the general population,” and a “biologically plausible mechanism” would be identified.
Then Dr. Baines commented on several well-known studies. She cited Dr. Simon Chapman’s paper on the psychogenic causes of wind turbine complaints and explained placebo and “nocebo” effects. The latter result when awareness of negative effects increases the likelihood of such reports. Despite criticisms about demographics and the synthetic circumstances, Dr. Baines defended the Crichton study in which university students were exposed for ten minutes in a laboratory to both real and sham infrasound. She also praised the Health Canada study for its design, collection of data, and analysis, noting the lack of impact on the “quality of life” of wind project residents.
Under cross-examination by APPEC counsel Eric Gillespie, Dr. Baines conceded that she knows nothing about wind turbine technology though she has read regularly about the health issues. She also admitted she has not seen patients since the 1980s and is not licensed to practice medicine.
Gillespie asked Dr. Baines to consider the Erickson ERT decision in which the Tribunal accepted that turbines can cause serious harm when placed too close to homes, and the debate over health effects is “one of degree” and does not concern the biological mechanism. Dr. Baines said she does not agree with the Erickson ERT, which is “a court decision, not a scientific finding.”
The ERT continues on Wednesday, November 25, at 10 a.m. in the Picton Community Centre.
Further note from the APPEC board
In our Friday, November 20 Report on the ERT it was noted that WPD is dropping its appeal of two turbines (T7 and T11) that were disallowed by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). However at the end of the hearing today WPD reversed its previous position and is now asking the ERT for an adjournment on this appeal. James Wilson, counsel for WPD, told the ERT that he may have misspoken or mischaracterized the withdrawal of the section 139 appeal of the two turbines and that his client WPD had only intended to ask for an adjournment.
Wind Concerns Ontario editor’s note: readers will surely connect the testimony of Dr Baines here to earlier appeals in which Dr Sarah Laurie of Australia was not allowed to be termed an “expert witness” because she had let her medical licence expire, yet she is actively involved through the Waubra Foundation in helping people with health effects from wind turbine noise and vibration. Also note the mention of Simon Chapman, also Australian, whose work and opinions were thoroughly discredited by the Australian Select Senate Committee investigating the effects of wind turbines in that country; Mr Chapman was also recently forced to issue an apology for remarks made about Dr Laurie.
In Ontario, however, a formerly licensed medical professional a) qualifies as an expert witness for the government, and b) mentions the work of the discredited Mr Chapman.
Wind Concerns Ontario has written to the Green Energy Approvals section of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, following testimony from acoustics experts at the appeal of the White Pines wind power project last week. We demanded that the MOECC review the testimony of the witnesses, specifically that Ontario’s noise regulations are inadequate to protect health, and apply the information to the current review of noise regulations for wind turbines in Ontario.
The letter has been received and acknowledged.
The letter follows.
Senior Program Advisor
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Programs Division, Modernization of Approvals Branch, Green Energy Approvals,
135 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto Ontario M4V 1P5
November 20, 2015
RE: NOISE GUIDELINES FOR WIND POWER PROJECTS
We are aware that the comment period for the proposed amendments to current noise guidelines for wind power projects has closed; however, there is testimony being given at the appeal of the White Pines project in Prince Edward County that is germane to your review, and should not be overlooked.
Several experts in acoustics, who have technical experience measuring the noise and low frequency noise emissions from wind power projects, have testified over the last few days to the following key points:
The Ontario regulations are inadequate to protect health
The Ontario regulations rely heavily on A-weighted measurement which is not adequate or appropriate (this fact was already mentioned in the federal government funded report from the Council of Canadian Academies)
Wind power developers’ predictions for noise are not always accurate and again, seek to conform to the inadequate regulations of the Ontario government
The Health Canada study of wind turbine noise and health clearly shows there are problems after 35 dB
What follows is a citizen report of testimony given by Dr Paul Schomer, an eminent acoustics professional.
APPEC’s health appeal continued on Day 10 with expert witness Dr. Paul Schomer testifying before the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) on the White Pines wind project. The remainder of the day was spent making adjustments to the schedule following WPD’s abrupt announcement that it was dropping an appeal of the disallowance of two turbines (T7 and T11) by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).
Dr. Schomer, a former Standards Director of the Acoustical Society of America with 48 years’ experience in noise measurement, was qualified by the ERT as an expert in acoustics. He told the Tribunal that all residents in the White Pines project area will be affected by audible and inaudible sound and a number of residents will be seriously affected. The effects reported by people living near wind projects are similar in nature to the effects experienced by participants in a 1985 University of Toronto study on infrasound.
At lower levels and at higher levels of pure tone some participants experienced nausea and dizziness. However, when overtones were added at higher levels, participants experienced headaches and fatigue. Dr. Schomer considers that internationally-accepted noise standards and protocols are being flouted in Ontario. For example, A-weighting is not supposed to be relied on when sounds have low-frequency content such as those emitted by industrial wind turbines.
Canada is one of the countries that voted for this rule. He also calls for changes in current Ontario regulations to adjust up to 10 db(A) for wind turbine noise in rural areas. Other suggested adjustments include up to 3 db(A) for weather conditions and 3 to 4 db(A) for locations downwind of turbines.
Dr. Schomer is highly critical of WPD’s current predicted average sound as it merely indicates that 50% of the time 50% of the residents will be exposed to sound above or below the limit. The wind industry should be held to a higher level of accountability: db(A) limits should be met 95% of the time.
Dr. Schomer pointed to a very important figure in the Health Canada Report. Only 1% of people are shown to be highly annoyed at 30 – 35 db(A) sound levels. However, at 35 – 40 db(A) the number jumps to 40%. Dr. Schomer sees this as evidence of a community response to wind turbine noise, and that what Health Canada says, what independent acoustic experts say, and what communities say should carry weight in Ontario.
Through experience Dr. Schomer has found that when community responses disagree with the physics, the physics is usually wrong. This has been confirmed by his involvement in six studies of wind farms, including the 8-turbine Shirley Wind Farm in Wisconsin where three families abandoned their homes and about 60 other people reported adverse health effects.
We would ask that the Ministry be certain to review and consider this important evidence in its review of the noise guidelines for wind power projects, which are in no way “farms.”
Just this past week, Wind Concerns Ontario has learned of seven families forced to leave their homes in the area of the Goshen project; another half-dozen families are leaving their homes behind in West Grey. This is all due to the noise experienced.
This is a matter of grave concern, and we hope the government is sincere when it says its mission is to “protect the environment” which also means, the environment people live in.
Report on Environmental Review Tribunal Hearing on White Pines Wind Project
Day Eleven of the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) on the White Pines wind project was scheduled to deal with WPD’s witness Robert O’Neill.
However, the hearing began with a request from Eric Gillespie, APPEC’s legal counsel, for full disclosure from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) of the balance of the documents relating to Blanding’s turtles. Mr. Gillespie advised the ERT that the MNRF has handed over only seven documents although it is clear there are many more. The Tribunal declined to make a ruling at this time.
Gillespie subsequently provided notice of a motion made on behalf of the appellants that ERT co-chairs Marcia Valiante and Hugh Wilkins recuse themselves from these proceedings. The Tribunal agreed to receive written submissions on this matter and will make a ruling as soon as possible. There were no objections to the ERT continuing to hear evidence over the next two days.
The hearing then focused on Robert O’Neill, a sound engineer with Epsilon Association, whom the Tribunal qualified as an acoustician with expertise in wind turbine frequency noise. During the past ten years he has conducted studies at about 20 operational wind projects.
O’Neill told the ERT that wind turbines emit mechanical and aerodynamic sound. Under cross-examination he agreed that wind turbine sound can be characterized as broadband (the “swishing” sound) and as low frequency, but he does not agree with the characterization of impulsive-like effects.
O’Neill noted that at night people 450 m from wind turbines will more than likely hear a “whoosh, whoosh” sound but this will vary depending on meteorological conditions. At certain times this sound will be audible a kilometre away, but he would not characterize the sound as loud. He agreed with Gillespie that sound propagation depends on make and model of the turbines, weather conditions, distance from turbines, ground effects (sound bends upwards or down to earth), temperature inversion (at night, blades will pass through warm air at the turbine top and a mass of cooler air on the bottom), location (more noise downwind of turbines), and wind shear, where blades are passing through air masses moving at different speed.
O’Neill believes that A-weighting, the most commonly used method to describe sound, is the most appropriate measurement as it combines all the frequencies. However, O’Neill agrees that in addition to audible sound there is also sound that people can sense. Under cross-examination he agreed with Gillespie that his statement that low frequency and infrasound will not impact people is not based on any particular medical expertise but is only an evaluation based on professional standards and guidelines.
The White Pines ERT is in Toronto on Tuesday and in Picton on Wednesday, at the Prince Edward Community Centre at the Picton Fairgrounds, 375 Main St., Picton.
The Ostrander Point ERT is on Thursday and Friday at the Sophiasburgh Town Hall, 2771 County Rd 5, Demorestville.
Both appeals start at 10 a.m.
-Paula Peel, Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County
Wind approval process puts responsibility on citizens, not the developer, to protect the County
The thing that troubles Henri Garand about the Green Energy Act is the fact that regular citizens are held to a higher burden of proof than the companies they’re fighting against.
Garand, a member of the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) has been sitting in on the Environmental Review Tribunal that is hearing an appeal to the approval of the White Pines wind turbine project, which would see 27 turbines built over Athol and South Marysbugh.
APPEC is one of the project’s appellants. The organization argues that the turbines would have a negative impact on the cultural heritage of the area, human health, endangered species and the land itself, some of which is rare habitat.
Lawyer Eric Gillespie, representing APPEC, summoned expert witnesses to prove that the experts wpd Canada—the company that owns the White Pines project— used in its approval process with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) were not valid.
Still, the six witnesses were downgraded to presenters, their testimony reduced in importance, a decision made by the Tribunal’s adjudicators, Marcia Valiante and Hugh Wilkins.
Christopher Currie, Cheryl Anderson, Richard Bird, Roxanne MacKenzie, Doug Murphy and Brian Flack presented their cases to the panel about the proposed project’s negative effect on water, birds, vegetation, human health, land use and property value respectively. Some of these arguments called out wpd’s experts on the validity of their information, but as presenters, that couldn’t be taken into account.
This is what Garand bemoans.
“In the topsy-turvy world of the Green Energy Act, the wind developer receives a project approval despite incomplete research, while ERT appellants have to prove their case without the ability and time to conduct the necessary research,” Garand wrote. “These vicious ironies defy common sense.”
The Tribunal did hear from expert witness Joe Crowley, who Gillespie summoned. Crowley was previously a witness for the MOECC in the still ongoing Tribunal appealing the Ostrander wind turbine project proposed by Gilead Power.
Crowley is a scientist employed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and isthat ministry’s only expert on the Blanding’s turtle, an endangered species that inhabits the County’s south shore. At the Ostrander Tribunal, Crowley revealed that he had verbally warned against approving the project at Ostrander Point because of its potential to devastate the turtle population there.
That warning did not appear in any evidence submitted by the ministry, and the revelation caused the Tribunal to come to a halt while the MOECC and MNRF were ordered to search for any mention of Blanding’s turtles in the project’s approval process.
Crowley confirmed last week that at least 17 of the 29 proposed turbines in the White Pines project could also affect Blanding’s turtle habitat.
Gillespie has proposed two expert witnesses who would be able to reply to witnesses wpd will bring forward later in the process. They will be brought forward as expert witnesses, although parts of their statements that seem redundant will not be accepted.
No other expert witnesses have been heard yet; this week began with residents testifying about medical conditions that would be worsened by the turbines. Those witnesses, like the presenters, have less bearing on the panel’s decision.
MANVERS TWP – Ward 16 Councillor Heather Stauble was literally doing a happy dance at the Fenelon Falls Community Centre after learning opponents of an industrial wind turbine project near Pontypool scored a huge victory on Thursday (Nov. 19).
Coun. Stauble was at a special council meeting when she got the news that the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) had announced its decision on the appeal of the Settlers Landing Nominee Ltd. wind project.
Announcing the decision to council, she was visibly overjoyed as councillors hugged and congratulated her.
“This a huge, huge step forward for the community,” she told This Week.
She noted this is only the second ERT decision in Ontario that has overturned a wind energy company approval in favour of a community.
The Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change issued a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) to Settlers Landing Nominee Ltd., granting approval for the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of a Class 4 wind facility with a total name plate capacity of 10 megawatts in Pontypool.
Settlers Landing wind park would have put five industrial wind turbines near the village.
SLWP Opposition Corp. appealed the REA to the Tribunal in May on the grounds that the project will cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.
The Tribunal held the hearing in Pontypool on in September and October.
The Tribunal found “that the planned Settlers Landing wind project in Pontypool will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.” Specifically, the Tribunal, in its decision found that construction and decommissioning of turbines 3 and 5, and the access roads to turbines 2, 3 and 5, will cause such harm to a significant woodland identified as Woodland 11, including the habitat it represents.
Coun. Stauble said having two out of five of the turbines ruled as harmful to the woodlands could affect the company’s FIT contract (whereby they acquire points for renewable energy contracts with the Province.)
Opponents of the wind turbines did not, the Tribunal found, satisfy legal tests with respect to other issues they raised in the appeal, namely serious and irreversible harm to water resources or to grassland bird habitat and serious harm to human health.
Several other wind energy projects from different companies have been approved in Manvers Township, and opponents to the industrial turbines have not let up in their battle to keep them out, especially since several turbines are proposed to be built on the provincially-protected Oak Ridges Moraine. The City has backed their fight, as council has not supported industrial wind turbines in the municipality. While the opponents have raised money for their legal costs, the City has given some financial support and also provided senior staff to testify at the hearings.
In its decision, the Tribunal noted it will provide “a separate opportunity for the parties and participants to address the appropriate remedy and the Tribunal’s remedial jurisdiction in this case.”
Coun. Stauble said the wind company will be given the chance to offer remediation for the two turbines, “but, they must adhere to a 550 metre setback, and to do so means they would have to put those turbines in the woodlands.