“The motion, passed at Monday evening’s council meeting, requests that Premier Kathleen Wynne and either Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli or Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Linda Jeffrey meet with council members.”

So far Wynne has had several meetings with people and groups opposed to wind energy projects, but no action has resulted.  I am not holding my breath waiting for any.  Meeting with people and pretending to care about their opinions is easy.  It will be a great deal more difficult for Wynne to make the kind of decisions that will provide relief for the rurals.

Kingston Whig-Standard, “Township wants say”, April 10, 2013

1. AI Stone Fences.  The island was originally settled by Irish families, and of course they built stone walls.  Some of these are in very nice condition still, and many of them are threatened by the construction.  BIG – lots of pictures.
2. Heritage Committee Minutes.  Adjunct to the report they submitted.
3. Thompson Letter.  Virginia lives on the mainland.
4. Barr Letter.  Elizabeth lives on Amherst, and is urging Council not to accept the bribe Algonquin is offering for their support.
5. APAI Letter, March 15.  Reminding the P.Eng.’s employed by the developer that their first allegiance is to the public.
6. APAI Letter, March 21.  Taking issue with Algonquin’s assertion that residents were now more in favor of the project than they were before.

The Loyalist Township Council has produced an 84-page report [backup copy] that includes not only the Municipal Consultation Form but also a number of studies and comments that are indicative of just how much there is to lose on Amherst, plus Algonquin’s plans are so deficient.

Sections of Council’s report
(page numbers are from the pdf reader):

1. Opening Comments, pages 1-12
2. Maps and Charts, pages 13-19
3. Municipal Consultation Form, pages 20-28
4. Additional MCF Comments, pages 29-31
5. AECOM’s report, pages 32-45
6. CRCA’s report, pages 46-59
7. Heritage Committee’s report, pages 60-65
8. Cemetery Committee’s report, pages 66-72
9. Pentland Cemetery report, pages 73-74
10. Shadow Flicker report, pages 75-80
11. Holman’s Cultural Landscape letter, pages 81-84

Most of this is quite readable on its own but of course I’ve got some additional comments.

Opening Comments

The draft reports prepared by the developer (Algonquin) were passed around to both the Township’s internal departments and two outside peer-reviewing groups, AECOM (an engineering firm) and CRCA (Cataraqui Conservation Authority).  In addition several quasi-government groups had input as well.  Their concerns included the following:

1. Roads/Infrastructure
2. Cultural Heritage
3. Natural Heritage
4. Noise – Batching Plant
5. Landscaping
6. Building Permits
7. Emergency Management Procedures
8. Groundwater concerns
9. Pertinent By-laws
10. Compatibility
11. Decommissioning

In every one of the above topics there are substantial issues, things like having the batching plant 750 metres upwind of the school, when Ontario’s normal industrial classes would assign a 1000-metre “influence area” to such an operation.

This section of the report is certainly readable so I won’t go through everything here.  The money sentence is on page 4: “The [developer's] consultant’s reports, as presented, lack detail that is necessary to provide informed comments and, as specifically stated by AECOM and the CRCA, an approval of the project is premature until the full scope of the project with an appropriate level of detail is supplied enabling a proper assessment of impact on municipal infrastructure, the natural  environment, cultural heritage, and land use compatibility.[my emphasis]”

Municipal Consultation Form

Note that this consultation form addresses only the areas allowed by the Province; major concerns such as health impacts and property value losses are not allowed.  Here’s the sections on the form (paraphrased by Council):

1. Infrastructure and servicing
2. Road access and related issues
3. Traffic and related issues
4. Municipal service connections other than roads
5. Landscaping
6. Emergency Management procedure/safety protocol
7. Easements or covenants
8. Issues or recommendations with respect to the proposed rehabilitation of any temporary disturbance area and any municipal infrastructure that could be damaged
9. Location of fire hydrants
10. Location of buried kiosks and above grade utility cables
11. Proposed location of existing and proposed gas and electric lines
12. Building permits and licenses
13. Significant natural heritage features and water bodies
14. Archaeological and heritage resources

Of the 9-page form the first 5 pages are filled out by the developer.  The remaining 4 pages, although crammed with Council’s concerns, aren’t enough to hold them all – so Council added 3 more pages of comments to the form, starting on page 29.

Will any of this do any good?  While the local government can submit the Consultation Form, it is the Province that decides what items the developer has to actually deal with.  So far the history is that the Province (in this case, the Ontario MOE) will approve whatever the developer has submitted.  Even with the recent change in leadership there is no reason to believe the rubber stamp has been retired.  If nothing else, I applaud Council for trying.

The petition concludes with “That the Liberal government now respect the will of the residents of Amherst Island, and cancel the contract with Algonquin power immediately.”  If any of my readers want to sign it, please feel free to do so.  I certainly have, along with several hundred (now over 200) others.

Hillier, Petition to Cancel the Amherst Island Contract

The survey consists of 5 questions, all of them phrased to elicit “strongly agree” or “agree” answers.  Of the 5 questions maybe 3.5 have little to do specifically with Amherst.  This is quite similar to how the wind industry conducts its surveys, albeit reversed.  One quibble I have is that one question mentions being subsidized by taxpayers.  While no doubt this industry is, the main subsidy is from ratepayers.  Of course the two populations (tax payers and rate payers) overlap almost completely, but still…

Hillier, Survey on Wind Turbines

CKWS – project hurting home sales on Amherst Island

There was an article in the Kingston Whig with not-so-veiled threats to slow down the truck traffic going through the island’s only town, Stella.  I’m betting that the OPP will become a constant presence on the island during construction.  I’d ask my readers to think through what that potential says about this project, and what it says about how the Ontario government regards its rural residents.

A second article indicated that Randy Hillier, the MPP for the riding that includes Amherst Island, would support this type of civil disobedience.

There was also a report on CKWS-TV.

So John has re-submitted his request to the Council.  We’ll see how they respond this time.

Links

Harrison, Letter to Council, March 6, 2013

My Earlier Postings Regarding Flicker

amherstislandwindinfo.com/birds/

Harrison, letter to the Whig, January 15, 2013,  “The losers in the wind energy fight”

Harrison’s letter was in response to a letter from the Ontario energy minister, Jim Bradley.

Bradley, letter to the Whig, January 11, 2013, “The Minister Responds”

The Minister was responding to an article that appeared the previous day in several papers.

Miner, Sun-News article, January 10, 2013, “Ontario Tories call for halt to wind turbines after gov’t documents released”

Reaction from the public was swift and furious, not that MNR apparently cares.  There was also reaction from Amherst Island.

John Harrison, letter to Algonquin

Andrea Cross, letter to everybody