Irony, or does the left hand not know what the right is doing?

The Endangered Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) is one of the rarest birds in Ontario. During the Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario 2001 to 2005, there were only 8 possible records of the species in the entire province. For years, a breeding population of this tiny sparrow has persisted in upper New York State, not far from Prince Edward County, near the east end of Lake Ontario. The New York population could well be the “source” population for re-colonization of nearby areas like Prince Edward County.

Henslow’s Sparrow just happens to be one of a few Endangered Species identified by Stantec as a priority for their preconstruction surveying for Gilead Power Corporation. Gilead is applying to build a wind energy plant with nine 140 metre tall turbines in the Ostrander Point Crown Land block in Prince Edward County, Ontario. In the Environmental Review Report of 2009, Stantec reported the following:


An assessment of the Study Area for potential Henslow’s Sparrow breeding habitat was completed. No optimal habitat was identified (Section 3.5.3 of Appendix C1). Three relatively small patches of marginal habitat for the Henslow’s Sparrow were the subject of playback surveys. No Henslow’s Sparrows were detected. The species has experienced significant decline in Ontario, and it should be considered absent from the Study Area.

On the surface, this seems like a reasonable conclusion right? I’m not so sure.



Potential Henlow's Sparrow habitat at Ostrander Point
could become site for 140-metre tall wind turbines. Photo: Ted Cheskey

 In 2010, Gilead applied for a permit to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources – the Ministry responsible for management of the Crown Land Block – to “kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy habitat of Whip-poor-will” as part of their operational plan for the wind plant. As objectionable as this seems, I question why Henslow Sparrow was not on this list also. Here is why.

In the conservation plan that William Wilson and I wrote for the Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area, with the support of a strong local committee, including the local Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources District Ecologist, I learned that a restoration plan for the Henslow's sparrow was written for Ostrander Point Crown Land Block that included brushing and prescribed burning in the late 1990s. It was never made clear if the plan was implemented or not at the time.

It was not until very recently, when reading through the Recovery Strategy for Henslow's Sparrow from Environment Canada that I learned that Henslow's Sparrows were present on Ostrander Point in 1999 and 2000 as a direct result of the implementation of this recovery action! In the Recovery Strategy, this example was used to illustrate how restoration activities could lead to positive results. The MNR supported this restoration work on their land!

Something stinks about a process when we have a government agency, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, invest in successfully restoring the habitat of an endangered species, then turn around a few years later and offer up its habitat for a small and unnecessary industrial wind plant. Why is this process moving forward? Why has it gone this far? Why was it even conceived of in the first place?
 
The turbines are not built yet. Once they are, no longer will this be Henslow's Sparrow habitat, or Whip-poor-will habitat, or Blanding's Turtle habitat, but it will be a serious risk to all birds, including the river of hawks, owls and songbirds that stream through Ostrander Point every fall.


Over this Christmas period, my wish is that the Province or the developer recognizes that this is the wrong place to build a wind farm, and withdraws it before it goes any further. Wind energy should be about good ideas in good places, and this isn't it.

Brushing work at Ostrander upsets locals

Significant brushing and habitat disturbance began without public notice in a section of approximately 25,000 square metres of the Ostrander Point Crown Land Block last week. Ostrander Point is a highly controversial naturally vegetated block of land owned by the Province of Ontario, in the heart of the Globally Significant Prince Edward Point South Shore Important Bird Area. It is part of a candidate Provincial Area of Natural and Scientific Interest due to its rare alvar habitat. It has a unique breeding bird community and is on the flight path of hundreds of thousands of migrating birds each spring and fall. Ostrander is the home of at least two federally listed Species at Risk, and was described by an official from the Federal Government as one of the most important spots for migratory birds in Southern Ontario. In 2006, Gilead Power Corporation of Peterborough began its application process to build 12, ninety metre high wind turbine towers with 45 metre long blades attached on this public land, along with a grid of roads and infrastructure to connect them, and a transformer station to link into the provincial grid on this highly significant bird habitat. More recently they submitted their final proposal, which includes 9 turbines, some within 200 metres from Lake Ontario, and supporting studies to the Province of Ontario for an Energy Approval Permit. If granted, this permit would allow them to construct this industrial project on this highly sensitive and signficant habitat.

Last week local guardians, opposed to Gilead's industrial project, noticed workers actively brushing (destroying woody vegetation on strips of land) within the Ostrander Point Crown Land Block. Through questioning, it came out that this work is being conducted by contractors searching for and decommissioning unexploded ordinance from the Department of National Defence, which conducted training on parts of Ostrander Point about 50 years ago. Many believe that this work is really being done to pave the way for Gilead's project.

"All of this seems like too much of a coincidence," says local IBA champion Myrna Wood. "This is in the timeframe of Gilead Power’s application for a turbine project on this Crown land. It has been 50 years since this site was abandoned by the military and the South Shore has never been cordoned off from public use during that time. It seems clear that the reason for the investigation of possible unexploded ordinance is at the request of the MNR due to planned development projects."

Nature Canada, along with provincial partner Ontario Nature and the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, has requested both the developer (Gilead), and the Province to find another location for this project which has high potential to be very damaging to migrating birds, the local breeding bird community, species at risk, and migrating bats if allowed to proceed.

Wolfe Island Wind Farm Still one of most Dangerous for Birds, Bats

Tree Swallow via Marshall Segal on Flickr

TransAlta has just released its fourth Report on bird and bat monitoring from its Wolfe Island wind plant located on the west side of Wolfe Island, near Kingston Ontario.

The report affirms that TransAlta's Wolfe Island Wind Energy plant is one of the most destructive for birds and bats in North America.

Easily visible from the Kingston waterfront, the 86 turbines continue to kill large numbers of birds and bats. Most of the casualties described in the report are the same species reported in the three previous TransAlta studies of bird and bat deaths at their Wolfe Island plant, with Tree Swallow and Purple Martin at the top of the list, and including Bobolink and Barn Swallow, both listed as Threatened by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).

All of the Ontario swallow species listed in the report are suffering long-term population declines, which makes the unforeseen impacts of the wind energy plant on wildlife all the more troubling. Only two raptors casualties were reported, which may be more a reflection of reduced search efforts in this period, although winter raptor surveys on the island revealed higher numbers of several species compared with the previous year, in particular, Rough-legged Hawk and Short-eared Owl. However, raptors do not appear to be using the habitat on which the wind plant in the north-west corner of the island is situated, and where the turbine density is highest. Three migratory species of bats, including Hoary, Eastern Red, and Silver-haired, comprised the balance of the bat casualties. Unlike birds, which are struck by the fast spinning tips of the turbine blades, bats are killed due to "barotrauma," a condition caused by the sudden change of pressure around the blades that result in damage to their lungs.

The report presents the findings of monitoring programs that began in June 2009, which will produce reports approximately every 6 months over the first three years of the wind plant's operations. The current report represents the third six-month period of monitoring. (The first Report was for a two-month period). Several aspects of the plant's impact on birds and bats are monitored, including casualty rates of birds and bats, displacement of waterfowl and distribution and behaviour of raptors.

The results of the report reinforce the significance for birds and bats of the open scrubland habitat on the offshore islands at the eastern end of Lake Ontario, and onshore alvar habitats such as those found on Ostrander Point in Prince Edward County or Amherst Island. Wind energy plants, transmission towers, and other types of developments that put birds and bats at high risk should be excluded from these significant areas. All of Wolfe Island and a portion of its surrounding waters were recognized as a globally significant Important Bird Area (IBA) by BirdLife International's Canadian partners, Nature Canada and Bird Studies Canada.

Taken together, the reports show that TransAlta's Wolfe Island Wind Energy plant has one of the highest annual rates of casualties, reporting 16.5 birds per turbine and 43.7 bats per turbine, based on the 6 month study period from July 1 to December 31, 2010. Over a year, this would amount to approximately 1,500 birds and about 3,800 bats. Only one wind plant of the 45 reported on in a landmark 2010 study cited in the TransAlta Report by the US National Wind Coordinating Committee killed more birds per turbine. That plant, the Buffalo Mountain Wind Farm in Tennessee, which is consisted of only three .66 MW turbines at the time of the study, and so makes for a poor comparison. Most wind energy projects have much lower casualty rates for birds and bats.

It is also becoming clear that the July to September period (when the Swallows congregate and the bats migrate) is the most devastating for birds and bats. In my view, it is time that TransAlta implement serious mitigation, and turn off the turbines during this high risk period. This would save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of birds and bats.

Celebrating Canadian Leaders in Nature Conservation

Congratulations! Annie Buckton, Robert Bancroft, Myrna Wood and Nature Manitoba are Nature Canada's 2011 Conservation Award Winners.

Annie Buckton

These awards honour individuals or groups for making significant contributions to the preservation and protection of Canada’s wildlife and wild spaces.

“In Canada, nature is embedded in our culture, our economy, our national identity. These awards celebrate some of the people who devote their lives to protecting nature in this country,” said Ian Davidson, Nature Canada’s executive director, “I am truly inspired by this year’s award winners. Their passion for preserving Canada’s natural treasures has raised the bar for what can be done to protect Canada’s iconic wildlife and wild spaces for generations to come.”

In their own special way, each award winner has helped nature conservation in Canada.

Annie Buckton, age nine, is the 2011 Charles Labatiuk Volunteer Award winner. Like so many of us, Annie watched and read stories about the horrific oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year. She was moved by the plight of the Piping Plover, a bird she grew to love during summer vacations on Sauble Beach, and one of the many Canadian migratory bird species winging their way into the disaster zone.

Annie found a way to help – she convinced a local art gallery and several area artists to stage an art exhibition to raise funds for clean-up efforts in the Gulf.

Robert Bancroft

This year, Nature Canada is recognizing Robert Bancroft for his lifetime service to nature conservation by presenting him with its preeminent award, the Douglas H. Pimlott Award.

A writer, researcher, and teacher, he has used his expertise in wildlife biology to educate the public about the protection of nature. His influential voice in Nova Scotian conservation, and his actions have had a nationally significant impact in helping to preserve a unique feature on the Canadian landscape, our cherished Acadian Forest.

The recipient of the Nature Canada Volunteer Award, Myrna Wood, shares her fellow award winners’ deep love and respect for nature. Driven by a personal mission to conserve her community’s natural heritage, Wood has worked tirelessly to protect Prince Edward County’s wildlife and habitat.

Myrna Wood

She was instrumental in developing a conservation plan for an Important Bird Area (IBA), and has since been an ardent advocate for the birds that depend on the Prince Edward County South Shore IBA for habitat.

Protecting essential habitat has earned Nature Manitoba the Nature Canada Affiliate Award. This grass-roots organization is making a difference in their part of the country by protecting and preserving some of the province’s most vulnerable natural treasures, and connecting people to nature through its year-round indoor and outdoor programs.

After decades of survey work, Nature Manitoba helped create a prairie preserve in southeastern Manitoba, ensuring the survival of grasses, flowers and wildlife unique to this area. More recently, it has worked closely with provincial conservation partners and the Mosakahiken Cree Nation to protect Little Limestone Lake, by far the largest and most impressive marl lake in the world.

“Like this year’s award winners, Nature Canada is devoted to the cause of protecting wildlife and habitats in Canada, and engaging people to help build a Nature Nation – a place where threatened species are protected, habitat is conserved, and people embrace a culture of conservation in their everyday lives,” said Davidson. “These conservation heroes are examples to us all.”

June 9: Deadline for Public Comment on Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park

Tomorrow, June 9, is the deadline for public comment on Gilead Power Corporation's proposed wind energy plant at Ostrander Point.

ACT NOW – Tell the Province of Ontario what you think about Gilead’s permit applications to destroy endangered species and their habitat.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has posted a proposal on the Environmental Registry for a permit under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) which “would allow Gilead Power Corporation to kill, harm and harass Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will as well as damage and destroy habitat of Whip-poor-will for the purpose of the development and operation of Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park.”

The permit application is posted on the Province’s electronic review board for comment. Nature Canada, Ontario Nature and Prince Edward County Field Naturalists do not believe that issuance of this permit will lead to overall benefit for the species.  Now is your opportunity to comment on the proposed permit through the Environmental Registry. The deadline for comment is June 9, 2011.

This video, recorded during a visit to Ostrander Point on June 1, shows Blanding’s Turtle swimming in a stream beside Ostrander Point Road. This road runs along the eastern side of Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area, an area that provides habitat for many endangered species like Blanding's Turtle.

Nature Canada along with its partners Ontario Nature and the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists are in agreement with the belief that climate change poses one of the greatest risks to biodiversity. We fully support the government’s intention to expand the use of clean and renewable sources of energy through its Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009. However, in responding to climate change, we must not sacrifice biodiversity and significant habitats.  Protecting wildlife, threatened species and their habitat is vitally important if we are to buffer the effects of climate change and provide options for wildlife that must cope with predicted changes.

It commenting on this particular EBR posting, it is important to note that the ESA permitting process for the Ostrander point project goes forward separately from the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process for the Ostrander project as a whole. We are firmly and publicly opposed to the granting of an REA for the proposed wind farm development at Ostrander Point, part of a globally significant Important Bird Area and an extremely important site for migration for birds, bats and Monarch Butterflies on the north shore of Lake Ontario.

In terms of the ESA permitting process, Ostrander Point provides habitat for many species, including Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will, both listed as threatened in Ontario. In order for an “overall benefit” permit to be issued under the ESA the following legal requirements must be met:

     (i) an overall benefit to the species will be achieved within a reasonable time through requirements imposed by conditions of the permit, and,
     (ii) reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted, and,
     (iii) reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on individual members of the species are required by conditions of the permit. (ESA, section 17 (2) c)

We have serious doubts as to whether these requirements have or can be met. Outlined below are our key concerns about this proposed permit.

1. Alternative locations must be thoroughly considered. With respect to the siting of the project at Ostrander Point, it is unclear whether alternative locations have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and whether the best alternative has been adopted, as required by the ESA. The information provided indicates only that six different layouts of the turbines at the Ostrander site were examined. There is no evidence that this site was compared with other reasonable alternative sites. If indeed other sites outside Ostrander Point were NOT thoroughly considered (e.g., farm land where the landowners are willing, where natural cover has already been removed, and where endangered species are not present), in our view the proposed project does not meet the ESA requirement to consider reasonable alternatives. 

2. The “overall benefit to the species” has not been adequately demonstrated. The ESA sets a high standard regarding permits to damage or destroy endangered species habitat or to harm or harass a member of an endangered species: in the end the project proponent must provide an overall benefit to the species. In other words, the species must be better off than it was prior to the project going forward. In this case, the proponent Gilead Power Corporation, proposes to acquire and manage a property outside the project area. No details on what this “swap” would look like have been provided in the EBR posting. No actual sites or techniques to recreate this already highly functioning habitat have been identified.
To be clear, the benefit must be over and above what already exists if the trade off is to constitute an overall benefit. Merely acquiring other already existing habitat provides no additional benefit whatsoever. Furthermore, in the case of the Whip-poor-will, there is every reason to believe that building massive wind turbines on Ostrander Point will introduce a new and permanent risk to this declining nocturnal species which depends on areal hunting of insects. 

Risk is another critical factor that must be considered when calculating overall benefit. When destroying one habitat and replacing it with another there is a great deal of risk involved, and generally speaking established, functioning habitat is of much higher value than manufactured habitat. This means that for every key habitat feature that is rendered non-functional, a greater number of equivalent habitat features must be created, based on a ratio that takes risk of success into account; for example, a 3:1 ratio would mean that 3 habitat features would be created for every 1 destroyed. The higher the risk, the higher the ratio should be. To further address risk, created habitats should be functional prior to the destruction of established sites. The EBR posting provides no indication of how risk will be addressed. 

Given the lack of information provided to demonstrate that alternative sites have been considered and that an overall benefit will be achieved, Nature Canada opposes the granting of this ESA permit.

Make your voice heard! Let the Province know that no permit should be granted until alternatives sites to Ostrander Point have been considered and measures to achieve overall benefit have been demonstrated.
Also, please keep in mind that original responses are weighed more heavily than are form letters. We suggest that you use the points above to draft your own letter and either post it online to the link below or send a hard copy to the listed address by June 9, 2011. Be sure to reference the EBR registry number: 011-3181.

For more information and to submit comments online click here

Thanks to Ontario Nature for providing some of the content for this blog.

Ostrander Point: Local Council Endorses Naturalist Objections to Wind Farm Proposal

Last night, Prince Edward County Council voted to endorse local naturalist objections to a proposed wind power project inside an Important Bird Area. In a 13-3 vote, the Council voiced agreement with local residents who oppose plans to build and operate nine wind turbines within Ostrander Point Crown Land Block, a critical refuelling spot for birds migrating from South and Central America on their way to and from Canada's Boreal Forest.

From CountyLive.ca:

Wind turbines and birding areas do not mix.


This is the message Prince Edward County Field Naturalists members Myrna Wood and Cheryl Anderson brought to council last night.

The best wind power is offshore on Lake Ontario, said Wood, but there is a moratorium on offshore turbines. She added there are a lot of other appropriate areas in the County and other parts of the province that would not disturb significant wildlife and would have just as much wind power. “We support the Green Energy Act and wind energy but it has to be put in the right place,” said Wood. “Ostrander Point is the wrong place.”

“Prince Edward County is the penultimate refuelling refuge for birds migrating from South and Central America on their way to and from the boreal forest,” Anderson said. “In the spring they can be seen on Doppler radar massing on the south shore of Lake Ontario waiting for an appropriate time to cross over to the closest land – which is Prince Edward County. When they arrive they are tired and hungry.”

Anderson explained the data of the Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory confirms millions of birds use this flyway. “If the plans of the Ontario government and Gilead Power are allowed to go forward, millions of birds will have to confront another obstacle when they arrive at their refuge. Nine wind turbines on the Ostrander Crown Land block and a further 20 proposed turbines in the PEC South Shore Important Bird Area, part of the WPD proposal, will have to be negotiated by the already exhausted and famished birds. There is no doubt that the mortality will be significant.”

Full story is here.


Gilead Associates, the company that is applying for a Renewable Energy Approval to build and operate the wind turbines within the Ostrander Point Crown Land Block, has applied to the Province of Ontario for a permit 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.”Gilead permits to lease Ostrander Point and destroy SAR habitat. Nature Canada has been working with local naturalists to protect this Important Bird Area and halt plans for the wind project.

Gilead’s application for endangered species permit for Ostrander Point is posted for comment now

Gilead Associates, the company that is applying for a Renewable Energy Approval to build and operate nine wind turbines within the Ostrander Point Crown Land Block, has applied to the Province of Ontario for a permit 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.” See the breaking CBC TV story that includes an interview of local naturalist Myrna Wood.

This is an unusual step in Canada for a wind energy project, but one that appears to be an admission that the project will be impacting threatened species at the site where the turbines are to be built.
The ESA permit which allows for the destruction of habitat and harm to the species, must also demonstrate the following:

(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.

On the posting, the proponent’s response to these requirements is provided. I’ll only include and comment on the first sentence of the first requirement related to overall benefit.

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.

Unfortunately, there are no reports or documents to inform us on what this actually means. This posting begs the question of how the public, can be expected to provide meaningful comment if there are no details about where the habitat is, or how protecting and managing it would benefit the species. For example, would the acquired property be an area already occupied with breeding Whip-poor-wills that is facing imminent destruction? If it is unoccupied habitat, is Gilead claiming that it can restore and manage the habitat to attract this rapidly declining species? Is this even possible?

It is a fact is that Whip-poor-will no longer occupies much of the available habitat within its range. Both loss of habitat and declines in its food supply (mainly flying insects) are identified as the main reasons behind the species demise.

This is where the ability of this permit to have an overall benefit for the species becomes dubious at best. If both the existing occupied site where the project is proposed, and the “new” site are occupied by Whip-poor-wills, and the intent is to protect one and damage the other so that it no longer supports the species, there is net harm. A possible and worse scenario is that if Ostrander Point becomes a functioning wind energy plant, it becomes an ecological trap for the species. This would occur if individuals were attracted to the area each year, but more prone to being killed.

My conclusion is that the ESA posting is flawed as a consultation process in that it does not allow for meaningful public engagement. We simply need more detail.

My hunch is that all it will contribute to the Whip-poor-will is more hardship. 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.

Photo by Ted Cheskey - Whip-poor-will habitat on the upper Bruce Peninsula

Opposition to Ostrander Point Wind Plant Continues to Build

On Tuesday, March 8, the Kingston Field Naturalists organized a special workshop on the significance of eastern Lake Ontario for birds in light of several proposals to build wind energy projects in the area, and the high number of bird casualties reported at Wolfe Island wind energy plant . Representing Nature Canada, I gave a presentation on the Important Bird Area Program, placing the Wolfe Island wind plant and the proposed Ostrander Point wind plant in the context of this program.

Kingston Field Naturalists have a rich and long history of documenting birds within the Kingston area, which stretches from the west end of Prince Edward County to the Thousand Islands on the extreme east end of Lake Ontario. The workshop included a number of presentations by local naturalists and field ornithologists, who painted a picture of a part of Ontario with extremely high significance for breeding and migrating birds.

Data presented on behalf of Ron Weir, local ornithologist and bird record keeper for the club for decades, described how monitoring night migrants by their call notes to each other has demonstrated that millions of birds pass over the area each fall and spring. David Okines, life-long field ornithologist and manager of the Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory, (PEPBO) described the nature of the migration in detail, from the streams of diurnal raptors that hug the coast and funnel into the Prince Edward Point National Wildlife Area, to variations within the timing of migratory movements of individual species of songbirds. PEPBO is on the tip of the Long Point peninsula on the southern coast of Prince Edward County, about 10 kilometres east of Ostrander Point. Okine’s presentation of observatory data collected over dozens of years left little doubt that the area is truly a concentration point for land birds and waterfowl, and that wind plants built in the area would inflict a heavy toll on some species.  However, the question of whether nocturnal migrant birds migrate along broad fronts, or form distinct corridors of movement was never clearly resolved, with perhaps the best answer being “yes.”

Valerie Wyatt of Stantec Inc., had a much greater challenge in presenting the methods and results of their study of bird deaths at the Wolfe Island wind plant, owned and operated by TransAlta Corp.  She explained, to a tough and cynical audience, that Stantec’s monitoring methods are considered the best in the business, while maintaining that the casualty rates at Wolfe Island are within the range of kill rates expected at wind farms, and below threshold levels of acceptable casualty rates set by the government regulators.

Local naturalist Kurt Hennige’s presentation of monitoring efforts of the Short-eared Owl – carried out for decades by members of the Kingston Field Naturalists on Wolfe and Amherst Islands – reached a different conclusion about the impact of the Wolfe Island wind plant. Hennige’s findings strongly suggest that the distribution of Short-eared Owl on Wolfe Island has changed because of the wind plant – they  no longer occupy the area around the turbines that have been their core wintering grounds for decades. The Short-eared Owl, a species that has declined steadily over the past 40 years, is listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as "Special Concern".

Hennige also noted that the long-time resident Red-tailed Hawks were absent from their perches on the west side of Wolfe Island for the first time since observations were gathered dozens of years earlier. Observers who did the regular winter surveys became familiar with individual birds, recognizing their behaviour and consistent use of the same perches. Stantec’s monitoring crew had discovered 10 dead Red-tailed Hawk beneath the turbines, likely including the resident pairs.

The spotlight gradually shifted from Wolfe Island to Ostrander Point, where Gilead Power Corporation, is planning to build nine turbines on the Ostrander Point Crown Land block. Local volunteer naturalists from the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, Myrna Wood and Cheryl Anderson, described in cool, unemotional detail where the turbines are being proposed on this environmentally significant property. They pointed out that the specific locations of the nine turbines are within the provincially recommended 120 metre setback from provincially significant features, including provincially significant forest, wetland or habitat of species at risk, such as the Blanding’s Turtle.

Left to right: Cheryl Anderson and Myrna Wood

No matter where on the property the turbines are situated, the proposed wind plant would be only seven kilometres from the Prince Edward Point National Wildlife Area, designated for its value to migratory landbirds, within a candidate Provincial Area of Natural and Scientific Interest, in the heart of a globally significant IBA, and in an area recognized by the Canadian Wildlife Service as one of the best locations for migrant birds in Southern Ontario. It boggles the mind to consider what provincial regulators were thinking when Ostrander Point was put on the table as a location for a potential wind energy plant.

The meeting was closed by John Bennett, Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada. Bennett was invited by conference organizer Chris Hargreaves in response to an Action Alert released a few weeks earlier by the Sierra Club that included this statement:

There appears to be a backlash against wind energy across Ontario. Is it real? It looks suspiciously like a campaign sponsored by Ontario’s opposition Conservative Party and its backers. Using misinformation about costs and safety, it plays on people’s fears in order to destroy public support for Ontario’s Green Energy Act.

In an extraordinary and unanticipated reaction, and much to his credit, Bennett accepted the offer, and turned up for the last part of the workshop. He faced a hostile audience. Bennett did not apologize for Sierra Club’s position, emphasizing the overwhelming consensus that climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels like coal to generate electricity, is the issue that requires people’s attention and support, and that the attack on wind energy will put Ontario back 20 years in its campaign to get off coal. However, after taking in Myrna’s and Cheryl’s presentation, and describing Sierra Club’s position and reasons, he acknowledged that locating wind energy plants in areas of great significance for birds was both bad for biodiversity and bad for the wind energy industry, and that this element of rolling out wind energy will have to receive more consideration by Sierra Club .   In the end, Bennett agreed that Sierra Club would consider adding its voice to the growing opposition to the Ostrander Point wind project.

Canadians more willing than Americans to pay more for renewable energy

Read our position on wind energy

A recent poll shows that Canadians are more willing than Americans to pay more for renewable energy – they’re also more likely to accept evidence of climate change.

A survey by the Public Policy Forum and Sustainable Prosperity found that 73% of Canadians would be willing to pay up to $50 more every year for renewable energy. Their American counterparts were less willing to do the same – only 55% agreed to a $50 hike in yearly energy costs.

“The results are encouraging and in line with much of the research that we have recently published,” said Sustainable Prosperity’s Alex Wood in a statement. “The numbers are clear, Canadians want smart climate change policy, and the evidence here is that they believe carbon pricing to be a central element of smart climate change policy.”

This translated into support for cap and trade and carbon tax policies by the majority of Canadians surveyed. Not surprisingly, 40% of Canadians agreed that federal and provincial governments should take action against climate change.

It’s notable that Canadians’ support for smart climate change policies – even at the cost of an extra $50 per month – stands in contrast to Americans’ opinions. Why the difference? There are likely many factors involved in shaping public opinion on climate change policy, but a fundamental factor is how strongly people believe in the phenomenon of climate change.

According to the poll, Canadians are more likely than Americans to believe in climate change: 80% of Canadians believe there is strong evidence to support climate change, compared with only 55% of Americans. One reason for this gap could be the degree to which Climategate affected Americans’ views on climate change compared to Canadians, which is alluded to in the survey’s comments section.

Despite the 2009 email scandal involving prominent climate change scientists, Canadians showed strong support for the idea that climate change is happening – 90% believe it’s a serious problem.

The survey attracted a lot of media attention for highlighting the difference between Canadian and American views on climate change, but perhaps the greatest take-away message was that Canadians want to see their government enact environment-friendly energy policies.

Wolfe Island Wind Plant Still Harming Birds in Important Bird Area

Last May, I blogged about a report that described how birds and bats have been affected by the TransAlta wind plant on Wolfe Island, a globally significant Important Bird Area in southern Ontario known for its waterfowl, raptors and swallows. I called the numbers of birds and bats being killed by TransAlta’s turbines “shockingly high,” indeed the highest recorded in Canada and one of the highest in North America.

However, since the report only studied a six month period, TransAlta’s spokespeople argued that it was premature to reach conclusions so soon, especially when comparing the Wolfe Island deaths to yearly casualty rates for other wind plants. Besides, TransAlta reasoned, the results appeared to be within the thresholds of acceptable limits set by provincial and federal government regulators.

Then last month, Stantec Consulting, the firm that produced the original report, released its report on the second half of the year: January 1, 2010 to July 1, 2010. And the results for birds are troubling. (I’ll write about bats in a future post.) Though casualty numbers for birds did not skyrocket in the second sixth month period, a time that included the spring migration, they still were high enough to make the Wolfe Island wind plant the most deadly for birds in Canada.

The 13.4 birds per turbine casualty rate is about 7 times the industry average in Canada according to Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) but below the so-called “adaptive management” threshold for TransAlta facility, as set by various government agencies. That level is 11.7 birds per MW which translates to 21 birds per turbine, which just happens to be the highest level ever recorded at any wind facility in North America (Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee). Using the highest level recorded as the threshold before which any mitigation is even considered seems a bit dubious to say the least.

Estimated and actual numbers of birds killed, proportioned by the species actually found, over the entire 12 month period, paints a disturbing picture:
Tree Swallow 218 (calculation based on 31 corpses)
Purple Martin 49 (calculation based on 7 corpses)
Bobolink 73 (calculation based on 9 corpses)
Wilson’s Snipe 50 (calculation based on 7 corpses)
Red-tailed Hawk 10 (actual count)

It is important to note that the calculated numbers are arrived at using Stantec’s formula to calculate total casualty rates. A sample of turbines are visited either weekly or twice a week and a search for bird corpses on the ground beneath the blades is conducted. As the method is not intended as a comprehensive search, determining the casualty rate requires taking in factors like the ability of the search team to find carcasses, the percentage of the area searched and the rate of predation between searches. The 31 Tree Swallow corpses, in other words, represent about 15% of the calculated number of tree swallows killed, based on Stantec’s calculations and field testing.

While the report and the research behind it appear to be quite solid, the authors contend that the casualty rates are quite sustainable and will not have any effect on the species populations. They do this by contrasting the kill numbers from the turbines with the estimated Ontario population of the most affected species – Tree Swallow, numbering about 400,000 and Bobolink, about 800,000. (They do not do this for Red-tailed Hawk, which in fact may not meet their sustainability criteria). They also contrasted the numbers with estimates of birds killed by other human activities or artifices such as tall buildings, vehicles, cell towers, and pets.

While this argument has gained considerable traction among some in the wind industry and even the scientific community, it fails to consider that the turbines at Wolfe Island are killing different species than the tall buildings, cats and cars. Tree Swallow, Purple Martin, Red-tailed Hawk, Turkey Vulture and Bobolink rarely if ever show up on lists of casualties from tall buildings, and are unlikely victims of cats, with the possible exception of the Bobolink. And vehicle collisions, well – while this is a legitimate concern, Turkey Vultures have arguably had a net benefit from the carnage caused by vehicles.

But it is some of these very species – the ones most likely to be harmed by Wolfe Island’s turbines – that are already experiencing declines.

Take swallows, for example. Most species of swallow have declined significantly in Canada over the past 20 years. Adding additional threats to already stressed populations is not prudent. According to trend data on this species from Breeding Bird Survey routes in Ontario, the Tree Swallow has declined by about 6% annually over the past 20 years, a cumulative decline of almost 80%! In other words, the current estimated population of 400,000, was 2 million only 20 years ago. Bobolink, recently added to COSEWIC’s list of threatened species, declined 4.1% over the same period. We should not trivialize the impact of removing dozens, or hundreds of individuals from a population of species that are clearly in trouble.

In the meantime, good documentation of the impacts is essential. While TransAlta had to deliver these studies – they were a condition of the wind project’s approval – the company and Stantec should be recognized for doing good work. Once one takes the spin out of the document, the data and the methodologies are solid. The quality of the monitoring appears to be high, and some weaknesses, such as a potential bias to undercount the number of raptor fatalities, are recognized in the report.

With regard to birds of prey, even if they were not undercounted, the number of casualties is excessively high at .27 per turbine. This was the highest recorded rate for raptor kills outside of California. The victims included:

10 Red-tailed Hawks,
1 Northern Harrier,
1 Osprey,
2 American Kestrel,
1 Merlin
8 Turkey Vulture

This number crossed the “notification threshold” for the project, meaning that the CWS and MNR were notified about the high rates. The report states that TransAlta and MNR have initiated discussions regarding “adaptive management” in response to the raptor deaths. We look forward to hearing what the response might be.

With the plant already in operation, the only option now is to mitigate the risk to wildlife perhaps by slowing down the blades of the turbines at hazardous moments of the year, or turning them off. However, unless the numbers of casualties increase even further in the next two years, it is unclear how far the threshold must be exceeded and how often, before mitigation is implemented. It is reported in the document that four notifications were made by the company to the government for raptors alone, yet none appears to have led to mitigation.

As I write this, several wind farms are being proposed around the eastern end of Lake Ontario, the most worrying being Gilead’s Ostrander Point wind farm. Ostrander Point is an area that is arguably even more significant for birds than Wolfe Island, because of its specific geography. Ironically, the land on which the Gilead project is being proposed is owned by the Province of Ontario – a Crown forest block. Opposition to turbines in agricultural areas appears to have persuaded government officials to meet their renewable energy agenda by prioritizing "crown lands" as locations for wind energy plants. While this might be appropriate and acceptable for some properties, when a wind plant is located in an area of great significance to wildlife, as is the case with Ostrander Point, so-called green energy ceases to be green at all. The Ontario government needs to think more carefully about where they allow wind turbines. It is not too late for the Province to design a policy that promotes green energy and also protects key biodiversity sites including Important Bird Areas. Otherwise, as more of these facilities are built in bad places, wind energy will become a significant contributor to the declines of several species that are already in trouble, and the Green Energy Act will be recognized and remembered for all of the wrong reasons.

Birders want wind energy, but not in IBAs

Near Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario

In September and early October 2009, Nature Canada carried out a survey to explore Ontario birders perceptions of modern wind energy projects, or “wind farms,” and the impact of these installations on birds. The findings of the survey were published in the December 2010 issue of Ontario Birds, the journal of the Ontario Field Ornithologists (OFO).

Two hundred and sixty four birders from across Ontario and a few beyond completed an online survey. We found that Ontario birders reflect a fairly wide spectrum of interests, income and education, yet share similar concerns about climate change and global warming, and generally see wind energy as an important industry to combat this threat.

The vast majority of respondents (92%) consider it important to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. The concern for global warming appears to translate into strong support for wind energy from approximately 60% of respondents with only 20% not supporting wind energy. Despite the support for wind energy, approximately 60% of the respondents believe that wind energy impacts birds, and an even stronger proportion (70%) believe that wind projects have no place in Important Bird Areas or in avian migratory corridors.

However, we also found that most birders recognize that wind energy in the wrong place can pose a threat to bird populations. The wrong place, in ranked order according to survey participants, includes Migratory Bird Sanctuaries (MBSs), Important Bird Areas (IBAs), National Wildlife Areas (NWAs) and parks. Some birders – over one-third of those sampled – also said they would be discouraged from visiting the iconic birding locations of Point Pelee or Prince Edward Point if wind farms were built near them.

Near Shelburne, Ontario

Nature Canada’s survey comes at a critical time for the future of wind energy in Ontario – with the recent passing of the Ontario Green Energy Act, the number of wind installations in the province will increase dramatically. Wind energy producers are eyeing any location with wind, which of course includes many areas that are well-known for the significance for birds.

In June 2010, the province proposed draft regulations to open up the development of “off-shore” wind farms. The proposed regulations included a five kilometre buffer around all of the Great Lakes shorelines and major islands to protect water intakes as well as important cultural and natural features and functions.

The province already has a mishmash of policies and regulations that can best be described as a “work in progress.” They reflect the conflicting priorities of government agencies, and a continual pressure to adapt to growing local opposition to wind plants, while supporting and promoting the tenets of the Green Energy Act. Once finalized, these regulations will be part of the approvals process of the Green Energy Act, and are designed to lift many of the bureaucratic barriers to developing green energy projects such as wind farms.

Assessment of impacts of wind energy installations has focused on bird mortality, and more recently bat mortality, caused principally by collision with turbine blades. Concerns have also been raised about loss of habitat from installations, which could reduce breeding productivity or reduce survival if birds are displaced from habitat by the presence and construction of turbines, and by the movement of maintenance vehicles, and by the disruption of flight routes caused by avoidance of wind plants.

Gilead Power Corporation, a privately owned wind energy developer, has proposed a wind energy installation, the Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park, inside the globally significant Prince Edward County South Shore IBA near Kingston Ontario, and on provincial Crown land that is also a candidate Area of Natural and Scientific Interest.

The wind park is only a few kilometers from the Prince Edward Point National Wildlife Area, the only NWA specifically recognized for its importance for migrating landbirds. Environment Canada has described the site where the turbines are proposed as “one of the best areas for birds in southern Ontario.”

For us at Nature Canada, the Gilead project is a good example of a wind energy project that is being proposed in the wrong place – in fact the worst possible place in terms of risk to birds. If approved, we believe the project is likely to have significant impacts on a very rich breeding bird community and on migratory birds that depend on Ostrander Point’s natural habitats.

Nature Canada, and our Provincial Partner Ontario Nature, strongly oppose the project and have urged the Province and Gilead to withdraw it, but so far to no avail.

Across the country, Nature Canada is calling on federal and provincial governments to ensure wind energy projects do not come at the expense of this country’s birds and other wildlife.While it appears so far that most projects have a very minimal impact on bird populations, in the wrong place, projects could be disastrous.

We are already seeing evidence of this at TransAlta’s Wolf Island Turbines, where casualty rates as much as 10 times that of most other wind plants have been documented, with birds of prey such as the Red-tailed Hawk and aerial insectivores like swallows appearing to be particularly vulnerable.

To get wind power right in Canada, we are urging governments to enact policies and regulations that ensure the following:

• Wind turbines and wind farms should not be located in Important Bird Areas or other areas with particular significance to congregating, migrating or breeding birds.

• All wind farm proposals should be subject to an environmental assessment prior to development to assess their impact on all wildlife, including birds and bats.

• Any wind farms that already exist within migratory corridors or bottlenecks should be subject to the best practices for mitigating their impacts on birds, especially during migration season.

Join Nature Canada in calling on the Government of Canada to enact wildlife-friendly green energy policies – sign the petition to get wind power right!

Read more about Nature Canada’s position on wind energy development.

Nature Canada would like to thank OFO for supporting and publishing “What birders in Ontario think about wind energy in relation to birds”, by Nature Canada’s Ted Cheskey and Ahmed Zedan.

Our bird conservation efforts in the James Bay and Hudson Bay region are supported by The Ivey Foundation.

Wind Energy Project Jeopardizes Globally Significant IBA

Gilead Power Corporation has submitted a proposal to construct a 9-turbine wind energy farm at Ostrander Point, in Prince Edward County, Ontario. Ostrander Point lies within the Ostrander Crown Land Block owned by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and is located just west of the Prince Edward Point National Wildlife Area, near the eastern end of Lake Ontario. The location of the proposed Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park is near the centre of the globally significant Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area and only a few kilometres from the Prince Edward Point National Wildlife Area – the only National Wildlife Area specifically designated for its importance to migrating landbirds. This globally significant Important Bird Area (IBA) is designated for its high concentration of landbirds during migration as well as waterfowl. Additionally, Ostrander Point is a candidate provincial Area of Natural and Scientific Interest due to its significance for migrating birds and its rare alvar habitats (it is likely it has yet been officially recognized due to this controversial project).

IBAs are some of the most significant sites for birds on earth. BirdLife International the global authority of bird conservation first developed this program in Europe, recognizing that some species of birds are dependent upon very specific places for their survival, and that some places are very important for the survival of large numbers of species. BirdLife is an international partnership, now active in over 100 countries. In Canada, Nature Canada and Bird Studies Canada are the official partners responsible for delivering the IBA program to Canadians. In many provinces, we work in partnership with provincial nature-conservation organizations such as Ontario Nature, to get the program to the ground and work with local individuals, groups, government official and First Nations to ensure that IBAs receive the attention and protection they deserve and need.

Prince Edward Point South Shore Important Bird Area, also called Prince Edward Point Important Bird Area on the IBA Canada website , is one of about 100 IBAs with conservation plans, developed in concert with local community members. When the conservation plan for the Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area was developed in 2001, a large number of people, including representatives from the local Ministry of Natural Resources' (MNR) office, contributed to the plan, the mapping of the specific IBA boundaries, and the plan’s recommendations. The Ostrander Point Crown Land Block was one of the key-stone sites within the IBA, which spans a much larger area from Prince Edward Point to Point Petre and which includes offshore areas also for congregating waterfowl. Known as a potential site for rare and threatened species, and connected by scrub and forested shoreline and coastal habitat to the National Wildlife Area, Ostrander is central to the function of the IBA – particularly given that it was in public ownership by the MNR and thus not under the same risks for development as private land. At the time, disturbance from all-terrain vehicles was one of the big issues within the IBA, but in the bigger scheme of things, this was relatively minor, and something that could be managed through education and negotiation. At Ostrander Point, the question was when MNR would have resources to implement a restoration plan to encourage grassland habitat in an area already very significant for birds.

No one at the time could have dreamed that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, legally responsible for protecting Ontario’s natural heritage, would consider promoting an industrial wind farm on a site that they were also in the process of nominating as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest for Natural Sciences due to its importance for migrating birds and the rare alvar habitat present there.

In 2004, a few years after the publication of the conservation plan, the MNR made a policy decision to make some of its Crown land assets available for “green energy” projects. Such a policy change would make the way easier for small, independent electricity generating projects to take place in central and northern Ontario, where much of the land is owned by the crown. This policy change also opened up the playing field for wind energy developers, but it was not accompanied by efforts to systematically identify areas where wind energy projects should be excluded, as is currently the case with offshore turbines. Rather, projects were proposed and in some cases developed without a policy framework to guide where they would be located.

In our view, Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park is the most egregious example of how the good idea of wind energy can end up in the worst of all possible places due to the lack of a planning an policy framework in place.

Nature Canada is a strong supporter of the Ontario government’s effort to rapidly deploy wind energy as an essential strategy to meet the urgent need to reduce the greenhouse gas impacts of our energy system. We support most wind energy projects and recognize that projects cannot be developed without some impact to wildlife. However, the development of the Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park crossed a line for us. We see its consequences as extremely risky and potentially catastrophic for birds. We can only hope that either the developer or the Province will come to their senses and withdraw this project.

On March 10, 2009, Nature Canada provided Gilead Power Corporation with specific comments on the Draft Environmental Review Report, released in January of 2009. In September 2010, Gilead released a Draft Natural Heritage Assessment & Environmental Impact Study, including reports specific to birds and bats, prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd., which is open for comments until November 24, 2010. Nature Canada, in concert with Ontario Nature, took this opportunity to emphasize its opposition to the project. Our position is simply that the proponent, and the government of Ontario reject the proposed Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park; given the significant impact it is likely to have on the area’s birds and bats, and to seek an alternative site for the project outside of the IBA. No more studies are required to confirm the areas significance.

Gilead’s own contracted reports on birds leave no doubt about the significance of the site for both migrating birds and breeding birds. Anyone who has birded in this remote part of Prince Edward County knows that, at times, this area can be a “river of birds“ due to its unusual geography and exceptional habitat. Radar studies in the bird report posted on Gilead’s website describe up to 160,000 birds passing through Ostrander Point during the fall migration, of which approximately half were flying at turbine blade height. Both the consultant’s data, and data from near-by Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory demonstrate that high numbers of both familiar species such as swallows and Saw-whet-owl, and at-risk species such as Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk would be at significant risk from this project. Swallows and nightjars (Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk) are aerial insectivores – species that feed exclusively on flying insects. Insects are known to concentrate around the spinning blades of the turbines, perhaps due to the lower air pressure or the colour of the blades. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots and understand the heightened risk to these species, which concentrate along the Great Lakes shorelines including Ostrander Point, during their migrations.

Moreover, this site is one of the most concentrated areas for hawk and owl migration, with numbers of hawks peaking in early October at 70 to 109 observations/hour. On a single day in October, 60 golden eagles, an endangered species in Ontario, and more than 1,000 red-tailed hawks flew over nearby Prince Edward Point.

Fourteen conservation priority species from Partners in Flight (of which Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is a partner) breed within Ostrander Point including Northern Harrier, Whip-poor-will (recently listed as Threatened under the federal Species at Risk Act), Black-billed Cuckoo, Northern Flicker, Willow flycatcher, Eastern Kingbird, Wood Thrush, Brown Thrasher, Field Sparrow, Savannah sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Eastern Towhee, Eastern Meadowlark and Baltimore Oriole. Most of these species are experiencing serious declines in Ontario. The area also has high densities of Wilson’s Snipe and American Woodcock, two species for which the males conduct aerial displays at approximately the height of the turbine blades.

Most of the coastal habitat of the lower Great Lakes – Ontario, Erie and Huron has been modified or transformed for human use. Little natural coastline remains. Ostrander Point is natural habitat – alvar, scrubland, grassland, forest and wetland. It is superb habitat for birds and the arthropods, berries and seeds that sustain them. Because it is located on a narrow peninsula (the Long Point peninsula, smaller, but similar to the famous peninsula of the same name on Lake Erie), migrants are concentrated in higher densities during migration due to the funneling effect of the peninsula.


Gilead’s Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park has the potential to kill high numbers of migratory birds, permanently damage a significant breeding bird community, and jeopardize the government’s responsibility for protecting s Ontario’s biodiversity. Ostrander Point should not be an industrial wind “park” but rather it should be conserved and managed so that its significance for migrating and breeding birds is ensured in perpetuity.

Click here to read Nature Canada’s full comments.

Photos by Myrna Wood

Ontario government posts initial policy for Offshore wind facilities – a significant move in the right direction

On June 25, the Ontario government posted a discussion paper to inform proposed regulations to govern the development of offshore wind facilities in Ontario on the Environmental Registry. There is a 60 day comment period – extending over much of the summer. The basic tenant of the discussion paper is imposition of a five kilometre exclusion zone from the shoreline of the Great Lakes and other inland lakes such as Lakes Simcoe, St. Clair, Nipigon and Lake of the Woods. The exclusion zone would also apply to large islands. In addition, wind energy proponents would have to conduct site-specific studies to assess potential impacts and implement measures to mitigate any potential impact to ecological features.

While the devil is always in the details, a five kilometre exclusion zone should exclude wind facilities from the most significant areas for birds and wildlife on the Great Lakes on other lakes in Ontario. Nature Canada and Ontario Nature have been advocating exclusion of wind facilities from Important Bird Areas, (IBA) and migratory corridors. Most IBAs on the Great Lakes and other Lakes in Ontario would be protected within this five kilometre exclusion zone. The near-shore and coastlines also tend to be the most significant area for migrating and feeding birds. There are some areas beyond the five kilometre buffer that are important for birds or which might fall within a migratory corridor, but in general, those areas will be well known, and exceptional (e.g. Pelee archipelago in Lake Erie, Three Sister Islands Lake of the Woods, islands in extreme Eastern Lake Ontario). The requirements for site-specific assessments should pick these areas up. That said, an effort needs to be made to map migratory corridors as soon as possible before proposals get the green light.

Much less understood is how offshore facilities could impact bat populations. Highly technically challenging issues of monitoring impacts and mitigating threats that could occur when weather conditions conspire with a particularly heavy migration movement – (e.g. – low ceiling forces migrants into lower flight paths through turbine blads) need to be addressed if we are to have confidence that offshore wind facilities are not inflicting an impact on specific populations of wildilife. Also the complex assessment of cumulative effects of numerous offshore and on-shore projects in Canada and the United States must be considered and factored into approvals of specific projects.

Nature Canada will carefully assess this policy and provide detailed comments to the government of Ontario. That said, the first impression is that this is a positive move that should protect wildlife, particularly birds, from the potential damaging impacts of wind facilities.

Wind Farm on Wolf Island is killing large numbers of birds and bats

Stantec Consulting Inc. has just released a very important study on post construction impact of a wind farm with 86 2.3 megawatt wind turbines on Wolf Island near Kingston, Ontario on birds and bats. The data on which the assessment was made was collected between July 1 and December 31, 2009, or the "reporting period."

In short, the result of the monitoring reveals shockingly high numbers of fatalities of both birds and bats. Here are the facts stated in the report: over 600 birds were killed, equivalent to 6.99 birds per turbine for the "reporting period", and 1278 bats, or 14.7 per turbine. The reporting period was six months and did not include the massive pulse of birds in the spring migration or wintering raptors. The casualties included 8 Bobolinks, 28 Tree Swallows, 7 Purple Martins, 3 Red-tailed Hawks, 6 Turkey Vultures, 2 American Kestrels and a Merlin, among other species. Bat fatalities included 54 Hoary Bats, 44 Eastern Red Bats and 36 Silver-haired Bats. It is interesting and very troubling to note the selective impact these turbines are inflicting on certain groups of animals, such as the aerial insectivorous birds like swallows and martins which are in serious population declines, raptors, and migratory bats.

The Stantec report converted the fatality rate into birds or bats per megawatt per reporting period, rather than the more standard birds or bats than per turbine per year as is traditionally used. This reporting technique, that I would call spin, diminishes the shockingly high impact of these structures. As turbines get bigger and more efficient at generating energy, our tolerance for their impact increases, according to this flawed logic.

Many proponents of wind power, including CANWEA, quote studies that cite two birds per turbine per year as the impact of turbines. Indeed it was birds and bats per turbine per year that was the standard metric used for reporting impact. If we see through the spin of the report in using birds/bats per megawatt per "reporting period", there is no denying the impact of this project is too high and beyond tolerance.

In the meantime, Prince Edward County, including the globally significant Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area, Amherst Island, Wolf Island (both Important Bird Areas), offshore locations near the Duck Islands, and many areas along Lake Erie and elsewhere in the Country have either existing or proposed wind farms. We hope that this report, and the stir it will cause, will wake up those agencies charged with protecting our wildlife to put brakes on the chaotic expansion of wind farms into places that they clearly should avoid. Wind energy is a good idea. Let's "keep good ideas in good places." In the wrong places - Important Bird Areas and migration corridors for example - wind energy is a bad idea and our wildlife, which does not have a voice, continues to pay the price for our lack of foresight and greed. I fear that the Stantec report will be the first of many that will chronicle this sad legacy that we are creating.

Photo credit:
Merlin by Marty Burke

Wind energy assault poised for major bird flyway in Southern Ontario.

On Saturday March 27, in Leamington, Kingsville and Harrow, Ontario, Southpoint Inc, a wind energy company based out of Leamington, is holding public meetings on its proposal to build over 700 offshore wind turbines between Rondeau Provincial Park and Holiday Beach Important Bird area on Lake Erie, and off the southern shore of Lake St Clair.

These developments are within, or proximate to, a cluster of globally significant Important Bird Areas (IBAs) including world famous Point Pelee IBA, Greater Rondeau IBA, Holiday Beach/Big Creek IBA, Pelee Island Archipeligo, and Eastern Lake St. Clair IBA. This area is a rare a point of convergence of the Atlantic and Mississipi flyways, the major bird highways followed by hundreds of millions of birds flying north into central and northern Canada in the spring and south after the breeding season in the fall, in some cases as far away as Tierra del Fuego.

In other words, the area where the wind turbine density will be highest is perhaps the most significant migratory pathway in inland North America. Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair are also prone to severe weather and fog, which are conditions that are known to amplify the potential for migrating birds to collide with structures like wind turbines.

In addition to these concerns for birds, local residents, including officials from all levels of government, are opposing this proposal over fears of contamination of drinking water from the turbine installations. Construction activity will disturb the bottom sediments of the lakes which contain extremely high levels of toxins and known carcinogens from heavy industries upstream.

Due to the nature of the Ontario Government’s Green Energy Act, the door is wide open to encourage green energy. While this piece of legislation is certainly laudable, it can do as much damage as good if not applied thoughtfully and with care to protect biodiversity and cultural values like clean water.

We believe that in fairness to the wind industry, wind industry companies should not be wasting their resources on proposals and undertaking justification studies in areas where clearly the projects would undermine biodiversity and cultural values. Clearly, the Southpoint proposal would do this as it is currently framed. The Province needs clear policy on where wind energy is to be encouraged and where it must be excluded.

Concerning off-shore turbines in the Great Lakes, it must also be remembered that the Great Lakes are a shared resource with the United States of America. Several states border the Great Lakes and share the waters. Michigan already has guidelines with regard to offshore wind installations that, if applied in Ontario, would render the Southpoint project entirely unfeasible.

We cannot have a pell-mell approach to industrializing this common resource with one jurisdiction upholding high protection standards and another lacking in standards. The International Joint Commission was established for this exact reason, yet proposals like Southpoint’s are forging ahead and the provincial government appears to be averting its gaze from international obligations.

We encourage those living within range of these meetings to attend and express opposition to the proposals.

We implore Southpoint to withdraw its 1400 megawatt wind project from Lake Erie and Lake St Clair.

We encourage the Government of Ontario to re-establish a moratorium on offshore turbines until a clear policy that protects biodiversity and cultural values from industrial wind farms and other “green energy” initiatives is adopted.

Finally, we urge the province of Ontario and the Federal government to thoroughly consider the consequences of offshore wind installations in the Great Lakes within the context of its international obligations and expectations through treaties, conventions and the International Joint Commission.