header-12.jpg

APAI was not successful in achieving Leave to Appeal.

Windlectric/Algonquin, the company granted approval to blanket Amherst island with 26, fifty storey turbines, has completed dock construction on Amherst Island and commenced dock construction on the mainland. Loyalist Township has not approved the draft Operations Plan required by the Roads Use Agreement.  Windlectric has not entered into a Roads Use Agreement with the County of Lennox and Addington.   The company’s pre-construction study and Operations Plan note that Island roads with the exception of Front Rad do not have the load bearing capacity to support project traffic and equipment.  Island roads will fail!

In its first weeks of work the company caused a major power outage on the Island and a water emergency in Prince Edward County.  Restrictions due to fish spawning and grassland birds were blatantly disregarded.    Not a good beginning!

Call to Action
Please request Premier Wynne (premier@ontario.ca or 416-325-1941) and Minister Murray (minister.moecc@ontario.ca or 416-314-6790) to cancel the project without penalty because of the company’s inability to achieve its Commercial Operations Date and because it’s absolutely the right thing to do.


We are being bullied AND we are resilient, tenacious, and absolutely committed.

 

Deny Approval of Parkland for Construction: MOECC

Category: Uncategorized

STELLA, March 2, 2017

The Association to Protect Amherst Island (APAI) has requested the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) to reject INVISTA (Canada)’s Application for an Amendment to a Certificate of Property Use (CPU) to allow construction of the Amherst Island Wind Project mainland dock on contaminated land.

APAI submitted a report to MOECC produced by XCG Consulting Ltd, Environmental Engineers and Scientists detailing the reasons why MOECC should reject the Application to amend a Condition of the Certificate of Property Use that specifies that “the owner or agents refrain from using the property for any other use other than ‘Parkland Use’ ”.

APAI submits that INVISTA’s Application fails to address several key environmental risks, is incomplete, and lacks several key details, data, test results, plans, potential mitigation measures and other information.

More specifically, the Application fails to provide:
• key information as to the location of the underground cable;
• environmental investigations of Areas of Potential Envronmental Concern on the North and South Parcels;
• mitigation measures to address transport of contaminated groundwater from the North Parcel;
• an erosion and sediment control plan that addresses how work on the shoreline will be completed in a way that avoids the release of contaminated soil into Lake Ontario;
• any information that would measure or address the impact of heat produced by the underground cable;
• a risk assessment data based on current standards and protocols;
• any information that would measure or address the impact of groundwater contamination, given the depth of the trench and the groundwater table;
• a contingency plan for the site;
• a soil and groundwater management plan that tests soil along the alignment of the trench before proceeding with excavation work; and
• soil and groundwater results based on current standards and protocols.

Although the Application “to allow temporary use of the private property for construction purposes” is characterized by Invista as a mere administrative change, in addition to the construction of the mainland dock, the proposed amendment would enable the installation of a transmission line and the reconstruction of an existing road on lands in proximity to Lake Ontario. Invista’s Application does not offer any guarantees that contaminants would not be tracked to Amherst Island as a result of the 15,000 truckloads of heavy equipment, hazardous materials, and fuel and construction and decommissioning of an industrial port facility.

The public notice reflects Invista’s claim that the amendment is necessary and says that “the project cannot proceed without the proposed amendment to the CPU”. The contamination was not revealed during the Renewable Energy Approval process and was not disclosed during the Environmental Review Tribunal.
MOECC should deny the amendment as it is again confirms that this ill-conceived project could cause serious and irreversible damage to the environment.