Existential threat

Aquatic biologist Les Stanfield testifies before the Environmental Review Tribunal hearing of an appeal to 26-turbine project on Amherst Island. Stanfield was critical of a consultant’s report examining water flow on the small island. “You must understand how the water flows to assess the risk of such a project on wetlands, plants, reptiles and amphibians,” said Stanfield. “These are vital corridors. They are the circulatory system of the entire ecosystem.”

Amherst Island residents see industrial wind turbines as an assault on their way of life

It is surely an understatement to say life on Amherst Island is highly dependent on the ferry that steams across the channel twice an hour between Millhaven and this teardrop of land situated just a few kilometres east of the tip of Cressy Bayside.

There is no gas station. No place to buy bread or milk. For some the 400 residents who live on this small island (20 kilometres long and seven kilometres wide), the isolation is an acquired lifestyle—bearing the promise of quiet and solitude. For others, it is all they have ever known.

Everyone relies, in one way or another, on the ferry for the essentials of life. So when an Oakville-based industrial wind developer first proposed constructing dozens of the massive machines on the island, the first searing concern was what a major industrial project would mean to their connection to the mainland.

They were assured that part of the approval process would include a Marine Safety and Logistics Plan—detailing how turbines would be transported across the channel and the measures established to protect the ferry lane.

But no Marine Safety and Logistics Plan was ever produced. Nevertheless, the developer Windlectric—a subsidiary of Algonquin Power—obtained a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

Residents and members of the Association to Protect Amherst Island (APAI) appealed the REA. Currently, an Environmental Review Tribunal is hearing the matter in a country church on the island. But they won’t hear about the lack of a marine safety plan—the lack of such a plan isn’t an appealable decision. The Tribunal may consider only two objections: whether the project will cause serious harm to human life; or whether it poses a serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.

But for those living on Amherst Island, the security of the ferry service is not a trifling matter.

“We rely on it for everything,” explained Debbie Barrett. “Fire and ambulance services depend on it.”

Barrett and her fellow residents learned only weeks ago that no Marine Safety and Logistics Plan would be forthcoming.

“This is hard to take,” said Barratt.

Barrett and her fellow islanders are acutely mindful of an incident in which as much as 700 litres of diesel fuel was spilled during the barge transport of turbines to Wolfe Island in 2009.

As a result of the spill, island residents along a twokilometre stretch of shoreline were told not to drink water from their shore wells.

The developer refused to take responsibility. It would take another Tribunal to establish blame.

On Wolfe Island, the dock was on the back (north) side of the island. For the Amherst Island project, barge traffic is proposed to run alongside the ferry. New docks—thus far unapproved— are proposed near the current ferry docks at Millhaven and west of Stella, on the island.

Barrett says every nut and bolt of the project must come across the channel by barge—including the components of a cement plant to be built to supply materials for the massive concrete bases needed to support the 500-metre (50 storey) industrial turbines sweeping the sky.

Barrett is feeling particularly betrayed by her municipal government in Odessa. Late last year, Loyalist Township reached agreements with the developer that will see it receive $500,000 per year to offset the impact on Loyalist Township.

APAI had urged the municipality to hold off on signing the agreement until it had an emergency plan and a marine safety plan from the developer.

Loyalist Township Mayor Bill Lowry said he worried that further delays would prompt the developer to sue the municipality. He chose to avoid a “futile” legal battle. Instead, he and his council took the $500,000 annual payment.