Gilead Power Corporation applies for permit to kill, harm, harrass, damage and destroy

EBR Registry Number: 011-3181
Description:   Gilead Power Corporation has applied for a permit under clause 17(2)(c) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) 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 in the Township of South Marysburgh.

Members of the public are invited to submit their written comments by June 9, 2011 to the contact person listed in this notice.   Please email comments to esa.permits.agreements@ontario.ca and quote ER number 011-3181 in the subject line.

Please send copies of your objection to:

your local MPP,
Dalton McGuinty
Linda Jeffrey-  ljeffrey.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Doris Dumais –doris.dumais@ontario.ca
John Wilkinson – jwilkinson.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Whip Poor Will

In April 2009, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) listed the Whip-poor-will as Threatened. The species has not yet gained official status on Canada’s Species at Risk List.

The change in designation comes as long-term and short-term declines in the species have been seen, particularly in eastern populations. Local populations have dropped more than 30% over a 10-year period; the decline is most likely linked to other insect-feeding bird species’ population declines, due to habitat loss and significant changes to the prey base.

Blanding’s Turtle

The Blanding’s Turtle is protected under the federal Species at Risk Act, as well as populations that occur in Point Pelee, Georgian Bay Islands and Kejimkujik national parks being protected under the Canada National Parks Act.

Provincially, the Blanding’s Turtle is protected under the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act and the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement of the Planning Act.

17 thoughts on “Gilead Power Corporation applies for permit to kill, harm, harrass, damage and destroy

  1. Deny that application and the company’s proposal and whip the executives once a year for 25 years for their gall.

  2. What really ticks me off, is the statement ‘enough electricity for approx 6000 homes’.This statement is false when IWT’s are proposed.
    They “might” produce that amount of power if the wind always blows consistantly, but how long would it take in years to produce that amount of electricity with wind, taking into the concideration of 75% down time to power 6000 homes?
    That ‘enough electricity’ is false advertising and needs striking down from the media,and to get it out of peoples heads as it is a bad equation.

    I am not a numbers guy,but it sure needs calculating and putting out there

    I am sure there are other simple examples

  3. There is so much disinformation – no “Green” in corporate “values.”

  4. Does anyone have any suggestions for comments? I mean on the MNR site. Comments would be more useful on MNR than here. Is that correct?

    I remember when the offshore wind issue was taking comments thousands were sent in to the gov’t site and the offshore idea ended soon after. I am sure it was not the only factor but; it seems like a good idea to try that approach again and see what happens.

    • The move to put off shore wind on hold for 2 years was a political move and not an environmental move. Too many lost votes in lakeshore ridings. The plan may be shifting to only land IWT installation as there is too much resistance to deal with if both land and off-shore forces joined up to fight IWTs.

      The environmental movement along with wind developers intend to push foreward with IWT installations in Ontario. Make no mistake about this.

    • Dave- NATURE CANADA has stated OSTRANDER POINT, Prince Edward County is the “worst possible place to locate wind turbines”. The Audubon Society, World Wildlife Find, US Fish and Wildlife Department,Bird Studies International as well as Dr. David Suzuki all say IBA’s (Important Bird Areas) for migratory birds are the wrong place for industrial wind turbines and some state they are NO GO zones. Migratory birds in Canada are in a decline. There is not enough science to show that over the course of a 20 year contract these fragile little birds and magnificent eagles and hawks will not be permanently damaged and their nesting and breeding grounds completely destroyed. Gouging 5.4 kilometres of 15 metre wide roads 1 metre deep into solid limestone (a rare Alvar) is just the beginning.
      9x 2.5MW wind turbines set into that limestone will be the next nail in their coffin with the sheer vibrations and low frequency noise plus the swishing blades this project will most definitely kill birds, bats and raptors as evidences on Wolfe Island and disrupt and destroy habitat.
      contact- Linda Jeffrey MNR: ljeffrey.mpp@liberal.ola.org
      cc. MPP Leona Dombrowsky: ldombrowsky.mpp.cp@liberal.ola.org

  5. The Environmental Registry (http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca) is a formal, public, transparent channel by which Ontario seeks comment on various proposals. This kind of mechanism is true consultation and far preferable to a wind developer’s dog-and-pony show. Your comment to the Environmental Registry really can influence decision-makers. (I recall the US Dept of Interior reversing itself on some apparently inevitable action based on 800 postcard-comments to its Federal Register. Said one of their people, “We’ve never seen 800 postcards before!”)

    • Sorry to burst anyones bubble but the EBR registry pertaining to the Ministry of Environment’s Green Energy and Economy Act has white out and black out on very important public submissions. Entire sentences and references to setbacks were removed on PUBLIC submissions. That is not transparency. That is forgery.

      Not only that, there appears to be no evidence whatsoever that any of the submissions and comments were reviewed and taken under consideration.
      Nothing about this government is transparent.

      Please, make your submissions anyway. Let’s see how the MNR treats submissions. Let’s see if they actually review them. Let’s see if they use white out and black out.
      You must make the submissions. At least they are formally on file.

  6. I’m sure many people are sending in their comments, I’ve sent my note. Easy peasy, just remember to refer to the EBR registry in the subject line.

    It’s just crazy to me that it can even be a consideration to destroy any habitat when there are so few protected areas left. Particularly for such a questionable energy source – destroying so much to gain so little. A sad state of affairs indeed.

  7. Let us not get carried away in regards to the EBR. Yes, it is the way to make comments in regards to the Endangered Species Act – but let us not kid ourselves – the government pretty much has their mind made up as to what they are going to do when they place an EBR posting.

    Sometimes I am not convinced that anyone is “minding” the environment – as long as it is green, as in money, THAT takes precedence over everything else. Over the past 8 years or so myself or the org. I used to be a director for have commented on dozens of postings – generally speaking significant changes were made to the last DRAFT just before the one that got posted.

    HOWEVER, this one is a little less ambiguous than some postings, I mean how much more explicit can you get than, “kill, harm, harass, damage and destroy…” So, yes, place a comment. I am going to as well.

  8. Concerned citizens need to post comments to the Environmental Registry as it is the forum by which (theoretically) we have input into environmental decision making. If we do not participate, MNR/MOE will go on the assumption that we have no concerns – we must demonstrate that we do. Not a bad idea to copy your MPP, Dalton McGinty, Linda Jeffrey, Doris Dumais and John Wilkinson. They wont be able to claim “I hadn’t really thought about this”, or “I haven’t received any complaints”.

  9. Wait, isn’t that just “law language”? A few paragraphs down it says this:”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”.

    Is it as bad as it sounds or just aggressive-sounding words?

    Wind turbines should NOT go into ecologically sensitive locations. There’s enough marginal ranching land in Ontario for that. At least we have a registry.

  10. Killing and destroying unique habitat is not nice no matter how it is worded. Send in comments. EBR is a registry that records and tracks your words. Comments in volume could make the government read their own Act to know what they promised to do was not kill and destroy a species they committed to recoverying. There was never any intent to give out permits for anyone who asks. Proving a net benefit to the species cannot be done for this proposal at this site and that is one condition necessary for the permit to be issued.

  11. Betty, Thank you for your comments, very helpful. If others can post their comments here people can copy and paste which makes it easier to send in. There are many people that are unsure of what to write so these type of comments are very helpful.

    Today’s comments sent in:

    NATURE CANADA has stated OSTRANDER POINT, Prince Edward County is the “worst possible place to locate wind turbines”. The Audubon Society, World Wildlife Find, US Fish and Wildlife Department,Bird Studies International as well as Dr. David Suzuki all say IBA’s (Important Bird Areas) for migratory birds are the wrong place for industrial wind turbines and some state they are NO GO zones. Migratory birds in Canada are in a decline. There is not enough science to show that over the course of a 20 year contract these fragile little birds and magnificent eagles and hawks will not be permanently damaged and their nesting and breeding grounds completely destroyed.

Comments are closed.