Environmental Laws – Do They Help Or Hurt the Environment?
When you build a wind farm in Ontario that is more than 2 megawatts (basically more than one large turbine), you are required to go through a Provincial Environmental Assessment.
Environmental assessment laws are supposedly designed to protect the environment. Doing an evironmental assessment is quite involved. You must give public notice, host at least one public meeting, and write a report on all aspects of the environmental impact of the project. Bird studies are done. Archeological studies are done. A survey of flora and fauna in the area, and identification of “Valuable Ecosystem Components” – VEC’s is required. Assessment of the impact on ground water, the impact on erosion, impact of noise during construction, impact of truck traffic, the visual impact etc. The process is a bit like root canal, but it takes longer, and it costs more. It is a great make work program for consultants.
You prepare reports, and propose “mitigating measures”, which should always be spoken in the same tone of voice as Preston Manning when he talked of “eliminate the deficit”. These are actions taken to reduce or eliminate the impact of your project. For example, you may propose to use existing roads instead of building a new one. Or you may construct only during certain hours to minimize the impact of construction noise on neighbouring cattle populations. Or you may offer a free cat spaying clinic for local barn cats, to offset the impact on birds. (This mitigating measure would be very inexpensive, since spaying one cat would save more birds than are killed by a wind turbine).
The reports that are prepared are circulated to interested parties. So various Ministries, like Natural Resources, Transportation, Environment, Fisheries, Energy, local conservation authorities, local municipal council, First Nations, the Rotary Club, Lioness, Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, Free Masons, and the Glee Club all get to have their say. In the case of Ministries, approval of the project can be withheld or delayed if they have concerns.
If you also apply for the Wind Power Production Incentive, then you also need to do a Federal Environmental assessment, which has slightly different rules. Local municipal council, or the Planning Dept. may require more assessment.
Interestingly, the impact that wind turbines have on the environment is not allowed to be considered. In my report, I talked of reduced release of greenhouse gases, as electricity generated by wind would not need to be generated by coal or natural gas. I talked about the health impacts on people of reducing the amount of coal and natural gas required to generate electricity. I quoted the Ontario Medical Association study that that found that 5000 Ontarion’s die prematurely from smog, and 20% of Ontario source smog is from our coal burning plants. I stated that if humans, who check into hospitals, are affected, it was reasonable to assume that mammals, amphibians, insects, plants, fungi, bacteria and, yes, birds, were also adversely affected by burning coal.
I was told to put these arguments into an Appendix. Evidently there is no role for looking at the whole environment when it comes to the environmental assessment process. So I re-wrote the report.
The Federal Ministry of the Environment weighed in with comments. There was concern about the impact on nesting ground birds. I was told to perform no construction activities from May 1 – July 23.
The turbines on being built on a hay field. Perhaps Environment Canada biologists don’t understand what happens when you harvest hay. Around mid June, the hay is cut, requiring a tractor and cutter to pass over the entire field. Then it may be raked, to help it dry. Another tractor pass. Then it is baled. Another tractor pass. Then the bales are collected. Another tractor pass. Then the whole thing happens again for the second cut in August. Evidently, these nesting ground birds are tough enough to survive this, and the seagulls who descend on a hay field after it is cut. But if you use 2% of the field to construct wind turbines, you will adversely affect nesting ground birds.
Farmers don’t need to do an evironmental assessment to cut the hay. A builder doesn’t need to do an environmental assessment to build a home, which has a foundation the same footprint as a wind turbine, and which will kill more birds if it has picture windows. You don’t need to do an environmental assessment when you buy a car, which contributes to climate change, smog, and kills mammals and birds.
There is no environmental assessment when a new ship load of coal arrives at Nanticoke, Ontario’s largest coal plant. And a new shipload is burned every few days. And we know the impact of that.
Recently, the provincial government exempted their electricity supply plan from the environmental assessment process. Evidently they realize that the process is tedious and unconstructive, does nothing to protect the environment, and wastes time. While each project will continue to require environmental assessment, the overall plan, which calls for more aggressive conservation more renewables, and more nuclear is exempt. Environmental groups vocally criticized the government for exempting the overall plan from assessment. If the overall plan was subject to the process, would that delay the construction of renewables, and the implementation of conservation? All to put the plan into a process that doesn’t protect the environment anyways? Seems like a pretty pointless exercise.
Construction on the two new turbines begins next Monday. July 24. One day after the very tough nesting ground birds, that have survived the haying operation, leave their nests.
Nanticoke is pleased.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Good one. I was at a small wind course and the instructor who used to do service calls on small tubines said he killed more birds driving to the calls than the turbines ever would.
July 21st, 2006 at 12:24 pm
This is good reading! I hope that as more green projects are being built each producer will use it as an oppurtunity to to expose the senseless waste and pollution that they are being exposed to by government. I long for the day when environmental activists are as hard on governments(the largest polluters on earth) as they are on exxon. The results I look forward to are an extreme simplification of the process. Building a renewable energy projects, either for individuals for corporations should be like a free pass from regulation. Maybe send them a page introducing the project and give them a week to object to anything really important that you’ve neglected.
July 22nd, 2006 at 12:26 pm
So many good points. If only government officials could use such logic in their policy creations. I drove by on Wed july 19th and saw some prep work for the new turbines, very exciting stuff!! Feel free to email me if you need any assistance on this project, since I am a recent University of Guelph grad trying to gain experience in the wind industry!
cheers and I enjoy reding the blog.
aaron
July 28th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Very aptly put. I appreciate your blog and the fact that you share your experience and knowledge very openly.
You forgot one more environmental factor as part of the EA process, it’s sitting right in front of me at work – the vast amounts of paper used to print the numerous copies of the report
July 28th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Sounds like just another industrialist complaining about “burdensome” regulations. Which is an argument in itself for those regulations.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:22 pm
I realize this is a blog not a documentary but:
1. I wasn’t aware that you would have to go through a full environmental assessment. Don’t you start with an environmental screening, then if there are issues, it becomes considered (not necessarily elevated) to a full environmental assessment?
2. When the wind stops blowing, how do we come up with replacement power? Is it already running in anticipation of low wind? What fuel does the standby generation use? Look forward to your answer on that one…..
3. I like your cat spaying analogy, but the next point where you identify (ridicule?) certain groups about having their say, aren’t you ridiculing democracy?
My view (IMHO) on wind is that it doesn’t belong on the grid due to its inherent unreliability and that it’s benefits are potentially in storing power for peak periods. That is great if you can compress air into a mine shaft or store water in a reservoir, but currently that isn’t available for our area. Looking forward to the day when wind power can be stored…
August 14th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
You are forgetting a few very valuable points. If you are building a wind farm on a migratory route and you are only doing a Environmental Screeening Report, you will not take into consideration the millions of nocturnal birds that fly over head during the months in the spring and fall. Who do you think will find the birds that fly at turbine height, when they land in farmers fields and bushes that have grass up to your knees. Do you think you can walk over a farm that has a wind turbine on it and find all the dead birds? They have no tresspassing signs on them. Also, the birds are scavanged very quickly. It’s very easy to say that birds are not killed by turbines, the fact is, it is not in the interest of the proponents to find the birds, therefore they don’t, therefore there are none. If you’re concerned about the environment you need to look at all of the effects and not just the ones that are easy. Even the pro wind group Green Peace say “don’t build wind farms on migratory routes. Unfortunately that is exactly what is being proposed in the 121 turbine wind farm in the Kincardine area. It would be nice if the wind farms had a decent efficiency, but they don’t 20% at best as opposed to nuclear at 98%, not to mention that it is the most expensive energy produced. Conservation would accomplish more.
December 4th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Right on, Lois!
The standard response given by the Wind Developers: it’s OK if our turbines kill a few birds because they are going to just get killed in other ways anyway. So given that logic, can I go shoot a couple of eagles off my porch? I’m the lesser of other evils, right?
A wind farm is being proposed just 2 miles from where over 650,000 to 700,000 raptors congregate at Holiday Beach, Ontario every fall to launch their migration over the Great Lakes. A large percentage of North America’s hawks, eagles, vultures and other birds of prey stream through this very narrow corridor. Hey, let’s put a giant cuisinart in the sky! Good idea!
Shortsighted “environmentalists” (and I use that term extremely loosely) don’t mention these little nuisances in their pro-wind rhetoric. The government has let these developers run amok with no guidelines to stay away from areas such as this. It is left up to the small communities (who are dismissed as NIMBYs) to preserve the beauty and wildlife of their area.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Appropriate impact assessment for wind farms is evolving with the industry. It will take time, as states, provinces, and federal governments roll the process into various permitting processes. The USFWS has voluntary guidelines for developments in the United States. Naturally, the wind industry seeks to limit the guidelines.
In the NEPA process in the United States, the project owner (or agency) can incorporate “conservation measures” into the project proposal– which is technically a bit different than mitigation. These conservation measures may include tower placement, turbine design, vegetation management at the project location, and coordination with local conservation groups for migration alert windows. Compensatory mitigation may include offsite conservation project funding or even winter habitat conservation funding in Central / South America.
My point– project owners will always be upset with the permitting process and impact assessment protocols. Environmentalists will most always be upset with a proposed wind project. NEPA is a decision making process which enables federally funded projects to move forward while reducing the impacts as much as possible, in most cases, to insignificance. Project owners should not assume with bloated optimism that their project has no significant impacts. Likewise, environmentalists should not assume that a well planned project that uses the best available science would be an ecological catastrophe. Project owners– be wise, hire a credible consultant, and for wind projects, plan for mitigation costs that hover around 4 – 5 % of the total project cost.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
All good points! What we are really talking about is balance-between what ecologically and environmentally safe, sound, proven and clean.
How can we coexist with these giants of wind power with out further unnecessary destruction of our forests and shorelines and our neighborhoods? The first step would be to reduce our consumption each and every one of us. It’s time our federal government enact laws to protect all living beings and stop listening to the lobbyists. As we have seen over and over again small municipalities all over the world have gone into crisis mode as a result of improper placement of a wind farm. How do we educate those that have a right to know before it’s too late?