GSA meeting

The Ground Search and Rescue building in Pugwash was filled almost to capacity by 60-70 people who live, cottage or have other interests to do with the Gulf Shore. Those who were not already paid up members, paid their $5 per person fee to join the Gulf Shore Association.

Full minutes (once approved) will be available to members of the Association at the next meeting.

The Executive of Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and Treasurer was established

As fully but briefly as possible, I brought those present up to date as to what had happened so far and where we stand now in regards to Atlantic Wind Power Corporation’s plans for a wind farm in the area. I explained about the status of the environmental assessment and who is running it.

With further information from Dennis, we discussed what options we have legally. Solicitors have been retained and have begun working on our behalf conducting due diligence and identifying case law to support our claims. We voted to continue on this course for as long as is feasible or necessary.

The meeting agreed on the objects of the society:

(1) To promote and protect the interests of both the permanent and seasonal residents of the Gulf Shore area with respect to the retention of the region's recreational and non-industrial base.

(2) To provide a forum where the membership of the association may collectively develop, planning strategies to enhance the attractiveness of the community for the benefit of the residents and visitors alike.

(3) To provide a common voice for the membership when addressing issues between or among governments, the private sector and other groups, as well publicly representing the views of the Association.

Our next meeting will be called as soon as we have further pertinent information regarding our legal status or change in environmental assessment status.

~~~~~~~~~~

At last count, there are 106 members. All are welcome.

This Association is comprised of people not just from the Shore, but from Wallace, Pugwash and even further afield!

Although this group has organized from a current deep concern over the possibility of a permanent and uncalled for change in our lifestyle, it is a group that probably should have been formed years ago to look after Gulf Shore interests.

We intend to look at more issues, like garbage collection, high speed internet etc in the future.

Gulf Shore Association - first meeting

Sunday, 27 May at 2pm

Ground Search and Rescue building at 61 King Street, Pugwash

Jacques Whitford report

Last year Jacques Whitford released a report they have compiled for Halifax regional Municipality (HRM) who is planning great things in renewable energy. Keeping in mind that this report was requested and paid for by HRM, it is the most balanced report on wind energy I have seen thus far.

One could argue, for example, that their desired decibel levels are too high (using Ontario's guidelines which are considerably higher than those recommended by World Health Organization), but on the whole it is inclusive and fair.

If you are looking for general information about wind energy and it's implications as far as environment and local land use etc, it is well worth the read. Its over a hundred pages, but there's something in there for everyone.

I have heard that the HRM meetings have not been well attended, suggesting that perhaps HRM residents are not fully aware of HRM's "Master Plan".

The Jacques Whitford report can be found for download at http://www.halifax.ca/regionalplanning/HRMwindenergy.html. There are separate downloads to look at their maps and figures.

Suitability of a site was determined by looking at three factors; wind energy, land use and construction considerations.

Wind Energy

• Wind Speed Data

Land Use Considerations

• Airport Approach Routes

• Environmentally Protected Lands

• Parklands

• Proximity to Archaeological Sites

• Proximity to Bird Nesting Sites

• Proximity to Buildings

• Potential Habitat

Construction Considerations

• Construction Hazards

• Proximity to Roads

• Proximity to Utility Transmission Lines

• Surficial Geology

A points system was used for each factor, numbers crunched and maps produced using different colours for "highly suitable" (green), "caution area" (amber), "least suitable" (red) and "prohibited' or 'NO GO" (black). The more suitable a site for any given factor, the higher it scored. Poor sites get low or negative scores. For example:

Any land within 300m of a building is "NO GO". From 300m to 1km land gets a low negative number (red) and at 1km it becomes neutral (ie: land only starts to become suitable at 1km setback).

Any site within 1km of a bird nesting site is "NO GO" and lands 1 to 1.5km from the site was given a low negative number (red).

Potential wind energy impacts discussed were:

Visual (siting, colour, lights, height, spacing and concentration within an area etc), shadow flicker, blade throw, ice throw, noise, electromagnetic interference, fire, oil spills, tower collapse, erosion, traffic, human safety, birds (sensory disturbance, flight behaviour, mortality) and bats.

Municipal regulations are compared. Federal and provincial environmental assessment processes are reviewed. Other governmental departments who may become involved are listed. The pros and cons of having determined setback values included in land use bylaws (as has just happened in Cumberland County) is summarized in Table 4.14

TABLE 4.14 Strengths and Challenges of Variance Application Process

Strengths

Permitting wind turbines to develop as-of-right in particular zones provides certainty to developers. Approvals can be obtained within a relatively short period of time.

Challenges

This is a more generic approach that can exclude areas from development which on a case-by-case basis may be suitable for wind turbines/farms. Alternatively, it can allow wind turbine development in areas that some residents may perceive as being unsuitable. When allowing wind turbines to develop as-of-right it is difficult to articulate quantitative regulations that will adequately apply to all situations and manage the visual and other impacts of wind energy development projects. It can be extremely difficult to establish regulations regarding structures, given the pace of change of recent technology. Fixed regulations based on today’s technology can suddenly become redundant and potentially burden the further development of wind energy. No public input process enabled.

Variances, easements and development agreements are also discussed. There is a discussion on small wind turbines. Financial funding opportunities are summarized.

CBC TV and EA news

The piece on CBC TV last Tuesday went fairly well.

It was filmed on the patio of Duckies on the Waterfront. With interruptions of noise from the Dartmouth ferry and other machinery, the filming took nearly and hour. When that is edited to 5 or 6 minutes, the piece seems really short! Discussion followed for sometime after filming was complete.

I am sure all three of us would like to have had what we said edited differently. I would have liked to have been able to finish my point (which I did at the time but was edited out) that whereas Pubnico only impacts very few neighbours, this wind farm stands to impact hundreds of neighbours.

The point I was able to make clearly was that this project is for an industrial power plant to be imposed on a residential, recreational, cottage country area.

What was edited out was Charles' more overt reactions to some of what Bob or I had to say. He threatened to leave more than once. This made CBC’s job of editing very difficult.

He really, REALLY didn't like being surprised by my news that, as of last weekend, a $250,000 property sale has fallen through directly because of his proposed project.

Only one property has sold on the Gulf Shore since last November, when this industrial project was announced. I am told that it sold for a bargain price at 30% less than the assessed value. Until this project pulls out of this area, our properties are virtually worthless.

~~~~~

The AWPC open house/meetings scheduled for May 15 and 16th were cancelled.

Because CBCL Ltd wants to conduct workshop type meetings with invited people as their part of the public consultation, AWPC is not going to schedule public consultations until possibly later in the summer.

I have had an interesting conversation with Ann Wilkie of CBCL Ltd. She is in charge of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and she assures me that the EA process will be fair and inclusive. She will be out of the country for the next couple of weeks, so the process will start in earnest in June.

CBCL has only just very recently been commissioned to conduct the EA. Their earlier involvement was in mapping the area for AWPC.

We were told at April 18th AWPC open house that people from St Mary's University were doing studies. (We locals have yet to spy any field workers in rubber boots with backpacks of field notes and measuring instruments trudging through the project site. You have to wonder where the field study information is coming from!). These studies are to be sent to CBCL for consideration.

The EA process is not particularly speedy. The provincial departments to be involved will likely be Dept of Environment and Labour and Dept of Natural Resources. (I would like to see the Dept of Tourism involved too). The federal department to be involved would be Energy Canada. Ann Wilkie expects that both levels of government agencies will be involved in this project.

I was told EAs are not rubber stamped. There are many projects that do not get through the process. Most failed projects are abandoned before they get to the Review stage.

She would like to schedule meeting(s) with Pugwash/Gulf Shore representatives in smaller working groups. She is also proposing meetings in HRM if necessary. She assured me that she is open to all opinions and information.

She asked that we keep these working groups to 10-15 people. (The forum of a large open meeting can be intimidating to some and an opportunity for grandstanding for others.) We should look to putting together as representative a group as possible.

My rather sceptical opinion of the EA process has been eased somewhat. There are rules to be followed. Let's hope that they are, and to the letter.

CBC Halifax

Tune in to CBC TV Halifax tomorrow (Tuesday, May 9th) to view a panel of three discuss wind energy.

The conversation will be moderated by CBC's Jim Nunn. The panel will be:

• Charles Demond of AWPC
• Bob Williams of the Nova Scotia Co-Operative Council
• me.

It will be recorded downtown Dartmouth and edited down to 6 or 7 minutes for air time at 6pm.

Pubnico bus trip

At their Open House last month Atlantic Wind Power offered to organise a bus trip from Pugwash to Pubnico for May 9th.

This will be rescheduled for another date. Clair Peers of Cobequid Area Wind farms, affiliated with AWPC, would like to hear from anyone who may be interested in going. He can be reached at c.peers@ns.sympatico.ca or [902] 895 0788. It would be an all day trip, leaving Pugwash around 7:30am. Please indicate a preferred day of the week.

Further AWPC Public Consultation dates pending.

Setback bylaw passed

Yesterday council passed a land use bylaw amendment that defines the setback of a wind turbine at 3x turbine height or 500m, whichever is greater.

To say the least we are disappointed with that result, but there are various avenues where this can be addressed.

Council was concerned that here had to be something in place. A delay of a couple more weeks when all Council Members could have attended the meeting wouldn't have been a problem. They were also concerned that a 1km setback would have killed a wind farm already approved for Tantramar Marsh. If turbines will be closer than 1km to residences, maybe it should have never been approved in the first place.

Councilors were split 4 to 4 on the issue but one of them who had been campaigning for a greater setback ended up voting for the motion because he felt something was better than nothing. Another Councilor who has been very vocal in his opposition to wind turbines being too close was not able to attend the meeting yesterday. So it goes. At least they did accept an amendment of a minimum of 500m yesterday which is better than a potential 360m from a 120m turbine.

A mountain of evidence shows that people living within 1km of a turbine is detrimental to health and affects property values. As one Councilor said, if the setback is too close it will be impossible to later on increase the distance whereas the setback could be easily later decreased if deemed necessary.

Including Development Agreements and/or increasing the setbacks to 1km would have been too large a change in the proposed amendment that would have meant the whole process would have had to start all over again. Well, if that's what it would take to obtain a sensible, acceptable and legal setback, then that's what should have happened.

I don't know how long this links last, but for the next few days check out the Halifax Chronicle Herald at http://www.herald.ns.ca/NovaScotia/9003008.html

The Amherst Daily News has two pieces today at: http://www.amherstdaily.com/index.cfm?sid=26887&sc=58

and

http://www.amherstdaily.com/index.cfm?sid=26888&sc=58