Mirr rMirr r South Marysburgh February 2017 TheThe Published for Residents, Businesses and Visitors since 1985 It was a full house to hear closing submissions for the White Pines Wind Project at the Wellington Community Centre on the last day of the remedy hearing. The hall began to fill an hour before the start me with a con ngent of office workers from WPD's head office in Mississauga led by WPD President Ian MacRae and supporters of the project who showed up early clearly hoping to dominate the proceedings in numbers. However, by 10 a.m. they were out-numbered by APPEC and PECFN members and supporters. Presided over by Tribunal members Marcia Valiante and Hugh Wilkins, the hearing began with a mo on from APPEC's legal counsel, Eric Gillespie, for a ruling from the Tribunal. APPEC felt that por ons of both WPD's and the Director's replies were improper. Mr. Gillespie cited examples in WPD's reply submissions, characterizing bolstering, repe on, misquo ng APPEC and numerous a empts to restate issues as ge ng another "kick at the can". Mr. Gillespie asked that all these types of submissions be struck. The Tribunal declined to make a ruling, no ng that a significant amount of me would be needed to go through WPD's submissions. However, Ms. Valiante said that the Tribunal would bear in mind the propriety of the marked paragraphs Mr. Gillespie had provided to make his point. Ms. Valiante outlined the process for the hearing of closing submissions. As previously agreed between them all, the respondents together had one hour. The appellants would take an hour and fi een minutes. The respondents would then have fi een minutes to reply. Respondents' Closing Submissions WPD's legal counsel, Patrick Duffy, began with submissions on the burden of proof. Mr. Duffy stated that WPD has mi gated for the harms found by the Tribunal in Its February decision and having done so the onus now shi s to APPEC. When Tribunal Co-Chair, Hugh Wilkins, asked Mr. Duffy to elaborate, Mr. Duffy repeated that the burden of proof is now on APPEC. According to Mr. Duffy APPEC must prove that the remedy proposals will cause serious and irreversible harm. Mr. Duffy then focussed on WPD's plans to mi gate harm to Blanding's turtles by compac ng 15 kilometres of access roads to deter nes ng turtles on these roads. He also discussed WPD's plan to restore 8 kilometres of upgraded seasonal roads to pre-construc on standards to address the Tribunal's concerns about increased traffic and several others mi ga ons stated in previous filings. Mr. Wilkins asked Mr. Duffy whether there had been a Road Use Agreement (RUA) with the County and, if so, was this in evidence. Mr. Duffy clarified that there was nothing in evidence. However, he noted that WPD is commi ed to following its Mi ga on Plan and does not an cipate any objec ons from the municipality regarding work on municipal roads. WPD's legal counsel James Wilson outlined mi ga on measures for the li le brown bat, including a 5.5 m/s cut-in speed from May 1 to September 30 at all turbines for the project's life me. Sylvia Davis, legal counsel for the Director of the MOECC, stated that the Director supports the submissions of the Approval Holder (WPD) with the excep on of their submissions on Dr. Brock Fenton. Appellants' Closing Submissions--John Hirsch Mr. Hirsch referred the Tribunal to the Gruver Summary that WPD relies on for its claims of an 87% reduc on in bat fatali es by increasing the cut-in speed to 5.5. m/s. Mr. Hirsch noted that this 87% reduc on was with a cut-in speed of 6.9 m/s, much higher than the 5.5 m/s proposed. (Con nued on page 9) The Pros & The Cons Report on the wpd Environmental Review Tribunal Hearing, January 27, 2017 By Paula Peel Photo by Sacha Warunkiw