The South Marysburgh Mirror 9 ("ERT" con(cid:415)nued from page 1) Mr. Hirsch discussed recently acquired data of bat fatali(cid:415)es at wind projects in Ontario from government documents obtained through a Freedom of Informa(cid:415)on request. Mr. Hirsch noted 26 li(cid:425)le brown bat fatali(cid:415)es reported at the Mohawk Point Wind Project in 2012. As summed up by Mr. Hirsch, Stantec is proposing to experiment on the li(cid:425)le brown bat popula(cid:415)on in Prince Edward County. He noted that the target of this experiment is an endangered species. Mr. Hirsch asked the Tribunal to consider the Statement of Environmental Values the ecosystem approach and the fact that the Province has changed direc(cid:415)on and is no longer suppor(cid:415)ng large wind energy projects. including Appellants' Closing Submissions--APPEC Eric Gillespie began with the issue of the Tribunal's jurisdic(cid:415)on. Mr. Gillespie noted that APPEC is relying on the remedy hearing for the Se(cid:425)lers Landing Wind Project (SLWP) where mi(cid:415)ga(cid:415)ons were dealt with in a different way. He noted that at this hearing on the White Pines Wind Project, the Director has provided zero evidence that he has even considered the proposed mi(cid:415)ga(cid:415)ons. There is no possible way the Tribunal could "stand in the shoes of the Director" at these proceedings, and in fact to do so would be an error of law. The correct remedy is to revoke the REA. Mr. Gillespie noted that all Par(cid:415)es have agreed that the onus is on WPD. However WPD is now trying to reverse the onus and put it back on APPEC when it is the Approval Holder's very mi(cid:415)ga(cid:415)ons that will cause harm. Mr. Gillespie clarified that the onus is on WPD to address the Tribunal's findings and show that no poten(cid:415)ally serious adverse effects will follow from their mi(cid:415)ga(cid:415)ons. Mr. Gillespie pointed to a number of holes in the Approval Holders evidence. The Gruver survey is not published or peer-reviewed and was created by a wind company consultant. The survey gives no informa(cid:415)on on project size, turbine size, loca(cid:415)on, topography, wind speed and other variables. Also, and most importantly, the survey fails to show that cut-in speeds, post White Nose Syndrome, are effec(cid:415)ve. With respect to the Approval Holder's Blanding's turtle mi(cid:415)ga(cid:415)ons, Mr. Gillespie noted that compac(cid:415)ng over 15 kilometres of access roads by up to 95% will radically alter hydrology in areas already prone to flooding. Mr. Gillespie also noted the poten(cid:415)ally disastrous results of plan(cid:415)ng alien vegeta(cid:415)on in a sensi(cid:415)ve ecosystem. The plans the Approval Holder has produced at this hearing, he suggested, are completely untried and untested anywhere in the world let alone on the County's South Shore. Mr. Gillespie noted that APPEC's expert witness, Tom Adams, is highly qualified to provide evidence on the province's energy requirements. Mr. Adams has provided evidence that the White Pines Wind Project is not needed (the province has more than enough energy to meet demand for the next ten years) and the energy produced from this project would be a "drop in the bucket". Mr. Gillespie noted that Mr. Adams' evidence was not contested by either the Approval Holder or the Director. economic and social considera(cid:415)ons need considered even they are secondary environment. Mr. Gillespie clarified the Director's posi(cid:415)on that to be to the that if Respondents' Reply Ms. Davis restated the Director's posi(cid:415)on that SLWP had a wider range of changes. She also noted that Mr. Hirsch's submissions concerning the FOI request are not in evidence. Mr. Wilson restated the mi(cid:415)ga(cid:415)on process for bats in simple terms: line up wind speed, curtailment and the impact on li(cid:425)le brown bats. He noted that the Gruver survey does exactly that. Mr. Duffy began by reminding the Tribunal of some aspects of their mi(cid:415)ga(cid:415)on plans at which (cid:415)me a series of objec(cid:415)ons were raised by Mr. Gillespie on WPD's conduct in Reply. Mr. Gillespie again asked the Tribunal for a clear ruling on Reply Submissions but the Tribunal once again deferred the ma(cid:425)er. The Tribunal closed on a solemn note with no indica(cid:415)on of a decision date other than that it would come before April.