New regulation under the…

New regulation under the Environmental Protection Act to close the White Pines Wind Project
ERO number 013-3835 Posted by MOECC Comment period Oct 17 - Dec 1, 2018

Draft Regulation

Comment 1

Closure of White Pines facility
2. (2) The closure of the facility, including the monitoring to be carried out under subsection 7 (3), must be completed within two years after the day this Regulation comes into force.

During this period, there is risk to the endangered species, e.g., Blanding’s turtles will lay eggs on the roads, and the roads will be used endangering the survival of the turtles. To reduce the damage, the turbines be removed within the shorter but achievable time period of 1 year.

Comment 2

7. 2 Plan for ongoing monitoring: The monitoring plan must describe the actions the Company will take, after removing the components of the facility and carrying out any site restoration activities required under the technical closure document, to monitor the project location on an ongoing basis, including actions to,
(a) monitor natural features, agricultural land and road allowances affected by the closure of the facility; and
(b) address any negative environmental effects noted during the monitoring activities described in clause (a).

The wording in (a) should be changed to read “affected by the closure or construction of the facility”.

During construction, digging for the burying of collector/distribution lines has resulted in change in flow of ground water due to the occurrence of sink holes. These were predictable and shown to members of MNRF at the time; photos were taken.

There are likely changes resulting from construction in wetness/dryness of the agricultural land affected, and possibly wells in the area. (see comment 4 below, Stormwater Management Plan under Draft Technical Closure Document)The following should be required:
- Mapping of all sink holes resulting from construction. e.g. that which has occurred on Royal Road.
- Determination of the potential resultant change in water flow (below and above ground)
- Mediation to correct the flow and groundwater. If, as is likely, that is not possible, then compensation should be addressed.

 
Draft Technical Closure Document

Comment 1

4.2.1, 4.3.1, 4.4.1, etc. Unless the Company and the landowner have a written agreement that provides for another arrangement ….

The above phrase, and words to the same effect, should be removed from the draft Technical Requirements.
This phrase allows the Company and the landowner to opt out of the following obligations otherwise imposed by the draft Technical Requirements:
4.1.4 removal of salvageable turbine components from the site;
4.2.1 removal of the foundations for the turbines and transformers;
4.3.1 removal of the crane pads;
4.4.1 removal of underground collector lines on private land;
4.6.3 removal of the concrete foundations for substations;
4.7.5 removal of new access roads and restoration of pre-existing access roads;
4.8.1 removal of any storage area;
5.1.3 restoration of natural features;
5.2.2 de-compaction of agricultural lands.

These provisions essentially permit the Company and landowners to leave the existing turbines intact. That is not acceptable, and contravenes article 2.1 of the draft Technical Requirements, which reads as follows:
For greater certainty nothing in this document relieves the Company of any obligations arising from any other statute or by-law, including, without limitation, obtaining all necessary permits, licenses and approvals required under the Building Code Act, 1992, Highway Traffic Act, Environmental Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

This is also inconsistent with, and more lenient than, the wpd White Pines decommissioning plan which should describe the bare minimum of requirements. [File No. 160960594 June 2012, Section 3; http://canada.wpd.de/fileadmin/pdfs/WhitePines/WPWF%20(1-41-013)_DPR_28…],

If the wording is not changed, will the public be informed of all the other “arrangements” between the landowners and the corporation? Without that knowledge, the public have no knowledge id the required restoration is performed.

Comment 2

4.4.2 Collector and distribution lines installed in the municipal road allowances, or affixed to a bridge, viaduct or structure or entrance within the road allowance shall be removed unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the County of Prince Edward.

This gives Prince Edward County with the option to permit distribution lines to remain in place on municipal roadways. There should be provision for the Municipality to conduct studies at the expense of the Company to determine whether removal would be the preferable course of action.

Comment 3

Site Restoration. 5.1.1. The Company shall:
(a) where natural features have been disturbed by construction or closure activities, restore the natural features previously found in the project location and the 120 m Zone of Investigation to the state that existed before the construction and closure of the facility started; and
(b) preserve the current natural features found in the project location and the 120 m Zone of Investigation that have not been disturbed by construction or closure activities.

During construction, digging for the burying of collector/distribution lines has resulted in change in flow of ground water due to the occurrence of sink holes. These were predictable and shown to members of MNRF at the time and photos taken, e.g. on Royal Road. These sink holes will result in changes in wetness/drynesss of agricultural land, and possibly wells. (see comments on Stormwater Management Plan below)
As it is unlikely that it is not possible to restore the water flow to that which existed prior to construction, this needs to be separately addressed.
There should be a requirement to correct the flow of water into the recognised sink holes that occurred, if in fact that is possible, or compensation given to landowners.

Comment 4

6. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND SURFACE WATER MONITORING. 6.2 The Company shall install and maintain the storm water management and erosion and sediment control measures as detailed in the Erosion and Sediment Control and Storm water Management Plan Reports…

This requirement needs to be strengthened due to inadequacies in the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP). The SMP does not meet the criteria outlined in the REA approval. It contains serious omissions and errors that will result in the hydrological concerns from this project (that were raised during the ERT) generating serious and irreversible impacts to the wetlands and waterbodies on which Blanding’s turtles and other sensitive biota depend. Some of these issues are described below. Note that the public did not have access to the SMP, for comment; the Municipality received but did not have an opportunity to comment on it prior to its approval.

To make the plan meaningful, at a minimum, the high water level of all waterbodies must be identified, and monitoring from those levels using standard methods required. The Municipality of Prince Edward has a report containing this information.

Issues identified in the SMP are as follows:
A. The SMP, like the waterbodies report, did not carry out a detailed assessment of waterbodies in the study area. Detailed studies by definition require both field and GIS to identify all waterbodies that could be impacted by a project. Despite strong guidance from MOECC no effort has been made to use GIS analysis to identify flow paths on the landscape. Rather the proponents relied on out of date information provided by MNRF that largely only identified larger streams. As a result, waterbodies are greatly under-reported.
B. Stantec used some GIS to develop their mitigation plan, however they do not report the scale of analysis used. A basic tenet of GIS analysis to identify waterbodies is that minimum thresholds of catchment sizes defines which waterbodies are identified. Failure to report on catchment size thresholds used makes all subsequent analysis biased and unreliable.
C. Stantec used an inappropriate metric, impervious cover, to evaluate the likely risk to altered flow patterns from the project. This metric is not valid in rural areas, especially so in limestone plains. There is no correlation between flow status of waterbodies and impervious cover for limestone plain areas. A detailed assessment of flow impacts should have included predictive modeling appropriate to the geology of the area.

During the review process and the ERT, both staff of MOECC and the public were highly critical of the quality of the data collected by the proponent. One issue that emerged was the poor quality of the waterbody surveys; MOECC suggested the surveys required additional spring sampling. (Sampling was incorrectly performed when conditions were driest.) The company refused and MOECC eventually responded by insisting on the detailed SMP to address the many unanswered concerns. Most of the original concerns regarding the impact on water movement and hydrology by construction of the roads, turbine pads or buried transmission lines were never addressed. Outstanding are the following:
• There are no studies of ground water movement and correlations to monitor whether/where ground water has been impacted;
• Many unmapped waterbodies remain unsurveyed; as a result it unknown how their hydrology has been impacted;
• No modeling has been done to evaluate how alterations in topography will or has affected flow direction. This is a common concern in limestone plain areas, where slight changes in topography cause flow direction of waterbodies to change
• There are no temporal analyses of flow patterns to predict effects on wetlands.

Comment 5

6.8 For the duration of the closure activities, the Company shall require the Qualified Inspector to monitor in-field turbidity levels for all activities that take place within thirty (30) metres of the high water mark… AND
6.13 The Company shall ensure that closure activities are located a minimum of thirty (30) metres from the high water mark of water bodies…

As measurements were not performed in spring, the company has not recorded the high water mark of waterbodies. In fact, by testing is the dry season, many waterbodies were missed. Unless waterbodies are recorded in spring, as requested by MOECC, this monitoring will be wrong.
Identification of the high water level of all waterbodies, and monitoring from those levels using standard methods required.

Comment 6

6.1 The Company shall take all measures necessary to prevent damage or any related impacts to neighbouring properties, buildings, bridges, structures, roads, railway lines and/or other infrastructure that may be impacted by the discharge or drainage of storm water from the project location.

To the list of items to be protected from damage, add “wells, dams and groundwaters”.

Comment 7

6.11 The Company shall ensure that storm water does not contain a concentration of oil or petrochemicals that could be detected as a visible film, sheen or discolouration, be detected by odour, cause the tainting of any aquatic organism, form deposits on shorelines or bottom sediments, or that could be deleterious to aquatic organisms.

To the water courses to be protected from contamination, ad “wells, dams and groundwaters”.

Comment 8

9. BLANDING'S TURTLES AVOIDANCE MEASURES
Blanding’s turtles travel corridors (between wintering and spring/oviposition habitats) should be avoided during their spring and autumn travel times. By MNRF’s own definitionroy, the travel corridors constitute habitat.