New regulation under the…

New regulation under the Environmental Protection Act to close the White Pines Wind Project ERO number 013-3835 Comments from CCSAGE Naturally Green Nov 2 2018

There are deficiencies in the draft Technical Requirements proposed for the decommissioning of the WPD IWTs. These are addressed below, specifying where referring to the Draft Regulation (DR) or Draft Technical Closure Document (DTC).

Overall Comment: Consistency with decommissioning plan; "agreement with landowner"

This plan is 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(1-41013)_DPR_28J…]. Although the plan on the wpd website is called draft, as there is no other that we can locate available to the public, we assume it must still stand.
For example the White Pines decommissioning plan states the following:  3.3.4 Turbine Foundations: Depending on the landowner specifications, the turbine foundations will either be removed completely, or partially removed to a depth consistent with the surrounding bedrock as determined by geotechnical investigations.  3.3.6 Collector lines installed in the road allowances would be removed, if required by the agreements with Prince Edward County  substation: ... concrete foundation would be removed to approximately 1 m below grade...  -3.3.7 All access roads would be removed...  -3.4.3 Areas that may have compacted due to facility operation or decommissioning activities, including crane pads and access roads, would be decompacted using chisel ploughing and/or subsoiling, as determined by an environmental advisor. ….

The following, and words to the same effect, should be removed from the draft Technical Requirements: DTC: 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….
This phrase allows the Company and the landowner to opt out of the following obligations otherwise imposed by the draft Technical Requirements and/or in the posted wpd decommissioning plan:
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.
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: Two year closure period

Closure of White Pines facility
DR: 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 3: Monitoring including construction period

DR: 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 and surface 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 6 below) 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.

Comment 4: Removal of lines

DTC: 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.
The wording should be modified to state that the lines should be removed.
If the wording is not changed, 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 5: Surface and ground water

DTC: 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, and likely surface water flow, due to the occurrence of sink holes. These changes were predictable; sink holes were shown to members of the government 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 comment below) 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 6: Stormwater management

DTC: 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 White Pines Stormwater Management Plan (SMP), a plan that does not meet the criteria outlined in the REA approval. It contains serious omissions and errors that will result in generation of 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, nor did the Municipality 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 was involved in the creation of a report containing this information.
Main issues 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, despite strong recommendation from MOECC. As a result, waterbodies are greatly under-reported. B. For development of the mitigation plan, although some GIS was used, the scale of analysis used was not provided, resulting in rendering all subsequent analysis biased and unreliable. C. Impervious cover was used to evaluate the likely risk the project to alteration of flow patterns, a metric that is inappropriate for rural areas and limestone plains. Predictive modeling appropriate to the geology of the area was not performed. Also, during the review process and the ERT, MOECC noted that the surveys required additional spring sampling, as data were from when conditions were driest. The concerns were to be detailed in the SMP, but were not. Outstanding include 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 7: Unknown high water mark

DTC: 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
DTC: 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, and in fact missed many waterbodies altogether. Unless waterbodies are surveyed in spring, as requested by MOECC, this monitoring will be incomplete.
Identification of the high water level of all waterbodies, and monitoring from those levels using standard methods required.

Comment 8: Damage and impacts

DTC: 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 9: Storm water pollution

DTC: 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 10: Seasonal travel corridors

DTC: 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 definition, the travel corridors constitute habitat.