GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM CONSULTATION REPORT · The Renewable Energy Approval (REA) ... CONSULTATION REPORT ... step-up transformers located adjacent to the base of each turbine

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM CONSULTATION REPORT VOLUME 1: PUBLIC, AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION

File No. 160960823 June 2013 Updated February 2014

Prowind Canada 226 ½ James Street North, Unit A Hamilton ON L8R 2L3

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Ltd. Suite 1 - 70 Southgate Drive Guelph ON N1G 4P5

January 8, 2014

Reference: Notice of Project Design Change – Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm

PLEASE NOTE: The Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Application for the Gunn’s Hill wind Farm was submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in June, 2013.

The tap line connecting the project substation to Woodstock Transformer Station will no longer be required, as connection will be at or near the substation itself.

The tapline has been removed from Project mapping, but there are no changes to the Draft REA Reports provided to the MOE for review.

Please note there are no new environmental effects due to removal of the tap line from the Project description.


i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1.1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 1.1 1.2 REPORT REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................. 1.2

2.0 CONSULTATION APPROACH ........................................................................................ 2.1

3.0 OVERVIEW OF COMMUNICATION TOOLS .................................................................... 3.1 3.1 TOOLS USED FOR CONSULTATION .............................................................................. 3.1 3.2 STAKEHOLDER RESPONSE ........................................................................................... 3.2 3.3 CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING ................................................................................... 3.2

4.0 CONSULTATION UNDER O. REG. 116/01 (PRIOR TO O. REG. 359/09 ENACTMENT) 4.1 4.1 AGENCY CONTACTS ...................................................................................................... 4.1 4.2 NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT – JUNE 2008 ................................................................ 4.1 4.3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE – AUGUST 2008 ..................................................... 4.2 4.4 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE – AUGUST 2008 ......................................................................... 4.2

5.0 CONSULTATION UNDER O. REG. 359/09 ...................................................................... 5.1 5.1 PRE-DISCLOSURE .......................................................................................................... 5.1 5.2 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION LIST ....................................................................................... 5.1

5.2.1 Assessed Landowners ....................................................................................... 5.1 5.2.2 Federal and Provincial Agencies ........................................................................ 5.2 5.2.3 Municipalities and Elected Officials .................................................................... 5.2 5.2.4 Aboriginal Communities...................................................................................... 5.2 5.2.5 Distribution List Updates..................................................................................... 5.3

5.3 NOTICES .......................................................................................................................... 5.3 5.3.1 Notice of a Proposal and Public Meeting - January 2010.................................... 5.4 5.3.2 FIT Contract Announcement – July 2011 ........................................................... 5.4 5.3.3 Notice of a Proposal and Public Meeting – September 2012 .............................. 5.5 5.3.4 Notice of Draft Site Plan – January 2013 ............................................................ 5.5 5.3.5 Notice of Final Public Meetings – February 2013 ............................................... 5.6 5.3.6 Summary of Newspaper Publication of Notices .................................................. 5.7

5.4 PROJECT COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER ......................................................................... 5.8 5.5 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ................................................................................................ 5.8

5.5.1 Public Meetings .................................................................................................. 5.8 5.5.1.1 General Description of Public Meetings .............................................................. 5.8 5.5.1.2 Public Meeting – February 8, 2010 ..................................................................... 5.9 5.5.1.3 Public Meeting – October 10, 2012 .................................................................. 5.10 5.5.1.4 Final Public Meetings – April 23 and 24, 2013 .................................................. 5.11 5.5.2 Release of Draft REA Reports .......................................................................... 5.12 5.5.2.1 Release of Draft REA Reports prior to FIT Contract Offer ................................ 5.12 5.5.2.2 Release of Draft REA Reports after FIT Contract Offer .................................... 5.13 5.5.3 Consideration of Public Comments .................................................................. 5.14


Table of Contents

ii

5.5.4 REA Report Amendments following Final Public Meetings ............................... 5.19 5.6 AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION ............................................................... 5.21

5.6.1 Agency Project Notification and General Correspondence ............................... 5.21 5.6.2 Federal Agency and Organization Correspondence ......................................... 5.21 5.6.2.1 Federal Agency Distribution List ....................................................................... 5.21 5.6.2.2 Summary of Key Correspondence .................................................................... 5.22 5.6.2.3 Consideration of Key Comments ...................................................................... 5.22 5.6.3 Provincial Agency and Organization Consultation ............................................ 5.23 5.6.3.1 Provincial Agency and Authority Distribution List .............................................. 5.23 5.6.3.2 Summary of Key Correspondence .................................................................... 5.24 5.6.3.3 Consideration of Key Provincial Comments ...................................................... 5.25 5.6.4 Municipal Staff and Elected Officials Consultation ............................................ 5.27 5.6.4.1 Notices and Municipal Consultation Form Distribution ...................................... 5.27 5.6.4.2 Overview of Consultation with Municipal Staff .................................................. 5.27 5.6.4.3 Consideration of Key Municipal Comments ...................................................... 5.29 5.6.4.4 Community Benefit Fund .................................................................................. 5.31 5.6.5 Consultation Regarding Radio Communication, Radar and Seismoacoustic

Systems ........................................................................................................... 5.31 5.6.5.1 Summary of Key Comments ............................................................................. 5.32

6.0 PLAN FOR ONGOING CONSULTATION ........................................................................ 6.1 6.1 FINAL REA REPORTS ..................................................................................................... 6.1 6.2 COMMUNITY UPDATES .................................................................................................. 6.1 6.3 COMMUNICATIONS AND ISSUE RESPONSE PROTOCOL ........................................... 6.2

7.0 CLOSURE ........................................................................................................................ 7.1

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Consultation Requirements (as per Ontario Regulation 359/09-Table 1) ............ 1.3 Table 4.1: Public Open House (August 2008): Key Information ........................................... 4.2 Table 5.1: Summary of Newspaper Notices ........................................................................ 5.7 Table 5.2: February 2010 Public Meeting: Key Information ................................................. 5.9 Table 5.3: October 2012 Public Meeting: Key Information ................................................. 5.10 Table 5.4: April 2013 Public Meetings: Key Information .................................................... 5.11 Table 5.5: Summary of Key and Frequent Comments from Public and Consideration by

Project Team .................................................................................................... 5.15 Table 5.6: Key Comments from Federal Agencies and Organizations, and Consideration

by Project Team ............................................................................................... 5.23 Table 5.7: Key Comments from Provincial Agencies and Consideration by Project Team . 5.26


Table of Contents

iii

Table 5.8: Key Comments from the Local Municipality and Consideration by Project Team ................................................................................................................ 5.30

Table 5.9: Key Comments from Radio Communication, Radar, and Seismoacoustic Systems Providers and Consideration by Project Team ................................... 5.32

List of Appendices

Appendix A Project Map Appendix A1 Project Location Map Appendix B Project Distribution Lists Appendix B1 Notification/Consultation Area Maps Appendix B2 Agency Distribution List Appendix B3 Municipal Staff and Elected Officials Distribution List Appendix B4 Aboriginal Community Distribution List Appendix C Project Notices Appendix C1 Notice of Commencement (June 2008) Appendix C2 Notice of Public Open House (August 2008) Appendix C3 Notice of a Proposal and Public Meeting (January 2010) Appendix C4 FIT Contract Announcement (July 2011) Appendix C5 Notice of a Proposal and Public Meeting (Sep. 2012) Appendix C6 Notice of Draft Site Plan (January 2013) Appendix C7 Correction to Notice of Draft Site Plan (January 2013) Appendix C8 Notice of Final Public Meetings (February 2013) Appendix C9 Newspaper Tear Sheets Appendix D Public Consultation Materials Appendix D1 Public Open House (August 2008) Display Boards Appendix D2 Public Open House (February 2010) Display Boards Appendix D3 Public Open House (February 2010) Information Handout Appendix D4 Public Open House (February 2010) Fact Sheet Appendix D5 Public Open House (October 2012) Display Boards Appendix D6 Public Open House (October 2012) Fact Sheet Appendix D7 Public Open House (April 2013) Display Boards Appendix D8 Public Open House (April 2013) Fact Sheet Appendix D9 Public Open House (April 2013) Frequently Asked Questions Appendix D10 Project Newsletter Appendix E Release of Draft REA Reports Appendix E1 Draft REA Reports Distribution List Appendix E2 Aboriginal Community Cover Letters


Table of Contents

iv

Appendix F Public Consultation Appendix F1 Project Update Correspondence Appendix F2 Public Correspondence Record and Comment/Response Summary Appendix F3 Public Open House (August 2008) Verbal Comments and Feedback Form

Summaries Appendix F4 Public Open House (February 2010) Feedback Form Summaries Appendix F5 Public Open House (October 2012) Feedback Form Summaries Appendix F6 Public Open House (April 2013) Verbal Comments and Feedback Form

Summaries Appendix G Agency and Municipal Consultation Appendix G1 Generic Letters Accompanying Mailout Appendix G2 Federal Agencies Correspondence Record and Comment/Response

Summary Appendix G3 Provincial Agencies Correspondence Record and Comment/Response

Summary Appendix G4 Telecommunications and Radar System Providers Correspondence Record

and Comment/Response Summary Appendix G5 Municipal Staff Correspondence Record and Comment/Response Summary


1.1

1.0 Introduction

This report provides information related to consultation and information disclosure activities conducted for this Project, including consultation activities prior to and after the enactment of O. Reg. 359/09.

Prowind Canada Inc. (Prowind) has conducted a comprehensive stakeholder consultation program that began under O. Reg. 116/01 and has identified the key issues of interest to the local community and incorporated them into the Project design where possible. The program involved numerous public meetings and opportunities for stakeholders, agencies and Aboriginal communities to provide comments and concerns. As this is a transitional project, the consultation activities have been conducted to meet the requirements of both O. Reg. 116/01 and O. Reg. 359/09.

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

Prowind is proposing to develop the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm (the Project) in the Township of Norwich and the City of Woodstock in Oxford County Ontario, in response to the Government of Ontario’s initiative to promote the development of renewable electricity in the province. The Project was awarded a Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) contract with the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) on July 5, 2011. Further information on the Project can be found on the Project-specific website at www.prowind.ca.

Prowind is a Canadian wind energy developer based in Hamilton, Ontario. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Prowind GmbH, based in Osnabrück, Germany. Prowind’s mandate is to create small-scale, renewable, zero-emission power generation. Prowind believes in distributed generation that has a minimum impact on the surrounding environment and landscape.

The Applicant for the Project is Gunn’s Hill Windfarm Inc., a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) created to hold assets of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm.

The land proposed to host the turbines is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oxford Road 14 to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west (see Appendix A1). The Project is proposed on privately-owned, agricultural land neighbouring the Hamlets of Oxford Centre and Curries, Ontario; located southeast of the City of Woodstock, Ontario. The overhead cable is proposed within municipal road Right of Ways within the Township of Norwich and the City of Woodstock.

The Project will consist of up to ten (10) turbines from the Siemens SWT 3.0-113 family. The turbines will have a maximum nameplate rating of 2.5 MW each and the Project will have a maximum total installed nameplate capacity of up to 25 MW. Other basic components include step-up transformers located adjacent to the base of each turbine (step up voltage from

http://www.prowind.ca/

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM CONSULTATION REPORT VOLUME 1: PUBLIC, AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION Introduction June 2013

1.2

approximately 0.69 kV to 27.6 kV), a 27.6 kV underground collector system, fibre optic data lines, a non-Transformer substation, operation and maintenance building and/or storage shed(if required), and turbine access roads.

Temporary components during construction include laydown areas at the turbine locations, crane pads, temporary parking, concrete wash ponds and construction trailers

The 27.6 kV underground collector lines will transport the electricity generated from each turbine to the substation located along Firehall Road, just east of buried cable to turbine 1. As this is a distribution connected project, a 27.6 kV feeder line will be required to connect into the local distribution system. The overhead lines will be owned and maintained by the proponent and installed on rented space on poles owned by Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro.

The Renewable Energy Approval (REA) was completed as required under Ontario Regulation 359/09 - Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Act of the Environmental Protection Act (O. Reg. 359/09). According to subsection 6(3) of O. Reg. 359/09, the Project is classified as a Class 4 Wind Facility and will follow the requirements identified in O. Reg. 359/09 for such a facility.

1.2 REPORT REQUIREMENTS

The purpose of this Consultation Report is to provide the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) with information on consultation activities that were conducted with respect to the Project. The Consultation Report documents how the Proponent consulted with the public, agencies, municipalities, Aboriginal communities, and other interested stakeholders. In addition, the Consultation Report documents any changes that were made and incorporated into the Project planning and design as a result of consultation activities.

The Consultation Report has been prepared in accordance with Item 2, Table 1 of O. Reg. 359/09 and MOE’s Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals (MOE, March 2012).

O. Reg. 359/09 sets out specific content requirements for the Consultation Report as provided in the MOE’s Checklist for Requirements under O. Reg. 359/09.

The requirements of the Consultation Report, as prescribed in the Regulation and the relevant sections where it can be found within this document are provided in Table1.1.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM CONSULTATION REPORT VOLUME 1: PUBLIC, AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION Introduction June 2013

1.3

Table 1.1: Consultation Requirements (as per Ontario Regulation 359/09-Table 1) ID Requirements Section Number

Set out information relating to consultations conducted in respect of the renewable energy project, including the following: 1. A summary of communication with any members of the public, aboriginal

communities, municipalities, local roads boards and Local Services Boards regarding the project.

Volume 1: Sections 5.5 and 5.6, Appendix F and G Volume 2: Sections 3.0 to 14.0

2. Evidence that the information required to be distributed to aboriginal communities under subsection 17 (1) was distributed.

Volume 2: Section 2.0

3. Any information provided by an aboriginal community in response to a request made under paragraph 4 of subsection 17 (1).

Volume 2: Sections 3.0 to 14.0

4. Evidence that a consultation form was distributed in accordance with subsection 18 (1).

Volume 1: Section 5.6.4

5. The consultation form distributed under subsection 18 (1), if any part of it has been completed by a municipality, local roads board or Local Services Board.


6. A description of whether and how, i. comments from members of the public, aboriginal communities, municipalities, local roads boards and Local Services Boards were considered by the person who is engaging in the project,


ii. the documents that were made available under subsection 16 (5) were amended after the final public meeting was held, and


iii. the proposal to engage in the project was altered in response to comments mentioned in subparagraph i.


7. A description of the manner in which the location of the wind turbines was made available to the public, if a person proposing to engage in a project in respect of a class 4 or 5 wind facility relied on paragraph 4 of subsection 54 (1.2) or paragraph 4 of subsection 55 (2.2).


8. If paragraph 7 applies, proof of the date on which the location of the wind turbines referred to in that paragraph was made available to the public.

Volume 1: Section 5.3.4, Appendix C9

The Consultation Report for the Project has been split into two separate components – Volume 1 (current report) addresses consultation with the general public, agencies and municipalities. Volume 2 (under a separate cover) addresses the Aboriginal consultation and engagement program undertaken by Prowind in support of the Project.


2.1

2.0 Consultation Approach

Consultation helps to ensure that concerns regarding the Project are identified early and addressed, where possible, in a transparent manner. Consultation is also used to identify potentially interested parties and the nature of their interest, inform these parties of the Project, and incorporate their concerns or interests into the planning and design process, to the extent possible and as appropriate. In addition, it allows for the development of relationships between Prowind and interested parties, and establishes opportunities for invaluable feedback to the Project Team. The consultation process is designed to assist in the identification of potential environmental and socio-economic issues to ensure they are given appropriate consideration in Project planning, design, construction, operation and decommissioning.

Consultation for the Project included the mandatory requirements for consultation set out in O. Reg. 359/09. However, consultation is also an integral part of Prowind’s project planning process and is an internally mandated part of any project the company undertakes. Consultation plays a critical role in allowing Prowind to learn about, understand and address the priorities and concerns identified by interested parties throughout the life of a project.

The objectives of the consultation process for the Project are as follows:

• Build and maintain community support and obtain relevant approvals for the Project;

• Ensure that relevant, accurate, and consistent information about the Project is provided to local Aboriginal communities, community members, members of the public, agencies and municipalities, as early as possible;

• Obtain/identify relevant information and local knowledge of local communities, municipalities, and Aboriginal communities;

• Identify potential issues and areas of concern that may arise from the Project;

• Address concerns by providing additional information, clarifying misconceptions, changing Project design, or making commitments, where appropriate in response to input and comments from the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, and agencies;

• Promote effective, proactive and responsive communications with the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities and agencies;

• Resolve issues where possible, in a transparent manner;

• Track and document all communications between the Project Team and interested parties and ensure the information is incorporated into Project planning, to the extent possible and as appropriate; and,

• Demonstrate that Prowind is committed to the well-being of the communities within which it works.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM CONSULTATION REPORT VOLUME 1: PUBLIC, AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION Consultation Approach June 2013

2.2

Consultation for the Project began early in the planning process and will continue throughout the design, development, construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project.


3.1

3.0 Overview of Communication Tools

The following sections provide an overview of the tools used to communicate with the public, agencies, municipalities, and Aboriginal communities, and how these tools were used over the course of consultation for the Project.

3.1 TOOLS USED FOR CONSULTATION

The intent of the consultation process is to provide the community with an overview of the Project scope and apply community responses in all facets of the Project’s design and development as early and transparently as possible. Therefore, Prowind used various communication tools for disseminating Project information, and for ongoing collection of information from interested parties, including but not limited to, the public, Aboriginal communities, agencies and municipalities.

The communication tools used for the Project include:

• Project notices published in at least 2 local newspapers and 2 Aboriginal newspapers;

• Direct mailings, including Project updates via-email, to assessed landowners in the Project Area;

• Unaddressed mail drops in the vicinity of the Project;

• Project newsletter;

• Public Open Houses;

• Public Open House feedback forms;

• A Project website (www.prowind.ca)

• A Project e-mail address ([email protected]);

• Mailing address for Prowind Canada Inc.;

• A local Project telephone number (905-528-1747);

• A Project toll-free fax number (1-866-203-6516);

• Meetings with local community members, agencies, Aboriginal communities and municipal staff.

Contact information for Project representatives was included on all Project communications. A Project website, e-mail and local telephone number will continue to remain active throughout the life of the Project.


GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM CONSULTATION REPORT VOLUME 1: PUBLIC, AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION Overview of Communication Tools June 2013

3.2

3.2 STAKEHOLDER RESPONSE

Between publication of the Notice of Commencement under O. Reg. 116/01- Electricity Projects Regulation (June 21, 2008) to the close of the public comment period for consideration in the REA Consultation Report (May 1, 2013), public comments have been received through the following channels:

• E-mails: approximately 83

• Written letters to Project Team: approximately 2

• Telephone Calls: approximately 3

• Fax: 1

• Public Open House feedback forms: 84

• Public Meetings: 5

Consultation activities were designed so that interested parties had an opportunity to provide comments and questions regarding the Project and these communications were tracked through comment and response tables (Appendices F and G).

The Project Team responded to questions received during the consultation process through a total of five Public Open Houses, telephone calls, e-mails, letters and information provided within the REA reports.

3.3 CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING

All communications were documented and recorded in summary tables with contact information, date, and nature of the communication (Appendices F and G). For the purposes of this Consultation Report, all personal information (i.e. names, contact information) of Project stakeholders, not including agency contacts, has been removed to protect personal privacy, as per the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). All original communication materials (contact records, letters, emails, feedback forms from Open Houses, meeting minutes, etc.) have been filed electronically by Prowind, and are available at the MOE’s request.


4.1

4.0 Consultation under O. Reg. 116/01 (Prior to O. Reg. 359/09 Enactment)

As described above, Prowind used a variety of tools to communicate with Project stakeholders. This section describes the specific key communication activities undertaken by Prowind under O. Reg. 116/01- Electricity Projects Regulation of the Environmental Assessment Act, prior to O. Reg. 359/09 coming into effect on September 24, 2009, and the Project transitioning to the REA process.

4.1 AGENCY CONTACTS

At the outset of the Project, numerous government agencies at the Federal, Provincial and Municipal level were added to the Project’s distribution lists and were contacted to participate in the planning and development of the Environmental Screening Report (ESR). A copy of the Project’s distribution lists are provided in Appendix B which indicates the various agencies that have been contacted throughout the development of the Project.

Details of the communications with agencies are included in Appendix G, which includes correspondence obtained during both regulatory processes.

4.2 NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT – JUNE 2008

A Notice of Commencement was published in The Oxford Review on June 21, 2008. The Notice included a brief description of the Project and its proposed location. The Notice indicated that the Project is subject to MOE’s Screening Process for electricity projects, and included a map of the Project Study Area as well as contact information of the applicant (Prowind Canada Inc.).

The Notice was directly mailed or hand-delivered, on June 20, 2008, to the Project’s distribution lists (see Appendix B), including federal and provincial agencies, municipalities, and mailboxes within the Project Area.

At the request of Prowind, on June 26, 2008, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) provided a list of First Nations communities that have specific claims and are located in the vicinity of the Project. Once contact and mailing information were obtained (see Appendix B3), the Notice, including an invitation to the Public Open House on August 14, 2008, were directly provided on August 5, 2008, to the First Nations communities identified in INAC’s letter.

A copy of the Notice is provided in Appendix C1. A copy of the tear sheet from the local newspaper showing publication of the Notice can be found in Appendix C9.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM CONSULTATION REPORT VOLUME 1: PUBLIC, AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION Consultation under O. Reg. 116/01 (Prior to O. Reg. 359/09 Enactment) June 2013

4.2

4.3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE – AUGUST 2008

The Notice of Public Open House was published in The Oxford Review on August 2, 2008, twelve days prior to the meeting date of August 14, 2008. The Notice briefly summarized the purpose of the meeting and provided information about the Open House. The Notice also introduced M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. (MKI) as consultants retained by Prowind to complete the Environmental Screening for the Project.

The Notice was directly mailed or hand-delivered, on August 6, 2008, to the Project’s distribution lists (see Appendix B), including federal and provincial agencies, municipalities, and mailboxes within the Project area.

A copy of the Notice is provided in Appendix C2.

4.4 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE – AUGUST 2008

A Public Open House, featured as a drop-in style format, was held on August 14, 2008 at the Quality Hotel & Suites in Woodstock, Ontario, approximately 4 km north of the Project area. The purpose of the Public Open House was to introduce the Company, and present the Project proposal to the community, to display the initial components of the Project (via a series of information posters and discussions with experienced Project representatives), and provide some general information about wind energy. The Open House also allowed the Project Team to display a variety of wind energy studies, and gain stakeholder feedback.

Table 4.1 presents key information about the Open House (August 2008).

Table 4.1: Public Open House (August 2008): Key Information

Municipality: City of Woodstock, Oxford County

Date: August 14, 2008

Time: 5:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.

Location: Quality Hotel & Suites, Altadore Room 580 Bruin Blvd., Woodstock, ON

Attendees: 87 attendees signed in

Feedback Forms Received: 52

Information Presented and Made Available:

• 8 information display boards (see Appendix D1); • 5 Project Team members were available to respond to questions, comments or

suggestions from the public; • Project sign-in sheets; • Project information handouts; • Company information handouts; • Wind energy and agriculture handouts; and, • Academic and industry studies related to wind projects.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM CONSULTATION REPORT VOLUME 1: PUBLIC, AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION Consultation under O. Reg. 116/01 (Prior to O. Reg. 359/09 Enactment) June 2013

4.3

Representatives of Prowind and MKI were present at the Open House to provide additional information about the Project, discuss the content of the information display boards, and answer questions within their area of expertise.

The information display boards presented at the Open House provided an introduction to Prowind and MKI, an overview of the Project, Project contact information, an update on the Project, an overview of the past, present and future of wind energy, the anatomy of a modern turbine, local and economic benefits of wind energy, and a summary of conclusions drawn from wind energy studies regarding low frequency sound, bird mortality, visual impact and property values. Aerial imagery of the Project area was also available for viewing. At the time of the Public Open House, the Project was proposed to include up to 5 wind turbines, each with a nameplate capacity of approximately 2 MW.

Attendees were given the opportunity to take the feedback forms home to complete later, and asked to return their comments using the contact information contained within the feedback form. Key issues addressed within the feedback forms included:

• Relocation of Project;

• Setback distance between wind turbines and residences;

• Project infrastructure ;

• Loss of property values;

• Vibration and potential health effects of wind turbines; and,

• Project benefits.

At the request of some Public Open House attendees, Prowind e-mailed academic and industry studies conducted on property values and health concerns, in September and November 2008.

Comments received from the Public Open House, including verbal comments, responses provided, and a description of how comments were considered by the Project Team, are provided in Appendix F3.

A follow-up e-mail was sent on October 6, 2008 to the Project distribution list, thanking those stakeholders who attended the meeting and provided feedback regarding the Project. The e-mail also provided an update on the Project and a rationale for not having monthly meetings, as suggested by some stakeholders.

Following the completion of the Public Open House in August 2008, no other consultation activities were undertaken by Prowind under O. Reg. 116/01 for the Project. It must be noted that Prowind did not produce nor did they circulate a draft ESR for public review.


5.1

5.0 Consultation under O. Reg. 359/09

The following sections detail the consultation activities and results which took place after O. Reg. 359/09 became law in September 2009. Given the status of the Project at the time of the introduction of O. Reg. 359/09, consultation activities essentially started over to ensure that the full requirements of O. Reg. 359/09 were fulfilled.

5.1 PRE-DISCLOSURE

Pre-disclosure includes advance notification of the Project prior to the issuance of the Notice of Project Engagement. Although the Project was already publicly known as a result of the consultation activities held under O. Reg. 116/01, pre-disclosure activities with respect to the Project under the requirements of O. Reg. 359/09 included submission of the draft Project Description Report (PDR) to the MOE to obtain the Aboriginal Communities List issued under section 14 of O. Reg. 359/09 (Section 5.2.4).

5.2 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION LIST

A Project distribution list was developed in the early stages of the Project, and updated as required to identify key contacts that may have a potential interest in the Project. The Project distribution lists include federal and provincial agencies, municipalities, Aboriginal communities, assessed landowners in the general vicinity of the Project area, and other interested stakeholders that had requested to be placed on the list throughout the development of the Project. Agency, municipal, and Aboriginal distribution lists are provided in Appendix B.

5.2.1 Assessed Landowners

Notice was provided to all assessed landowners within 120 m of the Project Location for the Notice of a Proposal and Public Meeting (according to O. Reg. 359/09, 2010 requirements), and to all assessed landowners within 550 m of the Project Location, including assessed owners of land abutting a parcel of land on which the Project Location is situated, for all subsequent notices (as per 2012 requirements).

To identify the assessed landowners, Assessment Roll Numbers (ARN’s) for properties within 120 m and then 550 m of the Project Location, in addition to abutting properties, were determined by CanACRE Limited (CanACRE) through tax roll research, on behalf of Prowind. Based on this information, CanACRE obtained mailing addresses from the local municipalities (Township of Norwich and City of Woodstock).

Maps showing the 550 m notification/consultation area where Notices were issued from September 2012 onwards can be found in Appendix B1.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM CONSULTATION REPORT VOLUME 1: PUBLIC, AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION Consultation under O. Reg. 359/09 June 2013

5.2

5.2.2 Federal and Provincial Agencies

O. Reg. 359/09 identifies only the agencies that are required to be consulted on the Project. In addition, agencies that typically and historically have had an interest in environmental assessment and/or wind projects were added to the Project distribution list from the onset of the Project. These include agencies that may issue permits or approvals for the Project, as well as agencies that may have an interest in learning about and/or commenting on the Project.

The agency distribution list is provided in Appendix B2.

5.2.3 Municipalities and Elected Officials

Municipal clerks for the County of Oxford (regional municipality), the City of Woodstock and Township of Norwich (local municipalities) were included on the Project distribution list, as required by O. Reg. 359/09.

In addition, other groups or local representatives were included on the Project distribution list:

• Municipal staff identified as the point of contact for background information or input to the Municipal Consultation Form;

• The Mayor and Ward Councillors with the Township of Norwich;

• The City of Woodstock Mayor; and,

• The Warden of Oxford County Council.

The municipal and elected officials’ distribution list is provided in Appendix B3.

5.2.4 Aboriginal Communities

On November 9, 2009, the draft PDR was sent to the Director of the MOE in order to obtain the Aboriginal Communities List as per s.14 of O. Reg. 359/09. The list was received from the MOE on February 22, 2010.

The letter from the MOE identified the following Aboriginal communities as having constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely affected by the Project:

• Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation, Elected Council;

• Six Nations of the Grand River Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council ;

• Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation;

• Oneida Nation of the Thames ;

• Chippewas of the Thames First Nation;


5.3

• Munsee-Delaware First Nation;

• Kettle and Stony Point First Nation;

• Aamjiwnaang First Nation;

• Walpole Island First Nation (Bkejwanong Territory);

• Hamilton-Wentworth Métis Council; and,

• Grand River Métis Council.

Upon receiving the Aboriginal Consultation List from the MOE, the Project distribution list was updated and consultation with Aboriginal communities regarding the Project included all Aboriginal communities, as identified by the MOE.

Please refer to the Aboriginal Consultation Report (Volume 2) for a detailed description of the activities undertaken as part of the Aboriginal consultation program.

The Aboriginal community distribution list is provided in Appendix B4.

5.2.5 Distribution List Updates

The Project’s distribution lists were updated throughout the development of the Project, primarily as a result of attendance at Public Meetings, where an attendee could indicate their desire to be included on the Project distribution list when signing into the Public Meeting, and also when completing the contact information section in the Public Meeting feedback form.

In addition, Project distribution lists updates took places as a result of requests received via e-mail, telephone calls and personal interactions. Changes to the list for agencies, municipalities and Aboriginal communities were generally made by the Project Team at the direction of these groups. Exceptions were the updates as the result of information received from Canada Post from previous mailings.

5.3 NOTICES

Project Notices were published in local newspapers and mailed or e-mailed to the Project distribution list, including federal and provincial agencies, local municipalities, Aboriginal communities, assessed landowners in the general vicinity of the Project area, and other interested stakeholders that had requested to be placed on the list throughout the REA process.

Notices were also posted on the Project website.

In addition, Prowind requested publication of the Notices in a newspaper printed by each Aboriginal community on the MOE’s Aboriginal Consultation List, where available and possible.


5.4

5.3.1 Notice of a Proposal and Public Meeting - January 2010

The first Public Meeting for the Project under O. Reg. 359/09 was held at the Norwich Community Centre in the Township of Norwich, on February 8, 2010. The combined Notice of a Proposal and Notice of Public Meeting was published in three local newspapers on three different publication dates in January 2010, with one of the newspapers being distributed to the Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit communities. The Notice was first published on January 8, 2010, more than thirty days prior to the first public meeting for the Project.

The Notice included information about the public meeting, a brief description of the Project proposal including a map of the Project Area, and contact information of the applicant (Prowind Inc.). The Notice also included information where the draft PDR was made available for public review and comment, including public viewing locations and the Project website, at least thirty days prior to the meeting.

The Notice was also directly mailed or e-mailed where preferred, on January 8, 2010, to the Project’s distribution lists, including the MOE Director and District Manager, Conservation Authorities in which the Project is located (Upper Thames River, Grand River and Long Point Region Conservation Authorities), and the Clerks of the County of Oxford and Township of Norwich. The Notice was hand-delivered to all assessed landowners within 120 m of the Project Location, on that same day. On January 4, 2010, the Notice was directly mailed to Aboriginal communities (identified in the MOE’s Aboriginal Consultation List).

The Notice and draft PDR were also posted on the Project website.

Newspaper publication of the Notice is summarized in Section 5.3.6. A copy of the Notice can be found in Appendix C3.

5.3.2 FIT Contract Announcement – July 2011

Although not required under O. Reg. 359/09, Prowind published an announcement of the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) contract offer for the Project in two local newspapers on two publication dates in July 2011. This public announcement provided information about the next steps in the development of the Project and contact information, as well as a brief summary of the Project proposal.

It must be noted that this Notice was only published in the local newspapers and not distributed to the Project’s distribution lists. The Notice was also posted on the Project website.

Newspaper publication of the Notice is summarized in Section 5.3.6. A copy of the Notice can be found in Appendix C4


5.5

5.3.3 Notice of a Proposal and Public Meeting – September 2012

During the course of the planning process, it was determined that Project infrastructure would be required to be located within the boundaries of the City of Woodstock; the electrical line which connects the Project to the provincial grid traverses into the City of Woodstock, where the Project’s connection point is located. Therefore, prior to publishing a Notice of Public Meeting for the City of Woodstock in 2012, Prowind decided to combine the Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project and Notice of Public Meeting since the Project was being introduced into the municipality for the first time.

The combined Notice of a Proposal and Notice of Public Meeting was published in three local newspapers on two publication dates in early September 2012. Two of the newspapers are distributed to the Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. The Notice was first published on September 5, 2012, more than thirty days prior to the meeting date of October 10, 2012.

The Notice provided information about the upcoming Public Meeting in the City of Woodstock, including an updated Project Area map. The Notice also indicated the locations where the updated draft PDR was made available for public review and comment, including viewing locations and the Project website.

The Notice was also directly mailed or e-mail where preferred, on September 5 and 10, 2012, to the Project’s distribution lists, including NAV Canada, Transport Canada, the MOE Director and District Manager, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Conservation Authorities in which the Project is located (Upper Thames River, Grand River and Long Point Region Conservation Authorities), the Clerks of the County of Oxford, City of Woodstock and Township of Norwich and Aboriginal communities (identified in the MOE’s Aboriginal Consultation List). The Notice was provided to all assessed landowners within 550 m of the Project Location, including adjacent landowners (hand-delivered to residents in the local area and mailed to residents living outside of the delivery area), on September 5 and 6, 2012.

The Notice and an updated draft PDR were also posted on the Project website.


5.3.4 Notice of Draft Site Plan – January 2013

The Notice of Draft Site Plan was published in three local newspapers on January 9, 2013. Two of the newspapers are distributed to the Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. The Notice informed stakeholders about the release of the turbine layout and identification of the noise receptors as well as provided information about the


5.6

locations where the Draft Site Plan Report was made available for public review and comment, including viewing locations and the Project website.

Section 54.1 (v) of O. Reg. 359/09 (2012 amendments) requires the secretary of every company operating an oil or natural gas pipeline, if the pipeline right of way is within 200 metres of the Project Location, to be provided with the Notice of Draft Site Plan for the Project. For this Project, it was determined that there is no oil or natural gas pipeline right of way within 200 m of the Project Area, and therefore no oil and gas companies were notified about the Project layout.

A Correction to the Notice of Draft Site Plan was published in three local newspapers on January 16, 2013 with respect to the date of the Notice of Draft Site Plan. Two of the newspapers are distributed to the Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. A clerical error occurred that resulted in the Notice of Draft Site Plan being dated January 9, 2012 rather than January 9, 2013. It was noted that no other changes were made to the Notice.

The Notice of Draft Site Plan and Correction to the Notice of Draft Site Plan were also directly mailed or e-mailed where preferred on, January 8 and 16, 2013, to the Project’s distribution lists, including NAV Canada, Transport Canada, the MOE Director and District Manager, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Conservation Authorities in which the Project is located (Upper Thames River, Grand River and Long Point Region Conservation Authorities), and the Clerks of the County of Oxford, City of Woodstock and Township of Norwich. The Notices were directly mailed to all assessed landowners within 550 m of the Project Location, including adjacent landowners, on the same days. Aboriginal communities (identified in the MOE’s Aboriginal Consultation List) were directly mailed the Notice of Draft Site Plan and Correction to the Notice of Draft Site Plan on January 9 and 14, 2013, respectively.

The Notice of Draft Site Plan, an updated (with correct date) Notice of Draft Site Plan and Draft Site Plan Report were also posted on the Project website.

Newspaper publication of the Notices is summarized in Section 5.3.6. A copy of these Notices can be found in Appendix C6 and C7.

5.3.5 Notice of Final Public Meetings – February 2013

The Notice included information about the Final Public Meetings (April 23 and 24, 2013) and the locations where the draft REA Reports were made available for public review and comment. The Notice of Final Public Meetings was published in four local newspapers on two different publication dates in February 2013 to meet the required 60-day notification requirement as per O. Reg. 359/09. Two of the newspapers are distributed to the Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation.


5.7

The Notice was also directly mailed or e-mailed where preferred, on February 19, 2013, to the Project’s distribution lists, including NAV Canada, Transport Canada, the MOE Director and District Manager, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Conservation Authorities in which the Project is located (Upper Thames River, Grand River and Long Point Region Conservation Authorities), the Clerks of the County of Oxford, City of Woodstock and Township of Norwich, Aboriginal communities (identified in the MOE’s Aboriginal Consultation List), and assessed landowners within 550 m of the Project Location, including adjacent landowners.

The draft REA Reports (excluding the Consultation Report) were made available for review starting on February 21, 2013 at public viewing locations and on the Project website. The Notice was also posted on the Project website.


5.3.6 Summary of Newspaper Publication of Notices

A summary of the dates and newspapers in which Project Notices were published is provided in Table 5.1. Proof of publication of each Notice is provided in Appendix C9.

Table 5.1: Summary of Newspaper Notices

Newspaper Description Notice of A Proposal

and Public Meeting

FIT Contract Announcement

Notice of A Proposal

and Public Meeting

Notice of Draft

Site Plan

Correction to Notice of Draft Site

Plan

Notice of Final

Public Meetings

Local Newspapers

The Oxford Review

Free weekly publication serving the County of Oxford

January 9, 2010

July 14, 2011 - - - February 21, 2013

The Woodstock Sentinel Review

Daily publication (excluding weekends) serving the City of Woodstock and neighbouring Townships

January 8, 2010

July 12, 2011 September 7, 2012

January 9, 2013

January 16, 2013

February 20, 2013

Local Aboriginal Newspapers

Turtle Island News

One-day-a-week publication (Wednesday) serving the adjacent reserves (Six Nations of the Grand River, and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation), and local communities such as Hagersville, Jarvis, Caledonia, Brantford, Simcoe, Hamilton and Waterford, as well as every First Nation across Canada

January 13, 2010

- September 5, 2012

January 9, 2013

January 16, 2013

February 20, 2013


5.8

Table 5.1: Summary of Newspaper Notices

Newspaper Description Notice of A Proposal

and Public Meeting

FIT Contract Announcement

Notice of A Proposal

and Public Meeting

Notice of Draft

Site Plan

Correction to Notice of Draft Site

Plan

Notice of Final

Public Meetings

Tekawennake News

One-day-a-week publication (Wednesday) serving Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nations

- - September 5, 2012

January 9, 2013

January 16, 2013

February 20, 2013

5.4 PROJECT COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER

The Project Community Newsletter provided an introduction to Prowind, a development update on the Project, Project benefits, a timeline for the Project, a summary of the basic specifications of the GE 2.5 XL turbine being considered at that time, information on sound from wind turbines and Project contact information.

The newsletter was directly mailed or e-mailed where preferred, on October 20 and 26, 2011, to municipalities, Aboriginal communities, and assessed landowners within 120 m of the Project Location. The newsletter was also delivered by unaddressed mail to the area surrounding the Project Location. The newsletter was also made available on the Project website.

A copy of the newsletter can be found in Appendix D10.

5.5 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

5.5.1 Public Meetings

5.5.1.1 General Description of Public Meetings

Four public meetings (also referred to as Public Open Houses) were held throughout the development of the Project while it was subject to the requirements of O. Reg. 359/09. Venue selection for the meetings took into consideration a number of criteria, including location, accessibility and venue size to accommodate large numbers of community members who wished to attend. The meetings were held after school and work, to allow the largest number of people to attend at their convenience.

The meetings were held in a drop-in style format, where information about the Project was provided through large display boards (copies of the display boards from each meeting are provided in Appendix D along with other materials which were distributed). Members of the Project Team were stationed at the display boards according to their area of expertise or walking around the room, in order to encourage conversation, answer questions, and seek attendees’ feedback regarding the Project.


5.9

Feedback forms were made available at each Public Open House session and participants were encouraged to complete and submit them at the Public Open House or return them to Prowind at a later date using a pre-addressed, stamped envelope made available at the Open Houses.

The feedback forms asked participants to document their general comments, issues or concerns regarding wind energy and the Project, and gave participants the opportunity to describe their interest in the Project, how they found out about the Public Open House, their opinion about various aspects of the Public Open House and whether they wanted to be included on the Project distribution list.

The information gathered by the Project Team through discussions with attendees and feedback forms are provided in a summary of public correspondence in Appendix F. Feedback gathered at these sessions was considered by the Project Team during preparation of the REA Reports and during Project planning and siting, to the greatest extent possible and as appropriate.

5.5.1.2 Public Meeting – February 8, 2010

The purpose of the meeting was to provide an update on the Project and introduce the new REA process in which the Project was now subject to, all with the intention of providing information as early in the process as possible. The meeting provided the opportunity for community members to learn about the Project, to ask questions of the Project Team, and to provide input into the Project. This allowed the Project Team to consider comments, issues and concerns early in the Project lifecycle, to the extent possible and as appropriate.

Table 5.2 presents key information about the Public Open House (February 2010).

Table 5.2: February 2010 Public Meeting: Key Information

Municipality: Township of Norwich, Oxford County

Date: February 8, 2010

Time: 5:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Location: Norwich Community Centre 53 ½ Stover St., Norwich, ON




• 12 information display boards (see Appendix D2); Information handout (see Appendix D3) including: website links to the draft PDR

and Project newsletters, the REA process and academic and industry studies related to wind projects as well as Project contact information;

• 6 Project Team members were available to answer pertinent questions about the Project;

• Project sign-in sheets; • Project fact sheet (see Appendix D4); • draft Project Description Report (dated January 4, 2010);and, • Academic and industry studies related to wind projects.


5.10

The information display boards provided an overview of the Project (e.g. land area of interest for the Project), information on the elements of a wind turbine, a summary of the benefits of wind energy, an overview of the past, present and future of wind energy, potential impacts to birds and bats, an outline of the studies to be conducted as part of the REA process, and contact information for Project Team.

Public Open House attendees who completed a feedback form, asked questions or provided comments or concerns about the Project were mailed a letter or e-mailed to provide them with more information about their specific question or concern on February 24 and 26, 2010.

Information captured from the Public Meeting was considered in appropriate sections of the REA and considered by the Project Team during Project planning and siting, to the extent possible and as appropriate. Comments received from the First Public Meeting, responses provided, and a description of how comments were considered by the Project Team, are provided in Appendix F4.

5.5.1.3 Public Meeting – October 10, 2012

As described above in Section 5.3.3, after the initiation of the Project and the first Public Meeting (February 2010), it was determined that Project infrastructure would be required to be located within the boundaries of the City of Woodstock. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of O. Reg. 359/09 a total of two public meetings would be required within the City of Woodstock. The first Public Meeting within the City of Woodstock was held on October 10, 2012.

The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the Project to the community and describe the REA process in which the Project was subject to. The meeting provided the opportunity for community members to learn about the Project, to ask questions of the Project Team, and to provide input into the Project. This allowed the Project Team to consider comments, issues and concerns early in the Project lifecycle, to the extent possible and as appropriate.

Table 5.3 presents key information about the Public Open House (October 2012).

Table 5.3: October 2012 Public Meeting: Key Information

Municipality: City of Woodstock, Oxford County

Date: October 10, 2012

Time: 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Location: Quality Inn & Suites, Vansittart Room 580 Bruin Blvd., Woodstock, ON




5.11

Table 5.3: October 2012 Public Meeting: Key Information


• 11 information display boards and information fact sheet (see Appendix D5); • Project Fact Sheet (see Appendix D6); • 6 Project Team members available to answer pertinent questions about the

Project; • Updated draft Project Description Report (dated August 14, 2012) • Project sign-in sheets; and, • Academic and industry studies related to wind projects.

Display boards presented the Project Location and a Preliminary Layout which included 10 turbine locations, wind turbine specification details (GE 2.5 turbine model), Project schedule, and information on the REA process including natural heritage and archaeological studies (including setbacks).

Public Open House attendees who completed a feedback form, asked questions or provided comments or concerns about the Project were mailed a letter or e-mailed to provide them with more information about their specific question or concern in October and November 2012.

Information captured from the Public Meeting was considered during the preparation of the draft REA Reports to the greatest extent possible and as appropriate. Comments received from the Public Meeting, responses provided, and a description of how comments were considered by the Project Team, are provided in Appendix F5.

5.5.1.4 Final Public Meetings – April 23 and 24, 2013

The purpose of the Final Public Meetings was to provide an update on the Project to community members, including the proposed layout (as depicted in the Draft Site Plan), the results of the studies contained in the draft REA Reports, and to gather final feedback from stakeholders for incorporation into the Final REA Reports.

Table 5.4 presents key information about the Final Public Meetings (April 2013).

Table 5.4: April 2013 Public Meetings: Key Information

Municipality: Township of Norwich City of Woodstock

Date: April 23 , 2013 April 24, 2013

Time: 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Location: Oxford Centre Hall 505386 Middletown Road, Oxford Centre, ON

Woodstock Quality Inn & Suites 580 Bruin Blvd., Woodstock, ON

Attendees: 36 attendees (12 attendees signed in) 44 attendees (10 attendees signed in)

Feedback Forms Received:

4 0


5.12

Table 5.4: April 2013 Public Meetings: Key Information


• 22 information display boards (see Appendix D7); • 9 Project Team members available to answer pertinent questions about the Project; • draft REA Reports (60-day public review versions); • Project Fact Sheet (see Appendix D8); • Frequently Asked Question document (see Appendix D9); • Project sign-up sheets; and, • Academic and industry studies related to wind projects.

Display boards presented the Project Location as shown in the Draft Site Plan, wind turbine specification details (Siemens SWT 3.0), information on the REA process, an outline of the reports and studies to be submitted as part of the REA Application, results of the draft REA Reports, and the estimated Project schedule. Additional information was provided related to health and safety, property values, wind industry facts, and economic opportunities.

Meeting attendees were encouraged to provide input by completing the available feedback forms. All comments were requested to be received by May 1, 2013 for inclusion within the Consultation Report and REA submission. Any comments received after this date would still be tracked and responded to.

Public Open House attendees, who completed a feedback form, asked questions or provided comments or concerns about the Project by the close of the comment period (May 1, 2013), were e-mailed to provide them with more information about their specific question or concern in April/May 2013.

Information captured from the Final Public Meetings was considered during the finalizing of the REA Reports to the greatest extent possible and as appropriate (please see Section 5.7 for details of changes to the REA Reports following the Final Public Meetings). Comments received from the Final Public Meetings, including verbal comments, responses provided, and a description of how comments were considered by the Project Team, are provided in Appendix F6.

5.5.2 Release of Draft REA Reports

5.5.2.1 Release of Draft REA Reports prior to FIT Contract Offer

A draft Project Description Report (PDR) was made available for public review as of January 4, 2010 at the Township of Norwich Municipal Office and on the Project website. The release of the PDR coincided with the release of the Notice of a Proposal and Public Meeting and was made available at least 30-days prior to the public meeting (February 8, 2010).


5.13

On March 25, 2010, draft REA reports were made available for public review by being posted to the Project website and made available in hard copy at the Township of Norwich Municipal Office and at the Burgessville Public Library. The following draft REA reports were made available:

• Draft REA Table of Contents;

• Draft Project Description Report;

• Draft Natural Heritage Assessment Report;

• Draft Water Assessment Report;

• Draft Archaeological and Heritage Resources Assessment Report;

• Draft Design and Operations Report;

• Draft Construction Report;

• Draft Decommissioning Report;

• Draft Turbine Specifications Report; and,

• Draft Abutting Property Impact Assessment Report.

5.5.2.2 Release of Draft REA Reports after FIT Contract Offer

An updated draft PDR was released for public review on September 7, 2012 to coincide with the release of the Notice of a Proposal and Public Meeting issued in the City of Woodstock. The PDR was posted on the Project website, and hard copies were made available at the Woodstock Public Library and Norwich Public Library. The PDR was available at least 30-days prior to the public meeting held on October 10, 2012.

A Draft Site Plan Report was posted on the Project website, and hard copies were made available at the Woodstock Public Library and Norwich Public Library on January 9, 2013.

On February 21, 2013, draft REA Reports (with the exception of the Consultation Report) were made publicly available on the Project website, and hard copies were made available at the Woodstock Public Library and Norwich Public Library:

• Project Description Report;

• Construction Plan Report;

• Design and Operations Report;

• Decommissioning Report;

• Natural Heritage Assessment Report;

• Water Bodies and Assessment Report;


5.14

• Noise Assessment Report; and,

• Archaeological Assessment and Cultural Heritage Resources Report.

The reports were made available more than 60-days prior to the Final Public Meetings (April 23 and 24, 2013). The draft REA Reports were also made available for public inspection at the Final Public Meetings. The draft REA Reports have been finalized for the MOE as part of the REA application; however the draft Reports will remain on the website until the MOE’s acceptance of the REA application for the Project. Once the MOE deems the REA application complete, final copies of the REA Reports will be posted on the Project website in accordance with the requirements of O. Reg. 359/09.

5.5.3 Consideration of Public Comments

The information collected through the above consultation activities assisted the Project Team in developing a list of comments regarding the Project and assisted the Proponent in gaining invaluable input into the design and planning of the Project. Comments received were reviewed by the Project Team and considered during Project siting and planning, and during preparation of the REA Reports.

A summary of the key public comments since the onset of the Project and how comments were considered by the Project Team is provided in Error! Reference source not found., including whether:

• the Project or study design was altered in response to comments received;

• the REA Reports were amended based on comments received; and/or,

• additional information was provided.

A detailed summary of each comment received from the public from the onset of the Project, and each response from the Project Team throughout the development of the Project is provided in Appendix F2.


5.15

Table 5.5: Summary of Key and Frequent Comments from Public and Consideration by Project Team

Key and Frequent Comments Project Response How Comments Were Considered by Project Team

Concerned about impacts to human health. Prowind has used the services of two health consultant professionals at three public open house sessions to provide information to the public on the topic of human health and wind turbines.

Provided a report entitled Human Health and Wind Turbines (May 2013) prepared by Intrinsik Environmental, on behalf of Prowind, in response to questions received on human health.

Project should be put on hold until the Health Canada study is completed.

Prowind develops wind farms in Ontario under all applicable rules and regulations including Provincial and Federal health agencies. There is no development moratorium in place during the ongoing Health Canada study. Additionally, each project is under strict developmental timelines from the provincial government that must be met. Development of this project cannot be slowed unless directed by the federal and provincial government,

Additional information provided.

Requests for a map that enables all property owners to identify their homes within the reports provided, as the receptor number for a number of residences are not legible despite the high resolution version posted to the Project website.

Noise receptors are defined in accordance with the MOE’s Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms document. Provided a copy of this document, titled Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms (October 2008).

Provided a Google earth file, which was produced to assist in recognizing receptor labels where residences lie close together. The file references the associated sound level at each receptor. It also shows some additional receptors that lie between 1.5 km and 2 km from a turbine.

Requests for a version of the Noise Modeling report relevant to the turbines planned for use in the Project.

The updated Noise Impact Assessment (Rev 1) shows all receptors with calculated values below 39 dBA, and Prowind intends on causing its turbine supplier to uphold the provided sound data.

The Noise Assessment has been updated to reflect a shift to lower noise emission turbines, which has resulted in lower sound level values at receptors. The revised Noise Impact Assessment will be provided for public review along with the revised REA documents once the MOE has deemed it complete.

Requests for a written guarantee from Prowind to all non-participating receptors verifying that noise levels in their homes will never exceed 40 DBA, and a guarantee to compensate landowners for third-party noise measurements (at the request of the

Post-construction noise compliance monitoring is a requirement for projects that receive REA approval and will be carried out at this site to ensure compliance with MOE limits. This work is done at the expense of the proponent. Further, in the event that compliance to MOE limits is not demonstrated, the selected turbine model has the ability to operate in a noise-reduced mode to achieve

Commitment to conduct noise compliance monitoring in accordance with the requirements of a REA approval.


5.16



landowner), and adequate, timely mitigation. compliance.

Concerned about the impacts to property values.

Multiple studies have consistently found no evidence that wind energy projects are negatively impacting property values. The 2012 MPAC Hearing decision from the Province’s Assessment Review Board rule that the proximity to wind turbines would not be a factor in deciding how much property tax a couple on Wolfe Island should pay. The Review Board concluded there was no evidence that the 86 turbines negatively impacted property values. A further study conducted in 2010 in Chatham-Kent found there was no statistically relevant relationship between the presence of a wind project and negative effects on property value. In addition, the 2010 property values study near the 396 MW Twin Groves Wind Farm in Illinois found prices were negatively affected before the wind farm was built, but rebounded after it was in place. Finally, a 2009 study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that proximity to wind energy facilities does not have a pervasive or widespread effect on the value of nearby homes.


Not all built heritage features within the Project Area were photographed, examined and assessed for cultural heritage value or interest.

The Project Location does not fall on any protected properties. O. Reg. 359/09 s 23 (1.1.ii) requires that protected properties on abutting lands also be considered, but once again, no such resources were identified. The heritage assessment report was completed in accordance with the heritage assessment standards of the time, and while it is true that these have developed and evolved over the past several years (specifically regarding consultation), the report would not have been accepted by the MTCS had it been inadequate.

Additional information provided. MTCS signed off on the Heritage Assessment.

Concerned about potential mortality rates of birds and bats. The area west of the original Project turbines also appears to be a migratory route for a butterfly species. No reference is made to a study of this species and how the turbines would impact the migration and mortality of the butterflies.

Pre-construction bird and bat studies were conducted at this site at a time when the MNR required these studies in advance of construction. The MNR no longer requires that pre-construction surveys be conducted unless habitat is found within the study area. Prowind included these surveys in the REA for additional information, but they are not a specific requirement of the REA. The general conclusions from all bird and bat studies conducted in



5.17



this area are that there is a relatively low abundance and low diversity of species to other locations in Ontario nearer to the Great Lakes. Post-construction monitoring protocols have been prepared in accordance with the MNR guidelines. The Proponent is required to conduct mortality surveys for a minimum of three years once the wind farm is operational. If thresholds of bird and/or bat mortality are reached, contingency plans can be put in place to reduce impacts and additional monitoring is conducted to ensure the contingency plans are effective. Butterfly habitat was considered in the NHA and was not identified in the Project Study Area.

Mitigation measures do not adequately remove the induced potential safety hazards for aviators.

Turbines were originally placed and then slightly adjusted to avoid impacts to approach and departure paths. A Local Aerodrome Assessment was conducted to look at impacts to the Curries Aerodrome located north of Gunn’s Hill Road. The Canada Flight Supplement, used by pilots to get information on airfields/airports, has been updated for this airfield to account for the presence of the turbines.

Local Aerodrome Assessment report is included in the Design and Operations Report, Appendix H. Updates were being made to the Canada Flight Supplement.

Impacts to neighboring crops. Prowind does not foresee any damages to non-participating landowners crops but would assess a potential occurrence on an individual basis. The Property Line Setback Assessment Report addresses potential impacts and mitigation. Any crop damage created as a direct result of the wind farm will be compensated based on the current selling price of the damaged crop.



5.18



Where can information related to birds and the natural environment be obtained?

All information about natural habitats, wildlife and other features can be found in the Natural Heritage Assessment (NHA) Report. Birds are addressed within the Significant Wildlife Habitat section. There are many different types of migratory birds and other important bird areas that are addressed in the Significant Wildlife Habitat tables (sections 6.3 and 7.4). Additionally, some pre-construction bird studies were conducted for this area. These studies are no longer required by the MNR for the REA process unless it is determined that significant bird habitats are located within the Project Area, which is established through the Ecological Land Classification process and other land classification methods. However, Prowind conducted these studies in previous years to establish the species type and abundance of birds that use and live in the Project Area, and thus included these studies in Appendix F of the NHA.



5.19

5.5.4 REA Report Amendments following Final Public Meetings

The draft REA reports were amended after the Final Public Meetings, prior to submission of the REA application. Amendments reflect the current state of Project planning, response to comments from the consultation process, and editorial clarifications. A summary of the non-editorial amendments made to the draft REA reports, and the reason for the amendment, is provided in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Summary of REA Report Amendments

Amendment Reason REA Report Reference

All Reports Turbine Nameplate Rating was reduced to a maximum of 2.5 MW, Corresponding maximum Sound Power Level and Octave Band Data were adjusted.

To reduce calculated sound levels at receptors based on feedback from public regarding concern over noise from turbines.

All REA reports

Project Description Report (PDR) Acknowledgment that Aboriginal communities were provided with draft REA reports for review.

Six Nations of the Grand River review identified that this was not included in Introduction to PDR.

PDR, Section 1.0

Re-worded paragraph to remove words “impacts are few” and state that minimal negative effects should occur after mitigation measures are implemented.

Six Nations of the Grand River review suggested this wording be changed to improve report

PDR, Section 4.5

Clarified amount of vegetation removal with regard to habitat removal

Six Nations of the Grand River review identified that wording on this topic was vague

PDR, Section 4.5.2.1

Amended discussion on wetlands in PDR to mention previously evaluated Provincially Significant Wetlands

Six Nations of the Grand River review identified that PSWs were not mentioned in the wetland summary in the PDR

PDR, Section 4.5.2.2

Natural Heritage Assessment Report (NHA) Mapping in Natural Heritage Assessment Appendices was updated to reflect presented plan to bury collector cables along Middletown Line and Firehall Rd to the Project substation.

Municipal consultation had changed preference for these routes from overhead to buried, older mapping in the Natural Heritage Assessment still showed overhead lines.

NHA, Appendix A

Resume of Bat Specialist added to NHA Six Nations of the Grand River review of NHA identified that this was missing and suggested that it be included

NHA, Appendix B.

Wording in PDR was changed to avoid vague and qualitative wording such as: • Re-worded to remove terms such as

“very minimal” and “none”. Removed all cases “very minimal in document.

• Changed “may be posted” to “will be posted” in reference to signs regarding amphibian breeding habitat.

• Changed “does not expect any negative impacts” to “any significant negative impacts”.

Six Nations of the Grand River review suggested this wording be changed to improve report

NHA, Section 8.2.1, page 60 and 62

NHA, Section 8.2.1.1, page 62:

NHA, Section 9.4, Page 84:

MNR Confirmation letter added Six Nations of the Grand River review identified that MNR confirmation letter was

NHA, Appendix I


5.20

Table 5.6: Summary of REA Report Amendments

Amendment Reason REA Report Reference

missing from report Included measurements for study area into Introduction of NHA (50 m and 120 m)

Six Nations of the Grand River review identified that study area size was not specified early in the report

NHA, Section 1.0

Wetland delineation was added to Field Investigations Time and Date Table (table 4)

Six Nations of the Grand River review identified that information on wetland delineation was not outlined in the table.

NHA, Section 6.1.3

The process for assuming the significant of wetlands was added into the wetland discussion earlier in the report.

Six Nations of the Grand River review suggested that the assumption of wetlands as significant should be mentioned earlier in the report.

NHA, Section 6.1.3

Changes to the Project layout based on field investigation or explanation as to why Project components were not moved was added.

Six Nations of the Grand River review suggested that this missing information would improve the report.

NHA, Section 7.1

Reworded section discussing “avoidance” in relation to bat habitat.

Six Nations of the Grand River review identified that this section was unclear.

NHA, Section 8.2.1.1

PSW was added to summary of wetlands in the Conclusion.

Six Nations of the Grand River review suggested that this missing information would improve the report

NHA, Section 9.7

Noise Impact Assessment Additional receptors added to Noise Impact Assessment

Consultation indicated more receptors within 2 km of turbine should be added

Noise Impact Assessment

Receptor Between Turbines 1 and 2 was dropped from Noise Impact Assessment

Consultation indicated the building location is unreasonable.


Turbine Nameplate Rating was reduced to a maximum of 2.5 MW, Corresponding maximum Sound Power Level and Octave Band Data were adjusted.

To reduce calculated sound levels at receptors based on feedback from public regarding concern over noise from turbines.


Design and Operations Report (D & O) Added additional information to elaborate on wetlands impacts

Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Net Effects were added to this section to mirror formatting of other impacts sections.

D&O, Section 5.3.1

Added reference to timing of pre-construction surveys for SWH

MNR feedback on survey timing was incorporated into reporting

D&O, Section 5.3.6

Added reference to specific performance objectives from MNR with respect to birds and bats

MNR feedback was incorporated into the report

D&O, Section 6.3.2

Added content on post-construction monitoring activity should pre-construction monitoring identify SWH

MNR feedback was incorporated into the report

D&O, Section 6.3.3


5.21

5.6 AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION

The following sections describe communications with federal, provincial and other agencies throughout the REA process.

5.6.1 Agency Project Notification and General Correspondence

Communications began on November 9, 2009, when the draft Project Description Report was sent to the Director of the Environmental Approvals Access & Service Integration Branch at the MOE.

The Notice of a Proposal and Public Meeting (January 2010) was distributed to provincial agencies and organizations that may have a potential interest in the Project, on January 8, 2010. No federal agencies and/or organizations were provided with this Notice.

On September 5 and 6, 2012, agencies were provided with the Notice of a Proposal and Public Meeting (August 2012) as the Project was introduced to the City of Woodstock for the first time.

On January 8 and 16, 2013, agencies were provided with the Notice of Draft Site Plan and Correction to Notice of Draft Site Plan respectively.

On February 19, 2013 agencies received the Notice of Final Public Meetings. The Notice also provided details regarding the public locations where the draft REA Reports could be viewed including a link to the Project website (see Section 5.5).

Additional contact with agencies occurred throughout the course of Project planning. This contact included e-mails, letters, telephone correspondence and visits to agency offices to gather and/or clarify information collected for the technical studies.

5.6.2 Federal Agency and Organization Correspondence

5.6.2.1 Federal Agency Distribution List

Two federal agencies were included on the Project distribution list and were therefore notified and kept updated regarding the Project (Appendix B1):

• NAV Canada; and,

• Transport Canada.


5.22

5.6.2.2 Summary of Key Correspondence

NAV Canada

Prowind submitted a proposed turbine layout to NAV Canada, and NAV Canada provided comments on December 22, 2009 indicating that the wind turbines in the specified locations are expected to be detected by the Hamilton and London Radars. NAV Canada also noted that the Project will negatively affect their ability to provide some Air Traffic Services within, and in the immediate vicinity of the geographical area; however does not object to the proposed layout, as NAV Canada has mitigations in place to operate with the wind turbines in operation.

In June 2012, Prowind provided an updated Land Use Submission for the revised Project layout to NAV Canada for their review and comment. A letter response was received from NAV Canada on August 29, 2012 stating that NAV Canada has no objection to the Project, as submitted. NAV Canada further stated that all of the proposed turbines (10 turbines) are visible to both the Hamilton and London Radars and any changes to the proposal would need to be re-assessed for possible impacts.

As a result of some turbines being shifted during the planning process, the Project layout was further revised, and therefore Prowind provided an updated Land Use Proposal Submission Form to NAV Canada in December 2012, again for review and comment. On January 9, 2013, a letter was received from NAV Canada regarding the Project’s ten turbines. The letter stated that NAV Canada has no objection to the Project, as submitted.

Transport Canada

Transport Canada contacted the Project Team in August 2011 to clarify their interest in the Project, which is related to turbine lighting and marking requirements. Prowind has acknowledged that an Aeronautical Assessment Form (AAF) must be submitted to Transport Canada (Aerodromes and Air Navigation Services Division) for an assessment of lighting and marking requirements. In January 2013, the AAF for the Project, including an updated spreadsheet with coordinates and elevation information for all turbines and a Project area map were provided to Transport Canada for their review and comment.

5.6.2.3 Consideration of Key Comments

A summary of the key comments from federal agencies and organizations are provided in Table 5.7 along with a description of how comments were considered by the Project Team including how:

• the Project or study design was alerted in response to comments received;




5.23

Electronic correspondence from both agencies is available in hard copy by request.

Table 5.6: Key Comments from Federal Agencies and Organizations, and Consideration by Project Team

Agency Comment Response How Comments Were Considered by Project Team

NAV Canada

No objection to the first proposal although the wind turbines would be detected by the Hamilton and London Radars and the Project will have a negative impact on NAV Canada’s ability to provide some Air Traffic Services within, and in the immediate vicinity of the geographical area. NAV Canada has mitigations in place to operate with the towers in operation.

An updated Land Use Proposal Submission Form was submitted based on turbine layout changes.

Prowind to provide Notification Form at least 10 business days prior to the start of construction.

No objection to the second proposal. NAV Canada indicated that all of the proposed turbines (10 turbines) are visible to both the Hamilton and London Radars and any changes to the proposal would need to be re-assessed for possible impacts.

An updated Land Use Proposal Submission Form was submitted again based on additional turbine layout changes.

No objection to the third proposal.

Acknowledged.

Transport Canada

Prowind must complete Aeronautical Assessment Form for lighting and marking requirements.

Acknowledged. Prowind submitted an Aeronautical Assessment Form on January 4, 2013.

Prowind is awaiting a response from Transport Canada.

5.6.3 Provincial Agency and Organization Consultation

5.6.3.1 Provincial Agency and Authority Distribution List

Six provincial agencies were included on the Project distribution list and were therefore notified and kept updated regarding the Project (Appendix B1):

• Ministry of Environment (MOE);

• Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR);

• Ministry of Tourism, Sports and Culture (MTCS);


5.24

• Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA);

• Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA); and,

• Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA).

5.6.3.2 Summary of Key Correspondence

Ministry of the Environment

Following the submission of the initial draft Project Description Report, on February 22, 2010, the MOE provided an Aboriginal Communities List for the Project. The list identified communities that have or may have constitutionally protected aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the Project or otherwise may be interested in any negative environmental effects of the Project.

On July 15, 2010, the Director of the MOE advised that as noted in section 12 of O. Reg. 359/09, the Proponent must have complied with among other requirements, all of the rules in Part IV which includes the requirement to hold at least two public meetings in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09. The MOE had previously indicated that in recognition of the consultation conducted for the Project as part of the Environmental Screening process, the MOE would waive the requirement for the first public meeting for the Project, and the Proponent would therefore only be required to hold a final public meeting under O. Reg. 359/09. However, the MOE reconsidered its position, and as a result and due to increased public interest, the MOE required two public meetings for the Project, both held in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09 requirements. As a result of this decision, additional public meetings were held by Prowind to ensure that regulatory public consultation requirements were fully satisfied.

The MOE also provided clarification to Prowind with regards to a proposed shared use pole line between Prowind and Hydro One. The MOE’s policy position was described that regardless of who is completing the work, Prowind is responsible for the REA along the route if Prowind will own the lines. However if Hydro One owned the line, it would be their sole responsibility to conduct the EA, at which point they would be exempt from conducting a study because it is less than 50kV.

Additional meetings and discussions were held with the MOE throughout the development of the Project and are summarized in Appendix G3.

Ministry of Natural Resources

The Project Team maintained regular communications with the MNR throughout the development of the Project (see Appendix G3 for a summary of discussions). Discussions were generally related to the Natural Heritage Assessment and Environmental Impact Study (NHA/EIS) and the acquisition of background data.


5.25

As natural heritage information was obtained and assessed throughout the REA process such as records review information and site investigations were completed, various draft versions of the NHA/EIS were provided to the MNR for review. A final version of the NHA/EIS including the Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan (EEMP) was ultimately submitted to the MNR which fully addressed MNR’s comments. The MNR responded on May 8, 2013 by confirming that the requirements under the REA regulation for the NHA/EIS and EEMP were met.

Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport

Regular discussions were held with MTCS throughout the completion of the Heritage Assessment Report and the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments as they relate to the requirements of O. Reg. 359/09. A summary of all correspondence is provided in Appendix G3.

A final version of the Heritage Assessment Report was submitted to MTCS on July 16, 2010. The MTCS issued a letter on July 28, 2010, as required by O. Reg. 359/09 s.23(3)(a). MTCS also provided report comments for conclusions and recommendation section of the report. Following receipt of the letter from MTCS, updates were made to the Project for an overhead cable route and an addendum to the Heritage Assessment Report was filed with MTCS. The MTCS issued a letter on December 11, 2012, confirming that the Ministry was satisfied that the heritage assessment process and reporting are consistent with applicable requirements.

A Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (revised version dated May 6, 2013) was filed with the MTCS for the Project. Following a review by MTCS, a letter was issued on May 22, 2013 which indicated that based on the information contained in the report; the ministry was satisfied that the fieldwork and reporting for the archaeological assessment are consistent with the ministry's 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists and the terms and conditions for archaeological licences. Previous versions of the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments were also provided to MTCS throughout the development of the Project in which MTCS also issued letters in accordance with the requirements of O. Reg. 359/09. A summary of all letters issued by MTCS is provided in Appendix G3.

5.6.3.3 Consideration of Key Provincial Comments

A summary of the key comments from provincial agencies and organizations are provided in Table 5.8 along with a description of how comments were considered by the Project Team including how:

• the Project or study design was alerted in response to comments received;




5.26

A detailed summary of each provincial agency comment, and how the Project Team considered each comment, are provided in Appendix F3. Electronic correspondence from provincial agencies throughout the REA process is available in hard copy by request.

Table 5.7: Key Comments from Provincial Agencies and Consideration by Project Team

Agency Comment Response How Comments Were Considered by Project

Team MOE

Provided Director’s Aboriginal Communities list for the Project.

Acknowledged Aboriginal communities were added to the Project distribution list and were consulted throughout the development of the Project.

The MOE reconsidered its previous position regarding the number of required public meetings, and as a result and due to increased public interest, the MOE is requiring two public meetings for the Project, in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09 requirements.

Acknowledged In total, four public meetings were held as part of the REA process, exceeding the requirements of O. Reg. 359/09.

MOE’s position is that regardless of who is completing the work for the shared use pole line, Prowind is responsible for the REA along the route because Prowind will own the lines. However if Hydro One owned the line, it would be their sole responsibility to conduct the EA, at which point they would be exempt from conducting a study because it is less than 50kV.

Acknowledged Prowind conducted the regulatory work necessary for the overhead cable route

MNR

Provided comments on the NHA/EIS. The Project Team worked closely with the MNR, and considered and addressed all comments and feedback received.

The Project Team took all guidance from the MNR into consideration during Project and study design and during preparation of the REA application.

MTCS

Provided comments on the Heritage Assessment Report and Stage 1&2 Archaeological Assessments

The Project Team worked closely with the MTCS, and considered and addressed all comments and feedback received.

The Project Team took all guidance from the MTCS into consideration during Project and study design and during preparation of the REA application.

Ministry is satisfied with the finding that “there are no protected properties in the study area (as defined in Section 19 of Ontario Regulation 359/09)”.

Acknowledged This conclusion is documented in the final Heritage Impact Assessment

UTRCA GRCA LPRCA

Provided background data (generally fisheries related) and comments on draft REA reports which were circulated for review.

The Project Team worked closely with the conservation authorities, and considered comments and feedback received.

Information obtained was incorporated into the applicable REA reports including the NHA/EIS and Water Assessment Report.


5.27

5.6.4 Municipal Staff and Elected Officials Consultation

The Project is located in the County of Oxford, a regional municipality. Under O. Reg. 359/09, the clerk of all local and upper-tier municipalities are required to be contacted throughout the REA process with Project information, including the Municipal Consultation Package.

5.6.4.1 Notices and Municipal Consultation Form Distribution

All mandatory notices issued for the Project were sent to the Clerks of the County of Oxford, Township of Norwich, and the City of Woodstock. In addition to Project notifications, in accordance with section 18 (2) of O. Reg. 359/09, the draft PDR and Municipal Consultation Form (MCF) were provided to the Clerks of the Township of Norwich and the County of Oxford on January 14, 2010 and February 22, 2010, respectively.

The City of Woodstock was provided a draft PDR and Municipal Consultation Form on August 27, 2012 at least 30 days before the First Public Meeting.

In accordance with section 18 (3) of O. Reg. 359/09, at least 90 days prior to the Final Public Meeting, the draft REA Reports (excluding the Consultation Report) were provided to the Clerks on January 18, 2013.

Summaries of key correspondence, comments from municipal staff, and how the Project Team considered each comment, are provided below and in Appendix G5. The municipal distribution list can be found in Appendix B3.

5.6.4.2 Overview of Consultation with Municipal Staff

Prowind regularly communicates with municipal staff and provides communication regarding Project Notices, Newsletter, the MCF and draft REA Reports. The Project Team worked to ensure Project information was received and understood by municipal staff and that comments received were incorporated into the Project planning and design, to the greatest extent possible. Summaries of correspondence with each municipality are provided in Appendix G5, and copies of all correspondence are available upon request.

Prowind commits to maintaining a relationship with municipal staff throughout and following the REA process.

The County of Oxford

Regular discussions and update meetings were held with the County since 2010. In addition to regular discussions, the County provided comments resulting from their review of the draft REA reports. Comments related to their review of the draft REA reports in 2010 were generally related to clarifying the location of Project infrastructure.


5.28

In May 2012, the County was contacted regarding potential new building permits, lot severances or zoning changes near the Project within the past year so that they could be considered as part of the Draft Site Plan. A follow-up to this was then made in June 2012 which requested the data dating back to 2006 when the latest aerial imagery was taken of the area. A response was received in December 2012 stating that the Township Chief Building Official indicated that there has been no new development or planning approvals in the Project area since 2006 that would affect the points of reception.

The County was coordinating responses on the draft REA for the municipalities and the County. With respect to County comments as part of the MCF, a Municipal Report has been prepared by the County; however it has not yet gone to County Council for approval. Upon receipt of the comments, Prowind will work with the County to address any concerns which may be raised and will keep the MOE informed of the process.

Township of Norwich

Discussions with the Township were initiated in 2009 and have involved regular discussions and meetings throughout the development of the Project. These discussions were critical for Prowind to ensure the Township was informed on the progress of the Project and to ensure that Prowind was available to respond to any questions or concerns.

Draft REA reports were circulated in 2010 and in response, Township Council adopted a resolution which included concerns related to the NHA, further consultation with the UTRCA, the need to obtain all necessary permits for the Project, and that the REA approval is conditional on the basis of obtaining all necessary permits. The Township also requested that Prowind enter into an agreement with the Township of Norwich to address matters relating to requirements of the Township, financial services, and otherwise regarding municipal drainage, building permitting, roads and traffic control, emergency servicing and facility decommissioning, all of which to the satisfaction of the Township of Norwich.

In June 2012, as part of the Draft Site Plan process, the Township was contacted regarding new building permits in the area around the Project including new severances/zoning changes, since the latest aerial photography (2006). A response was received through the County as documented as above.

The Township, at its September 25, 2012 meeting, passed a resolution requesting that the Project be postponed until the results of the provincial and federal Wind Turbine Noise and Health Studies are available. Prowind responded in October by stating that the Project has a FIT contract in place with a specified commercial operating date (July 2014). As such, the development timeline does not permit Prowind to postpone development activities.

Discussions were held in November to clarify the Township’s preference for the collector line, either buried or overhead. The Township noted that the Mayor expressed a strong preference


5.29

for the collector lines along Middletown Line and Firehall Road to be buried versus being overhead on shared/new poles. Prowind indicated that they had shown the lines as being overhead as this was the Township’s initial preference but were open to discuss alterations. Additional discussions were also held with respect to potential impacts to municipal drains/culverts and the implications with the Drainage Act.

In January 2013, the draft REA reports were provided (along with the updated MCF) and Prowind offered to meet with Township staff to assist with their review, receive feedback, and answer any questions. A Report to Council (dated April 23, 2013) was prepared in response to the MCF which identified comments/requests from the Township to Prowind. The main request was for Prowind to enter into an agreement with the Township of Norwich to address matters relating to requirements of the Township, financial services, and otherwise regarding municipal drainage, building permits, roads and traffic control, emergency servicing and facility decommissioning, all of which to the satisfaction of the Township of Norwich. Prowind is committed to working with the Township to address these concerns and will continue to provide updates to the MOE with regards to the status/content of these discussions.

City of Woodstock

As previously mentioned, during the course of the planning process, it was determined that Project infrastructure would be required to be located within the boundaries of the City of Woodstock. As a result, discussions with the City were initiated in 2012. A meeting was held in August 2012 to introduce the Project Team and the Project and provide a copy of the PDR and MCF. An additional meeting was held between all municipalities in December 2012 to provide an update on the Project, introduce a potential Project partner, present some key content of the draft REA reports, and receive any initial feedback.

In January 2013, the draft REA reports were provided (along with the updated MCF) and Prowind offered to meet with City staff to assist with their review, receive feedback, and answer any questions. It was suggested by the City that a meeting with City Staff including fire, police, engineering and parks may be beneficial once they reviewed the Project design and plans. Prowind indicated that they are committed to meeting with City Staff and officials. City of Woodstock Public Works and Engineering department has reviewed the draft REA and have confirmed that they have no comments; however the City has not provided a completed MCF.

5.6.4.3 Consideration of Key Municipal Comments

A summary of the key municipal comments is provided in Table 5.9, along with a description of how comments were considered by the Project Team including how:

• the Project design or study was altered in response to comments received;

• the REA Reports were amended based on comments received; and/or


5.30


Summaries of key correspondence, comments from municipal staff, and how the Project Team considered each comment, are provided in Appendix G5. Electronic correspondence from municipalities throughout the REA process is available in hard copy by request.

Table 5.8: Key Comments from the Local Municipality and Consideration by Project Team

Municipality Comment Project Response How Comments Were Considered by Project Team

Oxford County Township Chief Building Official indicated that there has been no new development or planning approvals in the Project area since 2006 that would affect the points of reception.

Acknowledged No changes were required to the receptor locations within the Draft Site Plan as a result of this determination.

Township of Norwich

The Township passed a resolution requesting that the Project be postponed until the results of the provincial and federal Wind Turbine Noise and Health Studies are available.

The Project has a FIT contract in place with a specified commercial operating date (July 2014). As such, the development timeline does not permit Prowind to postpone development activities.

No changes were required.

Mayor expressed a strong preference for the collector lines along Middletown Line and Firehall Road to be buried versus being overhead on shared/new poles.

Prowind indicated that they had shown the lines as being overhead as this was the Township’s initial preference but were open to discuss alterations.

The collector lines along Firehall Road and Middletown Line are now planned to be buried as a result of this consultation with the Township

The NHA be amended to evaluate the ‘Significant Valleylands’ feature located on Property P3.

Valleylands are no longer required to be evaluated for impact based on the MNR guidelines for Natural Heritage reporting.

All discussion of valleylands has been removed from the NHA, at MNR’s request.

The applicant enter into an agreement with the Township of Norwich to address matters relating to requirements of the Township, financial services, and otherwise regarding municipal drainage, building permitting, roads and traffic control, emergency servicing and facility decommissioning, all of which to the satisfaction of the Township of Norwich.

Prowind intend to enter into an agreement with the Township, the City of Woodstock and the County of Oxford, as required.

No changes were required to the REA documents. Additional information will be provided to the MOE with respect to any agreements once they have been finalized.

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority be forwarded a copy of the draft Renewable Energy Approval Submission for their review and

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority has received a copy of the REA for review and is consulting with the Grand River Conservation

Permits will be sought from the Conservation Authorities for works within Regulated Areas.


5.31

Table 5.8: Key Comments from the Local Municipality and Consideration by Project Team

Municipality Comment Project Response How Comments Were Considered by Project Team

consideration Authority and the Long Point Region Conservation Authority for any comments that may have on the Project.

City of Woodstock

A meeting with City Staff including fire, police, engineering and parks may be beneficial once they reviewed the Project design and plans.

Prowind indicated that they are committed to meeting with City Staff and officials.

Once comments are received (via MCF or in a meeting), Prowind will consider the comments and provide a response. Changes to the design of the Project will be considered if required to address City concerns.

5.6.4.4 Community Benefit Fund

Prowind has committed to providing a $25,000 annual community benefit fund, to be administered by an open and local committee comprised of local citizens. The proposed structure is to have the committee recommend annual funding allocation(s) to initiatives that have accessible benefit to the wider community, and present the recommendation to Prowind for sign-off. Consultation to date has identified the park and playground at the corner of Curries Rd and Hwy 59 and the community centre in Oxford Centre as potential recipients.

5.6.5 Consultation Regarding Radio Communication, Radar and Seismoacoustic Systems

A consultation program was undertaken primarily by Yves R. Hamel et Associés Inc., on behalf of Prowind Canada Inc. to identify and contact registered providers of radio communication, radar and seismoacoustic systems, including federal and provincial bodies, and local internet providers. Key providers contacted included:

• Government radar and communication systems, including the Department of National Defence, NAV Canada, and Natural Resources Canada;

• Radio communications agencies, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation;

• Internet providers; and,

• Smaller radiocommunication agencies, including radio stations.


5.32

5.6.5.1 Summary of Key Comments

A summary of the key comments from radio communication, radar and seismoacoustic systems providers are provided in Table 5.10, along with a description of how comments were considered by the Project Team including how:

• the Project design or study was altered in response to comments received;



Summaries of key correspondence, comments received, and how the Project Team considered each comment are provided in Appendix G4. Electronic correspondence from radio communication, radar and seismoacoutsic systems providers throughout the REA process is available in hard copy by request.

Table 5.9: Key Comments from Radio Communication, Radar, and Seismoacoustic Systems Providers and Consideration by Project Team

Provider Comment Project Response How Comments Were Considered by Project

Team Department of National Defence

Based on an assessment of the first proposal, indicated no conflict with current radar installations. Requested an updated proposal if there are any changes in the size or location of the wind farm.

Provided an updated Project layout.


No objections to the second proposal with respect to DND’s radio communication systems. No objections to the second proposal with respect to DND radar and flight operations. Requested to be informed should the layout be changed/moved. Requested notification if the Project is cancelled or delayed, partly altered or sold to another developer.

N/A N/A

Environment Canada: Weather Radars

Based on an assessment of the first proposal, indicated that interference will be minimal; however it is near the threshold where EC would have some concerns.




5.33



Team Requested to be informed of proposed changes as a small change in design may significantly increase the risk of harmful interference. Requested to be informed if there are any changes to the Project layout. Based on an assessment of the second proposal, indicated that any potential interference that may be created by the Project will not be severe. No strong objection to the proposal. Requested to be informed if there are any changes to the Project layout.

N/A N/A

Ministry of Government Services: Government Mobile Communications Branch

Based on assessment of the first proposal, indicated no interference as long as the Project remains with the study area boundaries provided. Indicated that a reassessment is required should the study area of the Project be altered.



Indicated that a revised impact assessment was not required as the Project area has previously been determined to unlikely impact the performance of Ontario’s Radio Public Safety Radio system. Stated that a reassessment would be required should the Project area change or turbines are located outside the Project area.

N/A N/A

Canadian Coast Guard

Indicated that they have no sites in the Project area, and therefore does not anticipate any interference problems.

N/A N/A


5.34



Team Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Based on an assessment of the first proposal, indicated no issue with the Project from a radio communication perspective. Requested to be informed if the location of the Project changes in the future.



Based on an assessment of the second proposal, indicated no issues with the Project final layout. The closest radio site is at Woodstock, approximately 5 km away with no links intersecting the area.

N/A N/A


6.1

6.0 Plan for Ongoing Consultation

Prowind will continue with consultation activities following submission of the REA application to MOE, during construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project. Prowind has documented the communication plan for emergencies, Project updates and activities and an on-going communications and issues protocol in Section 4.0 of the Design and Operations Report.

6.1 FINAL REA REPORTS

Once the MOE has deemed the REA application complete, Prowind would provide copies of the Final REA Reports on the Project website until the Director of the MOE makes a decision under section 47.5 of the Environmental Protection Act.

6.2 COMMUNITY UPDATES

Prowind and/or the Project Contractor would engage with community members (local community members, Aboriginal communities, and local municipalities) during all phases of the Project, including providing updates on the Project website (www.prowind.ca). As a long-term presence and neighbour in the Township of Norwich and the City of Woodstock within Oxford County, Prowind would continue to develop contacts and maintain local relationships and channels of communication. Additional updates may be provided to community members via the website, letters, local newspaper notices, and/or through direct contact.

Prowind will provide a status update to the public, Aboriginal communities and local municipalities regarding the commencement of the Environmental Registry comment period. Within ten (10) days of Prowind’s application for the Project being posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) by the MOE, Prowind will publish a Notice in local newspapers and on the Project website, providing public notice that the Project application has been accepted for review by the Ministry. The notice will include Project information, the Project website where final documents can be viewed, and a statement that members of the public can submit comments to the MOE Approvals Director via the EBR.

Communication Plan for Emergencies

In the event of an emergency, Prowind and/or the Project Contractor would initiate the Emergency Response and Communications Plan as outlined in Section 4.0 of the Design and Operations Report.

The plan would include key contact information for emergency service providers, a description of the chain of communications and how information would be disseminated between Prowind and/or the Contractor and the relevant responders. The plan would also indicate how Prowind and/or the Contractor would notify the community so that the appropriate actions could be taken to protect community members’ health and safety. The communication plan for emergencies


GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM CONSULTATION REPORT VOLUME 1: PUBLIC, AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION Plan for Ongoing Consultation June 2013

6.2

would be developed in collaboration with local emergency responders, and would be prepared following consultations with the local Emergency Services Department, including the local fire department. Prowind also intends to participate with local County staff in training sessions specific to the Project prior to Project construction.

6.3 COMMUNICATIONS AND ISSUE RESPONSE PROTOCOL

The following has been developed for all Project phases to address any reasonable concern from the public and would be implemented by Prowind and/or the Project Contractor.

A telephone number for contacting Prowind and/or the Project Contractor along with the mailing/e-mail address would be posted on the Project website (www.prowind.ca) and provided directly to the local municipalities and the MOE. These would be the direct contact points for Prowind and/or the Project Contractor during all phases of the Project. The Emergency Response and Communications Plan would include key contact information for emergency service providers, a description of the chain of communications and how information would be disseminated between Prowind and/or the Contractor and the relevant responders. This information would be obtained during consultations with the local municipalities Emergency Services Departments.

The telephone number provided for the reporting of concerns, issues and/or complaints would be equipped with a voice message system used to record the caller’s contact information and the time, date and details of the concern and/or issue. All messages would be recorded in an Issue Response Document to maintain a record of all issues and concerns. Prowind and/or the Project Contractor would endeavour to respond to messages within 48 hours. All reasonable commercial efforts would be made to take appropriate action as a result of issues and concerns, as soon as practicable. The actions taken to remediate the cause of the issue or complaint and the proposed actions to be taken to prevent reoccurrences of the same complaint in the future would also be recorded within the Issue Response Document. If appropriate, the MOE Spills Action Centre would be contacted to notify them of the issue. Correspondence would be shared with other stakeholders, such as the MOE, as required and/or as deemed appropriate.

Ongoing communication with community members would allow Prowind and/or the Project Contractor to receive and respond to community issues on an ongoing basis.



7.1

7.0 Closure

This Consultation Report for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm has been prepared in accordance with Item 2, Table 1 of Ontario Regulation 359/09, and the Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals (MOE, March 2012).

This report may not be used by any third party without the express written consent of Prowind.

Respectfully submitted,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. PROWIND INC.

Fiona Christiansen Senior Project Manager Stantec Consulting Ltd. Suite 1 - 70 Southgate Drive Guelph, ON N1G 4P5 519-836-6050 ext. 307 [email protected]

Rochelle Rumney Environmental Coordinator Prowind Canada Inc. 226 ½ James St. N., Unit A Hamilton, ON L8R 2L3 905-528-1747 Project e-mail:[email protected]

w:\active\60960823\reports\consultation report\vol 1 - public, agency and municipal\rpt_60823_vol1_public-agency-municipal-consultation_201306_fnl.docx

mailto:[email protected]