Appendix F - wpdcanada.wpd.de/uploads/tx_projectdownloads/Appendix_F_-_Full.pdf · Letter and Notice Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project Provided

SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT RENEWABLE ENERGY APPROVAL REPORTS January 2012

A ppendix F

Agency and Municipal Correspondence and Consideration by Project Team

F1 - Generic Letters Accompanying Mail Outs F2 - Federal Agencies and Organizations - Comment/Response Summary F3 - Provincial Agencies and Organizations - Comment/Response Summary F4 - Municipalities - Comment/Response Summary F5 - Elected Officials - Comment/Response Summary F6 - Telecommunication and Radar System Providers- Comment/Response Summary


160960606

Appendix F1

Generic Letters Accompanying Mail-outs

Stantec Consulting Ltd. Suite 1 - 70 Southgate Drive Guelph ON N1G 4P5 Tel: (519) 836-6050 Fax: (519) 836-2493

September 22, 2010 File: 160960606

Agency Address City, Province Postal Code

Attention: Title. FName LName, Position Reference: Springwood Wind Project

Notice of Public Meeting

Please find attached the Notice of Public Meeting for the Springwood Wind Project. As described in the notice, wpd Canada Corporation (wpd) is proposing to develop the Springwood Wind Project (Project) in the Township of Centre Wellington, Wellington County, Ontario.

Your agency or group has been included on the project’s consultation distribution list. If our contact information should be amended, please contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience.

We hope that you can attend the Public Meeting. Alternatively, to provide the Project team with your comments or for further information about the Project, please email us at [email protected] or call Stantec at (519) 836-6050. Written comments can also be mailed or faxed to the undersigned.

For more information please visit the project website: http://canada.wpd.de/ca/projects/in-canada/springwood.html

Sincerely,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

Shawna Peddle Senior Project Manager Tel: (519) 836-6050 Fax: (519) 836-2493 [email protected]

Enclosure: Notice of Public Meeting

CC. Khlaire Parré, wpd Canada Corporation

Stantec Consulting Ltd. Suite 1 - 70 Southgate Drive Guelph ON N1G 4P5 Tel: (519) 836-6050 Fax: (519) 836-2493

August 31, 2011 File: 160960606

Agency Address City, Province Postal Code

Attention: Title. FName LName, Position

Reference: Springwood Wind Project Notice of Final Public Meeting

Please find attached the Notice of Final Public Meeting for the Springwood Wind Project. As described in the notice, wpd Canada Corporation (wpd Canada) is proposing to develop the Springwood Wind Project (Project) in the Township of Centre Wellington, Wellington County, Ontario.

Under Ontario Regulation 359/09, drafts of all reports required as part of the Renewable Energy Approval application for the Project are to be made available for public review and comment for a period of at least 60-days prior to the Final Public Meeting. The Final Public Meeting for the Project is to be held on November 4th, 2011. The documents are available for your review at the Centre Wellington Municipal Offices, 1 MacDonald Square, Elora. The reports are also available at the Project website – go to www.wpd-canada.ca, under PROJECTS, then in Canada, you will find the Springwood link on the left. Or use the direct link: http://canada.wpd.de/ca/projects/in-canada/springwood.html.

We hope that you can attend the Public Meeting. The time and location of the meeting can be found on the attached notice. Alternatively, to provide the Project team with your comments or for further information, please email us at [email protected] or call Stantec at (519) 836-6050. Written comments can also be mailed or faxed to the undersigned.

For more information, please visit the Project website, or contact us at any time.

Sincerely,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

Shawna Peddle Senior Project Manager Tel: (519) 836-6050 Fax: (519) 836-2493 [email protected]

Enclosure: Notice of Final Public Meeting

CC. Khlaire Parré, wpd Canada Corporation

http://www.wpd-canada.ca/

http://canada.wpd.de/ca/projects/in-canada/springwood.html

mailto:[email protected]

wpd Canada Corporation 405 Britannia Road East, Unit 214, Mississauga, ON L4Z 3E6 (p) 905-712-2400 (f) 905-712-9565

August 12, 2010 [Recipient Address] Dear [Recipient], Please find attached the Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project for the above-mentioned project. As described in the notice, wpd Canada Corporation (wpd) is proposing to develop the Springwood Wind Farm in The Township of Centre Wellington, Wellington County, Ontario. Turbine coordinates are as follows:

Springwood Turbine Coordinates Turbine # Latitude Longitude

r1 43.783557° -80.411160° r2 43.790195° -80.404557° r3 43.787143° -80.401207° r4 43.783276° -80.398586°

Your organization has been included on the project’s consultation distribution list. We may contact you in the near future regarding the project and potential environmental information your agency may possess to assist in the permitting process. If our contact information should be amended, please contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience.

We look forward to working with you, and obtaining your valuable input, as this project progresses through the regulatory approvals process. To provide the project team with your comments or for further information, please email us at SpringwoodProject @wpd-canada.ca or call us at 1-888-712-2401 or (905) 712-2400. Written comments can also be mailed or faxed to the undersigned.

For more information about the project, please visit us at our website: www.wpd-canada.ca

Sincerely,

wpd Canada Corporation

Khlaire Parré, MA, PMP Dir. of Permits and Environmental Studies Enclosures: Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project CC: Shawna Peddle, Stantec Consulting Ltd

http://www.wpd-canada.ca/�


160960606

Appendix F2

Federal Agencies and Organizations Comment/Response Summary

SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-2: Federal Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary

agencyfederal_26jan12_fnl.docx 1 of 5

Details of Correspondence

General Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team

FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS Environment Canada

Rob Dobos, Senior Environmental Assessment Officer

Letter and Notice

Sent letter on August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a

Project Provided turbine coordinates

N/A N/A


Letter and Notice

Sent letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1

N/A N/A


Letter and Notice

Sent Letter on August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting

N/A N/A

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) Jim Lyons David McCormack Jessica Coulson Christopher

Padfield Letter and Notice



N/A N/A

Jim Lyons David McCormack Jessica Coulson Christopher

Padfield Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Jim Lyons David McCormack Jessica Coulson Christopher

Padfield


N/A N/A


2 of 5 agencyfederal_26jan12_fnl.docx



Letter and Notice

Transport Canada Aerodromes

Ontario Michael Lucking,

Civil Aviation Inspector

Email

Sent email to Aerodromes Ontario on May 5, 2010

Does Transport Canada or NAV Canada have any guidance for wind proponents regarding proximity of turbines to private aerodromes?

We are currently working with a client with a proposed project in an area close to an unregistered private aerodrome. If there is guidance available, is it different for a registered or unregistered private air strip?

Received email response from Aerodromes and Air Navigation on June 2, 2010

Registered aerodromes are those that are published in the Canada Flight Supplement, a NAV CANADA publication

Prior to construction of wind turbines, an Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance Form (AOCF) should be submitted to Transport Canada for assessment of lighting and marking requirements, in accordance with CAR 621.19 and the draft standards for wind farms (copy provided).

Wind energy companies are also expected to contact aerodrome and airport operators and NAV Canada prior to construction of wind turbines to determine aeronautical requirements.

Wind energy companies should contact NAV CANADA Land Use Office, due to the fact that the construction of wind turbines may affect air navigation services and facilities provided by NAV CANADA.

Further information provided Transport Canada approvals

will be obtained outside of the REA process

Turbine lighting plan has been developed and provided to TC for review





Monique Mousseau Letter and Notice



N/A N/A

Clifford Frank Letter and Notice



N/A N/A

Transport Canada Emails

Sent email August 24, 2010 Submitted stamped Aeronautical

Obstruction Clearance Form + Siting Spreadsheet- acceptance of lighting requirements

Approval received January 19, 2011

N/A

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) Ralph Brant Mei Ling Chan Fred Hosking Marc-Andre Millaire Gregg Dahl Louise Trepanier Letter and Notice



N/A N/A

Ralph Brant Mei Ling Chan Fred Hosking Marc-Andre Millaire Gregg Dahl Louise Trepanier Jeffrey Betker Letter and Notice


N/A N/A


4 of 5 agencyfederal_26jan12_fnl.docx



Don Boswell, Senior Claims Analyst

Email

Email received October 7, 2010 Response to letter on September 22,

2010 inquiring about claims in the Project area

In determining your duty to consult, you may wish to contact the First Nations in the vicinity of your area of interest to advise them of your intentions.

Identified that list of First Nations to consult may be obtained using the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs online map, the INAC Search by Reserve site and the Reporting Centre on Specific Claims.

N/A In combination with information provided by provincial ministries, this information will be used by the team to identify interested First Nations in the vicinity of the Project.

Ralph Brant Mei Ling Chan Fred Hosking Marc-Andre Millaire Gregg Dahl Louise Trepanier Jeffrey Betker Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Don Boswell, Senior Claims Analyst

Email

Email received September 12, 2011 Response to letter on August 31, 2011

inquiring about claims in the Project area

In determining your duty to consult, you may wish to contact the First Nations in the vicinity of your area of interest to advise them of your intentions.

Identified that list of First Nations to consult may be obtained using the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs online map, the INAC Search by Reserve site and the Reporting Centre on Specific Claims.

N/A

In combination with information provided by provincial ministries, this information will be used by the team to identify interested First Nations in the vicinity of the Project.





Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) Louise Knox,

Director, Ontario Region

Letter and Notice



N/A N/A

Louise Knox Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Louise Knox Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Health Canada Kitty Ma Letter and Notice



N/A N/A

Kitty Ma Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Kitty Ma Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Chantal Larochelle Letter and Notice



N/A N/A

Chantal Larochelle Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Chantal Larochelle Letter and Notice


N/A N/A


160960606

Appendix F3

Provincial Agencies and Organizations Comment/Response Summary

SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F-3: Provincial Agencies and Organizations – Consultation Summary

appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx 1 of 35


Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team

Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Doris Dumais Narren Santos Mansoor Mahmood Meeting

Meeting held on December 9, 2009 wpd Canada staff met with MOE to clarify

regulations and requirements in the REA process. Questions that were asked or clarified were: What regulation does wpd use to assess property setback to receptors, O. Reg. 359/09 or MOE's 2008 Noise Guideline? What are the setbacks of turbines from existing transmission lines? What are the specific standards used for conducting noise studies? What defines a participating sound receptor?

MOE responded: 1) the 2008 Noise Guidelines should be followed. 2) MOE does not have any requirements regarding minimum distances to transmission lines; however REFO offered to validate Hydro One's info with the OPA. No response was ever received from REFO. 3) Participating receptor must have equipment on property (legal agreement only is insufficient). 4) Use ISO-9613-2 for conducting noise studies.

Information received from meeting was incorporated into the REA process.

Doris Dumais, Director Letter

Sent email and letter July 9, 2010 Draft Project Description Report sent. Letter requested that in accordance with

subsection 14(1)(b) of O.Reg.359/09, the MOE provide a list of Aboriginal communities who have or may have constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the proposed Project or that may be interested in any negative environmental effects of the Project.

Received Response on January 4, 2011

MOE provided a list of Aboriginal communities who 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, in accordance with section 14 of Ontario Regulation 359/09.

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, and the Chippewas of Georgina Island, which were identified by Stantec, and remained on the list, as engagement had already begun when the MOE list was received.

Mansoor Mahmood, MOE

Carine Schofield, MOE Narren Santos, MOE Denton Miller, MOE Thomas Nikolakakos,

MEI/REFO Meeting

Project Start-up Meeting with MOE and REFO held on July 14, 2010

wpd staff met with MOE staff in order to clarify and seek guidance related to REA approval requirements and consultation expectations. This included Aboriginal consultation, crystallization, incremental rules, how to treat vacant lots, property setback lines and other regulatory

ABORIGINAL LIST: All submitted PDRs are considered adequate for this stage in the process by the MOE and passed on for Aboriginal list generation.

INCREMENTAL PROJECTS: Should not be piecemealed – combine for REA if possible; if not possible, amend REA and

Discussions will feed into preparation of reports and consultation initiatives


2 of 35 appf3_provincial_correspondence_26jan12_fnl.docx



Ministry of the Environment (MOE) requirements. conduct same level of study and

consultation for phase 2. CRYSTALLIZATION DATE -

New policy to be released at the end of the month with various other amendments to O. Reg. 359/09 - When a layout is almost finalized, submit to MOE with a letter asking to ‘crystallize’ the layout – MOE will send an acknowledgement letter stating that the layout is crystallized, and the REA must be submitted within 6 months (else the letter expires in 6 months from issue date).

VACANT LOTS - 2008 Noise Guidelines (consider development on vacant residentially-zoned lots to be in a position consistent with normal building practices for the area, i.e., close to the roadway) or O. Reg. 359/09 – Vacant Lot must have a receptor in the MIDDLE of the lot? Use the 2008 Guidelines, NOT O. Reg. 359/09, new Regulations to come.

PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS - Hub height, OR blade + 10m, if we can demonstrate no adverse effects. Demonstrate the blade + 10m is an appropriate property line setback that does not affect health and safety, the MOE will accept this in siting.





Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Doris Dumais Mansoor Mahmood Cathy Watson Email

Sent email July 21, 2010 Emailed copy of the Draft Project

Description Report - preliminary to requesting the Aboriginal Contact List

N/A N/A

Doris Dumais Jane Glassco Bill Bardswick Barb Slattery, West

Central Region Letter and Notice

Sent Letter August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project Provided turbine coordinates

N/A N/A



Sent Letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1

N/A N/A

Narren Santos Email

Sent email on October 27, 2010 Question to MOE concerning land

severance and recognition of noise receptors. A land owner in the area had submitted an application to sever their land after the crystallization of the Springwood project. As such, wpd had not placed a noise receptor on the land. wpd sought clarification from MOE to interpret O. Reg. 359/09, Section 54.1 with a request sent from Stantec on behalf of wpd.

No Written response received however regulations were amended on Jan 1, 2011 clarifying that crystallization secured the Springwood Project as publicized.






Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Mansoor Mahmood,

Manager, Renewable Energy Approvals

Email

Sent email on October 29, 2010 Requested Crystallization date for the

Springwood Wind Project. Provided Notice of Public Open House 1,

Sample Agency and Landowner letters, and Siting Map and UTM Coordinates.

Received a crystallization date of 29 Oct, 2011


Mansoor Mahmood, Manager, Renewable Energy Approvals

Letter

Received letter on November 4, 2010 The MOE is proceeding in the direction of

recognizing wind turbine layouts that have been made publicly available prior to the proposed amendments to O. Reg. 359/09 coming into force.

With regards to your question about the implications of making changes to crystallized wind turbine layouts, MOE is currently considering how to address the issue.

MOE understands that in order to ensure that the Project will continue to meet regulatory setback prohibitions in the face of unforeseen and changing circumstances, wind turbines may have to be relocated.

MOE recognizes wpd’s sincere efforts to adapt to these challenges.

MOE encourages the submission of comments and concerns on the Environmental Registry so that they can be considered as MOE finalizes the amendments to O. Reg. 359/09. Comments can be made until November 21, 2010.

N/A Discussions will feed into preparation of reports and consultation initiatives

Doris Dumais, Director, Approvals Program

Sent letter on November 12, 2010 N/A Discussions will feed into preparation of reports and





Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Letter The draft PDR for the Springwood Wind

Project was provided to MOE staff on July 9, 2010, with a summary of the Project as required by O. Reg. 359/09.

A follow-up request for updated mapping was received and responded to on October 25, 2010.

In order to inform the communities in a timely manner and to meet tight timelines for the Commercial Operation Date, we must submit the Notice to Engage and conduct Public Meetings. Without the definitive Aboriginal List, there is a chance of having to redo the open houses.

In accordance with subsection 14. (1)(b) of the Regulation, Stantec is following up to respectfully request that MOE provide the Aboriginal list.

consultation initiatives Requested mapping was

provided

Doris Dumais Letter Follow-up Phone Call

Letter sent December 1, 2010 Regarding archaeological requirements

under the REA process. wpd wrote to clarify regulations and make

suggestions for REA review. wpd felt that Stage 2 archaeological requirements make planning and completion of wind projects difficult because of seasonal time considerations which also impacts construction periods and makes completion of the projects within the contract period much more difficult.

In a follow up by phone, MOE suggested that we call REFO to coordinate a meeting with MTC and MOE.

N/A

Narren Santos Mansoor Mahmood Email

Sent email on March 16, 2011 Following-up regarding the Oct. 29, 2010

request confirming the status of the Springwood project crystallization.

MOE asked for more information, which was provided, to ensure that the regulations regarding crystallization are met. MOE also confirmed Regulations and


Further information was provided





Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Confirmation had not been received requirements under O. Reg.

359/09 regarding the inclusion of noise receptors. They confirmed that receptors and building permits that existed up to the day before notice is posted need to be taken into consideration.

By regulation, once published, the crystallization is automatic and the only reason for sending the info (Turbine location spreadsheet) to MOE, will be for them to log in their database. Within a week they will review and comment ONLY if the project is impacting another project related to cumulative noise. If we do not hear from them within a week, we will be clear.

Narren Santos Email Follow-up Phone Call

Received email March 22, 2011 Noted that wpd Canada is required to

consider adjacent existing and crystallized wind farms within 5km of the Springwood Wind Project in the Noise Impact Assessment.

This email is to confirm that to date, the MOE is not aware of any other existing or crystallized wind turbines within 5km of the Project.

However, a proponent would be required to consider all noise receptors that existed up to the day before you release your draft site plan notice or up until the date before the earliest of the following (if turbine layout available prior to Jan. 1, 2011):

o Issue a Notice of Completion in

Phoned on March 23, 2011 Call to clarify crystallization

regulations and date for Springwood Project.

MOE clarified that by regulation crystallization date is automatic. Projects are grandfathered provided they publish according to regulations.

N/A





Ministry of the Environment (MOE) accordance with O. Reg. 116/06;

o Published a draft Site Plan in accordance with requirements;

o Submitted and REA application; or o Publicly disclosed the location of

proposed wind turbines.

Doris Dumais, Director Email with supporting

documents

Sent email on April 8, 2011. Attached letter dated April 7, 2011

Request for extension on the crystallization of the Springwood Wind Project under Section 55 (2.6) of O. Reg. 359/09

Provided evidence of making all reasonable effort to submit REA application within 6 months of the Notice

Respectfully request extension of one year (until June 1, 2012)

Provided Wind Turbine UTM Coordinates, Notice of Public Meeting #1, and map of Study Area

Follow up confirming receipt and clarifying time line when wpd may get word on the crystallization extension. Explained to MOE that time was an issue because it influenced how wpd handled a land severance issue with a landowner in the area.

Correspondence sent also on Apr 25, 2011

N/A N/A

Doris Dumais, Director Email

Sent email on April 25, 2011 Follow-up regarding the request for an

extension of the crystallization for the Springwood Project.

Received Response letter dated June 29, 2011

MOE has considered the request and is of the view that wpd Canada has made all reasonable efforts to submit a REA application within the six-month period referred to in subsection

N/A





Ministry of the Environment (MOE) 54 (1.5) of O. Reg. 359/09

This letter serves as confirmation of the decision to extend the six-month period until June 1, 2012

wpd Canada must submit a REA application to the MOE within this extended time period or paragraph 4 of subsection 54(1.2) of O. Reg. 359/09 ceases to apply to the Project.

Crystallization extension authorized.

Narren Santos Email with supporting

documents

Sent email June 6, 2011 Further follow up with MOE staff concerning

the crystallization extension application. Further information was forwarded to MOE

over email and confirmed over the phone concerning the projects goals and timeline.

N/A N/A

Narren Santos Email

Sent Email June 21, 2011 wpd has every intention of meeting the

Commercial Operation Date with the turbines, as crystallized on September 24, 2010

Progress on major milestones to date include:

o Received first set of comments from MNR on the NHA submission. Environmental consultant in the process of responding to the questions/comments.

o Archaeological Stage 2 completed and sent to MTC.

o Anticipating submitting Municipal Consultation Form and beginning the formal Municipal Consultation

N/A N/A





Ministry of the Environment (MOE) process in July.

wpd believes it is prudent to allow some time for unforeseen circumstances when requesting a crystallization extension date and respectfully requests an extension of one year, until June 1, 2012.

Narren Santos Email Follow-up phone call

Sent email June 21, 2011 Requested guidance as to what documents

are required when submitting documents to the municipalities 90 days prior to the last public open house. wpd wanted to confirm whether comments from MNR and MTC were required to be submitted to Municipalities if initial notice of the project was submitted prior to the amendments to O. Reg. 359/09.

Follow-up phone call on July 14, 2011

Confirmed that written comments from MNR and MTC were not required to be submitted to the municipalities 90 days prior to the final public meeting, provided that the notice had been published prior to Jan 1, 2011, according to regulations.

N/A



Sent email August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting

N/A N/A

Narren Santos Email

Sent email on October 24, 2011 Regarding the request from the Belwood

area's wind energy opposition group, Oppose Belwood Wind Farms (OBWF). They had requested an Open House format change from wpd. wpd provided the ministry with a response to OBWF request.

N/A Noted wpd’s willingness to meet and discuss questions or concerns prior to the Public Meeting.

Addressed to Doris Dumais (MOE), and/or wpd and MOE.

Public Correspondence through Letter and email

October 2010 - November 2011 wpd responded to 7 different pieces of

correspondence from the public who either directed their questions to MOE or MOE directed wpd to provide an answer. All

N/A N/A





Ministry of the Environment (MOE) emails that included a CC to the MOE were responded to (with a copy to MOE) and summarized under the public consultation section.



Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) April Nix, Planning

Intern, Guelph District Email

Sent email June 4, 2010 wpd is proposing to develop the Belwood

Wind Project in Wellington County Provided background information about the

Project Stantec is completing the Natural Heritage

Assessment for the site and would like to meet to discuss the proposed site investigation work program

Requested information for scheduling a meeting

Received email on June 4, 2010 Identified availability for a

meeting Does the study area cross into

East Garafraxa at all? If it does, the Midhurst District staff will also need to attend

Please send the study area information and work plan as soon as possible.

Who does wpd represent?

Further information provided

April Nix, Planning Intern, Guelph District

Email

Sent email on June 7, 2010 Project Area does not enter East Garafraxa. Continued scheduling and meeting

organization Provided information regarding wpd The workplan and mapping will be sent

ASAP, also intended to serve as a formal request for data

Request for any additional background information for the area

Received email on June 7, 2010 Confirmed date, time and

location of meeting

N/A

Sent email to April Nix, Planning Intern,

Sent email with attached letter June 8, 2010 Formally request any relevant data on natural

Received email with attached letter dated June 24, 2010

N/A





Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Guelph District

Attached Letter addressed to Mike Stone, District Planner

features and potentially present significant wildlife habitat available for the Belwood Wind Project’s Study Area

Provided background information and site context to MNR

Outline the proposed site investigation work program for MNR’s review and endorsement

Attached Draft Natural Heritage Features map

MNR provides information about the requirements for the NHA and EIS report under the Regulation and where to find relevant information to complete the reports.

April Nix, Planning Intern, Guelph District

Al Murray Meeting

Meeting on June 17, 2010 Introductory meeting with MNR's Guelph

office to discuss a work plan for the site investigation program in support of the Natural Heritage Assessment requirements for the Springwood Wind Project.

Discussed Project details and timelines, ESA/REA integration, requirements and review period, field investigation requirements, report writing, and current records of natural heritage features in the Study Area.

In preparation for the meeting Stantec and wpd staff were in frequent communication with MNR staff (by phone).

AN indicated that the EEMP should be submitted with/shortly after the NHA

Stantec advised to look at the technical details from within the regulation and make sure things are technically clear in the NHA report.

AN advised to refer to the bat database and ensure bat habitat is addressed

AN to provide additional comments regarding species at risk

MNR suggestions were followed when completing the NHA/EIS Report

April Nix, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist

Phone Conversation

Phoned on June 28, 2010 Review of APRD requirements AN notes that fish (apart from species

covered under the Endangered Species Act) are part of the water report (to be submitted to MOE)

Species at risk are part of the APRD requirements, separate from the NHA/EIS and are to be submitted to MNR.

N/A Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS, Water Assessment and Water Body Report and the APRD.





Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Asked if there is suitable habitat for Redside

Dace. AN indicated that habitat on subject lands is likely unsuitable for redside dace.


Conversation

Conversation on June 29, 2010 AN notes requirements are specific to REA AN notes APRD requirements are separate

from NHA submission – not for MOE APRD requirements include petroleum and

species at risk Petroleum requirements for wells within 75 m

of Project components APRD is not part of REA but is part of what

MNR needs to determine if other permits are required.

Stantec must confirm presence/absence of species at risk using background information or if there is suitable habitat

If there is suitable habitat, then a site investigation is required to confirm, and report is required

Timeline: submit NHA and APRD, then MNR will advise regarding permits

Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS and the APRD.

Sent to: Art Timmerman, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Guelph District

Received from: Michele Bonaldo, Resource Management Clerk, Guelph District

Letter

Sent Letter June 30, 2010 Attached completed Licence Application to

Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes for the proposed Belwood Wind Project site.

Provided brief description of the Project and rationale for requesting the licence.

If MNR has data indicating the presence of Redside Dace, and would prefer no sampling occur in these watercourses, it is requested that a permit be issued for all other watercourses in the vicinity.

Received Letter dated July 30, 2010

Provided Licence to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes, valid upon signing the Authorization and Conditions attached.

Signed licence must be returned by fax before commencement of work.

All collections and sampling must comply with best management practices in the enclosed technical bulletin.

Attached Fish Collection Record, required for each sampling location, must be returned when complete.

Application for license provided

Art Timmerman, Fish Received email July 8, 2010 N/A Data provided used in developing





Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and Wildlife Biologist, Guelph District

Email

For the Belwood Wind Project, please see the attached map showing locations where fisheries and/or fish habitat data have been collected in the past.

Note that redside dace have been captured in the past in the study area.

field programs and reports Layout avoids watercourse where

Redside Dace noted

Art Timmerman, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Guelph District

Email

Sent/received emails between July 19-21, 2010

Scheduling a time to view MNR fisheries data for the Project

N/A N/A

Renee Bowler Mike Stone Letter and Notice


N/A N/A



N/A N/A


Emails

Sent email on October 6, 2010 Providing updates to the Belwood Wind

Project Name changed to “Springwood Wind Project” Transmission line and connection point have

changed Requested additional natural heritage, rare

species and fisheries data for the additional area

Mapping from LIO and search for rare species has been completed

Please let us know if there are additional species that should be considered

Proposed transmission routing crosses a number of additional watercourses, and someone from the aquatics team will contact

Received email November 1, 2010

Attached letter regarding supplemental background information request

Provided information regarding the natural environment in the expanded Study Area

Parts of the provincial significant Speed-Lutteral-Swan creek complex and provincial significant Living Springs wetland complex are located in the expanded study area

MNR staff are also aware of an active osprey nest on a hydro pole near the intersection of the

Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS, Water Assessment and Water Body Report and the APRD.





Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) MNR regarding fisheries data

Project Location and Study Area map attached

2nd line of W. and Wellington 19 south of the study area

A known waterfowl winter concentration area is located along the stretch of the Grand River within the expanded study area

Wooded areas are also located within the expanded study area

Provided information regarding APRD requirements for the expanded study area

It is recommended that information available for the expanded study area also be reviewed from the County of Wellington, the Municipality of Centre Wellington and the Grand River Conservation Authority

Also attached Engineer’s Report Template for Petroleum Resource Operations


Phone conversation

Phone conversation on October 6, 2010 AN noted potential concern regarding Grand

River crossing regarding species at risk mussels, and whether the bed of the Grand is on Crown Land

AN indicated that overhead lines would be simpler from a permitting perspective

AN noted that depending on types of works, permits may be required

Conversation with MNR helped when looking at additional permit requirements.



Email

Sent email October 29, 2010 Would like to photocopy MNR background

fisheries data for the study area in the attached map

N/A Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS, Water Assessment and Water Body Report and the





Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Request photocopies of Wetland Evaluation

Records for the North Cumnock PSW Complex and the Living Springs PSW Complex

Requested date and time when information could be collected from the MNR Guelph Office

APRD.


Phone Call

Left Message on November 1, 2010 Regarding background fisheries data request

N/A N/A


Letter

Sent Letter on November 11, 2010 Submission of the fish collection permit

application to request a revision to the area where there is permission to fish

Final location of the transmission line has changed and is now proposed to run along 2nd Line, through Eramosa Twp.

Stantec is proposing to sample watercourses along that alignment, with the exception of the Grand River.

Map included with proposed sampling locations

Electrofishing surveys will be completed to characterize fish populations that may exist at each site

Data will be used to assess possible Project impacts

Sampling site encompasses area of approx. 50 m upstream and downstream of each of the proposed crossing locations

Electrofishing activities will consist of a backpack operator and one netter

Received email on November 12, 2010

MNR will process the fish collection permit application, but cannot guarantee that the licence will be ready on November 16 at 1:00pm.

The attached map has been reviewed, and the licence will allow Stantec to electofish in Irvine Creek and its tributaries, unnamed tributaries of the Grand River and tributaries of the Speed River in West Garafraxa and Eramosa Geographic townships within the vicinity of the West Garafraxa 2nd Line.

Several of the proposed collection sites on the Irvine Creek tributaries are upstream of sites where Redside Dace have been collected in the past. At those sites, extra care in handling and identifying fish






Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) species should take place.

If possible, AT would like the opportunity to accompany MP when those sites are sampled.


Email

Sent email November 17, 2010 Attached is a scan of the Study Area The turbine area north of Sideroad 15 has

been sampled. Plan is to sample the transmission line area south of that.

If interested in sampling the northeast area of the turbine locations with historical Redside Dace data, please let us know and property access will be arranged.

That area, (Irvine Creek) was not sampled when the electrofishing was completed due to the potential presence of Redside Dace.

N/A Suggestions from conversation with MNR used when preparing the NHA/EIS, Water Assessment and Water Body Report and the APRD.

Karolyne Pickett Sent email on November 23, 2010 Attached is an excel sheet with the NHIC

information and a map showing the project study area and NHIC grids.

Black Redhorse and Redside Dace are in NHIC records.

Received email on November 25, 2010

Stantec’s search appears to have picked up Redside Dace records from Irvine Creek and Black Redhorse from the Grand River.



Phone conversation

Phoned on November 30, 2010 MNR notes petroleum well requirements and

referred to template MNR notes that species at risk and petroleum

information is not part of the NHA and to be submitted as separate reports directly to MNR.

Notes known presence of one well within 75m of transmission line



Sent letter on February 23, 2011 Submission of the Natural Heritage

N/A N/A





Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Letter Assessment and Environmental Impact Study

(enclosed) Submitted for MNR’s confirmation that

applicable evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by MNR were used, and that the project location is not in a provincial park or conservation reserve

Please note that endangered and threatened species are being addressed through a separate submission

The Approval and Permitting Requirements Report and a post-construction monitoring plan (PCMP) for birds and bats will be submitted to MNR shortly


Phone Conversation

Stantec called MNR on March 2, 2011 MNR noted that the writing quality and

structure of Stantec’s NHA reports reflect the regulation.

MNR indicated that final review time will depend on whether the NHA is well-written and the number of features that occur within 120m

Stantec provided MNR with a status update of the NHA: it is currently being revised, as Project Location has changed to eliminate transmission line.

N/A N/A


Letter

Sent letter on March 3, 2011 Resubmission of the Springwood NHA, as

Hydro One informed us they would assume the Transmission line (TX).

No content was changed; just all references to the TX Project Location and any natural

N/A N/A





Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) features associated with this area were deleted.

MNR was called in advance and informed of the resubmitted documents.

Erin Harkins, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist, Guelph District

Phone Conversation

Phone Conversation on April 7, 2011 EH notes that the Project Location is sited

over 120 m from most features MNR will send comments on NHA shortly.

MNR requests submission of EEMP and APRD

Feature 1 mapping needs to be clarified

EEMP and APRD were submitted to MNR


Phone call

Phone call to MNR on April 15, 2011 Stantec on behalf of wpd Canada checked in

with the Guelph District MNR regarding the NHA review.

MNR asked that the EEMP plan be forwarded to their attention to help with their comments, which was done.

They also noted verbally to Stantec that more details about wildlife habitat in feature 1 should be provided.

The NHA submission reflects comments provided

EEMP was provided


Letter Received Email Response

Received Letter dated May 9, 2011 Received comments back from MNR in

response to the first NHA submission. MNR indicated that they could not provide confirmation until certain requirements are completed or are clarified. Editorial changes were required, but no additional studies were identified.

There remain some requirements from the REA Regulation that have not been addressed or need to be clarified. Additional clarification is also required for the APRD, and should be addressed separately from the NHA.

Deficiencies in the NHA and EIS reports are noted and need to be addressed. The report needs to be revised considering these

Email sent June 30, 2011 Resubmission of the revised

NHA Report. The Springwood NHA has been

revised based on MNR comments.

Provided MNR with revised report in tracked changes.

NHA/EIS Report amended based on MNR comments

Revisions were made to the NHA/EIS main document, Appendix A (Figures 2, 3 and 4), Appendix B (Tables), and Appendix E (Field forms).





Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) concerns and then re-submitted to MNR.

Please be aware that species or habitat protected under the ESA, 2007 that may be impacted by any aspects of this project must be identified in a SAR report under separate cover. It is recommended that this report be provided to MNR as soon as it is available.

It is highly recommended that all revisions made to the NHA report regarding MNR comments are tracked.

Ian Hagman, District Manager, Guelph District MNR

Letter

Received Letter July 14, 2011 The MNR has reviewed the NHA and EIS

Report in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09, for the Springwood Wind Project

MNR makes the following confirmations: o The determination of the existence

of natural features and boundaries of natural features was made using applicable evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by MNR.

o The site investigation and records review were conducted using applicable evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by MNR.

o The evaluation of significance or provincial significance of the natural features was conducted using applicable evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by MNR (if required).

o The project location is not in a provincial park or conservation

N/A N/A





Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) reserve.

o The EIS report has been prepared in accordance with procedures established by MNR.

This confirmation letter is valid for the Project as proposed in the NHA/EIS. Should any changes be made to the proposed project that would alter the NHA, MNR may need to undertake additional review of the NHA.

Where specific commitments have been made by the applicant in the NHA, MNR expects that they be considered in MOE’s REA decision and, if approved, be implemented by the applicant.

Be aware that the project may be subject to further legislative approvals prior to construction, as outlined in MNR’s Approvals and Permitting Requirements Document.


Email

Sent email on August 10, 2011 Provided MNR with the Springwood Wind

Project Species at Risk report.

N/A N/A



N/A N/A


Email Chain

Sent email on September 28, 2011 Attached document provides clarification and

additional details as to why there are not considered to be implications under the Endangered Species Act for either the Spotted Turtle or Butler’s Gartersnake for the Project

Received email on October 26, 2011

Thank you for providing more information about the Butler’s Gartersnake and Spotted Turtle habitats; MNR now has all the information required for the two species

Provided clarification to MNR regarding why there are not considered to be implications under the Endangered Species Act for either the Spotted Turtle or Butler’s Gartersnake for the Project





Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) As Herbert Wilson Drain is

considered contributing habitat for Redside Dace, MNR would like to see a description of the methodology to be used for culvert installation


Email

Received email with attached letter on November 15, 2011

Further to the additional requirements outlined in the APRD, MNR’s petroleum wells data indicates no known petroleum well locations within the project site.

Proponents of renewable energy projects must be aware of the possibility of encountering petroleum wells and must be prepared to address and, where necessary, mitigate the risks identified.

MNR cannot guarantee the accuracy of the petroleum wells data, as some information is historical and may be inaccurate or incomplete.

Guelph District staff do not anticipate that the Activity will contravene the ESA with respect to Redside Dace habitat, provided MNR’s listed conditions regarding the culvert are followed.

Guelph District staff do not anticipate a contravention of the ESA with respect to plant and reptile species at risk provided the listed conditions are met.

Sent email on November 17, 2011

Thanked MNR for their letter of advice regarding Species at Risk for the Springwood Wind Project.

Noted that all mitigation measures recommended in the MNR letter have been added to the Construction Plan Report for the Project.

MNR’s recommended mitigation measures were added to the Construction Plan Report.





Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Karla Barboza Katherine Kirzati Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Ministry of Tourism and Culture

Fall 2010 - ongoing wpd Canada has been regularly working

with hired archaeologists for each of their projects including Springwood. Paul Racher of ARA has been the main contact for the Springwood Project. As well, wpd has consistently communicated with MTC via the hired archaeological consultants since Fall 2010 to obtain clarity on the regulations, Standards and Guidelines.

Communication to landowners on how to properly prepare lands for Stage 2 Assessment.

Proper scheduling to take into consideration MTC's standards and guidelines, weather, habitat for Species at Risk as well as farmer's planting and harvesting seasons.

Information was provided to landowners on how to prepare lands for Stage 2 assessment

Study design altered to account for MTC’s requirements

Karla Barboza Katherine Kirzati Letter and Notice

Sent email on September 22, 2010 Attached Notice of Public Meeting #1

N/A N/A

Chris Schiller (MTC) Mariflor Toneatto (MTC) Mirrun Zaveri (MEI) Tomas Nikolakakos

(REFO) Tele-conference Call

Tele-conference call held on April 26, 2011 Topics of discussion: 1. The requirement for Stage 2

Archaeological (Arch) assessment when Stage 1 identifies low potential. Regulations require Stage 2 on the entire project even if only some of the project area shows high potential for archaeological finds. wpd argues that Stage 2 arch work should only be conducted on the smaller areas of interest.

2. Latitude for test pitting versus ploughing areas of ESA protected habitat. wpd suggested Test pitting is more flexible and did not endanger the land of environmentally sensitive areas. Regulations from MTC mandated ploughing which contradicted MNR requirements.

2A. latitude for test pitting was also

MTC has taken the requests for test-pitting vs. ploughing under advisement, but re-stated that areas that can be ploughed must still be ploughed and recommended doing the arch work in seasons which posed less threat to species at risk.

Current plowing and discing practices can be utilized in lieu of mulboard plows provided that the soil is at least 80% visible.

MTC also decided to allow for stage 1 archaeological assessments in pockets of low areas of archaeological potential vs. requiring stage 2 in the entire project area.

Stage 2 arch work is still required for high archaeological potential.

N/A





Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) requested in areas of ‘no till’ farming practices.

3. Latitude on moldboard ploughs and test pitting no till lands. MTC mandated moldboard ploughing. This method is out of date and damaging to the soil. Machines were also hard to find making this requirement onerous. wpd suggested alternative tilling methods.

4. Making Stage 2 Arch work a condition of REA versus a requirement for application of an REA. Requiring Stage 2 arch work before REA approval severally restricted the wind projects time table because of seasonal issues related to farming and weather. Requiring stage 2 put most wind projects including Springwood in danger of not meeting the Commercial Operation Date.

As part of an extensive ongoing discussion with MTC, directly and through MOE REFO division and via archaeological groups, wpd has sought to clarify and alter requirements specified by MTC. The goal of these requests was streamline the arch process and limit Ministerial conflicts of interest.

The Archaeological Assessment proceeded within MTCs guidelines as clarified.

Archaeology Administrative Coordinator

Programs and Services Branch

Letter

Sent Letter June 14, 2011 from Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.

Enclosed three copies of the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, a digital copy on CD and the Archaeological Site Record form for Springwood 1.

This Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was completed in accordance with Ontario Regulation 359/09 under Part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.

N/A N/A





Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) The proponent has asked that their review

be expedited on an emergency basis, as the MTC’s comments are required for public review at least 60 days before the final public meeting.

A date of July 22, 2011 is requested for the review of this report.

A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment for this project has been completed by Stantec and submitted to the MTC.

Speakers from MOE/MTC/MNR/CanWEA

Forum

Forum held on July 8, 2011 MOE & CanWEA Session for Wind Energy

Developers: REA 101

Received tips and techniques for successful REA submission. Preview of Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals

Information learned was applied to the REA process for the Project.

Ian Hember, Archaeology Review Officer

Letter

Received letter dated July 17, 2011 MTC has reviewed the Stage 1

Archaeological Assessment As a result of the review, MTC accepts the

report into the Provincial register of archaeological reports.

MTC concurs with the recommendation that the property with archaeological potential should be subject to a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment.

N/A A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was completed for properties with archaeological potential and submitted for MTC review on June 14, 2011.

Adam Pollock, Archaeology Review Officer

Received letter dated July 26, 2011 MTC has reviewed the Stage 2

Archaeological Assessment report. Specific issues that need to be addressed

were identified. The identified concerns must be addressed

prior to MTC being able to concur with recommendations made in the report.

One the revisions have been completed, the

N/A Report updated to reflect MTC comments





Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) revised report must be submitted prior to Oct. 24, 2011 and will be reviewed and a response provided.

Ian Hember, Archaeology Review Officer

Letter

Letter on July 26, 2011 MTC returned Stage 2 Assessment with a

request for a Stage 3; however, the Archaeologist (ARA) felt that a Stage 3 was not required according to MTC's own guidelines or threshold for cultural heritage value or interest. MTC requested additional documentation to validate this claim. The information was provided and the Assessment Report was re-submitted to MTC on August 10, 2011

ARA was able to provide evidence to the Ministry that Stage 3 arch work was not required per MTC's own Standards and Guidelines.

After the Stage 2 was resubmitted with this information, the MTC concurred.

N/A

Twelve Archaeologists from the Province and wpd.

The meeting was directed by Dr. Peter Armstrong, Lawson Chair of Canadian Archaeology

Meeting

Meeting held August 9, 2011 wpd attended the Meeting of Archaeologists

held at the Ontario Museum of Archaeology to gain a better understanding of the challenges that the Archaeologists were facing due with MTC's reviews. Almost all of the reports were being rejected by the MTC on editorial grounds (not content). Only 3 reports between April and August 2011 had been accepted. Re-submissions were both very costly and time consuming, thereby threatening project timelines.

The meeting was created for the Archaeologists in the Province, to discuss approaches to ministry report review and imposition of standards and guidelines. Their concerns regarded issues that were arising as a result of a series of recent decisions concerning the interpretation and implementation of the “Reporting Archaeological Field Work” module of the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for

A letter was crafted by one of the Archaeologists and circulated for input from all attendees and subsequently submitted to MTC. wpd also submitted the situation to CanWEA. The situation however, has not changed. Archaeologists have resigned themselves to submitting the reports to follow the new guidelines.

N/A





Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Consultant Archaeologists. (S&Gs). Their second major concern is the manner in which this change of emphasis, from quality of data collection and completeness of presentation to one of an overriding concern for formatting with subsequent loss of the ability to convey information relative to the uniqueness of different projects.

Paula Kulpa, Heritage Planner

Letter

Received letter on August 15, 2011 MTC’s written comments as required by s.

23(3)(a) of O. Reg. 359/09 under the Environmental Protection Act regarding heritage assessments undertaken for the Springwood Wind Project

Bases on the information contained in the submitted reports, the Ministry is satisfied with the heritage assessments.

Please note the Ministry makes no representation or warranty as to the completeness, accuracy or quality of the heritage assessment reports.

The Ministry is satisfied with the recommendations provided in the reports.

This letter does not waive any requirements under the Ontario Heritage Act.

It is the proponent’s responsibility to obtain any necessary approvals or licenses.

N/A N/A

To MTC From Archaeological

Service Providers Letter

Letter sent on August 23, 2011 Letter sent to MTC from 20 different

consultant archaeological service providers from around Ontario (several of whom represent wpd on our Wind Projects including ARA for the Springwood Project).

The letter concerned the Ministry's 2011

MTC responded on Sept 2, 2011 Agreed that a meeting should be

conducted now that the S&Gs have been put in place for a period.

Invited representatives from the group of archaeological

N/A





Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) for Consultant Archaeologists.

The concerns expressed by the Archaeologist are three fold including:

o 1. The Ministry's focus on document formatting specifications which are not flexible and do not appear to reflect "actual archaeology. The changes were not part of the Technical Advisory Group and appear that they were not developed with any recognition of the wide variety of the types of projects that are carried out.

o 2. The group is concerned about how the emphasis from quality of data collection to concerns over formatting was "sprung" on licensed professionals without communication to the greater community.

o 3. Concern that the goals of the S&Gs (to ensure archaeological resources are managed efficiently) has been lost to trivial formatting and copy editing of reports.

The group asked that the Ministry consult with archaeological community to address the current problems. wpd also provided input on the letter

consultants to meet so that concerns with the implementation of the S&Gs could be addressed.

Ongoing discussions continue.

Ian Hember Email

Email on August 26, 2011 Archaeological Research Associates (ARA)

kept in contact with MTC to determine the timeline to complete the comments on the re-submission of the Stage 2 report, as they

See response from MTC on August 30, 2011

Indicated that they would recognize the urgency in completing the review

N/A





Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) were weeks beyond the anticipated service window.

Previous email from MTC to ARA, indicated they would be reviewing Arch Stage two assessments as expediently as possible.

Andrea Williams, A/Archaeology Review Officer

Received letter in email on August 30, 2011 MTC has reviewed the revised Stage 2

Archaeological Assessment report. MTC accepts the revised report into the

Provincial register of archaeological reports. MTC concurs with the recommendation that

the provincial interest in the archaeological site identified as Location 1 (AkHc-18) has been addressed.

N/A N/A

Andrea Williams, A/Archaeology Review Officer

Email with attached letter

Received letter on August 30, 2011 Provided MTC REA comment letter for the

Springwood Wind Project Stage 2 report Based on the information contained in the

report, the Ministry believes the archaeological assessment complies with the Ontario Heritage Act’s licensing requirements.

The Ministry is satisfied with the recommendations provided in the report.

This letter does not waive any of the requirements under the Ontario Heritage Act and does not constitute approval of the renewable energy project.

It is wpd’s responsibility to obtain any necessary approvals or licences.

N/A N/A

Karla Barboza Katherine Kirzati


N/A N/A





Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Letter and Notice



Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure Mirrum Zaveri Kevin Pal Allan Jenkins Thomas Nikolakakos,

REFO Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Mirrum Zaveri Kevin Pal Allan Jenkins Thomas Nikolakakos,



N/A N/A

Thomas Nokolakakos, REFO

Emails

Received Email on February 7, 2011 MTC has asked that you provide an outline

of the issues you have encountered for each of your projects, as well as the FIT status and COD date for each project. MTC has also recommended that you ask your consultant archaeologist to attend the meeting as well, as the issues may be of a technical nature.

Sent Email February 8, 2011 The following issues/discussion

points are basically the same for all of our projects:

o Timing – getting all permits and approvals complete before submission of the REA

o wpd would like to discuss making a Stage 2 a condition of REA vs. a requirement for application of a REA

Meetings were held with REFO and MTC to clarify some of these concerns

Discussions tied to updating reports for REA submission





Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure o Attached timeline of

projects o Need for a Stage 2

when Stage 1 identifies only a low potential of archaeological significance

o Latitude on plowing no-till lands

Mirrum Zaveri Kevin Pal Allan Jenkins Thomas Nikolakakos,



N/A N/A



Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry Joan Van Kralingen, Glenn Seim Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Debbie Laidlaw, Regional Land Use Geologist (Acting)

Email

Received Email September 3, 2010 Please amend the distribution list to include

my name in the place of Glenn Seim

N/A Updated contact list

Joan Van Kralingen, Debbie Laidlaw Letter and Notice


N/A N/A





Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry Joan Van Kralingen, Debbie Laidlaw Letter and Notice


N/A N/A



Hydro One Networks Inc. HONI –

Correspondence Correspondence dated June 10, 2010 HONI confirmed receipt of complete CIA

Application submission

N/A

Distribution Generation Support, Business Customer Centre

Email

Received email August 12, 2010 HONI forwarded completed CIA

N/A

Leslie Koch, Hydro One Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Gregory Gabriel, Distribution Generation Analyst, BCC DX Generation Connection

Email

Received email August 30, 2010 HONI noted conflicting information, and

suggested revision to CIA.

N/A Revised CIA and re-submitted.

Leslie Koch, Hydro One Networks Inc.

Letter and Notice

Sent letter September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1

N/A N/A

Jen Long, Transmission Lines Sustainment, Hydro One Networks Inc.

Email

Received Email on October 21, 2010. HONI can confirm that there are no Hydro

One Transmission Facilities in the subject area.

N/A N/A





Hydro One Networks Inc. Please be advised, this is only a preliminary

assessment based on current information. No further consultation with HONI is required if no changes are made to the current information.

Distribution Generation Support, Business Customer Centre, HONI

Email

Received email February 26, 2011 HONI completed and forwarded new CIA.

Accepted HONI decision. Project or study design altered:

Documents amended:

Additional information provided:

Darryl Tackaberry, DX Account Executive, Hydro One

Phone Call

Phone call made on February 26, 2011 Discussion about the new CIA, specifically

the fact that HONI will be taking on ownership of the line right up to our switching station

N/A See above

Darryl Tackaberry, DX Account Executive, Customer Care

Letter from HONI to Jeremy Pasma, Ontario Power Authority

Email with attached letter

Received email with attached letter on May 3, 2011

Re: Proposed change in connecting feeder Bellwood Wind Farm – Fergus TS, ID #12,820

Please consider this formal notification that through completion of a revised Connection Impact Assessment (CIA), Hydro One proposes that the subject project’s connecting feeder be moved from the Fergus TS M2 to the Fergus TS M6.

N/A N/A

Justin Thomas, Distribution Generation Connections Consultant, Customer Care

Email

Received email June 6, 2011 HONI provided wpd with executed CCA,

and confirmed receipt of payment

N/A N/A

Satish Saini, Anthony Manna, Clara Joseph, Doreen Stermann,

Meeting on July 14, 2011, continued on August 2, 2011 (see below)

Assessed potential scheduling in content of potential construction dates.





Hydro One Networks Inc. Darryl Tackaberry, HONI

Paul Deol, wpd HONI and wpd Canada

Introductory meeting

Introductory meeting to discuss scheduling.

Satish Saini, Anthony Manna, Clara Joseph, Doreen Stermann, Darryl Tackaberry, HONI

Paul Deol, wpd HONI and wpd Canada

kick-off meeting

Kick-off meeting held on August 2, 2011 Follow up meeting to discuss line

expansion, infrastructure design, and in-service date.

Agreed to in-service date.

Leslie Koch, Hydro One Networks Inc.

Letter and Notice

Sent letter August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting

N/A N/A

Satish Saini, Clara Joseph, Darryl Tackaberry, John Findlay, HONI

Johnathan Clifford, wpd HONI and wpd Canada Meeting

Meeting held on October 27, 2011 Meeting to discuss connection point

location.

N/A N/A



Ontario Heritage Trust Beth Hanna Sean Fraser Letter and Notice


N/A N/A





Ontario Heritage Trust Beth Hanna Sean Fraser Letter and Notice

Sent Letter on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1

N/A N/A

Sean Fraser, Manager, Acquisitions and Conservation Services

Letter

Received letter dated September 29, 2010 We do not have any properties within your

study area; however, we do recommend you contact the Ministry of Culture and local municipal agencies for further information

N/A We have contacted local authorities and will use any information in reports.

Beth Hanna Sean Fraser Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Sean Fraser, Manager, Acquisitions and Conservation Services

Letter

Received letter dated October 12, 2011, received by email on October 14, 2011

The study area site map has been reviewed, and it is advised that, as per O. Reg. 359/09, s. 19 the Trust does not protect any property through a conservation easement on lands that will be directly impacted or visually affected by this renewal energy undertaking

The trust encourage you to contact the MTC, if you have not already done so, to confirm if there are any other cultural heritage interests noted in s. 19 which may be affected by this project.

N/A N/A



Grand River Conservation Authority Nancy Davy Letter and Notice

Sent Letter August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project

N/A N/A





Grand River Conservation Authority Provided turbine coordinates

Nancy Davy Letter and Notice

Sent letter September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1

N/A N/A

Sent to Nancy Davy Received from Fred

Natolochny, Supervisor of Resource Planning

Emails

Email sent on September 30, 2010 Provided Project information Noted that Stantec has initiated a records

review to identify natural features within the vicinity of the project.

Formally requested any relevant data (preferably in digital and/or shape file format) available for the Study Area, related to waters supporting Species at Risk, fish and fish habitat including stream classifications (thermal regimes), known groundwater seepage areas, other water bodies, hazard lands, local wetlands or other environmentally sensitive or significant areas, any other information regarding aquatic or terrestrial habitats or wildlife in the Study Area.

Noted that MNR has also been contacted.

Received email September 30, 2010

GRCA noted the Planner dealing with the area containing the inquiry.

Provided a link to their website where the data is available and where GIS can be accessed directly.

N/A

Nancy Davy Letter and Notice

Sent letter August 31, 2011 Notice of Final Public Meeting

N/A N/A

Jamie Ferguson, Resource Planner

Email

Received Email September 19, 2011 Would we be able to get a hard copy of the

Natural Heritage Assessment and EIS for this project?

N/A Project or study design altered: Documents amended: Additional information provided:

Hardcopies were sent out in late

September 2011.


160960606

Appendix F4

Municipalities Comment/Response Summary

SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECTCONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence

Stantec Project Number: 160960606 1 of 11

Date Sent Date Replied Correspondence Type Recipient/Attendees Document Summary Response/Discussion Summary Required Action/ Suggestions

12-Aug-10 N/A Canada Post

Gary Cousins, Donna Bryce, Deborah Turchet,

County of Wellington. Brett Salmon, Marion Morris Township of Township of Centre

Wellington

Mailed Notice of Proposal to Engage in Project, with turbine coordinates provided N/A N/A

13-Aug-10 N/A Email


County of Wellington. Brett Salmon, Marion Morris Township of Township of Centre

Wellington

Emailed Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Project

Received thanks and comment back (Aug 17, 2010) from Mark Paoli from the County of Wellington, Asked that the County please be kept informed with all actions and available documents as the project proceeds.

N/A

17-Aug-10 N/A EmailMark Paoli, Senior Policy

Planner, County of Wellington

The County has an interest in both the process and outcomes of this proposalPlease advise the County of all actions and available documents as the project proceeds by forwarding information to the County Clerk

N/AThe County Clerk was sent notices and letters throughout the process, to keep the County informed of the Project

22-Sep-10 N/A Canada Post and EmailMarion Morris, Brett

Salmon, Township of Centre Wellington

Emailed letter of Notice of Public Meeting in preparation for first Open House and a copy of the actual notice

N/A N/A

22-Sep-10 N/A Email


Roads Division, County of Wellington

Emailed letter of Notice of Public Meeting in preparation for first Open House and a copy of the actual notice

N/A N/A

26-Sep-10 EmailEmma Reddish,

Wellington County Email correspondence between Stantec and Wellington County.

Stantec has asked how to obtain municipal tax and mailing informationWellington County confirmed that she was unable to sendout information unless they were working on behalf of the local municipality. If roll numbers and tax information are needed, someone will have to physically visit the municipal office and copy the information directly.

SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORTAppendix F-4 - Municipal Correspondence

2 of 11 Stantec Project Number: 160960606


12-Oct-10 Email Sonia Giberson, Wellington County

Please note that an entrance permit into the site may/will be requiredPlease contact the Technical Services Supervisor for information regarding entrance permitsThe moving of the 4 turbines, if travelling on Wellington County roads will require an oversize permitIn order to process the application, a copy of the MTO single trip/annual permit regarding the moves, Insurance Certificate naming the County of Wellington as an additional insured and appropriate payment is also required

Wellington County will forward a permit application under a separate email.

14-Mar-2011 17-Mar-2011 Email

Sent to: Mayor Joanne Ross-Zuj,

Received from: Michael Wood, CAO,

Township of Centre Wellington

Introductory email sent to Mayor regarding the Project.Noted that wpd is currently planning the municipal consultation and intends to reach out to the municipality in the coming weeks.Please contact should you have any questions or concerns

Reply back from CAO that the Mayor's office would like to meet with wpd at a later date. They would contact us when they were available.

14-Mar-2011 EmailWalt Visser, Councillor


Introductory email sent to Councillor representing project area, explaining municipal consultationNoted that wpd is currently planning the municipal consultation and intends to reach out to the municipality in the coming weeks.Please contact should you have any questions or concerns

N/A

19-May-2011 Email

Joanne Ross-Zuj, MayorKelly Linton, Mary Lloyd,

Kirk McElwain, Fred Morris, Steven

VanLeeuwen, Walt Visser,Councillors


Email sent to Township of Centre Wellington Mayor and Councillors of recent wind research and news articles.

wpd has on a regular basis sent out emails with links to updated wind related articles in the news from around the world to a list of those expressing interest in the project and municipal officials.

23-May-2011 24-May-2011 Email Kelly Linton Email from Councillor Kelly Linton, Ward 1

expressing support for renewable energy projects

Thanked her for her supportAdded her to our email list that wpd uses to send out periodic updates on the wind industry.Provided her with new articles of interest

Wpd added Councillor to the email list to update her on the wind industry

13-Jun-2011 N/A Email

Brett Salmon, Director of Planning and Mr. Wood,


Letting them know engineers will be onsite conducting geotechnical work within the next two weeks

14-Jun-2011 N/A Email

Steven VanLeeuwen, Kelly Linton, Fred Morris, Joanne Ross-Zuj, Walt Visser, Kirk McElwain,

Mary LloydTownship of Centre

Wellington

Email sent of wind related articles for May 29th to June 12th.

wpd has on a regular basis sent out emails with links to updated wind related articles in the news from around the world to a list of those expressing interest in the Project and municipal officials.




27-Jun-2011 N/A Canada PostMarion Morris at the Township of Centre

Wellington

Introductory Letter was attached with Municipal Consultation form.Noted that the Draft Project Description Report was previously sent and is available on the Project website and draft copies of the other reports will be sent shortlyMunicipal Consultation Form sent to Centre Wellington Clerk’s Department, requesting municipal feedback related to municipal services and infrastructure, rehabilitation of areas disturbed and/or infrastructure damaged during construction, and emergency management procedures/safety protocols.Noted that wpd would be contacting in the near future to set up a meeting of mutual convenience

N/A

27-Jun-2011 N/A Canada Post Donna Bryce, Wellington County

Introductory Letter was attached with Municipal Consultation form.Noted that the Draft Project Description Report was previously sent and is available on the Project website and draft copies of the other reports will be sent shortlyMunicipal Consultation Form sent to Wellington County Clerk’s Department, requesting municipal feedback related to municipal services and infrastructure, rehabilitation of areas disturbed and/or infrastructure damaged during construction, and emergency management procedures/safety protocols.Noted that wpd would be contacting in the near future to set up a meeting of mutual convenience

N/A

29-Jun-2011 5-Jul-2011 Canada PostEmail

Sent to: Marion MorrisResponse from: Chantalle

Pellizzari Township of Centre Wellington

Full 90 day municipal consultation package sent with letter from Stantec, Enclosed was a Municipal Consultation Form for the Project and the Draft Project reports

Email confirming receipt of the Municipal Consultation package. Asked if they could receive draft reports on CD. See below, Item #16 for details on this request

29-Jun-2011 N/A Canada Post Donna Bryce, WellingtonCounty

Full 90 day municipal consultation package sent with letter from StantecEnclosed was a Municipal Consultation Form for the Project and the Draft Project reports

N/A




5-Jul-2010 15-Jul-10 Email Brett Salmon, Centre Wellington

Email reply back in regards to the email sent July 5th.Stantec asked how many CDs with the municipal report information the municipality required, and to confirm if the CDs will be for the municipality’s internal use.Stantec responded that the information is considered public as it has been sent to the municipality. However, the documents were considered drafts in order to facilitate municipal consultation and were not necessarily intended to be handed out to the public. Confirmed that these reports will be made available to the public at least 60 days prior to the last open house.

He replied that they required 4 copies to facilitate staff review and inquired whether or not the CD is considered public documentationHe replied back on July 15, 2011 thanking Stantec for the CDs and explained that a member of the community had requested a copy of the report and based off wpd's comment was unsure how to proceed. Presumed that if someone needs a copy that it should be sent directly from wpd.wpd responded by offering to post the information on the wpd website. It was accepted by him, and the information was posted. He also asked what timeline wpd expected the municipal consultation form to be returned as there was no listed deadline date.wpd responded that there isn't a regulated time of response, but the earlier the responses, the quicker wpd can address concern. Asked that responses be sent the CAO as he will be out of the office.

22-Jul-2011 N/A Call Marion Morris, Township of Centre Wellington

Call to Marion about setting up a municipal consultation meeting with Township of Centre Wellington , County of Wellington and wpd

She indicated that the main contact for municipal consultation was on

26-Jul-2011 N/A Call Donna Bryce Wellington County

Call to Donna Bryce about setting up a municipal consultation meeting with Township of Centre Wellington , County of Wellington and wpd

She indicated that she would like to speak with the director of planning and then get back to wpd

2-Aug-2011 Email Brett Salmon, Township of Centre Wellington

Email from wpd confirming the time for a scheduled meeting.wpd suggested that the week of Aug15-19 works the best.Requested that the Township identify dates that work best for them

A meeting was eventually booked for Aug 17, 2011




17-Aug-11 N/A Meeting in Centre Wellington

Township of Centre Wellington Mayor

Joanne Ross-Zuj, CAO Michael K. Wood, Director of Planning Brett Salmon

Wellington County: Operations and

engineering: Paul Johnston, Mark PaoliStantec Consulting:

Shawna Peddlewpd: Ian McRae, Paul

Deol, Khlaire Parré, Valerie Kitchell

Meeting to discuss the Springwood Wind ProjectThe meeting provided an introduction of wpd Canada, the team, FIT contract process and the Springwood Project. As part of the presentation wpd; reviewed noise and setback regulations, and presented a turbine siting exercise in Ontario under O.Reg.359/09 including information on sound receptors, environmental feature setbacks and minimum distances from lot lines and dwellings.

There were many topics and issues discussed between Municipal officials and wpd some of the questions asked by attendees:- Question about the calculation of noise power levels- Setbacks from environmental features- Format of Public Meetings and public consultation- Timelines regarding municipal consultation- Key contacts at both the municipal level and at wpd for

each item on the municipal consultation form- Layout changes that have taken place over the

planning of the Springwood Project- What is involved in a switching station vs. a substation- Placement of construction – underground, overhead,

etc.- Changes made to the Project due to public feedback- Endangered species and protected habitats- Stantec’s clarification that the developer is bound to the

commitments made in the Construction Plan Report, the Design and Operations Report and the Decommissioning Report

- Conditions surrounding a local property severance- Involvement of council in the municipal consultation

form approval.- Rationale behind certain aspect of the REA process- Protocols regarding information dissemination- Potential necessary permits and assessments- Transparency, and public access to municipal reports- Future meetings with municipal council and staff

Follow up items that were discussed at the end ofthe meeting and actions taken:- Dissemination of Municipal Report to the

Public. Provided online as per the request from the municipality. See item 21and 22 for details

- wpd was extend an invitation to show the siting exercise to the municipal councillors. wpd could not make the dates provided, but the public meeting was within a few weeks of the invitation, so wpd offered to show the siting exercise to the Councillors and to the public at the Open House. The presentation was displayed on a recurring basis throughout the meeting and the engineers were available to answer questions.

- Q: Follow up regarding the ability for municipality to add conditions to the REA. A: The Municipality can provide any of these comments into their consultation form or directly to the Ministry.

- Circulate minutes and contact list for key municipal consultation form items. Minutes were sent by wpd.

- Provide Aboriginal Report Summaries to municipality (wpd) (sent 60 days before final Open House)

- Determine process and timeline for completing the Municipal consultation form (Township of Centre Wellington / Wellington County, w/wpd)

-




19-Aug-11 25-Aug-11 EmailBrett Salmon, Director of Planning, Township of

Centre Wellington

Follow up email after the Aug 17, 2011 meeting Thanked him for the meeting and informed him the meeting minutes will be forwarded shortlyEmail also addressed previous discussions between wpd Canada and municipal staff about the release of information sent to the Municipality to the publicIt was explained that the presumed 30 days period between the 90 days before final open house when the municipality was given the reports and 60 day release of all required reporting to the public was to give the municipality enough time to review the information and provide information to the public when needed. wpd suggested that the municipality use the grace period and that wpd would send copies of the reports to members of the public on request 60 days prior to the open house. However, wpd also offered to post the reports on the website if that was the municipalities’ preference.

He replied back on behalf of the Centre Wellington and asked that wpd post the reports on the Project website as soon as possible.

wpd let him know that the documents will be posted on the Project website, and the Township of Centre Wellington will be notified when they are up.

30-Aug-11 N/A EmailBrett Salmon, Director of Planning, Township of

Centre Wellington

Email from wpd with attached meeting minutes from the 17 August 2011, meeting between wpd Canada, Centre Wellington and County of WellingtonRequested to be notified if the Township would like to make any changesAlso confirmed that in response to the request from Centre Wellington, wpd will have the Municipal Reports (Construction, Design and Operations, Decommissioning) posted on the Project website asap.




31-Aug-2011 N/A Notice of POH2 and Cover Letter

Marion Morris, ClerkTownship of Centre

Wellington

Notice of Final Public Meeting and 60 Day Public Review of REA Documents sent to Public viewing location at the Township of Centre WellingtonNoted the date of the final public meeting as Nov. 4, 2011Requested that the REA documents provided be made available to the public during the 60-day review period within the facility, and that they not allow sign-out of the reportsNoted that the reports are also available on the Project websitePlease do not hesitate to refer the public to wpd and/or Stantec with questions

N/A N/A

31-Aug-11 Notice of POH2

Marion Morris, Brett Salmon, Township of

Centre Wellington


Wellington County

Identified the date of the final public meeting as Nov. 4, 2011Noted that the documents are available for the 60-day public review at the Centre Wellington Municipal Offices and on the Project websiteProvided contact information should they have any comments or to request further information

N/A N/A




29-Sep-11 28-Oct-11 Canada Post Peter Pickfield, Garrod-Pickfield LLP

Response from the County of Wellington concerning the Municipal consultation package via Garrod-Pickfield Environmental, Municipal, and Planning Law.As indicated in the previous letter sent to the MOE,County of Wellington argues they are unable to provide an adequate response the Municipal consultation forms within the current regulatory environment. The municipality’s main objection to the application is the loss of land use planning by the local government and reduced potential to be able to appeal under the Green Energy Act. Other issues they have concerns with:Health Risks, Land use conflict that would otherwise be addressed under the Planning Act,long range planning issues, impacts on local natural heritage and natural resources that the municipality is unable to address, lack of municipal appeal rights,In general they object to the fact that there is no tribunal mechanism that the municipality can address fundamental concerns with the developer through.County of Wellington reiterated that their suggestions should not be interpreted as approval of the projectCounty of Wellington also reiterated that their submission of suggestions was not to beinterpreted as the municipality forgoing its right to appeal under section 142 of the Environmental Protection act. The following comments were made:A transport permit will be needed for large transport loadsA traffic plan report should be developed in conjunction with the county and municipality prior to REA submission. A road assessment should be conducted to assess the adequacy of unpaved roads. They stated that the REA application should include a traffic report. The county would also like to establish preferred haul routes with wpd before the submission is granted.They noted several wording comments in reference to turbine delivery.

The County provided the follow suggestions and comments on the report- Stated that there is no need for a permit to

remove hedge rows as originally stated in the Construction plan report Section 3.3.4

- Indicated that Centre wellington public works department is to be contacted for drainage issues.

- Clarified as to when road agreements will be completed with both levels of municipalities.

- Asked for more information on the projects effects on aerodromes in the area.

- Asked for more information about mitigation techniques on visual impacts and the layout of the switching station.

- Asked for more detail concerning noise monitoring techniques.

- Asked for clarification concerning the setback requirements for a property the was granted a severance in November 2010.

- They inquired as to how recent changes to O.R. 359/09 affected separation distances tothe Beekdale Holstein property

- asked wpd to confirm that wpd will meet all regulations with regards to sound receptors under O.R. 359/09wpd sent a reply to the letter on October

28, 2011 See below for details (record 25)

29-Sep-11 28-Oct-11 EmailFrom the County of Wellington (via Garrod-Pickfield) to MOE

Email from the offices of Garrod-Pickfield that contained a digital copy of the letter and an attached letter that the County of Wellington sent to the REA manager at Ministry of Environment (MOE).The letter to the MOE contained similar comments mentioned in the letter to wpd as well as the following:Explaining their opposition to all wind projects until further studies have been completed on health. As with their letter to wpd, they feel the municipal consultation form is inadequate in meeting the




County's concerns and questions.Other concerns objections include: Land-use conflicts, long-range planning, and impacts on heritage and agricultural resources.

28-Oct-11 N/A Canada Post Peter Pickfield, Garrod-Pickfield LLP

Response to the letter received from Garrod-Pickfield on behalf of the County of Wellington dated Sept 29, 2011.Response to each item raised in the Sept 29, 2011 letter:Acknowledged that wpd will obtain the necessary oversize/overweight permits needed to transport items on County roadsAcknowledged the importance of a Traffic Management Plan. However noted that it was not required as part of the REA and that it would be difficult to construct a plan without the feedback from equipment supplies. These supplies will not be secured until REA approval is granted. Reaffirmed that wpd is committed to work with the County and Municipality to eventually develop a traffic plan.Provided reworded and altered statements in response to the municipalities suggestionsregarding the Turbine Delivery section(Construction Plan report 2.6.1)Suggested rewording regarding the transportation of parts and the proposed road routes. Confirmed that the county and municipality will be consulted about any upgrades and/or repairs that may be needed during the course of construction.Reworded the suggested about the woodland and hedge row permit that one will not be needed and is except from Wellington County requirementsReworded Construction Plan report 3.7.1 to say Centre Wellington Public Works will be contactedConfirmed that road agreements will be reached with County Wellington and Township of Centre Wellington once REA approval is reached.Explained that little impact is anticipated on the aerodromes in the area and confirmed that Transport Canada lighting standards will be followed.Confirmed that wpd will follow all provincial requirements with regards to noise requirements. Confirmed that all reasonable commercial efforts will be made to take appropriate action should concerns arise.




In regards to the Beekdale Holstein propertyseverance, it was explained that wpd Canada published turbine location on the website and in local papers in August 2010. In pursuant of section 54(1.2), paragraph 4, noise receptors that did not exist on the day before need to be taken into account. As the severance was not granted until November 2010, it was not included in the study.Confirmed that wpd Canada will continue to work with the County and Township to clarify and identify issues pertaining to the Project proposal.

3-Nov-11 2-Dec-11 Canada Post

From the Township of Centre Wellington (via Peter Pickfield, Garrod-Pickfield)

A follow up letter summarizing their opposition to the project. Letter was included with the completed municipal consultation formThey have directed their staff to assess roles and responsibilities of the municipality under the Green Energy Act and in as a result of municipal approval powers being stripped from the Planning Act.Directed staff to review wpd applicationDirected Garrod and Pickfield to prepare the letter setting out their commentsConfirmed that road agreements will be reached with County Wellington and Township of Centre Wellington once REA approval is reached.

The Township Proposes that wpd should provide the following before the director allows the project to proceed: A Fire Safety Plan, a preconstruction road survey, A Traffic management plan, an application for a site alteration permit, and finally an agreement to provide securities for maintenance and decommissioning of the facility.Confirmed that the Township of Centre Wellington Public Works department was the appropriate organization to consult for drainage issues.As with the County, the Township wants clarification concerning the setback requirements for a property was granted a severance inNovember, 2010.They inquired as to how recent changes to O.R. 359/09 affected separation distances to the Beekdale Holstein property and wpd position on the separation distance.Asked wpd to confirm that wpd will meet all regulations with regards to sound receptors under O.R. 359/09 with regards to the Beekdale property.




2-Dec-11 Canada Post

From wpd to the Township of Centre Wellington, via Garrod-Pickfield

Response to the letter received from Garrod Pickfield on behalf of the Township of Centre Wellington. Confirmed that wpd would follow all regulations with regards to setbacks and noise levels. Indicated the Repower the turbine supplier has guaranteed the maximum sound level power from each turbine.Acknowledged that wpd would work with the municipality to develop a road survey, traffic plan, faire safety plan and work to get all other relevant permitsSuggested amended language concerning the drainage issues in the Construction Plan reportConfirmed that wpd published the layout of their project on August 20, 2010. According to O Reg. 359/09, Section 54(1.2), paragraph 4 noise receptors that did not exist the day before turbine locations are published need not be taken into accountThe severance for Beekdale Farm was approved in November 2010, after the publication date of the turbine layout.wpd confirmed that it would continue to act in accordance with all regulations under REA regulations


160960606

Appendix F5

Elected Officials Comment/Response Summary

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ! " � # $ $ � % & '( � ! ) * ' � + , - . / � / � ' �0 � 1 ) * ' � + , - . / � 2 % + .3 4 5 6 4 7 8 4 9 : : ; : < = <> ? @ 4 A = B < C B < B < BD E F G 6 ? 6 H 4 F I J K L L ? I 4M N : < < 3 6 O P Q 6 9 ? I R 3 6 9 4 4 6 S Q G 6> 4 9 T H G ; K U U = V = V WX Y Y Z [ Y \ ] [ ^ _ \ ` a b Z c d a ] [ ef Z g Z h Z [ ` Z ^ i j h \ [ e k ] ] l m \ [ l n h ] o Z ` Yp ] Y \ ` Z ] g n q r c \ ` _ Z Z Y \ [ eP @ 4 Q G 4 L ? F s Q 6 6 Q I t 4 s 6 t 4 U E 6 ? I 4 E L P H 8 @ ? I V 4 4 6 ? F T L E 9 6 t 4 3 5 9 ? F T u E E s v ? F s P 9 E w 4 I 6 O x G s 4 G I 9 ? 8 4 s ? F 6 t 4F E 6 ? I 4 ; u 5 s D Q F Q s Q D E 9 5 E 9 Q 6 ? E F y u 5 s z ? G 5 9 E 5 E G ? F T 6 E s 4 { 4 @ E 5 6 t 4 3 5 9 ? F T u E E s v ? F s P 9 E w 4 I 6 y P 9 E w 4 I 6 z ? F 6 t 4| E u F G t ? 5 E L D 4 F 6 9 4 v 4 @ @ ? F T 6 E F ; v 4 @ @ ? F T 6 E F D E H F 6 J ; K F 6 Q 9 ? E O} E H 9 Q T 4 F I J E 9 T 9 E H 5 t Q G 8 4 4 F ? F I @ H s 4 s E F 6 t 4 5 9 E w 4 I 6 ~ G I E F G H @ 6 Q 6 ? E F s ? G 6 9 ? 8 H 6 ? E F @ ? G 6 O � L E H 9 I E F 6 Q I 6? F L E 9 7 Q 6 ? E F G t E H @ s 8 4 Q 7 4 F s 4 s ; 5 @ 4 Q G 4 I E F 6 Q I 6 6 t 4 H F s 4 9 G ? T F 4 s Q 6 J E H 9 4 Q 9 @ ? 4 G 6 I E F { 4 F ? 4 F I 4 Ov 4 t E 5 4 6 t Q 6 J E H I Q F Q 6 6 4 F s 6 t 4 P H 8 @ ? I V 4 4 6 ? F T O x @ 6 4 9 F Q 6 ? { 4 @ J ; 6 E 5 9 E { ? s 4 6 t 4 P 9 E w 4 I 6 6 4 Q 7 u ? 6 t J E H 9I E 7 7 4 F 6 G E 9 L E 9 L H 9 6 t 4 9 ? F L E 9 7 Q 6 ? E F Q 8 E H 6 6 t 4 P 9 E w 4 I 6 ; 5 @ 4 Q G 4 4 7 Q ? @ H G Q 6 3 t Q u F Q O 5 4 s s @ 4 � G 6 Q F 6 4 I O I E 7 E 9I Q @ @ 3 6 Q F 6 4 I Q 6 y M = C z � � B N B < M < O v 9 ? 6 6 4 F I E 7 7 4 F 6 G I Q F Q @ G E 8 4 7 Q ? @ 4 s E 9 L Q � 4 s 6 E 6 t 4 H F s 4 9 G ? T F 4 s O> E 9 7 E 9 4 ? F L E 9 7 Q 6 ? E F 5 @ 4 Q G 4 { ? G ? 6 6 t 4 5 9 E w 4 I 6 u 4 8 G ? 6 4 A t 6 6 5 A � � I Q F Q s Q O u 5 s O s 4 � I Q � 5 9 E w 4 I 6 G � ? F NI Q F Q s Q � G 5 9 ? F T u E E s O t 6 7 @3 ? F I 4 9 4 @ J ;i � X p � � d d � p i � � � � p � � � � �3 t Q u F Q P 4 s s @ 43 4 F ? E 9 P 9 E w 4 I 6 V Q F Q T 4 9� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ¡ ¢ � £ ¤ � ¥ ¦ � § § � � ¨ © ª � ¤ ª � « ¥ « ¬ S F I @ E G H 9 4 A ® ¬ ª ¯ « � ¬ ° ± ² ³ � ¯ « ´ � � ª ¯ ¤ µD D O ¶ t @ Q ? 9 4 P Q 9 9 · ; u 5 s D Q F Q s Q D E 9 5 E 9 Q 6 ? E F

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ! " � # $ $ � % & '( � ! ) * ' � + , - . / � / � ' �0 � 1 ) * ' � + , - . / � 2 % + .3 4 5 6 4 7 8 4 9 : : ; : < = <> ? @ 4 A = B < C B < B < BD E F G 6 ? 6 H 4 F I J K L L ? I 4= � = 3 6 O x F s 9 4 u 3 6 9 4 4 6 S Q G 6 ; : F s > @ E E 9> 4 9 T H G ; K U U = V = P CX Y Y Z [ Y \ ] [ ^ � Z l X h [ ] Y Yf Z g Z h Z [ ` Z ^ i j h \ [ e k ] ] l m \ [ l n h ] o Z ` Yp ] Y \ ` Z ] g n q r c \ ` _ Z Z Y \ [ eP @ 4 Q G 4 L ? F s Q 6 6 Q I t 4 s 6 t 4 U E 6 ? I 4 E L P H 8 @ ? I V 4 4 6 ? F T L E 9 6 t 4 3 5 9 ? F T u E E s v ? F s P 9 E w 4 I 6 O x G s 4 G I 9 ? 8 4 s ? F 6 t 4F E 6 ? I 4 ; u 5 s D Q F Q s Q D E 9 5 E 9 Q 6 ? E F y u 5 s z ? G 5 9 E 5 E G ? F T 6 E s 4 { 4 @ E 5 6 t 4 3 5 9 ? F T u E E s v ? F s P 9 E w 4 I 6 y P 9 E w 4 I 6 z ? F 6 t 4| E u F G t ? 5 E L D 4 F 6 9 4 v 4 @ @ ? F T 6 E F ; v 4 @ @ ? F T 6 E F D E H F 6 J ; K F 6 Q 9 ? E O} E H 9 Q T 4 F I J E 9 T 9 E H 5 t Q G 8 4 4 F ? F I @ H s 4 s E F 6 t 4 5 9 E w 4 I 6 ~ G I E F G H @ 6 Q 6 ? E F s ? G 6 9 ? 8 H 6 ? E F @ ? G 6 O � L E H 9 I E F 6 Q I 6? F L E 9 7 Q 6 ? E F G t E H @ s 8 4 Q 7 4 F s 4 s ; 5 @ 4 Q G 4 I E F 6 Q I 6 6 t 4 H F s 4 9 G ? T F 4 s Q 6 J E H 9 4 Q 9 @ ? 4 G 6 I E F { 4 F ? 4 F I 4 Ov 4 t E 5 4 6 t Q 6 J E H I Q F Q 6 6 4 F s 6 t 4 P H 8 @ ? I V 4 4 6 ? F T O x @ 6 4 9 F Q 6 ? { 4 @ J ; 6 E 5 9 E { ? s 4 6 t 4 P 9 E w 4 I 6 6 4 Q 7 u ? 6 t J E H 9I E 7 7 4 F 6 G E 9 L E 9 L H 9 6 t 4 9 ? F L E 9 7 Q 6 ? E F Q 8 E H 6 6 t 4 P 9 E w 4 I 6 ; 5 @ 4 Q G 4 4 7 Q ? @ H G Q 6 3 t Q u F Q O 5 4 s s @ 4 � G 6 Q F 6 4 I O I E 7 E 9I Q @ @ 3 6 Q F 6 4 I Q 6 y M = C z � � B N B < M < O v 9 ? 6 6 4 F I E 7 7 4 F 6 G I Q F Q @ G E 8 4 7 Q ? @ 4 s E 9 L Q � 4 s 6 E 6 t 4 H F s 4 9 G ? T F 4 s O> E 9 7 E 9 4 ? F L E 9 7 Q 6 ? E F 5 @ 4 Q G 4 { ? G ? 6 6 t 4 5 9 E w 4 I 6 u 4 8 G ? 6 4 A t 6 6 5 A � � I Q F Q s Q O u 5 s O s 4 � I Q � 5 9 E w 4 I 6 G � ? F NI Q F Q s Q � G 5 9 ? F T u E E s O t 6 7 @3 ? F I 4 9 4 @ J ;i � X p � � d d � p i � � � � p � � � � �3 t Q u F Q P 4 s s @ 43 4 F ? E 9 P 9 E w 4 I 6 V Q F Q T 4 9� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ¡ ¢ � £ ¤ � ¥ ¦ � § § � � ¨ © ª � ¤ ª � « ¥ « ¬ S F I @ E G H 9 4 A ® ¬ ª ¯ « � ¬ ° ± ² ³ � ¯ « ´ � � ª ¯ ¤ µD D O ¶ t @ Q ? 9 4 P Q 9 9 · ; u 5 s D Q F Q s Q D E 9 5 E 9 Q 6 ? E F

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ! " � # $ $ � % & '( � ! ) * ' � + , - . / � / � ' �0 � 1 ) * ' � + , - . / � 2 % + .3 4 5 4 6 7 8 9 : ; < 9 9= > ? @ A 9 B < C B < B < BD E F 6 7 > 7 4 @ F G H I J J > G @K L ; < < M 7 N O P 7 Q > G R M 7 Q @ @ 7 S P 6 7= @ Q 5 4 6 I T T 9 U 9 U VW X X Y Z X [ \ Z ] ^ [ _ ` a Y b c ` \ Z de Y f Y g Y Z _ Y ] h i g [ Z d j \ \ k l [ Z k m g \ n Y _ Xo \ X [ _ Y \ f p [ Z a b m q r b [ _ ^ Y Y X [ Z dO ? @ P 6 @ J > F s P 7 7 P G t @ s 7 t @ T E 7 > G @ E J = > F P ? O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 J E Q 7 t @ M v Q > F 5 w E E s x > F s O Q E y @ G 7 N 3 6 s @ 6 G Q > u @ s > F 7 t @F E 7 > G @ : w v s D P F P s P D E Q v E Q P 7 > E F z w v s D P F P s P { > 6 v Q E v E 6 > F 5 7 E s @ | @ ? E v 7 t @ M v Q > F 5 w E E s x > F s O Q E y @ G 7z O Q E y @ G 7 { > F 7 t @ } E w F 6 t > v E J D @ F 7 Q @ x @ ? ? > F 5 7 E F : x @ ? ? > F 5 7 E F D E 4 F 7 H : I F 7 P Q > E N~ F s @ Q I F 7 P Q > E � @ 5 4 ? P 7 > E F 8 K C � < C : s Q P J 7 6 E J P ? ? Q @ v E Q 7 6 Q @ � 4 > Q @ s P 6 v P Q 7 E J 7 t @ � @ F @ w P u ? @ S F @ Q 5 H 3 v v Q E | P ?P v v ? > G P 7 > E F J E Q 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 P Q @ 7 E u @ � P s @ P | P > ? P u ? @ J E Q v 4 u ? > G Q @ | > @ w P F s G E � � @ F 7 J E Q P v @ Q > E s E J P 7 ? @ P 6 7 B < Ls P H 6 v Q > E Q 7 E 7 t @ = > F P ? O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 N } t @ = > F P ? O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 J E Q 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 > 6 7 E u @ t @ ? s E F T E | @ � u @ Q V � � :; < 9 9 N } t @ s E G 4 � @ F 7 6 P Q @ P | P > ? P u ? @ J E Q H E 4 Q Q @ | > @ w P 7 7 t @ D @ F 7 Q @ x @ ? ? > F 5 7 E F U 4 F > G > v P ? I J J > G @ 6 : 9 U P G � E F P ? sM � 4 P Q @ : S ? E Q P N } t @ Q @ v E Q 7 6 P Q @ P ? 6 E P | P > ? P u ? @ P 7 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 w @ u 6 > 7 @

–5 E 7 E w w w N w v s L G P F P s P N G P : 4 F s @ Q� � � � � � � � : 7 t @ F � � � � � � � � : H E 4 w > ? ? J > F s 7 t @ � � � � � � � � � � ? > F R E F 7 t @ ? @ J 7 N I Q 4 6 @ 7 t @ s > Q @ G 7 ? > F R At 7 7 v A � � G P F P s P N w v s N s @ � G P � v Q E y @ G 7 6 � > F L G P F P s P � 6 v Q > F 5 w E E s N t 7 � ? Nx @ t E v @ 7 t P 7 H E 4 G P F P 7 7 @ F s 7 t @ O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 N } t @ 7 > � @ P F s ? E G P 7 > E F E J 7 t @ � @ @ 7 > F 5 G P F u @ J E 4 F s E F 7 t @P 7 7 P G t @ s F E 7 > G @ N 3 ? 7 @ Q F P 7 > | @ ? H : 7 E v Q E | > s @ 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 7 @ P � w > 7 t H E 4 Q G E � � @ F 7 6 E Q J E Q J 4 Q 7 t @ Q > F J E Q � P 7 > E F :v ? @ P 6 @ @ � P > ? 4 6 P 7 M t P w F P N v @ s s ? @ � 6 7 P F 7 @ G N G E � E Q G P ? ? M 7 P F 7 @ G P 7 z K 9 C { � 8 B L B < K < N x Q > 7 7 @ F G E � � @ F 7 6 G P FP ? 6 E u @ � P > ? @ s E Q J P � @ s 7 E 7 t @ 4 F s @ Q 6 > 5 F @ s N= E Q � E Q @ > F J E Q � P 7 > E F : v ? @ P 6 @ | > 6 > 7 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 w @ u 6 > 7 @ : E Q G E F 7 P G 7 4 6 P 7 P F H 7 > � @ NM > F G @ Q @ ? H :h � W o � � c c � o h � � � � o � � ¡ ¢h ` a j Z a m Y k k b YM @ F > E Q O Q E y @ G 7 U P F P 5 @ Q£ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ® ¯ ® ° ¨ °± ² ³ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ® ¯ ´ µ ª ¶ · ² ¸ ¹ ² º » ¤ ¼ ¼ ¥ ¤ ½ ¾ ¿ ² ¹ ¿ ¤ À º À Á ÂS F G ? E 6 4 Q @ A Ã Á ¿ Ä À ¤ Á Å ± Ä ¹ ² ¥ Æ Ç È ¥ Ä À É ¤ ¤ ¿ Ä ¹ ÊD D N Ë t ? P > Q @ O P Q Q Ì : w v s D P F P s P D E Q v E Q P 7 > E F

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ! " � # $ $ � % & '( � ! ) * ' � + , - . / � / � ' �0 � 1 ) * ' � + , - . / � 2 % + .3 4 5 4 6 7 8 9 : ; < 9 9= > ? @ A 9 B < C B < B < BD E F 6 7 > 7 4 @ F G H I J J > G @9 � 9 M 7 N 3 F s Q @ w M 7 Q @ @ 7 S P 6 7 : ; F s = ? E E Q= @ Q 5 4 6 I T T 9 U 9 O CW X X Y Z X [ \ Z ] � Y k W g Z \ X Xe Y f Y g Y Z _ Y ] h i g [ Z d j \ \ k l [ Z k m g \ n Y _ Xo \ X [ _ Y \ f p [ Z a b m q r b [ _ ^ Y Y X [ Z dO ? @ P 6 @ J > F s P 7 7 P G t @ s 7 t @ T E 7 > G @ E J = > F P ? O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 J E Q 7 t @ M v Q > F 5 w E E s x > F s O Q E y @ G 7 N 3 6 s @ 6 G Q > u @ s > F 7 t @F E 7 > G @ : w v s D P F P s P D E Q v E Q P 7 > E F z w v s D P F P s P { > 6 v Q E v E 6 > F 5 7 E s @ | @ ? E v 7 t @ M v Q > F 5 w E E s x > F s O Q E y @ G 7z O Q E y @ G 7 { > F 7 t @ } E w F 6 t > v E J D @ F 7 Q @ x @ ? ? > F 5 7 E F : x @ ? ? > F 5 7 E F D E 4 F 7 H : I F 7 P Q > E N~ F s @ Q I F 7 P Q > E � @ 5 4 ? P 7 > E F 8 K C � < C : s Q P J 7 6 E J P ? ? Q @ v E Q 7 6 Q @ � 4 > Q @ s P 6 v P Q 7 E J 7 t @ � @ F @ w P u ? @ S F @ Q 5 H 3 v v Q E | P ?P v v ? > G P 7 > E F J E Q 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 P Q @ 7 E u @ � P s @ P | P > ? P u ? @ J E Q v 4 u ? > G Q @ | > @ w P F s G E � � @ F 7 J E Q P v @ Q > E s E J P 7 ? @ P 6 7 B < Ls P H 6 v Q > E Q 7 E 7 t @ = > F P ? O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 N } t @ = > F P ? O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 J E Q 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 > 6 7 E u @ t @ ? s E F T E | @ � u @ Q V � � :; < 9 9 N } t @ s E G 4 � @ F 7 6 P Q @ P | P > ? P u ? @ J E Q H E 4 Q Q @ | > @ w P 7 7 t @ D @ F 7 Q @ x @ ? ? > F 5 7 E F U 4 F > G > v P ? I J J > G @ 6 : 9 U P G � E F P ? sM � 4 P Q @ : S ? E Q P N } t @ Q @ v E Q 7 6 P Q @ P ? 6 E P | P > ? P u ? @ P 7 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 w @ u 6 > 7 @

–5 E 7 E w w w N w v s L G P F P s P N G P : 4 F s @ Q� � � � � � � � : 7 t @ F � � � � � � � � : H E 4 w > ? ? J > F s 7 t @ � � � � � � � � � � ? > F R E F 7 t @ ? @ J 7 N I Q 4 6 @ 7 t @ s > Q @ G 7 ? > F R At 7 7 v A � � G P F P s P N w v s N s @ � G P � v Q E y @ G 7 6 � > F L G P F P s P � 6 v Q > F 5 w E E s N t 7 � ? Nx @ t E v @ 7 t P 7 H E 4 G P F P 7 7 @ F s 7 t @ O 4 u ? > G U @ @ 7 > F 5 N } t @ 7 > � @ P F s ? E G P 7 > E F E J 7 t @ � @ @ 7 > F 5 G P F u @ J E 4 F s E F 7 t @P 7 7 P G t @ s F E 7 > G @ N 3 ? 7 @ Q F P 7 > | @ ? H : 7 E v Q E | > s @ 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 7 @ P � w > 7 t H E 4 Q G E � � @ F 7 6 E Q J E Q J 4 Q 7 t @ Q > F J E Q � P 7 > E F :v ? @ P 6 @ @ � P > ? 4 6 P 7 M t P w F P N v @ s s ? @ � 6 7 P F 7 @ G N G E � E Q G P ? ? M 7 P F 7 @ G P 7 z K 9 C { � 8 B L B < K < N x Q > 7 7 @ F G E � � @ F 7 6 G P FP ? 6 E u @ � P > ? @ s E Q J P � @ s 7 E 7 t @ 4 F s @ Q 6 > 5 F @ s N= E Q � E Q @ > F J E Q � P 7 > E F : v ? @ P 6 @ | > 6 > 7 7 t @ O Q E y @ G 7 w @ u 6 > 7 @ : E Q G E F 7 P G 7 4 6 P 7 P F H 7 > � @ NM > F G @ Q @ ? H :h � W o � � c c � o h � � � � o � � ¡ ¢h ` a j Z a m Y k k b YM @ F > E Q O Q E y @ G 7 U P F P 5 @ Q£ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ® ¯ ® ° ¨ °± ² ³ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ® ¯ ´ µ ª ¶ · ² ¸ ¹ ² º » ¤ ¼ ¼ ¥ ¤ ½ ¾ ¿ ² ¹ ¿ ¤ À º À Á ÂS F G ? E 6 4 Q @ A Ã Á ¿ Ä À ¤ Á Å ± Ä ¹ ² ¥ Æ Ç È ¥ Ä À É ¤ ¤ ¿ Ä ¹ ÊD D N Ë t ? P > Q @ O P Q Q Ì : w v s D P F P s P D E Q v E Q P 7 > E F

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " � � ! � � � � # � � � ! " � � ! � � �

$ % & % ' ( ) * + * , ) ,- . / 0 1 2 3 4 0 5 6 &4 5 6 ' ( . ( % 2 6 / 7 8 9 9 . / 2: ; * , , < ( = > 1 ( ? . / @ < ( ? 2 2 ( A 1 ' (B 2 ? & % ' + 8 CC ) - ) - DE 2 1 ? - ? = - . / 0 1 2 3 4 0 5 6 & +F G H I J H K L M N I O O I P Q H N O Q H R S O L P H S K F T S U S J I G O S V M W I W H L M I F T S X H P O K S T O Q H I Y S Z H [ \ H M O L S M H N U T S X H P O ] ^ JN H J P T L Y H N L M O Q H M S O L P H _ ` U N a I M I N I a S T U S T I O L S M b ` U N c L J U T S U S J L M W O S N H Z H G S U O Q H d U T L M W ` S S N e L M Nf I T \ L M g Q H g S ` M J Q L U S K a H M O T H e H G G L M W O S M _ e H G G L M W O S M a S h M O i _ j M O I T L S ] g h T Y L M H P S S T N L M I O H J I T H I JK S G G S ` J k d U T L M W ` S S N g h T Y L M H a S S T N L M I O H Jg h T Y L M H l m I O L O h N H m S M W L O h N HT n o p ] q r p s s q t [ r u ] o n n n v u tT w o p ] q x u n x s t [ r u ] o u o s s q tT p o p ] q r q n o p t [ r u ] o u n w u q tT o o p ] q r p w q v t [ r u ] p x r s r v ty S h T S T W I M L z I O L S M Q I J Y H H M L M P G h N H N S M O Q H U T S X H P O { J P S M J h G O I O L S M N L J O T L Y h O L S M G L J O ] e H \ I i P S M O I P O i S h L MO Q H M H I T K h O h T H T H W I T N L M W O Q H U T S X H P O I M N U S O H M O L I G H M Z L T S M \ H M O I G L M K S T \ I O L S M i S h T I W H M P i \ I i U S J J H J J O SI J J L J O L M O Q H U H T \ L O O L M W U T S P H J J ] | K S h T P S M O I P O L M K S T \ I O L S M J Q S h G N Y H I \ H M N H N _ U G H I J H P S M O I P O O Q Hh M N H T J L W M H N I O i S h T H I T G L H J O P S M Z H M L H M P H ]e H G S S } K S T ` I T N O S ` S T } L M W ` L O Q i S h _ I M N S Y O I L M L M W i S h T Z I G h I Y G H L M U h O _ I J O Q L J U T S X H P O U T S W T H J J H JO Q T S h W Q O Q H T H W h G I O S T i I U U T S Z I G J U T S P H J J ] g S U T S Z L N H O Q H U T S X H P O O H I \ ` L O Q i S h T P S \ \ H M O J S T K S T K h T O Q H TL M K S T \ I O L S M _ U G H I J H H \ I L G h J I O ~ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � S T P I G G h J I O n [ r r r [ q n w [ w o u n S Tb x u s c q n w [ w o u u ] e T L O O H M P S \ \ H M O J P I M I G J S Y H \ I L G H N S T K I � H N O S O Q H h M N H T J L W M H N ]f S T \ S T H L M K S T \ I O L S M I Y S h O O Q H U T S X H P O _ U G H I J H Z L J L O h J I O S h T ` H Y J L O H k ` ` ` ] ` U N [ P I M I N I ] P Id L M P H T H G i _� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� Q G I L T H F I T T � _ � ^ _ F � F� L T ] S K F H T \ L O J I M N V M Z L T S M \ H M O I G d O h N L H JV M P G S J h T H J k R S O L P H S K F T S U S J I G O S V M W I W H L M I F T S X H P Oa a k d Q I ` M I F H N N G H _ d O I M O H P a S M J h G O L M W m O N

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ! " � � ! � � � � # � � � ! " � � ! � � �

$ % & % ' ( ) * + * , ) ,- . / $ 0 1 2 ( (3 2 1 ' ( 4 ( % . 1 5 6 7 8 8 4 5 .) 9 ) : ( ; $ 1 / 0 . < : ( 0 . . ( = > ' ( + * 1 / ? @ 2 2 0? . 0 & % ' + 7 AA ) B ) C DE . > 0 B 0 ; - . / $ 0 1 2 ( ( +F G H I J H K L M N I O O I P Q H N O Q H R S O L P H S K F T S U S J I G O S V M W I W H L M I F T S X H P O K S T O Q H I Y S Z H [ \ H M O L S M H N U T S X H P O ] ^ JN H J P T L Y H N L M O Q H M S O L P H _ ` U N a I M I N I a S T U S T I O L S M b ` U N c L J U T S U S J L M W O S N H Z H G S U O Q H d U T L M W ` S S N e L M Nf I T \ L M g Q H g S ` M J Q L U S K a H M O T H e H G G L M W O S M _ e H G G L M W O S M a S h M O i _ j M O I T L S ] g h T Y L M H P S S T N L M I O H J I T H I JK S G G S ` J k d U T L M W ` S S N g h T Y L M H a S S T N L M I O H Jg h T Y L M H l m I O L O h N H m S M W L O h N HT n o p ] q r p s s q t [ r u ] o n n n v u tT w o p ] q x u n x s t [ r u ] o u o s s q tT p o p ] q r q n o p t [ r u ] o u n w u q tT o o p ] q r p w q v t [ r u ] p x r s r v ty S h T S T W I M L z I O L S M Q I J Y H H M L M P G h N H N S M O Q H U T S X H P O { J P S M J h G O I O L S M N L J O T L Y h O L S M G L J O ] e H \ I i P S M O I P O i S h L MO Q H M H I T K h O h T H T H W I T N L M W O Q H U T S X H P O I M N U S O H M O L I G H M Z L T S M \ H M O I G L M K S T \ I O L S M i S h T I W H M P i \ I i U S J J H J J O SI J J L J O L M O Q H U H T \ L O O L M W U T S P H J J ] | K S h T P S M O I P O L M K S T \ I O L S M J Q S h G N Y H I \ H M N H N _ U G H I J H P S M O I P O O Q Hh M N H T J L W M H N I O i S h T H I T G L H J O P S M Z H M L H M P H ]e H G S S } K S T ` I T N O S ` S T } L M W ` L O Q i S h _ I M N S Y O I L M L M W i S h T Z I G h I Y G H L M U h O _ I J O Q L J U T S X H P O U T S W T H J J H JO Q T S h W Q O Q H T H W h G I O S T i I U U T S Z I G J U T S P H J J ] g S U T S Z L N H O Q H U T S X H P O O H I \ ` L O Q i S h T P S \ \ H M O J S T K S T K h T O Q H TL M K S T \ I O L S M _ U G H I J H H \ I L G h J I O ~ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � S T P I G G h J I O n [ r r r [ q n w [ w o u n S Tb x u s c q n w [ w o u u ] e T L O O H M P S \ \ H M O J P I M I G J S Y H \ I L G H N S T K I � H N O S O Q H h M N H T J L W M H N ]f S T \ S T H L M K S T \ I O L S M I Y S h O O Q H U T S X H P O _ U G H I J H Z L J L O h J I O S h T ` H Y J L O H k ` ` ` ] ` U N [ P I M I N I ] P Id L M P H T H G i _� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� Q G I L T H F I T T � _ � ^ _ F � F� L T ] S K F H T \ L O J I M N V M Z L T S M \ H M O I G d O h N L H JV M P G S J h T H J k R S O L P H S K F T S U S J I G O S V M W I W H L M I F T S X H P Oa a k d Q I ` M I F H N N G H _ d O I M O H P a S M J h G O L M W m O N


160960606

Appendix F6

Telecommunication and Radar System Providers- Comment/Response Summary

SPRINGWOOD WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT APPENDIX F6 – TELECOMMUNICATIONS-RADAR - COMMENT/RESPONSE TABLE

telecomm-radar_final.docx 1 of 5

Details of Correspondence Contents of Correspondence Feedback Received How Comments Were Considered by Project Team

NAV CANADA Dave Ferris To Whom it May

Concern Chris Csatlos Separate Letters



N/A N/A

Dave Ferris To Whom it May



N/A N/A

Diane Levesque Letter

Submitted December 17, 2010 Approval received March 7, 2011

Land use Proposal Form + Siting Spreadsheet + 1:50,000 Map, Confirmation Letter from NAV Canada that they have no objection.

N/A

Dave Ferris To Whom it May



N/A N/A

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Alex Beckstead Francine Boucher Separate Letters



N/A N/A

Alex Beckstead Francine Boucher Separate Letters


N/A N/A

Alex Beckstead Francine Boucher


N/A N/A


2 of 5 telecomm-radar_final.docx


Separate Letters Department of National Defence

Toufic Haddad, Aerospace and Telecommunications Engineering Support Squadron (ATESS), National Defence

Letter



N/A N/A

Andrew Risk, Department of National Defence

Letter



N/A N/A

Mario Lavoie, Spectrum Engineering Technician

Email

Emailed August 12, 2010 Provided Notice of Proposal to Engage

in a Renewable Energy Project for the Springwood Wind Project

Approval received August 30, 2010

The proposal has been reviewed in respect to DND radiocommunication systems and no objections were raised.

N/A

Andrew Risk Email

Received email August 25, 2011 Initial analysis of the proposed Project

completed based on latitude and longitude figures identified.

Assessment revealed no impact to DND, Air Traffic Control, Air Defence Radars.

We have no objections to your Project as submitted.

Should there be any changes to the site please re-submit the proposal for another assessment.

Email sent August 26, 2010 Thank you for your

evaluation. The guidelines set forth in

the RABC and CanWEA document identifies DND as an organization that must be consulted with during the planning and development phase of a wind farm, if the site is within 60 km of DND Air Traffic Control Search Radar.

Requests that DND review the Project site to ensure

N/A




that the Project is compatible with DND activities.

Also requested the opportunity to work with DND to clarify the areas of concern and in presenting potential mitigation, should any issues be identified by DND.

Toufic Haddad, Aerospace and Telecommunications Engineering Support Squadron (ATESS)

Letter


N/A N/A

Andrew Risk, Department of National Defence

Letter


N/A N/A

Toufic Haddad, Aerospace and Telecommunications Engineering Support Squadron (ATESS)

Letter


N/A N/A

Andrew Risk Letter


N/A N/A

Canadian Coast Guard Lee Goldberg, Canadian

Coast Guard Email

Sent email on September 22, 2010 Notice of Public Meeting #1

N/A N/A

XNCR, Windfarm Coordinator

Lee H. Goldberg, Radio Communications System, Wind Farm

Sent Email September 24, 2010 Provided Notice of Public Meeting #1

for Springwood Wind Project

Received Email response October 5, 2010

Based on the proposed location of the wind farm, the Canadian Coast Guard does

N/A


4 of 5 telecomm-radar_final.docx


Coordinator Email

not have any communication or radar sites in the immediate area; therefore, the Canadian Coast Guard has no concerns.

Ministry of Government Services Lou Battiston Letter and Notice

Sent Letter August 12, 2010 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a


N/A N/A

Lou Battiston Letter and Notice


N/A N/A

Lou Battiston Sent Letter and Notice Mark Fox, Network Radio

Engineer Received Email

Sent email August 31, 2011 to Lou Battiston

Notice of Final Public Meeting

Received Email September 28, 2011

Based on our analysis of the attached Notice, it is unlikely to affect the operations of Ontario’s public safety mobile radio system

Please be advised that a reassessment will be required should the project/study area boundaries change.

Please update your contact information based on information provided.

Contact List updated with information provided

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Martin Levert Letter



None N/A




Martin Levert Letter


None N/A

Martin Levert Letter


None N/A

Radio Advisory Board of Canada To Whom it May Concern Email


None N/A

To Whom it May Concern Email


None N/A

Environment Canada Lillian Yao Email


None N/A

Lillian Yao Email


None N/A