appendix g - wpdcanada.wpd.de/uploads/tx_projectdownloads/fair_13.7_cr... · 2013-12-11 ·...

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT August 2012

Appendix G

Aboriginal Community Correspondence and Consideration by Project Team

G1 - Correspondence with the Beausoleil Chippewas of Christian Island G2 - Correspondence with the Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (Chippewas of Rama) G3 - Correspondence with Williams Treaties First Nation G4 - Correspondence with the Saugeen First Nation G5 - Correspondence with the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation G6 - Correspondence with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation G7 - Correspondence with the Chippewas of Georgina Island G8 - Correspondence with the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation G9 - Correspondence with the Métis Nation of Ontario, the Great Lakes Métis Council and the Georgian Bay Métis Council. G10 - Project Summary Reports


Appendix G1

Correspondence with the Beausoleil Chippewas of Christian Island

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G1 – Correspondence with the Beausoleil Chippewas of Christian Island

1 of 2

Aboriginal Engagement Summary – Beausoleil Chippewas of Christian Island Doc Ref.

No. To/ From Type Date Sent/ Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response

BCCI-1 Stantec to Chief Rodney Monaque Jr.

Notice & Letter

23 Jun 2010 • Sent Notice to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project to the Beausoleil Chippewas for Fairview Project

BCCI-2 wpd to Chief Roland Monague

Letter 11 Apr 2011 • wpd sent a letter regarding the Fairview and Whittington Projects. • Provided an overview of the Project specifications and preliminary

schedule. • Provided a reference map which included the location of the project. • Provided the Draft Project Description Report (PDR) for review. • Noted potential impacts of the Project, as identified in the Draft PDR and

stated that wpd would be happy to discuss their potential interests in the Project.

• Explained what reports and documentation they would have received from wpd and/or Stantec already regarding the projects, as well as what reports they could expect to receive in future.

• Stated that wpd would be pleased to meet with them regarding the Project should they desire.

BCCI-2.1

wpd to Chief Roland Monague

Follow-up (phone)

3 Jun 2011 • Follow up to inquire regarding April 11th introductory letter – message left

BCCI-2.2 wpd to Chief Roland Monague

Follow-up (e-mail)

4 Aug 2011 • Sent follow up letter to April 11th letter.

BCCI-3 wpd to Beausoleil Chippewas of Christian Island

Notice & Letter

6 Jun 2011 • Provided Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting for the Fairview Project

• Provided Draft Project Description Report for community review.


Phone Call 28 Sep 2011

• Left a message regarding the Fairview and Whittington Projects, along with wpd contact information, encouraging them to contact wpd should they have any questions regarding the projects.

BCCI-5, 5.1

Stantec to Chief Roland Monague

Notice & Letter

28 May 2012 • Provided notice of the Final Public Open House for the Fairview Project • Cover letter included • Provided Draft REA documents and asked that they be made available to

staff and members of his community during the 60-day review period. • Requested he provide any comments or feedback, in writing, his

community feels should be considered regarding the Fairview Project and associated documents.

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G1 – Correspondence with the Beausoleil Chippewas of Christian Island

2 of 2

Doc Ref. No. To/ From Type Date Sent/

Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response

• Noted when the Notice will be published in local newspapers and requested that he let wpd know if he would like a copy of the Notice published in a newspaper within the Community.

• Provided information about finding the reports on the website as well as contact information should he have comments or require further information.

BCCI-6 Stantec to Chief Roland Montague

Letter 29 May 2012 • Noted that the Draft Renewable Energy Approval (REA) reports were couriered to him on May 28, 2012.

• Provided a page to replace in the Acoustic Assessment Report. • Requested to be contacted if the reports were not received.


Project Update Letter

23 Jul 2012 • Sent updated information about the Fairview and Whittington Projects • While Beausoleil Chippewas of Christian Island had not expressed any

previous concerns, wpd invited them to share any questions or comments in written format

• Should a meeting be desired, wpd would be happy to arrange it


Appendix G2

Correspondence with the Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation

(Chippewas of Rama)

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G2 – Correspondence with the Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (Chippewas of Rama)

1 of 2

Aboriginal Engagement Summary – Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (Chippewas of Rama)


Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response CRM-1, 1.1

wpd to Chief Sharon Stinson Henry

Letter 11 Apr 2011 14 Apr 2011

• wpd sent a letter regarding the Project stating the MOE had indicated the Chippewas of Rama Mnjikaning First Nation were to be consulted.

• Provided an overview of the Project specifications and preliminary schedules.

• Provided a reference map which included the location of the projects. • Provided the Draft Project Description Report (PDR) for review. • Noted potential impacts of the Project, as identified in the Draft PDR and




• Stated that wpd would be pleased to meet with them regarding the Project should they desire.

CRM-1.2, 1.3

Chief Sharon Stinson-Henry to wpd

Letter, Phone

18 Apr 2011 • Acknowledged receipt of the April 11th letter. • Indicated that a copy had been forwarded to Karry Sandy-MacKenzie,

Barrister & Solicitor, Coordinator for Williams Treaties First Nations. • Requested that all future correspondence be sent to Ms. Sandy-

MacKenzie, copying RAMA First Nation.

• Follow up regarding April 11th introductory letter and CRM response from April 18th, 2011.

• Discussed that information would still be sent to the Chippewas of RAMA, and that the Williams Treaties First Nations contact provided by Chippewas of RAMA would be added to the contact list.

CRM-2 Stantec to Chief Sharon Stinson Henry

Notice and Letter

6 Jun 2011 • Sent the Notice of Draft Site Plan and the Notice for the First Public Open House for the Fairview Project.

• Provided the Draft Project Description Report for community review.

CRM-3, 3.1

Stantec to Chief Sharon Stinson Henry

Notice and Letter


staff and members of his community during the 60-day review period. • Requested she provide any comments or feedback, in writing, her

community feels should be considered regarding the Fairview Project and

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G2 – Correspondence with the Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (Chippewas of Rama)

2 of 2


Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response associated documents.

• Noted when the Notice will be published in local newspapers and requested that she let wpd know if she would like a copy of the Notice published in a newspaper within the Community.

• Provided information about finding the reports on the website as well as contact information should she have comments or require further information.

CRM-4 Stantec to Chief Sharon Stinson Henry



CRM-5 wpd to Williams Treaties First Nation cc CRM

Project Update Letter

23 Jul 2012 • Sent updated information about the Fairview and Whittington Projects for Chippewas of RAMA Mnjikaning First Nation.

• wpd invited them to share any questions or comments in written format • Should a meeting be desired, wpd would be happy to arrange it.


Appendix G3

Correspondence with Williams Treaties First Nation

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G3 – Correspondence with the Williams Treaties First Nation

1 of 1

Aboriginal Engagement Summary – Williams Treaties First Nations


Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response WTFN-1 Stantec to

Karry Sandy-McKenzie

Notice & Letter

6 Jun 2011 • Provided Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting for the Fairview Project.

• Provided Draft Project Description Report.

WTFN-2 wpd to Karry Sandy-MacKenzie

Intro Letter 11 Aug 2011 • Explained that previous consultation with the Chippewas of RAMA Mnjikaning First Nation and Curve Lake First Nation advised wpd to contact the Williams Treaties First Nations.

• Asked to be advised as to how the Williams Treaties First Nations claim, under the Canada’s Specific Claims Policy, may affect how wpd should consult with different Williams Treaties First Nations members.

• Basic project information provided for: Whittington, Fairview, Sumac Ridge Springwood, and White Pines, along with a tentative timeline of each project.

• Noted potential impacts of the project are identified in the Draft Project Description Report, and summarized some possible impacts.

WTFN-2.1 wpd to Karry Sandy-MacKenzie

Phone call 14 Sep 2011 • Follow up to August project letter • Left message

WTFN-3 wpd to Karry Sandy-McKenzie

Update email

24-Jul-2012 • Provided updated project information for the Fairview, White Pines, Sumac Ridge, and Whittington Projects

• Re-iterated wpd would be happy to address any questions, comments and concerns.

• Requested any comments or feedback her community feels should be considered regarding the Project in writing.

• A meeting can be arranged if requested.


Appendix G4

Correspondence with the Saugeen First Nation

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G4 – Correspondence with the Saugeen First Nation

1 of 2

Aboriginal Engagement Summary – Saugeen First Nation (Chippewas of Saugeen)

Doc Ref. No.

To/ From Type Date Sent/ Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response

SFN-1 Stantec to Chief Edward Machimity and To Whom it May Concern

Notice and Letter

23 Jun 2010 • Provided the Notice of Proposal to Engage for the Fairview Project. • Provided the turbine coordinates.

SFN-2,21.1

wpd to Dale Jacobs and Jake Linklater

Letter 11 Apr 2011 • wpd sent a letter regarding the Springwood, Whittington and Fairview projects, regarding which the MOE had indicated the Saugeen First Nation were to be consulted.

• Provided an overview of the project specifications and preliminary schedules.

• Provided a reference map which included the location of the projects. • Provided the Draft Project Description Report (PDR) for review. • Noted potential impacts of the Project, as identified in the Draft PDR and


• Stated that wpd would be pleased to meet with them regarding the project should they desire.

SFN-2.2 From wpd to Chief and Council’s Executive Assistant

Phone call 13 May 2011 • Message left with EA of Saugeen First Nation following up regarding April letter.

SFN-2.3 From wpd to Chief Randall Kahgee

Letter 4 Aug 2011 • Sent a letter to Chief Randall Kahgee as a follow up to April letter and May call.

• Noted the potential impact of the Project are identified in the Draft PDR, and provided possible impacts.


SFN-3 Stantec to Chief Randall Kahgee

Notice and Letter

6 Jun 2011 • Sent the Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of First Public Open House for the Fairview Project.



Notice and Letter


FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G4 – Correspondence with the Saugeen First Nation

2 of 2

Doc Ref. No.









SFN-6 wpd to Chief Randall Kahgee

Letter 24 Jul 2012 • Provided an update on status of Fairview, Whittington and Springwood projects as those had previously been of interest.

• Indicated that the Fairview final public meeting was to take place August 2nd, 2012.

• Followed up regarding any further comment on the projects. • Offered to meet again should they wish to do so.


Appendix G5

Correspondence with the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G5 – Correspondence with the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation

1 of 2

Aboriginal Engagement Summary – Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation


Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response CNUFN-1 Stantec to

Interim Chief Scott Lee

Notice & Letter

23 Jun 2010 • Sent Notice to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project for Fairview Project.

CNUFN-2 wpd to Chief Ralph Akiwenkie

Intro Letter 11 Apr 2011 • Introduction letter regarding Springwood, Fairview, and Whittington projects.

• Provided a brief timeline and overview of each project, including a briefing on the role of different reports in the application.

• Provided a reference map which included the location of the project. • Provided the Draft Project Description Report (PDR) for review. • Noted potential impacts of the Project, as identified in the Draft PDR and



• Invited Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation to an introductory meeting if they would prefer one.

CNUFN-2.1

wpd to Interim Chief Scott Lee

Phone Call 13 May 2011 • wpd called the Chippewas of Nawash office to follow up regarding the April letter.

• Reception informed wpd that Chief Ralph Akiwenzie had tragically passed away on March 4th, 2011.

• Was referred to the voicemail of Interim Chief Scott Lee.

• A message was left with Interim Chief Scott Lee.

CNUFN-2.2

wpd to Interim Chief Scott Lee

Letter 4 Aug 2011 • Sent a follow-up letter to Chief Scott Lee about Whittington, Fairview, and Springwood projects

• Requested any information Chippewas of Nawash may wish to provide to wpd for consideration during their assessments regarding Aboriginal Rights

• Provided brief timeline and information about projects again • Explained nature of reports once more, and offered to speak with them if

they wish to discuss the projects.

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G5 – Correspondence with the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation

2 of 2


Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response CNUFN-3 Stantec to

Chief Scott Lee

Notice and Letter

6 Jun 2011 • Sent the Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of the First Public Open House for the Fairview Project.


CNUFN-4 Stantec to Chief Scott Lee

Notice & Letter






CNUFN-5 Stantec to Chief Scott Lee



CNUFN-6 wpd to Chief Scott Lee

Update letter 24 Jul 2012 • Provided project update information for Fairview, Springwood, and Whittington Projects

• Briefly summarized previous correspondence. • Requested that should he have any comments or feedback which his

community feels should be considered regarding the Project, that he please provide the information in writing.

• If a meeting was desired, wpd would be happy to arrange it.


Appendix G6

Correspondence with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G6 – Correspondence with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation

1 of 8

Aboriginal Engagement Summary – Saugeen Ojibway Nation

Doc Ref. No.

To/ From Type Date Sent/


SON-1 Katrina Keeshig to Stantec

Letter 13 Oct 2010 • Thanked wpd for contacting SON • Attached some key aspects of the agreement SON has

with Ontario for energy projects • Some of these aspects include: impacts on SON rights,

interests and way of life, and participation in benefits from a project

• Expressed desire to meet • Requested a Draft PDR and Project Study Map for the

Fairview Project

• Agreed to pass on response to wpd Canada

SON-2 Katrina Keeshig, Renewable Energy Coordinator to Stantec

Email 30 Nov 2010 • Following up regarding building a relationship between wpd and SON.

• She is in the process of trying to build complete and up-to-date project profiles to assist SON in prioritizing their time.

• Requests a summary of the status of each project (including how much, if any Archaeological and Natural Heritage Assessment has taken place).

• Also requests to work together to coordinate a Leadership meeting between SON and wpd in January.

SON-3, 3.1, 3.2

wpd to Dale Jacobs and Jake Linklater (at Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office)

Letter 11 Apr 2011

• wpd sent a letter regarding the project stating the MOE had indicated the Saugeen Ojibway Nation were to be consulted.

• Provided an overview of several projects (including Fairview) specifications and preliminary schedules.

• Provided a reference map which included the location of the projects.

• Provided the Draft Project Description Report (PDR) for review.

• Noted potential impacts of the Project, as identified in the Draft PDR and stated that wpd would be happy to discuss their potential interests in the Project.

• Explained what reports and documentation they previously would have received from wpd and/or Stantec regarding the projects, as well as what reports they could expect to receive in future.


2 of 8

Doc Ref. No.



• Stated that wpd would be pleased to meet with them regarding the projects should they desire.

SON-3.3 wpd to Chief and Executive Council Assistant

Follow-Up 13 May 2011 • Called to follow-up about introduction letter sent on April 11

SON-4 Stantec to Jake Linklater

Notice and Letter

6 Jun 2011 • Sent the Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of First Public Open House for the Fairview Project

• Provided the Draft Project Description Report for community review.

SON-5 Joselyn Keeshig to wpd

Phone Call 14 Jun 2011 • Requested that the April letter be re-sent electronically as it would seem that the scanned copy was missing a page.

• See email June 14, 2011 (SON-6.2)

SON-5.1, 5.2

Joselyn Keeshig to wpd

Email 14 Jun 2011 • As per her voicemail, she noticed that the correspondence sent (April 11, 2011) is only two pages and would like to know if it is possible that a page is missing.

• If possible, she requests it be re-sent electronically.

• Apologized for the mistake • Attached the letter. • Noted that wpd would be happy to talk about

the projects. • Also identified that all the Draft Project

Description Reports are available on wpd’s website.


Emails 15 Jul – 20 Jul, 2011

• Follow-up regarding the project information sent about wpd’s projects.

• Wanted to see if there was anything to discuss at this time.

• Asked if she would like to arrange for a monitor to accompany the archaeology team for the upcoming archaeological studies.

• SON provided a formal response to wpd’s request with additional information.

• SON provided the SON Territory Energy Agreement.

• Under the SON Territory Energy Agreement, there is an expectation for SON and a project proponent to engage in a meaningful way to: discuss concerns and the impacts a project may have on SON’s Rights and interests, and conclude agreements for SON to participate in the benefits that flow from the project.

SON-7 wpd to Joselyn Keeshig

Email, Arch Request

20 Jul 2011 • Thanked Ms. Keeshig for her response to help wpd understand the engagement process and expectations

• Suggested plans for Fairview’s Archaeological assessment, suggesting collaboration with Paul Racher to set out a schedule.

• Suggested a meeting to review projects to date.

SON-7.1, Joselyn Email 21 Jul 2011 • Noted that SON monitors must be present at the


3 of 8

Doc Ref. No.



7.2 Keeshig to wpd beginning of the process. • Identified that SON has solid expertise to offer in the area

of archaeology and natural heritage, and provided the name of the archaeology contact for SON.

• Asked if wpd had completed a Stage 1 Assessment, and if so, if it may be forwarded.

• Added that Angela Gunn, the monitor, is in contact and working with Paul Racher.

SON-7.3 Joselyn Keeshig to wpd

Email 17 Aug – 29 Aug, 2011

• Worked out details of estimates for Fairview Project Archaeological Assessment monitor.


Email 29 Aug 2011 • Proposed a technical meeting between SON and wpd to discuss Stage 2 Property Assessments for Fairview, results of the Stage 2 Springwood and Whittington projects, Stage 3 site-specific assessment of a Springwood site and additional input.

• Explained where resources were allocated internally. • Provided rates for assessments.

SON-8.1, 8.2


Phone Call 1 Sep 2011 • Discussed request for Technical Meeting and Archaeological work estimate.

• Discussed that this meeting would include the Renewable Energy Coordinator for SON, one member from Nawash, one from Saugeen, their in-house arch and natural heritage experts.

• wpd indicated that they would send SON a few potential dates.

• Suggested dates for the technical meeting.

SON-8.3 wpd to Joselyn Keeshig

Email 13 Sep 2011 • wpd asked if a meeting date had been decided on. • Enclosed Service Order for the archaeological review of

the projects for SON to review. • Requested to be notified if there were any changes that

SON would like. • If there were no changes, requested that a signed copy

be returned.


Call, follow up 27 Sep 2011 • Called to follow up about technical meeting, deciding on October 13th, 2011.

SON-8.5, 8.6

wpd to Joselyn Keeshig

Call, follow up Email

11 Oct 2011 • Re-confirmed meeting date, requested directions to meeting location.

• Clarified some e-mails weren’t being sent, hence the

• Provided agenda items to discuss: Pre-engagement consultation with SON, cultural and natural heritage issues for all 3 projects.


4 of 8

Doc Ref. No.



delay in communication. • Provided directions to meeting location.


Email 11 Oct – 13 Oct, 2011

• Responded with a slightly more detailed meeting agenda for approval.

• Asked if it may be helpful for wpd to present about their company.

• Agreed to agenda

SON-8.8 Meeting with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office (SON EO)

Meeting Notes October 13, 2011

• Meeting notes summarizing the events of the 13 Oct 2011 Technical Meeting between Saugeen Ojibway Environmental Office and wpd

• Springwood, Whittington and Fairview project were introduced

• Discussed the Natural Heritage Assessments and field work practices

• The SON explained the pre-engagement consultation process

• SON declared preference for letters of agreement versus service orders

• Discussions surrounding the previous archaeological assessments

• SON expressed desire for a Stage 3 Assessment for the Springwood Project

• Next steps: exchange more information, continued updates

SON-8.9 Joselyn Keeshig to wpd

Email 18 Oct – 19 Oct 2011

• Thanked wpd for meeting with SON. • Hoped trip was informative and resourceful. • Explained she was providing an update for the Joint

Council’s Consultation Team and wished to include the presentations, requesting an electronic copy.

• Thanked SON for hosting wpd, commenting the community was beautiful, and it was nice to meet SON’s team.

• Attached presentation. • Explained she’s working on minutes, and

asked if it would make more sense to wait for her notes before completing them.

SON-8.10


Email 25 Oct 2011 • Thanked Valerie for the information provided. • Explained she was preparing for Joint Council, but to not

worry about it in relation to the minutes. • Explained there was a slight delay on her note-making

but she would be working on them.

SON-8.11


Letter of Agreement

28 Oct 2011 • Provided a Letter of Agreement to cover the costs and administrative process between wpd and SON.

• Outlined details including SON participation in the Stage


5 of 8

Doc Ref. No.



1 Background Research/Property inspection Reports for all 3 projects, Stage 2 property assessment for Fairview Stage 2.

SON-8.12


Email 9 Nov 2011 • Sent a message following up on the letter of agreement. • Requested that wpd resend a sample invoice as it did not come through on Mr. Linklater’s e-mail

SON-9, 9.1


Email 13 Sep 2011 and 16 Oct 2011

• Followed up on arch work, and explained fall was going to be busy for SON, but she would try to plan in advance to prepare for the upcoming season.

• Explained wpd will be trying to complete fieldwork in October, depending on several factors, but ensured wpd would notify SON of any updates.

SON-9.2, SON-9.3


Arch 4 Oct 2011 and 7 Oct 2011

• Asked if wpd was ready to complete Archaeological work.

• wpd explained she would be able to provide a more concrete date in the following week due to circumstances depending on weather and crop.

• Asked if there were any changes wpd could make to the service order.

• Requested confirmation of technical meeting time and date.


Email 17 Nov 2011 • Noted that SON assessed its participation with wind proponents and are now in the process of developing a new administrative procedure.

• Provided invoice for all costs-to-date and forecasts for the completion of the cultural heritage assessment for wpd projects.

SON-10.1


Email 22 Nov 2011 • Hoped to call at some point during the day • Updated wpd on SON leadership’s decisions, explaining

the difficulty of applying several modifications to different projects in different stages.

• SON has pulled all fieldworkers due to costs. • Hopes to discuss outstanding invoice and make

arrangements for payment.

SON-10.2


Email 22 Nov 2011 • Tried to call but did not get a response. • Noted that arch work should continue for Fairview

Project.

• Explained she spoke to Jake, and SON leadership has decided to no longer participate in projects.

• Will affect all wind projects. SON-10.3


Phone Call 22 Nov 2011 • Spoke regarding the SON no longer participating in Stage 3 for Springwood, or the remaining Fairview


6 of 8

Doc Ref. No.



archaeological assessment. • Discusses that the SON were re-evaluating their

processes and would be developing a new administrative process for working with proponents.

• Agreed that for the time being, execution of the letter of agreement would still be desirable by the SON.

SON-10.4


Email 22 Nov 2011 • Thanked Joselyn for keeping wpd informed • Attached signed letter of agreement.


Email 22 Nov 2011 • Clarifying details of Letter of Agreement and invoice.

SON-11.1


Email 7 Dec 2011 • Asked wpd to forward any questions about invoices to her.

• Explained some details about the invoice.

SON-11.2


Call 14 Dec 2011 • Discussed the invoice in an attempt to expedite the process.

SON-11.3


Email 10 Jan 2012 • Listed concerns about the invoice. • Provided breakdown of invoice.

SON-11.4

wpd- Joselyn Keeshig

Email 10 Jan – 21 Mar 2012

• Further discussions about terms of invoice. • wpd recognizes its responsibility in consultation in terms

of cost. • Follow-up to discussions.


Email 11 Jan 2012 • Provided SON comments on archaeological work for Fairview, Whittington, and Springwood Projects.

• Original surveyors’ field books and plans should be examined for accounts of Native presence/activity.

• Haldimand Tract misinformation (page 18) – Six Nations falsifies historical documentation: Springwood not within Haldimand Tract.

• ARA engaged Six Nations as archaeological monitor – why wasn’t SON engaged?

• MTC criterion for assigning site significance not appropriate for SONTT – all Stage 2 sites of Native affiliation must be Stage 3’d – site AkHc-18 must be Stage 3’d.

• Could the Meadowood point be a knife (it’s long, narrow and asymmetrical) and possibly not a hunting loss?

• Will need current turbine and infrastructure placements –

• Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment report updated to reflect SON comments

• Agreed to consider Stage 3 assessment


7 of 8

Doc Ref. No.



have they changed since May 2011? • If, in the future, turbine or infrastructure locations change,

those areas must be subjected to Stage 2 field assessments.

SON-12.1

Joselyn Keeshig

Email 18 Jan 2012 • Thanked her for the Archaeological notes, and stated that they are being processed.

• Requested to know whether there were any noted from the meeting on October 13th that need to be coordinated on.

• Regarding the Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Report, there is no particular mechanism for ‘taking back’ a report that has been accepted into the Provincial Register; however, ARA can request that the original report be replaced with the revised copy.

• The report has been amended and submitted to MTC, requesting that the report currently on the Registry be replaced.

• Noted that minutes are not her priority at this time, due to the number of projects in SON Territory.

• The report regarding invoices will be table at the next Joint Council Meeting on January 30, and a response will be forthcoming.

• Identified that the notes from the meeting will be revisited when she has the opportunity.


Arch 14 Feb 2012 • Ms. Keeshig made a request for the Stage 2 Archaeology Report for the Fairview Project

• Provided copy of report

SON-14, 14.1

Stantec to Jake Linklater

POH2 28 May 2012 • Provided notice of the Final Public Open House for the Fairview Project

• Cover letter included • Provided Draft REA documents and asked that they be

made available to staff and members of his community during the 60-day review period.

• Requested he provide any comments or feedback, in writing, his community feels should be considered regarding the Fairview Project and associated documents.



SON-15 Stantec to Jake Linklater



8 of 8

Doc Ref. No.



• Provided a page to replace in the Acoustic Assessment Report.

• Requested to be contacted if the reports were not received.


Update email 23 Jul 2012 • Provided an update on status of Fairview, Whittington and Springwood projects.


• Followed up regarding any further comment on the projects.

• Requested that should they have any more comments or feedback which should be considered regarding the Project, to please provide in writing.

• Offered to meet again should they wish to do so.

SON-15.1


Email 13 Aug 2012 • Joselyn Keeshig indicated that further comment could not be provided until review of the sites was complete.

• Indicated that an estimate would be sent shortly.

• Thanked Joselyn and indicated that wpd looked forward to receiving further information.


Appendix G7

Correspondence with the Chippewas of Georgina Island

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G7 – Correspondence with the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation

1 of 3

Aboriginal Engagement Summary – Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation

Doc Ref. No.


CGI-1 Stantec to Chief Donna Big Canoe

Notice and Letter

23 Jun 2010 • Stantec provided the Notice to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project to the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, along with a cover letter.

CGI-2 wpd to Chief Donna Big Canoe

Phone call, follow-up

10 Sep 2010 • Message left regarding several wpd projects including Fairview, Whittington, and Sumac Ridge

CGI-3, 3.1

wpd to Chief Donna Big Canoe

Letter 11 Apr 2011

• wpd sent a letter regarding the Fairview, Whittington and Sumac Ridge projects.

• Provided an overview of the project specifications and preliminary schedule.

• Provided a reference map which included the locations of the projects.

• Provided the Draft Project Description Report (PDR) for review.

• Noted potential impacts of the Project, as identified in the Draft PDR and stated that wpd would be happy to discuss their potential interests in the Project.


• Stated that wpd would be pleased to meet with them regarding the project should they desire.

CGI-3.2 wpd to Brett Mooney

Phone Call – message left

12 May 2011 • Follow up to inquire regarding April 11th introductory letter.

• Reception who indicated that Brett Mooney is rather the one to speak with, not Chief Donna Big Canoe – msg left for Brett Mooney*.

• *After failed attempts to contact Mr. Mooney, contact with Chief Donna Big Canoe was established. Correspondence remains with Chief Big Canoe.

CGI-3.3 wpd to Chief Donna Big Canoe


13 May 11 • Follow up to inquire regarding April 11th introductory letter. A message was left.

CGI-3.4 wpd to Chief Letter 4 Aug 2011 • Sent follow up letter to April 11th letter.


2 of 3

Doc Ref. No.


Donna Big Canoe

• Inquired as to whether there is information that she or members of her community would like the Project Team to consider in the assessment of potential effects regarding the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.

• Noted that potential impacts of the Project are identified in the Draft PDR, and provided a summary.


Notice and Letter

6 Jun 2011 • Draft Project Description Report, NDSP and Notice for first POH sent for the Fairview Wind Project.

• Cover letter included.

CGI-5 wpd to Chief Donna Big Canoe

Phone Call 16 Aug 2011 • Called regarding several wpd projects including Fairview to follow up to the previous inquiry as to whether they have any questions or concerns about the Project Area in which they have treaty or Aboriginal rights.

• Chief Donna Big Canoe indicated that she had no issues but wanted to be contacted if any remains were found during excavation.

• She indicated that they are taking part in their own energy project.

CGI-6, 6.1

Stantec to Chief Donna Big Canoe

Notice and Letter

May 28, 2012 • Provided notice of the Final Public Open House for the Fairview Project

• Cover letter included • Provided Draft REA documents and asked that they be made

available to staff and members of his community during the 60-day review period.

• Requested she provide any comments or feedback, in writing, her community feels should be considered regarding the Fairview Project and associated documents.

• Noted when the Notice will be published in local newspapers and requested that she let wpd know if she would like a copy of the Notice published in a newspaper within the Community.



Letter 29 May 2012 • Noted that the Draft Renewable Energy Approval (REA) reports were couriered to her on May 28, 2012.

• Provided a page to replace in the Acoustic Assessment Report.

• Requested to be contacted if the reports were not received.

CGI-8 wpd to Chief Update letter 23 Jul 2012 • Sent updated information about the Fairview and Whittington


3 of 3

Doc Ref. No.


Donna Big Canoe

Projects. • Noted that from previous correspondence, it was clear that

while CGI had no questions, they had concerns about potential remains found. wpd committed to keeping CGI updated should this happen.

• Invites any comments or questions in written form, and if a meeting is requested, wpd would be happy to arrange it.


Appendix G8

Correspondence with the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G8 – Correspondence with the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation

1 of 1

Aboriginal Engagement Summary – Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation


Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response KNFN-1 wpd

To Chief Kris Nahrgang

Letter 11 Apr 2011 • wpd introduces Fairview, White Pines and Sumac Ridge Wind Energy Projects to Chief Kris Nahrgang.

• Brief description of project and tentative timeline included. • Provided Fairview Wind Project Draft Project Description Report.

KNFN-1.1 wpd to Chief Kris Nahrgang

Phone Call 16 Sep 2011 • wpd left a message for Chief Kris Nahrgang in order to follow up on whether he had received the information about the Fairview, White Pines, and Sumac Ridge projects.

KNFN-2 Stantec to Chief Kris Nahrgang

Notice and Letter

6 Jun 2011 • Sent the Notice of Draft Site Plan and the Notice for the First Public Open House for the Fairview Project.


KNFN-3, 3.1

Stantec to Chief Kris Nahrgang

Notice and Letter






KNFN-4 Stantec to Chief Chris Kahrgang



KNFN-5 wpd to Chief Kris Nahrgang

Update Letter

23 Jul 2012 • Sent a message with updated project information for Fairview, White Pines, and Sumac Ridge Projects

• While it was noted KNFN had not expressed any prior concerns, wpd invites KNFN to send any comments in written format, and if a meeting is desired, wpd would be happy to arrange it.


Appendix G9

Correspondence with the Métis Nation of Ontario, the Great Lakes

Métis Council and the Georgian Bay Métis Council

FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix G9 – Correspondence with the Métis Nation of Ontario, the Great Lakes Métis Council and the Georgian Bay Métis Council

1 of 6

Aboriginal Engagement Summary – Métis Nation of Ontario, the Great Lakes Métis Council and the Georgian Bay Métis Council Doc Ref.

No. To/ From Type Date Sent/ Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response

MNO-1 Stantec To Melanie Paradis

Notice and Letter

23 Jun 2010 • Stantec provided Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project for Fairview.

MNO-2 Stantec to Melanie Paradis

E-mail chain 4 Jan 2011 to 13 Jan 2011

• wpd requested guidance on REA document distribution. • Ms. Paradis informed Ms. Peddle to send REA documents directly to Ms. Paradis or to [email protected]

• Elaborated that once documents are sent to Director of Lands, Resource and Consultation, it is converted to plain-language documents and distributed to community leaders.

• Recommended digital copies over hard copies, and any hard copies should be forwarded to the Ottawa office.

MNO-3 wpd To MNO Consultation Unit

Intro letter 5 Apr 2011 • Basic project information and tentative timeline provided to the MNO for the following projects: Fairview, Springwood, Sumac Ridge, Whittington and White Pines.

• wpd noted they would be happy to meet with the community representatives to discuss the Project.

• Provided Draft Project Description Report.

MNO-4 Malcolm Dixon to wpd

Phone Call 18 Apr 2011 • Acknowledged receipt of Fairview information • Requested that all further information be sent to Alden Barty and

provided contact information • Malcolm explained that Alden reviews information and if there are any

Métis rights or interests that need to be considered, he forwards on to Malcolm.

• Thanked Malcolm for informing wpd and committed to sending any further project information directly to Alden Barty.

MNO-5 Alden Barty to wpd

Phone Call 29 Apr 2011 • Alden acknowledged receipt of all project information as received by Melanie Paradis.

• Stated that the reference map was not received. • Provided email address.

• Committed to sending the map via email

• Requested updated contact information for the Georgian

mailto:[email protected]


2 of 6


Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response • Stated that President Vallee was no longer filling the position with the

Georgian Bay Métis Council. • Indicated meeting will probably be requested.

Bay Métis Council.

MNO-5.1, MNO-5.2

wpd to Alden Barty

Email 29 Apr 2011 • Requested updated contact information for the Georgian Bay Métis Council

• Provided map for all projects and coordinates for each.

• Noted that wpd is looking forward to hearing from him regarding the project and arranging a meeting with the consultation committee.

MNO-6 Alden Barty to wpd

Email 3 May 2011 • Indicated that the committee would like to meet with wpd, and that the proposed date was May 27th, 2011.

• Explained that he would put together an agenda and budget for wpd approval.

• Inquired as to the location of the proposed meeting.

MNO-6 (cont.)

Alden Barty to wpd

Email 4 May 2011 • Indicated meeting location. • Provided contact for the current acting member for the Georgian Bay

Métis Council.

MNO-6.1 Alden Barty to wpd

Email 5 May 2011 • Sent proposed Agenda and Budget. • Requested information regarding the potential duration of the meeting.

• Indicated that a response regarding the budget should be available soon.

• Inquired as to whether this consultation would include all Métis groups, or whether consultation with those not included on the committee should be conducted separately.

MNO-6.1 (cont.)

Alden Barty to wpd

Email 6 May 2011 • Indicated that meetings of this type generally can last 3-4 hours • Advised that wpd contact James Wager for the Great Lakes Métis

Council. • Indicated that the Northumberland Métis Council was inactive. • Indicated that the meeting will be with the Great Lakes Métis Council,

Georgian Bay Métis Council, Moon River Métis Council, along with the Captain of Hunt and Region 7 Councillor for the Métis Nation of Ontario and Alden Barty

• Thanked Alden for the information

• Indicated that the budget had been approved and that they would receive a service order the next week.


3 of 6


Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response MNO-6.2 Alden Barty

To wpd Email 9 May 2011

and 11 May 2011

• Indicated that the Wapiti Métis Council would be involved in the White Pines Project.

• Proposed including them in the May 27th, 2011 meeting • Asked whether wpd would like to move forward with this, stating that if

so, a revised budget would be sent.

• Asked for clarification as to why inclusion of the Wapiti Métis Council was proposed, but the Great Lakes Métis Council was to be consulted with separately.

• Agreed to move forward with including the Wapiti Métis Council in the Meeting.

• Requested updated budget. MNO-6.3 Alden Barty

to wpd Phone Call 12 May 2011 • Regarding meeting with the MNO

• Explained that Region 7 is broken into 2 sections – part identified as traditional territory, and part not yet identified.

• Pauline Saulnier is the councilor for both sections. • Grand River Métis Council would be a separate consultation because

they are in Region 9 – Provided contact information. • Agreed to check with Wapiti to confirm whether or not they are

interested. • Based on that an amended budget may be sent. • Will get back to wpd by Monday. • Indicated that regional maps should be available on the MNO website.

• Explained that if the Wapiti were interested, that they should be included.

• Asked why the Wapiti can be included, but the Grand River should be consulted with separately.

• Asked how one could determine where various regions are located.

MNO-6.3a From wpd to James Wagar

Phone Call 13 May 2011 • Spoke with James regarding consultation with the Métis. • Asked how to ensure that we are consulting with all applicable regions to

the projects.

• Explained that he and Alden Barty are coordinating such that in order not to overwhelm the resources available, first wpd will have the meeting with the Georgian Bay Area Consultation Committee. Alden and James will then confer and determine whether further meetings in James’ region (9) are warranted.

• Indicated that wpd should connect again after the 27th

• Indicated that the best people to contact to ensure we were covering all applicable regions were Alden and James.

• Indicated that Region 9 would


4 of 6


Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response be interested in Sumac Ridge and Springwood, while Region 7 would be interested in Fairview, Whittington and White Pines.

MNO-6.4 From wpd to Alden Barty

Email 13 May 2011 and 16 May 2011

• wpd requested confirmation as to which projects were to be covered at the May 27th meeting.

• Expressed understanding that Alden and James Wagar would confer after the May 27th meeting to determine whether a meeting with Region 9 is necessary.

• Inquired as to the availability of maps for the MNOs regions.

• Alden confirmed that the May 27th meeting would include the Fairview, Whittington, Sumac Ridge and White Pines projects.

• Indicated that the Springwood project is in Region 9.

• Indicated that there is a map of harvesting rights on the MNO website.

MNO-6.5 From wpd To Alden Barty

Email 25 May 2011 • wpd inquired as to whether the Wapiti Métis Council (WMC) would be represented at the upcoming meeting with the MNO on May 27th

• Requested that the MNO sign a service order in order for payment of the meeting.

• Inquired as to whether it would be advisable to share project information with the WMC through Alden Barty.

• Indicated that WMC would not be able to attend the meeting

• Returned the signed service order.

• Confirmed that communicating with WMC through himself would be fine.

MNO 6.6 MNO To wpd Canada

Meeting 27 May 2011 • Meeting Agenda for Friday May 27th, 2011, provided.

MNO-6.7 From Alden Barty to wpd

E-mail 30 May 2011 • Noted that he will send the invoices by the individual.

MNO 6.8 From Alden Barty to wpd

E-mail 2 Jun 2011 • Clarification questions about names for briefing note. • Provided names.

MNO-6.9, 6.10

From wpd to Alden Barty

Email 10 Jun 2011 • Thanked the Georgian Bay Traditional Territory Consultation Committee for meeting regarding wpd projects.

• Attached copies of the slides presented by wpd at the May 27th meeting.

MNO-6.11, 6.12, 6.13

MNO to wpd Canada

Briefing Note 13 June 2011 • Attached meeting Briefing Note. • Indicated that the Committee agreed that the meeting went well and was

informative.

• Indicated that wpd would continue to be in touch regarding the recommendations included in the Briefing Note.

• Inquired as to whether it would be best for wpd to follow up


5 of 6


Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response with James Wagar regarding Region 9 directly.

• Alden indicated that James Wagar should be followed up with directly.

6.14 From wpd to James Wagar


14 Jun 2011 • Requested a call back regarding Region 9 and wpd projects.

MNO-7 Stantec to Gary Lipinski, Alden Barty, and Melanie Paradis

Notice and Letter

6 Jun 2011 • Provided Draft Project Description Report, Notice of Draft Site Plan, and Notice of Public Meeting for Fairview Project

• Cover letter included


Notice and Letter

28 May 2012 • Provided notice of the Final Public Open House for the Fairview Project • Cover letter included. • Provided Draft REA documents and asked that they be made available

to staff and members of his community during the 60-day review period. • Requested she provide any comments or feedback, in writing, MNO feels

should be considered regarding the Fairview Project and associated documents.

• Noted when the Notice will be published in local newspapers and requested that she let wpd know if he would like a copy of the Notice published in a MNO newspaper.





MNO-10 wpd to Melanie Paradis, cc Alden Barty and James Wagar

Email 23 July 2012 and 24 July 2012

• Provided an update on status of Fairview, Whittington and Springwood projects as those had previously been of interest.


• Followed up regarding any further comment on the projects. • Offered to meet again should they wish to do so.

• Alden Barty indicated that the Georgian Bay Traditional Territory Consultation Committee had asked that another meeting be set up to discuss the wpd Canada projects located in the Georgian Bay Traditional Territory (Fairview, Springwood, Whittington).


6 of 6


Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response • Indicated that given the MNO

AGA in August, a September date would be most likely.

MNO-10.1 wpd to Alden Barty

Email 10-Aug-2012 • Agreed to set up a meeting • Confirming details of which projects are to be discussed, and who may

wish to attend • Suggested a meeting between September 17-21

• Suggested contacting James Wagar for more details


Appendix G10

Project Summary Reports

FAIRVIEW Wind Project

Project Description:REPORT SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the Draft Project Description Report for the Fairview Wind Project (the Project). The Draft Project Description Report has been written in accordance with Ontario Regulation 359/09, and is one component of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) application for the Project. The purpose of the report is to provide the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, and regulatory agencies with a preliminary description of the proposed Project.

Georgian Bay

TOWNSHIP OF CLEARVIEW

TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH

Creemore

Stayner

Duntroon

Glen Huron

HWY 26

CTR

LINE R

DCOUNTY RD 9

CO

UN

TY RD

124

CO

UN

TY RD

42

COUNTY RD 91

SIDER

D 3 &

4 SUN

NID

ALE

MOSLEY ST

FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S RD

S

SIDERD 21 & 22 NOTTAWASAGA

SIDERD POPLAR

6TH ST

CO

NC

6 N N

OTTAW

ASA

GA


HIG

H ST

CO

UN

TY RD

7


FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S RD

N


CONC 12 SUNNIDALE

COUNTY RD 10

CO

NC

8 S NO

TTAWA

SAG

A


BATTEAUX RD

CONC 9 SUNNIDALE

RIVE

R SIDE D R

CO

NC

11 S NO

TTAWA

SAG

A

CO

LLING

WO

OD

ST

MA

PLE ST

CONC 7 SUNNIDALE

EDWARD ST E

PEEL ST


FREETH

Y RDMORGAN RD

RAGLA

N ST


MO

WAT ST N

WARRINGTON RD


HU

RO

NTA

RIO

ST

CONC 2 SUNNIDALE

LINDA LANE

4TH ST W


6TH LIN

E

COUNTY RD 64

SUNNIDALE ST

OA

K ST

STATION ST

SH O RE LANE

CONC 10 SUNNIDALE

CONC

10 S NO

TTAWA

SAG

A

MARY ST

EWING RD

TOW

NLEY ST

GLEN RD

KATH

ERIN

E ST

REGENT ST

KING ST



CO

NC

10 S NO

TTAWA

SAG

A

CO

UN

TY RD

124

Legend

Notes

August 201160960604

Client/Project

WPD CANADA CORP.FAIRVIEW WIND PROJECT

Figure No.

1.0Title

PROJECT STUDY AREA1.2.

Coordinate System: UTM NAD 83 - Zone 17 (N).Base features produced under license with the OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2011.

Path

: W:\a

ctiv

e\60

9606

04\d

raw

ing\

GIS

\MX

D\C

onst

ruct

ionP

lanR

epor

t\609

6060

4_Fi

g1_0

_Loc

atio

nMap

_201

1080

2.m

xd

Study Area

Highway / Expressway

Road

Watercourse

Waterbody

Wooded Area

Municipal Boundary

1:100,000

0 1 2km

DRAFT

Project Location

Toronto

Lake Huron

Lake Erie

Lake Ontario

OttawaONTARIO

QUEBEC

Project LocationThe Project would be located on privately-owned land, where landowners have entered into a lease agreement with wpd Canada, in Clearview Township, Simcoe County, Ontario. The Project Area is generally bounded by i) Sideroad 27 and 28 Nottawasaga to the North; ii) Concession 6 Nottawasaga to the West; iii) Industrial Road and County Road 42 to the East; and iv) Sideroad 18 and 19 Nottawasaga to the South. The collector system will transport the electricity generated from each turbine to the switching station located on private property adjacent to the municipal road allowance on County Road 91.


Wind turbines capture the kinetic energy in surface winds and convert it into electrical energy.

Project Components The basic components of the Project include 8 REpower MM92-2.05 MW wind turbine generators with a to-tal maximum installed nameplate capacity of 16.4 MW (FIT Contract maximum of 18.4 MW), step-up transformers located adjacent to each turbine, a 44 kV underground electrical power line system (may be above or belowground in the municipal road allowance), a switching station, and turbine ac-cess roads. Temporary components during construction include work and storage areas at the turbine locations and along access roads and laydown areas.

Project Related Setbacks In order to construct the Project, wpd Canada must obtain a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) under O. Reg. 359/09. A key com-ponent of the REA process is the establishment of common setbacks for all renewable energy facilities in the Province. The Project was designed to meet the mandatory setbacks within O. Reg. 359/09 in all cases. In some cases, if these setbacks cannot be met, it is pos-sible to conduct an Environmental Impact Study to identify potential negative environmental effects and mitigation measures.

Potential Project Effects Potential Project effects include:

• Waste generation and emissions from construction, maintenance and decommissioning activities;

• Air emissions and dust gen-eration from equipment and vehicles;

• Noise emissions from equipment and vehicles and aerodynamic noise from turbines;

• Hazardous materials, limited to fuels and lubricants for equip-ment;

• Water-taking activities, depend-ing on groundwater levels; and,

• Potential effects to:* Heritage and Archaeological

Resources;* Natural Heritage Resources;* Water Bodies;* Land Use and Socio-Economic

Resources;* Provincial and Local Infra-

structure; and,* Public Health and Safety.

These potential effects have been assessed in other reports prepared as part of the REA application.

Project Information

Milestone Approximate Date

Initiate Public REA Process June 2010

REA technical studies Drafts completed late 2011

Public Open House #1 July 13, 2011

Draft REA Reports to Municipality November 2011

Draft REA Reports to Public Spring 2012

Public Open House #2 Summer 2012

REA Approval

Winter 2013

Start of Construction

6-12 months after REA approval

Contract Date for Commercial Operation (COD)

6-9 months from Start of Construction

REA Submission Fall 2012

Milestone Date for Commercial Operation August 22, 2014

Repowering/Decommissioning Approximately 20.5 years after COD


In August of 2009, Ontario rolled out the most progressive legisla-tion in all of North America, the Green Energy and Green Economy Act. Ontario is banking on becom-ing Canada’s leader in Renewable Energy Installations.

wpd Canada Corporation, a subsid-iary of wpd Europe, is a renewable energy developer based in the GTA, which has been active in Ontario since 2006. wpd Canada has been awarded contracts under the Ontario Power Authority’s Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program. With the knowledge and expertise of their associates in Germany, wpd Canada is working on renewable energy solutions which will take advan-tage of our natural resources and will provide long-term benefits to Ontarians. Further information can be found on our website at http://www.canada.wpd.de.

wpd Europe recently earned the status of a CO2-neutral company. Reforestation of the rainforest in Guatemala and preservation of a mangrove forest in Sri Lanka have offset approximately 1,800 tonnes of CO2 emissions every year.

wpd Canada Corporation


Project InformationThe following draft Project reports are available for the Fairview Wind Project:

• ProjectDescriptionReport

• Construction Plan Report

• Design and Operations Report

• Decommissioning Plan Report

• Wind Turbine Specifications Report

• Natural Heritage Assessment and

Environmental Impact Study

• Water Assessment and Water Body Report

• Heritage Assessment Report

• Protected Properties Assessment Report

• Noise Assessment Report

• Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological

Assessment Reports

To learn more about the Project or to communicate concerns please contact us by:

ProjectEmail:[email protected]

ProjectWebsite:http://canada.wpd.de/projects/in-canada/fairview.html

ProjectTelephone:1-888-712-2401

OrMail:KhlaireParré Director of Renewable Energy Approvals wpd Canada Corporation 2233 Argentia Road, Suite 102 Mississauga, ON L5N 2X7

ShawnaPeddle Senior Project Manager Stantec Consulting Ltd. Suite 1 – 70 Southgate Drive Guelph, ON N1G 4P5

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

Stayner

COUNTY RD 91

CO

UN

TY RD

42

HWY 26



CO

UN

TY RD

124


CO

NC

6 S N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

CO

NC

6 N N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S R

D N

MO

WAT ST N

JOHN S

T

OAK ST

MARGARET STWARRINGTON RD

QUEBEC ST

ELM ST

SUNNIDALE ST

CHRISTOPHER ST

IND

USTR

IAL R

D

WYANT RD

LOCKE AVE

SIDE ST

STAYNER

ST

CHERRY ST


REGINA ST

SUTH

ERLA

ND

ST S

2

1

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1,000m


Construction Plan:REPORT SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the Draft Construction Plan Report for the Fairview Wind Project (the Project). The Draft Construction Plan Report was prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09, and is one component of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) application for the Project. The purpose of the report is to provide the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, and regulatory agencies with an understanding of construction activities relating to the Project, including any potential environmental effects that may result from engaging in the Project.

Pre-Construction ActivitiesPrior to construction, a registered Ontario Land Surveyor (or equivalent) will survey and stake all access roads, collec-tor lines and turbine locations, as appropriate. The Project Location (construction area) includes the footprint of the facility components plus any temporary work and storage locations.

Wherever possible, the construction area has been reduced or moved on a site-specific basis to avoid natural features.

Project Components Project component installation includes site preparation, component installation and site restoration.

The basic components of the Project include:

• Eight (8) REpower MM92-2.05 MW wind turbine generators with a maximum installed nameplate capacity of 16.4 MW (FIT Contract maximum of 18.4 MW);

• Step-up transformers at each turbine;• A 44 kV underground electrical power line system (may be

above or belowground in the municipal road allowance);• A switching station; and, • Turbine access roads

Temporary components during construction include :

• Staging areas for access roads and underground cable

construction;• Delivery truck turnaround areas;• Staging areas at each turbine location; and,• Crane laydown areas.

Each turbine foundation will cover an area of approximately 23 m x 23 m, with a depth of 3 m. Each turbine tower will be assembled with a heavy-lift crawler crane over a period of about 3 to 5 days. The switching station is proposed to be located on County Road 91 on private property, and will consist of a fenced gravel pad approximately 45 m x 60 m, a small control building (unserviced), cable terminator points and surface arrestors.

Approximately 4.5 kilometres of new access roads, 5.0 m wide (5.5 m at a turning radius), will be constructed to support construction and transportation vehicles.

Materials that will be brought on site include raw materials (e.g. concrete, wood, geotextile, aggregate, wiring, cables and metal), construction vehicles, cranes, and other Project components. Whenever possible, local materials will be used, if sufficient quantity and quality is available at competitive prices.

All temporary work locations will be restored to pre-construction conditions.


Potential Construction Effects & Mitigation

General Mitigation MeasuresGood site practices will be followed throughout construction, including training of staff to avoid natural features (woodlands, wetlands, etc.), fuelling of vehicles away from natural features, reducing dust through water application, proper waste disposal, etc. During construction, wpd Canada will work with the Ministry of Natural Resources, municipalities, and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority to obtain all necessary permits to ensure work is protective of the natural environment in the area. Silt fencing will be used where required, and vegetation removal (if required) will be minimized. If necessary, timing of construction will avoid breeding bird season. Where possible, disturbed areas will be rehabilitated, and regular monitoring will occur throughout construction.

To reduce air emissions, all equipment and vehicles will be maintained in good working order, with mufflers and/or silencers, and construction crews will use multi-passenger vehicles and reduce idling, where possible. Crews will adhere to noise by-laws. A Traffic Management Plan will be developed to outline management of traffic and delivery of materials.

Traffic Management, Waste Management, Health and Safety,

and Emergency Response and Communications Plans will be developed, and Contractors on-site will be required to follow these plans while on-site.

Participating landowners will be compensated for land taken out of agricultural production, and the Project has been sited to minimize disturbance to existing land uses. The Project is also expected to have a positive impact on the local economy by the creation of indirect and induced employment.

POTENTIAL EFFECTSAfter application of the mitigation measures mentioned above, potential effects during construction will be minor, and the area will be returned to pre-construction conditions in a very short period of time. Post-construction monitoring will ensure no long-term effects from construction activities on the immediate area of the turbines and access roads.

Cultural Heritage & Archaeological ResourcesThirteen built heritage resources, two of which were evaluated as significant and identified as being

part of the East Nottawasaga Church Landscape (cultural heritage landscape), were found within the Project Study Area.

There will be no construction activities on the properties with built heritage features or at the cultural heritage landscape. By following the mitigation measures recommended above, no effects on built and cultural heritage resources are expected during construction of the Project.

Natural Heritage Resources Four provincially significant wetland communities, three woodlands, one woodland considered significant, and a significant animal movement corridor were documented within the Study Area during site visits. These areas provide habitat for a number of species, including 6 amphibian, 1 reptile, 66 bird and 6 mammal species.

The Project has been carefully sited to avoid impacts to natural features, including wetlands, woodlands, and breeding habitat. There is some potential for disturbance or limited mortality to wildlife during construction due to increased human activity, noise and traffic.

Following the mitigation measures recommended above and in the General Mitigation Measures section, and receiving all required permits and approvals, will result


in minimal, short-term effects on natural heritage resources within the Study Area. An Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan that includes a post-construction monitoring program will be developed to confirm the accuracy of predicted effects.

Water Bodies & Aquatic Resources Review of available information identified 106 water wells within the Study Area.

Disturbance to groundwater is possible during excavation and installation of turbine foundations, indirect impacts from construction activities may occur as a result of sedimentation, erosion, stormwater runoff, and accidental spills.

Following the procedures recommended in the General Mitigation Measures section, as well as working with the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and land owners near the excavation sites, will minimize the potential short-term effects. The Project will have little to no effect on groundwater and surface water flow conditions or adjacent private water wells.

Air Quality & Environmental Noise Dust, noise and air emissions are typical on any construction site. Intermittent noise could increase during construction hours at the work areas and/or along the haul route. Following the procedures recommended in the General Mitigation Measures section will limit air, noise and dust emissions to the work areas, and limit combustion emissions to a localized area surrounding the construction sites.

Land Use & Socio-Economic Resources The predominant land use in the Study Area is agricultural, designated in the official plan as agricultural, rural, industrial and greenland. A portion of the Wasaga Beach section of the Ganaraska Trail is located within the southwestern part of the Project Study Area (along Sideroad 18 & 19 Nottawasaga). One petroleum resource, shown as an Abandoned OGS Stratigraphic Test Well, is located within the Project Study Area, but is outside the 300 m Zone of Investigation. Municipal infrastructure in the Study Area includes arterial roads (County Road 91, and portions of Industrial Road) and local roads (Sideroad 27 and 28 Nottawasaga, Concession 6 Nottawasaga, Fairgrounds Road, Sideroad 21 and 22 Nottawasaga and Sideroad 18 and 19 Nottawasaga).

One retired landfill site is located within the Project Study Area. As it is

located well outside the 300 m Zone of Investigation, no potential effects are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary.

On agricultural lands leased by wpd Canada, construction could damage artificial drainage systems and cause groundwater seepage. Increases in local traffic could cause abnormal wear on local roads and traffic safety hazards. The spread of Soybean Cyst Nematode to unaffected fields and sensory disturbance to game and fishery resources may also occur. Litter generated during construction may also become a nuisance to nearby residences if not appropriately contained.

Although some disturbance to adjacent land uses is unavoidable during construction, by following the procedures recommended in the General Mitigation Measures section, limited disturbance is expected to be temporary. Communication with the community and participating landowners will further reduce potential disturbance and effects.

Abnormal wear on roads is possible, though unlikely, following mitigation measures and upgrades that may be required to roads prior to transportation of Project components. Project construction is expected to have an overall positive effect on the local economy, providing income, employment, and fiscal benefits to the local area.



• Project Description Report

• ConstructionPlanReport











Assessment Reports







! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

Stayner

COUNTY RD 91

CO

UN

TY RD

42

HWY 26



CO

UN

TY RD

124


CO

NC

6 S N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

CO

NC

6 N N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S R

D N

MO

WAT ST N

JOHN S

T

OAK ST


QUEBEC ST

ELM ST

SUNNIDALE ST

CHRISTOPHER ST

IND

USTR

IAL R

D

WYANT RD

LOCKE AVE

SIDE ST

STAYNER

ST

CHERRY ST


REGINA ST

SUTH

ERLA

ND

ST S

2

1

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1,000m


Natural Heritage Assessment & Environmental Impact Study: REPORT SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the Natural Heritage Assessment and Environmental Impact Study (NHA/EIS) for the Fairview Wind Project (the Project). The NHA/EIS was prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09, and is one component of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) application for the Project. The purpose of the report is to provide the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, and regulatory agencies with an assessment of potential Project-related negative impacts on natural environment features in the Project Study Area.

A Natural Heritage Assessment is required to determine whether any of the following features exist in and/or within 120 m of the Project Location:

• Wetlands;• Coastal wetlands;• Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest

(ANSIs);• Earth Science ANSIs (within 50 m);• Valleylands;• Woodlands;• Wildlife habitat; and,• Provincial parks and conservation reserves. The “Project Location” refers to any land, structure or air space in, on or over which part of a renewable energy project is proposed. For the purposes of this Project, the Project Location includes the footprint of the facility components, plus any temporary work and storage locations.

If the Project extends into the Zone of Investigation for any of the identified significant features (50 m of a provincially significant Earth Science ANSI, 120 m for all other specified natural features), an Environmental Impact Study is required that identifies and assesses any negative environmental effects and identifies mitigation measures.

Records Review Background data from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA), the Township of Clearview, and Simcoe County was reviewed to identify natural features in or within 120 m of the Project Location.


Site Investigation

The Fairview Wind Project is primarily sited within active agricultural fields and has been sited more than 120 m from the majority of natural features in the Study Area.

A site investigation was required to confirm the presence and boundaries of known natural features identified through the records review, and to identify any additional natural features in or within 120 m of the Project Location.

Methods & ResultsThe Project Location was crossed on foot and physically inventoried. Wetlands, woodland, an animal movement corridor, habitat for area sensitive woodland breeding birds and habitat for species of conservation concern (declining species), were identified or confirmed as occurring within 120 m of the Project Location and required an evaluation of significance.

These features were evaluated to determine if they are provincially significant, significant, not provincially significant or not significant. Based on the assessment of background information and the results of on-site field investigations, the following natural features were identified in the Project Location, requiring an Environmental Impact Study (EIS):

• Significant woodland (Feature 1);• Wetlands treated as Provincially

significant (in Features 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5); and,

• Animal Movement Corridor (Feature 3).

Environmental Impact Study (EIS) An EIS is required to identify and assess any negative environmental effects and develop mitigation measures for significant features that occur in or within 120 m of the Project Location.

The Project is sited entirely within actively cultivated agricultural cropland or cleared municipal right-of-ways with no natural habitat removal required. Modifications were made to site Project components as far as possible from features identified as significant.

Feature 1 Feature 1 was evaluated as a significant woodland and contains wetland treated as provincially significant for the purposes of this report.

No removal of the natural habitat provided by Feature 1 is required for the Project. All areas where site preparation and construction activities will occur are located outside of the feature.

Indirect impacts during construction and operation could

include disturbance or disruption to resident wildlife. Other potential impacts could involve disturbance from dust and increased traffic, accidental spills, sedimentation, and erosion. Project effects on forest breeding birds may occur indirectly from disturbance or directly through mortality. The implementation of the mitigation measures identified below will ensure no ecologically significant adverse effects to the wetland or woodland during construction and operation of the Project.

Feature 2, 4 & 5 Features 2, 4, and 5 are wetland units identified during site investigations and treated as significant for the purposes of this report. All proposed components of the Project (turbines, access roads, switching station, etc.) are located outside of wetland boundaries as identified and confirmed through the site investigation program.

Indirect impacts to Features 2, 4 and 5 resulting from construction activities, such as dust generation, sedimentation and erosion, are expected to be short term, temporary in duration and mitigable through the use of standard site control measures. During construction, there will be increased traffic and the potential for accidental spills.


• To the extent practical, construc-tion activities required within 120 m of Feature 1 should not oc-cur during the breeding season for forest birds (May 1 to July 23).

• Refueling will occur well away from wetlands.

• In the event of an accidental spill, the MOE Spills Action Cen-tre will be contacted and emer-gency spill procedures imple-mented immediately.

• Post construction monitoring for disturbance and mortality to forest breeding birds.

MonitoringA post-construction monitoring study for birds and bats has been developed in consultation with the MNR, including mortality monitoring and regular reporting at all turbines for a period of three years after start of operations. The monitoring program should be re-assessed by MNR and wpd Canada at the end of each monitoring year.

Feature 3 Feature 3 is a wetland unit identified during site investigations and treated as significant for the purposes of this report and was evaluated as significant wildlife habitat for animal movement corridors.

All proposed components of the Project (turbines, access roads, switching station location, etc.) are located outside of wetland boundaries as identified and confirmed through the site investigation program.

Indirect impacts to Feature 3 resulting from construction activities, such as dust generation, sedimentation and erosion, are expected to be short term, temporary in duration and mitigable through the use of standard site control measures. During construction, there will be increased traffic and the potential for accidental spills. Sensory disturbance of wildlife using the

corridor may occur during all phases of the Project. Disturbance impacts during construction are anticipated to be minimal given they are short-term in duration and spatially limited to the work areas and immediately adjacent areas.

Proposed Mitigation One or more of the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented:

• Silt barriers (e.g., fencing) will be erected along feature edges that occur within 30 m of construc-tion work areas to minimize sediment transport.

• Pervious materials will be used on all access roads within 120 m of wetlands.

• Where possible, and as ap-propriate, access roads will be constructed at or near existing grade to maintain surface flow contributions to wetlands.

• Inspectors will ensure construc-tion vehicles and personnel stay within demarcated areas.








• NaturalHeritageAssessmentand

EnvironmentalImpactStudy






Assessment Reports







! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

Stayner

COUNTY RD 91

CO

UN

TY RD

42

HWY 26



CO

UN

TY RD

124


CO

NC

6 S N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

CO

NC

6 N N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S R

D N

MO

WAT ST N

JOHN S

T

OAK ST


QUEBEC ST

ELM ST

SUNNIDALE ST

CHRISTOPHER ST

IND

USTR

IAL R

D

WYANT RD

LOCKE AVE

SIDE ST

STAYNER

ST

CHERRY ST


REGINA ST

SUTH

ERLA

ND

ST S

2

1

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1,000m


Water Assessmentand Water Body:REPORT SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the Draft Water Assessment and Water Body Report for the Fairview Wind Project (the Project). The Draft Water Assessment and Water Body Report was prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09, and is one component of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) application for the Project. The purpose of the report is to provide the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, and regulatory agencies with an assessment of potential Project-related impacts on water features in the Project Study Area.

Methods The Water Assessment included a background information review and site investigation to determine the presence and boundaries of water bodies, as defined in O.Reg.359/09, within 120 m of the Project Location. The “Project Location” refers to any land, structure or air space in, on or over which part of a renewable energy project is proposed. For the purposes of this Project, the Project Location includes eight wind turbines, access roads and collector lines, and a switching station.

Once the Project layout and locations of water bodies were confirmed, fish communities were sampled at selected locations within the 120 m Zone of Investigation and a general aquatic habitat assessment was conducted. A combination of background data and results of Stantec’s August 2010, October 2010, and June 2011 surveys were used to determine the presence or absence of fish habitat within the 120 m Zone of Investigation.


Existing Conditions & Predicted Impacts

Site InvestigationWhile on site, the field crews confirmed the presence or absence of potential water bodies within 120 m of the Project Location. Some of the surface water features identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) did not exist in the field, and these features were not classified as water bodies during Stantec’s 2010 field investigations.

Water Features The Project Location falls within the Nottawasaga River watershed. Specifically, the Project Location is within the Blue Mountain subwatershed and the Lower Nottawasaga River subwatershed.

Located east of Lamont Creek, the unnamed tributary of Georgian Bay (reach Blu-a) originates immediately south of County Road 91, between Concession 6

Nottawasaga to the west, and Fairgrounds Road to the east. Field investigations conducted by Stantec in October 2010 suggest that reach Blu-a is intermittent and contains seasonal fish habitat.

Within the Lower Nottawasaga River watershed, the Project Location is traversed by tributaries to Lamont Creek. Lamont Creek supports coldwater fish habitat. Within the 120 m Zone of Investigation, there is one reach (Lam-a) that has been designated a water body that contains fish habitat, and is crossed by overhead collector lines.

Permits and Approvals The Study Area is within the Nottawasaga River Watershed, and all required permits and approvals will be obtained in consultation with the NVCA and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

Potential Impacts The potential impacts of the Project to watercourses located within 120 m of the Project Area would include short-term increases in turbidity (cloudiness) from runoff, soil erosion, and water quality and aquatic habitat disturbance during construction. Installation of the collector lines may cause disturbance to aquatic habitat, disruption of water flow and fish passages, and changes to shoreline vegetation.


General Mitigation Measures General mitigation measures for construction activities near a watercourse include:

• All in-water work will be completed within MNR seasonal timing win-dows to avoid impacts to spawning species;

• Proper operation and storage of materials and equipment will prevent harmful substances from entering the water; and,

• Sediment and erosion control by silt fencing prior to construction will prevent sedimentation of the water.

Conclusions A Construction Contractor representative will be on-site during construction to ensure compliance with specifications, site plans and permits and prevent impacts to fish and fish habitat. Following construction, the bank, bed, and floodplain will be restored to pre-construction conditions, where possible.

During operations, the site may be restored as necessary, and appropriate actions will be taken if an accidental spill and/or leak occurs.

Conclusions Based on the current Project layout and proposed environmental mitigation measures, none of the project components are expected to result in net impacts to water bodies, fish habitat or aquatic species at risk within the Project Location.










• WaterAssessmentandWaterBodyReport





Assessment Reports







! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

Stayner

COUNTY RD 91

CO

UN

TY RD

42

HWY 26



CO

UN

TY RD

124


CO

NC

6 S N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

CO

NC

6 N N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S R

D N

MO

WAT ST N

JOHN S

T

OAK ST


QUEBEC ST

ELM ST

SUNNIDALE ST

CHRISTOPHER ST

IND

USTR

IAL R

D

WYANT RD

LOCKE AVE

SIDE ST

STAYNER

ST

CHERRY ST


REGINA ST

SUTH

ERLA

ND

ST S

2

1

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1,000m


Archaeological Assessment: REPORT SUMMARYThe following is a summary of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment reports for the Fairview Wind Project (the Project). The Archaeological Assessment reports are a component of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) application for the Project, and have been prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09. Archaeological assessments are provided to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) for review and confirmation in advance of submission as part of the REA application. The purpose of the reports is to provide the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, and regulatory agencies with an understanding of the archaeological potential within the Project Study Area, and identify any archaeological features that would require removal prior to construction activities relating to the Project.

Study AreaThe Study Area is located near Stayner, in Clearview Township, Simcoe County, Ontario. Land use in the Study Area is primarily agricultural with some areas of undeveloped, forested land.

MethodologyA Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment was completed by Stantec in June 2010. This involved background research and a visual assessment to determine the archaeological potential of the Project Study Area.

A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment of the lands with the potential to be impacted by the Project was completed by Stantec in November and December 2011. During the November surveys, two archaeological monitors from the Saugeen Ojibway Nation were on site to assist the Stantec field team. The Stage 2 assessment involved pedestrian survey and test pit survey methods. The turbine sites, switching station, access roads, crane pads, laydown areas and collector lines in agricultural fields were subject to pedestrian surveys. All pedestrian surveys were completed on recently ploughed lands with greater than 80% visibility of the ground surface at 5 m intervals. Legal permission to enter and conduct all necessary fieldwork was granted by individual landowners.

Test pits were excavated at 5 m intervals within the municipal road allowances of County Road 91 and

Fairgrounds Road, where collector lines will be located. Two portions of collector line locations along the east side of Fairgrounds Road were omitted due to soil disturbance. Along the west side of Fairgrounds Road pedestrian survey methods were utilized in two places along the municipal road allowance, where sufficient visibility allowed.

Archaeological PotentialThe assessment of archaeological potential for the site considered:

Archaeological potential for prehistoric era sites, including landscape features:

• Navigable rivers and lakes; • Confluences of watercourses; • Smaller sources of potable water; • Ridges or knolls that overlook areas of resource

potential; • Outcrops of high-quality stone for tool making; and,• Combinations of these features.

Archaeological potential for historic Euro-Canadian sites, including general features:

• Proximity to potable water; • Access to natural resources; and, • A level, well drained habitation site.


Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment

Prehistoric Period ResourcesThere are at present five (5) archaeological sites within the limits of the Study Area and eleven (11) other registered prehistoric period archaeological sites within a 1 km radius of the Study Area.

The five sites within the Study Area include four sites that date to the Late Iroquoian Petun and the Palaeo-Indian period Fisher site. The Fisher site is a large campsite, and is considered to be a very significant archaeological resource.

The four Petun sites are located on well drained soils; the Fisher site on imperfectly drained soils. There are also two other sites located immediately outside the Study Area (i.e. across the road) one of which is a burial site containing an unknown number of interments.

Historic Period Resources There are at present no registered historic period archaeological sites within a 1 km radius of the Study Area. While information regarding the 19th century occupation of the Study Area is limited, it is clear that there is the possibility that historic period archaeological resources from the 17th to 19th centuries are located within the Study Area.

Results and Recommendations The Stage 1 assessment was based on principles of archaeological potential modeling, existing archival records and characteristics identified by the MTCS. It is Stantec’s professional opinion that the Study Area, in this case the optioned properties, demonstrates potential for the presence of significant archaeological deposits of integrity.

A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment should occur within zones of elevated archaeological potential for the location of any project related infrastructure construction.

No archaeological sites or any archaeological resources were identified through the Stage 2 assessment of the Study Area. The only subsurface material identified through the test pit survey of the Study Area was modern refuse as uncovered along the municipal RoW. No material from the Stage 2 assessment was retained for further analysis.

It is Stantec’s professional opinion that the Study Area demonstrates low potential for the presence of significant archaeological deposits of integrity and that the project should be cleared of any further archaeological conditions. No further work, including construction monitoring, mitigation is recommended.


1. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, alteration of the site must cease immediately and a licensed consultant archaeologist must be engaged to carry out archaeological fieldwork.

2. Any person discovering human remains must notify the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services.

3. Stantec archaeological staff will also be available to give advice and guidance should such discoveries occur.

Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment














• Stage1and2Archaeological

AssessmentReports





! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

Stayner

COUNTY RD 91

CO

UN

TY RD

42

HWY 26



CO

UN

TY RD

124


CO

NC

6 S N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

CO

NC

6 N N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S R

D N

MO

WAT ST N

JOHN S

T

OAK ST


QUEBEC ST

ELM ST

SUNNIDALE ST

CHRISTOPHER ST

IND

USTR

IAL R

D

WYANT RD

LOCKE AVE

SIDE ST

STAYNER

ST

CHERRY ST


REGINA ST

SUTH

ERLA

ND

ST S

2

1

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1,000m




Heritage Assessment: REPORT SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the Heritage Assessment Report for the Fairview Wind Project (the Project). The Heritage Assessment Report is one component of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) application for the Project, and has been prepared in accordance with O.Reg. 359/09. The purpose of the report is to provide the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, and regulatory agencies with an understanding of any significant built heritage resources within the Project Study Area, and, if present, identify any potential impacts to these resources from construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Project.

Study AreaThe Study Area is located near Stayner, Ontario (part of Lot 18, Concessions 3 to 6; part of Lot 28, Concessions 4 to 6; part of Lots 18 through 28, Concession 7; Lots 19 through 22, Concession 3; and Lots 19 through 27, Concessions 4 to 6, Clearview Township, Simcoe County). Land use in the Study Area is primarily agricultural with some areas of undeveloped, forested land.

MethodologyThe Heritage Assessment involved archival research and a visual assessment of potentially significant built heritage resources and components of cultural heritage landscapes within the vicinity of the Study Area, using criteria set out under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). A site visit was conducted on June 9, 2010 to confirm the locations of existing resources identified on historical mapping and to identify any other potentially significant resources and landscapes that might be present within and adjacent to the Study Area.


Built Heritage Resources

Agricultural Resources Three isolated agricultural built heritage resources were identified during the visual survey of the area. The structures have limited architectural value and do not meet the criteria for design value, physical value, or associative value in terms of local people, events and themes.

The barn directly opposite the Nottawasaga Presbyterian Church has been evaluated under O.Reg.9/06 criteria and is considered to be significant. The barn is visually related to the church and the surrounding agricultural fields as a result of its close proximity. A second barn at 1580 Fairgrounds Road South was also evaluated but is considered by this study to be too far removed from the church to be visually related.

Domestic/Residential Built Heritage Resources A total of nine potential residential built heritage resources were identified during the June, 2010 visual survey:

• 1209 Fairgrounds Road South;• 1275 Fairgrounds Road South;• 1306 Fairgrounds Road South;• 1458 Fairgrounds Road South;• 1520 Fairgrounds Road South;• 6504 Concession 6 North

Nottawasaga Road;• 6511 Concession 6 North

Nottawasaga Road;

• 6834 Concession 6 North Nottawasaga Road; and,

• 6929 Concession 6 North Nottawasaga Road.

In general, the residential resources encountered during the June, 2010 visual survey were found to be vernacular buildings dating to the very late 19th to early 20th century. None of the houses can be said to be exceptionally good examples of any one architectural style or construction method and none of the buildings were determined to include design details that can be considered to exemplify local architectural conventions. Furthermore, none of the residential resources were found to be associated with any persons, events or themes that are of elevated importance in the area, and none were identified as being a significant built heritage resource.

Education, Religious and Public Buildings One religious built heritage resource was documented during the June, 2010 site visit (the East Nottawasaga Presbyterian Church at 1545 Fairgrounds Road South). This dichromatic brick building is a small vernacular church built in 1854 for a Presbyterian congregation.

The church is considered not only an early example (dating to circa 1854) but also a rare example of extant 19th century religious architecture in the area. The church and associated

cemetery have direct association with both the Presbyterian Church and settlers of the area and the cemetery yields information that contributes to the understanding of the community and of the individuals from that community. Based on the criteria outlined under O. Reg. 9/06, the East Nottawasaga Presbyterian Church located at 1545 Fairgrounds Road is considered to be a significant built heritage resource.

Transportation Related Built Heritage Resources Background research into the transportation methods of the Study Area identified all the roads within the Study Area as possible heritage resources. A visual survey of the roads in June 2010 determined nearly all the roads had undergone extensive repair and modification to modernize them for current use including raising the level, reducing the grade and paving the surface.

One potentially significant Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) was identified during the June, 2010 survey, the Nottawasaga Presbyterian Church Landscape, which is composed of two built heritage resources, the Nottawasaga Presbyterian Church and the barn directly opposite the church. In this case, the adjacent church, barn and agricultural fields were included in the boundaries/grouping in order to best express the rural nature of the CHL.


Cultural Heritage Landscapes

Impacts & MitigationThe Ministry of Tourism and Culture outlines seven potential negative impacts on heritage resources:

• Destruction;• Alteration;• Shadows;• Isolation;• Direct or indirect obstruction;• A change in land use; and,• Land disturbances. Land disturbances were assessed in separate Archaeological Assessments and have not been included in the heritage evaluation.

As a result of various technical, environmental and socio-economic factors, the current Site Plan situates the majority (six) of the turbines and related access roads in the north end of the Study Area. This change has decreased the potential for negative Project-related impacts on significant cultural heritage resources. As a result, only two of the proposed turbines and related infrastructure will be located in the vicinity of significant cultural heritage resources and the significant cultural heritage landscape.

No negative impacts are expected in terms of destruction, alteration, shadows, isolation, or change in land use. Based on the location of Turbines 2 and 7, views of the significant built heritage resources

and cultural heritage landscape will not be directly obstructed (i.e., the turbines will not block views of the barn, the church and the cemetery, and associated agricultural fields that comprise CHL 1 from Fairgrounds Road). Visual modeling illustrates that with perfectly flat topography, turbines are visible in the viewshed of the building, but do not dominate the landscape nor do they detract from the value-defining features of the building itself. The visual model assumes flat topography, which is not the case within the Study Area and within the vicinity of significant cultural heritage resources; therefore, the difference in elevation is likely to further lessen the visual impact of the turbines within the viewshed.

Study Results and Recommendations

A total of thirteen built heritage resources were identified in the Study Area. Two of those resources; a barn on Fairgrounds Road South and the East Nottawasaga Presbyterian Church have been evaluated as significant built heritage resources. Both resources are part of CHL 1, the East Nottawasaga Church Landscape.

Given that no significant built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes are expected to experience Project-related negative impacts of significant magnitude as outlined by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC, 2006b), no mitigation is recommended.


Project Information

Sources:

Ministry of Culture (MTC), 2006a. Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Sheet No. 2, Information Sheet Series from Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Statement, 2005. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

---, 2006b. Infosheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Sheet No. 5, Information Sheet Series from Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Statement, 2005. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

The following draft Project reports are available for the Fairview Wind Project:









• HeritageAssessmentReport




Assessment Reports







! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

Stayner

COUNTY RD 91

CO

UN

TY RD

42

HWY 26



CO

UN

TY RD

124


CO

NC

6 S N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

CO

NC

6 N N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S R

D N

MO

WAT ST N

JOHN S

T

OAK ST


QUEBEC ST

ELM ST

SUNNIDALE ST

CHRISTOPHER ST

IND

USTR

IAL R

D

WYANT RD

LOCKE AVE

SIDE ST

STAYNER

ST

CHERRY ST


REGINA ST

SUTH

ERLA

ND

ST S

2

1

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1,000m


Protected Properties Assessment: REPORT SUMMARYThe following is a summary of the Protected Properties Assessment Report for the Fairview Wind Project (the Project). The Protected Properties Assessment Report is one component of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) application for the Project, and has been prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09. The purpose of the report is to provide the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, and regulatory agencies with an understanding of any protected properties within the Project Study Area, and, if present, identify any potential impacts to these resources from construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Project.

Study AreaThe Study Area is located near Stayner, Ontario (part of Lot 18, Concessions 3 to 6; part of Lot 28, Concessions 4 to 6; part of Lots 18 through 28, Concession 7; Lots 19 through 22, Concession 3; and Lots 19 through 27, Concessions 4 to 6, Clearview Township, Simcoe County). Land use in the Study Area is primarily agricultural with some areas of undeveloped, forested land.

MethodologyThe Protected Properties Assessment involved archival research, consultation with applicable groups and government organizations and a visual assessment of the Project Study Area. Groups and inventories consulted included the Ontario Heritage Properties Database, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and Planning staff from the Township of Clearview.

A site visit was conducted on June 9, 2010 to identify any heritage structures within and around the Study Area in order to cross-reference existing buildings with inventories of designated buildings.

PROTECTED PROPERTIES There are no properties within a 5 km radius of the Study Area protected under any of the conditions outlined in Section 19, O. Reg. 359/09.

As there are no protected properties within the Study Area, no potential negative impacts have been identi-fied or are anticipated, and no mitigation has been recommended.

Results & Recommendations Based on archival research, consultation with relevant groups and individuals and a visual survey of the Study Area, no protected properties are expected to be impacted by the current project.












• ProtectedPropertiesAssessmentReport



Assessment Reports







! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

Stayner

COUNTY RD 91

CO

UN

TY RD

42

HWY 26



CO

UN

TY RD

124


CO

NC

6 S N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

CO

NC

6 N N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S R

D N

MO

WAT ST N

JOHN S

T

OAK ST


QUEBEC ST

ELM ST

SUNNIDALE ST

CHRISTOPHER ST

IND

USTR

IAL R

D

WYANT RD

LOCKE AVE

SIDE ST

STAYNER

ST

CHERRY ST


REGINA ST

SUTH

ERLA

ND

ST S

2

1

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1,000m


Design & Operations:REPORT SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the Draft Design and Operations Report for the Fairview Wind Project (the Project). The Draft Design and Operations Report has been prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09, and is one component of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) application for the Project. The purpose of the report is to provide the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, and regulatory agencies with an understanding of the details of the design and operational stage of the proposed Fairview Wind Project.

Project ComponentsProject component installation includes site preparation, component installation and site restoration.

The basic components of the Project include:

• Eight REpower MM92-2.05 MW wind turbine generators with a total maximum installed nameplate capacity of 16.4 MW (FIT contract maximum of 18.4 MW);

• Step-up transformers at each turbine;• A 44 kV underground electrical power line system (may be

above or belowground in the municipal road allowance);• A switching station; and, • Turbine access roads.

Facility Operations PlanOperations include daily monitoring of wind turbines, function of the switching station, maintenance activities, and monitoring of meteo-rological data. Scheduled maintenance includes visual inspection of mechanical and electrical components, as well as greasing and general maintenance.

Each turbine will have sensors to measure wind speed and direction, to determine when the turbines are operating and control the pitch of the blades and the orientation of the nacelle, to turn into and maximize the wind.


Potential Operation Effects & Mitigation

General Mitigation MeasuresGood site practices will be followed throughout operations, including training of staff to avoid natural features (woodlands, wetlands, etc.), fuelling of vehicles away from natural features, reducing speeds on access roads to reduce dust, noise, and emissions, proper waste disposal, etc. During operations, wpd Canada will continue to work with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment, municipalities, and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, to follow all conditions of approval of necessary permits (including the Renewable Energy Approval), to protect the natural environment in the area.

Post-construction monitoring for bird, raptor and bat mortality will occur for three years after the start of operations.

To reduce air emissions, multi-passenger vehicles will be used where possible, and employees will avoid idling, maintain equipment and vehicles in good working order, equip engines with mufflers or silencers, and repair or replace vehicles that do not meet minimum emission standards. A regular maintenance program will largely mitigate potential effects related to noise from damaged turbines.

Site-specific waste collection and disposal management plans, environmental effects monitoring plans, and emergency response and

communications plans will identify good site practices for waste disposal, refueling, equipment maintenance, and communications, to ensure operations do not impact the natural environment.

After application of the mitigation measures mentioned above, potential effects during operations will be minor. Post-construction monitoring will ensure no long-term effects from operations on the immediate area of the turbines and access roads.

Natural Heritage Resources Wildlife in the area is already exposed to some sensory disturbance from ongoing agricultural, rural and domestic activities. Operational activities will minimize the impact of accidental spills and dust. During operation direct mortality to birds and bats

may occur from collisions with turbines.

By following the mitigation measures recommended above, limited and minimal effects on natural heritage features are expected during operation of the Project.

Water Bodies & Aquatic Resources Potential impacts during maintenance activities to water bodies, fish, and fish habitat include accidental spills, soil erosion, downstream sediment transport and a short-term increase in surface water turbidity (cloudiness). Due to the Project Location’s rural and agricultural land uses, the watercourses are not highly sensitive to temporary disturbances.


By following the mitigation measures recommended above (following the Emergency Response Plan), and no effects on water bodies and aquatic resources are expected during operation of the Project. Operational activities will minimize any impact of accidental spills, and erosion and sediment control measures will remain in place until permanent vegetation has become established.

Air Quality & Environmental Noise Air emissions and dust will be generated from operations and maintenance equipment and vehicles, and mechanical and aerodynamic sound will be generated by the turbines during operation.

Turbines will be maintained and have been designed to minimize noise and adhere to the requirements of O. Reg. 359/09. By following the mitigation measures recommended above, noise will be minimal, and air quality will not be affected during operation of the Project.

Land Use & Socio-Economic Resources Traffic may increase slightly during operations, and the Project may cause sensory disturbance for livestock and game species. The presence of wind turbines will also alter the visual landscape.

Local economic benefits include land lease payments to participating landowners, municipal taxes, and local hiring, providing work for existing tradespersons and labourers. Landscaping at the switching station property will reduce visual effects at that site. The Project has been sited to eliminate potential effects on telecommunication and radar systems and land use, but if interference with telecommunication and radar systems occurs, wpd Canada may work with providers to replace the receiving antenna, relocate either the transmitter or receiver, or switch to an alternate means of receiving the information. wpd would review potential incidents of telecommunication or radar system interference on a case by case basis.

Waste Management & Contaminated Lands Improper disposal of wastes could result in contamination of soil, groundwater, and surface water.

By following the mitigation measures recommended in the section on General Mitigation Measures, waste will be contained and properly removed from the site, resulting in no effects on the surrounding area during operations.

Public Health & Safety There is potential for damage or detachment of turbine parts during operation, and other potential effects may result from the accumulation of ice on the turbine blades and extreme weather events.

Modern wind turbines must meet strict international engineering standards. During high wind events or imbalances of the turbine blades due to ice accumulation, the turbines are designed to shut down. Turbines are equipped with lightning protection systems and located at least the minimum regulated setback distance from receptors. Access to the towers will be restricted to avoid potential accidents.





• DesignandOperationsReport










Assessment Reports







! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

Stayner

COUNTY RD 91

CO

UN

TY RD

42

HWY 26



CO

UN

TY RD

124


CO

NC

6 S N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

CO

NC

6 N N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S R

D N

MO

WAT ST N

JOHN S

T

OAK ST


QUEBEC ST

ELM ST

SUNNIDALE ST

CHRISTOPHER ST

IND

USTR

IAL R

D

WYANT RD

LOCKE AVE

SIDE ST

STAYNER

ST

CHERRY ST


REGINA ST

SUTH

ERLA

ND

ST S

2

1

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1,000m


Noise Assessment:REPORT SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the draft Noise Assessment Report for the Fairview Wind Project (the Project). The report has been prepared to meet all reporting requirements related to wind project noise for a Renewable Energy Approval (REA), and was prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09. The purpose of the report is to provide the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, and regulatory agencies with an assessment of the potential Project-related noise impacts in the Project Study Area, and to confirm compliance with Provincial requirements for turbine noise levels.

Project DescriptionThe Fairview Wind Project consists of eight wind turbine generators to be located in an area directly north of Fairview, Ontario, within the Township of Clearview. The wind turbine generators are sited in an area bounded by Sideroad 17 and 18 Nottawasaga to the south, Highway 42 and Fairground Road to the east, Sideroad 27 and 28 Nottawasaga Road to the north, and Concession Road 6 to the west. The area is rural in nature, both acoustically and in general character, with agricultural land uses, including scattered dwellings near the roadways. The turbines will generally be based at an elevation of between about 240 and 280 metres.

Estimated noise levels from Project turbines comply with the requirements of the 2008 Ministry of the Environment (MOE) publication NPC-232 Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas (Rural) for all non-participating receptor locations as defined under O. Reg. 359/09.


Description of Receptors There are several residences in the vicinity of the project, generally sited along major roadways. The maps on the next page show the location of all receptors considered as part of the noise assessment. A table of UTM co-ordinates for 145 receptors, including vacant lots, located near the proposed wind turbine generators was received from wpd Canada.

Methods The Ministry of the Environment considers a rural area such as the Fairview site to have a maximum allowable sound level of 40 dBA for quiet night time periods, and 45 dBA for quiet daytime periods. To determine if the minimum criteria should apply, the site was visited during the afternoon on July 15, 2011. Short-duration average sound levels were recorded to be 51 dBA, with some levels as low as 33 dBA. Based on the site visit, the area is acoustically rural, and minimum noise limits should apply. Turbine noise must remain below 40 dBA at non-participating residential receptors in the area.

Wind turbines may be audible at many residences even when sound levels are below MOE guidelines noise criteria. This assessment is based on the minimum criteria of 40 dBA and the maximum wind turbine sound power level.

Impact AssessmentAn acoustic model of the site was created on a computer using a commercial acoustic modeling system (Cadna/A – version 4.2.141). Topographical data for the site and surrounding area was provided by wpd Canada. All wind turbine generators were modeled as point sources at a height of 100 metres above grade. In accordance with the 2008 MOE Interpretation sound level predictions for receptors within 1500 m of the sound sources, all participating and non-participating receptors have sound levels below the 40.0 dBA minimum criterion.

ConclusionsThe noise impact assessment for the proposed Fairview Wind Project determined that the estimated sound levels at non-participating receptors and vacant lot receptors comply with the MOE sound level limits. Sound levels will be below 40 dBA at all non-participating receptors, and all turbines are more than 550 m from non-participating receptors. Detailed data on sample calculations can be found in the Noise Assessment Report, in Appendix B of the Design and Operations Report.

Site Investigation


Predicted Sound Levels Leq [dBA]

Proposed Wind Turbine Generator and Receptor Locations













• NoiseAssessmentReport


Assessment Reports







! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

Stayner

COUNTY RD 91

CO

UN

TY RD

42

HWY 26



CO

UN

TY RD

124


CO

NC

6 S N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

CO

NC

6 N N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S R

D N

MO

WAT ST N

JOHN S

T

OAK ST


QUEBEC ST

ELM ST

SUNNIDALE ST

CHRISTOPHER ST

IND

USTR

IAL R

D

WYANT RD

LOCKE AVE

SIDE ST

STAYNER

ST

CHERRY ST


REGINA ST

SUTH

ERLA

ND

ST S

2

1

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1,000m


Decommissioning Plan:REPORT SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the Draft Decommissioning Plan Report for the Fairview Wind Project (the Project). The Draft Decommissioning Plan Report was prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09, and is one component of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) application for the Project. The purpose of the report is to provide the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, and regulatory agencies with an understanding of the closure plan for the Project at the end of its useful life, and to describe restoration of the Project Location to an acceptable condition for its intended use following Project closure.

Decommissioning During ConstructionIf wpd Canada cannot complete construction of the Project, the rights to the Project (and any associated liabilities and obligations) would be sold, and the Project would be successfully constructed by the purchasing developer.

If the sale of the Project is delayed, wpd Canada would be responsible for protecting the environment at the Project site. If the Project is not sold to another developer, wpd Canada will be responsible for decommissioning.


Project components are expected to be in service for the term of the 20 year Ontario Power Authority Feed-In Tariff contract. At that point, wpd Canada would choose to extend the life of the facility or to decommis-sion. Decommissioning includes removing facility components and restoring the land to an acceptable condition for its intended use.

During decommissioning and restoration, wpd Canada will use general environmental protection and mitigation measures, according to regulatory requirements at the time of decommissioning.

A temporary staging area at each turbine would be used for tem-porary storage, parking, and the excavated foundation spoil pile. This area would not be excavated or graveled and would be restored to pre-existing conditions at the end of decommissioning.

The turbines would be dismantled using a heavy-lift crawler and mobile cranes. The switching sta-tion would be dismantled as agreed to, or as necessary, in accordance with the land lease agreement. The small transformer at the base of each turbine would be removed for reuse, reconditioning, or disposal. All materials would be removed for recycling, reuse, reconditioning, or disposal.

Underground collector lines on optioned property would not be removed, but the ends that come to the surface would be excavated. The interconnection to the Hydro One transmission lines would be removed according to Hydro One requirements.

All access roads would be returned to their original pre-construction state, unless the landowner wishes to keep them intact.

Decommissioning Procedures

Site Rehabilitation/Restoration Natural heritage features directly impacted by decommissioning would be agricultural land, municipal road allowances (along Fairgrounds Road and County Road 91), and watercourses.

Areas that may have compacted due to facility operation or decommissioning would be decompacted. Any agricultural tile drains capped during construction, or damaged during decommissioning, would be repaired. Topsoil taken from the surrounding land would be added to a similar depth as surrounding areas. All areas would be graded to pre-construction conditions and restored appropriately, in consultation with the landowner.

Where Project infrastructure has been removed, roadside ditches would be seeded with quick growing native species to prevent topsoil erosion; the seed mixture would be determined at that time in consultation with the municipality and/or Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.

Any potential effects from decommissioning will be short-term, and the site will be returned to its previous condition. The costs will be the responsibility of the Project owner or the purchaser of the reusable materials.


Managing Excess Materials & Waste Prior to dismantling and demolition, wpd Canada would complete a waste audit. All wastes would be managed according to relevant regulations and specifications in effect at that time.

Major pieces of equipment may be recyclable or reusable, resulting in minimal residual waste for disposal

MonitoringFollow-up monitoring would take place for one year after site restoration, to allow for seasonal changes and to determine if additional restoration is required. A monitoring plan would be prepared prior to decommissioning.

Health and SafetyThe Project’s Emergency Response and Communications Plan would be in effect for all phases of the Project, including decommissioning.

As appropriate, the decommissioning firm will develop a staff training program for decommissioning activities, including environmental, health, and safety procedures, and the Emergency Response Plan.

Notification wpd Canada will consult with interested parties before decommissioning and will update the Decommissioning Plan to meet regulatory requirements in effect at that time. Notification will also be provided to Clearview Township, Simcoe County, relevant Aboriginal communities, interested stakeholders, and agencies, prior to decommissioning. Notification may include letters, newspaper notices, updates on the Project website, or direct communications.

An Emergency Response and Communications Plan will outline actions to be taken during decommissioning to inform interested parties about activities occurring at the Project site, means by which stakeholders can contact the decommissioning firm, and how correspondence will be recorded and addressed.






• DecommissioningPlanReport









Assessment Reports







! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

Stayner

COUNTY RD 91

CO

UN

TY RD

42

HWY 26



CO

UN

TY RD

124


CO

NC

6 S N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

CO

NC

6 N N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S R

D N

MO

WAT ST N

JOHN S

T

OAK ST


QUEBEC ST

ELM ST

SUNNIDALE ST

CHRISTOPHER ST

IND

USTR

IAL R

D

WYANT RD

LOCKE AVE

SIDE ST

STAYNER

ST

CHERRY ST


REGINA ST

SUTH

ERLA

ND

ST S

2

1

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1,000m


The following is a summary of the Draft Wind Turbine Specifications Report for the Fairview Wind Project (the Project). The Draft Wind Turbine Specifications Report has been written in accordance with Ontario Regulation 359/09 for a Class 4 Wind Facility. The purpose of the report is to provide the public, Aboriginal communities, municipalities, and regulatory agencies with an overview of the turbine technology to be used for the Project.

The Project consists of eight wind turbine generators (2.05 MW each) with a maximum installed contract nameplate capacity of 16.4 MW (FIT Contract maximum of 18.4 MW). The following table provides a description of the REpower MM92 wind turbine which will be used for the Project.

Wind Turbine Specifications REPORT SUMMARY

REpower MM92 - Wind Turbine Specifications Manufacturer REpower Model MM92 Name plate capacity (MW) 2.05 MW Hub height above grade 100 m Blade length 45.2 m Rotor diameter 92.5 m Rotor sweep area 6,720 m2 Nominal revolutions (rotational speed) 7.8-15.0 rpm Frequency 60 Hz Sound power 5 m/s – 101.7 dBA

6 m/s – 103.4 dBA 7 m/s – 104.2 dBA >8 m/s – 104.2 dBA

Each wind turbine consists of the following key components:

• Concrete tower foundation;• Five steel tower sections;• Nacelle (comprised of gearbox, electrical

generator and housing);• Three rotor blades;

• Hub (the structure to which the blades attach);

• Power convertor; • Step-up transformer; • Electrical wiring and grounding; and• Turbine tower lighting.







• WindTurbineSpecificationsReport








Assessment Reports







! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

&-

Stayner

COUNTY RD 91

CO

UN

TY RD

42

HWY 26



CO

UN

TY RD

124


CO

NC

6 S N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

CO

NC

6 N N

OTTA

WA

SA

GA

FAIR

GR

OU

ND

S R

D N

MO

WAT ST N

JOHN S

T

OAK ST


QUEBEC ST

ELM ST

SUNNIDALE ST

CHRISTOPHER ST

IND

USTR

IAL R

D

WYANT RD

LOCKE AVE

SIDE ST

STAYNER

ST

CHERRY ST


REGINA ST

SUTH

ERLA

ND

ST S

2

1

3 4

5

6

7

8

0 500 1,000m

appendix g - wpdcanada.wpd.de/uploads/tx_projectdownloads/fair_13.7_cr... · 2013-12-11 ·...

Documents