appendix f agency and municipal correspondence and...

NAPIER WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT

Appendix F

Agency and Municipal Correspondence and Consideration by Project Team

http://canada.wpd.de/wpd-think-energy-home.ht


Appendix F1

Generic Letters


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

November 8, 2011 File: 160960697

Agency Address City, Province Postal Code

Attention: Title. FName LName, Position

Reference: Napier Wind Project Notice of Proposal, Draft Site Plan and Public Meeting

Please find attached the Notice for the proposed Napier Wind Project. As described in the Notice, wpd Canada Corporation (wpd) is proposing to develop the Napier Wind Project (Project) in the Municipality of Adelaide Metcalfe, County of Middlesex, Ontario.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

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

Enclosure: Notice of Proposal, Draft Site Plan and Public Meeting

CC. Khlaire Parré, wpd Canada Corporation

mailto:[email protected]

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

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

October 2, 2012 File: 160960697

Agency title Address address

Attention:

Reference: Napier Wind Project Notice of Final Public Meeting and 60 day Public Review of REA Documents

Please find attached the Notice of Final Public Meeting for the Napier Wind Project. As described in the notice, wpd Canada Corporation (wpd Canada) is proposing to develop the Napier Wind Project (Project) in the Municipality of Adelaide Metcalfe, County of Middlesex, Ontario.

Under Ontario Regulation 359/09, drafts of all reports required as part of the Renewable Energy Approval application for the Project are to be made available for public review and comment for a period of at least 60-days prior to the Final Public Meeting. The Final Public Meeting for the Project is to be held on Thursday, December 6th, 2012. The documents are available for your review at the Adelaide Metcalfe Township Office, 2340 Egremont Drive, Strathroy, ON. The reports are also available at the Project website – go to www.wpd-canada.ca, under PROJECTS, then in Canada, you will find the Napier link on the left. Or use the direct link: http://canada.wpd.de/ca/projects/in-canada/napier.html.

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

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

Sincerely,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

Fiona Christiansen, M.Sc Senior Project Manager Tel: (519) 836-6050 Fax: (519) 836-2493 [email protected]

Enclosure: Notice of Final Public Meeting

CC. Khlaire Parré, Director of Renewable Energy Approvals, wpd Canada

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

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

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




Appendix F2

Federal Agencies, and Telecommunications and Radar System Providers Comment/Response Summary


NAPIER WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F2 – Federal Agencies, and Telecommunication and Radar System Providers Comment/Response Summary December 2012

1 of 9

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From

Name of Correspondent

Date Sent/ Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Date

Responded Response Summary

Natural Resources Canada See App. C1 & F1

To David McCormack, Program Manager

November 8, 2011

• Letter and Notice • Provided the Notice of a Proposal to

Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Draft Site Plan and Public Meeting.

• Provided brief description of the Project.

• Included the contact information for the Project Team and a link to the Project’s website should the agency or group require further information or wish to provide comments about the Project.

See App. C2 & F1

To David McCormack, Program Manager

October 2, 2012

• Letter and Notice • Provided Notice of Final Public

Meeting. • Noted that as required under O. Reg.

359/09, drafts of all reports required as part of the Renewable Energy Approval application for the Project have been made available for the public review for a period of at least 60-days prior to the Final Public Meeting.

• Provided date of the final public meeting and locations of where the Project documents are available for review.

• Noted the reports are also available on the Project website.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency See App. C1 & F1

To Louise Knox, Regional Director

November 8, 2011


Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Draft Site Plan and Public


2 of 9

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From




Meeting. • Provided brief description of the

Project. • Included the contact information for the

Project Team and a link to the Project’s website should the agency or group require further information or wish to provide comments about the Project.

See App. C2 & F1

To Louise Knox, Regional Director

October 2, 2012






TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND RADAR SYSTEM PROVIDERS

Transport Canada

See App. C1 & F1

To Monique Mousseau, Regional Manager Tom Hollinger, Manager, Data Collection

November 8, 2011




• Included the contact information for the


3 of 9

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From




Sue MacDonald-Simcox, Navigable Waters Protection Officer Linda Beaulieu, Environmental Officer

Project Team and a link to the Project’s website should the agency or group require further information or wish to provide comments about the Project.

TC-1 To Transport Canada

November 11, 2011

• Submitted Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance Form along with an Excel spreadsheet with turbine coordinates.

December 8, 2011

• Received, signed and stamped Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance Form approving the lighting proposal.

• Asked that both turbines be lit. See App. C2 & F1

To Monique Mousseau, Regional Manager Tom Hollinger, Manager, Data Collection Sue MacDonald-Simcox, Navigable Waters Protection Officer Linda Beaulieu, Environmental Officer

October 2, 2012







4 of 9

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From




NAV CANADA See App. C1 & F1

To Dave Ferris November 8, 2011





NAV-1 & NAV-2

To Christopher Csatlos, Land Use Specialist, AIS Data Collection

November 11, 2011

• Submitted Land Use Proposal Form to NAV Canada.

• Included an Excel spreadsheet of turbine coordinates and a 1:50,000 topographic map of the Project Area along with a Notice to Engage/Notice of Public Meeting.

March 14, 2012

• NAV Canada responded stating they had no objection to the proposal submitted.

• Made requests to be kept up to date on project information and to be notified 10 business days before commencement of construction.

See App. C2 & F1

To Dave Ferris October 2, 2012






5 of 9

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From





Environment Canada See App. C1 & F1

To Dave Dockendorff, Manager, National Radar Program Rob Dobos, Manager, Environmental Assessment Section

November 8, 2011





EC-1 To Weather Radars Contact, National Radar Program Response received by Carolyn Rennie, National Radar Program, Meteorological Service of Canada

October 2, 2012

• Email • Notice of Final Public Meeting

October 5, 2012

• Email • The preliminary assessment

conducted concluded that any interference that may be created by the Project would not be severe. Noted that they prefer their radar view to be interference free; however indicated that this is not always reasonable. Noted that they do not have strong objections to the Project proposal.

• Advised that if the turbine layout changes in any manner, an updated analysis would be required.

See App. C2 & F1

To Dave Dockendorff, Manager, National Radar Program

October 2, 2012




6 of 9

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From




Rob Dobos, Manager, Environmental Assessment Section




Department of National Defence

See App. C1 & F1

To Mark Bartley, Engineering Development Officer Mario Lavoie, Spectrum Engineering Technician

November 8, 2011





DND-1 To Mario Lavoie, Spectrum Engineering Technician

November 11, 2011

• Request sent to DND’s Frequent Spectrum Management group to evaluate the project’s impact on DND infrastructure.

• Included an Excel spreadsheet of turbine coordinates, a Notice of Proposal to Engage/Notice of Public Meeting and a map of the project area with the proposed turbines.

November 15, 2011

• Email reply • Noted no objections or concerns.


7 of 9

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From




DND-2 To Capt. Switzer November 11, 2011

• Request sent to DND’s ATESS/ESTTMA department on the project siting.

• Included an Excel spreadsheet of turbine coordinates, a Notice of Proposal to Engage/Notice of Public Meeting and a map of the project area with the proposed turbines.

December 15, 2011

• ATESS/ESTTMA informed wpd that they have no objection to the project.

See App. C2 & F1

To Mark Bartley, Engineering Development Officer Mario Lavoie, Spectrum Engineering Technician

October 2, 2012






Canadian Coast Guard

See App. C1 & F1

To Jose Fernando Mojica, Communication and Navigation Engineer

November 8, 2011




• Included the contact information for the Project Team and a link to the Project’s website should the agency or group require further information or


8 of 9

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From




wish to provide comments about the Project.

See App. C2 & F1

To Jose Fernando Mojica, Communication and Navigation Engineer

October 2, 2012






Ministry of Government Services See App. C1 & F1

To Lou Battiston, Manager, Technology Liaison Bob Clements, Mobile Radio Engineer

November 8, 2011





MGS-1 From Ministry of Government Services

November 16, 2011

• Email • Indicated receipt of Notice and that an

impact assessment will be performed and a response would be provided.


9 of 9

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From




Mark Fox, Network Radio Engineer, Government Mobile Communications Branch

• Requested all future correspondence/Notices be directed to him, since L. Battiston is no longer with the Ontario Public Services.

MGS-2 From Ministry of Government Services Mark Fox, Network Radio Engineer, Government Mobile Communications Branch

November 30, 2011

• Email • Based upon analysis of the attached

Wind Project notice, it is unlikely to affect the operations of Ontario’s public safety mobile radio system.

• Advised that a reassessment will be required should the project/study area boundaries change.

• Included Sandra Guido from the Ministry of the Environment in response to ensure awareness of our analysis results.

See App. C2 & F1

To Lou Battiston, Manager, Technology Liaison Bob Clements, Mobile Radio Engineer

October 2, 2012







Appendix F3

Provincial Agencies Comment/Response Summary



1 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From

Name Date Sent/ Received

Comment or Inquiry Summary Date Responded

Response Summary

Ministry of the Environment MOE-1 To Narren Santos,

Senior Program Support Coordinator (A)

September 27, 2011

• Meeting Request was initiated with MOE regarding clarification of the Noise Guidelines and cumulative sound.

• As there are other proposed wind developments in the Project area, wpd wanted to confirm the regulatory requirements for including these projects in acoustic assessments

October 25, 2011

• Meeting held on Oct 5, 2011. • Accounting for Cumulative noise was

clarified by the following steps: • First take into account all the receptors

within 1.5 km of our turbines. Second step is to take into account all of the turbines within 3 km of those receptors identified in Step 1.

• For each of those receptors the noise from our or the adjacent project’s turbines (with the 3 km of the receptor) cannot be > 40 dBA.

MOE-2 To Doris Dumais,

Director, Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch

October 27, 2011

• Request for Aboriginal contact list was sent to the MOE.

• The request contained a cover letter explaining the request and an electronic copy of the Draft Project Description Report.

December 8, 2011

• MOE responded back with a confirmed list of Aboriginal communities wpd should consult with regarding the Napier Project.

See App. C1 & F1

To Kanina Blanchard, District Manager Franca Dignem, Director

November 8, 2011

• Letter and Notice • Provided the Notice of a Proposal

to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Draft Site Plan and Public Meeting

• Provided brief description of the Project

• Included the contact information for the Project Team and a link to the Project’s website should the agency or group require further information or wish to provide comments about the Project

MOE -3 To Doris Dumais, Director, Environmental Assessment &

November 8, 2011

• Crystallization Notice sent to MOE.

• Email contained a cover letter, Notice of Proposal, Draft Site


2 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary

Approvals Branch Plan and Public Meeting, Site Plan Map and a spreadsheet with UTM coordinates of the turbines.

MOE-4 To Doris Dumais, Director, Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch Narren Santos, Senior Program Support Coordinator (A)

April 19, 2012 • Request Letter for Crystallization extension was sent to MOE

•

May 4, 2012 • MOE replied back approving a one year crystallization extension for the Napier Project until May 10, 2013

MOE-5 From Narren Santos, Senior Program Support Coordinator (A)

August 31, 2012

• Notice of Errata was sent to wpd Canada clarifying that a section of the crystallization approval that was received on May 4, 2012 was incorrectly referenced.

• MOE clarified a clerical error in the letter provided to wpd that granted the crystallization extension. It stated that instead of paragraph 4, subsection 54 (1.2) of O. Reg. 359/09” in the letter should read “paragraph 2 of subsection 54 (1.2) of O. Reg. 359/09”.

See App. C2 & F1

To Kanina Blanchard, District Manager Franca Dignem, Director

October 2, 2012


Meeting • Noted that as required under O.

Reg. 359/09, drafts of all reports required as part of the Renewable


3 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary

Doris Dumais, Director, Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch

Energy Approval application for the Project have been made available for the public review for a period of at least 60-days prior to the Final Public Meeting.



Ministry of Natural Resources MNR-1, MNR-1.1

From Andrea Fleischhauer on behalf of Jim Beal, Renewable Energy Provincial Field Program Coordinator

July 20, 2011 • Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) requested a meeting to discuss requirements for NHA, ESA and APRD

• MNR requested any available information regarding the project, (: site mapping , information on known natural heritage features and any completed studies or work to date.

July 27, 2011

• Replied to MNR that wpd Canada looks forward to the meeting.

See App. C1 & F1

To Mitch Wilson, District Manager Amanda McCloskey, District Planner, Aylmer District Eric Prevost, Renewable Energy Coordinator, Southern Region Renée Bowler, Team Leader –

November 8, 2011






4 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary

environmental Planning

MNR-2 From Amy Cameron, Renewable Energy Field Advisor

December 2, 2011

• Email • Appreciated the meeting held on

September 1st to discuss the project

• The Renewable Energy Operations Team (REOT) extended an offer to discuss any concerns/issues with preparing the NHA report.

• Advised that any draft reports prepared (even partial) can be sent to REOT to provide comments and/or guidance.

December 2, 2012

• Email • Indicated appreciation for continued

support and that the NHA should be submitted shortly.

MNR-3

To Jim Beal, Renewable Energy Provincial Field Program Coordinator Andrea Fleischhauer Amy Cameron, Renewable Energy Field Advisor

December 23, 2011

• Email • Submission of Natural Heritage

Assessment (NHA) and Environmental Impact Study (EIS) Reports.

• Advised that endangered and threatened species are being addressed through a separate submission.

January 4, 2012

• Email • Provided comments and

requested a few minor revisions prior to deeming the NHA Report complete.

• Included MNR’s NHA checklist which is used to identify the completeness of the reports.

• Advised that comment on the EEMP for bird and bat monitoring will be submitted soon.


January 19, 2012

• Email • Provided comments and

requested a few minor revisions for the EEMP

• Indicated that MNR has posted the final Birds and Bats Habitats Guidelines to the website.

• Advised that once the revisions


5 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary

have been made Jim Beal will issue a letter indicating that the EEMP has been prepared following the MNR guidelines.

MNR-5 To Amy Cameron, Renewable Energy Field Advisor

March 13, 2012

• Email • Advised that the figures and

mapping have been updated with information concerning the temporary construction areas around the base of the two turbines.

• Re-submitted the NHA/EIS Report, EEMP, and final figures for the project, to be reviewed and confirmed by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR).

March 15, 2012

• Email indicated that the MNR plans to have revisions and detailed comments submitted by April 15th

MNR-6 To Amy Cameron, Renewable Energy Field Advisor

March 25, 2012

• Email advised that the MNR has reviewed the revised NHA/EIS for the project and deem it complete.

• Indicated that a confirmation letter from Jim Beal will be sent.

• Provided a revised MNR checklist that shows the NHA/EIS has met the regulations requirements.

• The reviewed EEMP and comments are to follow.

MNR-7 From Jim Beal, Renewable Energy Provincial Field Program Coordinator

March 27, 2012

• Confirmation Letter on NHA received from MNR Confirms that the determination of the existence of natural features and the boundaries of natural features was made using applicable evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by MNR.

• Confirms that the site investigation and records review, were conducted using applicable


6 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary

evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by MNR.

• Confirms that the evaluation of the significance or provincial significance of the natural features was conducted using applicable evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by MNR.

• Confirms that the project location is not a provincial park or conservation reserve.

• Confirms that the environment impact study report has been prepared in accordance with procedures established by MNR

• Recommends preparing and implementing EEMP that address post-construction monitoring and mitigation for birds and bats in accordance with MNR Guidelines

MNR-8

From Jim Beal, Renewable Energy Provincial Field Program Coordinator

April 12, 2012 • Confirmation letter from MNR that the EEMP was prepared in respect of birds and bats in accordance with the MNR guidelines.

MNR-9 From Heather Riddell, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist

July 6, 2012 • Email advised that MNR has reviewed the Species at Risk (SAR) Report submitted on May 22, 2012/

• Provided comment in response and requested a revised SAR Report that addresses the comments.


7 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary


September 6, 2012

• Confirmation Letter from MNR that the Sept 6, 2012 document, which describes modifications to the project location, (made subsequent to MNR’s Confirmation Letter of March 27th, 20120) has been reviewed.

• Satisfied that the NHA requirements of O. Reg. 359/09 have been met.

• Confirms that the project, with the modified layout, no longer requires an environmental impact study report as there are no longer any significant natural features identified within 120m of the project location.

• This letter is to be added as an addendum to the confirmation letter issued Mar 27, 2012.

MNR-11 From Heather Riddell, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist

September 11, 2012

• Email concerning petroleum well report.

• Indicated that the project won’t require a Petroleum Engineer’s report. However, MNR still need written notification that the assessment has been completed.

• MNR sent Petroleum Setback Information for Renewable Energy Projects

See App. C2 & F1

To Mitch Wilson, District Manager Amanda McCloskey, District Planner, Aylmer

October 2, 2012



Reg. 359/09, drafts of all reports required as part of the Renewable


8 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary

District Eric Prevost, Renewable Energy Coordinator, Southern Region Renée Bowler, Team Leader – environmental Planning

Energy Approval application for the Project have been made available for the public review for a period of at least 60-days prior to the Final Public Meeting.



Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

See App. C1 & F1

To Laura Hatcher, Heritage Planner Karla Barboza, Heritage Advisor

November 8, 2011


to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Draft Site Plan and Public Meeting.



MTCS-1, MTCS-1.1

To Shari Prowse, Archeology Review Officer

February 17, 2012

• Submission of “Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment Report” to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS)

June 5, 2012

• First Review: MTCS sent letter confirming review of “Stage 1 and 2 Arch Assessment Report”

• MTCS noted that specific standards have not been addressed to the ministry’s satisfaction. (See Jun 8 and Jun 18th for resolution)

• Requested submission of a revised report that resolves the fieldwork and/or reporting issues identified in the letter on or before Sept. 3, 2012.


9 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary

MTCS-1.2 To Christina E. Gohm to Archaeology Review Coordinator

May 22, 2012 • Expedited Review Request Form sent for the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment Report

MTCS-1.3, MTCS 1.4

To Abbey Flower, Archaeology Review Coordinator

June 8, 2012 • Responding to MTCS’s comments from June 5, 2012 a REVISED package contained the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment Report was submitted to the Ministry.

June 18, 2012

• MTCS indicated that the package is complete and the report has been filed with the ministry.

• The Ministry has also granted the request for expedited review and expect that the review report will be completed July 17, 2012, but will attempt to accommodate the review prior to this date.

MTCS-1.5 To Shari Prowse, Archeology Review Officer to Khlaire Parre

July 4, 2012 • MTCS sent letter with written comments regarding approval of the Revised - “Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment Report”. MTCS is satisfied with the recommendations provided in the report.

MTCS-2, MTCS-2.1

To Paul Racher to Laura Hatcher, Heritage Planner

April 13, 2012 • Heritage Report Submission • Archaeological Research

Associates Ltd. (ARA) submitted the “Heritage Assessment Report” to MTCS) for review.

May 30, 2012

• Heritage Report Confirmation. • MTCS sent a Confirmation Letter for

Heritage Assessment Report” • The letter indicated that MTCS is

satisfied with the heritage assessment report and its recommendations.

See App. C2 & F1

To Laura Hatcher, Heritage Planner Karla Barboza, Heritage Advisor

October 2, 2012


Meeting. • Noted that as required under O.

Reg. 359/09, drafts of all reports required as part of the Renewable Energy Approval application for the Project have been made available for the public review for


10 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary

a period of at least 60-days prior to the Final Public Meeting.



Hydro One Networks Inc. (HONI) See App. C1 & F1

To Leslie Koch, Transmission Lines Sustainment Manager

November 8, 2011





To HONI Generation Connections Department,

December 6, 2011

• Connection Impact Assessment (CIA) application was accepted by HONI. HONI completed the CIA report in January 23, 2012.

• Class C estimate was received on January 27, 2012.

• Discussions with HONI went on regarding estimates through winter and spring 2012.

• First revisions of the CIA and Class C were sent to wpd in May 2012.

• Second revisions of the CIA and Class C were sent to wpd in July 11, 2012.


11 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary

• Connection Cost Agreement (CCA) was signed with HONI on July 12, 2012.

• The CCA was officially executed on July 23, 2012.

• A project kickoff meeting between wpd and HONI took place to discuss in service date and scope of work on October 29, 2012.

• Site meeting took place between wpd engineering staff and HONI to discuss technical details of the connection point on November 13

• See App. C2 & F1

To Leslie Koch, Transmission Lines Sustainment Manager

October 2, 2012



Reg. 359/09, drafts of all reports required as part of the Renewable Energy Approval application for the Project have been made available for the public review for a period of at least 60-days prior to the Final Public Meeting.



Ontario Heritage Trust See App. C1 & F1

To Beth Hanna, Director

November 8, 2011




12 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary



OHT-1 To Sean Fraser, Manager, Aquisitiosns and Conservation Services

November 8, 2011

• Request for Heritage information sent to the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT)

November 29, 2011

• The OHT replied back indicating that they had reviewed the project area as per O.Reg. 359/09 s.19 the Trust does not protect ay properties through a conservation easement on lands that will directly affected or visually affect by the Napier Project

• Advised that the proponents consult with MTCS if they had not already done so for additional cultural heritage interests of note.

See App. C2 & F1

To Beth Hanna, Director

October 2, 2012







13 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary

St. Clair Region Conservation Authority

SCRCA-1 To and From

Chris Durand, IT/GIS Specialist

September 7 – October 27, 2011

• Requested SCRCA data for the Project study area

• Regulated areas, water quality and fish sampling sites data was provided by SCRCA

See App. C1 & F1

To Ralph Coe, General Manager/Secretary Treasurer Patty Hayman, Environmental Planner/ Regulations Officer

November 8, 2011





See App. C2 & F1

To Ralph Coe, General Manager/Secretary Treasurer Patty Hayman, Environmental Planner/ Regulations Officer

October 2, 2012







14 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary

Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority

See App. C1 & F1

To Tom Prout, General Manager/Secretary Treasurer Alec Scott, Water and Planning Manager

November 8, 2011




• Included the contact information for the Project Team and a link to the Project’s website should the agency or group require further information or wish to provide comments about the Project. Laura

Other Provincial Agencies See App. C1 & F1

To See Appendix B – Agency Distribution List

November 8, 2011





See App. C2 & F1

To See Appendix B – Agency Distribution List

October 2, 2012



Reg. 359/09, drafts of all reports required as part of the Renewable Energy Approval application for


15 of 15

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From



Response Summary

the Project have been made available for the public review for a period of at least 60-days prior to the Final Public Meeting.




Appendix F4

Municipalities and Elected Officials Comment/Response Summary


NAPIER WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Appendix F4 – Napier Municipal Consultation Summary December 2012

Napier Municipal Consultation Summary

Doc No.

To/ From

Name of Correspondent Item Start Date Communication/Inquiry Summary

Date Responded/ Concluded

Response Summary

Township of Adelaide-Metcalfe

1 To Fran Urbshott (Municipal Clerk) Nov 9, 2011

• The Municipal Consultation Form (MCF) and the Draft Project Description Report was sent to the Municipality along with a cover letter explained the form and reports the Municipality would be receiving soon.

2 To Fran Urbshott Dec 19, 2011

• Email sent to the Town Clerk in follow up to a conversation wpd had with the Mayor at the Open House.

• The Mayor had indicated that the municipality had requested for meeting with wpd prior to the Open House, however wpd had explained they had not received such a request. .

• wpd asked the clerk for details of where and how the notice was sent and for another copy be resent

• The email was followed up with a phone call two days later inquiring about the same information

• wpd also asked to speak with Mayor

Dec 21, 2011

• The Clerk indicated that she didn’t have a copy of the letter. wpd proceeded to request another meeting time.

• Mayor was unavailable that day

2.1 To Mayor David Bolton Dec 22, 2011

• wpd called again to speak directly with the Mayor.

• wpd called to speak with Adelaide Metcalf’s Mayor in follow up to the meeting at the first Open House

• During the Open House he inquired as to why wpd had not responded to the Township’s request to hold a meeting prior to the public meeting.

• wpd explained that they had not received a request but would be happy to look into the issue.

• During the call wpd offered to hold a

Dec 22, 2011

• The Mayor agreed to meet in the New Year.

• The Municipality also confirmed that they had received the Municipal Consultation Form and Notice of Public Meeting that was couriered on Nov 9, 2011.



Doc No.

To/ From



Response Summary

meeting with the Municipality in early January.

3 To Fran Urbshott Jan 6, 2012

• A meeting request was sent by wpd to Adelaide-Metcalfe to introduce and discuss the Project.

• Several dates in January were suggested.

3.1 To Fran Urbshott Jan 13, 2012

• Meeting confirmation • Follow up email was sent to the Clerk

of the Township to coordinate meeting dates.

Jan 21, 2012

• A meeting was coordinated for January 25, 2012 at 1:00pm at the Adelaide-Metcalfe Municipal Office.

• wpd replied back indicating that the County was confirmed for the meeting.

• wpd also confirmed that an agenda would be distributed shortly and asked the Township to provide the names of staff that would be attending the meeting

• The Township provided the names of councilors and staff that would be attending.

3.2 To

Adelaide-Metcalfe Staff: Mayor Dave

Bolton, Deputy Mayor Adrian deBruyn, Nick

Stokman and Kurtis Smith (councilors),

Fran Urbshott, Eldon Bryant (Road

Supervisor), Jeff Denomy (CBO), Arend Noordhof (Fire Chief), Bill

Jan 25, 2012

• Meeting minutes • Meeting was held with the Township of

Adelaide-Metcalfe and Middlesex County

• Basic project development and process was presented along with a turbine siting exercise.

• REA process was reviewed along with the municipal consultation process.

• Road use was discussed, some concerns about the suitability of Brown Rd for oversize loads was discussed (Township jurisdiction)

• Follow up Items • The Mayor asked that wpd

coordinate with the other developers in the area over work plans such as road agreements.

• The Fire Chief asked about the possibility of creating one emergency contact point so that the municipality would not have to figure out who owned what.

• Municipality asked that a working group consisting of a staff from each developer and municipal



Doc No.

To/ From



Response Summary

Green (Township Planner)

Middlesex County Staff: Durk Vanderwerff Manager of Planning, Chris Traini County Engineer.

• County had jurisdiction over the rest of the roads in the area. Permits for access points and maintenance would be needed along with oversize load permits.

• County indicated that roads are fairly restrictive in width and that proponents should work with HONI on join use or upgrading.

• wpd explained that HONI had committed to taking over the connection line,

• Emergency fire procedures were discussed.

• 30m setback regulations were discussed.

• The municipality asked why there was a need for the security presence at the open house. wpd explained that the safety of the community and all staff is of utmost importance and that there was a need to shutdown events in other jurisdictions because of overcapacity issues.

• Minutes were distributed on Feb 3, 2012.

staff be created,

4 To Fran Urbshott Feb 3, 2012

• Project update was sent to the Township in response to local resident who had sent questions to the Township about construction in the project area.

• wpd indicated that survey work was being conducted in the area in support of project design and permitting applications related to archaeological work and geotechnical work.

•



Doc No.

To/ From



Response Summary

• Explained the survey work may involve staking but no construction work be conducted prior to an REA approval.

5 From Fran Urbshott Mar 6, 2012

• The Clerk of the Township had called to inquire about wpd’s commitments related to decommissioning.

Mar 6, 2012

• wpd answered the inquire over the phone and sent a follow up email.

• Explained that a developer is required to decommission the project at their own expense as detailed in the Decommissioning Report. An escrow or blocked account is created as part of the standard leasing agreement. The account , controlled by a third party, contains ample security to cover decommissioning.

6 To Jeff Denomy, Chris Traini May 15, 2012

• Meeting invitation was sent to the Township CBO, inviting him to meet the County staff and with wpd’s technical staff to go over items related to road use and permits for the Napier Project.

May 17, 2012

• Township agreed to meet on May 25 at 11am at the Adelaide-Metcalfe Township offices.

6.1 To Jeff Denomy Eldon Bryant, Chris Traini, Donna Elliot

May 25, 2012

• A technical meeting was held between Township and County planning and road staff along with wpd’s engineers.

• Fee and application details for entrance permits, heavy load permits and building permits were discussed with both the County and Township.

• Electrical works details and permitting was also discussed. The County

• In follow up to the meeting wpd has pledged to provide details on haul routes when determined.

• Also pledged to setup another meeting with the County to go over plans that show existing service and utilities in ROW.



Doc No.

To/ From



Response Summary

indicated that underground road crossings would require a permit.

• The County indicated that they did not want developers to run power lines through public ROW, They preferred where possible that developers conduct joint use agreements with HONI.

• wpd noted that there were no HONI lines through Kerwood at present.

• Township has indicated that they would allow a line through Kerwood but they preferred it to be above ground.

• Where possible, priority would be given to utility companies should any infrastructure need to be placed through the ROW.

• County indicated that they have gone to the OMB to force developers to pursue joint use where possible.

7 To Fran Urbshott Sep 5, 2012

• Consultation package containing draft copies of all required REA reports sent to the Township in preparation for the final public meeting.

• Documents were sent at least 90 days before the scheduled date of the final open house.

8 To Township Planning Department Sep 10, 2012

• Letter sent to the Township Planning Department discussing public road access in follow up to the conversations that took place at the May 25th meeting,

• Specific project details were provided, including the location of the buried 44kV between the turbines.

•



Doc No.

To/ From



Response Summary

• wpd indicated that drainage culverts will need to be installed by the entrances off Napperton Drive.

• Explained that some road upgrades were likely needed on Brown Rd, including building up the ditch areas within road allowance to allow trucks to make the turn. The road may also need to be widened and more gravel added for stability.

• wpd proposed meeting with Township and Council staff before September 28 to discuss these matters further.

9 To Jeff Denomy, Chris Taini, Eldon Bryant Oct 26, 2012

• Technical Meeting invitation • In follow-up to the September 10,

2012 email, wpd invited development staff from the Township to review the contents of the letter.

Nov 14, 2012

• Meeting was confirmed for November 29, 2012 with both the Township

9.1 To Jeff Denomy, Chris Traini, Eldon Bryant Nov 29, 2012

• A second technical meeting with the Township and County took place to discuss road use, connection lines and permit requirements.

• The County explained again that they prefer joint use take place with HONI on lines on Napperton Drive.

• The Municipality expressed a preference for above ground connection lines along Brown Rd.

• Permit applications were discussed along with service delivery times,

• Council approval for certain agreements was also discussed.

• The County also suggested load routes to use when transporting the parts into the area and mentioned



Doc No.

To/ From



Response Summary

other neighboring jurisdiction where load permits may be required.

10 To Fran Urbshott, Jeff

Denomy, Eldon Bryant

Dec 7, 2012

• Request was sent to the Township inquiring as to the status of the MCF.

• Indicated that wpd was planning on submitting the Napier Project for REA approval soon and whether the Township could provide the MCF of a timeline when it could be submitted.

• No Reply has been given to date.

County of Middlesex

1 To Kathy Bunting (County Clerk) Nov 9, 2011

• The Municipal Consultation Form and Draft Project Description Report were sent to the County.

2 To

Kathy Bunting, Durk Vanderwerff (Manager of Planning)

Jan 6, 2012 • A meeting invitation was sent by wpd

to the County to introduce and discuss the Project

Jan 12, 2012

• The County indicated that they could meet on January 25th or January 27th.

• Results of the meeting are detailed in item 3.2 (January 25, 2012) in the Township consultation summary.

3 To Chris Traini May 16, 2012

• The County was asked to take part in a technical meeting with municipal planning staff and wpd engineering staff.

May 16, 2012

• County staff agreed to attend. For details of this meeting please refer to Item 6.1 in the Township consultation summary.

4 To Kathy Bunting Sep 5, 2012

• Consultation package containing draft copies of all required REA reports was sent to the County in preparation for the final public meeting.

• Documents were sent at least 90 days before the scheduled date of the final open house.

5 To County Planning Department Sep 10, 2012

• Letter sent to County Planning Department to discuss public road access. Details outline in Township



Doc No.

To/ From



Response Summary

consultation item #9

6 To Chris Traini Oct 26, 2012

• Technical Meeting invitation • In follow-up to the September 10,

2012 email wpd invited development staff from the County to review the contents of the letter.

Nov 29, 2012

• The County agreed to meet Nov 29, 2012. For summary of meeting please refer to item 9.1 in the Adelaide-Metcalfe consultation table.

7 To Kathy Bunting, Chris Traini, Durk Vanderwerff

Dec 4, 2012

• Request was sent to the County inquiring as to the status of the MCF noting it was submitted originally on Nov 9, 2011

• Indicated that wpd was planning on submitting the Napier Project for REA approval soon and whether the County could provide the MCF of a timeline when it could be submitted.

Dec 11, 2012

• The County asked for a digital copy of the application form which wpd provided along with a word version on the same day.

• No indication of the MCF’s status has been provided to date.