napier wind project consultation report file no....

NAPIER WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT

File No. 160960697 December 2012

Prepared jointly by: wpd Canada Corporation 2233 Argentia Road, Suite 102 Mississauga, ON L5N 2X7

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

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


i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1.1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 1.1 1.2 REPORT REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................. 1.2 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION AND STUDY AREA ...................................................................... 1.2

2.0 CONSULTATION APPROACH ........................................................................................ 2.1 2.1 PRE-DISCLOSURE .......................................................................................................... 2.2 2.2 TOOLS USED FOR CONSULTATION .............................................................................. 2.2 2.3 STAKEHOLDER RESPONSE ........................................................................................... 2.3 2.4 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION LIST ....................................................................................... 2.3

2.4.1 Assessed Landowners ....................................................................................... 2.4 2.4.2 Federal and Provincial Agencies ........................................................................ 2.4 2.4.3 Municipalities ...................................................................................................... 2.4 2.4.4 Aboriginal Communities...................................................................................... 2.4

2.5 NOTICES .......................................................................................................................... 2.5 2.5.1 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft

Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting ............................................................... 2.5 2.5.2 Notice of Final Public Meeting ............................................................................ 2.5

2.6 SUMMARY OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF NOTICES ........................................... 2.5

3.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ............................................................................................... 3.1 3.1 OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................... 3.1 3.2 PUBLIC MEETINGS ......................................................................................................... 3.1

3.2.1 Public Meeting #1 – December 15, 2011, 5:30pm to 8:00pm ............................. 3.2 3.2.2 Final Public Meeting – December 6, 2012 5:30pm to 8:00pm ............................. 3.3

3.3 RELEASE OF DRAFT REA REPORTS ............................................................................ 3.4 3.4 CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ................................................................... 3.5 3.5 REA REPORT AMENDMENTS FOLLOWING FINAL PUBLIC MEETING ....................... 3.10

4.0 AGENCY AND MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION ................................................................ 4.1 4.1 PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE ................................. 4.1

4.1.1 Federal Agency Distribution List ......................................................................... 4.1 4.1.2 Provincial Agency and Authority Distribution List ................................................ 4.2 4.1.3 Consideration of Key Federal and Provincial Comments .................................... 4.2

4.2 MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION .......................................................................................... 4.3 4.2.1 Middlesex County and Township of Adelaide Metcalfe ....................................... 4.4

4.3 CONSULTATION WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS ............................................................... 4.5 4.4 CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL UTILITIES ...................................................................... 4.5 4.5 CONSULTATION REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATION AND RADAR SYSTEMS ........ 4.5

5.0 ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT ......................................................................................... 5.1



Table of Content

ii

5.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES WITH AN INTEREST IN THE PROJECT ......................................................................................................................... 5.1

5.1 COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 5.2 5.1.1 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft

Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting ............................................................... 5.2 5.1.2 Project Follow-up Letters .................................................................................... 5.2 5.1.3 Notice of Final Public Meeting ............................................................................ 5.2 5.1.4 Local Newspaper Notices ................................................................................... 5.3 5.1.5 Project Telephone, E-mail, Mail and Website ..................................................... 5.3 5.1.6 Draft REA Reports .............................................................................................. 5.3

5.2 OVERVIEW OF ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT ................................................................ 5.4 5.2.1 Chippewas of the Thames First Nation (COTTFN) ............................................. 5.4 5.2.2 Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point (CKSP) ..................................................... 5.5 5.2.3 Aamjiwnaang First Nation (AFN) ........................................................................ 5.5 5.2.4 Walpole Island First Nation (WIFN) .................................................................... 5.7 5.2.5 Oneida Nation of the Thames (ONT) .................................................................. 5.8 5.2.6 Munsee-Delaware Nation (MDN) ........................................................................ 5.8 5.2.7 Delaware Nation Moravian of the Thames (DNMT) ............................................ 5.9

6.0 PLAN FOR ONGOING CONSULTATION ........................................................................ 6.1 6.1 FINAL REA REPORTS ..................................................................................................... 6.1 6.2 COMMUNITY UPDATES .................................................................................................. 6.1

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

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Public Meeting #1: Key Information ...................................................................... 3.2 Table 3.2: Public Meeting #2: Key Information ...................................................................... 3.4 Table 3.3: Summary of Key and Frequent Comments from Public and Consideration by

Project Team ....................................................................................................... 3.6 Table 3.4: Summary of REA Report Amendments .............................................................. 3.10 Table 4.1: Key Comments from Federal and Provincial Agencies and Consideration by

Project Team ....................................................................................................... 4.3 Table 4.2: Key Comments from Municipalities and Consideration by Project Team .............. 4.5 Table 4.3 Key Comments from Telecommunication and Radar Systems Providers ............. 4.7 Table 5.1: Key Comments from Chippewas of the Thames First Nation and Consideration

by Project Team ................................................................................................... 5.4 Table 5.2: Key Comments from the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point and

Consideration by Project Team ............................................................................ 5.5



Table of Contents

iii

Table 5.3: Key Comments from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation and Consideration by Project Team ......................................................................................................... 5.6

Table 5.4: Key Comments from Walpole Island First Nation and Consideration by Project Team ..................................................................................................................... 5.8

List of Appendices

Appendix A - Project Maps A1 - Original Project Study Area Map A2 - Final Project Study Area Map

Appendix B - Project Distribution Lists B1 - Agency and Municipal Distribution List B2 - Aboriginal Community Distribution List

Appendix C - Project Notices C1 - Notice Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site

Plan and Notice of Public Meeting C2 - Notice of Final Public Meeting

Appendix D - Release of Draft REA Reports D1 - Distribution List D2 - Aboriginal Community Cover Letters D3 - Public Review Location Cover Letters

Appendix E - Public Correspondence and Consideration by Project Team E1 - Generic Letters Accompanying Mail-outs E2 - Public Comment/Response Summary

Appendix F - Agency and Municipal Correspondence and Consideration by Project Team F1 - Generic Letters F2 - Federal Agencies, and Telecommunications and Radar System Providers

Comment/Response Summary F3 - Provincial Agencies Comment/Response Summary F4 - Municipalities and Elected Officials Comment/Response Summary

Appendix G - Aboriginal Community Correspondence and Consideration by Project Team G1 - Correspondence with Chippewas of the Thames First Nation G2 - Correspondence with Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point G3 - Correspondence with Aamjiwnaang First Nation G4 - Correspondence with Walpole Island First Nation G5 - Correspondence with Oneida of the Thames G6 - Correspondence with Munsee-Delaware Nation G7 - Correspondence with Delaware Nation Moravian of the Thames G8 - Project Summary Reports



1.1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

wpd Canada Corporation (wpd) is proposing to develop, construct and operate the Napier Wind Project (the Project) in the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe, County of Middlesex, Ontario, in response to the Government of Ontario's initiative to promote the development of renewable electricity in the province. The Project was awarded an Ontario Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) contract with the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) in July, 2011 (FIT Contract No. F-002194-WIN-130-601).

The Study Area includes two properties located on the north side of Napperton Drive just west of Strathroy. The Project Location includes all land and structures associated with the Project and any air space which the Project will occupy. The Project Location, including all Project infrastructure, is on privately owned land, where landowners have entered into a lease agreement with wpd, and on municipal road allowances.

It is of note that since the Project commenced the Study Area has been revised. The Feeder Line was originally proposed along Kerwood Road with the connection point at the corner of Munn St. & Kerwood Rd. The Feeder Line has since been removed from the Project (the Project will connect directly into the grid at the switching station, as described below). The Study Area depicted and assessed within the Natural Heritage Assessment Report/EIS and the Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Reports have not been updated as they were completed under the original study area scenario.

The basic components of the Project include two REpower MM92-2.05 MW wind turbine generators with a total maximum installed nameplate capacity of 4.1 MW (FIT contract maximum of 5.4 MW), step-up transformers located adjacent to the base of each turbine, a 27.6 kV underground and/or overhead collector system, a switching station and turbine access roads. The collector system will transport the electricity generated from each turbine to a switching station located on private property at Napperton Road where it will be tied directly into Hydro One Networks Inc.’s (HONI) Distribution Network.

wpd has retained Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) to prepare the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Application with input from Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. and HGC Engineering. The REA application is a requirement under Ontario Regulation 359/09 - Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Act of the Environmental Protection Act (O. Reg. 359/09). According to subsection 6 (3) of O. Reg. 359/09, the Project is classified as a Class 4 Wind Facility and will follow the requirements identified in O. Reg. 359/09 for such a facility.


NAPIER WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Introduction December 2012

1.2

1.2 REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

O. Reg. 359/09 sets out specific content requirements for the Consultation Report as provided in the MOE’s Checklist for Requirements under O. Reg. 359/09, which has been included as a supplement to the REA application for the Project.

The appendices for the Consultation Report are as follows:

Appendix A: Project Maps

Appendix B: Project Distribution Lists

Appendix C: Project Notices

Appendix D: Release of Draft REA Reports

Appendix E: Public Correspondence and Consideration by Project Team

Appendix F: Agency and Municipal Correspondence and Consideration by Project Team

Appendix G: Aboriginal Community Correspondence and Consideration by Project Team

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION AND STUDY AREA

The Project will be located on privately-owned land and within municipal road allowances in the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe, County of Middlesex, Ontario.

For the purposes of this Project, the Project Location includes the footprint of the facility components, plus any temporary work and storage locations. The boundary of the Project Location is used for defining setback and site investigation distances according to O. Reg. 359/09.

Although O. Reg. 359/09 considers the REA process in terms of the Project Location, the siting process for wind projects is an iterative process, and final location of Project components was not available at Project outset. Therefore, a Project Study Area was developed to examine the general area within which the Project components may be sited; information gathered within this larger area contributed to the siting exercise.

Project siting has been refined over the course of the REA process, resulting in the final Project Location. However, the extended Project Study Area continued to be used for assessed landowner and public notification throughout the REA process, as discussed in Section 2.4.




2.1

2.0 Consultation Approach

Consultation is a requirement of the REA process under O. Reg. 359/09. Consultation helps to ensure that concerns regarding the Project are identified early and addressed, where possible, in a transparent manner. Consultation is also used to identify potentially interested parties and the nature of their interest, inform these parties of the Project, and incorporate their concerns or interests into the planning and design process, to the extent possible and as appropriate. In addition, it allows for the development of relationships between wpd and interested parties, and establishes opportunities for invaluable feedback to the Project Team. The consultation process is designed to assist in the identification of potential environmental and socio-economic issues to ensure they are given appropriate consideration in Project planning, design, construction, operation and decommissioning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Resolve issues where possible, in a transparent manner;

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

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


NAPIER WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Consultation Approach December 2012

2.2

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

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

2.1 PRE-DISCLOSURE

Pre-disclosure includes advance notification of the Project prior to the issuance of the Notice of Draft Site Plan and a Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project. Pre-disclosure activities included submission of the draft Project Description Report (PDR) to the MOE to obtain the Aboriginal Communities List issued under s.14 of O. Reg. 359/09 (Section 2.4.4), correspondence with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and St. Clair Region Conservation Authority regarding natural heritage, and introductory correspondence with some local Aboriginal communities (Section 4.0).

2.2 TOOLS USED FOR CONSULTATION

wpd used various communication tools for disseminating Project information, and for ongoing collection of information from interested parties, including but not limited to, the public, Aboriginal communities, agencies and municipalities.

The communication tools used for the Project include:

• Project notices published in local newspapers;

• Direct mailings to assessed landowners in the general vicinity of the Project Study Area;

• Unaddressed mail drops in the vicinity of the Project (approximately a 1 km radius);

• Public Open Houses;

• Public Open House materials: feedback forms and prepaid return envelopes, project business cards, and making information panels available as handouts;

• Presentations to senior staff from the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe and Middlesex County and the Township’s Council;

• A Project website (http://canada.wpd.de/projects/in-canada/napier.html);

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

• Mailing addresses for both wpd and Stantec;

• A Project telephone number (1-888-712-2401);

• Offering to meet and/or conducting meetings with Aboriginal communities; and,

• Bi-weekly Wind News Articles distributed from early 2011 to present sent to the Township Clerk.



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

mailto:[email protected]


2.3

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

2.3 STAKEHOLDER RESPONSE

Consultation activities were designed so that interested parties had an opportunity to provide comments and questions regarding the Project and these communications were tracked through comment and response tables (Appendices E, F, and G). Between publication of the Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, the Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting (November 10, 2011) to the close of the public comment period for consideration in the REA Consultation Report (December 14, 2012), public comments have been received through the following channels:

• 8 e-mails

• 1 telephone call

• 8 feedback forms (3 from the first Public Meeting, and 5 from the Final Public Meeting)

wpd responded to questions received during the consultation process at two Public Meetings, and through telephone calls, e-mails and letters. All communications were documented and recorded in summary tables with contact information, date, and nature of the communication (Appendix E). For the purposes of this Consultation Report, all personal information (i.e. names, contact information) has been removed, as per the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). All original communication materials (contact records, letters, emails, questionnaires from open houses, meeting minutes, etc.) have been filed electronically by wpd, and are available at the MOE’s request.

2.4 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION LIST

A Project distribution list was developed in the early stages of the Project, and updated as required to identify key contacts that may have a potential interest in the Project. The Project distribution list includes provincial and federal agencies, municipalities, Aboriginal communities, assessed landowners in the general vicinity of the Project Study Area, and other interested stakeholders that had requested to be placed on the list throughout the REA process. Agency, municipal and Aboriginal distribution lists are provided in Appendix B. Project Notices were published in a local newspaper and mailed or e-mailed to the Project distribution list.

The distribution list was updated throughout the REA process, adding attendees at Open Houses, and correspondence received via letters, e-mail, telephone and personal interactions.



2.4

2.4.1 Assessed Landowners

Municipal tax roll information was collected to provide notice to all assessed landowners within 550m of Project infrastructure, as required by O. Reg. 359/09. However, wpd also included all landowners within 1km of the Project, in order to provide information to the broader community. The assessed landowners for this larger area were included on the Project distribution list to ensure that potentially interested parties received information about the Project.

2.4.2 Federal and Provincial Agencies

O. Reg. 359/09 identifies agencies that are to be consulted on the Project; in addition, agencies that typically and historically have had an interest in environmental assessment and wind projects were added to the Project distribution list.

2.4.3 Municipalities

The Clerks for the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe and Middlesex County were included on the Project distribution list, as required by O. Reg. 359/09. In addition, municipal staff identified as the point of contact for background information or input to the Municipal Consultation process were also included on the Project distribution list.

2.4.4 Aboriginal Communities

On October 27, 2011, the draft Project Description Report was sent to the Director of the MOE in order to obtain the Aboriginal Communities List as per s.14 of O. Reg. 359/09. The list was received from the MOE on December 8, 2011. Aboriginal communities identified by the MOE included:

• Chippewas of the Thames First Nation

• Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point

• Aamjiwnaang First Nation

• Bkejwanong Territory – Walpole Island First Nation

• Oneida Nation of the Thames

• Munsee-Delaware Nation

• Delaware Nation Moravian of the Thames




2.5

2.5 NOTICES

2.5.1 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting

The combined Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting was published in the Strathroy Age Dispatch on November 10th and 17th, 2011. The Notice was also directly mailed/e-mailed to the Project distribution list and delivered by unaddressed mail to the area surrounding the Project Location on November 8th, 2011.

2.5.2 Notice of Final Public Meeting

The Notice of Final Public Meeting was published in the Strathroy Age Dispatch on October 4th and 11th, 2012, indicating the date and location of the Final Public Meeting. The Notice was also directly mailed/e-mailed to the Project distribution list and delivered by unaddressed mail to the area surrounding the Project location on October 2nd, 2012.

2.6 SUMMARY OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF NOTICES

The newspaper publication requirements under O. Reg. 359/09 were met for every Project Notice, as summarized below.

Newspaper Description Notice of Proposal to Engage in a

Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public

Meeting

Notice of Final Public Meeting

Strathroy Age Dispatch

Published weekly on Wednesdays distributed to Strathroy and surrounding communities

November 10, 2011 November 17, 2011

October 4, 2012 October 11, 2012



3.1

3.0 Public Consultation

3.1 OVERVIEW

An extensive public consultation program was undertaken for the Project, including:

• Maintaining the Project distribution list;

• Proactively undertaking a calling initiative;

• Distributing required notices;

• Publishing newspaper advertisements;

• Hosting two Public Meetings; and,

• Responding to members of the public who had questions, issues, or concerns or positive feedback about the Project.

The public consultation activities are described in the sections below.

3.2 PUBLIC MEETINGS

The First Public Meeting was held at the Adelaide - W.G. MacDonald Public School on December 15, 2011. Given that the venue was not available for the Final Public Meeting, the Final Public Meeting was held at the Adelaide Metcalfe Township Office - Lower Hall on December 6, 2012. The meetings were held in late-afternoon/evening, after school and work, to allow the largest number of people to attend at their convenience.

The President of wpd Canada, and individuals with expertise in the following areas were in attendance at both Public Meetings (a total of 12 staff or Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) at Public Meeting #1, and 13 staff or SMEs at Public Meeting #2):

• Project Leadership (wpd);

• Turbine Siting (wpd);

• Lands (wpd);

• Construction (wpd);

• Engineering (wpd);

• Regulatory (wpd, Stantec);

• Environmental and Biophysical (Stantec);

• Archaeological and Cultural Heritage (Stantec)

• Sound (wpd);

• Health (Stantec);


NAPIER WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Public Consultation December 2012

3.2

• Company, Project and development information (wpd); and

• Community Relations (wpd).

At each meeting, the Project Team were stationed at display boards according to their area of expertise, in order to encourage conversation, answer questions, and seek feedback regarding the Project. Questionnaires were available to provide comments, questions, and feedback, to be submitted either at the meeting or by mail in a pre-addressed, stamped envelope. Information gathered at the meetings is provided in Appendix E, and was considered by the Project Team during planning and siting, as well as during preparation of the REA Reports, where appropriate.

3.2.1 Public Meeting #1 – December 15, 2011, 5:30pm to 8:00pm

The purpose of Public Meeting #1 was to introduce the Project and Project Team to the community, with the intention of providing information as early in the process as possible (Table 3.1). Public Meeting #1 provided the opportunity for community members to learn about the Project and the REA process, to ask questions of the Project Team, and to provide input into the Project. This allowed the Project team to consider comments, issues and concerns early in the Project lifecycle, to the extent possible and as appropriate.

Display panels provided background information on wpd, an overview of the Project, information on the REA process, and relevant academic and industry studies on the wind industry.

Table 3.1: Public Meeting #1: Key Information

Municipality Township of Adelaide Metcalfe

Date December 15, 2011

Location Adelaide – W.G. MacDonald Public School 29059 School Road Highway 22 and Egremont Drive Strathroy, Ontario

Attendees Approximately 25

Feedback Forms Received 3

Information Presented and Made Available

• 22 information display boards (see Appendix E2) • Paper copies of display boards • 12 staff members from wpd and Stantec. SMEs with relevant expertise to

answer questions on pertinent project topics • Draft Project Description Report • Project sign-up sheets • Academic and industry studies related to wind projects • Looped narrated video presentation • Project Fact Sheets • Project website address (where electronic copies of display boards, Draft

Project Description Report and academic and industry studies were posted)




3.3

Continuous Loop Video Presentation

In response to the community’s request for a presentation format, wpd prepared a continuous-loop video presentation with an overview of wpd, the regulatory and development processes, the status of the Project, anticipated Project milestones, and timelines.

As well, a siting exercise demonstrated the constraints to locating turbines on the landscape, including setbacks from homes, other turbines, and natural features. This helped to address the public’s concerns that wpd will be adding a large number of turbines throughout the immediate area of the Napier Wind Project.

The presentation was narrated by the Project team, and played throughout the evening in a draped, theatre-like area within the main venue. This allowed members of the community to hear a presentation about the Project, and then direct questions to appropriate Project team members.

Attendees who completed a feedback form with contact information and questions or comments regarding the Project were mailed or emailed (based on preference) an individually addressed response with more information about their specific question or concern.

Information from Public Meeting #1 was considered in appropriate sections of the REA and considered by the Project Team during Project planning and siting, to the extent possible and as appropriate. All comments received from Public Meeting #1, responses provided, and a description of how comments were considered by the Project Team, are provided in Appendix E.

3.2.2 Final Public Meeting – December 6, 2012 5:30pm to 8:00pm

The purpose of the Final Public Meeting was to provide an update on the Project to community members, including the proposed layout, the results of the REA studies and the Draft REA Reports, and to gather feedback (Table 3.2).

Display boards provided background information on wpd, an overview of the Project, information on the REA process, results of the REA environmental and cultural heritage studies and Draft REA Reports, relevant academic and industry studies, and an overview of how wpd is helping to build the local economy and support the community.

wpd also presented an alternate connection route option. This potential alternate route is not included within the REA application. wpd wished to provide information in the interest of being transparent, and welcomed any comments or feedback.



3.4

Table 3.2: Public Meeting #2: Key Information

Municipality: Township of Adelaide Metcalfe

Date: December 6, 2012

Location: Adelaide Metcalfe Township Office – Lower Hall 2340 Egremont Drive Strathroy, Ontario

Attendees: Approximately 14

Correspondence Received: 5

Information Presented and Made Available:

• 22 information display boards (see Appendix E2) • Paper copies of display boards • 13 staff members from wpd and Stantec • Academic and industry studies related to wind projects. • Project website address (where electronic copies of display boards, Draft REA

Reports and academic and industry studies were posted) • Visual Simulation of the Project from multiple viewpoints

All attendees were encouraged to complete a questionnaire providing their comments to the Project Team at the meeting, or to mail the questionnaire to wpd using pre-paid envelopes.

Attendees who completed a feedback form with contact information and questions or comments regarding the Project were mailed or emailed (based on preference) an individually addressed response with information about their specific question or concern, provided the correspondence was received by December 14, 2012.

All comments received from the initiation of the project to December 14, 2012, as well as the responses provided and a description of how comments were considered by the Project Team, are provided in Appendix E. All comments received after December 14, 2012 as well as throughout the Project lifecycle will continue to be addressed by the Project Team.

3.3 RELEASE OF DRAFT REA REPORTS

The draft Project Description Report (November 2011) was posted to wpd’s website and made available for public review at the Adelaide Metcalfe Township Office (2340 Egremont Drive, Strathroy, ON) at the time the Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting was published.

The Draft REA Reports were made available on the Project website (http://canada.wpd.de/projects/in-canada/napier.html) and at the Adelaide Metcalfe Township Office (2340 Egremont Drive, Strathroy, ON) for public review and comment between October 4, 2012 and December 15, 2012:

• Project Description Report;

• Construction Plan Report;





3.5

• Design and Operations Report;

• Decommissioning Plan Report;

• Wind Turbine Specifications Report;

• Natural Heritage Assessment and Environmental Impact Study;

• Water Assessment Report;

• Acoustic Assessment Report;

• Property Line Setback Assessment Report;

• Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments;

• Heritage Assessment Report; and,

• Project Summary Reports.

Project Summary Reports prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09 for Aboriginal communities were released for public review at the same time as the draft REA reports, for the interest of the local community.

The public review period started at least 60 days prior to the final Public Meeting, in accordance with s.16 of O. Reg. 359/09. The draft REA Reports will be replaced with those provided to the MOE as part of the REA application, and will remain on the website until the MOE’s acceptance of the REA application for the Project. Once the MOE deems the REA application complete, final copies of the REA Reports will be posted on the Project website.

Hard and electronic copies (as preferred) of the draft REA Reports and summary reports were also provided to Aboriginal communities for review and comment, with additional copies provided with a written request that the information be made available to the communities, as appropriate.

3.4 CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

Information provided by the public through Public Meeting conversations or written correspondence assisted wpd in gaining insight into the design and planning of Project infrastructure, particularly in locating cabling. A summary of the key public comments and consideration by the Project Team is provided in Table 3.3, including whether:

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

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

• additional information was provided.

A detailed summary of each comment received from the public, and each response from the Project Team from the start of the REA consultation process in November 2011 to December 14, 2012 is provided in Appendix E.



3.6

Table 3.3: Summary of Key and Frequent Comments from Public and Consideration by Project Team

Key and Frequent Comments Project Response How Comments Were Considered by

Project Team

Health Concerns Shadow Flicker

There is a debate regarding wind turbines and possible human health effects, and presented two perspectives regarding noise, wind turbines, and health. wpd referred to a number of reviews on the issue, including the Environmental Review Tribunal, indicating that as approved under O. Reg. 359/09, wind turbines would not cause serious harm to human health. Under certain conditions the sun shining behind a turbine produces recurring shadows. Depending on a number of factors, including location, time of day/year and weather conditions, shadows may be produced inside a dwelling. It is possible to calculate very precisely whether a flickering will fall on a given location near a wind project, and for how many hours a year. Once the project turbine site is set, wpd would be happy to run a shadow analysis for adjacent landowners.

wpd provided printed copies of the health reports and ERT decisions at the open houses Offered to record health related questions at the Public Meetings and pass them onto relevant experts for response. wpd provided a shadow flicker report to an adjacent property owner who had requested it.

Health Canada Study In regards to the recently announced Health Canada study, wpd welcomes any new independent scientific research, using proper protocols (proper methodology, control group, pre-study health evaluations of individuals etc.) relating to wind turbines and health. As for a moratorium, we believe such a delay is not warranted, as Health Canada itself has not called for a moratorium, and the results of the study will not be definitive, but will simply add to the existing body of knowledge. wpd points to the study’s own terms of reference for support. According to the document’s expected outcomes and limitations (Section 2.2): The proposed research would provide decision makers with new scientific evidence that could be combined with existing research to inform decisions and policies on practices regarding WT proposals, installations and operations in Canada. It is important at the outset to clearly acknowledge that this research is being conducted to provide additional insight into an emerging issue; however, the results will not provide a definitive answer on their own. <underline added for emphasis>

wpd notes that 17 peer-reviewed studies have been undertaken globally which indicate no scientific evidence links wind turbines to adverse health effects. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of people in 89 countries around the world live and work near wind turbines.

1) Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Massachusetts Department of Public Health; 2012 2) Strategic Health Impact Assessment on Wind Energy Development in Oregon; Public Health



3.7



Project Team Division, Oregon Health Authority; 2012 3) Wind Farm Noise Dose Response: A literature review; Fiumicelli, D. Acoustics Bulletin, Nov-Dec 2011 4) Infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines: exposure and health effects; Bolin, K et al. IOPScience, Environmental Research Letters, Volume 6, Number 3, 2011 5) Health effects and wind turbines: a review of the literature; Knopper, L and Ollsen, C. Environmental Health, Volume 10, 2011 6) Health Effects of Exposure to Ultrasound and Infrasound; UK Health Protection Agency, 2010 7) Wind Turbines and Health: a Rapid Review of the Evidence; Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council, 2010 8) The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines; Ontario Chief Medical officer of Health, 2010 9) Environmental Noise and Health in the UK; UK Health Protection Agency, 2010 10) Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines; Minnesota Department of Health, Environmental Health Division, 2009 11) Addressing Concerns with Wind Turbines and Human Health; CanWEA, 2009 12) Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review; Colby et al, 2009 13) The Health Impact of Wind Turbines: A Review of the Current White, Grey and Published Literature; Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit, 2008 14) Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects; US National Research Council, 2007 15) Infrasound emission from wind turbines; Jakobsen, J. Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control, Volume 24, Number 3, 2005 16) Low frequency noise and annoyance; Leventhall, G. Noise & Health, Volume 6, Issue 23, 2004 17) Noise annoyance from wind turbines – a review; Pedersen, E., Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2003



3.8



Project Team

wpd encourages everyone who has questions regarding wind turbines and potential health effects to review the Environmental Review Tribunal summary of proceedings and testimony for the Kent Breeze wind project. Many of the arguments put forth by either side in the debate have been presented as evidence in Erikson v. Director, Ministry of the Environment (ERT case nos. 10-121/10-122). Expert testimony was presented, and the independent panel ruled that “the Appellants have not shown that engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will cause serious harm to human health as required by section 145.2 1(2)(a) of the EPA.” To review the documentation, simply visit the Environmental Review Tribunal Decisions and Orders Website (http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/english/decisions/index.htm ) and, using the search function near the top right, type in ‘10-121’.

Sound /Cumulative sound.

Explained that the project would adhere to the MOE noise guidelines which were supported by the World Health Organization, Health Canada, and the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health. Stated that REpower had guaranteed the maximum sound power level from the turbine. Referred to the Noise Assessment Report on the project website for more information specific to the Project Area. Noise assessments, per O. Reg. 359/09 must take into consideration cumulative noise impacts from other projects. Provided an overview of next steps, and that there was still opportunity for the public to appeal further on in the process through the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Additional information provided including copies or links to the Acoustic Assessment Report

A third party consultant has undertaken a noise impact study, as required under the regulation, included as part of the REA application. A link to the Acoustic Report on the wpd website was provided

Property Values A statement of claim has been filed against wpd on this issue. wpd does not believe the case has merit and intends to defend itself. Both sides will present their arguments, and an independent party will determine if there is merit in the claim that the project has an effect on property values

Project Siting There are a number of factors that determine where a wind project can be placed. Projects must be located where a good wind regime exists. After looking at various wind resources we determined the winds in this area were sufficient to produce electricity. We then had to determine if there was capacity to add electricity to the grid. Finally, we approached landowners in the region to see if there was an interest in participating in the project.

Additional information provided. Staff explained turbine siting and setback requirements. Information on our turbine siting was made


http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/english/decisions/index.htm


3.9



Project Team

Once we secured lands, we then determined the turbine locations taking into account the setback requirements for natural features that might exist on those lands (e.g. woodlots, wetlands, etc.), as well as the dwellings adjacent to those properties. It’s important to note that wpd leases these lands from the landowners, and they are able to continue to use the surrounding land for farming or other uses. The basic criteria to plan the road layout is to have easy access to the turbines, while allowing the landowner to maximize their farming and provide the least amount of disruption to their farming process. Regarding project location, stated that the project was sited on agricultural land, with no natural habitat removal required for the project, and that modifications were made to site components to move them away from identified features.

available at the second open house. There was also a representative who was able to discuss locations.



3.10

3.5 REA REPORT AMENDMENTS FOLLOWING FINAL PUBLIC MEETING

The draft REA reports were amended after the final Public Meeting, prior to submission of the REA application. Amendments reflect the current state of Project planning, response to comments from the consultation process, and corrections to editorial errors. A summary of the non-editorial amendments made to the draft REA reports, and the reason for the amendment, is provided in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4: Summary of REA Report Amendments

Amendment Reason REA Report Reference

Project Description Report

Updated Project schedule. Clarification Table 3.3

Clarified water takingis expected to be below 50,000 l/d and a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) will not be required.

Clarification Section 3.6.6

Added access road leading to switching station. Addition Appendix A figures

Construction Plan Report

Added text to clarify the change to the Project Study Area. “It is of note that since the Project commenced the Study Area has been revised. The Feeder Line was originally proposed along Kerwood Road with the connection point at the corner of Munn St. & Kerwood Rd. The Feeder Line has since been removed from the Project (the Project will connect directly into the Grid at the switching station, as described below). The Study Area has not been updated as the Natural Heritage Assessment Report/EIS and the Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Reports were completed under the original study area scenario.”

Addition/Clarification Section 1.1

Added access road leading to switching station Addition Appendix A figures

Design and Operations Report






3.11

Table 3.4: Summary of REA Report Amendments

Amendment Reason REA Report Reference

Decommissioning Plan Report



Wind Turbine Specifications Report

Added text to clarify the change to the Project Study Area. “It is of note that since the Project commenced the Study Area has been revised. The Feeder Line was originally proposed along Kerwood Road with the connection point at the Corner of Munn St. & Kerwood Rd. The Feeder Line has since been removed from the Project (the Project will connect directly into the Grid at the switching station, as described below). The Study Area has not been updated as the Natural Heritage Assessment Report/EIS and the Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Reports were completed under the original study area scenario.”


Water Assessment Report




4.1

4.0 Agency and Municipal Consultation

4.1 PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE

Pre-disclosure correspondence occurred with the MNR and the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority regarding natural heritage, and the MNR regarding petroleum resources. Formal communications began on October 27, 2011 when the draft Project Description Report was sent to the Director of the Environmental Approvals Access & Service Integration Branch at the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).

The Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting was distributed on November 8, 2011.

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

On October 2, 2012 the Notice of Final Public Meeting was distributed to agencies. The Notice also provided details regarding locations where the Draft REA Reports could be viewed 60 days prior to the Public Meeting including a link to the Project website (see Section 2.5.2).

4.1.1 Federal Agency Distribution List

Federal departments and authorities included on the Project distribution list and therefore notified and kept updated regarding the Project include:

• Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

• Health Canada

• Transport Canada

• Canadian Coast Guard

• Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)

• Environment Canada

• Natural Resources Canada

• Royal Canadian Mounted Police

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada

• NAV Canada

• Department of National Defence


NAPIER WIND PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT Aboriginal Engagement December 2012

4.2

• Radio Advisory Board of Canada

• Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

4.1.2 Provincial Agency and Authority Distribution List

Numerous provincial agencies and authorities were included on the Project distribution list and were therefore notified and kept updated regarding the Project:

• Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

• Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs

• Ministry of Energy

• Ministry of Infrastructure

• Ministry of Government Services

• Ministry of Natural Resources

• Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport (formerly Ministry of Tourism and Culture)

• Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, Culture, Tourism and Health Promotion

• Ministry of the Environment

• Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

• Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry

• Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs

• Ministry of Education

• Ministry of Transportation

• Ontario Realty Corporation

• Ontario Provincial Police

• Ontario Heritage Trust

• Hydro One Networks Inc.

• St. Clair Region Conservation Authority

4.1.3 Consideration of Key Federal and Provincial Comments

A detailed summary of comments, and how the Project Team considered each comment, is provided in Appendix F2 (federal) and Appendix F3 (provincial) and Table 7.1 below.



4.3

Table 4.1: Key Comments from Federal and Provincial Agencies and Consideration by Project Team

Agency Comment Response How Comments Were Considered by Project Team

MNR Provided comments on the Natural Heritage site investigation work program and the Natural Heritage Assessment and Environmental Impact Study (NHA/EIS) reports.

Contacted MNR to discuss and address the work grogram and NHA/EIS.

The Project Team worked collaboratively with MNR to address any changes to the work program and the Natural Heritage Assessment/ Environmental Impact Study reports.

MOE Provided the Aboriginal Community List recommended for consultation. Offered guidance about various elements of the REA process.

wpd engaged all Aboriginal groups listed by the MOE and offered meetings. Followed advice provided by the MOE on process suggestions.

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

MTCS Provided confirmation for the Heritage Assessment completed for the Project. Provided confirmation for the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments completed for the Project.

Acknowledged and included at the front of the reports.

The Heritage and Archaeological Assessments were completed in accordance with MTCS guidelines.

St. Clair Region Conservation Authority

Was contacted by Stantec for information related to environmental reporting Project Notices were provided along each stage of the Project.

Provided information on hazard land/regulated area mapping, water quality and drain classifications

Updates to project mapping, information was considered in the NHA/EIS and waterbody report.

Ministry of Transportation (MTO)

Identified no concerns with the Project Noted that if turbine components will be transported using provincial highways, MTO will need to be contacted.

Acknowledged. N/A

Ontario Heritage Trust

Noted that the Trust does not protect any property through a conservation easement on lands that will be directly impacted or visually affected by this renewable energy undertaking.

Acknowledged. N/A

4.2 MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION

All mandatory notices were sent to the Clerks of the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe and Middlesex County. The introductory letter and the Draft Project Description Report were provided to the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe and Middlesex November 9, 2011. In accordance with O. Reg. 359/09 s. 18(3), a Municipal Consultation Form (MCF) was also sent to the Clerks of Township of Adelaide Metcalfe and Middlesex County at least 30 days before the first Public Meeting was held.



4.4

In addition to Project notifications, in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09 s. 18(2), draft REA Reports and an updated MCF were provided to the Clerks of Township of Adelaide Metcalfe and Middlesex County on September 5, 2012.

4.2.1 Middlesex County and Township of Adelaide Metcalfe

wpd maintained communication with County staff, and provided communications regarding the Project including the Project Notices, the MCF and draft REA Reports. Summaries of key correspondence, comments from municipal staff, and how the Project Team considered each comment, are provided in Appendix F4.

On January 25, 2012, wpd met with members of the County and Township staff, including the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councilors from Adelaide Metcalfe. General information about the Project was presented, including a turbine siting demonstration. A number of issues were discussed, including the REA process, heritage buildings, economic effects, and municipal infrastructure. On March 29th, 2012, wpd participated in a general Adelaide-Metcalfe developers meeting (in cooperation with NextEra and Suncor) to discuss a Community Vibrancy Fund, Road Use Agreements, and Emergency Response Plans. wpd will continue to coordinate with staff and neighbouring developers to address issues and questions as they arise.

On May 25th, 2012, a technical meeting was arranged with Municipal and County planning staff. The permitting process was discussed, along with road usage and technical design details. An additional technical meeting with wpd engineering staff, County planning staff and Municipal planning staff was held on November 29, 2012 to discuss in detailed design plans, permitting, road usage and haul routes.

wpd has worked to ensure Project information was received and understood by the Township of and County, and that comments received were incorporated into Project planning and design, to the extent possible and as appropriate. wpd commits to maintaining a relationship with the municipality, and will work towards any permitting requirements outside the REA process.

To date wpd has not received written comments on the Municipal Consultation Form from either municipality. However, wpd has met with key municipal staff three times prior to REA submission in which Adelaide-Metcalfe and Middlesex County have expressed their comments and concerns about the project. Details of these meetings are summarized in the Appendix F4

4.2.2 Consideration of Key Municipal Comments

A summary of the key municipal comments is provided in Table 4.2, along with a description of how comments were considered by the Project Team. Summaries of key correspondence, comments from municipal staff, and how the Project Team considered each comment, are provided in Appendix F4.



4.5

Table 4.2: Key Comments from Municipalities and Consideration by Project Team

Municipality Comment Project Response How Comments

Were Considered by Project Team

Middlesex County

The County has concerns about transportation routes and location of connection lines along Napperton Rd. County has indicated their preference is to have wpd and HONI have a joint use agreement.

wpd has met with County staff twice to discuss technical design and logistics and are considering their requests.

Requests have been taken under advisement. Further discussions are anticipated.

Township of Adelaide Metcalfe

The Township had concerns about location of connection line along Browns Rd, indicating a preference for lines above ground.

wpd has met with Municipal staff twice to discuss technical design and logistics and are considering their requests.

Requests have been taken under advisement. Further discussions are anticipated.

The Township has asked that wpd work with other area developers to develop road agreements. They also asked that each developer be involved in a working group to address emergency response issues.

wpd has agreed to work with other area wind developers.

wpd has met and continues to correspondent with area developers to develop road and emergency plans

4.3 CONSULTATION WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS

Overview of Consultation with Elected Officials

wpd contacted municipal councilors with a series of information emails. The first explained the rationale behind the emails and offered to remove councilors if they were not interested. Emails contained links to recent articles and stories about the wind industry from Canada and abroad.

wpd requested a meeting with Mayor Bolton and appropriate staff. The Mayor agreed and wpd met with the Mayor, Deputy Mayor some Councilors and Township Staff. Since the initial meeting wpd has also had two technical meetings between wpd’s engineers and Township road and planning staff.

4.4 CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL UTILITIES

wpd met with Hydro One Networks Inc. (HONI) to discuss topics such as electrical collection lines, switching station interconnection, and building within municipal road allowances. A summary of key correspondence dates with local utilities, Project responses and how the Project Team considered the comments is provided in Appendix F3.

4.5 CONSULTATION REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATION AND RADAR SYSTEMS

A consultation program was undertaken primarily by Yves R. Hamel et Associés Inc. (YHR) on behalf of wpd to identify telecommunications and broadcast systems and their providers located near the Project, and present possible coordination zones and corridors of exclusion for



4.6

microwave point-to-point systems, if necessary. The study also aimed to identify radar and navigation systems with the potential to be affected by wind turbines and to assess the potential for interference with radio and television broadcast signals in the region.

The following system categories were included in the assessment:

• Cable distribution off-air (over-the-air, OTA) receive systems (Headends);

• Satellite uplinks and receive systems;

• Direct-to-home (DTH) receive systems (Shaw Direct, Bell TV);

• Radar (weather, defense and air traffic);

• Airport communications and guidance systems;

• Broadcasting – radio (AM, FM) and TV (analog and digital);

• Coast Guard communications and vessel traffic radar systems;

• Point-to-point radiocommunication systems;

• Point-to-multipoint radiocommunication systems, and

• Cellular and land mobile networks.

Registered providers of telecommunication and radar systems, including federal and provincial bodies were contacted, including:

• Government radar and communication systems, including the Department of National Defence and NavCanada; and

• Radiocommunications agencies, including Canadian Broadcasters Corporation.

As part of the REA consultation process, wpd submitted an Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance to Transport Canada for assessment. Transport Canada has provided an approval of the proposed lighting for the turbines.

As part of the REA process, telecommunications experts at the Ministry of Government Services, the Ontario Provincial Police, Environment Canada, Transport Canada, NavCanada, and the Department of National Defence were provided with updates throughout the REA process. Under each department’s mandate, letters were received confirming that there would be no potential to interfere with telecommunications and radar systems.

A summary of the key comments from telecommunication and radar systems providers are provided in Table 4.3, along with a description of how comments were considered by the Project Team including how:

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

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



4.7

• Additional information was provided.

Summaries of key correspondence, comments received, and how the Project Team considered each comment are provided in Appendix F2.

Table 4.3 Key Comments from Telecommunication and Radar Systems Providers

Provider Comment Project Response How Comments Were Considered by Project

Team Government Radar and Communication Systems Department of National Defence: Air Traffic Control and Air Defence Radars

No objection None required None required

Department of National Defence: Radio Communications

No objection None required None required

NAV Canada No objection Acknowledged

None required

Transport Canada No objection. Signed and stamped Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance form provided to wpd in December 8, 2011.

Lit additional turbines according to Transport Canada’s requests.

None Required

Ministry of Government Services

No objection None Required None required



5.1

5.0 Aboriginal Engagement

5.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES WITH AN INTEREST IN THE PROJECT

The goal of Aboriginal consultation and engagement as it relates to the Napier Wind Project is to engage interested local Aboriginal communities in a way that is meaningful and respectful of their Aboriginal and treaty rights and interests in the Project area.

As per O. Reg. 359/09 S.14 (1) (b), a request was made to the Director of the MOE on October 27, 2011 for a list of Aboriginal communities who:

(i) Have or may have constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the project, or

(ii) Otherwise may be interested in any negative environmental effects of the project.

December 8, 2011 communication from the MOE identified the following Aboriginal communities:

• Chippewas of the Thames First Nation

• Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point

• Aamjiwnaang First Nation

• Bkejwanong Territory – Walpole Island First Nation

• Oneida Nation of the Thames

• Munsee-Delaware Nation

• Delaware Nation Moravian of the Thames

Engagement with Aboriginal communities regarding the Project included all Aboriginal communities as identified by the MOE. In addition, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) and the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs were also included on the Project distribution list.

Summaries of engagement efforts, as well as comments and issues raised by the Aboriginal communities and wpd’s responses, are provided below. Tables containing the records of engagement and consultation activities for each Aboriginal community can be found in Appendix G.



5.2

5.1 COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES

This section describes the consultation activities undertaken to ensure local and interested Aboriginal communities were kept informed of Project activities and had the opportunity to provide comments, questions and concerns regarding the Project. The Project distribution list for Aboriginal communities can be found in Appendix B2. Copies of Project Notices can be found in Appendix C.

5.1.1 Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting

Initial contact with the Aboriginal communities identified on the MOE Aboriginal Communities List regarding the Project occurred in November, 2011 with the Notice of Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting. This included a copy of the Draft Project Description Report for community review.

The Notice was sent to Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point, Aamjiwnaang First Nation, Walpole Island First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, Munsee-Delaware Nation and Delaware Nation Moravian of the Thames.

5.1.2 Project Follow-up Letters

Project follow-up letters were sent to Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point, Aamjiwnaang First Nation, Walpole Island First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, Munsee-Delaware Nation and Delaware Nation Moravian of the Thames in November 2011. These letters followed up. Follow up calls were also made.

5.1.3 Notice of Final Public Meeting

Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point, Aamjiwnaang First Nation, Walpole Island First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, Munsee-Delaware Nation and Delaware Nation Moravian of the Thames were sent the Notice of Final Public Meeting on September 28, 2012. The letter also asked if they would like a copy of the Notice published in a newspaper within their community, and noted the Project Team’s interest in speaking to the community regarding the Project.

The Project Team requested any comments or feedback the community felt should be considered regarding the Project and associated documents, in writing, prior to submission of the application for the Renewable Energy Approval, for consideration in the application.



5.3

5.1.4 Local Newspaper Notices

Project Notices were placed in the Strathroy Age Dispatch that serves communities within the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe. Section 2.6 provides a summary of the local newspapers and the dates on which Project Notices were published during the REA process.

5.1.5 Project Telephone, E-mail, Mail and Website

A Project e-mail address, two mailing addresses and telephone numbers were provided on all Project communications, and on the Project website, as a means for interested parties and community members to provide comments, concerns or questions regarding the Project. All Aboriginal communities on the list provided by the MOE were called and sent letters offering to arrange meetings with the Project Team should that be desired.

The Project website provided updates of Project activities and information, upcoming Public Meeting information, and consultation activities. Notices, Public Meeting display boards, Draft REA Reports, contact information, and relevant reference materials were also made available on the Project website.

5.1.6 Draft REA Reports

Section17(1)(3) of O. Reg. 359/09 requires that a summary of the REA documents in which Aboriginal communities have expressed an interest be provided to each Aboriginal community prior to the commencement of the public review period of the Draft REA Reports. In response to this requirement, the Project Team prepared Project Summaries of the Draft REA Reports and potential environmental effects. These summaries were provided to each Aboriginal community on September 28, 2012 in hard copy.

Please see Appendix G8 for the Project Summary Reports.

As per O. Reg. 359/09 S.16 (5) (c and d), the Draft REA Reports were sent by courier and email (where available) to each Aboriginal community on the Project distribution list on September 28, 2012. Copies of the reports were sent to community representatives to be made available to members of the community for review.

Each Aboriginal community was requested to provide comments or feedback in writing on behalf of their community regarding any adverse impacts that the Project may have on any constitutionally protected aboriginal or treaty rights, and any measures for mitigating those adverse impacts. wpd also extended an invitation to meet to further discuss the draft reports and the Project in greater detail.



5.4

5.2 OVERVIEW OF ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT

An overview of Aboriginal engagement activities is provided below and specific details are provided in Appendix G.

5.2.1 Chippewas of the Thames First Nation (COTTFN)

wpd made initial contact with Chippewas of the Thames First Nation regarding the Project in November 2011, with a Notice of a Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting. The Draft Project Description Report was also sent at this time.

In December 2011, the Director of the MOE identified COTTFN as an Aboriginal community that has, or may have constitutionally protected aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the Project (O. Reg. 359/09 s 14 (b) (i)).

In November 2011, wpd sent a follow-up letter regarding the Project information that had been provided, and upcoming archaeological work.

In January 2012, COTTFN responded to Stantec, providing information about COTTFN and indicating that an opportunity to meet would be appreciated. wpd followed up with COTTFN to schedule a meeting. COTTFN indicated that they would notify wpd of their availability following a movement of their office.

A Consultation Package was sent to COTTFN on September 28, 2012, including a summary of the REA process, an overview of the Project schedule, the Notice of Final Public Meeting, Project Summary Reports, Draft REA reports, a request to provide written comments of any information that should be considered for the Project and an offer to meet to discuss the documents.

A summary of all correspondence with Chippewas of the Thames First Nation can be found in Appendix G1 and in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1: Key Comments from Chippewas of the Thames First Nation and Consideration by Project Team

Issue/Concern/Comment Project Response How Comments Were Considered by Project Team

Confirmed that the proposed development lies within their traditional territory and that an opportunity to discuss potential impacts to their rights would be appreciated.

Contacted COTTFN to arrange for a meeting and will continue to follow up.



5.5

5.2.2 Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point (CKSP)

wpd made initial contact with Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point regarding the Project in November 2011, with a Notice of a Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting. The Draft Project Description Report was also sent at this time.

In December 2011, the Director of the MOE identified CKSP as an Aboriginal community that has, or may have constitutionally protected aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the Project (O. Reg. 359/09 s 14 (b) (i)).

wpd called CKSP in November, 2011 to follow up on the Project information which had been sent to them, and to inform them of upcoming archaeological work in case they wished to participate. A follow up letter was also sent, in which wpd offered to discuss the Project at any time if desired. wpd was contacted by CKSP, who provided a monitor for the archaeological field studies.

A Consultation Package was sent to CKSP on September 28, 2012, including a summary of the REA process, an overview of the Project schedule, the Notice of Final Public Meeting, Project Summary reports, Draft REA reports, a request to provide written comments of any information that should be considered for the Project and an offer to meet to discuss the documents.

A summary of all correspondence with Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point can be found in Appendix G2, and in Table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2: Key Comments from the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point and Consideration by Project Team


Expressed interest in providing an archaeological monitor for fieldwork assessment.

Acknowledged the importance of archaeological assessment to Aboriginal communities. Coordinated to have a monitor participate in the fieldwork.

Monitor from the community participated in Stage 2 field program.

5.2.3 Aamjiwnaang First Nation (AFN)

wpd made initial contact with Aamjiwnaang First Nation regarding the Project in November 2011, with a Notice of a Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting. The Draft Project Description Report was also sent at this time.

In December 2011, the Director of the MOE identified AFN as an Aboriginal community that has, or may have constitutionally protected aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the Project (O. Reg. 359/09 s 14 (b) (i)).



5.6

A Consultation Package was sent to AFN on September 28, 2012, including a summary of the REA process, an overview of the Project schedule, the Notice of Final Public Meeting, Project Summary reports, Draft REA reports, a request to provide written comments of any information that should be considered for the Project and an offer to meet to discuss the documents.

In October 2012, AFN sent a letter explaining that they would be reviewing the Project materials over the following weeks and would be contacting the proponent to inform of next steps following direction from Council. The AFN also included a generic letter, which is sent to all developers, on the AFN Environment Committee’s “Comments and Concerns regarding Wind Power Projects”, expressing concerns regarding shadow flicker, magnetic fields and cumulative impacts, as well as potential impacts to birds and bats, earthworms, snakes, vegetation restoration, animal corridors, plant and wetland areas, and human health.

A response was sent to AFN in December 2012, and further contact following their review is anticipated as per correspondence.

A summary of all correspondence with Aamjiwnaang First Nation can be found in Appendix G3, and in Table 5.3 below.

Table 5.3: Key Comments from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation and Consideration by Project Team

Issue/Concern/Comment Project Response How Comments Were Considered by Project

Team Expressed concerns regarding shadow flicker, magnetic fields and cumulative impacts, as well as potential impacts to birds and bats, earthworms, snakes, vegetation restoration, animal corridors, plant and wetland areas, and human health

Committed to sending any additional reports prepared related to birds and/or bats. No scientific studies have been found on the issue of vibration and electricity affecting earthworms and snakes. The NHA included assessment of potential impacts to snakes. The two turbine Napier Project is located entirely within actively managed agricultural fields. The NHA concluded that the Project Location does not support candidate significant wildlife habitat for animal movement corridors. No woodlands or wetlands are found in the Project Location. The Environmental Review Tribunal for the Kent Breeze wind project ruled that engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will not cause serious harm to human health. Under the REA process, shadow flicker reports are not required however specific concerns may be addressed on a case by case basis. Studies have shown that the rotation of the turbine blades causes the air to cool during the day and warm overnight. Researchers pointed out that this effect was isolated to the area of the turbines, that turbines did not negatively affect



5.7

Table 5.3: Key Comments from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation and Consideration by Project Team

Issue/Concern/Comment Project Response How Comments Were Considered by Project

Team local weather patterns. The effect was noted to be small compared to effects from man-made global warming. All electronic devices, power lines, and generating stations produce EMFs. It is an area of constant research given the proliferation of EMF generation in modern society. Wind turbines are not considered a significant source of EMF exposure. Turbine generators are located in the hub, which tends to be situated 60 to 100 m above ground, resulting in little or no EMF at ground level. Underground cables that connect the turbines effectively generate no EMF at the surface because of the close placement of phase conductors and screening of the cables.

AFN would be reviewing the Project materials and would be contacting the proponent to inform of next steps following direction from Council.

Acknowledged

5.2.4 Walpole Island First Nation (WIFN)

wpd made initial contact with Walpole Island First Nation regarding the Project in November 2011, with a Notice of a Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting. The Draft Project Description Report was also sent at this time. In December 2011, the Director of the MOE identified WIFN as an Aboriginal community that has, or may have constitutionally protected aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the Project (O. Reg. 359/09 s 14 (b) (i)).

In November 2011, wpd called WIFN to follow up regarding the Project information which had been sent, and to inform them of pending archaeological work. WIFN indicated that the information had been passed along for review. A monitor from WIFN also contacted wpd, and was put in touch with wpd’s archaeological consultants to participate in fieldwork.

A Consultation Package was sent to WIFN on September 28, 2012, including a summary of the REA process, an overview of the Project schedule, the Notice of Final Public Meeting, Project Summary reports, Draft REA reports, a request to provide written comments of any information that should be considered for the Project and an offer to meet to discuss the documents.



5.8

A summary of all correspondence with Walpole Island First Nation can be found in Appendix G4, and in Table 5.4 below.

Table 5.4: Key Comments from Walpole Island First Nation and Consideration by Project Team


Expressed interest in providing an archaeological monitor for fieldwork assessment.

Coordinated to have a monitor participate in the fieldwork.

5.2.5 Oneida Nation of the Thames (ONT)

wpd made initial contact with Oneida Nation of the Thames regarding the Project in November 2011, with a Notice of a Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting. The Draft Project Description Report was also sent at this time.

In December 2011, the Director of the MOE identified ONT as an Aboriginal community that has, or may have constitutionally protected aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the Project (O. Reg. 359/09 s 14 (b) (i)).

In November 2011, wpd sent a follow-up letter regarding the Project information which had been sent, and to inform them of pending archaeological work. wpd also called to follow up regarding the Project and inquire as to whether the ONT wished to provide archaeological fieldwork monitors.

A Consultation Package was sent to ONT on September 28, 2012, including a summary of the REA process, an overview of the Project schedule, the Notice of Final Public Meeting, Project Summary reports, Draft REA reports, a request to provide written comments of any information that should be considered for the Project and an offer to meet to discuss the documents.

A summary of all correspondence with Oneida Nation of the Thames can be found in Appendix G5.

5.2.6 Munsee-Delaware Nation (MDN)

wpd made initial contact with Munsee-Delaware Nation regarding the Project in November 2011, with a Notice of a Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting. The Draft Project Description Report was also sent at this time.

In December 2011, the Director of the MOE identified MDN as an Aboriginal community that otherwise may be interested in any negative environmental effects of the Project (O. Reg. 359/09 s 14 (b) (ii)).



5.9

In November 2011, wpd called to follow up regarding Project information which had been sent, and to inform of pending archaeological work. A letter was also sent in this regard.

A Consultation Package was sent to MDN on September 28, 2012, including a summary of the REA process, an overview of the Project schedule, the Notice of Final Public Meeting, Project Summary reports, Draft REA reports, a request to provide written comments of any information that should be considered for the Project and an offer to meet to discuss the documents.

A summary of all correspondence with Munsee-Delaware Nation can be found in Appendix G6.

5.2.7 Delaware Nation Moravian of the Thames (DNMT)

wpd made initial contact with Delaware Nation Moravian of the Thames regarding the Project in November 2011, with a Notice of a Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project, Notice of Draft Site Plan and Notice of Public Meeting. The Draft Project Description Report was also sent at this time.

In December 2011, the Director of the MOE identified DNMT as an Aboriginal community that otherwise may be interested in any negative environmental effects of the Project (O. Reg. 359/09 s 14 (b) (ii)).

In November, wpd called to follow up on the Notice, and to inform the Delaware Nation Moravian of the Thames of the upcoming archaeological fieldwork. A Project Follow up letter was also sent. Chief Gregory Peters responded to wpd’s message, explaining that notices and other mailings can take some time to review given the volume received from proponents. Chief Peters stated that the Napier Project was outside their area and they had no interest in the Project.

A Consultation Package was sent to DNMT on September 28, 2012, including a summary of the REA process, an overview of the Project schedule, the Notice of Final Public Meeting, Project Summary reports, Draft REA reports, a request to provide written comments of any information that should be considered for the Project and an offer to meet to discuss the documents.

A summary table of all correspondence with the Delaware Nation Moravian of the Thames can be found in Appendix G7, and in Table 5.7 below. Table 5.7: Key Comments from Delaware Nation Moravian of the Thames and Consideration by Project Team


Indicated that the Napier Project was outside their area and they had no interest in the Project.

Acknowledged.



6.1

6.0 Plan for Ongoing Consultation

wpd will continue with consultation activities following submission of the REA application to the MOE, during construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project. wpd has documented the communication plan for emergencies, Project updates and activities and an on-going communications and issues protocol in Section 8.0 of the Design and Operations Report.

6.1 FINAL REA REPORTS

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

6.2 COMMUNITY UPDATES

wpd and/or the Project Contractor would engage with community members (local community members, Aboriginal communities, the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe and Middlesex County) during all phases of the Project, including providing updates on the Project website (http://canada.wpd.de/projects/in-canada/napier.html). As a long-term presence and neighbour in the Township and County, wpd would continue to develop contacts and maintain local relationships and channels of communication. Additional updates may be provided to community members via the website, letters, local newspaper notices, and/or through direct contact.

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

Communication Plan for Emergencies

In the event of an emergency, wpd and/or the Project Contractor would initiate the Emergency Response and Communications Plan as outlined in Section 8.0 of the Design and Operations Report. The communication plan for emergencies would be developed in collaboration with local emergency responders, and would be prepared following consultation with the local Emergency Services Department, including the local fire department, and in coordination with other proponents in the area. wpd also intends to participate with local Township and County staff in training sessions specific to the Project prior to construction.







6.2

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

Communications and Issue Response Protocol

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

A telephone number for contacting wpd and/or the Project Contractor along with the mailing/e-mail address would be posted on the Project website (http://canada.wpd.de/projects/in-canada/napier.html) and provided directly the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe, Middlesex County and the MOE. These would be the direct contact points for wpd and/or the Project Contractor during all phases of the Project. The Emergency Response and Communications Plan would include key contact information for emergency service providers, a description of the chain of communications and how information would be disseminated between wpd and/or the Contractor and the relevant responders. This information would be obtained during consultations with the County’s Emergency Services Departments.

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

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



7.1

7.0 Closure

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

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

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. wpd Canada Corporation

Shawna Peddle Senior Project Manager Stantec Consulting Ltd. Suite 1 - 70 Southgate Drive Guelph, ON N1G 4P5 519-836-6050 ext. 231 [email protected]

Khlaire Parré Director of Renewable Energy Approvals wpd Canada Corporation 2233 Argentia Road, Suite 102 Mississauga, ON L5N 2X7 905-813-8400 ext. 112 [email protected] Project Telephone: 1-888-712-2401


