Gunn’s!Hill!Wind!Farm! Renewable!Energy!Approval ...€¦ · Gunn’s!Hill!Wind!Farm:!REA!Clarification!Document!! 3! Consultation Report!Vol.! 1,!Section! 5.6.4.2,!Page! 5.29!

Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Renewable Energy Approval

Clarification Document

April 10, 2015

Gunn’s Hill LP 19 Bold St, Unit 2B

Hamilton, ON L8P 1T3

Phone: (905) 528-‐1747

Fax: (866) 203-‐6516 Email: [email protected] Web: www.prowind.ca

Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm: REA Clarification Document

i

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 REA Application Timeline ......................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Details of Additions/Changes .................................................................................................. 2

3.1 Additional Documents Submitted ................................................................................. 2

3.2 Additional Species Studies ............................................................................................. 3

3.2.1 Amphibian Breeding Habitat (wetlands) Survey ............................................... 3

3.2.2 Maternity Bat Colony Survey ............................................................................ 4

3.3 First Notice of Project Change: Removal of Overhead Cable ........................................ 9

3.4 Second Notice of Project Change: Nameplate Capacity Change and Turbine Model Change ......................................................................................................................... 29

3.5 Clarifications during Technical Review ........................................................................ 37

3.5.1 Cement Wash Water Ponds ............................................................................ 37

3.5.2 Size of Auxiliary Generators ............................................................................ 38

3.5.3 Ice Accumulation and Shedding ..................................................................... 38

3.6 Heritage Impact Assessment Report Addendum ........................................................ 39

3.7 Third Notice of Project Change: Addition of Access Road Construction Option ......... 46

3.8 Revisions to the Noise Assessment Report ................................................................. 48

3.9 Change in Ownership of the Project ............................................................................ 49

4.0 Consultation Update .............................................................................................................. 50

4.1 Federal Agency Consultation ....................................................................................... 50

4.1.1 Nav Canada ..................................................................................................... 50

4.1.2 Transport Canada ........................................................................................... 50

4.2 Municipal Consultation ............................................................................................... 51

4.2.1 County of Oxford ............................................................................................ 51

4.2.2 Township of Norwich ...................................................................................... 51

4.3 Community Stakeholder Consultation ........................................................................ 51

4.4 Aboriginal Consultation ............................................................................................... 51

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Supplemental information for Table 5

Appendix B: Senvion Ice Letter

Appendix C: Consultation Update Documentation


1

1.0 Introduction

Prowind Canada Inc. on behalf of Gunn’s Hill LP is proposing a ten-‐turbine project in the northwest corner of Norwich Township, Oxford County called the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm (Project). The Renewable Energy Approval (REA) was received from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) on April 9, 2015 and the entire REA package including this document are available for inspection on the project’s website. During the course of the REA application completeness review and technical review, additional information was provided to the MOECC. In addition, changes were made to the Project scope following the MOECC’s change process. This document provides a comprehensive summary of the clarification information provided to the MOECC during the technical review, the changes made to the project scope, and the resulting adjustment to the text of the submitted REA reports. This Clarification Document has been prepared to highlight and summarize the changes, clarifications, and additions that have been made to the REA application since the original submission was made in June 2013. This document presents the originally submitted text adjacent to the revised text that now represents the wording for the REA application as a result of these changes. This document is part of the REA application. It is posted along with the rest of the REA reports to be viewed in tandem with the entire REA application.

2.0 REA Application Timeline

Below is a timeline of the REA application process to date including all project additions and changes. Each item is explained in more detail in the identified section. Table 1 Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm REA application timeline Date Addition/Change Ref Jun 10, 2013 REA application submitted to MOECC

Jul 19, 2013 Additional documents submitted -‐ Municipal Reports and EEMP comments 3.1

Dec 18, 2013 Additional documents submitted -‐ Bat Maternity Colony Survey Report and Amphibian Wetland Breeding Survey Report

3.2

Feb 3, 2014 First Notice of Project Change: removal of overhead cable 3.3

Feb 7, 2014 REA application deemed complete/EBR Posting -‐ 45 day public comment period

Apr 10, 2014 Second Notice of Project change: project nameplate capacity change, turbine model change

3.4

Jul 7, 2013 Additional EBR Posting -‐ 30 day public comment period Sept-‐Mar, 2014 Clarifications as part of technical review 3.5


2

Oct 10, 2014 Heritage Assessment Report Addendum 3.6

Jan 26, 2015 Third Notice of Project Change: access road construction option 3.7 Various Noise Assessment Report Revisions 3.8

Project Ownership Change 3.9 Apr 9, 2015 Renewable Energy Approval received

3.0 Details of Additions/Changes

3.1 Additional Documents Submitted When the REA application was submitted to the MOECC in June 2013, neither the upper tier municipality (Oxford County) nor the lower tier municipality (Township of Norwich) had completed the suggested Municipal Consultation Form. Both organizations opted instead to prepare a Municipal Planning Report and present recommendations to Council. The Township of Norwich held their Council meeting on May 14, 2013 where the Planning Report was received as information and comments were approved for inclusion in the Oxford Council Planning Report. The County of Oxford held their Council meeting on June 12, 2013 where the Planning Report recommendations were adopted. Additionally, at this time there was ongoing consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) regarding the Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan (included as part of the Design and Operations Report). A final approval letter was received for this Plan from the MNRF on July 9, 2013. The above noted documentation was submitted to the MOECC on July 19, 2013, once all necessary documentation was available for distribution. Table 2 Changes to the REA reports as a result of Additional Documents Submission Report reference

Original Wording Revised Wording as a result of change

Consultation Report Vol. 1, Section 5.6.4.2, Page 5.28

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

The County coordinated responses on the draft REA for the municipalities and the County. With respect to County comments as part of the MCF, a Municipal Report was prepared by the County and presented to County Council on June 12, 2014. All recommendations in the Municipal Report were accepted by Council. Prowind will continue to work with the County with regard to these recommendations and other ongoing correspondence and will keep the MOECC informed of the process.


3

Consultation Report Vol. 1, Section 5.6.4.2, Page 5.29

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

Sentence added at * The Municipal Planning Report was presented to Township Council on May 14, 2013 and comments for the County Council report were approved.

Consultation Report Vol. 1, Appendix G5

Municipal Planning Reports and corresponding Council Meeting Minutes added to appendix as supporting documentation.

3.2 Additional Species Studies As a condition of approval of the Natural Heritage Assessment Report from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, two species studies were conducted after the approval letter was received on May 8, 2013. Both studies were required for the appropriate time of year, and therefore conditional approval was granted by the MNRF prior to these studies being completed. Both the reports discussed below were submitted to the MNRF for review and acceptance before submitted to the MOECC.

3.2.1 Amphibian Breeding Habitat (wetlands) Survey

The majority of the amphibian survey was conducted in the summer of 2011 and did not identify any significant amphibian breeding habitat. One additional location was identified as necessitating amphibian surveys near Turbine 5. This additional survey was conducted over April -‐ June 2013. The results of this survey did not find any significant amphibian breeding habitat. No additional requirements were necessary. The report was finalized on August 23, 2013 and submitted to the MOECC on December 18, 2013 once the Bat Maternity survey report was finalized.


4

3.2.2 Maternity Bat Colony Survey

Two woodlots near Turbines 1, 2, and 3 were identified as potential Maternity Bat Colony habitat. Surveys for this habitat type should be done in June when bats are breeding. This survey was conducted on June 5, 2013 and no significant habitat was observed. The results were compiled into a final report dated December 17, 2013 and was submitted to the MOECC on December 18, 2013. The changes to the REA reports as a result of the above are detailed in Table 3 below.


5

Table 3 Changes to the REA reports as a result of Additional Species Studies Submission Report reference Original Wording Revised Wording as a result of change Executive Summary Section 2.4.3 (pg 14)

Section 2.4.3 in its entirety Significant Wildlife Habitat No significant wildlife habitats were identified within the Zone of Investigation. Potential Effects There are no identified significant wildlife habitats in the project area therefore there are no potential effects. Mitigation Measures No potential effects are anticipated during operation and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary. Net Effects No net effects are anticipated.

Project Description Report Section 4.5.2.1 (pg 29)

Amphibian Wetland Breeding Habitat and Bat Maternity Colonies are identified as Significant Wildlife Habitat within the Zone of Investigation. These habitats were unable to be confirmed as significant with previous field studies and further pre-‐construction field studies are required to confirm significance. Details on site investigation, evaluation of significance, upcoming pre-‐construction surveys are presented within the NHA.

Paragraph removed in its entirety.

Design and Operations Report Section 2.3.2, Table 7 (pg 14)

For the purposes of this summary Table 7 was reduced to only show relevant columns.

Turbine ID # Significant Natural Features Closer than 120 m (m)

1 78 -‐ woodland 78 -‐ wildlife hab. 33 -‐ wildlife hab.

2 116 -‐ woodland 3 n/a 4 n/a 5 1 -‐ wildlife hab. 6 n/a 7 n/a 8 n/a 9 n/a 10 n/a

Turbine ID # Significant Natural Features Closer than 120 m (m)

1 78 -‐ woodland 2 116 -‐ woodland 3 n/a 4 n/a 5 n/a 6 n/a 7 n/a 8 n/a 9 n/a 10 n/a

Section 5.3.6 (page 37-‐39)

Section 5.3.6 in its entirety Significant Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat No significant wildlife habitats were identified within the Zone of Investigation. Due to the absence of Any Significant Wildlife or Wildlife Habitat, no potential effects will


6

occur; therefore no mitigation measures are required.

Section 6.3.3 (page 74-‐75)

Section 6.3.3 in its entirety Section 6.3.3 removed in its entirety.

Appendix A Site Plan Maps Significant Wildlife Habitat removed from Site Plan Maps

Appendix F, Section 2

Section 2 in its entirety Section 2 removed in its entirety.

Appendix F. Section 3

For wildlife habitats determined to be significant based on the results of the surveys described above, post-‐construction monitoring will also be conducted. For significant amphibian breeding habitat, one year of post-‐construction monitoring will be conducted following the pre-‐construction methods described above. A monitoring report will be provided to the MNR within 3 months of the completion of surveys. The number of species and the number of individual breeding amphibians will be monitored and compared to pre-‐construction conditions. For significant bat maternity roost habitat, three years of post-‐construction monitoring will be conducted following the pre-‐construction methods described above. A monitoring report will be provided annually to the MNR within 3 months of the completion of surveys each year. The number of species and the number of roosting bats will be monitored and compared to pre-‐construction conditions. Results of post-‐construction wildlife habitat monitoring will be reviewed collectively by the proponent, MNR and other relevant agencies to determine if and when additional monitoring and/or mitigation is required. The best available science and information should be considered when determining appropriate mitigation. For post-‐construction mortality monitoring for birds and bats, please refer to Appendix B “Post-‐Construction Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan: Birds and Bats”.

For post-‐construction mortality monitoring for birds and bats, please refer to Appendix B “Post-‐Construction Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan: Birds and Bats”.

Natural Heritage Assessment Report Section 7.3.2.1 C Pg 46

WO2 contains significant wildlife habitat. This woodland meets the minimum area threshold for this criteria in this municipality and can therefore be considered significant for proximity to significant habitat.

WO2 is located within 30 m of a significant woodland. This woodland meets the minimum area threshold for this criteria in this municipality; therefore this woodland can be considered significant for proximity to significant habitat.

Section 7.4.1 50

To evaluate the significance of these areas, a Roadside Call Count for anuran species was conducted during the breeding season over three surveys from May to June of 2011. Details and maps showing the locations of these surveys are provided in Appendix H. This was conducted for four of the five sites. C7 was not surveyed. The locations of the previous and upcoming surveys are shown in Appendix A – Map 18

To evaluate the significance of these areas, a Roadside Call Count for anuran species was conducted during the breeding season over three surveys from May to June of 2011 and in April to June 2013 for C7. Details and maps showing the locations of these surveys are provided in Appendix H.

Section 7.4.1 Results of this Roadside Call Count for Frogs and Toads conducted on May 4, May 25 Results of this Roadside Call Count for Frogs and Toads conducted in 2011 and 2013


7

(pg 51) and June 20, 2011 observed only two species -‐ Spring Peeper and Northern Leopard Frog. Call Counts from each Candidate Significant Amphibian Breeding Habitat is listed in Table 18.

observed three species -‐ Spring Peeper, Northern Leopard Frog and Grey Treefrog. Call Counts from each Candidate Significant Amphibian Breeding Habitat is listed in Table 18.

Section 7.4.1, Table 18 (pg 51)

Habitat Area ID

Frog Species Recorded* Spring Peeper

Northern Leopard Frog

C3 -‐ -‐ C4 -‐ -‐ C5 3 1 C6 3 -‐

Habitat Area ID

Frog Species Recorded* Spring Peeper

Northern Leopard Frog

Grey Treefrog

C3 -‐ -‐ -‐ C4 -‐ -‐ -‐ C5 3 1 -‐ C6 3 -‐ -‐ C7 -‐ -‐ 1

Section 7.4.1 (pg 51)

Only C5 and C6 observed any frog species. Both C5 and C6 are Candidate Significant Wetland Amphibian Breeding Habitat which can be identified as significant with the observation of 2 or more species listed species with more than 20 individuals observed. Neither C5 nor C6 meet the above criteria.

None of the surveyed areas were found to be Significant Amphibian Breeding Habitat. One identified Candidate Significant Amphibian Wetland Breeding Habitat (C7) has not been surveyed for frog calls and therefore a determination of its significance cannot be identified. Pre-‐construction monitoring of this feature will be conducted in the upcoming spring breeding season following the same methodology as outlined above.

For the purposes of this report, it will be assumed the un-‐surveyed feature is significant and will be carried forward to the Environmental Impact Study.

Only C5, C6, C7 observed any frog species. All three are Candidate Significant Wetland Amphibian Breeding Habitat which can be identified as significant with the observation of 2 or more species listed species with more than 20 individuals observed. None of the above habitats meet the criteria.

None of the surveyed areas were found to be Significant Amphibian Breeding Habitat.


If a maternity roost is found, the entire ELC stand is considered bat SWH for the maternity colony roost.

The surveys were conducted on June 5, 2013 for both C1 and C2 habitats. Zero bats were seen entering cavity trees during this survey period. Therefore, this habitat is not significant. The detailed results of this survey can be found in Appendix G.

Section 7.5 (pg 53)

None of the candidate significant wildlife habitat was identified as significant, but three (3) habitats will be carried forward to the Environmental Impact Study because insufficient fieldwork was conducted to establish significance.

None of the candidate significant wildlife habitat was identified as significant.

Section 7.5, Table 19 (pg 53)

Significant Wildlife Habitat x Count of features; IDs 0 confirmed 3 unconfirmed (C1, C2, and C7) 7 Generalized (G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7)

Significant Wildlife Habitat x Count of features; IDs 0 confirmed 7 Generalized (G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7)

Section 8.3 (pg 60-‐62)

Section 8.3 in its entirety Section 8.3 removed in its entirety


8

Section 8 Table 21 (pg 63-‐71)

Remove references to C1, C2 and C7 from table


Four of the five Amphibian Breeding Habitat were evaluated through Roadside Call Count surveys and determined not to be significant. The last Amphibian breeding habitat area was not surveyed, but will be in the upcoming breeding season prior to construction. This last amphibian breeding habitat area is assumed to be significant and carried forward to EIS.

The Bat Maternity Roost Habitats were unable to be evaluated properly as no bat exit surveys were conducted at the site. These studies will be conducted in the upcoming season, prior to construction. These habitat areas are assumed to be significant and carried forward to EIS.

The Amphibian Breeding Habitats were evaluated through Roadside Call Count surveys and determined not to be significant.

The Bat Maternity Roost Habitats were evaluated and determined not to be significant.

Section 9.4 (pg 83)

Four woodlands (WO1, WO2, WO3, and WO4), 5 wetlands (WE3, WE4, WE5, WE8, and WE9), 7 Generalized Significant Wildlife Habitats (G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, and G7) and 3 Significant Wildlife Habitats (Bat Maternity Colonies C1 and C2 and Amphibian Breeding Habitat C7) were evaluated for environmental impacts from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm.

Four woodlands (WO1, WO2, WO3, and WO4), 5 wetlands (WE3, WE4, WE5, WE8, and WE9), 7 Generalized Significant Wildlife Habitats (G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, and G7) were evaluated for environmental impacts from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm.

Section 9.4 (pg 83)

Post-‐construction monitoring for bird and bat mortality will be used to determine the actual impacts of the wind farm. Post-‐construction disturbance monitoring of any significant wildlife habitat (which could include bat maternity colonies and amphibian breeding habitat; however, this will be determined by the results of the pre-‐construction surveys) will also be conducted. This plan is outlined in the Environmental Effects and Monitoring Plan (EEMP) in the Design and Operations Report.

Post-‐construction monitoring for bird and bat mortality will be used to determine the actual impacts of the wind farm. This plan is outlined in the Environmental Effects and Monitoring Plan (EEMP) in the Design and Operations Report.

Appendix A Map 17

Remove all Significant Wildlife Habitats from Map 17.

Appendix G Add Bat Maternity Colony Exit Survey Report


9

3.3 First Notice of Project Change: Removal of Overhead Cable Due to consultation with the Ontario Power Authority (now Independent Electricity System Operator) and Hydro One Networks Inc. a change in the Project connection point was required. The original connection point discussed in the REA was at the Woodstock Transformer Station (Woodstock TS) in Southside Park in the City of Woodstock. This connection point required a long cable route on shared poles with Hydro One to connect the project to the Woodstock TS. This portion of the cable route is called the tap line and was planned to be overhead cable for the length of the tap line. The revised connection point determined through consultation with the above noted agencies is now at or very near to the Project’s substation on Firehall Road. This change resulted in the overhead cable tap line becoming redundant and therefore removed from the project scope. An addendum letter was prepared and submitted to the MOECC on January 8, 2014. Once the letter was deemed satisfactory by the MOECC, a Notice was prepared and publicized. This Notice was posted in the Woodstock Sentinel-‐Review and the Turtle Island News, was mailed out to all landowners within 550 m of and adjacent to the Project location (including the Project location for the removed overhead cable), was mailed to agency and Aboriginal stakeholders and emailed to all contacts on the stakeholder email list. The Notice was also posted on the Project’s website with a description of the change. The above was all done on or before February 3, 2014. The addendum letter to the MOECC is available on the Project website for review. The REA package was updated to include a one page memo at the front of each report noting that the tap line was removed from the Project scope and to ignore any reference to the overhead cable line in the reports. The change resulted in a decrease in Project impacts because infrastructure was removed from the Project scope. Therefore, this change was considered a technical change. The changes to the REA reports as a result of the above are detailed in Table 4 below.


10

Table 4 Changes to the REA reports as a result of First Project Change Report reference


Executive Summary Section 1 (pg 1) The 27.6 kV underground collector lines will transport the electricity generated from

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

The 27.6 kV underground collector lines will transport the electricity generated from each turbine to the substation located along Firehall Road, just east of the buried cable to Turbine 1. The Project will connect to the distribution grid at the substation or approximately 350 m west of the substation at the existing overhead poles on Firehall Road.

Section 1.1 (pg 2)

• An approximately 6.5 km underground and overhead dedicated feeder line (27.6 kV) on Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro poles to connect to the provincially controlled electrical grid (through the Woodstock Transformer Station);

Approximately 350 m of underground and overhead dedicated feeder line (27.6 kV) to connect to Hydro One electrical grid along Firehall Road;


A Heritage Impact Assessment was conducted for Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm to identify any Built Heritage features or Cultural Heritage Landscapes in the project area. This assessment involved desktop historical land-‐use studies and windshield surveys of the area for identification of culturally significant heritage features. The assessment concluded that there would be no impacts from the wind farm on heritage features or landscapes in the project area. An additional Heritage Impact Assessment was conducted and completed in Nov 2012 to address the additional overhead lines to the Woodstock Transformer Station. The assessment determined that the properties, roads, railway and other heritage resources in the area would not be negatively impacted by the project. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has reviewed and provided comment on both Heritage Impact Assessment Reports and has released the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm from any further concerns.

A Heritage Impact Assessment was conducted for Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm to identify any Built Heritage features or Cultural Heritage Landscapes in the project area. This assessment involved desktop historical land-‐use studies and windshield surveys of the area for identification of culturally significant heritage features. The assessment concluded that there would be no impacts from the wind farm on heritage features or landscapes in the project area. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has reviewed and provided comment on the Heritage Impact Assessment Report and has released the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm from any further concerns.


A tap line will be used to connect the project substation to the existing provincially controlled grid. The routing of the tap line was selected to follow the most direct path that has existing hydro poles back to the point of common coupling with the provincial electrical grid. The selected route follows Hydro One’s M4 feeder to the low voltage bus of the Woodstock TS. Where the M4 feeder traverses the Cedar Creek Golf Club, alternate routes were considered along Juliana Dr, Norwich Ave, and Parkinson Rd, as well as through other nearby residential streets. However, the route through the golf course was deemed preferable. The tap line will be buried for a length of approximately 350 m from the substation west to the existing overhead Hydro One poles. The line will share the Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro poles up to the point of common coupling at or adjacent to the Woodstock TS. The overhead wires will have a rated voltage of 27.6 kV, which is common on Hydro One’s distribution network in the area. Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro will determine whether upgrades are needed to the existing poles to support the additional cables and perform the upgrades at the cost of the

The Project will connect to the distribution grid at the substation or approximately 350 m west of the substation at the existing overhead poles on Firehall Road.


11

proponent. The portion of the tap line that will traverse the Cedar Creek Golf Club lands may be overhead or underground depending on the needs of the golf course owners and Hydro One.


Two HIAs were completed for this project: 1 -‐ wind farm area excluding the overhead cable route, 2 -‐ overhead cable route. The results of both reports have been merged for the following summary. The Heritage Impact Assessments determined that: • There are no protected properties within the Project Study Area; • 32 properties with potential Built Heritage resources are within the Study Area

(32 of which are of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest); these will not be negatively impacted by the Project; and,

• 3 potential Cultural Heritage Landscapes are within the Study Area; these will not be negatively impacted by the Project.

An HIA was completed for this project. The Heritage Impact Assessment determined that: • There are no protected properties within the Project Study Area; • 26 properties with potential Built Heritage resources are within the Study Area

(none of which are of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest); these will not be negatively impacted by the Project; and,

• No Cultural Heritage Landscapes are within the Study Area; these will not be negatively impacted by the Project.


Wetlands There were five (5) wetlands identified within the Zone of Investigation. None of the wetlands will be directly impacted by the Project and therefore assumed to all be significant features. There will be no impacts to wetlands from Operation of the wind farm, so there were no mitigation measures suggested for this period of the wind farm life cycle.

Wetlands There were four (4) wetlands identified within the Zone of Investigation. None of the wetlands will be directly impacted by the Project and therefore assumed to all be significant features. There will be no impacts to wetlands from Operation of the wind farm, so there were no mitigation measures suggested for this period of the wind farm life cycle.


Generalized Significant Wildlife Habitat Generalized Significant Wildlife Habitat In addition to the significant wildlife habitats, the following Generalized Significant Wildlife Habitats were identified within the Zone of Investigation:

• Species of Conservation Concern – River Bluet (Damselfly) (2 locations) • Terrestrial Crayfish (4 locations) • Seeps and Springs (1 locations)

Potential Effects Potential effects to Species of Conservation Concern – River Bluet, Terrestrial Crayfish or Seeps and Springs from the Construction, Operation and Maintenance and Decommissioning periods of the wind farm life cycle include general habitat disturbance such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, surface water contamination.

Generalized Significant Wildlife Habitat Generalized Significant Wildlife Habitat In addition to the significant wildlife habitats, the following Generalized Significant Wildlife Habitats were identified within the Zone of Investigation:

• Species of Conservation Concern – River Bluet (Damselfly) (1 location) • Terrestrial Crayfish (3 locations)

Potential Effects Potential effects to Species of Conservation Concern – River Bluet, Terrestrial Crayfish or Bat Maternity Colony from the Construction, Operation and Maintenance and Decommissioning periods of the wind farm life cycle include general habitat disturbance such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, surface water contamination.


Eight REA water bodies were identified within the Zone of Investigation. Two will be crossed by underground collector lines and five will be crossed by overhead feeder line. One Water Body is more than 30 m from the overhead feeder line and does not require environmental effect and mitigation measures analysis. No access roads are located within 120 m of a water body.

Two REA water bodies were identified within the Zone of Investigation that will be crossed by underground collector lines. No access roads are located within 120 m of a water body.

Section 3.0 (pg 19)

The land proposed to host the wind turbines, buried cable, access roads and substation is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oxford Road 14 to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west. This land is privately owned, agricultural land neighbouring the Hamlets of Oxford Centre and Curries, Ontario; located southeast of the City of Woodstock, Ontario. The overhead cable is proposed within municipal road Right-‐of-‐Ways within The Township of Norwich and

The land proposed to host the wind turbines, buried cable, access roads and substation is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oxford Road 14 to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west. This land is privately owned, agricultural land neighbouring the Hamlets of Oxford Centre and Curries, Ontario; located southeast of the City of Woodstock, Ontario.


12

the City of Woodstock. Section 3.1 (pg 19)

All project activities will be undertaken according to current guidelines provided by governmental agencies, Township of Norwich, City of Woodstock, Electrical Safety Authority, Hydro One, Woodstock Hydro and the turbine manufacturer.

All project activities will be undertaken according to current guidelines provided by governmental agencies, Township of Norwich, Electrical Safety Authority, Hydro One and the turbine manufacturer.


A feeder line will be used to connect the project to the existing provincially controlled grid. The routing of the feeder line was selected to follow the most direct path that has existing hydro poles back to the point of common coupling with the provincial electrical grid. The selected route follows Hydro One’s M4 feeder to the low voltage bus of the Woodstock TS. Where the M4 feeder traverses the Cedar Creek Golf Club, alternate routes were considered along Juliana Dr, Norwich Ave, and Parkinson Rd, as well as through other nearby residential streets. However, the route through the golf course was deemed preferable. The feeder line will be buried for a length of approximately 350 m from the substation west to the existing overhead Hydro One poles. The line will share the Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro poles up to the point of common coupling at or adjacent to the Woodstock TS. The overhead wires will have a rated voltage of 27.6 kV. Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro will determine whether upgrades are needed to the existing poles to support the additional cables and perform the upgrades at the cost of the proponent Appropriate permits and agreements will be obtained prior to the construction phase. The portion of the feeder line that will traverse the Cedar Creek Golf Club lands may be overhead or underground depending on the needs of the golf course owners and Hydro One.


Project Description Report Section 1 (pg 1) The 27.6 kV underground collector lines will transport the electricity generated from

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

The 27.6 kV underground collector lines will transport the electricity generated from each turbine to the substation located along Firehall Road, just east of the buried cable to Turbine 1. The Project will connect to the distribution grid at the substation or approximately 350 m west of the substation at the existing overhead poles on Firehall Road.

Section 3.1.3.1 (pg 4)

PROJECT AREA -‐ This is the study area that was has been used from the early stages to do preliminary surveys and inquiries. This includes the entirety of all participating properties and the overhead cable route.

PROJECT AREA -‐ This is the study area that was has been used from the early stages to do preliminary surveys and inquiries. This includes the entirety of all participating properties and buried cables.

Section 3.1.3.2 (pg 4)

The project is proposed on privately owned, agricultural land as well as municipal right-‐of-‐ways (electrical lines only) in the Township of Norwich and the City of Woodstock in Oxford County, Ontario. The Project Area (excluding the overhead cable) is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oxford Road 14 to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west. The Project Area is approximately 455 ha. The Project Location (including turbine foundations, roads, cables, and temporary construction areas) is approximately 18 ha in area. … Approximately 4 km of buried cables (27.6 kV) will run within road easements along a portion of Firehall Road and a portion of Middletown Line. Additionally,

The project is proposed on privately owned, agricultural land as well as municipal right-‐of-‐ways (electrical lines only) in the Township of Norwich in Oxford County, Ontario. The Project Area is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oxford Road 14 to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west. The Project Area is approximately 455 ha. The Project Location (including turbine foundations, roads, cables, and temporary construction areas) is approximately 18 ha in area. … Approximately 4 km of buried cables (27.6 kV) will run within road easements along a portion of Firehall Road and a portion of Middletown Line.


13

approximately 6.5 km of buried and overhead line (27.6 kV) will run along a short section of Firehall Rd and along Highway 59, Pattullo Ave, Athlone Ave, Juliana Dr, Cedar Creek Golf Club, Parkinson Ave, and South St to the Woodstock Transformer Station (TS). The final decision on the connection point will be made in conjunction with the Ontario Power Authority and Hydro One prior to construction. If the connection point changes from the location proposed at the Woodstock TS, it will be announced to all stakeholders and local landowners through the standard notification process and posted on the Proponent’s website.


For the sake of this summary, the table has been reduced to only the relevant rows

Agency Description

Ministry of Transportation o Oversize/Overweight Permit o Encroachment Permit (Highway 401)

City of Woodstock O Road Allowance & Road Use Agreements

Hydro One

O Joint Use Agreement to share existing utility poles in the project vicinity

o Connection Impact Assessment/System Impact Assessment

o Connection Cost Recovery Agreement

Woodstock Hydro o Joint Use Agreement to share existing utility poles in the project vicinity

Township of Norwich, City of Woodstock

O Municipal Consultation Form

For the sake of this summary, the table has been reduced to only the relevant rows

Agency Description

Ministry of Transportation o Oversize/Overweight Permit

Hydro One o Connection Impact Assessment/System

Impact Assessment o Connection Cost Recovery Agreement

Township of Norwich O Municipal Consultation Form

Section 4.1 (pg 10)

• An approximately 6.5 km underground and overhead dedicated feeder line (27.6 kV) on Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro poles to connect to the provincially controlled electrical grid (through the Woodstock Transformer Station);

Up to approximately 350 m of underground and overhead dedicated feeder line (27.6 kV) to connect to Hydro One electrical grid along Firehall Road;


The tap line (27.6 KV) is used to connect the project to the existing provincially controlled grid. This line will be buried for a length of approximately 350 m from the substation west to the existing overhead Hydro One poles. This line will be strung on existing Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro poles up to the point of common coupling at or adjacent to the Woodstock TS where the cable will connect to the low voltage bus. The overhead cable is approximately 6 km. The overhead wires will have a rated voltage of 27.6 kV. Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro will determine whether upgrades are needed to the existing poles to support the additional cables and perform the upgrades at the cost of the proponent. A portion of the tap line will traverse the Cedar Creek Golf Club lands. This portion of the cabling may be overhead or underground depending on the needs of the golf course owners and Hydro One.


Section 4.2.1.9 The electrical cables will exit the substation below ground for approximately 350 m The Project will connect to the electrical at the substation itself or 350 m west of the


14

(pg 20) then will be strung on above ground electrical poles located within the municipal road easement along the remaining portion of Firehall Road and then north to the Woodstock TS. Existing poles within this easement may be upgraded as determined by Hydro One or Woodstock Hydro to accommodate the additional lines. Road easement permits will be obtained from the City/Township/County, where necessary. Overhead lines will be strung along existing, new or upgraded poles in the road allowance. Road User Agreements will be needed from Township of Norwich, City of Woodstock and Oxford County for placement of the cable in the road allowance. Consultation with these three agencies is ongoing. Once the electrical system reaches City of Woodstock boundaries it will extend along Pattullo Avenue and pass over Highway 401 to Athlone Avenue and then north to Juliana Drive. The Ministry of Transportation will be consulted regarding an Encroachment Permit to cross Highway 401. The line will head north through the Cedar Creek Golf Club as an overhead line or underground line to Parkinson Road, and then continue overhead north on South Street to connect to the Woodstock Transformer Station. An alternative route around the golf course was considered that continued along Juliana Dr, north of Norwich Ave and west of Parkinson Road. It was determined that the route through the golf course would have the least impact to surrounding residents and at this time, is the preferred route.

substation. If the connection point is not directly at the substation, the electrical cables will exit the substation via buried cables or overhead cables for approximately 350 m and will connect to the existing distribution lines along Firehall Road.

Section 4.2.3.4 (pg 24)

It is expected that any overhead lines running along the roadways connecting the substation to the Woodstock TS will be removed. Electrical cables will be sold, recycled, or disposed of appropriately. Consultation with the local distribution company and the Municipality owning the road allowance will determine if work is necessary.

Electrical cables will be sold, recycled, or disposed of appropriately. Consultation with the local distribution company and the Municipality owning the road allowance will determine if work is necessary for the remainder of the buried cable.

Section 4.3 (pg 25)

The project is located on privately owned, agricultural land within Oxford County and is described in the table below. This land has been leased by the Applicant for the purposes of constructing the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm from private landowners. The majority of land area contracted for this project is located within the Township of Norwich, in Oxford County. The feeder line will be located within City of Woodstock and Oxford County municipal road easements, as well as the Cedar Creek Golf Club for which a private land lease has been secured. County and Township road allowances will be used for components of the electrical collection system. Consultation with the appropriate municipal authorities is ongoing. Existing utility poles owned by Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro will be used to string the overhead electrical cabling between the substation and the Woodstock TS. Joint use pole agreements will be secured with Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro.

The project is located on privately owned, agricultural land within Oxford County and is described in the table below. This land has been leased by the Applicant for the purposes of constructing the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm from private landowners. The majority of land area contracted for this project is located within the Township of Norwich, in Oxford County. County and Township road allowances will be used for components of the electrical collection system. Consultation with the appropriate municipal authorities is ongoing.

Section 4.5.1, (pg 28)

In summary, seventeen (17) Water Bodies as defined subsection 1(1) of O. Reg 359/09 were identified in the Zone of Investigation through the Records Review process including sixteen (16) streams and one water body (not an REA Water Body). Through the site investigating process several corrections to the above were needed

In summary, eleven (11) Water Bodies as defined subsection 1(1) of O. Reg 359/09 were identified in the Zone of Investigation through the Records Review process including eleven (11) streams and zero water bodies (not an REA Water Body). Through the site investigating process several corrections to the above were needed


15

including the removal of the water body feature, the removal of 9 watercourses and the addition of a seepage area. After site investigation the number of Water Bodies within the relevant study area include 1 seepage area, and 7 streams (2 intermittent streams and 5 permanent streams). Of the above noted Water Bodies identified on site, the seepage area was not required to be considered for environmental effects due to its location greater than 30 m from the project location. The remainder of the features (7 streams) were carried forward to discuss environmental effects and mitigation measures.

including the removal of the water body feature, the removal of 9 watercourses. After site investigation the number of Water Bodies within the relevant study area include 1 intermittent streams and 1 permanent stream. The 2 streams were carried forward to discuss environmental effects and mitigation measures.

Section 4.5.2.2 (pg 29)

There were five (5) wetland areas identified within the project area through records review and site investigation. One of these wetlands is a Provincially Significant Wetland – the Cedar Creek Swamp.

There were four (4) wetland areas identified within the project area through records review and site investigation.

Section 4.5.3.2 (pg 30)

A Heritage Impact Assessment was conducted for Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm to identify any Built Heritage features or Cultural Heritage Landscapes in the project area. This assessment involved desktop historical land-‐use studies and windshield surveys of the area for identification of culturally significant heritage features. The assessment concluded that there will be no impacts from the wind farm on heritage features or landscapes in the project area. An additional Heritage Impact Assessment was conducted and completed in Nov 2012 to address the additional overhead lines to the Woodstock Transformer Station. The assessment determined that the properties, roads, railway and other heritage resources in the area would not be negatively impacted by the project. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has reviewed and provided comment on both Heritage Impact Assessment Reports and has released the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm from any further concerns.

A Heritage Impact Assessment was conducted for Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm to identify any Built Heritage features or Cultural Heritage Landscapes in the project area. This assessment involved desktop historical land-‐use studies and windshield surveys of the area for identification of culturally significant heritage features. The assessment concluded that there will be no impacts from the wind farm on heritage features or landscapes in the project area. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has reviewed and provided comment on the Heritage Impact Assessment Report and has released the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm from any further concerns.


The site and surrounding area of Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm has been intensely altered over the past century-‐and-‐a-‐half to fulfill agricultural needs. The main wind farm area is presently used for production of cash crops including corn, wheat and soybean along with dairy, pig, and poultry farming facilities. The cable route runs through a low density commercial/industrial area and into the south end of the City of Woodstock that is medium-‐density residential. The overhead cable route also runs through a golf club which has an existing Hydro One easement and line through the centre of the gold course.

The site and surrounding area of Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm has been intensely altered over the past century-‐and-‐a-‐half to fulfill agricultural needs. The main wind farm area is presently used for production of cash crops including corn, wheat and soybean along with dairy, pig, and poultry farming facilities.

Appendix A Remove Overhead Cable from map Construction Plan Report Section 2 (pg 2) • Approximately 6.5 km of underground and overhead tap line (27.6 kV) on Hydro

One and Woodstock Hydro poles to connect to the provincial electrical grid (through the low voltage bus on the Woodstock Transformer Station);

• Approximately 350 m of underground or overhead tap line (27.6 kV) to connect the project to the distribution grid along Firehall Road;

Section 2 (pg 2) The land proposed to host the wind turbines, buried cable, access roads and substation is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oxford Road 14 to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west. This land is privately owned, agricultural land neighbouring the Hamlets of Oxford Centre and Curries, Ontario; located southeast of the City of Woodstock, Ontario. The overhead cable is proposed within municipal road Right-‐of-‐Ways within The Township of Norwich and the City of Woodstock.

The land proposed to host the wind turbines, buried cable, access roads and substation is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oxford Road 14 to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west. This land is privately owned, agricultural land neighbouring the Hamlets of Oxford Centre and Curries, Ontario; located southeast of the City of Woodstock, Ontario.


16

Section 3 (pg 4) Wind farm construction activity can occur year-‐round while observing certain seasonal restrictions, but is generally most heavily focused in spring, summer and fall. The earliest proposed construction activity at the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is anticipated to be late 2013, pending all necessary approvals. The Township of Norwich noise bylaw impacts construction times. During peak times, construction can occur up to 7 days per week between the hours of 7:00 to 22:00. Typically, construction will be conducted 6 days per week between the hours of 7:00 to 17:00, with activities producing high levels of noise commencing after 08:00. The City of Woodstock (portion of the electrical system) noise bylaw permits noise generation from construction activities during the hours of 7:00 to 21:00. A schedule indicating the relative sequence and duration of construction activity is outlined in more detail in Section 4.1.

Wind farm construction activity can occur year-‐round while observing certain seasonal restrictions, but is generally most heavily focused in spring, summer and fall. The earliest proposed construction activity at the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is anticipated to be late 2013, pending all necessary approvals. The Township of Norwich noise bylaw impacts construction times. During peak times, construction can occur up to 7 days per week between the hours of 7:00 to 22:00. Typically, construction will be conducted 6 days per week between the hours of 7:00 to 17:00, with activities producing high levels of noise commencing after 08:00. A schedule indicating the relative sequence and duration of construction activity is outlined in more detail in Section 4.1.

Section 3 (pg 4) All project activities will be undertaken according to current guidelines provided by governmental agencies, Township of Norwich, City of Woodstock, Electrical Safety Authority, Hydro One, Woodstock Hydro and the turbine manufacturer.

All project activities will be undertaken according to current guidelines provided by governmental agencies, Township of Norwich, Electrical Safety Authority, Hydro One, and the turbine manufacturer.

Section 3.8 (pg 15)

A tap line will be used to connect the project to the existing provincially controlled grid. The routing of the feeder line was selected to follow the most direct path that has existing hydro poles back to the point of common coupling with the provincial electrical grid. The selected route follows Hydro One’s M4 feeder to the low voltage bus of the Woodstock TS. Where the M4 feeder traverses the Cedar Creek Golf Club, alternate routes were considered along Juliana Dr, Norwich Ave, and Parkinson Rd, as well as through other nearby residential streets. However, the route through the golf course was deemed preferable. The tap line will be buried for a length of approximately 350 m from the substation west to the existing overhead Hydro One poles. The line will share the Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro poles up to the point of common coupling at or adjacent to the Woodstock TS. The overhead wires will have a rated voltage of 27.6 kV. Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro will determine whether upgrades are needed to the existing poles to support the additional cables and perform the upgrades at the cost of the proponent Appropriate permits and agreements will be obtained prior to the construction phase. The portion of the feeder line that will traverse the Cedar Creek Golf Club lands may be overhead or underground depending on the needs of the golf course owners and Hydro One.

There is potential for the requirement of an approximately 350 m tapline to connect the Project to the distribution grid along Firehall Road. This will be overhead or underground cable to extend the existing overhead cables to the project substation location. Alternatively, the connection point will be at the substation directly.


An additional Heritage Impact Assessment was undertaken for the additional overhead collection route to connect with the Hydro One substation in Woodstock. The Heritage Assessment work was completed in May 2012 and the report submitted to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) for concurrence with the recommendations. The recommendations indicated that there would be no direct or indirect impacts that would negatively affect any of the heritage attributes (properties, Old Stage Road, Great Western Railway or Southside Park) of the resources present. Similarly, results of this study can also be found in the Archaeological and Heritage Resources Assessment Report.

First paragraph removed in its entirety. Having the above survey and assessment completed prior to construction, decreases the already low potential for disruption of cultural heritage resources within the project area. MTCS provided a letter of Concurrence with the recommendations of the initial heritage assessment on July 28, 2011 and indicated that further heritage analysis would not be required.


17

Having the above surveys and assessments completed prior to construction, decreases the already low potential for disruption of cultural heritage resources within the project area. MTCS provided a letter of Concurrence with the recommendations of the initial heritage assessment on July 28, 2011 and indicated that further heritage analysis would not be required. MTCS sign-‐off on the Heritage Assessment Report from May 2012 was received on December 11, 2012 and no further heritage analysis is required and no negative impacts are anticipated from the project on the heritage resources present.

Appendix A Overhead cable removed from Map 1, Map 2, Map 2a. Design and Operations Report Section 1.2 (pg 5)

The overhead line that connects the wind farm to the Woodstock Transformer Station will use existing poles along Firehall Rd, County Road 59, Patullo Ave, Athlone Ave, Juliana Dr, Cedar Creek Gold Club, Parkinson Rd and South St.

Remove paragraph in its entirety.

Section 2 (pg 7) Approximately 6.5 km of underground and overhead tap line (27.6 kV) on Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro poles to connect to the provincial electrical grid (through the low voltage bus on the Woodstock Transformer Station);

Approximately 350 m of underground or overhead tap line (27.6 kV) to connect the project to the distribution grid along Firehall Road;


A tap line will be used to connect the project substation to the existing provincially controlled grid. The routing of the tap line was selected to follow the most direct path that has existing hydro poles back to the point of common coupling with the provincial electrical grid. The selected route follows Hydro One’s M4 feeder to the low voltage bus of the Woodstock TS. Where the M4 feeder traverses the Cedar Creek Golf and Country Club, alternate routes were considered along Juliana Dr, Norwich Ave, and Parkinson Rd, as well as through other nearby residential streets. However, the route through the golf course was deemed preferable. The tap line will be buried for a length of approximately 350 m from the substation west to the existing overhead Hydro One poles. The line will share the Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro poles up to the point of common coupling at or adjacent to the Woodstock TS. The overhead wires will have a rated voltage of 27.6 kV, which is common on Hydro One’s distribution network in the area. Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro will determine whether upgrades are needed to the existing poles to support the additional cables and perform the upgrades at the cost of the Proponent. The portion of the tap line that will traverse the Cedar Creek Golf Club lands may be overhead or underground depending on the needs of the golf course owners and Hydro One.

There is potential for the requirement of an approximately 350 m tap line to connect the Project to the distribution grid along Firehall Road. This will be overhead or underground cable to extend the existing overhead cables to the project substation location. Alternatively, the connection point will be at the substation directly.


The project requires that buried cables or overhead lines be permitted within the municipal road allowance for a 3.6 km stretch along Firehall Rd (between Middletown Line and County Road 59) and a <1 km stretch along Middletown Line (heading south from Firehall Rd). Any driveways impacted by cable burial along this route will be promptly repaired at the expense of the Proponent. Overhead Cables will also require road allowance permission for 2.8 km along Hwy 59, 0.6 km along

The project requires that buried cables or overhead lines be permitted within the municipal road allowance for a 3.6 km stretch along Firehall Rd (between Middletown Line and County Road 59) and a <1 km stretch along Middletown Line (heading south from Firehall Rd). Any driveways impacted by cable burial along this route will be promptly repaired at the expense of the Proponent. All distances are approximate.


18

Pattullo Ave, 0.7 km along Athlone Ave, 0.2 km along Juliana Dr, 0.2 km along Parkinson Rd, and 0.3 km along South St. All distances are approximate. The alternate tap line outlined above would result in the elimination of the sections along Hwy 59, Pattullo Ave, Athlone Ave, Juliana Dr, Parkinson Rd, and South St.

Section 2.7 (pg 19)

All structures within 300 m of project infrastructure are shown on the site plan diagram via aerial imagery. Setbacks from turbines to the nearest structure are provided in Table 7 in Section 2.3.2. These structures are all agricultural buildings or residences. There are no residences or buildings within 300 m of a turbine. There are residences in Woodstock that are within 300 m of the tap line (which is proposed to be mainly upgraded overhead lines connecting to the existing Woodstock Transformer Station). The buried portion will run within road easements along a portion of Firehall Road and a portion of Middletown Line. The overhead portion will run along a short section of Firehall Rd and along Highway 59, Pattullo Ave, Athlone Ave, Juliana Dr, Cedar Creek Golf Club, Parkinson Ave, and South St to the Woodstock Transformer Station.

All structures within 300 m of project infrastructure are shown on the site plan diagram via aerial imagery. Setbacks from turbines to the nearest structure are provided in Table 7 in Section 2.3.2. These structures are all agricultural buildings or residences. There are no residences or buildings within 300 m of a turbine. The buried electrical cables will run within road easements along a portion of Firehall Road and a portion of Middletown Line.

Section 2.8 (pg 20)

A high voltage Hydro One transmission line runs along the west side of South St and along the north side of Parkinson Rd. The lines are built to a 230 kV standard, but currently operate at 115 kV. The corridor is shown in Appendix A. The project tap line will cross this corridor in accordance with Hydro One and ESA specifications.

Remove paragraph in its entirety


Local Emergency Services consist of the fire department in Norwich Township (four districts), Woodstock Fire Department, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), and ambulance service from the Oxford County Board of Health.

Local Emergency Services consist of the fire department in Norwich Township (four districts), the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), and ambulance service from the Oxford County Board of Health.


References to Woodstock Fire Department should be removed from title and from table contents, specifically row 4 regarding the Woodstock Fire Department on Parkinson Road.


Two HIAs were completed for this project: 1 -‐ wind farm area excluding the overhead cable route, 2 -‐ overhead cable route. The results of both reports have been merged for the following summary. The Heritage Impact Assessments determined that: • There are no protected properties within the Project Study Area; • 32 properties with potential Built Heritage resources are within the Study Area

(32 of which are of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest); these will not be negatively impacted by the Project; and,

• 3 potential Cultural Heritage Landscapes are within the Study Area; these will not be negatively impacted by the Project.

MTCS provided a letter of Concurrence with the recommendations of the initial heritage assessment on July 28, 2011 and indicated that further heritage analysis would not be required. MTCS sign-‐off on the Heritage Assessment Report from May 2012 was received on December 11, 2012 and no further heritage analysis is required and no negative impacts are anticipated from the project on the heritage resources present.

An HIA was completed for this project. The Heritage Impact Assessment determined that: • There are no protected properties within the Project Study Area; • 26 properties with potential Built Heritage resources are within the Study Area

(none of which are of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest); these will not be negatively impacted by the Project; and,


MTCS provided a letter of Concurrence with the recommendations of the heritage assessment on July 28, 2011 and indicated that further heritage analysis would not be required.

Section 5.2.1.1 (Pg 34)

As operational and maintenance activities will not occur on the properties containing the Built Heritage resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes, no

As operational and maintenance activities will not occur on the properties containing the Built Heritage resources, no adverse effects on heritage resources are


19

adverse effects on heritage resources are anticipated during operations. anticipated during operations. Section 5.3.1 (pg 36)

There were 5 wetlands identified within the Zone of Investigation. None of the wetlands will be directly impacted by the Project and therefore assumed to all be significant features.

There were 4 wetlands identified within the Zone of Investigation. None of the wetlands will be directly impacted by the Project and therefore assumed to all be significant features.


In addition to the significant wildlife habitats, the following Generalized Significant Wildlife Habitats were identified within the Zone of Investigation:

• Species of Conservation Concern – River Bluet (Damselfly) (2 locations)

• Terrestrial Crayfish (3 locations) • Seeps and Springs (1 locations) • Bat Maternity Colony (1 locations)

In addition to the significant wildlife habitats, the following Generalized Significant Wildlife Habitats were identified within the Zone of Investigation:

• Species of Conservation Concern – River Bluet (Damselfly) (1 location)

• Terrestrial Crayfish (3 locations) • Bat Maternity Colony (1 locations)


Eight REA water bodies were identified within the Zone of Investigation. Two will be crossed by underground collector lines and five will be crossed by overhead tap line. One Water Body is more than 30 m from the overhead tap line and does not require environmental effect and mitigation measures analysis. No access roads, turbines or transformers are located within 30 m of a Water Body.

Two REA water bodies were identified within the Zone of Investigation that will be crossed by underground collector lines. No access roads, turbines or transformers are located within 30 m of a Water Body.

Section 5. 7 (pg 50)

The tap line will cross over Highway 401 along an existing electrical cable crossing. Municipal infrastructure in the Study Area includes County and Township roads, Municipal water and sewage networks (near tap line only), and Municipal groundwater supply. The Proponent will continue to consult with the Township of Norwich and City of Woodstock, regarding any potential effects to municipal interests. The Proponent is committed to obtain all necessary permits, approvals, and agreements related to the Project.

Municipal infrastructure in the Study Area includes County and Township roads and Municipal groundwater supply. The Proponent will continue to consult with the Township of Norwich regarding any potential effects to municipal interests. The Proponent is committed to obtain all necessary permits, approvals, and agreements related to the Project.

Section 5.9.8.2 (pg 66)

Coordination with Norwich Township and City of Woodstock fire departments will occur to determine the course of the response.

Coordination with Norwich Township fire departments will occur to determine the course of the response.

Appendix A Overhead cable should be removed from Map 1 (Proposed Project Layout), Map 2 (Site Plan Overview), Map 3 (Overhead Cable and Turbine 1),

Appendix B, Section 1.2 (pg 2)

The project is located within the Township of Norwich and the City of Woodstock, both within Oxford County. The majority of the project is proposed on privately-‐owned, agricultural land near the villages of Curries and Oxford Centre, within the Township of Norwich. An overhead cable that connects the project to the Woodstock Transformer Station (TS) is located along Municipal and County road Right-‐of-‐Ways (ROWs) and is located within the Township of Norwich and the City of Woodstock. The primary land base is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oriel Line to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west. The overhead electrical cable to the Woodstock TS will run from the project area north along County Road 59, Pattullo Avenue, Athlone Avenue, Juliana Drive, Cedar Creek Golf Club, Parkinson Ave and South Street.

The project is located within the Township of Norwich within Oxford County. The majority of the project is proposed on privately-‐owned, agricultural land near the villages of Curries and Oxford Centre, within the Township of Norwich. The primary land base is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oriel Line to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west.

Appendix B, Appendix A

Overhead cable should be removed from Map 1 (Proposed Project Layout)

Appendix F, Section 1 (pg 1)

The project is located within the Township of Norwich and the City of Woodstock, both within Oxford County. The majority of the project is proposed on privately-‐

The project is located within the Township of Norwich within Oxford County. The majority of the project is proposed on privately-‐owned, agricultural land near the


20

owned, agricultural land near the villages of Curries and Oxford Centre, within the Township of Norwich. An overhead cable that connects the project to the Woodstock Transformer Station (TS) is located along Municipal and County road Right-‐of-‐Ways (ROWs) and is located within the Township of Norwich and the City of Woodstock. The primary land base is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oriel Line to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west. The overhead electrical cable to the Woodstock TS will run from the project area north along County Road 59, Pattullo Avenue, Athlone Avenue, Juliana Drive, Cedar Creek Golf Club, Parkinson Ave and South Street.

villages of Curries and Oxford Centre, within the Township of Norwich. The primary land base is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oriel Line to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west.

Appendix F, Appendix A

Overhead cable should be removed from Map 1 (Proposed Project Layout)

Decommissioning Report Section 2 (pg 2) Approximately 6.5 km of underground and overhead tap line (27.6 kV) on Hydro One

and Woodstock Hydro poles to connect to the provincial electrical grid (through the low voltage bus on the Woodstock Transformer Station);

Approximately 350 m of underground or overhead tap line (27.6 kV) to connect the project to the distribution grid along Firehall Road;

Archaeological Assessment and Cultural Heritage Resources Report Section 2 (pg 2) The project is located within the Township of Norwich and the City of Woodstock,

both within Oxford County. The majority of the project is proposed on privately-‐owned, agricultural land near the villages of Curries and Oxford Centre, within the Township of Norwich. An overhead cable that connects the project to the Woodstock Transformer Station (TS) is located along Municipal and County Road Right-‐of-‐Ways (ROWs) and is located within the Township of Norwich and City of Woodstock. The primary land base is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oriel Line to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west. The overhead electrical cable to the Woodstock TS will run from the project area north along County Road 59, Pattullo Avenue, Athlone Avenue, Juliana Drive, Cedar Creek Golf Club, Parkinson Ave and South Street.

The project is located within the Township of Norwich within Oxford County. The majority of the project is proposed on privately-‐owned, agricultural land near the villages of Curries and Oxford Centre, within the Township of Norwich. The primary land base is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oriel Line to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west.

Section 5.1 (pg 7)

A Stage 1 Archaeological Survey was completed for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm in July 2009 by AMICK Consultants Limited. Note that at the time of the initial survey, Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm did not include the overhead cable to the Woodstock TS, nor were collector system lines included in this initial Stage 1 survey.

A Stage 1 Archaeological Survey was completed for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm in July 2009 by AMICK Consultants Limited. Note that at the time of the initial survey, Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm did not include the collector system lines included in this initial Stage 1 survey.


A Stage 1/2 survey dated June 2010 was prepared for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm and incorporated the Stage 1 report noted above and completed a Stage 2 assessment on the same area. Again, the overhead cable route and the some of the collector system cabling was not included in this assessment.

A Stage 1/2 survey dated June 2010 was prepared for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm and incorporated the Stage 1 report noted above and completed a Stage 2 assessment on the same area. Some of the collector system cabling was not included in this assessment.


A Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment was conducted for the Overhead cable route and additional cabling along road Right-‐of-‐Ways (ROWs) within the project area. This survey was conducted during September and December of 2012. This survey looked at the overhead cable route along Firehall Road, County Road 59, Patullo Ave, Athlone Ave, Juliana Dr, Cedar Creek Golf Club, Parkinson Rd, and South St and ROWs within the wind farm area along Firehall Road and Middletown Line. This survey consisted mostly of test-‐pitting or professional judgement was used to determine disturbed areas.

A Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment was conducted for additional cabling along road Right-‐of-‐Ways (ROWs) within the project area. This survey was conducted during September and December of 2012. This survey looked at ROWs within the wind farm area along Firehall Road and Middletown Line. This survey consisted mostly of test-‐pitting or professional judgement was used to determine disturbed areas.


21

Section 6 (pg 10)

Two Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) were conducted by heritage consultants Archaeological Research Associates Ltd (ARA), based in Waterloo, Ontario. The first HIA was completed in July 2010 to assess the HIA impacts to the wind farm area, (that is the project location), excluding the overhead cable route. The second HIA was completed in Nov 2012 to assess the HIA impacts to the overhead cable route. A background study was completed to establish protected properties and historic overview of the land use in the project area. Additionally, a windshield survey of the area was completed to identify any existing built heritage features or cultural landscapes. Both reports have been submitted to the MTCS for comment and both have been released from further Heritage Impact Assessment analysis.

A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was conducted by heritage consultants Archaeological Research Associates Ltd (ARA), based in Waterloo, Ontario. The HIA was completed in July 2010 to assess the HIA impacts to the wind farm area, (that is the project location). A background study was completed to establish protected properties and historic overview of the land use in the project area. Additionally, a windshield survey of the area was completed to identify any existing built heritage features or cultural landscapes. The report has been submitted to the MTCS for comment and has been released from further Heritage Impact Assessment analysis.

Section 6.1.1.2 (pg 11)

Remove section in its entirety.

Section 6.2.1.2 (pg 11)

Remove section in its entirety.


Both of the HIAs were submitted to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and received comments back releasing the project from further Heritage Impact Assessment analysis. The Heritage Assessment Report, Prowind Canada – Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm” which discusses the wind farm area excluding the overhead cable route was originally submitted to the MTCS in April 2010. Comments were received back from the MTCS requesting changes and a revised report was sent to the MTCS on June 24, 2010. Again, comments were received back from the MTCS requesting changes. A final version was submitted on July 16, 2010. A letter from MTCS on July 28, 2010 stated:

“Given the lack of heritage features with CHVI in the study area, it is not necessary to analyze project impacts to them. Accordingly, it is recommended that the project be released from further heritage concerns. The Ministry is satisfied with these recommendations.”

The Heritage Assessment Report, Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm – Overhead Cable Route was submitted to the MTCS on Nov 5, 2012. A letter was received from the MTCS on Dec 11, 2012 stating:

“Based on the information contained in the Report, the Ministry is satisfied that the heritage assessment process and reporting are consistent with the applicable heritage assessment requirements established in s. 23 of O. Reg. 359/09.”

The HIA was submitted to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and received comments back releasing the project from further Heritage Impact Assessment analysis. The Heritage Assessment Report, Prowind Canada – Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm” which discusses the wind farm area was originally submitted to the MTCS in April 2010. Comments were received back from the MTCS requesting changes and a revised report was sent to the MTCS on June 24, 2010. Again, comments were received back from the MTCS requesting changes. A final version was submitted on July 16, 2010. A letter from MTCS on July 28, 2010 stated:

“Given the lack of heritage features with CHVI in the study area, it is not necessary to analyze project impacts to them. Accordingly, it is recommended that the project be released from further heritage concerns. The Ministry is satisfied with these recommendations.”

Section 7.2 (pg 14)

Two Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) were conducted by Archaeological Research Associates (ARA) -‐ an HIA was conducted for the wind farm area excluding the overhead cable route and a separate HIA was conducted for the overhead cable route. The HIA for the wind farm area did not identify any Built Heritage (BH) resources with Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI), nor did it identify any Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL).

The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was conducted by Archaeological Research Associates (ARA). The HIA for the wind farm area did not identify any Built Heritage (BH) resources with Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI), nor did it identify any Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL). The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) is satisfied with the HIA report as submitted and allowed the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm to proceed without further


22

The HIA for the overhead cable route identified several BH resources and CHLs with CHVI. Impact analysis did not identify any negative impacts to these heritage resources from the development of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) is satisfied with the HIA reports as submitted and allowed the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm to proceed without further heritage concerns.

heritage concerns.

Appendix A Overhead cable should be removed from Map Appendix D Appendix should be removed in its entirety Appendix E Report relating to the overhead cable route should be removed from Appendix. Appendix F MTCS letter dated Dec 11, 2012 and May 22, 2013 are no longer relevant to this

report and should be removed from the Appendix. Water Bodies and Assessment Report Section 2 (pg 1) The project is located within the Township of Norwich and the City of Woodstock,


The project is located within the Township of Norwich, Oxford County. The majority of the project is proposed on privately-‐owned, agricultural land near the villages of Curries and Oxford Centre. The primary land base is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oriel Line to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west.

Section 3.2 (pg 4)

PROJECT AREA -‐ This is the study area that was has been used from the early stages to do preliminary surveys and inquiries. This includes the entirety of Participating Properties and the overhead cable route.

PROJECT AREA -‐ This is the study area that was has been used from the early stages to do preliminary surveys and inquiries. This includes the entirety of the Participating Properties.

Section 4.1 (pg 6)

Records of Water Bodies identified in Table 1 were requested from the following sources: • Oxford County

o Township of Norwich o City of Woodstock

• Upper Thames River Conservation Authority o Grand River Conservation Authority o Long Point Region Conservation Authority

• Ministry of Natural Resources o Land Information Ontario o Natural Heritage Information Centre

• Natural Resources Canada Please note that the planning board, municipal planning authority, local roads board and local services board for Oxford County, Township of Norwich and City of Woodstock were all contacted through those contacts listed in Table 2. No unique information was available from these departments. These boards are all part of the same municipal office where responsibility, staff and data crossover is common.

Records of Water Bodies identified in Table 1 were requested from the following sources: • Oxford County

o Township of Norwich • Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

o Grand River Conservation Authority o Long Point Region Conservation Authority

• Ministry of Natural Resources o Land Information Ontario o Natural Heritage Information Centre

• Natural Resources Canada Please note that the planning board, municipal planning authority, local roads board and local services board for Oxford County and Township of Norwich were all contacted through those contacts listed in Table 2. No unique information was available from these departments. These boards are all part of the same municipal office where responsibility, staff and data crossover is common.


23

Section 4. 1, Table 2 (pg 7)

Remove reference to City of Woodstock from table


There are sixteen (16) records of permanent and intermittent streams within 120 m of the project location. These Water Bodies are labelled in Appendix A – Map 4 as ST1 to ST16.

There are eleven (11) records of permanent and intermittent streams within 120 m of the project location. These Water Bodies are labelled in Appendix A – Map 4 as ST6 to ST16.

Section 4.3.1 (8) Preliminary site visits, were completed in July 2010 of the general wind farm area. This area includes the wind turbines, access roads and collector system, but does not include the overhead cable route along County Road 59 to the Woodstock Transformer Station (TS). The objective of this early visit was to understand the landscape to aid in future project decisions making.

Preliminary site visits, were completed in July 2010 of the general wind farm area. This area includes the wind turbines, access roads and collector system. The objective of this early visit was to understand the landscape to aid in future project decisions making.


Remove information related to overhead cable route, specifically rows related to data collected for dates 31/05/12 and 07/09/12

Section 4.4.1.1 (pg 10)

The site investigation of the Water Bodies at the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm identified one new Water Body that was not identified during records review. A seepage area was identified along the overhead cable route that is referred to as SA1 in this report. This is included in Table 3 and discussed further in Section 5.2.1.2.

There are no additions to the records as a result of field surveys.


Remove rows regarding water feature additions/corrections related to the overhead cable route (SA1 and WB1)

Section 4.4.2 Table 5 (pg 11)

Remove rows regarding existing water features located along overhead cable route (ST1, SA1, ST2, ST3, ST4, ST5)

Section 4.4.2.1 (pg 11)

Remove section in its entirety

Section 4.4.2.2 (pg 12)


Section 4.4.2.3 (pg 12)


Section 4.4.2.4 (pg 13)


Section 4.4.2.5 (pg 13)


Section 4.4.2.6 (pg 14)


Section 5.1 (pg 17)

There are seven (7) locations in the project area where project infrastructure comes within 30 m of an identified Water Body where there is potential for negative environmental effects.

There are two (2) locations in the project area where project infrastructure comes within 30 m of an identified Water Body where there is potential for negative environmental effects.

Section 5.1, Table 7, (pg 19)

Remove rows regarding existing water features located along overhead cable route (ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4, ST5)

Section 6 (pg 24)

In summary, 17 Water Bodies as defined subsection 1(1) of O. Reg 359/09 were identified through the Records Review process including 16 streams and 1 water body. Through the site investigating process several corrections to the above were needed including the removal of the water body feature (ponded area) , the removal of 9 watercourses and the addition of a seepage area. After site investigation the

In summary, 11 Water Bodies as defined subsection 1(1) of O. Reg 359/09 were identified through the Records Review process including 11 streams and 0 water bodies. Through the site investigating process several corrections to the above were needed including the removal of the water body feature (ponded area) and the removal of 9 watercourses. After site investigation the number of Water Bodies within the


24

number of Water Bodies within the relevant study area include 1 seepage area, and 7 streams (2 intermittent streams and 5 permanent streams). Of the above noted Water Bodies identified on site, the seepage area was not required to be considered for environmental effects due to its location greater than 30 m from the project location. The remainder of the Water Bodies (7 streams) were carried forward to discuss environmental effects and mitigation measures. All of the above noted Water Bodies came within 30 m of electrical infrastructure for the project, either overhead cabling or buried cabling. There were no Water Bodies within 30 m of access roads, turbines, substation or other infrastructure.

relevant study area include 1 intermittent stream and 1 permanent stream. The Water Bodies (2 streams) were carried forward to discuss environmental effects and mitigation measures. All of the above noted Water Bodies came within 30 m of electrical infrastructure for the project. There were no Water Bodies within 30 m of access roads, turbines, substation or other infrastructure.

Appendix A Map 1, Map 2

Overhead cable should be disregarded/removed from the map

Appendix A Map 4

Overhead cable should be disregarded/removed from the map along with water features labelled WB1 and ST1-‐ST5

Appendix A Map 5

Overhead cable should be disregarded/removed from the map along with water features labelled SA1 and ST1-‐ST5

Natural Heritage Assessment Report Section 2 (pg 2) The project is located within the Township of Norwich and the City of Woodstock,


The project is located within the Township of Norwich, Oxford County. The majority of the project is proposed on privately-‐owned, agricultural land near the villages of Curries and Oxford Centre. The primary land base is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oriel Line to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south and Oxford Road 59 to the west.

Section 4.2 (pg 5)

ZONE OF INVESTIGATION -‐ This is the area surrounding of the wind farm location that is required to be studied during field investigation. For the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm, this is 50 m from a distribution line (overhead cable) and 120 m from all other wind farm infrastructure (turbines with blade swept area, buried cables, substation, laydown area, access roads, etc.). PROJECT AREA -‐ This is the study area that was has been used from the early stages to do preliminary surveys and inquiries. This includes the entirety of Participating Properties and the overhead cable route.

ZONE OF INVESTIGATION -‐ This is the area surrounding of the wind farm location that is required to be studied during field investigation. For the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm, this is 120 m from wind farm infrastructure (turbines with blade swept area, buried cables, substation, laydown area, access roads, etc.). PROJECT AREA -‐ This is the study area that was has been used from the early stages to do preliminary surveys and inquiries. This includes the entirety of the Participating Properties.

Section 5.1 (pg 7)

Records of features identified in Table 1 were requested from the following sources: • Oxford County

o Township of Norwich o City of Woodstock

• Upper Thames River Conservation Authority o Grand River Conservation Authority o Long Point Region Conservation Authority

• Ministry of Natural Resources

Records of features identified in Table 1 were requested from the following sources: • Oxford County

o Township of Norwich • Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

o Grand River Conservation Authority o Long Point Region Conservation Authority

• Ministry of Natural Resources o Aylmer Regional Office


25

o Aylmer Regional Office o Land Inventory Ontario

• Natural Heritage Information Centre • Ministry of Northern Development and Mines • Natural Resources Canada • Fisheries and Oceans Canada (via Conservation Authorities)

Please note that the planning board, municipal planning authority, local roads board and local services board for Oxford County, Township of Norwich and City of Woodstock were all contacted through those contacts listed in Table 2.

o Land Inventory Ontario • Natural Heritage Information Centre • Ministry of Northern Development and Mines • Natural Resources Canada • Fisheries and Oceans Canada (via Conservation Authorities)

Please note that the planning board, municipal planning authority, local roads board and local services board for Oxford County and Township of Norwich were all contacted through those contacts listed in Table 2.

Section 5.1, table 2 (pg 8)

Remove reference to City of Woodstock from table, row 2, column 1


One Provincially Significant Wetland – the Cedar Creek Swamp – was identified adjacent to the Project Location based on records received from Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and Oxford County; this was located along the overhead cable route. According to the NHIC (NHIC 2010), this Provincially Significant Wetland is composed of 90% swamp and 10% marsh. It is dominated by deciduous trees on organic soil. Drumlins are also present as a unique geological feature.


Section 5.2.6.4 Records from the MNR Aylmer District indicated that there are two records of species of conservation concern within the Zone of Investigation along the overhead electrical cable route. The Milksnake is a Special Concern Species and the River Bluet is a damselfly with an S2 ranking. Both have records of documented observations within the general area of the project, although specific locations were not available. Site investigation will be required to determine if suitable habitat is present in the project area.

Records from the MNR Aylmer District indicated that there are two records of species of conservation concern within the Project Area. The Milksnake is a Special Concern Species and the River Bluet is a damselfly with an S2 ranking. Both have records of documented observations within the general area of the project, although specific locations were not available. Site investigation will be required to determine if suitable habitat is present in the project area.


Remove features from table located along overhead cable route (WE3).


Preliminary site visits and Ecological Land Classification (ELC) was completed in July 2010 of the general wind farm area. This area includes the wind turbines, access roads and collector system, but does not include the overhead cable route along Hwy 59 to the Woodstock TS. The objective of this early visit was to understand the landscape to aid in future project decision making.

Preliminary site visits and Ecological Land Classification (ELC) was completed in July 2010 of the general wind farm area. This area includes the wind turbines, access roads and collector system. The objective of this early visit was to understand the landscape to aid in future project decision making.


Wetland delineation was conducted for the entire project area in conjunction with the ELC surveys. Dan Westerhof of Beacon Environmental (see Appendix B for qualifications) conducted wetland surveys for the entire project area and overhead cable route.

Wetland delineation was conducted for the entire project area in conjunction with the ELC surveys. Dan Westerhof of Beacon Environmental (see Appendix B for qualifications) conducted wetland surveys for the entire project area.


Remove information related to overhead cable route, specifically rows related to data collected for dates 31/05/12 and 07/09/12


Remove information related to overhead cable route, specifically Row 2 (WO1), Column 6 (Distance from Project Location).


One wetland had been previously designated at a Provincially Significant Wetland, WE3, south of Patullo Ave, along the overhead cable route. The wetland is identified as the Cedar Creek Swamp.

Remove paragraph in its entirety


26

Section 6.2.2, Table 10, (pg 32)

Remove information related to wetlands located along overhead cable route, specifically Row 2 (WE3).


For the purposes of this summary only the rows requiring changes will be presented.

Seeps and Springs

Yes

Candidate habitat feature G1 identified which contains >2 seeps/springs. This feature is located outside of the Project Location. It will be treated as Generalized Candidate SWH because is it not located within 120 m of a Project components with an operational impact.

Generalized (G1)

G1: 35 m – overhead cable

River Bluet Yes

This species inhabits slow-‐moving streams and rivers in open country. This habitat was identified within 120 m of the Project Location at two creeks. Both of these habitats are not located within 120 m of Project components with an operational impact. This habitat will be considered Generalized SWH. This species was not observed during Site Investigations. Note that habitat G2 will be spanned by an overhead transmission line and this project component will not be in the habitat.

Generalized (G2 and G3)

G2: 1 m – overhead cable G3:

1 m – buried cable

For the purposes of this summary only the rows requiring changes will be presented.

Seeps and Springs

No No seeps or spring were identified during ELC surveys in and within 120 m of the Project Location.

No N/A

River Bluet Yes

This species inhabits slow-‐moving streams and rivers in open country. This habitat was identified within 120 m of the Project Location at one creek. This habitat are not located within 120 m of Project components with an operational impact. This habitat will be considered Generalized SWH. This species was not observed during Site Investigations.

Generalized (G3)

G3: 1 m – buried

cable

Section 6.3.1.1 Table 12, (pg 39)

Remove information related to wetlands located along overhead cable route, specifically Row 2 (WE3).

Section 6.3.1.2 (pg 39)

Several new features were identified during site investigation. Two (2) additional wetlands were identified and 14 candidate significant wildlife habitats were identified, which includes 7 candidate significant wildlife habitat of various categories and 7 generalized wildlife habitats.

Several new features were identified during site investigation. Two (2) additional wetlands were identified and 12 candidate significant wildlife habitats were identified, which includes 7 candidate significant wildlife habitat of various categories and 5 generalized wildlife habitats.

Section 6.3.1.2, Table 13 (pg 40)

Remove information related to natural feature additions located along overhead cable route, specifically Row 12 (G1) and Row 13 (G2).

Section 7 (pg 41)

One wetland in the relevant study area had been previously identified as significant. The wetland identified as WE3 which is located on the south side of Patullo Ave is a Provincially-‐Significant Wetland as determined by the MNR. No other wetlands within the relevant study area of the project location have been previously identified as Provincially Significant.

No wetlands within the relevant study area of the project location have been previously identified as Provincially Significant.

Section 7.1 (pg 41)

Remove section 7.1 in its entirety

Section 7.5 (pg Feature Type Count of features; IDs Resulting Project Feature Type Count of features; IDs Resulting Project


27

53) Location changes

Significant Wetlands 5; WE3, WE4, WE5 WE8, WE9 None

Significant Woodlands 4; WO1, WO2, WO3, WO4 None

Significant Wildlife Habitat 0 confirmed 3 unconfirmed (C1, C2, and C7) 7 Generalized (G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7)

Location of turbine 5 was adjusted to maintain proper setback at feature C7

Location changes

Significant Wetlands 4; WE4, WE5 WE8, WE9 None

Significant Woodlands 4; WO1, WO2, WO3, WO4 None

Significant Wildlife Habitat 0 confirmed 3 unconfirmed (C1, C2, and C7) 5 Generalized (G3, G4, G5, G6, G7)

Location of turbine 5 was adjusted to maintain proper setback at feature C7


POTENTIAL EFFECTS Cables along Pattullo Avenue will be installed on existing utility poles, in close proximity to WE3. As no direct encroachment into the wetland is proposed, direct impacts are not anticipated. However, there is potential, although unlikely, that accidental encroachment into the wetland could occur, resulting in damage to wetland vegetation.



MITIGATION MEASURES Work area adjacent to WE3 and wetlands along Firehall Road will be clearly delineated using a barrier such as siltation fencing to avoid accidental encroachment into the wetlands. Care will be taken to avoid accidental encroachment into wetland, or damage to wetland vegetation. In the unlikely event encroachment occurs, rutting will be restored to grade. If accidental damage to tree limbs or root zones occurs, trees will be pruned using proper arboricultural techniques.


Section 9.1 (pg 82)

The Records Review completed for the Zone of Investigation identified four woodlands and three wetlands (one Provincially Significant Wetland and two unevaluated wetlands).

The Records Review completed for the Zone of Investigation identified four woodlands and two unevaluated wetlands.


Corrections were made to the boundaries of three wetlands. Two additional wetlands were identified through site investigation.

Corrections were made to the boundaries of two wetlands. Two additional wetlands were identified through site investigation.

Fourteen (14) Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat were identified through site investigation. Theses habitats included: 5 Amphibian Breeding Habitat – Wetland and Woodland, 2 Bat Maternity Roost Habitat, and 7 Generalized Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat.

Twelve (12) Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat were identified through site investigation. Theses habitats included: 5 Amphibian Breeding Habitat – Wetland and Woodland, 2 Bat Maternity Roost Habitat, and 5 Generalized Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat.


One wetland, the Cedar Creek Swamp, was previously designated as a Provincially Significant Wetland. All other wetlands (WE3, WE4, WE5, WE8, and WE9),were assumed to be significant because there are no direct impacts and Appendix C from the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide can be applied so that a full wetland evaluation is not necessary. This was applied to all wetlands within the Zone of Investigation.

All wetlands (WE4, WE5, WE8, and WE9) were assumed to be significant because there are no direct impacts and Appendix C from the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide can be applied so that a full wetland evaluation is not necessary. This was applied to all wetlands within the Zone of Investigation.


Seven of the 14 Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat were evaluated for significance. Generalized habitat is not required to be assessed for significance.

Seven of the 12 Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat were evaluated for significance. Generalized habitat is not required to be assessed for significance.

Section 9.4 (pg 83)

Four woodlands (WO1, WO2, WO3, and WO4), 5 wetlands (WE3, WE4, WE5, WE8, and WE9), 7 Generalized Significant Wildlife Habitats (G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, and G7) and 3 Significant Wildlife Habitats (Bat Maternity Colonies C1 and C2 and Amphibian Breeding Habitat C7) were evaluated for environmental impacts from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm.

Four woodlands (WO1, WO2, WO3, and WO4), 4 wetlands (WE4, WE5, WE8, and WE9), 5 Generalized Significant Wildlife Habitats (G3, G4, G5, G6, and G7) and 3 Significant Wildlife Habitats (Bat Maternity Colonies C1 and C2 and Amphibian Breeding Habitat C7) were evaluated for environmental impacts from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm.

Appendix A • Cable route should be removed/disregarded from Map 1, Map 2, Map 3a, Map


28

3b, Map 6, Map 7, Map 8, Map 9, Map 10, Map 11, Map 13, Map 17, Map 18. • Map 12 and Map 14 should be removed from the report entirely

Appendix C Beacon Environmental ELC maps: Maps titled “ELC Survey – Overhead Cable Route” (1), (2), and (3), should be removed from the report entirely

Appendix D Cable route should be removed/disregarded from Wetlands Map Information related to WE3 should be removed from the wetlands table


29

3.4 Second Notice of Project Change: Nameplate Capacity Change and Turbine Model Change

During the process of Project development it was determined that the turbine model for the Project needed to change in order to account for a constrained supply of Ontario Domestic Content compliant turbines from Siemens. Prowind negotiated a turbine procurement agreement with Senvion (formerly REpower). The turbines procured from Senvion are 1.88 MW MM92 units. The Project’s nameplate capacity was officially reduced to 18 MW from 25 MW when the turbine change was announced. The proposed Senvion turbines are smaller and quieter than the originally proposed Siemens machines, so Project impacts were reduced from the original proposal. The turbine change did necessitate a revised Noise Assessment Report (R3) and a Turbine Specification Report, and was deemed to be a technical change. A Modification Document was prepared and submitted to the MOECC on March 4, 2014. After some revisions, the MOECC accepted the finalized document and the Modification Document and Notice of Project Change were released for public review on April 10, 2014. The Notice was posted in the Woodstock Sentinel-‐Review and the Turtle Island News, mailed to all landowners within 550 m of and adjacent to the Project location, mailed to agency and Aboriginal stakeholders, and emailed to all contacts on the stakeholder email list. At this time, the REA reports were posted to the Environmental Registry again for a 30-‐day public comment period. This was due to the revised and updated Noise Assessment Report that came as a result of the turbine change. It also allowed the opportunity to reiterate the project changes and provide the public a chance to review and comment on these changes. The changes to the REA reports as a result of the above are detailed in Table 5 below.


30

Table 5 Changes to the REA reports as a result of Second Project Change Report reference Original Wording Revised Wording as a result of change Executive Summary Section 1 (pg 1) Prowind is proposing the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm (The Project) that is categorized

as a Class 4 facility, which will consist of up to ten (10) turbines from the Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 family. The turbines will have a maximum nameplate rating of 2.5 MW each and the project will have a maximum total installed nameplate capacity of 25 MW. These wind turbines have a hub height of 99.5 m and a rotor diameter of 113 m for a total height of 156 m.

Prowind is proposing the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm (The Project) that is categorized as a Class 4 facility, which will consist of up to ten (10) turbines from the Senvion MM92 family. The turbines will have a maximum nameplate rating of 1.88 MW each and the project will have a maximum total installed nameplate capacity of 18 MW. These wind turbines have a hub height of 100 m and a rotor diameter of 92.5 m for a total height of 146.25 m.

Section 1.1 (pg 1) • Up to 10 Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 wind turbines (2.5 MW maximum power); • Up to 10 Senvion MM92 wind turbines (1.88 MW maximum power); Section 2.1.1 (pg 10)

Up to ten (10) turbines from the Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 family will be used for this Project. The turbines will have a maximum nameplate rating of 2.5 MW. These wind turbines have a hub height of 99.5 m and a rotor diameter of 113 m for a total height of 156.5 m.

Up to ten (10) turbines from the Senvion MM92 family will be used for this Project. The turbines will have a maximum nameplate rating of 1.88 MW. These wind turbines have a hub height of 100 m and a rotor diameter of 92.5 m for a total height of 146.25 m.

Section 3.1.4 (pg 21

• 5 for tower sections • 4 for tower sections

Project Description Report Section 1 (pg 1) The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm (The Project) will consist of up to ten (10) turbines

from the Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 family. The turbines will have a maximum nameplate rating of 2.5 MW each and the project will have a maximum total installed nameplate capacity of up to 25 MW.

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm (The Project) will consist of up to ten (10) turbines from the Senvion MM92 family. The turbines will have a maximum nameplate rating of 1.88 MW each and the project will have a maximum total installed nameplate capacity of 18 MW.


The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a 25 MW project that is categorized as a Class 4 Facility that will employ the use of up to ten Siemens wind turbines from the SWT 3.0-‐113 family. The turbines will have a maximum nameplate capacity of 2.5 MW or less for this project. The 2.5 MW model is a distinct model of the SWT 3.0-‐113 family with its own nameplate designation, rated power, and broadband and octave band source sound power characteristics. The total maximum installed nameplate capacity of all turbines will not exceed 25 MW in order to match the Feed-‐In Tariff contract capacity.

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is an 18 MW project that is categorized as a Class 4 Facility that will employ the use of up to ten Senvion wind turbines from the MM92 family. The turbines will have a maximum nameplate capacity of 1.88 MW for this project. The 1.88 MW model is a distinct model of the MM92 family with its own nameplate designation, rated power, and broadband and octave band source sound power characteristics. The total maximum installed nameplate capacity of all turbines will not exceed 18 MW in order to match the Feed-‐In Tariff contract capacity.


TABLE 3 SIEMENS SWT-‐3.0-‐113 -‐ WIND TURBINE SPECIFICATIONS

Operating Data Specification

General Manufacturer Siemens Model SWT 3.0 113 Name plate capacity (MW) 2.5 MW Cut-‐in wind speed (m/s) 3-‐5 m/s (10.8 – 18 km/hr) Cut-‐out speed (m/s) 25 m/s (90 km/hr) Frequency (Hz) 50 or 60 Hz Sound power (dBA) 102.5 dBA Tonal audibility <2dB

TABLE 3 SENVION MM92 -‐ WIND TURBINE SPECIFICATIONS

Operating Data Specification

General Manufacturer Senvion (formerly REpower) Model MM92 Name plate capacity (MW) 1.88 MW Cut-‐in wind speed (m/s) 3 m/s (10.8 km/hr) Cut-‐out speed (m/s) 24 m/s (86.4 km/hr) Frequency (Hz) 60 Hz Max Sound power (dBA) 102.0 dBA Tonal audibility no audibility La,k>0 for (v10 ≥ 6 m/s)


31

Rotor Blade length (m) 56.5 m Rotor diameter (m) 113 m Rotor swept area (m2) 10,000 m2 Rotational speed (rpm) 6.0 – 15.5 rpm Tower Hub height (m) 99.5 m Maximum total turbine height (m) 156 m

Rotor Blade length (m) 46.25 m Rotor diameter (m) 92.5 m Rotor swept area (m2) 6,720 m2 Rotational speed (rpm) 7.8 – 15.0 rpm Structure Hub height (m) 100 m Maximum total turbine height (m) 146.25 m

Section 4.1 (pg 10)

Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm will employ the use of up to ten Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 wind turbine generators that combine to produce a maximum of 25 MW of electricity. The proposed project layout is shown in Appendix A -‐ Map 1 and includes the major components of the Project listed below:

• Up to 10 Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 wind turbines (2.5 MW maximum power);

Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm will employ the use of up to ten Senvion MM92 wind turbine generators that combine to produce a maximum of 18 MW of electricity. The proposed project layout is shown in Appendix A -‐ Map 1 and includes the major components of the Project listed below:

• Up to 10 Senvion MM92 wind turbines (1.88 MW maximum power); Section 4.1.2 (pg 11)

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm will incorporate wind turbines with a total height (tower + blade) of 156 m, a rotor diameter of 113 m and a guaranteed maximum sound power level of 102.5 dB(A). The Applicant will ensure that all applicable noise and setback regulations have been met in the wind farm design. All modeling will incorporate the guaranteed sound power level presented by the turbine manufacturer. The project will consist of up to ten Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 wind turbines each producing a maximum total power output of 2.5 MW. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the key parameters of the Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 as requested in table 1 of O. Reg 359/09. Additional turbine specifications are presented in the Turbine Specification Report. The acoustic emission specification document included within the Turbine Specification Report states that the maximum sound power level for the turbine (Lwa) measured in accordance with IEC 61400-‐11 is 102.5 dB(A). The Noise Assessment Report, which demonstrates project compliance with provincial noise regulations is presented in the Design and Operations Report, Appendix E.

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm will incorporate wind turbines with a total height (tower + blade) of 146.25 m, a rotor diameter of 92.5 m and a guaranteed maximum sound power level of 102.0 dB(A). The Applicant will ensure that all applicable noise and setback regulations have been met in the wind farm design. All modeling will incorporate the guaranteed sound power level presented by the turbine manufacturer. The project will consist of up to ten Senvion MM92 wind turbines each producing a maximum total power output of 1.88 MW. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the key parameters of the Senvion MM92 as requested in table 1 of O. Reg 359/09. Additional turbine specifications are presented in the Turbine Specification Report. The acoustic emission specification document included within the Turbine Specification Report states that the maximum sound power level for the turbine (Lwa) measured in accordance with IEC 61400-‐11 is 102.0 dB(A). The Noise Assessment Report, which demonstrates project compliance with provincial noise regulations is presented in the Design and Operations Report, Appendix E.


The wind turbine will have three blades mounted to the hub that will not exceed a rotational speed of 15.5 revolutions per minute (0.26 Hz). The nacelle, which contains much of the mechanical and electrical conversion equipment, will be insulated to reduce sound emissions. The nacelle and rotor sit on top of a tower that will be made of steel. The hub height of the tower will be 99.5 m above ground level and will be assembled from sections on-‐site. The base of the tower will be approximately 4.2 m wide.

The wind turbine will have three blades mounted to the hub that will not exceed a rotational speed of 15 revolutions per minute (0.25 Hz). The nacelle, which contains much of the mechanical and electrical conversion equipment, will be insulated to reduce sound emissions. The nacelle and rotor sit on top of a tower that will be made of steel. The hub height of the tower will be 100 m above ground level and will be assembled from sections on-‐site. The base of the tower will be approximately 4.6 m wide.

Section 4.2.2.1 (pg 22)

Due to the intermittent nature of wind, turbines will only produce power when the speed of the wind is greater than a minimum threshold. Based on the wind distribution determined from the meteorological sampling period, it is expected that the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm will produce electrical power approximately 80-‐90% of the time. The maximum rotational speed of the blades is limited to 15.5 revolutions per minute. The minimum wind speed required for the turbine to operate is 3-‐5 m/s. At 25 m/s, the turbine will automatically shut down.

Due to the intermittent nature of wind, turbines will only produce power when the speed of the wind is greater than a minimum threshold. Based on the wind distribution determined from the meteorological sampling period, it is expected that the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm will produce electrical power approximately 80-‐90% of the time. The maximum rotational speed of the blades is limited to 15 revolutions per minute. The minimum wind speed required for the turbine to operate is 3 m/s. At 24 m/s, the turbine will automatically shut down.


32

Construction Plan Report Section 2 (pg 2) The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a 25 MW project that is categorized as a Class 4

Facility that will employ the use of up to ten wind turbines from the Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 family with a total power output of 2.5 MW. These wind turbines have a hub height of 99.5 m and a rotor diameter of 113 m for a total height of 156 m. …

• Up to 10 Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 wind turbines (2.5 MW maximum power);

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is an 18 MW project that is categorized as a Class 4 Facility that will employ the use of up to ten wind turbines from the Senvion MM92 family with a total power output of 1.88 MW. These wind turbines have a hub height of 100 m and a rotor diameter of 92.5 m for a total height of 146.25 m. … Up to 10 Senvion MM92 wind turbines (1.88 MW maximum power);

Section 3.5 (pg 9) • 5 for tower sections • 4 for tower sections Section 3.7 (pg 13)

The Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 turbines to be used at the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm have a nacelle that weighs approximately 73,000 kg and requires a 500 tonne conventional crane or a 1000 tonne mobile crane for installation.

The Senvion MM92 turbines to be used at the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm have a nacelle that weighs approximately 72,000 kg and requires a 500 tonne conventional crane or a 1000 tonne mobile crane for installation.

Design and Operations Report Section 1.2 (pg 5) The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a 25 MW project that is categorized as a Class 4

Facility that will employ the use of up to ten wind turbines from the Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 family with a total power output of 2.5 MW. These wind turbines have a hub height of 99.5 m and a rotor diameter of 113 m for a total height of 156 m.

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is an 18 MW project that is categorized as a Class 4 Facility that will employ the use of up to ten wind turbines from the Senvion MM92 family with a total power output of 1.88 MW. These wind turbines have a hub height of 100 m and a rotor diameter of 92.5 m for a total height of 146.25 m.

Section 2 (pg 6) Up to 10 Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 wind turbines (2.5 MW maximum power); Up to 10 Senvion MM92 wind turbines (1.88 MW maximum power); Section 2, Table 2 (pg 7)

For the purposes of this summary, only the relevant rows are presented below. Ontario Regulation 359/09 Setback Distances

Setback Distance (m)

Details

Property line

Hub height (99.5)

Setback can be reduced to blade length plus 10 m (66.5 m total) measured from the centre of the turbine’s base to the nearest property boundary if a property line setback assessment report demonstrates that siting turbines closer will not cause adverse effects.

Roads And Railway

Blade length plus 10 m

Blade length plus 10 m (66.5 m total) measured from the centre of the turbine’s base to the boundary of the right-‐of-‐way.

For the purposes of this summary, only the relevant rows are presented below. Ontario Regulation 359/09 Setback Distances

Setback Distance (m)

Details

Property Line

Hub height (100)

Setback can be reduced to blade length plus 10 m (56.25 m total) measured from the centre of the turbine’s base to the nearest property boundary if a property line setback assessment report demonstrates that siting turbines closer will not cause adverse effects.

Roads And Railway

Blade length plus 10 m

Blade length plus 10 m (56.25 m total) measured from the centre of the turbine’s base to the boundary of the right-‐of-‐way.


The project will consist of up to ten wind turbines from the Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 family rated for a maximum output of 2.5 MW. Full turbine specifications are included in Appendix C. The wind turbines are 3-‐bladed, upwind horizontal–axis turbines that utilize direct drive technology, which avoids the need for a gearbox. This reduces sound output and increases efficiency. The turbines have a 113 m rotor diameter with a swept area of 10,000 m2. Table 4 summarizes key turbine parameters, Table 5 summarizes the Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 acoustic emission data used in the Noise Assessment Report

The project will consist of up to ten wind turbines from the Senvion MM92 family rated for a maximum output of 1.88 MW. Full turbine specifications are included in Appendix C. The wind turbines are 3-‐bladed, upwind horizontal–axis turbines. The turbines have a 92.5 m rotor diameter with a swept area of 6720 m2. Table 4 summarizes key turbine parameters, Table 5 summarizes the Senvion MM92 acoustic emission data used in the Noise Assessment Report (contained in Appendix D), and Table 6 details certain wind conditions under which the turbine will automatically shut down as a protective measure.


33

(contained in Appendix D), and Table 6 details certain wind conditions under which the turbine will automatically shut down as a protective measure.


TABLE 4 SIEMENS SWT-‐3.0-‐113 -‐ WIND TURBINE SPECIFICATIONS General Manufacturer Siemens Model SWT 3.0 113 Name plate capacity (MW) 2.5 MW Cut-‐in wind speed (m/s) 3-‐5 m/s (10.8 – 18 km/hr) Cut-‐out speed (m/s) 25 m/s (90 km/hr) Frequency (Hz) 50 or 60 Hz Max Sound power (dBA) 102.5 dBA Tonal audibility <2dB Rotor Blade length (m) 56.5 m Rotor diameter (m) 113 m Rotor swept area (m2) 10,000 m2 Rotational speed (rpm) 6.0 – 15.5 rpm Structure Hub height (m) 99.5 m Total height (m) 156 m Diameter of tower base (m) ~4.2 m

TABLE 4 SENVION MM92 -‐ WIND TURBINE SPECIFICATIONS General Manufacturer Senvion (formerly REpower) Model MM92 Name plate capacity (MW) 1.88 MW Cut-‐in wind speed (m/s) 3 m/s (10.8 km/hr) Cut-‐out speed (m/s) 24 m/s (86.4 km/hr) Frequency (Hz) 60 Hz Max Sound power (dBA) 102.0 dBA Tonal audibility no audibility La,k>0 for (v10 ≥ 6 m/s) Rotor Blade length (m) 46.25 m Rotor diameter (m) 92.5 m Rotor swept area (m2) 6,720 m2 Rotational speed (rpm) 7.8 – 15.0 rpm Structure Hub height (m) 100 m Total height (m) 146.25 m Diameter of tower base (m) ~4.6 m


See Appendix A of this document See Appendix A of this document


Cutout Wind Speed at Turbine Hub

Restart Wind Speed at Turbine Hub (after cutout event)

Approximately 25 m/s Approximately 20 m/s

Cutout Wind Speed at Turbine Hub

Restart Wind Speed at Turbine Hub (after cutout event)

Approximately 24 m/s Approximately 22 m/s

Section 2.5 Siemens requires the roads to have a bearing capacity of 9072 kg (20,000 lbs) per axle plus any applicable safety margin.

Senvion requires the roads to have a bearing capacity of 12,500 kg (27,558 lbs) per axle plus any applicable safety margin.

Section 5.9.3.2 (pg 63)

• Tornadoes – the blades will stop moving at wind speeds greater than 25 m/s, and generally, the structural integrity of turbines is designed to withstand gusts of greater than 59 m/s;

• Tornadoes – the blades will stop moving at wind speeds greater than 24 m/s, and generally, the structural integrity of turbines is designed to withstand gusts of greater than 59 m/s;


Siemens has guaranteed the maximum sound power level from the turbines. Senvion has guaranteed the maximum sound power level from the turbines.

Appendix B Property Line Setback Assessment Report, Section 1.2 (pg 2)

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a wind energy generation facility with a nameplate capacity of 25 MW. This project is classified as a “Class 4” wind facility in O. Reg. 359/09, which is defined as an on-‐shore wind facility with a nameplate capacity greater than 50 kW and a sound power level greater than 102 dB(A). The project will employ the use of up to ten (10) Siemens SWT 3.0 -‐ 113 wind turbine generators. The 3.0 MW turbines will be customized to a nameplate capacity of 2.5 MW or less for this project. The total maximum installed

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a wind energy generation facility with a nameplate capacity of 18 MW. This project is classified as a “Class 4” wind facility in O. Reg. 359/09, which is defined as an on-‐shore wind facility with a nameplate capacity greater than 50 kW and a sound power level greater than 102 dB(A). The project will employ the use of up to ten (10) Senvion MM92 wind turbine generators each with a nameplate capacity of 1.88 MW. The total maximum installed nameplate capacity of all ten turbines will not exceed 18 MW


34

nameplate capacity of all ten turbines will not exceed 25 MW. Appendix B, Section 2.0 (pg 4)

The Siemens SWT 3.0 -‐ 113 will be used for this project. The relevant specifications for the wind turbine generator are as follows: • Tower height, excluding the length of any blade: 99.5 metres • Blade length: 56.5 metres The above specifications are relevant because they directly determine property line setbacks. The required property line setback is the maximum tower height, excluding the length of any blade, which is indicated as 99.5 m for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. Prowind is proposing the reduced property line setback of blade length plus ten meters at 5 of the turbine locations. The reduced property line setback cannot be less than 66.5 m (56.5 m + 10 m = 66.5 m), measured from the centre of the base of the turbine to the property line in question. In all cases turbine setbacks from property lines are greater than 66.5 m.

The Senvion MM92 will be used for this project. The relevant specifications for the wind turbine generator are as follows: • Tower height, excluding the length of any blade: 100 metres • Blade length: 46.25 metres The above specifications are relevant because they directly determine property line setbacks. The required property line setback is the maximum tower height, excluding the length of any blade, which is indicated as 100 m for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. Prowind is proposing the reduced property line setback of blade length plus ten meters at 5 of the turbine locations. The reduced property line setback cannot be less than 56.25 m (46.25 m + 10 m), measured from the centre of the base of the turbine to the property line in question. In all cases turbine setbacks from property lines are greater than 56.25 m.

Appendix B, Appendix B, Section 3 (pg 5)

There are 5 turbines located less than tower height, excluding the length of any blade (99.5 m) from non-‐participating properties in the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. Table 1 identifies the turbines infringing the property line setback, the affected property and the proposed setback. All of the setbacks are equal to or greater than blade length plus ten meters (66.5 m) from the property boundaries as per regulations.

There are 5 turbines located less than tower height, excluding the length of any blade (100 m) from non-‐participating properties in the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. Table 1 identifies the turbines infringing the property line setback, the affected property and the proposed setback. All of the setbacks are equal to or greater than blade length plus ten meters (56.25 m) from the property boundaries as per regulations.

Appendix B, Section 4 (pg 6)

This section will discuss the details of each property line infringement, organized according to the “Setback ID” letter given in Table 1. Each case will consider the land uses within the total turbine height setback (99.5 m) outlined by a thin green line in each following figures. It will also examine the potential adverse impacts and proposed mitigation measures.

This section will discuss the details of each property line infringement, organized according to the “Setback ID” letter given in Table 1. Each case will consider the land uses within the total turbine height setback (100 m) outlined by a thin green line in each following figures. It will also examine the potential adverse impacts and proposed mitigation measures.

Appendix B, Section 4

All images in Section should be updated to reflect the new setbacks as determined by the turbine dimensions .Red circle should have a radius of 56.25 and green circle should have a radius of 100 m.

Appendix B, Section 4.1.1 (pg 6)

Turbine 1 is less than 99.5 m from a non-‐participating property line, but greater than 66.5 m from a non-‐participating property line as permitted in O. Reg 359/09 and explained in Section 1.1. Setback A at Turbine 1 is proposed to be 69.9 m from the rear (south) property line based on a professional survey; 29.6 m less than 99.5 m.

Turbine 1 is less than 100 m from a non-‐participating property line, but greater than 56.25 m from a non-‐participating property line as permitted in O. Reg 359/09 and explained in Section 1.1. Setback A at Turbine 1 is proposed to be 69.9 m from the rear (south) property line based on a professional survey; 30.1 m less than 100 m.


Turbine 6 is less than 99.5 m from a two non-‐participating property lines, but greater than 66.5 m from both non-‐participating property lines as outlined in Section 1.1. Setback B at Turbine 6 is proposed to be 69.1 m from the side (north) property line; 30.4 m less than 99.5 m. Setback C at Turbine 6 is proposed to be 82.2 m from the rear (east) property line; 17.3 m less than 99.5 m.

Turbine 6 is less than 100 m from a two non-‐participating property lines, but greater than 56.25 m from both non-‐participating property lines as outlined in Section 1.1. Setback B at Turbine 6 is proposed to be 69.1 m from the side (north) property line; 30.9 m less than 100 m. Setback C at Turbine 6 is proposed to be 82.2 m from the rear (east) property line; 17.8 m less than 100 m.


Turbine 7 is less than 99.5 m from a non-‐participating property line, but greater than 66.5 m from a non-‐participating property line as outlined in Section 1.1. Setback D at Turbine 7 is proposed to be 68.8 m from the rear (north) property line; 30.7 m less than 99.5 m.

Turbine 7 is less than 100 m from a non-‐participating property line, but greater than 56.25 m from a non-‐participating property line as outlined in Section 1.1. Setback D at Turbine 7 is proposed to be 68.8 m from the rear (north) property line; 31.2 m less than 100 m.

Appendix B, Turbine 10 is less than 99.5 m from a non-‐participating property line, but greater Turbine 10 is less than 100 m from a non-‐participating property line, but greater than


35


than 66.5 m from a non-‐participating property line as outlined in Section 1.1. Setback E at Turbine 10 is proposed to be 72.2 m from the rear (south) property line; 23.3 m less than 99.5 m.

56.25 m from a non-‐participating property line as outlined in Section 1.1. Setback E at Turbine 10 is proposed to be 72.2 m from the rear (south) property line; 23.8 m less than 100 m.


Turbine 4 is less than 99.5 m from a non-‐participating property line, but greater than 66.5 m from a non-‐participating property line as outlined in Section 1.1. Setback F at Turbine 4 is proposed to be 82.4 m from the rear (south) property line; 17.1 m less than 99.5 m.

Turbine 4 is less than 100 m from a non-‐participating property line, but greater than 56.25 m from a non-‐participating property line as outlined in Section 1.1. Setback F at Turbine 4 is proposed to be 82.4 m from the rear (south) property line; 17.6 m less than 100 m.

Appendix B, Section 5 (pg 15)

As required by O. Reg 359/09, turbines must be setback from property lines by a distance equivalent to the tower height, excluding the length of any blade. This distance at the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is 99.5 m. Five turbines have been identified within the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm design that do not meet this 99.5 m setback requirement from non-‐participating property lines. The positioning of these turbines has been studied in the report above, and application is made for approval to reduce these setbacks accordingly. In all cases, the reduced turbine setbacks are greater than the minimum permissible setback of blade length + 10 m; for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm, the assumed maximum blade length is 56.5 m, so the minimum setback considered is 66.5 m. This “minimum allowed setback” requires a supporting report to discuss impacts and mitigation strategies, for which this document is purposed.

As required by O. Reg 359/09, turbines must be setback from property lines by a distance equivalent to the tower height, excluding the length of any blade. This distance at the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is 100 m. Five turbines have been identified within the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm design that do not meet this 100 m setback requirement from non-‐participating property lines. The positioning of these turbines has been studied in the report above, and application is made for approval to reduce these setbacks accordingly. In all cases, the reduced turbine setbacks are greater than the minimum permissible setback of blade length + 10 m; for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm, the assumed maximum blade length is 46.25 m, so the minimum setback considered is 56.25 m. This “minimum allowed setback” requires a supporting report to discuss impacts and mitigation strategies, for which this document is purposed.


Map 2 should be updated to reflect the new setbacks as determined by the turbine dimensions .The red circle should have a radius of 56.25 and he green circle should have a radius of 100 m.

Appendix C, Turbine Specifications Report

Appendix C should be replaced in its entirety with the updated Turbine Specifications Report dated February 2014 that was released with the Modification Document issued for this project change.

Appendix D, Noise Assessment Report

Appendix D should be replaced in its entirety with the updated Noise Assessment Report rev 3, dated February 19, 2014 that was released with the Modification Document issued for this project change.

Appendix F, Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan, Section 1 (pg 1)

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a wind energy generation facility with a nameplate capacity of 25 MW. This project is classified as a “Class 4” wind facility in O. Reg. 359/09, which is defined as an on-‐shore wind facility with a nameplate capacity greater than 50 kW and a sound power level greater than 102 dB(A). The project will employ the use of ten (10) Siemens SWT 3.0 -‐ 113 wind turbine generators. The 3.0 MW turbines will be rated at a nameplate capacity of 2.5 MW.

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a wind energy generation facility with a nameplate capacity of 18 MW. This project is classified as a “Class 4” wind facility in O. Reg. 359/09, which is defined as an on-‐shore wind facility with a nameplate capacity greater than 50 kW and a sound power level greater than 102 dB(A). The project will employ the use of ten (10) Senvion MM92 wind turbine generators each with a nameplate capacity of 1.88 MW.

Appendix H, Local Aerodrome Assessment Report, Section 1.1, (pg 1-‐1)

Prowind Canada, Inc. is proposing to develop a 25-‐MW wind farm near Woodstock, Ontario.

Prowind Canada, Inc. is proposing to develop an 18-‐MW wind farm near Woodstock, Ontario.

Appendix H, Section 1.2 (pg 1-‐1)

The proposed Gunns Hill wind farm project is located near Curries Ontario. There are to be ten 2.5 MW wind turbines, each with a total height of 151 metres from ground to blade tip. The rotor diameter is 103m and height to hub is 99.5m. The base ground elevations range from 295 to 330 metres above mean sea level.

The proposed Gunns Hill wind farm project is located near Curries Ontario. There are to be ten 1.88 MW wind turbines, each with a total height of 146.25 metres from ground to blade tip. The rotor diameter is 92.5 m and height to hub is 100 m. The base ground elevations range from 295 to 330 metres above mean sea level.


36

Appendix H The remainder of the report will not be updated as the dimensions of the turbine used for this report are greater than the Senvion turbine dimensions, therefore the existing report is a conservative case that considers greater impacts than necessary. The dimensions of the Siemens turbines are used in this existing report and are deeply entwined into the analysis, therefore, the updates would require a complete revision of the document; because this report looks at a more conservative case than what is proposed for this Project, Prowind will not request a report revision.

Decommissioning Report Section 2 (pg 2) The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a 25 MW project that is categorized as a Class 4

Facility that will employ the use of up to ten wind turbines from the Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 with a maximum power output of 2.5 MW. These wind turbines have a hub height of 99.5 m and a rotor diameter of 113 m for a total height of 156 m. The proposed major components of the Project are listed below:

• Up to 10 Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 wind turbines (2.5 MW maximum

power);

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is an 18 MW project that is categorized as a Class 4 Facility that will employ the use of up to ten wind turbines from the Senvion MM92 family with a maximum power output of 1.88 MW. These wind turbines have a hub height of 100 m and a rotor diameter of 92.5 m for a total height of 146.25 m. The proposed major components of the Project are listed below:

• Up to 10 Senvion MM92 wind turbines (1.88 MW maximum power);

Water Assessment Report Section 2 (pg 1) The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a wind energy generation facility with a nameplate

capacity of 25 MW. This project is classified as a “Class 4” wind facility in O. Reg. 359/09, which is defined as an on-‐shore wind facility with a nameplate capacity greater than 50 kW and a sound power level greater than 102 dB(A). The project will employ the use of up to ten (10) Siemens SWT 3.0 -‐ 113 wind turbine generators. The 3.0 MW turbines will be customized to a nameplate capacity of 2.5 MW or less for this project. The total maximum installed nameplate capacity of all ten turbines will not exceed 25 MW.

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a wind energy generation facility with a nameplate capacity of 18 MW. This project is classified as a “Class 4” wind facility in O. Reg. 359/09, which is defined as an on-‐shore wind facility with a nameplate capacity greater than 50 kW and a sound power level greater than 102 dB(A). The project will employ the use of up to ten (10) Senvion MM92 each with a nameplate capacity of 1.88 MW. The total maximum installed nameplate capacity of all ten turbines will not exceed 18 MW.

Natural Heritage Assessment Report Section 2 (pg 1) The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a wind energy generation facility with a nameplate



Archaeological Assessment and Cultural Heritage Resources Report Section 2 (pg 1) The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a wind energy generation facility with a nameplate




37

3.5 Clarifications during Technical Review During the technical review of the REA application, several comments/questions were received from the MOECC that required the text of some REA reports to be clarified. This process began on September 17, 2014 and was ongoing until a decision was received on the Project. Below is a table that summarizes the items that were clarified/updated as a result of technical review questions/comments from the MOECC.

3.5.1 Cement Wash Water Ponds

Cement wash water ponds were originally planned to contain a filter cloth to trap solids, but allow water to filter through. In order to mitigate the potential for alkaline water to enter the water table, this process was modified to use an impermeable liner that will prevent water from filtering into the ground. Instead, the water will be pumped out and disposed of by the cement supplier in a manner consistent with their operations and regulatory requirements. Table 6 Changes to REA reports based on Technical Review -‐ cement wash water ponds Report reference


Project Description Report, Section 4.1.9, (pg 15)

During construction of the turbine foundations, two concrete wash ponds will be established at strategic locations within the project area. These wash ponds serve to contain waste produced as trucks are cleaned following concrete pouring. A shallow hole is dug in the ground and is then covered with a geo-‐textile membrane to filter solids from the water. External parts of the truck are washed above the membrane. Excess concrete will solidify on that membrane.

At the end of the construction or when the membrane is filled with hardened concrete, it is disposed of at an authorized site.

During construction of the turbine foundations, two concrete wash ponds will be established at strategic locations within the project area. These wash ponds serve to contain waste produced as trucks are cleaned following concrete pouring. A shallow hole is dug in the ground and is then covered with an impermeable liner to contain solids and rinse water. External parts of the truck are washed above the membrane. Excess concrete will solidify on that membrane.

At the end of the construction or when the pond is filled, the pond will be pumped out and disposed of by the cement supplier at an authorized site.

Project Description Report, Section 4.2.1.7 (pg 20)

Two concrete wash ponds will be constructed on site to facilitate minimal washing of truck chutes after delivery of concrete for the foundations. This will be constructed as a shallow pit lined with geo-‐textile membrane to allow water to pass through while sediment is contained within the membrane.

Two concrete wash ponds will be constructed on site to facilitate minimal washing of truck chutes after delivery of concrete for the foundations. This will be constructed as a shallow pit lined with impermeable liner that will collect the rinse water and concrete solids. When full, the Pond will be pumped out and disposed of by the cement supplier.

Construction Plan Report, Section 3.6 (pg 11)

Cement will be brought in from a privately owned, off-‐site concrete batch plant. The majority of rinsing and washing of cement trucks will take place off-‐site, but a minimal amount will be necessary on site. To this end, two cement wash water-‐settling ponds will be constructed in the project area as seen in Appendix A – Map 2. The ponds will be a shallow pit approximately 5 m x 9 m x 0.5 m in size and lined with a fine filter cloth that allows the water to drain through while the cement sediments are collected in the pond. The wash ponds will have straw bales placed around the edge to mitigate any overflow impacts.

After construction, the filter cloth and cement solids

Cement will be brought in from a privately owned, off-‐site concrete batch plant. The majority of rinsing and washing of cement trucks will take place off-‐site, but a minimal amount will be necessary on site. To this end, two cement wash water-‐settling ponds will be constructed in the project area as seen in Appendix A – Map 2. The ponds will be a shallow pit approximately 5 m x 9 m x 0.5 m in size and lined with an impermeable liner that collects the rinse water and cement solids and sediments. The wash ponds will have straw bales placed around the edge to mitigate any overflow impacts.

After construction and/or when full, the pond will be pumped out and the wash water will be disposed of


38

will be removed from the pond and disposed of appropriately, in consultation with the municipality. The pits will be backfilled and re-‐vegetated.

by the cement supplier at an authorized site. At the end of the construction period, the liner will be removed and hole back filled and returned to regular usage.

3.5.2 Size of Auxiliary Generators

The original REA application was prepared with the larger Siemens turbine specifications and to be conservative, Prowind stated that up to two 1500 kW generators may be needed for turbine commissioning. After the turbine change, Senvion confirmed that only 70-‐100 kW generators would be needed. Table 7 Changes to REA reports based on Technical Review -‐ generators Report reference


Construction Plan Report, Section 3.10 (pg 16)

The commissioning process may require the use of up to two 1500 kW portable diesel generators and associated load banks.

The commissioning process may require the use of up to two 100 kW portable diesel generators and associated load banks.

3.5.3 Ice Accumulation and Shedding

Information from Senvion on “Radius of Area Where Ice Might Fall” from MM92 turbines with a 100 m hub height was used to update the Ice Accumulation and Shedding portion of the Design and Operations report. Senvion has provided Prowind with updated documentation indicating that the “Radius of Area Where Ice Might Fall” for an operational MM92 with 100 m hub height is within a 290 m radius around the turbine. There are no structures, public roads, or public areas within 290 m of any project turbine. For the MM92, ice build-‐up can be detected through deviation of turbine power curve from turbine anemometer readings, deviation of heated and unheated anemometer readings, and rotor imbalance. If ice is detected on turbines that are within 290 m of non-‐participating land, those turbines will initiate shut down. Shutting down turbines with ice accumulation will substantially mitigate the “Radius of Area Where Ice Might Fall” by preventing ice from being thrown. This information was added to the section in the Design and Operations Report discussing Ice accumulation (Section 5.9.2) and contributes to the existing information in that section that looks at ice fall/throw in a more general context. A letter from Senvion confirming the above is attached to this Clarification Document in Appendix B.


39

Table 8 Changes to REA reports based on Updated Ice Throw Information Report ref


Design and Operations Report, Section 5.9.2.1

The potential ground area affected by falling ice depends to a large extent on the blade position and the prevailing wind speed and direction. Garrad Hassan Canada (2007) estimated that only very high winds …

The potential ground area affected by falling ice depends to a large extent on the blade position and the prevailing wind speed and direction. Information received from the turbine manufacturer, Senvion, indicates that the “Area Where Ice Might Fall” is within a 290 m radius of the turbine base. A letter from Senvion confirming this radius can be found in Appendix I.

A 2007 study of ice fall was conducted by Garrad Hassan in 2007, a worldwide wind energy consulting firm now part of DNV GL. The results of that study are summarized below.

Garrad Hassan Canada (2007) estimated that only very high winds …

Design and Operations Report, Section 5.9.2.2

Unlike telecommunication towers, the turbines proposed for this Project will have a solid conical tower. This design reduces the potential for ice build-‐-‐up on the tower since there is no lattice or crevices where ice can accumulate.

In terms of ice shed, several control mitigation strategies are available to turbine operators. For example, when the rotor becomes unbalanced due to a change in blade weighting (e.g. caused by ice buildup), the turbine brake is automatically applied to stop the blades from turning (i.e. it shuts itself off). The blades would not restart their movement until the imbalance is removed (e.g. the majority of ice is removed). This design feature greatly reduces the potential for ice shed from the turbines on the few days per year when icing is possible.

Unlike telecommunication towers, the turbines proposed for this Project will have a solid conical tower. This design reduces the potential for ice build-‐-‐up on the tower since there is no lattice or crevices where ice can accumulate.

In terms of ice shed, several control mitigation strategies are available to turbine operators. For example, when the rotor becomes unbalanced due to a change in blade weighting (e.g. caused by ice buildup), the turbine brake is automatically applied to stop the blades from turning (i.e. it shuts itself off). The blades would not restart their movement until the imbalance is removed (e.g. the majority of ice is removed). This design feature greatly reduces the potential for ice shed from the turbines on the few days per year when icing is possible.

Additionally, there are no structures, public roads, or public areas within 290 m of any project turbine. For the MM92, ice build-‐up can be detected through deviation of turbine power curve from turbine anemometer readings, deviation of heated and unheated anemometer readings, and rotor imbalance caused by ice accumulation. If ice is detected on turbines that are within 290 m of non-‐participating land, those turbines will initiate shut down. Shutting down turbines with ice accumulation will substantially mitigate the “Area Where Ice Might Fall” by preventing ice from being thrown.

Design and Operations Report, Appendix I

Add Ice Letter to Design and Operations Report as Appendix I.

3.6 Heritage Impact Assessment Report Addendum

During the course of the REA technical review an omission in the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was identified. A Protected Property that is a participating property was overlooked in the original Heritage Impact Assessment, along with another property that was not surveyed in its


40

entirety. These two parcels are the parcels containing Turbine 1, and Turbines 2 & 3. At the same time, an additional property was added to the Project location. This additional property will host a short section of buried cabling between the properties for Turbine 1 and Turbines 2 & 3.

Additional field studies were conducted in September 2014 to look at the new parcel, the amended parcels and the parcels abutting each. A HIA Addendum Report was prepared and submitted to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) for review. An approval letter was received from the MTCS on Nov 6, 2014 and was subsequently submitted to the MOECC.

A letter from the agency that designated the Heritage property was also required. In this case the designating authority was the Township of Norwich. A letter was received from the Township stating that they have no objection to the Project works with regard to the Heritage designation of the home. The letter was received on Nov 7, 2014 and was forwarded to MOECC and MTCS.

The changes to the REA as a result of the above are detailed in Table 6 below.


41

Table 9 Changes to the REA as a result of Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum Report reference Original Wording Revised Wording as a result of change Executive Summary Section 1.7.1 (pg 7)


The following update includes an earlier update from Table 5 of this Clarification Document. Previous updates are in green, new updates are in red. A Heritage Impact Assessment was conducted for Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm to identify any Protected Properties, Built Heritage features or Cultural Heritage Landscapes in the project area. This assessment involved desktop historical land-‐use studies and windshield surveys of the area for identification of culturally significant heritage features. While one Protected Property was identified within the project location, the assessment concluded that there will be no impacts from the wind farm on heritage features or landscapes in the project area. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has reviewed and provided comment on the Heritage Impact Assessment Report and has released the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm from any further concerns.


Two HIAs were completed for this project: 1-‐ wind farm area excluding the overhead cable route, 2 -‐ overhead cable route. The results of both reports have been merged for the following summary. The Heritage Impact Assessments determined that: • There are no protected properties within the Project Study Area; • 32 properties with potential built heritage resources are within the Study

Area (32 of which are of cultural heritage value or interest); these will not be negatively impacted by the Project; and,

• 3 potential cultural heritage landscapes are within the Study Area; these will not be negatively impacted by the Project.

Potential Effects As operational and maintenance activities will not occur on the properties containing the built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, no adverse effects on heritage resources are anticipated during operations. The Heritage Impact Assessment Reports determined that the proposed Project infrastructure will not result in the direct or indirect obstruction of any significant views or vistas within, from, or of built or natural features associated with the built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes. Significant views and vistas are not heritage attributes of any of the properties with identified heritage resources.

The following update includes an earlier update from Table 5 of this Clarification Document. Previous updates are in green, new updates are in red. An HIA was completed for this project. The Heritage Impact Assessment determined that: • One protected property is located within the Project Study Area; • 36 (26 + 10) properties with potential Built Heritage (BH) resources are within the

Study Area (10 of which are of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI)); these will not be negatively impacted by the Project; and,


Potential Effects The majority of BH resources will not be located near operational or maintenance activities and therefore will feel no adverse effect from the Project. The Protected Property is a participating property and will house turbines 1 and 2 and other associated infrastructure. The protected heritage home is 816 m from the closest turbine and is visually separated from the wind farm by a surrounding tree stand. There will be no adverse effects to the Protected Property from the wind farm activities. The designating heritage authority, The Township of Norwich, provided authorization for the wind farm development.

Appendix A The newly added parcel should be added to the map between turbine 1 and 2/3. Project Description Report Section 4.3, Table 6

The following row should be added to the table:


42

Part of Lot 17, Concession 5, being Part 1 on Plan 41R-‐9168

Township of Norwich, County of Oxford

Section 4.5.3.2 (pg 30)


The following update includes an earlier update from Table 5 of this Clarification Document. Previous updates are in green, new updates are in red. A Heritage Impact Assessment was conducted for Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm to identify any Protected Properties, Built Heritage features or Cultural Heritage Landscapes in the project area. This assessment involved desktop historical land-‐use studies and windshield surveys of the area for identification of culturally significant heritage features. While one Protected Property was identified within the project location, the assessment concluded that there will be no impacts from the wind farm on heritage features or landscapes in the project area. Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has reviewed and provided comment on the Heritage Impact Assessment Report and has released the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm from any further concerns.

Appendix A The newly added parcel should be added to the map between turbine 1 and 2/3. Construction Plan Report Section 5.4.3 (pg 30)

A Heritage Impact Assessment was completed in April 2010 by registered heritage consultants, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. This assessment surveyed for built cultural heritage features within the project area as well and heritage landscape features. The assessment concluded that the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm will not have a negative impact on any cultural heritage features in the project area. Similarly, results of this study can be found in Appendix D. An additional Heritage Impact Assessment was undertaken for the additional overhead collection route to connect with the Hydro One substation in Woodstock. The Heritage Assessment work was completed in May 2012 and the report submitted to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) for concurrence with the recommendations. The recommendations indicated that there would be no direct or indirect impacts that would negatively affect any of the heritage attributes (properties, Old Stage Road, Great Western Railway or Southside Park) of the resources present. Similarly, results of this study can also be found in the Archaeological and Heritage Resources Assessment Report. Having the above surveys and assessments completed prior to construction, decreases the already low potential for disruption of cultural heritage resources within the project area. MTCS provided a letter of Concurrence with the recommendations of the initial heritage assessment on July 28, 2011 and indicated that further heritage analysis would not be required. MTCS sign-‐off on the Heritage Assessment Report from May 2012 was received on December 11, 2012 and no further heritage analysis is required and no negative impacts are anticipated from the project on the heritage resources present.

The following update includes an earlier update from Table 5 of this Clarification Document. Previous updates are in green, new updates are in red. A Heritage Impact Assessment was completed in April 2010 by registered heritage consultants, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd and amended in November 2014. This assessment surveyed for Protected Properties, built cultural heritage features within the project area as well and heritage landscape features. While one Protected Property was identified within the project location, the assessment concluded that the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm will not have a negative impact on any cultural heritage features in the project area. Similarly, results of this study can be found in Appendix D. Having the above survey and assessment completed prior to construction, decreases the already low potential for disruption of cultural heritage resources within the project area. MTCS provided a letter of Concurrence with the recommendations of the initial heritage assessment on July 28, 2011 and indicated that further heritage analysis would not be required.

Appendix A • Map 1 and Map 2 should include the newly added parcel between turbine 1 and 2/3. • Map 2a and Map 2b should include the newly added parcel between turbine 1 and


43

2/3 and the redirected buried cable that will cut across the northwest corner of the new parcel.

Design and Operations Report Section 2.2 (pg 8/9)

The following row should be added to the bottom of the table:

P13 00073-‐0028

Prospect Hill Farms

Part Lot 17, Concession 5, being Part 1 on Plan 41R-‐9168, Township of Norwich (formerly Township of East Oxford), in the County of Oxford


Two HIAs were completed for this project: 1-‐ wind farm area excluding the overhead cable route, 2 -‐ overhead cable route. The results of both reports have been merged for the following summary. The Heritage Impact Assessments determined that: • There are no protected properties within the Project Study Area; • 32 properties with potential built heritage resources are within the Study

Area (32 of which are of cultural heritage value or interest); these will not be negatively impacted by the Project; and,

• 3 potential cultural heritage landscapes are within the Study Area; these will not be negatively impacted by the Project.

MTCS provided a letter of Concurrence with the recommendations of the initial heritage assessment on July 28, 2011 and indicated that further heritage analysis would not be required. MTCS sign-‐off on the Heritage Assessment Report from May 2012 was received on December 11, 2012 and no further heritage analysis is required and no negative impacts are anticipated from the project on the heritage resources present. Potential Effects As operational and maintenance activities will not occur on the properties containing the Built Heritage resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes, no adverse effects on heritage resources are anticipated during operations. The Heritage Impact Assessment Reports determined that the proposed Project infrastructure will not result in the direct or indirect obstruction of any significant views or vistas within, from, or of built or natural features associated with the Built Heritage resources or Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Significant views and vistas are not heritage attributes of any of the properties with identified heritage resources.

The following update includes an earlier update from Table 5 of this Clarification Document. Previous updates are in green, new updates are in red. An HIA was completed for this project. The Heritage Impact Assessment determined that: • One protected property is located within the Project Study Area; • 36 (26 + 10) properties with potential Built Heritage (BH) resources are within the

Study Area (10 of which are of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI)); these will not be negatively impacted by the Project; and,

No Cultural Heritage Landscapes are within the Study Area; these will not be negatively impacted by the Project. MTCS provided a letter of Concurrence with the recommendations of the heritage assessment on July 28, 2011 and indicated that further heritage analysis would not be required. Potential Effects The majority of BH resources will not be located near operational or maintenance activities and therefore will feel no adverse effect from the Project. The Protected Property is a participating property and will house turbines 1 and 2 and other associated infrastructure. The protected heritage home is 816 m from the closest turbine and is visually separated from the wind farm by a surrounding tree stand. There will be no adverse effects to the Protected Property from the wind farm activities. The designating heritage authority, The Township of Norwich, provided authorization for the wind farm development.

Appendix A • Map 1 (Project Layout) and Map 2 (Site Plan Overview) should include the newly added parcel between turbine 1 and 2/3.

• Map 3 (Overhead Cable Route and Turbine 1) and Map 4 (Turbine 2-‐10) should include the newly added parcel between turbine 1 and 2/3, labelled P13, and the redirected buried cable that will cut across the northwest corner of P13.


Maps should include the newly added parcel between turbine 1 and 2/3.

Appendix D The Noise Assessment Report was updated in Rev 6 (dated Oct 8, 2014) to change the


44

designated of P13 from Vacant Lot Surrogate Receptor to Participating Receptor. Water Assessment Report Appendix A The newly added parcel should be added to the map between turbine 1 and 2/3. Natural Heritage Assessment Report Appendix A The newly added parcel should be added to Map 1 between turbine 1 and 2/3. Archaeological Assessment and Heritage Resources Report Section 4 The Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) conducted by Archaeological Research

Associates Ltd. (ARA) did not find records of protected properties within or adjacent to the project area. For this process ARA engaged both provincial and municipal heritage representatives and investigated several online heritage resources. The former MTCS’s Protected Properties, Archaeological and Heritage Resources: An Information Bulletin for Applicants Addressing the Cultural Heritage Component of Projects Subject to Ontario Regulation 359/09 Renewable Energy Approvals (2011) was referred to for guidance on this process.

The Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) conducted by Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) found one Protected Property discussed in the HIA Addendum Report prepared in November 2014. The Protected Property is owned by one of the Participating landowners and is on the same property that will house turbines 2 and 3. The Protected Property was designated as a heritage feature by The Township of Norwich under By-‐law 41-‐86. Remove last paragraph in its entirety.

Section 6 (pg 10) Two Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) were conducted by heritage consultants Archaeological Research Associates Ltd (ARA), based in Waterloo, Ontario. The first HIA was completed in July 2010 to assess the HIA impacts to the wind farm area, (that is the project location), excluding the overhead cable route. The second HIA was completed in Nov 2012 to assess the HIA impacts to the overhead cable route. A background study was completed to establish protected properties and historic overview of the land use in the project area. Additionally, a windshield survey of the area was completed to identify any existing built heritage features or cultural landscapes. Both reports have been submitted to the MTCS for comment and both have been released from further Heritage Impact Assessment analysis.

The following update includes an earlier update from Table 5 of this Clarification Document. Previous updates are in green, new updates are in red. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was conducted by heritage consultants Archaeological Research Associates Ltd (ARA), based in Waterloo, Ontario. The HIA was completed in July 2010 to assess the HIA impacts to the wind farm area. A background study was completed to establish protected properties and historic overview of the land use in the project area. Additionally, a windshield survey of the area was completed to identify any existing built heritage features or cultural landscapes. The report has been submitted to the MTCS for comment and has been released from further Heritage Impact Assessment analysis.

Section 6.1.1.1 (pg 10)

Twenty-‐Six (26) BH resources were considered for CHVI and none of these features within the study have sufficient Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) to merit designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. None of the above noted criteria were applicable to any BH resource at the project site. Therefore no BH resource either on project land or on an abutting property will be negatively impacted by Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. Further details of these results can be found in the “Heritage Assessment Report, Prowind Canada – Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm” in Appendix E.

Thirty six (36) BH resources were considered for CHVI and 10 of these features within the study have are of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). None of the above noted criteria for direct or indirect impacts were applicable to any BH resource at the project site. Therefore no BH resource either on project land or on an abutting property will be negatively impacted by Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. Further details of these results can be found in the “Heritage Assessment Report, Prowind Canada – Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm” in Appendix E.

Section 7.1 (pg 14)

A thorough study of available records concluded that there are no protected properties within or abutting the project area.

One protected property was found within the project location. The assessment by ARA determined that there will be no impacts, direct or indirect, from the development of the wind farm. Additionally, the designating authority, the Township of Norwich, has provided their consent for the development of the wind farm on the protect property.

Section 7.2 (pg 14)

Two Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) were conducted by Archaeological Research Associates (ARA) -‐ an HIA was conducted for the wind farm area excluding the overhead cable route and a separate HIA was conducted for the overhead cable route. The HIA for the wind farm area did not identify any Built Heritage (BH) resources

The following update includes an earlier update from Table 5 of this Clarification Document. Previous updates are in green, new updates are in red. The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was conducted by Archaeological Research Associates (ARA). An addendum was submitted in November 2014.


45

with Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI), nor did it identify any Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL). The HIA for the overhead cable route identified several BH resources and CHLs with CHVI. Impact analysis did not identify any negative impacts to these heritage resources from the development of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) is satisfied with the HIA reports as submitted and allowed the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm to proceed without further heritage concerns.

The HIA for the wind farm area identified 10 Built Heritage (BH) resources with Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI), and did not identify any Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHL). The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) is satisfied with the HIA report as submitted and allowed the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm to proceed without further heritage concerns.

Appendix A Map should include the newly added parcel between turbine 1 and 2/3. Appendix E Add HIA Addendum Report to appendix Appendix F Add letter from MTCS dated November 6, 2014 confirming acceptance of HIA addendum

report.


46

3.7 Third Notice of Project Change: Addition of Access Road Construction Option

In order to account for an alternative road construction methodology, an option to use “cement stabilization” in the construction of access roads was added to the REA application as an alternative to the traditional gravel road.

Cement-‐stabilization entails the use of a highly compacted mixture of soil, cement and water, during road construction, rather than the traditional construction method outlined in the Construction Plan Report [i.e., strip and stockpile surface material (topsoil separate from subsoil) followed by the placement of a geotextile layer beneath a granular ‘B’ base and a finished surface of granular ‘A’ material]. The cement-‐stabilization process for access road construction involves the following steps:

• Vegetation and organic material will be removed to a depth of at least 1 inch, depending on soil conditions encountered, and stockpiled;

• Dry cement powder (stored in a 56 ft Tanker on the municipal right-‐of-‐way) is transferred to the site using a small tracked tractor;

• Soil, water and cement would then be thoroughly mixed using a soil stabilizer; and,

• Access road will be finished with grade ‘A’ gravel to the required grade by means of a grader.

The use of this option would reduce the overall Project footprint and impact of the Project on natural features. No new impacts are anticipated. Prowind remains committed to the original mitigation and monitoring proposed in the REA reports.

A Modification Document was prepared and released for public review along with a Notice of Project Change on January 26, 2015. The Notice was posted in the Woodstock Sentinel-‐Review on two separate days and the Turtle Island News, mailed to all landowners within 550 m of and adjacent to the Project location, mailed to agency and Aboriginal stakeholders, and emailed to all contacts on the stakeholder email list.

The inclusion of this option is considered a Technical Change by the MOECC and required a Notice of Project Change to be publicized in a local newspaper with general circulation. The Notice and Modification Document was be posted to Prowind’s website for review on the same date.

The changes to the REA reports as a result of the above are detailed in the table below.

Table 10 Changes to the REA reports as a result of Third Project Change

Report reference


Executive Summary Section 2.1.2 (pg 10)

Access roads to project turbines will be 5 m wide during the operational phase and will have a foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and a finished surface of ‘grade A’ gravel. The access roads provide access to properties for equipment during construction and for maintenance during operations.

Access roads to project turbines will be 5 m wide during the operational phase and will be constructed using cement stabilization method (dry cement pack powder laid down and finished with stabilizer vehicle that mixes water into powder) or the traditional method (foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and a finished surface of ‘grade A’ gravel). The access roads provide access to properties for equipment during construction and for maintenance during operations.


47

Section3.1.2 (pg 20)

Access roads will have a foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and a finished surface of ‘grade A’ gravel, sourced from a local aggregate quarry and delivered to the site in dump trucks. The access roads will be built to a width of 6 m and be slightly graded to self-‐drain toward each edge. Access roads will be built such that the edge of the road is roughly flush with the field surface to maintain existing drainage patterns and farming operations.

Access roads will be constructed using cement stabilization method (dry cement pack powder laid down and finished with stabilizer vehicle that mixes water into powder) or the traditional method (foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and a finished surface of ‘grade A’ gravel). The access roads will be built to a width of 5 m and be slightly graded to self-‐drain toward each edge. Access roads will be built such that the edge of the road is roughly flush with the field surface to maintain existing drainage patterns and farming operations.

Project Description Report Section 4.1.5 (pg 14)

Access roads to project turbines will have a foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and a finished surface of ‘grade A’ gravel. To construct the roads within agricultural fields the topsoil will be stripped and either redistributed over the landowners adjacent field or stored adjacent to each road in low-‐lying windrows for replacement if roads are narrowed after construction is remediated.

Access roads to project turbines will be constructed using cement stabilization method (dry cement pack powder laid down and finished with stabilizer vehicle that mixes water into powder) or the traditional method (foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and a finished surface of ‘grade A’ gravel). To construct the roads within agricultural fields the topsoil will be stripped and either redistributed over the landowners adjacent field or stored adjacent to each road in low-‐lying windrows for replacement if roads are narrowed after construction is remediated.

Section 4.2.1.3 (pg 18)

Access roads to project turbines will be 5 m wide during the operational phase and have a foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and a finished surface of ‘grade A’ gravel. To construct the roads within agricultural fields the topsoil will be stripped and spread over the directly adjacent field. In total there will be 5.6 km of access roads required for all 10 turbines, of which 1.6 km will utilize existing driveways/laneways and field access paths.

Access roads to project turbines will be 5 m wide during the operational phase and be constructed using cement stabilization method (dry cement pack powder laid down and finished with stabilizer vehicle that mixes water into powder) or the traditional method (foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and a finished surface of ‘grade A’ gravel. In total there will be 5.6 km of access roads required for all 10 turbines, of which 1.6 km will utilize existing driveways/laneways and field access paths.

Construction Plan Report Section 3.3 (pg 6)

Access roads will have a foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and a finished surface of ‘grade A’ gravel, sourced from a local aggregate quarry and delivered to the site in dump trucks. The access roads will be built to a width of 6 m and be slightly graded to self-‐drain toward each edge. Access roads will be built such that the edge of the road is roughly flush with the field surface to maintain existing drainage patterns and farming operations. The total quantity of gravel required for access road construction will be determined by the selected Engineering and Procurement Contractor. It is expected that 1 km of 6 m wide access road is expected to require up to 457 loads of Grade ‘B’ gravel and 130 loads of Grade ‘A’ gravel, based on deliveries by dump trucks with 10 cubic yard capacity. Less gravel is expected to be used when upgrading existing laneways. Access roads will be reduced to a width of 5 m upon completion of construction.

Access roads will be constructed using cement stabilization method or the traditional method. The Traditional method places a foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and is finished with a surface of ‘grade A’ gravel, sourced from a local aggregate quarry and delivered to the site in dump trucks. The access roads will be built to a width of 6 m and be slightly graded to self-‐drain toward each edge. Access roads will be built such that the edge of the road is roughly flush with the field surface to maintain existing drainage patterns and farming operations. The total quantity of gravel required for access road construction will be determined by the selected Engineering and Procurement Contractor. It is expected that 1 km of 6 m wide access road is expected to require up to 457 loads of Grade ‘B’ gravel and 130 loads of Grade ‘A’ gravel, based on deliveries by dump trucks with 10 cubic yard capacity. Less gravel is expected to be used when upgrading existing laneways. Access roads will be reduced to a width of 5 m upon completion of construction. If the Cement Stabilization method is chosen, this process involves scraping away approximately 1 in of topsoil that is stockpiled or spread into surrounding agricultural fields. Dry cement powder is laid down with a small tracked trailer into 5 m widths. A soil stabilizer is then used to mix soil, water and cement together. The road is then graded with Grad ‘A’ gravel to the appropriate grade and height using a grader. This method uses much less gravel and therefore involves fewer truck trips. It also requires removal of less native soil under the road base.

Design and Operations Report Section 2.5.1 (pg 18)

Access roads to project turbines will be 5 m wide during the operational phase and will have a foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and a finished surface of ‘grade A’ gravel. To construct the roads within agricultural fields the topsoil

The following update includes an earlier update from Table 5 of this Clarification Document. Previous updates are in green, new updates are in red.


48

will be stripped and spread over the directly adjacent field of the same owner. The stored topsoil will be seeded with vegetation suitable to prevent erosion, or covered with an erosion control mat, if required.

Geotechnical testing will determine if further excavation is required to support the access road and will determine the thickness of each gravel layer. Siemens requires the roads to have a bearing capacity of 9072 kg (20,000 lbs) per axle plus any applicable safety margin. Wherever possible, access roads will be built such that the surface of the road is roughly flush with the field surface to allow for minimal disruption of farming operations. Access roads during the operation phase of the project will be approximately 5 m wide to accommodate the requirements of local emergency services. The extra gravel making up the 48 m turning radii required during the construction phase of the project will be removed during the operational phase.

Access roads to project turbines will be 5 m wide during the operational phase and will be constructed using cement stabilization method (dry cement pack powder laid down and finished with stabilizer vehicle that mixes water into powder) or the traditional method (foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and a finished surface of ‘grade A’ gravel. To construct the roads within agricultural fields the topsoil will be stripped and spread over the directly adjacent field of the same owner. The stored topsoil will be seeded with vegetation suitable to prevent erosion, or covered with an erosion control mat, if required.

Geotechnical testing will determine if further excavation is required to support the access road. Senvion requires the roads to have a bearing capacity of 12,500 kg (27,558 lbs) per axle plus any applicable safety margin. Wherever possible, access roads will be built such that the surface of the road is roughly flush with the field surface to allow for minimal disruption of farming operations. Access roads during the operation phase of the project will be approximately 5 m wide to accommodate the requirements of local emergency services. The extra gravel making up the 48 m turning radii required during the construction phase of the project will be removed during the operational phase.

Decommissioning Report Section 4.3 (pg 4)

Once dismantling of wind turbines is complete and the turbine site rehabilitated, the access roads will be removed if desired by the landowner. Aggregate material used in road construction will be given to the landowner/off-‐taker, removed and reused, or disposed of in a manner outlined by the municipality at the time of decommissioning.

Once dismantling of wind turbines is complete and the turbine site rehabilitated, the access roads will be removed if desired by the landowner. If aggregate material is used in road construction, it will be given to the landowner/off-‐taker, removed and reused, or disposed of in a manner outlined by the municipality at the time of decommissioning. If cement stabilized roads are used, the roads will be broken up and disposed of in a manner outlined by the municipality at the time of decommissioning.

3.8 Revisions to the Noise Assessment Report

The Noise Assessment Report is an important part of the technical review process and is therefore updated frequently to reflect any change or clarification, large or small. Additionally, the level of technical review for the Noise Assessment Report is high and several changes have been made to the report based on feedback from the MOECC.

As of the date of this document, the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is on Revision 6 of the Noise Assessment Report.

The table below summarizes each Noise Report version, the date it was released, and the changes included within each version.


49

Table 11 Noise Assessment Report Revisions

Noise Report version

Date Released Changes from previous version REA submission status

R0 Jan 2, 2013 N/A Included in Draft REA package made available for public review

R1 May 1, 2013 • Turbine model change from GE turbine to Siemens turbine.

• Updated receptor data where required. • Explanation of VLSR on Lot 17, Con 5.

Included in Final REA package submitted to MOECC

R2 Sept 13, 2013 Correcting a transcription error in Northing turbine coordinate that incorrectly placed T5 on the map (last 2 digits were switched).

Submitted to MOECC during review of completeness.

R3 Feb 19, 2014 Turbine model change from Siemens to Senvion.

Submitted to MOECC during technical review. Public notification published and put online Jul 17, 2014

R4 Jul 24, 2014 • Octave band source sound power level updates

• Topographic concavity analysis conducted and included

Submitted to MOECC during technical review.

R5 Aug 7, 2014 Reverted to more conservative turbine octave band source sound power level data used in R3.


R6 Oct 8, 2014 • Added receptor R408 to account for building with temporary building permit

• Changed VLSR on Lot 17, Con 5 to Participating vacant lot receptor Q409


3.9 Change in Ownership of the Project

Ownership of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is being transferred from Prowind Canada Inc.’s special purpose vehicle Gunn’s Hill Windfarm Inc. (“GHWI”), to Gunn’s Hill LP (“GHLP”), a limited partnership formed with Oxford Community Energy Co-‐operative Inc. The Six Nations of the Grand River have also voted to become a limited partner of GHLP. For clarity, Prowind Canada Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary Gunn’s Hill Windfarm Inc., is a limited partner in GHLP as well as the General Partner, GHLP General Partner Inc., also owned wholly by Prowind Canada Inc.

The appropriate documentation has been provided to the MOECC and the Renewable Energy Approval for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm issued on April 9, 2015 is issued to Gunn’s Hill LP.

This change is considered an Administrative Change and did not require any public notification.


50

Table 12 Changes to REA based on Change in Ownership of the Project

Report ref


All reports cover page

Gunn’s Hill Windfarm Inc. 226 ½ James Street North, Unit A Hamilton, Ontario L8R 2L3

Gunn’s Hill LP 19 Bold St, Unit 2B Hamilton, ON L8P 1T3

Project Description Report, Section 3.1.2

The Applicant for this project is Gunn’s Hill Windfarm Inc., a special purpose Vehicle (SPV) created to hold assets of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm.

The Applicant for this project is Gunn’s Hill LP, a Limited Partnership entity having limited partners Gunn’s Hill Windfarm Inc. (wholly owned by Prowind Canada Inc.) and Oxford Community Energy Co-‐operative Inc. The General Partner is GHLP General Partner Inc. (wholly owned by Prowind Canada Inc.)

4.0 Consultation Update

The REA application was originally submitted to the MOECC in June 2013. Included in this submission was the Consultation Report that detailed all consultation regarding the Project up to May 1, 2013. Since the time of submission of the Consultation Report, consultation has not ceased for this project. Prowind would like to provide a fulsome update of the consultation that has taken place regarding Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm from May 2, 2013 to the date of this report.

4.1 Federal Agency Consultation

4.1.1 Nav Canada

Consultation with Nav Canada has resulted in an assessment indicating that mitigation measures may be required with respect to Hamilton Airport and London Airport radar. Nav Canada has confirmed that this is a common type of mitigation for wind projects. Consultation regarding a Mitigation Agreement for was carried out during this time. A Mitigation Agreement was signed on February 13, 2015. Consultation with Nav Canada over this period is summarized in Appendix C1.

4.1.2 Transport Canada

Consultation with Transport Canada has resulted in the receipt of an Aeronautical Assessment Form for Obstruction Marking and Lighting which indicates that 8 of 10 turbines require obstruction lighting. Prowind is to inform Transport Canada once construction has commenced. Consultation with Transport Canada over this period is summarized in Appendix C2.


51

4.2 Municipal Consultation

4.2.1 County of Oxford

Consultation with the County is ongoing and primarily relates to County road use, intersection improvements and entrance permits. Some of this consultation overlaps with the Township as the County Planner is also the Planner for the Township, so some consultation will be included in the Township consultation update. Consultation with the County of Oxford over this period is summarized in Appendix C3.

4.2.2 Township of Norwich

Correspondence with the Township of Norwich has been ongoing since submission of the REA application. Prowind has conducted Drainage Act consultation and assessment work, Road Use Agreement consultation and negotiation, building and entrance permit submission and various other consultation regarding project construction, development, and emergency services. Consultation with the Township of Norwich over this period is summarized in Appendix C4.

4.3 Community Stakeholder Consultation Community stakeholder consultation remains ongoing. Since the submission of the REA application in June 2013, community stakeholders have been sent several public notices and updates. One-‐on-‐one consultation will always continue. Consultation with community stakeholders over this period is summarized in Appendix C5.

4.4 Aboriginal Consultation Aboriginal Consultation has continued since submission of the REA application with a focus on three First Nations communities that have responded and engaged Prowind on this Project. All Aboriginal stakeholders continue to receive Project notices and updates. Consultation with all Aboriginal stakeholders over this period is summarized in an Aboriginal Consultation Report amendment document included in Appendix C6.


Appendix A: Supplemental information for Table 5

Appendix A – Supplemental Information for Table 6

SECTION 2.3.1, TABLE 5 (PG 12) ORIGINAL TABLE TABLE 5 SIEMENS SWT 3.0-‐113 ACOUSTIC EMISSIONS SUMMARY Turbine Make/Model: Siemens SWT-‐3.0-‐113 Electrical Rating: 2.5 MW Hub Height: 99.5 m Wind Shear Exponent: 0.50 or higher (summer night-‐time average)

Octave Band Sound Power Level (dBA) Manufacturer’s Emission Levels Generic Adjusted Emission Levels

Wind Speed 6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 10

Frequency (Hz) 63 89.5 89.9 91.5 91.6 91.3 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.9

125 92.6 93.0 93.0 92.5 91.7 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 250 96.4 96.5 95.4 94.8 94.1 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 500 94.9 94.8 94.4 94.2 94.0 94.8 94.8 94.8 94.8 94.8

1000 95.0 94.9 95.0 94.9 95.2 94.9 94.9 94.9 94.9 94.9 2000 94.1 94.0 95.1 95.2 95.9 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 4000 91.2 91.8 91.8 93.6 93.9 91.8 91.8 91.8 91.8 91.8 8000 81.8 81.9 84.1 84.1 84.1 81.9 81.9 81.9 81.9 81.9

Weighted Total 102.4 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5

REVISED WORDING AS A RESULT OF CHANGE TABLE 5 SENVION MM92 (1880 KW, 102.0 DBA) ACOUSTIC EMISSIONS SUMMARY Turbine Make/Model: Senvion MM92 (1880 kw, 102.0 dBA) Electrical Rating: 1.88 MW Hub Height: 100 m Wind Shear Exponent: 0.50 or higher (summer night-‐time average)

Octave Band Sound Power Level (dB)

Manufacturer’s Emission Levels Adjusted Emission Levels Wind Speed (m/s @ 10m a.g.l)

6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 10

Frequency (Hz) 63 110.0 110.2 110.4 110.4 110.8 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2 110.2

125 106.2 106.6 106.5 106.3 106.4 106.6 106.6 106.6 106.6 106.6 250 103.7 103.7 102.9 102.9 102.6 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 500 100.3 100.4 100.1 100.0 99.8 100.4 100.4 100.4 100.4 100.4

1000 96.3 96.2 96.6 96.7 96.7 96.2 96.2 96.2 96.2 96.2 2000 90.4 90.4 91.1 91.3 91.8 90.4 90.4 90.4 90.4 90.4 4000 84.8 85.5 87.0 86.4 87.7 85.5 85.5 85.5 85.5 85.5 8000 73.6 74.1 74.9 77.2 76.4 74.1 74.1 74.1 74.1 74.1

A-‐weighted 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.0


Appendix B: Senvion Ice Letter

Senvion Canada Inc.

1250, Boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest, bureau 3610, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3B 4W8

Prowind Canada Inc. 19 Bold St, Unit 2B Hamilton, ON, L8P 1T3 Canada Attn. Juan Anderson Toronto, December 05, 2014

RE: Radius of area where ice might fall __________________________________________________________________________ Dear Mr. Anderson, Senvion will be supplying ten MM92/60Hz/CCV, Maximum Power 1.88 MW wind turbines with a 100 metre hub height for the Gunns Hill Wind Park project. Senvion hereby confirms to Prowind Canada Inc. the indicative Radius of area where ice might fall is 290 m for this model and hub height.

We remain at your disposal should you require any further details. Sincerely,

Andrew Rabeau, P.Eng Sales and Project Engineer REpower Systems Inc.


Appendix C: Consultation Documentation


Appendix C1: Nav Canada

Row Date Type From To Re Content Summary Attachments

1 20-‐Mar-‐14 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson NavCanada -‐ A. Trandafilovski Updated Land Use FormA resubmission of the Land Use Form was sent via email to update the turbine model and dimensions as well as reapply for a the one year approval from NAV Canada.

NavCan Land Use Application Form, Project Map, Turbine Coordinates, Previous NavCan Assessment Letter

2 31-‐May-‐14 Email NavCanada -‐ A. Trandafilovski Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Updated Land Use Form Request to verify turbine coordinates for T1 and T3

3 2-‐Jun-‐14 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson NavCanada -‐ A. Trandafilovski Updated Land Use Form Discussion of T1 and T3 coordinates and locations

4 2-‐Jun-‐14 Email NavCanada -‐ A. Trandafilovski Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Updated Land Use Form Map showing location of coordinates

5 2-‐Jun-‐14 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson NavCanada -‐ A. Trandafilovski Updated Land Use FormResponse confirming T1 was correct, 1 T3 coordinate value corrected

Updated Turbine Coordinates

6 14-‐Aug-‐14 Email NavCanada -‐ A. Trandafilovski Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Land Use Form Letter A letter was received stating that some of the turbines are visible on the London Radar and Hamilton Radar and that an agreement for cost recovery for mitigation will be required.

Letter, Construction Start Notice Form, Turbine coords

7 21-‐Aug-‐14 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson NavCanada -‐ A. Trandafilovski Letter and mitigation details

to discuss the wording in the letter above and it was confirmed that this is standard response and they are now asking all wind farms to enter into an agreement in case mitigation is required. Cost estimates can be received if a written request is sent in. It was also mentioned that due to the nature of some of the media articles on this topic, the wording of the letter may be adjusted in the future to avoid unnecessary alarm.

8 21-‐Aug-‐14 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson NavCanada -‐ A. Trandafilovski Cost recovery agreement detailsadditional information on the cost recovery agreement content, estimated costs and the mitigation measures required.

9 25-‐Aug-‐14 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson NavCanada -‐ M. Pinon Cost recovery agreement details Voice message with contact details

10 25-‐Aug-‐14 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson NavCanada -‐ M. Pinon Cost recovery agreement details Follow-‐up to voice message indicating availability

11 25-‐Aug-‐14 Email NavCanada -‐ M. Pinon Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Cost recovery agreement details Follow-‐up to email above indicating will call after morning meetings

12 25-‐Aug-‐14 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson NavCanada -‐ A. Trandafilovski Cost recovery agreement detailsEstimated costs for mitigation are typically $50,000 to $60,000. Mitigation solutions are all engineering and software based. A sample agreement will be emailed over to Prowind.

13 26-‐Aug-‐14 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Cost recovery agreement details Confirmation that information requested will be sent to Prowind by Sept 5th.

14 5-‐Sep-‐14 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Cost recovery agreement detailsA sample wind farm mitigation agreement was provided. It was noted that costs has historically a maximum of $56,000 for mitigation. Contact information was provided for additional questions. Mitigation Agreement

15 9-‐Sep-‐14 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details

Additional details were requested on process, section 4 of the agreement was referenced. Typically invoicing is a single invoice for the amount incurred to fix the issue, which is up to or less than the maximum amount provided in advance. In order to satisfy anticipated lender due diligence questions, Prowind also requested details on the legal basis for cost recovery to be fully covered by the proponent. Nav Canada offered to provide in writing.

16 9-‐Sep-‐14 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Cost recovery agreement detailsStatement from Nav Canada that mitigation should be covered by the proponent and if Prowind refused Nav Canada would oppose the project. A general reference to the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act was provided.

17 9-‐Sep-‐14 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement detailsRe-‐statement that Prowind has no intention to resist or avoid mitigation and that the Act will be investigated further for the appropriate section.

18 10-‐Sep-‐14 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Cost recovery agreement detailsApology for tone of previous email, reference made to Technical Guide for REA with reference to Nav Canada being private company requiring compensation for mitigation required to maintain air safety

19 14-‐Nov-‐14 Vmail Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Request more information/details on mitigation plan

20 14-‐Nov-‐14 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Request more information/details on mitigation plan, provide S. Shaw contact information

21 14-‐Nov-‐14 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Response to email NavCan requests to defer response for 2 weeks

22 01-‐Dec-‐14 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Prowind asked if Nav Can was ready to discuss

23 01-‐Dec-‐14 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Nav Can asked for another week before they can address this.

Prowind Canada Inc. -‐ Gunn's Hill Wind Farm -‐ Nav Canada Correspondence Update

24 22-‐Dec-‐14 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Pricing for mitigation will be available the week of Jan 5

25 06-‐Jan-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Asking if pricing is on track for this week

26 06-‐Jan-‐15 email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Yes it is

27 06-‐Jan-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Exchange of joke about "standing by"

28 06-‐Jan-‐15 email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Exchange of joke about "standing by"

29 09-‐Jan-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Asking about pricing availability

30 09-‐Jan-‐15 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Yes, later today

31 09-‐Jan-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Asking if hourly rates will be included

32 09-‐Jan-‐15 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details No, not standard practice, but there is a cost breakdown

33 09-‐Jan-‐15 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Cost of mitigation measures

34 09-‐Jan-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Question about antenna tilt activity

35 09-‐Jan-‐15 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Explanation of antenna tilt

36 09-‐Jan-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Further question about antenna tilt

37 09-‐Jan-‐15 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Response about antenna tilt

38 13-‐Jan-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Comments to agreement

39 19-‐Jan-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Receive email of 13th?

40 19-‐Jan-‐15 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Yes, comments with legal dept.

41 19-‐Jan-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details OK, thanks

42 26-‐Jan-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Any update?

43 26-‐Jan-‐15 Email Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details NavCan needs to change the agreement template to latest version.

44 26-‐Jan-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Question on timing

45 03-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S.Shaw Nav Canada -‐ J. McCarthy Cost recovery agreement details Requesting update

46 03-‐Feb-‐15 Email NavCan -‐ Kelvin Hickey Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Response from Legal Dept.

47 03-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ K. Hickey Cost recovery agreement details Question on response

48 03-‐Feb-‐15 Email NavCan -‐ Kelvin Hickey Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Question on LP structure

49 03-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ K. Hickey Cost recovery agreement details Response

50 03-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ K. Hickey Cost recovery agreement details Further response

51 04-‐Feb-‐15 Email NavCan -‐ Kelvin Hickey Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Response on assignment/ new LP

52 05-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ K. Hickey Cost recovery agreement details Please prepare final agreement

53 05-‐Feb-‐15 Email NavCan -‐ Kelvin Hickey Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Further regarding LP assignment

54 05-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ K. Hickey Cost recovery agreement details Please proceed; further questions on LP

55 05-‐Feb-‐15 Email NavCan -‐ Kelvin Hickey Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details Further response on LP

56 05-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ K. Hickey Cost recovery agreement details Further question on LP


58 05-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ K. Hickey Cost recovery agreement details Further question on LP


60 11-‐Feb-‐15 Emai NavCan -‐ Kelvin Hickey Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details To set up conference call

61 11-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ K. Hickey Cost recovery agreement details To set up conference call

62 11-‐Feb-‐15 Emai NavCan -‐ Kelvin Hickey Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Cost recovery agreement details To set up conference call, transmit agreement

63 11-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ K. Hickey Cost recovery agreement details To set up conference call

64 13-‐Feb-‐15Conf Call

Prowind -‐ S. Shaw, J. AndersonNavCan -‐ K. Hickey, Terry Harris

Assignment of CRA to LPNo assignment at present.

65 13-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ K. Hickey Assignment of CRA to LP Summary of call

66 13-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ K. Hickey CRA Transmittal of signed version

67 13-‐Feb-‐15 Email NavCan -‐ Kelvin Hickey Prowind -‐ S. Shaw CRA Response on potential future assignment

68 13-‐Feb-‐15 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw NavCan -‐ K. Hickey CRA Thanks


Appendix C2: Transport Canada


1 Feb 7 2013 email Transport Canada -‐ M. Lucking YRH (Prowind Consultant) -‐ R. Dastous Aeronautical Assessment FormAeronautical Obstruction and Lighting form indicating which turbines are to be equipped with obstruction lighting (7 of 10 total) Aeronautical Obstruction and Lighting Form

2 Jun 17 2014 email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Transport Canada -‐ M. LuckingUpdated Aeronautical Assessment Form

Submitted Aeronautical Assessment Form indicating revised turbine parameters

1. Previous Assessment Form from Transport Canada2. New Aeronautical Obstruction and Lighting Form3. Turbine Dimensions, Coordinates, Elevations, Proposed Lighting Scheme4. Map

3 Sept 4 2014 email Transport Canada -‐ M. Lucking Prowind -‐ J. AndersonUpdated Aeronautical Assessment Form

Apologized for previous non-‐response, indicated application must be sent to CASO-‐[email protected], new form req'd, old file is closed and new file will be opened

4 Sept 9 2014 email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson 'CASO-‐[email protected]'Updated Aeronautical Assessment Form

Submitted Aeronautical Assessment Form indicating revised turbine parameters


5 Sept 9 2014 email Transport Canada -‐ A. Chen Prowind -‐ J. AndersonUpdated Aeronautical Assessment Form

Indicated revised application form required


6 Sept 9 2014 email

Transport Canada -‐ A. Chen

Prowind -‐ J. AndersonUpdated Aeronautical Assessment Form

Indicated revised application form required, distance now required in feet and metres


7 Sept 10 2014 call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Transport Canada -‐ A. ChenUpdated Aeronautical Assessment Form

Clarified subtle difference in form content to ensure nothing was being missed (no new info required)

8 Sept 11 2014 email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Transport Canada -‐ A. ChenUpdated Aeronautical Assessment Form

Thanked for clarifications, confirmed feet and metres provided.


9 Sept 11 2014 email 'CASO-‐[email protected]' Prowind -‐ J. AndersonUpdated Aeronautical Assessment Form

System email indicating application accepted, new file number, contact info, and latest response to be dec 8 2014

10 Oct 30, 2014 email Transport Canada -‐ M. Lucking Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Assessmment Complete Assessment is complete and attached1. Aeronautical Obsturction Marking and Lighting Form

Prowind Canada Inc. -‐ Gunn's Hill Wind Farm -‐ Transport Canada Correspondence Update


Appendix C3: Oxford County

Row Date Type From To Re Content Summary

1 April 17, 2013 Email Oxford -‐ V. Likins Prowind -‐ R. Rumney, J. Segal Norwich Council report Detailed reports and dates to be presented to Oxford and Norwich councils

2 April 18, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Oxford -‐ H. St. Clair Building Permit locationQuestion regarding the suitability of a property for a building permit where there is a wetland/woodland.

3 April 18, 2013 Email Oxford -‐ H. St. Clair Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Building Permit locationindicated attachment could not be opened, suggested a call, asked about name of prowind's partner

4 April 18, 2013 Call Oxford -‐ H. St. Clair Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Building Permit location

discussed property, indicated that the location is not presently excluded from a potential building location, however, woodlot is in the process of being deemed significant, which would exclude, an application would have to be reveiwed and may not be supported, county arborist would need to be contacted.

5 April 18, 2013 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Oxford -‐ County Arbourist Building Permit location

discussed property, indicated that she would not support an application to cut trees for a residence in that location but that she could not provide anything in writing without an application for a residence.

6 April 19, 2013 Email Oxford -‐ H. St. Clair Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich Council report

indicated a deferal of the Township council meeting date to occur post final public meeting to allow residents to provide comment. Acknowledged that 90 day comment period has been exceeded.

7 May 13, 2013 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich/Oxford -‐ H. St. Clair Norwich Council report Called to discuss item in Norwich Council report. Details in follow-‐up email below.

8 May 13, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich/Oxford -‐ H. St. Clair Norwich Council report

Confirm mutual interpretation of the following bullet point in Report No: CASPO 2013-‐77 from Norwich Planning to Staff to Norwich Council on the Gunns Hill Wind Farm Draft REA. On page 3 the 5th bullet reads:·∙ It is agreed that Ministry of Environment approval of the REA will be contingent upon the issuance of the proper permitsTo ensure there was no misunderstanding, confirmed that this point was intended to ensure that Prowind obtains necessary permits (building permit(s) etc) before commencing construction. Prowind agrees that necessary municipal permits will be obtained prior to commencing construction activity. Prowind also wanted to ensure that there was no misunderstanding of the quoted bullet point with respect to either Norwich Township or Prowind being able to make commitments on behalf of MOE. When we spoke we agreed that the REA approval process is controlled by MOE and they have the responsibility to define conditions of REA approval. The present process as we understand it is that REA approval is given prior to obtaining building permits, but that building permits are required before construction can occur.

9 June 6, 2013 Email Oxford -‐ L. Buchanan Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Oxford County CouncilAdvising that Oxford County Council planning report CASPO 2-‐13-‐145 is going to council on June 12, 2013

10 June 12, 2013 Email Oxford -‐ L. Buchanan Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Oxford County Council

Advised that Oxford County Council held a Council meeting on June 12, 2013 and endorsed the recommendations outlined in the planning report for the Gunn's Hill Wind Farm (report # CASPO 2-‐13-‐145)

11 July 19, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ R. Rumney MOE -‐ S. Raetsen Oxford Council decision

Provided additional information to S. Raetsen for review with the REA. Provided Norwich Township planning report regarding Gunn's Hill Wind Farm and Oxford council minutes approving planning report recommendations.

12 Nov 4, 2013 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Oxford -‐ G. Hough, H. St. Clair Project Scope Change

Informed County of pending scope change of project wrt to removal of overhead line. Project is no longer in Woodstock boundaries but remains within Oxford scope of work because of County roads in project area. Will provide mapping.

13 Nov 4, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Oxford -‐ G. Hough, H. St. Clair Project Scope Change Mapping provided wrt to earlier call about pending project scope change.

Prowind Canada Inc. -‐ Gunn's Hill Wind Farm -‐ Oxford County Correspondence Summary Update

14 Nov 4, 2013 Email Oxford -‐ G. Hough Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Project Scope ChangeInformed County Public Works of change. No issues from County of Woodstock perspectives.

15 Nov 4, 2013 Email Oxford -‐ G. Hough Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Project Scope Change

Routing of cables still crosses County Roads and that the County still may have interest in the Project by way of the Road User Agreement, no significant impact for rerouting. County will advise regarding anything further.

16 March 5, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich -‐ K. Kruger, R. Smith, Oxford -‐ G. Hough, R. Walton Road Use Agreement

Provided current draft of road user agreement and highlighted outstanding items. Proposed date to meet to discuss.

17 March 12, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Oxford -‐ G. Hough, R. Walton Road Use Agreement request for call to discuss road agreement18 March 12, 2014 Email Oxford -‐ R. Walton Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road Use Agreement call logistics19 March 12, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Oxford -‐ G. Hough, R. Walton Road Use Agreement confirmation of call logistics20 March 12, 2014 Email Oxford -‐ R. Walton Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road Use Agreement call reschedule21 March 12, 2014 Email Oxford -‐ G. Hough Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Update Meeting meeting logistics

22 March 13, 2014 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Oxford -‐ G. Hough, R. Walton Road Use Agreementconfirmed that Oxford County would like to use the same road agreement as Norwich, discussed possibility of burying cables directly adjacent to road

23 March 20, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich -‐ K. Kruger, R. Smith, Oxford -‐ G. Hough, R. Walton Update Meeting

Meeting confirmed for March 26th. Agenda items include: Project update, compensation for road user agreement, proposed haul route and logistics.

24 March 25, 2014 Email Oxford -‐ G. Hough Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Update meetig meeting logistics

25 March 26, 2014 Meeting Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich, K. Kruger, R. Smith, Oxford -‐ G. Hough, S. Boughner Road User Agreement Discussed Road user agreement and outstanding items.

26 April 4, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich, K. Kruger, R. Smith, Oxford -‐ S. Boughner Road User Agreement

Provided draft Road user agreement with changes based on March 26th meeting. Still awaiting feedback from township on cable separation requirements and temporary gravel turning radii.

27 April 22, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich -‐ K. Kruger, R. Smith, Oxford -‐ S. Boughner Road User Agreement

Road user agreement outstanding items including -‐ buried cabling setbacks, trench width, ideal location of buried cable, entrance construction. Hoping to get final draft by the weekend.

28 April 23, 2014 Email Oxford -‐ S. Boughner Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road User Agreement Agree with Norwich R. Smith comments -‐ show proposed offset from property line.

29 May 5, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Oxford -‐ S. Boughner Road User Agreementquestion on whether the county arborist has reviewed the road user agreement draft as was indicated would be desired

30 May 16, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich -‐ K. Kruger, R. Smith, Oxford -‐ S. Boughner Road User Agreement

Options for setback of cable from road edge/property -‐ no specific setback in force. There is a need to have detailed survey for consistency with property boundary. Minimum recommended setback from other parallel services is 1 m. Option to bore under other services if very constrained.

31 Nov 12, 2014 Meeting Prowind -‐ J. Anderson, S. Shaw Oxford -‐ G. Hough Road User AgreementDiscussed Road Usage Agreement, County would probably want to be party to Norwich's agreement rather than separate one. Not sure if County vote is required.

32 February 23, 2015 Voicemail Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Oxford -‐ S. Boughner County Permits meeting request33 February 23, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Oxford -‐ S. Boughner County Permits meeting request

34 February 27, 2015 Meeting Prowind -‐ J. Anderson, S. ShawOxford -‐ G. Hough, S. Boughner, M. Abercrombie County permits

Process and procedures for entrances, over dimension vehicles and municipal consent for cable locations

35 March 5, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ S. ShawOxford -‐ G. Hough, S. Boughner, M. Abercrombie County permits Minutes of Feb 27th meeting

36 March 12, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ S. ShawOxford -‐ G. Hough, S. Boughner, M. Abercrombie County permits Any comments on minutes

37 March 16, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ S. ShawOxford -‐ G. Hough, S. Boughner, M. Abercrombie County permits Can County issue overdimension permits for township?

38 March 17, 2015 Email Oxford -‐ G. Hough Prowind -‐ S. Shaw County permits Please ask M. Abercrombie or S. Boughner39 March 18, 2015 Email Oxford -‐ M. Abercrombie Prowind -‐ S. Shaw County permits No40 March 18, 2015 Call Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Oxford -‐ M. Abercrombie County permits Request clarification


Appendix C4: Township of Norwich


1 May 13, 2013 Call Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich/Oxford -‐ H. St. Clair

Norwich Council report Called to discuss item in Norwich Council report. Details in follow-‐up email below.

2 May 13, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich/Oxford -‐ H. St. Clair

Norwich Council report

Confirm mutual interpretation of the following bullet point in Report No: CASPO 2013-‐77 from Norwich Planning to Staff to Norwich Council on the Gunns Hill Wind Farm Draft REA. On page 3 the 5th bullet reads:·∙ It is agreed that Ministry of Environment approval of the REA will be contingent upon the issuance of the proper permitsTo ensure there was no misunderstanding, confirmed that this point was intended to ensure that Prowind obtains necessary permits (building permit(s) etc) before commencing construction. Prowind agrees that necessary municipal permits will be obtained prior to commencing construction activity. Prowind also wanted to ensure that there was no misunderstanding of the quoted bullet point with respect to either Norwich Township or Prowind being able to make commitments on behalf of MOE. When we spoke we agreed that the REA approval process is controlled by MOE and they have the responsibility to define conditions of REA approval. The present process as we understand it is that REA approval is given prior to obtaining building permits, but that building permits are required before construction can occur.

3 May 22, 2013 EmailNorwich/Oxford -‐ H. St. Clair

Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich Council report"I agree with your interpretation noted below, and confirm that was the intent of the statement and was relayed to Township Council as such, during a presentation of the report on May 14, 2013. "

4 June 3, 2013 Call Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich/Oxford -‐ H. St. Clair

REA circulation Confirmation of REA circulation

5 June 3, 2013 EmailNorwich/Oxford -‐ H. St. Clair

Prowind -‐ J. Anderson REA circulation Confirmation of REA circulation to Woodstock public works and engineering on Jan 30, 2013

6 July 4, 2013 Meeting

Prowind -‐ J. Anderson, R. Rumney Norwich -‐ M. Graves, D. Kramer

Drainage Act PermitsInformal meeting. Discussed work necessary if drainage act permits are required, looked at mapping for drains in the project area.

7 July 9, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Norwich -‐ D.Kramer Drainage Act Permits Timing of drainage reports and council meetings

8 July 10, 2013 Email Township -‐ D. Kramer Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Drainage Act PermitsProvided idea of municipal drainage report timing and council meeting timing. Also provided overview of municipal drains at each turbine location.

9 July 18, 2013 Call Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Norwich -‐ H. St. Clair Norwich Council minutesRequested copy of Norwich Council minutes of April 23, 2014 where Gunn's Hill planning report was presented and voted on by Council.

10 July 18, 2013 Email Norwich -‐ K. Armstrong Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Norwich Council minutes Provided link to April 23, 2013 Council minutes

11 July 18, 2013 Email Norwich -‐ K. Armstrong Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Norwich Council minutes Provided link to May 14, 2013, when the Gunn's Hill project was actually discussed.

12 July 19, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ R. Rumney MOE -‐ S. Raetsen Norwich Council decisionProvided additional information to S. Raetsen for review with the REA. Provided Norwich Township planning report regarding Gunn's Hill Wind Farm and Norwich council minutes approving planning report recommendations.

13 August 15, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ M. Graves Road Usage Agreement Request on timing for draft of previously discussed road allowance agreement

14 September 3, 2013 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ M. Graves Road Usage AgreementRequest on timing for draft of previously discussed road allowance agreement, Indication that Norwich and Oxford to use same form of Road Uasage Agreement

15 September 24, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ M. Graves Road Usage Agreement Request on timing for draft of previously discussed road allowance agreement, meeting request

Prowind Canada Inc. -‐ Gunn's Hill Wind Farm -‐ Township of Norwich Correspondence Summary Update

16 September 27, 2013 Email Norwich -‐ M. Graves Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road Usage AgreementIndicated that agreement needs to be reviewed by city of Woodstock, meeting logistics discussed

17 October 8, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ M. Graves Road Usage AgreementNotification of likely scope change to remove connection line from Woodstock boundary , meeting logistics discussed

18 October 10, 2013 Email Norwich -‐ M. Graves Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road Usage Agreement Meeting logistics

19 October 21, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Norwich -‐ D.Kramer Drainage Act PermitsAdvised Township of contracted third party for drainage act work and informed them of their upcoming contact with Township on behalf of Prowind.

20 October 23, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ M. Graves Road Usage Agreement Meeting logistics21 October 24, 2013 Email Norwich -‐ M. Graves Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road Usage Agreement Meeting logistics22 October 26, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ M. Graves Road Usage Agreement Meeting logistics23 November 4, 2013 Email Norwich -‐ M. Graves Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road Usage Agreement Road Usage Agreement Draft, Meeting logistics, Notification of CAO staffing change

24 November 5, 2013 Meeting Norwich -‐ M. Graves and K. ArmstrongProwind -‐ J. Anderson

Road Usage Agreement

Norwich informed that there will period where Kim Armstrong acts as CAO, Introduced co-‐op, Norwich and Oxford to use same road agreement, Prowind to cc Gord Hough upon draft mark-‐up, council vote on road agreement likely in January 2014, crossing road with cables ok with justification

25 Dec 4, 2013 MeetingProwind -‐ R. Rumney and consultant M. GerritsNorwich -‐ D.Kramer

Drainage Act PermitsInformal meeting. Met to go over maps of drains and photo copy township maps of drains for site visit.

26 Dec 4, 2013 Email Township -‐ D. Kramer Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Drainage/Severance Forwarded information regarding a pending severance on one of the project properties.

27 Dec 4, 2013 Email Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Township -‐ D. Kramer Drainage/SeveranceInformed Township that we are aware of the severance and thanked him for the maps provided for the drains.

28 Jan 20, 2014 EmailProwind (consultant) -‐ M. Gerrits

Township -‐ D. KramerDrainage Act Permits -‐ Teeple Drain

Provided sketch of Teeple Drain to get more information from Township on this drain.Teeple Drain map and other drain maps

29 February 12, 2014 MeetingNorwich -‐ K. Kruger, R. Prowind -‐ J. Anderson and R. Rumney

Introduction and Update Meeting

Introductions, Project Overview, Project Change Notice, Buried Cables in Township Road Allowance, Project Infrastructure, Technology, Opposition, Aerodrome, Road Usage Agreement, Road Restrictions, Timeline, Building Permits, Co-‐op, Preliminary Haul Routes, Emergency Services, Next Steps

Meeting Notes

30 March 5, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich -‐ K. Kruger, R. Smith, Oxford -‐ G. Hough, R. Walton

Road Use AgreementProvided current draft of road user agreement and highlighted outstanding items. Proposed date to meet to discuss.

31 March 20, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich -‐ K. Kruger, R. Smith, Oxford -‐ G. Hough, R. Walton

Update meetingMeeting confirmed for March 26th. Agenda items include: Project update, compensation for road user agreement, proposed haul route and logistics.

32 March 25, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Update meeting Meeting logistics

33 March 25, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ K. KrugerProwind -‐ J. AndersonOxford -‐ G. Hough, R. Walton

Update meeting Meeting logistics

34 March 26, 2014 Meeting

Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich, K. Kruger, R. Smith, Oxford -‐ G. Hough, R. Walton

Road User Agreement Discussed Road user agreement, Preliminary haul routes and outstanding items.

35 April 4, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich, K. Kruger, R. Smith, Oxford -‐ S. Boughner

Road User AgreementProvided draft Road user agreement with changes based on March 26th meeting. Still awaiting feedback from township on cable separation requirements and temporary gravel turning radii.

36 April 22, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich -‐ K. Kruger, R. Smith, Oxford -‐ S. Boughner

Road User AgreementRoad user agreement outstanding items including -‐ buried cabling setbacks, trench width, ideal location of buried cable, entrance construction. Hoping to get final draft by the weekend.

37 April 23, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ R. Smith Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road User AgreementBest location for buried cable is off of property line and not at road edge. Entrances should be built to manufacturer's specs and then scaled back.

38 April 30, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road User Agreementindicated that a copy of a previously discussed agreement from another jurisdiction was in-‐hand, no need to provide

39 April 30, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road User Agreement thanks for above40 May 2, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road User Agreement call logistics

41 May 16, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich -‐ K. Kruger, R. Smith, Oxford -‐ S. Boughner

Road User Agreement

Options for setback of cable from road edge/property -‐ no specific setback in force. There is a need to have detailed survey for consistency with property boundary. Minimum recommended setback from other parallel services is 1 m. Option to bore under other services if very constrained.

42 May 16, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road User AgreementFollow -‐up on road user agreement. Discussed options for compensation/km comparison to other municipalities, process for township's legal review.

43 May 20, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ R. Smith Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road User Agreement Confirming that collector lines will be placed 1 m from property line as discussed.44 May 29, 2014 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road User Agreement call to discuss latest draft of roach user agreement, path forward

45 May 29, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road User Agreementshared township's latest road agreement draft, indicated that township may require deposit if legal costs are to be incurred prior to MOE approval

46 July 10, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road User Agreementindicated that previous road agreement was outdated and substituted with a completely new draft from township legal

47 July 17, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road User AgreementReviewed draft road user agreement and found it quite reasonable. Since there are few changes on Prowind's side, imagine that legal fees will be less than $X. Please confirm. Hope to establish a schedule for finalization.

48 Aug 8, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road User AgreementForwarded Prowind's comments to solicitor for review. Please provide deposit for solicitor's fees. Amount to be discussed.

49 August 11, 2014 call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road User Agreement discussion of deposit50 August 11, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road User Agreement As discussed, Prowind will forward a cheque for solicitor's deposit. 51 August 11, 2014 Mail Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road User Agreement Letter and cheque for solicitor's deposit52 Sept 10, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road User Agreement Requested update on status of road user agreement.

53 Sept 10, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Road User AgreementProvided revised draft road user agreement that has been revised by Township solicitor. Requesting feedback from Prowind.

54 Sept 11, 2014 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ B. Reid Building PermitsDiscussed property in project area with temporary building permit. Valid from Mar 2012 to Mar 2017.

55 Sept 11, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ B. Reid Building Permits Follow-‐up email to verify information from call.

56 Sept 11, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ B. Reid Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Building PermitsVerified information was correct and that the temporary structure is actually factory made. Extension of permit can be applied for with planning application.

57 September 17, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Update meeting Update meeting logistics58 September 17, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Update meeting Update meeting logistics59 September 19, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Update meeting Update meeting logistics60 September 22, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Update meeting Agenda request61 September 23, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Update meeting agenda Proposed meeting agenda items 62 Sept 25, 2014 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Update meeting agenda Suggestion to invite Township planner to join meeting

63 Sept 25, 2014 Meeting

Prowind -‐ J. Anderson, R. RumneyNorwich, K. Kruger, Reb. Smith

Update MeetingMeeting to discuss Heritage Property and letter, Road User Agreement, REA comments, emergency services, decommissioning, other updates

Meeting Notes

64 September 30, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Site Plan Control Site Plan Application Form forwarded

65 Oct 1, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Norwich -‐ Reb. Smith Heritage Property Provided mapping of heritage property to Township plannerMap of wind farm infrastructure on Start land

66 Oct 6, 2014 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Reb. Smith Heritage Property follow-‐up on heritage property, advised process to be handled by Norwich, contact Kyle Kruger

67 Oct 7, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ R. Rumney Heritage Property Provided Township by-‐law protecting the David Start FarmhouseTownship of Norwich By-‐aw 41-‐86

68 October 10, 2014 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Heritage Property Heritage Property discussion

69 October 15, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Heritage Property written request for permission letter, provided sample draft letter for referenceSample letter template

70 November 4, 2014 call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ B. ReidBuilding Permit Procedure

discussion of building permit processing time, expected delivery timing, comitment to work in good faith, discussion of potential costing methodology

71 November 4, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ Reb. Smith Prowind -‐ J. Anderson REA timing indicated that she was aware of a call to the CBO, question on expected REA timing72 November 4, 2014 call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Reb. Smith REA timing voice message left73 November 4, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Reb. Smith REA timing follow-‐up to voice message, request to call back

74 November 4, 2014 call Norwich -‐ Reb. Smith Prowind -‐ J. Anderson REA timingdiscussion of potential REA timing, indication that Prowind cannot predict process and MOECC cannot provide specific timeline, discussion that Heritagre letter still outstanding, commitment to follow-‐up on heritage letter to move it along

75 Nov 7, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger call requestAsked for call today to discuss: Road Usage agreement, site plan control, Heritage letter, set up call btween Prowind engineers and Roads/building dept.

76 Nov 7, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ J. Anderson call request Busy today, Proposed alternate meeting time

77 Nov 7, 2014 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ J. Anderson call requestClarified meeting time. Asked for Heriage Letter to be provided since it had been 5 weeks and there are no impacts to heritage property.

78 Nov 7, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Heritage Letter question if attached will sufficeNorwich Hertitage Statement Letter

79 Nov 7, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Heritage Letterindication that the letter should suffice and if there are ministry comments Prowind will communicate those back to Norwich

80 Nov 10, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger call request call logistics

81 Nov 12, 2014 Email Prowind -‐ J Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger call requestconfirmation of call timing and dial-‐in, agenda of: road use agreement, cable marking, site plan control and GEA, contractor/engineer meeting with roads manager

82 Nov 12, 2014 PhoneProwind -‐ J Anderson, S Shaw, R Rumney

Norwich -‐ K. Kruger call heldConference call to discuss: Road Usage Agreement revisons, site plan control is no longer applicable under GEA, Cable marking in road allowance, upcoming council schedule for road usage agreement

83 November 12, 2014 call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Ron Smith call held

discussion of entrance permit process and application scope, discussion of meeting with contractor and potentially engineers for cable micrositing, indication that 1 m from outer road allownace property line still prefered for cable location, discussion that in some cases this may result in interference with trees and woodlots and Prowind would like to shift inward at those locations, commitment to mark proposed path and have evaluation

84 November 17, 2014 email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Ron Smithcable route micrositing and evaluation

indication that locates mapping completed, meeting logistics

85 November 17, 2014 email Norwich -‐ Ron Smith Prowind -‐ J. Andersoncable route micrositing and evaluation

question on procedure


confirmation of procedure as agreed


meeting logistics


update on timing of work


meeting logistics


meeting logistics

91 November 21, 2014 call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Ron Smithcable route micrositing and evaluation

meeting logistics update



93 December 1, 2014 email Prowind -‐ J. AndersonNorwich -‐ Ron Smith, K. Kruger

intro to engineersintroduction to engineers performing road and electrical work, indication that they may reach out in case of specific questions

94 December 8, 2014 email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Ron Smithcable route micrositing and evaluation


95 December 10, 2014 email Norwich -‐ Ron Smith Prowind -‐ J. Andersoncable route micrositing and evaluation




97 December 16, 2014 vMail Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Ron Smithcable route micrositing and evaluation










102 December 18, 2014on-‐site meeting

Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Ron Smithcable route micrositing and evaluation

cable routing directed by Ron Smith

103 January 12, 2015 vMail Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road Use Agreement Request meeting

104 January 15, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road Use Agreement Request meeting

105 January 15, 2015 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Road Use Agreement Checking on dates

106 January 16, 2015 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Road Use Agreement Suggesting dates for meeting

107 January 16, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road Use Agreement Suggesting dates for meeting


109 January 20, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road Use Agreement Suggesting dates for meeting


111 January 20, 2015 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Road Use Agreement Transmitting new Road Use Agreement template

112 January 30, 2015 MeetingNorwich -‐ K. Kruger, B. Card

Prowind -‐ S. Shaw, J. Anderson

Road Use AgreementDiscuss changes and process, presented cable routing engineering -‐ some revisions were requested

113 February 5, 2015 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind Cement Stabliized Roads Not for use at entrances

114 February 11, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Ron Smith Cable Routing updated cable routing drawings were presented, approval of location was requested

115 February 11, 2015 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Overdimension permits Will not be issued

116 February 11, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Call Summary of call

117 February 13, 2015 call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ M. Lenaers Overdimension permits request for firehall road construction specs, over dimension permit application process

118 February 13, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ M. Lenaers Overdimension permits call followup, request for permit information

119 February 13, 2015 Email Norwich -‐ M. Lenaers Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Overdimension permits indicated that instruction given to refer to K. Kruger

120 February 13, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ M. Lenaers Overdimension permits indicated already in contact with K. Kruger, will follow-‐up

121 February 13, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Overdimension permits request for any additional requirements for an application

122 February 17, 2015 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Call Summary Clarifications on call summary

123 February 17, 2015 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Overdimension permits referenced email directly above for response

124 February 27, 2015 meeting Norwich -‐ Mayor MartinProwind -‐ J. Anderson, S. Shaw

Gunn's Hill project Introduction, project status

125 March 3, 2015 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Ron Smith Cable Routing Email discussed updated drawings, request made to resend previous email

126 March 3, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Ron Smith Cable Routing Email email resent, request for location approval re-‐iterated

127 March 5, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Overdimension permits Suggest contact with MOT

128 March 11, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Overdimension permits Request results of dialog with MOT

129 March 11, 2015 Email Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road Use Agreement Transmit mark-‐up and request meeting

130 March 13, 2015 Email Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Overdimension permits Results of discussion with MOT

131 March 13, 2015 Call Prowind -‐ S. Shaw Norwich -‐ K. Kruger Road Use Agreement Set meeting

132 March 18, 2015 Call Prowind -‐ J. Anderson Norwich -‐ Ron Smith Cable Routing Emaildrawings discussed, R. Smith indicated no objection to location and will request further detail in drawings, approval in writing to be sent in 1 day


Appendix C5: Community Stakeholders


1 May 6, 2013 Comment card Prowind/Stantec Public meeting commentsStop the turbine until health studies are completed, property values will decrease, impact on community environment (in this case, runway will be impacted by turbine locations and turbulence)

2 Nov 14, 2013 Email R. Rumney Website link

Thanks for passing my message on Juan, we had a nice chat the other night and I hope to hear from him again soon. I went onto your website and noticed there was updated noise receptor info but when I clicked on the link it said page could not be displayed. I also tried it on my iPhone and got the same error message. If the problem is on your end can you re-‐load it to your website and let me know when it's ready to be viewed?

3 Nov 15, 2013 Email R.Rumney Re: Website link

I'm glad you had a good talk with Juan.Sorry about that file on the website, thanks for pointing that out. I'll take a look at it.For now, I've attached the kml file here for you, so you can download it and view it on Google Earth.I'll look into the website version and let you know when that is back up and running, but the attached file will be the same thing.

Google earth file

4 Nov 18, 2014 Email R.Rumney Website link I can see it now, quite interesting!5 Nov 18, 2014 Email R.Rumney Re: Website link Great! The weblink is fixed up now as well, in case you want to direct anyone else there.

6 Feb 3, 2014Email/Mail/Web/Newspaper

ProwindAll Community Stakeholders

Notice of Proposed Change -‐ removal of overhead cable

7 Feb 13, 2014Email/Mail/Web/Newspaper


Notice of EBR Posting

8 Feb 27, 2014 Email Prowind relationship What is the relationship between Prowind and Boralex? Please explain.

9 Mar 4, 2014 Email J. Anderson re: relationshipThanks for your question.Boralex and Prowind have no formal relationship at this time.

10 Mar 9, 2014 Email R. Rumney Google Earth mapping

The link on Prowind’s website for the Google Earth mapping tool appears to be no longer working. The inability of the public to review this information impedes our ability to review the REA documents.We would appreciate your response to this matter.

11 Mar 11, 2014 Email R.Rumney re: Google Earth mapping

I looked at this yesterday and as far as I can tell this link is functional. The download at that location is a .kml file that needs to be saved to your computer and opened with Google Earth, a free piece of software you can download from the Internet.If you need further instruction on how to use this file, please don't hesitate to contact me.I can also email the file to directly if you still are not able to access the file.Please let me know if any of the above option are desirable.Thank you for your email.

12 Mar 11, 2014 Email R.Rumney Re: Google Earth mapping

Further to my earlier email, I have some additional information, which may be the cause of the problem.If you are using Internet Explorer as your web browser, you may need to right click on the link, click "Save as" or "Save target as" to save the file to your computer and then open it up from there with Google Earth.If you are using Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox, it should download automatically or prompt you to open or save. This is what we are using at the office, which is why I didn't notice the problem earlier.I will update the website to provide instructions for each web browser, so other Internet Explorer users can navigate this link easier.I have attached the file to this email for your ease of use.Please let me know if I can help with anything else.

Google earth file

Prowind Canada Inc. -‐ Gunn's Hill Wind Farm -‐ Public Correspondence Update


Forwarded above email and:As of this morning Keith McKay had not yet received a response to his inquiry below. Prowind’s Gunn’s Hill website does not contain an operational link to the mapping of receptors (see screenshot).Are you aware of this problem and its impacts on residents to properly review the REA documents?


Thank you for your email.I have responded to Mr. McKay with some instructions on how to use the .kml file web link. If you are having problems accessing that file as well, I have copied the instructions for you below.-‐ If you are using Internet Explorer as your web browser, you may need to right click on the link, click "Save as" or "Save target as" to save the file to your computer and then open it up from there with Google Earth.-‐ If you are using Google Chrome, Safari, or Mozilla Firefox, it should download automatically or prompt you to open or save.The website has been updated to include the above instructions for those using Internet Explorer and needing assistance.The noise receptor mapping tool is not a part of the REA and was included on the Prowind Canada website as a useful tool for those living near the proposed wind farm.Please let me know if you need any further assistance with anything.


Thanks for your response.It does, however, raise an additional question. If the mapping tool is not part of the REA documents, how are the noise assessments and associated receptors validated during review of the REA? Is there some other method or map provided to the Ministry of the Environment for their review?I look forward to your response.

16 Mar 11, 2014 Email R.Rumney Re: Google Earth mapping

I looked at this yesterday and as far as I can tell this link is functional. The download at that location is a .kml file that needs to be saved to your computer and opened with Google Earth, a free piece of software you can download from the Internet.If you need further instruction on how to use this file, please don't hesitate to contact me.I can also email the file to directly if you still are not able to access the file.Please let me know if any of the above option are desirable.Thank you for your email.


Thanks for you additional questions.The MOE is provided with the same noise report that is attached to the REA in the Design and Operations Report. The Google Earth file is on our website to allow access to the receptor information in an accessible file size. The MOE has asked for a spreadsheet with receptor coordinates for their analysis.I hope that answers your question.

18 Mar 12, 2014 Email R. Rumney Google Earth mappingThank you. So it seems the MOE looks only at a spreadsheet and does not reference a map?

19 Mar 13, 2014 Email R. Rumney RE: Google Earth mapping

To date, the MOE has requested the spreadsheet and we provided that information to them. We are unable to comment on the specific methodology used by the MOE in evaluating the noise report. If you have questions on this methodology, please contact the MOE directly.

20 Mar 14, 2014 Email R. Rumney RE: Google Earth mapping Thank you. This is useful information.

21 Apr 10, 2014Email/Mail/ Web/Newspaper


Notice of Project Change and Turbine Supplier Announcement

22 Apr 21, 2014 Email R. Rumney Noise Report versions

I've been reviewing the various versions of Noise Assessments for the Gunn's Hill project for comparison purposes and have a question. I have seen the following versions:

Revision 0 -‐ 02 Jan 2013 -‐ signed by Jeff SegalRevision 1 -‐ 01 May 2013 -‐ signed by Jeff Segal & Carl BrothersRevision 3 -‐ 19 Feb 2014 -‐ signed by Juan Anderson

However, I do not recall having seen Revision 2. Is there a Revision 2? I would appreciate a response ASAP.

23 July 17, 2014Email/Mail/ Web/Newspaper


Notice of EBR Posting and Project Change Summary

24 July 17, 2014 Email R. Rumney TimelineI enjoy receiving your updates but none of them say just when you will begin construction. When is the estimated time to begin construction?

25 July 17, 2014 Email R. Rumney Re: Timeline

Thanks for your email. The current estimation for construction start is possibly as early as this fall, which would only include roads and some other small infrastructure. The majority of construction, including turbines, is expected to begin next spring/summer when the road restrictions are lifted in May.

I'd be happy to provide you with additional information on the expected timeline of the project and the current status if you'd like more info. Please don't hesitate to let me know.

26 Aug 6, 2014 Email R.Rumney REA process

Comments/concerns about consultation process regarding changes to REA scope. Concerned about turbine model change being noisy due to older technology. Wonders why the Noise report isn't signed by an engineer as requested previously. Requested that REA be denied and FIT contract be revoked.

27 Sept 19, 2014 Email Prowind Current StatusHas a connection point been established for the Prowind Gunn’s Hill project to be connected to the grid and if so where will that be and where is the power cable route going to be from the substation to the connection point?

28 Sept 23, 2014 Email Prowind Current StatusLast week I inquired about the connection status of the Gunn’s Hill project. Where will the connection point be to the grid and what routing will the line take from the substation?

29 Sept 26, 2014 Email R. Rumney Re: Current Status

Thanks for your email. As stated in the Notice of Project Change issued February 3 2014, the new connection point will be at the substation itself, or 350 m west of the substation at the end of the existing overhead lines. The connection point has not been changed since that date.

As identified in the REA, the substation is proposed to be located south of Firehall Road between the access road to Turbine 1 and the access road to Turbines 2 and 3.

Please let us know if you have any other questions.

30 Oct 4, 2014 Email R. Rumney Investment in project Requested information on investing in project after seeing report on local news.

31 Oct 4, 2014 Email R.Rumney OCEC Fwd: Investment in project forwarded request to OCEC

32 Oct 6, 2014 Email R.Rumney Investment in project Requested information on investing in project

33 Oct 6, 2014 Email R.Rumney OCEC Fwd: Investment in project forwarded request to OCEC

34 Oct 8, 2014 Email R.Rumney Mailing List Requested to be placed on project mailing list

35 Oct 8, 2014 Email R.Rumney Re: Mailing List Thank you, you have been added to the mailing list


37 Oct 17, 2014 Re: Mailing List Added to mailing list


39 Oct 19, 2014 Re: Mailing List Added to mailing list

40 Nov 4, 2014 Email R. Rumney Research studyRequested Prowind's involvement in University of Western Ontario study that look at community involvement in wind energy projects.

41 Nov 11, 2014 Email R.Rumney Project status Requested info on status of project and start of construction

42 Nov 13, 2014 Email R.Rumney Re: Project status Construction is expected to begin in Spring or Summer of 2015

43 Nov 23, 2014 Email R.Rumney Mailing List Requested to be placed on project mailing list

44 Nov 26, 2014 Email R.Rumney Re: Mailing List Thank you, you have been added to the mailing list

45 Dec 11 2014 meeting J. Anderson Research study Participated in research interview, discussed project, discussed co-‐op

46 Jan 26, 2015Email/Mail/ Web/Newspaper


Notice of Project ChangeNotice of Project Change regarding an additional road construction methodology was sent to all stakeholders.

47 Jan 28, 2015 Email R.Rumney Project status Requested info on status of project and start of construction

48 Feb 19, 2015 Email R.Rumney Investment and Project status Requested information on the status of the project as an interested investor of the project

49 Feb 20, 2015 Email J. Anderson Re: Investment and Project Status

Thank you for your email. REA is expected very soon as all outstanding issues have been addressed. Project expects appeal after REA is received, which may take up to 6 months to resolve. Recent decisions on other REA appeals did not overturn any MOE decisions, so that is encouraging for this project. Let's set up a time to discuss further.

50 March 13, 2015 Phone J. Anderson Curries AerodromeFollow-‐up up to social media contact request, contact was part of mass request, no specific inquiry or issue.


Appendix C6: Aboriginal Stakeholders

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM

ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE to amend the

Consultation Report

Volume 2: Aboriginal Consultation

of the June 2013 Renewable Energy Approval

March 25, 2015

Prepared for:

Prowind Canada Inc. 19 Bold Street, Unit 2B Hamilton, ON L8P 1T3

Prepared by:

R. Allan & Associates, 54 Dallimore Circle,

Toronto, ON M3C 4C5 Ph: (416) 435-8716 Fx: (416) 385-3890

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE

i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1.1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 1.1 1.2 REPORT REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................. 1.1 1.3 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION APPROACH .................................................................. 1.1

2.0 COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 2.2 2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES WITH AN INTEREST IN THE

PROJECT ......................................................................................................................... 2.2 2.2 REGULATORY NOTICES: JUNE 2013 - PRESENT ........................................................ 2.3

3.0 SIX NATIONS OF THE GRAND RIVER FIRST NATION, ELECTED COUNCIL ............ 3.4 3.1 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION: 2008 TO APRIL 2013 ................................................ 3.4 3.2 REVIEW OF DRAFT REA REPORTS .............................................................................. 3.4 3.3 ECONOMIC BENEFITS: APRIL 2013 TO DECEMBER 2013 .......................................... 3.4 3.4 SIX NATIONS COUNCIL: DECEMBER 10, 2013 ............................................................. 3.5 3.5 GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL STUDENT BURSARY .................................. 3.5 3.6 SIX NATIONS INTERNAL COMMUNITY MEETINGS: .................................................... 3.6 JANUARY 23, FEBRUARY 1 & 12, 2014 .................................................................................. 3.6 3.7 SIX NATIONS COUNCIL: FEBRUARY 26 AND MARCH 11, 2014 .................................. 3.6 3.8 DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW AND APPROVAL: MAY 21, 2014 ......................................... 3.6 3.9 ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT .................................................................. 3.6 3.10 INVESTMENT DEPOSIT .................................................................................................. 3.6 3.11 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 3.7

4.0 SIX NATIONS OF THE GRAND RIVER HAUDENOSAUNEE CONFEDERACY CHIEFS COUNCIL .......................................................................................................................... 4.1

4.1 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION: 2008 TO APRIL 2013 ................................................ 4.1 4.2 PROWIND HCCC/HDI: MEETING FEBRUARY 2013 ...................................................... 4.1 4.3 MARCH 2013 – MARCH 2014 .......................................................................................... 4.1 4.4 PROWIND HCCC/HDI MEETING: MARCH 26, 2014 ...................................................... 4.1 4.5 HDI LETTER WITH REVIEW OF PROWINDS’S REA APPLICATION ............................ 4.2 4.6 PROWIND RESPONSE TO HDI REA REVIEW DOCUMENT ......................................... 4.2 4.7 PROWIND RESPONSE TO EQUITY REQUEST: LETTER APRIL 15, 2014 ................... 4.2 4.8 FOLLOW-UP REQUESTS FOR A MEETING: APRIL-OCTOBER 2014 .......................... 4.3 4.9 HDI LETTER AND AGREEMENT: OCTOBER 6, 2014 .................................................... 4.3 4.10 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 4.4

5.0 MISSISSAUGAS OF THE NEW CREDIT FIRST NATION .............................................. 5.1 5.1 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION: 2008 TO APRIL 2013 ................................................ 5.1 5.2 REVIEW OF DRAFT REA REPORTS .............................................................................. 5.1 5.3 ECONOMIC BENEFITS: MARCH 2013 TO APRIL 2014 ................................................. 5.1

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE

ii

5.4 EQUITY POSITION IN THE PROJECT: APRIL 2014 ...................................................... 5.2 5.5 FOLLOW-UP TO AN EQUITY POSITION: APRIL 2014 ................................................... 5.2 5.6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 5.2

6.0 ONEIDA NATION OF THE THAMES FIRST NATION, MUNSEE-DELAWARE NATION, CHIPPEWAS OF THE THAMES FIRST NATION, KETTLE AND STONY POINT FIRST NATION, MORAVIAN OF THE THAMES FIRST NATION, CALDWELL FIRST NATION, AND WALPOLE ISLAND FIRST NATION (BKEJWANONG TERRITORY) ................... 6.3

6.1 PROJECT UPDATE .......................................................................................................... 6.3 6.2 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 6.3

7.0 AAMJIWNAANG FIRST NATION .................................................................................... 7.1 7.1 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION: 2008 TO APRIL 2013 ................................................ 7.1 7.2 AAMJIWNAANG FIRST NATION REPONSE TO REA REVIEW: APRIL 17, 2013 .......... 7.1 7.3 PROWIND RESPONSE TO AFN REA REVIEW: JULY 12, 2013 .................................... 7.1 7.4 AAMJIWNAANG FIRST NATION REPONSE TO DRAFT LETTER: MAY 15, 2013 ........ 7.1 7.5 PROWIND FOLLOW-UP TO AFN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: LETTER:

JULY 25, 2014 .................................................................................................................. 7.1 7.6 AAMJIWNAANG FIRST NATION LETTER: MAY 29, 2014. ............................................. 7.2

8.0 MÉTIS NATION OF ONTARIO ......................................................................................... 8.1 8.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 8.1

9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND COMMITMENTS .......................................................................... 9.1

10.0 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................... 10.1

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: ABORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING SHEETS A1: SIX NATIONS OF THE GRAND RIVER A2: HAUDENOSAUNEE CONFEDERACY CHIEFS COUNCIL A3: MISSISSAUGAS OF THE NEW CREDIT FIRST NATION A4: AAMJIWNAANG FIRST NATION A5: MÉTIS NATION OF ONTARIO APPENDIX B: SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE Introduction

1.1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

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

1.2 REPORT REQUIREMENTS

The purpose of this Aboriginal Consultation Update is to provide the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) with an overview of consultation activities since the Project’s REA application was submitted in June 2013.

1.3 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION APPROACH

Aboriginal consultation is integral to Prowind’s project planning process. Consultation plays a critical role in allowing Prowind to learn about, understand and address the priorities and concerns identified by aboriginal communities throughout the life of a project.

Consultation for the Project began early in the planning process (2008) and will continue throughout the design, development, construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE Communication Activities

2.2

2.0 Communication Activities

2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES WITH AN INTEREST IN THE PROJECT

Prowind received a letter from the MOECC on February 22, 2010 that confirmed the list below as aboriginal communities with a potential interest in the Project:

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

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

• Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation;

• Oneida Nation of the Thames ;

• Chippewas of the Thames First Nation;

• Munsee-Delaware First Nation;

• Kettle and Stony Point First Nation;

• Aamjiwnaang First Nation;

• Walpole Island First Nation (Bkejwanong Territory);

• Hamilton-Wentworth Métis Council; and,

• Grand River Métis Councils.

Prowind will continue to consult with these communities for the life of the Project.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE Communication Activities

2.3

2.2 REGULATORY NOTICES: JUNE 2013 - PRESENT

The Aboriginal communities listed in Section 2.1 were provided with the following Notices on the dates listed below:

• Notice of Project Change (Removal of Overhead Cable): February 3, 2014,

• Notice of Posting on Environmental Registry: February 7, 2014,

• Notice of Proposed Change (Turbine Supply and Nameplate Capacity): April 10, 2014 and

• Notice of Posting on Environmental Registry and Overview of Proposed Changes: July 16, 2014

• Notice of Proposed Change (Access Road Option): January 26, 2015

Each of the above Notices were mailed and emailed to each of the Aboriginal communities and posted in the Turtle Island News.

Notices and updates will continue to be sent to each of the Aboriginal communities listed in Section 2.1, for the life of the Project.

These Notices can be found in Appendix B-5.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation, Elected Council

3.4

3.0 Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation, Elected Council

The Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation Elected Council (Six Nations) were contacted by Prowind at the onset of the Project. This community was identified as being in close proximity to the Project Study Area (approximately 33 kilometers to the periphery of the Project) and the area is within the Six Nations Haldimand Treaty Area of 1701. The Project is within the traditional lands of the Six Nations and the Six Nations have an interest in the Project.

3.1 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION: 2008 TO APRIL 2013

The Six Nations process for consultation with proponents is described in the Six Nations of the Grand River Consultation and Accommodation Policy. From 2008 to April 2013 Prowind and Six Nations developed a transparent communications process based on mutual trust. Key activities over these years included: meetings with the Six Nations Consultation and Accommodation Policy (CAP) team, Chief and Council, capacity funding, reviewing the REA and participating in planning discussions. Correspondence since that time is summarized in the tracking included in Appendix A1.

3.2 REVIEW OF DRAFT REA REPORTS

In April 2013, Six Nations retained an external reviewer to review and provide recommendations on the Gunn’s Hill REA application. The CAP team approved their internal review, discussed the findings with Prowind and after several meetings agreed the Project had dealt adequately with Six Nations concerns. Six Nations was now in a position to discuss economic benefits.

3.3 ECONOMIC BENEFITS: APRIL 2013 TO DECEMBER 2013

Six Nations and Prowind worked on an Economic Benefits Strategy over eight months, with copious meetings, telephone calls and correspondence. The final result was a Term Sheet signed by both parties on December 3, 2013 at the Six Nations Council Meeting. The Term Sheet was presented to the community. This term sheet is included in Appendix B 1-1. The Term Sheet provided two options:

1. Joint Equity Partnership: the Six Nations having a 10% ownership of the Project, or

2. Royalty Position: annual payments over the twenty years of the FIT contract.

In addition, both options also provided the Six Nations community with:

• Educational funding through the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Aboriginal Student Bursary,

• Hiring of Six Nations members for additional Archaeological Monitoring,


3.5

• Six Nations members to assist with Bird and Bat Post Construction Monitoring,

• Support in hiring during construction and operations, and

• Ongoing reporting.

Upon signing the Term Sheet, Six Nations began developing an internal community consultation process for the Project. This process would include mailing information packages, and holding meetings to provide information and answer questions on both the Royalty and Equity options.

The Prowind and Six Nations meetings were held on:

• May 9, 2013 – minutes attached as Appendix B 1-3

• August 13, 2013 – minutes attached as Appendix B 1-4

• September 5, 2013 - minutes attached as Appendix B 1-6

• November 6, 2013 - minutes attached as Appendix B 1-7

• April 3, 2104 - minutes attached as Appendix B 1-10

The Six Nations internal communications meeting were held on January 23, 2014, February 1, 2014 and February 12, 2014. Documentation from these meetings is attached as Appendix B 1-8.

3.4 SIX NATIONS COUNCIL: DECEMBER 10, 2013

Six Nations Council passed a resolution on December 10, 2013 to begin Six Nations internal community consultation to determine which choice (royalty or equity) the community prefers for the Project. This is attached as Appendix B 1-2a.

3.5 GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL STUDENT BURSARY

Six Nations requested that the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Aboriginal Student Bursary be revised to accommodate the large population of the Six Nations members. After several meetings Prowind agreed to two annual bursary’s; one specifically for a Six Nations student and the second open to any (including Six Nations) Aboriginal students in the vicinity of the Project. The Bursary will be managed with representation from Six Nations on the Committee. The Bursary is attached as Appendix B 1-9.


3.6

3.6 SIX NATIONS INTERNAL COMMUNITY MEETINGS:

JANUARY 23, FEBRUARY 1 & 12, 2014

Six Nations held three community meetings on the Project on January 23, February 1 and 12, 2014. Prowind was invited and attended each of these meetings; to answer any Project related questions. Over 100 people attended with lively discussions, which resulted in a recommendation to Council to proceed with the Joint Equity Partnership option.

3.7 SIX NATIONS COUNCIL: FEBRUARY 26 AND MARCH 11, 2014

The result of the Six Nations internal communications was to proceed with the development of a Joint Equity Partnership. On February 25, 2014, Six Nations Council passed a motion to proceed with Prowind’s Equity Offer, which was then waived of a second reading on March 11, 2014 and passed. The Council directed the Economic Director to retain a due diligence third party for a review of the Project and determine next steps. These Council decisions are attached as Appendix B 1-2b and B 1-2c respectively.

3.8 DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW AND APPROVAL: MAY 21, 2014

The Due Diligence process involved reviewing the Project’s proforma, Limited Partnership Agreement, Economic Participation Agreements, other necessary agreements, Project status and development risk, etc. On May 21, 2014, Council voted to confirm their interest in the Equity position.

3.9 ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT, SUPPORT AGREEMENT, AND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

Final drafts of the Economic Participation Agreement, Support Agreement, and Limited Partnership Agreement that make up the Equity Partnership were reviewed by Six Nations Council. Final approval was received during a Council meeting on March 24, 2015. Executed copies of the Agreements will be received from Six Nations which will formalized and finalize the equity partnership.

3.10 INVESTMENT ENTITY AND DEPOSIT

On August 29, 2014, Prowind met with the Economic Development Officer at the Six Nations Tourism building to receive a cheque that equals 10% of the Six Nations total equity investment, an amount corresponding to an initial capital contribution under the terms of the Limited Partnership Agreement. This signified that the Six Nations are committed to the Equity Partnership and that both parties can move forward comfortably knowing that level of commitment is secured. The funds are held in trust pending Project approval. Prowind gave a


3.7

credit against the deposit equal to an amount agreed to as capacity funding for equity option due diligence.

The investment entity for the Six Nations of the Grand River participation in the Gunn’s Hill LP was created on March 6, 2015. It is through this numbered Canada Ltd company that the Aboriginal partner will invest and own a portion of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm.

3.11 CONCLUSIONS

Prowind has worked closely with the Six Nations, following the: “Six Nations of the Grand River Land Use & Consultation and Accommodation Policy”. This process had led to an ideal outcome for both parties: Prowind and the Six Nations as Equity Partners in a renewable wind project that will benefit the community for years to come. There are still conversations regarding agreement terms taking place; legal due diligence has begun and an indemnity agreement was accepted recently. Both parties are excited about the partnership and are working in good faith to finalize the outstanding agreement.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE Six Nations of The Grand River Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council

4.1

4.0 Six Nations of The Grand River Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council

The Six Nations of the Grand River Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) provide for the perpetual care and maintenance of the Haudenosaunee people by evaluating potential infringements to the HCCC Treaty Rights.


Prowind began consultation with the HCCC/HDI in 2010 and in February 2013 signed the HDI application form and provided capacity funding to review the Project’s REA application. Correspondence since that time is summarized in the tracking included in Appendix A2.

4.2 PROWIND HCCC/HDI: MEETING FEBRUARY 2013

In February 2013 Prowind and HCCC/HDI met; Prowind introduced the Project and learn how the HCCC/HDI wish to be engaged on the Project. HDI outlined the HCCC Treaty Infringement by the Project, HCCC’s Treaty Rights and requested a 50% equity position in the Project. HDI would manage the third party review of the REA application and provide written feedback to Prowind. HDI confirmed that if equity was not an option that a royalty structure may be negotiated. Prowind representatives agreed to take HDI’s position back for discussion with senior management.

4.3 MARCH 2013 – MARCH 2014

Over the next twelve months (March 2013 and March 2014) HDI did not provide the REA Review. A follow-up meeting was not successfully arranged.

4.4 PROWIND HCCC/HDI MEETING: MARCH 26, 2014

On March 26, 2014 a meeting was held with Prowind and HCCC/HDI. HDI stated they had reviewed the Gunn’s Hill REA and would send the REA Review Report by the end of the week. Prowind provided an update on the Project and described potential Project partners: local neighbours (Oxford Community Energy Co-op) with up to a 49% Equity position and Six Nations Elected Council with a possible 10% Equity position. Prowind offered HCCC/HDI: an expansion of the 10% Equity investment opportunity to all Six Nations members to individually invest in the Project under a Six Nations Community Partnership Agreement.


4.2

The HCCC/HDI rejected this offer and explained they did not want to participate with Six Nations, instead wanted their own separate and distinct Equity Partnership Agreement. HCCC/HDI stated they wanted a larger Equity position and would discuss with the HCCC tomorrow and report back to Prowind. HCCC/HDI stated that if a larger Equity position was not an option, a Royalty structure could be negotiated. Prowind described the Project’s Aboriginal Student Bursary, and received positive feedback from HCCC/HDI. The minutes from this meeting are attached as Appendix B 2-1.

4.5 HDI LETTER WITH REVIEW OF PROWINDS’S REA APPLICATION

On April 1, 2014 HDI emailed Prowind a copy of their Prowind REA Review document dated March 27, 2014. This letter and document are attached as Appendix B 2-2a and B 2-2b.

4.6 PROWIND RESPONSE TO HDI REA REVIEW DOCUMENT

On April 9, 2014 Prowind thanked the HDI for the REA Review and would follow-up if there were questions that needed to be resolved.

4.7 PROWIND RESPONSE TO EQUITY REQUEST: LETTER APRIL 15, 2014

In a letter to HDI Prowind stated: “Prowind Canada offered HCCC and HDI members an opportunity to invest and own equity in the Project through the Six Nations partner. The total equity that was previously made available for that initiative would be increased to facilitate the Haudenosaunee members’ investment.

Prowind understood HCCC and HDI had no interest in the above noted offer and requested a separate and independent equity partner option to own 10% or more of the project. Prowind agreed to consider this request and to consult with our other partners on the project.

At this time we are unable to offer independent equity ownership to HCCC and HDI. The opportunity for Haudenosaunee members to invest through the Six Nations community channel or through the Oxford Community Energy Co-op (OCEC) is still available.


4.3

The financials for this Project will be shared with individual members if they choose to invest in the project through the OCEC offering statement or the Six Nations community offer. This should be available in the upcoming weeks.

Prowind is also prepared to discuss job opportunities during the construction process and during the post-construction monitoring process. Construction tenders will be sent to HDI in advance of the general public to give HDI members and businesses an opportunity to be awarded these construction contracts. Additionally, as mentioned in the Environment Report responses, an HDI member will be facilitated to participate in the post-construction monitoring of birds and bats and other environmental impacts.

We have attached the summary of the two $4000 annual Aboriginal Bursaries that we discussed during our meeting. One bursary will be available exclusively to Six Nations community members; the other is open to all local Aboriginal students.

Additionally, we have attached our response to the Environmental Review Report you provided to us via email on April 1, 2014. Thank you very much for those comments; we appreciate your feedback and review. If you have any question on our responses, please let us know.

We have also attached the minutes from our meeting on March 26, 2014 for your review.”

This email and Environmental Review Report (dated April 9, 2014) can be found in Appendix B 2-3a and B 2-3b, respectively.

4.8 FOLLOW-UP REQUESTS FOR A MEETING: APRIL-OCTOBER 2014

Following the March 26, 2014 meeting Prowind continued to contact HDI to book a meeting to discuss Royalty options. A letter to this effect dated September 15, 2014 is attached as Appendix B 2-4.

4.9 ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT: OCTOBER 6, 2014 - PRESENT

A letter was sent to Prowind from the HDI on October 6, 2104, and copied to both the Provincial Ministers of the Environment and Energy. The letter stated Prowind had not provided HDI with an opportunity to participate in an Equity position, and took exception to the suggestion of an Equity position through the Six Nations or the Community Co-op. Attached to the letter was an Engagement Agreement completed by the HCCC requesting: an annual contribution, employment opportunities, ability and funding to conduct archaeological monitoring, and a base payment for negotiation of the agreement.


4.4

The letter can be found in Appendix B 2-5. The Engagement Agreement is still under negotiation and will be not be available for public review until the final terms are agreed upon.

Prowind was informed that the annual contribution amount was accepted by HCCC Council and a Negotiation Fee was agreed upon between both parties via email. The wording of the Engagement Agreement is currently being finalized.

4.10 CONCLUSIONS

Prowind values HCCC/HDI involvement in the Project and will provide early notification of employment and contracting opportunities, archaeology monitoring and ongoing updates on the Project. In addition, opportunities for Aboriginal youth will be provided through the Gunn’s Hill Aboriginal Student Bursary Program. Negotiations for economic benefits are ongoing.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation

5.1

5.0 Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation

At the onset of the Project, Prowind contacted the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation (MNCFN), as this community was identified as being in close proximity to the Project area, approximately 43 kilometers from the periphery of the Project. The traditional land of the MNCFN encompasses the area of Metropolitan Toronto.


The Consultation and Outreach (CAO) department manages the MNCFN process for consultation. From 2008 to April 2013 Prowind and CAO representatives developed a transparent communications process based on mutual trust. Key activities over these years included: meetings with the CAO, Chief and Councillors, reviewing the REA Application and participating in planning discussions. Correspondence since that time is summarized in the tracking included in Appendix A3.

5.2 REVIEW OF DRAFT REA REPORTS

In March 2013, MNCFN provided recommendations based on their review of the Gunn’s Hill REA application. All issues were satisfactorily resolved and MNCFN was now in a position to discuss Economic Benefits.

5.3 ECONOMIC BENEFITS: MARCH 2013 TO APRIL 2014

MNCFN and Prowind worked on an Economic Benefits Strategy over eight months, with meetings on:

• October 31, 2013 – minutes attached as Appendix B 3-1

• March 26, 2014 – minutes attached as Appendix B 3-2

• April 11, 2014 – no minutes taken

In addition, telephone calls and emails were exchanged resulting in a draft Term Sheet that included:

• An annual payment per megawatt for the life of the Feed In Tariff (FIT) contract of twenty years for the Gunn’s Hill Project (once production has begun).

• Archaeological Monitors will be hired to support the construction crews where land will be disturbed during construction, and if there is a need for MNCFN Monitors to receive field training, the Project will support trainees on site.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation

5.2

• Employment and contracting opportunities will be provided to the community.

• All Archaeological Studies will be provided to the community.

• Updates on the Project will be provided to the community.

The Term Sheet is attached as Appendix B 3-3. At this time the MNCFN was not interested in an Equity position in the Project.

5.4 EQUITY POSITION IN THE PROJECT: APRIL 2014

During a discussion with the MNCFN in April 2014, the option for an Equity position in the Project was again raised. The community was in the process of hiring a new Economic Development Manager and there was renewed interest in an Equity position in profitable renewable projects. The CAO would take this opportunity to the new Manager.

5.5 FOLLOW-UP TO AN EQUITY POSITION: APRIL 2014

In April 2014 via a telephone call, the CAO clarified that at this time the MNCFN was not in a position to develop an Equity position, however, would discuss further the Royalty offer. This was also confirmed via email on May 6, 2014. Prowind made an email inquiry on December 10, 2014 to follow-up the Term Sheet and inquire about the status of the offer. A reply from the MNCFN on the same day indicated that they are developing a new department and do not have any updates on the status of the Term Sheet at this time.

5.6 CONCLUSION

Prowind values MNCFN involvement in the Project and to date the offer of Royalties is being discussed. In addition, Prowind will provide the community with early notification of employment and contracting opportunities, Gunn’s Hill Aboriginal Student Bursary Program, environmental and archaeological monitoring opportunities during construction and operations and ongoing updates.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE Oneida Nation of the Thames First Nation, Munsee-Delaware Nation, Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, Moravian of the Thames First Nation, Caldwell First Nation, and Walpole Island First Nation (Bkejwanong Territory)

6.3

6.0 Oneida Nation of the Thames First Nation, Munsee-Delaware Nation, Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Kettle and Stony Point First Nation, Moravian of the Thames First Nation, Caldwell First Nation, and Walpole Island First Nation (Bkejwanong Territory)

6.1 PROJECT UPDATE

Oneida Nation of the Thames FN, Munsee-Delaware FN, Chippewas of the Thames FN, Kettle and Stony Point FN, Moravian of the Thames FN, Caldwell FN, and Walpole Island FN have not requested further community engagement at this time.

6.2 CONCLUSION

The Project will continue to provide Project updates to these communities.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE Aamjiwnaang First Nation

7.1

7.0 Aamjiwnaang First Nation

Prowind contacted the Aamjiwnaang First Nation (AFN) at the onset of the Project. This community was identified as being in close proximity to the Project area, approximately 140 kilometers from the periphery of the Project.


Prowind began consultation with the AFN in 2010 and has been ongoing since that time. Prowind has met with been in contact with the Environmental Coordinator since the beginning of the consultation process. Correspondence since that time is summarized in the tracking included in Appendix A4.

7.2 AAMJIWNAANG FIRST NATION REPONSE TO REA REVIEW: APRIL 17, 2013

After receiving the Gunn’s Hill REA Application, on April 17, 2013, AFN sent Prowind an email with the attached document: “Comments and Concerns Regarding Wind Power Projects”. This document is attached as Appendix B 4-1.

7.3 PROWIND RESPONSE TO AFN REA REVIEW: JULY 12, 2013

On May 15, 2013 Prowind responded to the AFN document: “Comments and Concerns” with a draft version of Prowind’s response for their review and feedback. This email is attached as Appendix B 4-2.

7.4 AAMJIWNAANG FIRST NATION REPONSE TO DRAFT LETTER: MAY 15, 2013

On July 12, 2014 an email was received from AFN indicated that they had reviewed the draft letter and one comment to make. The key issue to resolve was if trees were removed there would be a tree replacement program, which Prowind agreed to. This email is attached as Appendix B 4-3.

7.5 PROWIND FOLLOW-UP TO AFN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: LETTER: JULY 25, 2014

On July 25, 2013 Prowind replied to AFN’s concerns regarding the Project with a final letter. In this letter Prowind confirmed they would replace any trees that have been removed. The final version of this letter addressing the AFN comments and questions is attached as Appendix B 4-4.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE Aamjiwnaang First Nation

7.2

7.6 AAMJIWNAANG FIRST NATION LETTER: MAY 29, 2014.

On May 29, 2014 Prowind received a letter from the AFN, which stated that they do not wish to engage in a full consultation process at this time. This letter is dated in the year 2013, but this is a typo as the content of the letter clearly refers to a 2014 date. This letter can be found in Appendix B 4-5.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE Métis Nation of Ontario

8.1

8.0 Métis Nation of Ontario

In 1993, the Métis Nation of Ontario (“MNO”) was established through the will of Métis people and Métis communities coming together throughout Ontario to create a Métis-specific governance structure. Correspondence with the MNO since REA submission is summarized in the tracking included in Appendix A5.

8.1 CONCLUSIONS

Prowind is committed to maintaining ongoing communications with the Métis throughout the life of the Project. Prowind values Métis involvement in the Project and will communicate early employment and contracting opportunities. In addition, opportunities for Aboriginal youth will be provided through both the Prowind Aboriginal Student Bursary Program. The Project will remain interested in any issues and concerns that the MNO might raise as the Project moves forward.

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION UPDATE Conclusions and Commitments

9.1

9.0 Conclusions and Commitments

Prowind is committed to maintaining ongoing communications with the Aboriginal Communities in close proximity to the Project. Prowind commitments include:

• Employment and contracting opportunities will be communicated to the Aboriginal Communities during the early phase of community notification;

• Any archaeological artifacts found on the Project site will be communicated to the Aboriginal Communities;

• Aboriginal Monitors will be retained during the construction period where undisturbed land will be disturbed;

• Opportunities for Aboriginal youth will be provided through the Gunn’s Hill Aboriginal Student Bursary Program;

• Provide documentation to those Aboriginal Communities wishing to be copied on Environmental Reports;

• Continue to engage with the Aboriginal Communities regarding any issues and/or concerns that might arise as the Project moves forward; and

• Partnering with those communities interested in Equity Partnerships or Economic Benefits.

Prowind is proud of their diverse relationships with their Aboriginal neighbours.

Appendix A1

Six Nations of the Grand River

Updated Tracking Sheet

Appendix A1: Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation

Row Date of Correspondence

Method of Communication From To Contents of Correspondence Project Response

60 April 5, 2013 Email R. Allan J. Thomas Reminder of Final Open houses in April 2013.

61 April 12, 2013 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas

Confirm received draft REA Reports, Executive Summary, additional Archaeology Reports sent March 4, 2013 and Invitation to Open Houses and looking forward to next meeting.

62 April 23, 2013 Meeting

Bomberry, C. Smith, P. General, A. Lickers, R. Rumney, R. Allan

Review of Draft REA Reports

63 April 26, 2013 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Thank you for providing feedback on Draft REA Reports

64 April 29, 2013 Email R. Allan J. Thomas Minutes from Draft REA Review Meeting

ABORIGINAL UPDATED TRACKING SHEET

65 April, 29, 2013 Telephone R. Allan J. Thomas Discuss next steps.

66 April 30, 2013. Telephone J. Thomas R. Allan Finalize next steps.

67 May 7, 2103 Email J. Thomas R. Rumney Agenda for May 9th meeting.

68 May 7, 2103 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Confirm our meeting for May 9th.

69 May 9, 2013 Meeting CAP Team Prowind Develop strategy for Term sheets and Council approval. App B 1-3

70 July 9, 2103 Email J. Thomas R. Allan Conference call re: Bursary.

71 July 9, 2103 Email J. Thomas R. Allan Bursary discussion.

72 July 10, 2013 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Conference call re: Bursary.

73 July 10, 2013 Email J. Thomas R. Allan Confirm call.

74 July 12, 2013 Email J. Thomas R. Rumney Cancel July 17 meeting.

75 July 12, 2013 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Dates for meeting.

76 July 17, 2013 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Student Bursary updates. App B 1-9




77 July 17, 2013 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas CAP meeting agenda.

78 July 18, 2013 Email J. Thomas R. Rumney Book a meeting for accommodation agreement.

79 July 23, 2013 Email J. Thomas R. Rumney Tentative meeting dates.

80 July 23, 2013 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Vacation schedules.

81 July 24, 2103 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Tentative meeting dates.

82 August 2, 2103 Email J. Thomas R. Rumney Meeting confirmed August 13th.

83 August 1, 2013 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Confirmed meeting agenda.

84 August 9, 2103 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Draft Wind Farm Benefits Agreement for meeting.

85 August 13, 2013 Meeting Six Nations and Prowind Prowind Discuss Economic Benefits Appendix and Bursary. App B 1-4

86 August 14, 2013 Email J. Thomas Prowind Plan for Sept. CAP: Meeting.

87 August 14, 2013 Telephone R. Allan J. Thomas Review next Steps.

88 August 15, 2013 Email R. Allan J. Thomas Confirmation of next CAP meeting.

89 August 16, 2013 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Confirm September 5th meeting.

90 August 16, 2013 Letter Prowind L. Bomberry Accept SN counter offer. Appendix x attached. App B 1-5

91 August 19, 2013 Email R. Rumney L. Bomberry Review of meeting minutes.

92 August 23, 2103 Email R. Rumney P. Monture College requirements for wind technicians.

93 August 28, 2013 Email L. Bomberry R. Rumney Approval of agenda for September 5th.

94 August 28, 2013 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Follow-up on offer, need to sign off on benefit offer.

95 August 28, 2013 Email J. Thomas R. Rumney Absent if you require immediate attention please contact Lonny.

96 August 28, 2013 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Thank you I will contact Lonny.

97 August 28, 2013 Email R. Rumney L. Bomberry Follow-up on offer, need to sign off on benefit offer.

98 September 3, 2013 Email L. Bomberry J. Anderson Term sheet must go to the community.

99 September 3, 2013 Email J. Anderson L. Bomberry Confidentiality Agreement.

100 September 5, 2013 Meeting CAP Team Prowind Plan Prowind and SN strategy. App B 1-6

101 September 5, 2013 Email R. Rumney L. Bomberry Today’s Agenda.




102 September 18, 2013 Email R. Allan J. Thomas Final meeting minutes and term sheet.

103 September 19, 2013 Email J. Anderson Six Nations Financial Model Update.

104 September 27, 2013 Email J. Anderson Six Nations Financial Model Update.

105 October 23, 2013 Email R. Rumney M. Jamieson Financial summary on Project.

106 October 23, 2013 Email J. Thomas R. Rumney Thank you.

107 October 23, 2013 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Project revised Financial summary and SN Royalty Agreement.

108 November 1, 2013 Email R. Allan J. Thomas Confirmation of Prowind Meeting.

109 November 1, 2013 Email J. Thomas R. Allan Confirm agenda for meeting.

110 November 1, 2013 Email R. Allan J. Thomas Confirm agenda.

111 November 6, 2013 Meeting Prowind CAP Team Discussed consultation, Project Update, royalties and equity position. App B 1-7

112 November 18, 2013 Email J. Thomas R. Allan Meeting minutes review.

113 November 18, 2013 Telephone R. Allan J. Thomas Sign off on minutes.

114 November 19, 2013 Email R. Rumney Six Nations Term sheet, Performa RE Power, Nov .6th meeting

minutes.

115 November 26, 2013 Meeting R. Allan M. Jamieson Equity position in Project.

116 Nov 27, 2013 Email M. Jamieson Prowind Revised Term Sheet.

117 November 27, 2013 Email J. Thomas R. Allan Update on news of Draft Statement of Claim against

Prowind.

118 November 27, 2013 Email J. Anderson J. Thomas Local opposition claim has not been filed.

119 November 28, 2013 Email M. Jamieson Prowind Feedback Revised Term Sheet.

120 November 29, 2013 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Revised Term Sheet looks good.




121 November 29, 2013 Email R. Rumney M. Jamieson Revised Term Sheet with minor changes and appendices.

122 November 29, 2013 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Revised Term Sheet.

123 December 2, 2013 Email J. Anderson Six Nations Revised Term Sheet.

124 December 2, 2013 Email J. Anderson Six Nations Revised Term Sheet.

125 December 3, 2013 Email M. Jamieson Prowind Revised Term Sheet.

126 December 3, 2013. Email R. Rumney M. Jamieson Signed Term Sheet.



129 December 3, 2013 Council Meeting Six Nations Prowind Signing of SN and Prowind Term sheet. App B 1-1

130 December 6, 2013 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Revised Term Sheet.

131 December 6, 2013 Email N. Kohoko J. Anderson General Council Meeting Dec 10, 2013.




135 December 10, 2013 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Revised Term Sheet.




139 December 10, 2013 Council Meeting Moved/passed Gunn’s Hill Term Sheet. App B 1-2a

140 December 18, 2013 Email N. Kohoko Prowind Logo for communications brochure.




141 December 18, 2013 Email J. Thomas Prowind Re: Logo.

142 December 18, 2013 Email J. Anderson J. Thomas Logo.

143 December 18, 2013 Email N. Kohoko Prowind Logo.

144 January 13, 2014 Email N. Kohoko Prowind Executed Term Sheet.

145 January 14, 2014 Email R. Rumney N. Kohoko Executed Term Sheet.

146 January 19, 2014 Email R. Allan J. Thomas Checking in Re: Shmoozefest Mohawk College.

147 January 19, 2014 Email J. Thomas R. Allan Will attend and discuss update on Prowind.

148 January 19, 2014 Email R. Allan J. Thomas Confirm attendance

149 January 20, 2014 Email J. Anderson J. Thomas Term Sheet.

150 January 20, 2014 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Community consultation questions.

151 January 20, 2104 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Call tomorrow.

152 January 20, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Community meetings.

153 January 20, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Confirm call time.

154 January 20, 2104 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Call tomorrow.

155 January 21, 2014 Email J. Thomas J. Anderson Meet prior to Community Meeting to answer any questions.

156 January 21, 2014 Telephone J. Anderson M. Jamieson Telephone re: Performa and LP Agreement.

157 January 22, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Performa and LP Agreement.

158 January 22, 2014 Email J. Thomas R. Allan Co-op membership questions.

159 January 23, 2014 Community Meeting

Six Nations Reserve Community Information Session. App B 1-8 a to d

160 January 24, 2014 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Next payment installment.

161 January 24, 2014 Email J. Thomas R. Rumney Next payment installment.

162 January 30, 2014 Meeting R. Allan L. Bomberry J. Thomas Six Nations is pleased with equity position.




163 February 1, 2014 Community Meeting

Six Nations Reserve Community Information Session. App B 1-8 a to d

164 February 3, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind Six Nations Notice of Proposed Project Change: Removal of Overhead Cable.

165 February 11, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Performa and LP Agreement.

166 February 12, 2014 Community Meeting

Six Nations Reserve Final Community Information Session. A B 1-8 a to e

167 February 13, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind Six Nations Notice of the Posting to Environmental Registry.

168 February 25, 2014 Email R. Rumney J. Thomas Questions for Council.

169 February 25, 2014 Email J. Thomas R. Allan Council Meeting.

170 February 26, 2014 Email R. Allan J. Thomas Council Resolution. App B 1-2b

171 March 3, 2014 Email J. Thomas R. Allan Council Resolution passed.

172 March 4, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Performa and LP Agreement.

173 March 4, 2014 Email N. Kohoko Prowind SNEC Resolution.

174 March 4, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson SNEC Resolution.

175 March 4, 2014 Email J. Anderson N. Kohoko SNEC Resolution.

176 March 4, 2014 Email J. Thomas R. Allan SNEC Resolution.

177 March 4, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson SNEC Resolution.

178 March 4, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson SNEC Resolution.

179 March 5, 2014 Telephone M. Jamieson J. Anderson Performa and LP Agreement.

180 March 6, 2014 Email M. Jamieson Prowind Council second review dates.

181 March 7, 2014 Email N. Kohoko Prowind March 11 date for Council approval.

182 March 7, 2014 Email M. Jamieson Prowind Time of meeting.

183 March 11, 2014 Council Meeting M. Jamieson Prowind Project passed 2nd reading waived. App B 1-2c

184 March 11, 2014 Email M. Jamieson Prowind Passed Council with 7 of 10 Councilors in support.

185 March 12, 2014 Email N. Kohoko Prowind Council Resolution hard copy.

186 March 14, 2014 Email J. Anderson N. Kohoko Sign off on press release.




187 March 17, 2014 Email J. Anderson J. Thomas Overview of meeting with Co-op and Six Nations.

188 March 20, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson OCEC offering statement final attached.

189 March 27, 2014 Email R. Rumney M. Jamieson Table of contents from web site.

190 April 2, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Meeting tomorrow.

191 April 3, 2014 Meeting Six Nations Prowind Discussion of Aboriginal Adder under FIT. App B 1-10

192 April 4, 2014 Email J. Anderson L. Bomberry Materials for Aboriginal Adder under FIT.

193 April 7, 2014 Email M. Jamison Prowind Equity offer.

194 April 7, 2014 Email M. Jamieson Prowind Re: Meeting minutes.

195 April 7, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Re: Meeting minutes.

196 April 8, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Re: Project Schedule.

197 April 9, 2014 Email M. Jamieson Prowind Project Schedule.

198 April 10, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind Six Nations Notice of Proposed Change: Turbine Supply and Nameplate.

199 April 10, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Introduction Paul Robinson S.N. due diligence on Project.

200 April 11, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Information background.

201 April 11, 2014 Telephone J. Anderson P. Robinson Book meeting.

202 April 14, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Book meeting.

203 April 14, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Book meeting.



206 April 15, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Unable to assist on LPA as no lawyer’s comments.

207 April 15, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Need comments to proceed.

208 April 16, 2014 Meeting J. Anderson P. Robinson Due Diligence on Project.

209 April 17, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson SN CFA.

210 April 17, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Meeting follow-up.

211 April 17, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson SN CFA.

212 April 17, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson SN CFA.

213 April 22, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Follow-up on due diligence.




214 April 25, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Response to key DD items.

215 April 25, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Follow-up.

216 April 25, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Follow-up.

217 April 25, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Clarification.

218 April 25, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Clarification.

219 April 30, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Summary of discussion.

220 May 6, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Due diligence discussion.



223 May 13, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Meeting logistics.

224 May 13, 2104 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Draft Statement of Claim.

225 May 13, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Gunn’s Hill Proforma.

226 May 13, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Gunn’s Hill Proforma.

227 May 13, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson MPAC article.

228 May 15, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Clarification of management fees.

229 May 16, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Due diligence discussion.




233 May 16, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Six Nations will receive their proportional share.

234 May 20, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Proforma analyses on excel.

235 May 20, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Clarification of adder.

236 May 20, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Lets talk.

237 May 20, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson 10% Equity approved by Council.

238 May 21, 2104 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Council confirmation on Equity pursuit.

239 May 21, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Meeting logistics.

240 May 21, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Logistics for meeting.




241 May 27, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Lets talk?

242 June 3, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Request for additional information.

243 June 3, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Draft Support Agreement, Economic Agreement is under review.

244 June 3, 2014 Telephone P. Robinson J. Anderson Support Agreement.

245 June 3, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Request for construction costs.

246 June 5, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Construction costs.

247 June 5, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Additional information.

248 June 10, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson, P. Robinson Need additional information to go to Council.

249 June 10, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Additional information.

250 June 10, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Update model and capacity funding needed for Council.

251 June 10, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Extended June 15 contribution deadline for co-op.

252 June 13, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Drafted financial statements with SN equity position.

253 June 13, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Received statements.

254 June 13, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Agreement to extend contribution deadline to June 29.

255 June 17, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Zip file confirmation.

256 June 18, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Zip clarification.

257 June 18, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Zip files work.

258 June 18, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson DD materials need to be resent.

259 June 24, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson 2013 Financial statements.

260 June 27, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Extension of time line.

261 June 27, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Council meeting dates.

262 July 2, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Outstanding matters.

263 July 7, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Finalize outstanding matters.

264 July 7, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Will check tomorrow.

265 July 7, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Support Agreement, with edits.

266 July 8, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Conference call with Matt.




267 July 8, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Works for me.

268 July 8, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Introduction to Co-op.

269 July 11, 2014 Email P. Robinson H. Schneider Contact information.

270 July 11, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Tuesday July 15 conference call.

271 July 14, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Capacity Funding.

272 July 14, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Plan to talk tomorrow.

273 July 14, 2014 Email P. Robinson M. Jamieson Confirm call.

274 July 14, 2104 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Call confirmed.

275 July 15, 2014 Telephone J. Anderson SN Representatives DD and agreements.

276 July 15, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson FIT documents.

277 July 15, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Agenda for call.

278 July 15, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Statements.

279 July 16, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Support agreement amendments and draft revenue letter.

280 July 17, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind Six Nations Notice of Posting to Env. Registry & Overview of Proposed Changes.

281 July 22, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Breakdown of constructions.

282 July 22, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Lets talk to day.

283 July 22, 2014 Telephone J. Anderson P. Robinson Construction costs.

284 July 30, 2014 Email J. Anderson Six Nations Draft Transfer Agreement.

285 July 30, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Invoice for deposit of net capacity funding.

286 July 30, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Will do.

287 July 30, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Draft Transfer Agreement.

288 July 30, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Out of office to August 5.

289 July 31, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Deposit.

290 July 31, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Name of entity.

291 August 1, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Invoice and escrow account.






294 August 1, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Invoice and escrow account.

295 August 7, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Trust account options.

296 August 7, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Trust account options.

297 August 13, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Separate accounts?

298 August 14, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Invoice ready waiting for account number from bank.

299 August 19, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Draft Transfer Agreement and invoice.

300 August 19, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Draft Transfer Agreement and invoice.

301 August 19, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Plans for tomorrow.

302 August 20, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Invoice final draft.

303 August 22, 2104 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Deposit payment.

304 August 22, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Logistics planning.

305 August 27, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Meeting tomorrow.

306 August 28, 2014 Emails M. Jamieson J. Anderson Meeting Friday 29th.

307 August 28, 2014 Emails M. Jamieson J. Anderson Meeting location.

308 August 29, 2014 Meeting J. Anderson M. Jamieson Next steps.

309 September 5, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Update.

310 September 8, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Agree let’s talk.

311 September 8, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Agree: tomorrow.

312 September 9, 2014 Telephone P. Robinson J. Anderson Update.

313 September 9, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Update notes.

314 September 9, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Update attached LP and Support Agreements.

315 September 12, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Indicative Term Sheets.

316 September 12, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Indicative Term Sheets.

317 September 24, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Equity guarantee Economic Participation Agreement

Update.




318 October 7, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Economic Participation Agreement.

319 October 7, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Will review.

320 October 7, 2104 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Guarantee Economic Participation Agreement Update.

321 October 17, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Indemnity issue remains outstanding and requires resolution.

322 October 20, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Proposed a call to discuss previous email.

323 October 20, 2014 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Confirmed that a call is a good idea. Meeting logistics.

324 October 21, 2014 Call M. Jamieson, P. Robinson

J. Anderson, J. Busmann

Discussion of preferences and counter proposals of indemnity structure. Prowind to provide updated language for consideration. Six Nations to respond to all other legal documents after receiving this language.

325 October 21, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Confirmation request that Economic Participation Agreement was sent

326 October 21, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Re-send of Oct 7, 2014 email with Economic Participation Agreement

327 October 21, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Requested confirmation that re-sent email was received

328 October 21, 2014 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Confirmed that the re-sent email was received. Indicated that review off all documents will progress upon receipt of indemnity language.

329 October 23, 2014 Call P. Robinson J. Anderson Comments on Economic Participation Agreement and Support Agreement provided.

330 October 28, 2014 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson, P. Robinson

Updated Economic Participation Agreement with proposed indemnity language and changes based on Oct 23, 2014 comments.

331 Week of Nov 3, 2014 Call P. Robinson J. Anderson Indicated that indemnity structure is acceptable,

requested separate Indemnity agreement.

332 November 13, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson

Draft Indemnity Agreement was attached. Request made for update on anticipated Six Nations legal review timing. Indication that legal due diligence for the lender is commencing soon and a response is required ASAP.

333 November 19, 2014 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Requested confirmation of receipt of Nov 13, 2014 email.

334 November 20, Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Receipt confirmed. Indication that comments on legal




2014 documents have been forwarded to Matt Jamieson for review. Legal review timing unknown.

335 November 24, 2014 Call J. Anderson M. Jamieson, P.

Robinson Voice messages left with each individual requesting update on legal review.

336 November 29, 2014 Call P. Robinson J. Anderson Indication that six nations legal review will commence.

Name of lawyer provided, assurance that he is fast.

337 January 5, 2015 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Requested update on status of legal review

338 January 5, 2015 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Provided comments on all agreements from Six Nations’ lawyer

339 January 12, 2015 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Provided Prowind response to Jan. 5 comments

340 January 13, 2015 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Clarification on Six Nations proposal with respect to the Economic Participation Agreement

341 January 13, 2015 Email S. Shaw P. Robinson Clarification on Economic Participation Agreement

342 January 13, 2015 Email S. Shaw P. Robinson Have call to discuss?

343 January 15, 2015 Call P. Robinson S. Shaw Discussion on assignment provisions of LP agreement

344 January 26, 2015 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson, S. Shaw Clarified that Six Nations assumes it will be an investor

345 January 26, 2015 Email S. Shaw P. Robinson LP Agreement questions

346 January 26, 2015 Email P. Robinson S. Shaw To schedule a call

347 January 26, 2015 Call S. Shaw P. Robinson Economic participation agreement

348 January 29, 2015 Email S. Shaw P. Robinson Economic participation agreement

349 January 29, 2015 Email P. Robinson S. Shaw Economic participation agreement and LP agreement amendments

350 January 29, 2015 Email S. Shaw P. Robinson Economic participation agreement

351 January 29, 2015 Email S. Shaw P. Robinson LP agreement amendments

352 January 29, 2015 Email P. Robinson S. Shaw Clarification on advisor roles

353 January 30, 2015 Email S. Shaw P. Robinson Apology for delay

354 February 11, 2015 Email S. Shaw P. Robinson Apology for delay




355 February 11, 2015 Email P. Robinson S. Shaw Thanks for update

356 February 17, 2015 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson Request for specific legal language for an agreement

357 February 17, 2015 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Provided updated financial model and financing documentation

358 February 23, 2015 Email J. Anderson P. Robinson Provided clarification FIT contract provisions

359 February 23, 2015 Email P. Robinson J. Anderson Thanked for clarification. Indicated other items are being reviewed.

360 March 9, 2015 Email S. Shaw P. Robinson Transmittal of revised documents

361 March 9, 2015 Call S. Shaw P. Robinson Status of document review

362 March 9, 2015 Email S. Shaw R. Francis Transmittal of documents

363 March 11, 2015 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson, P. Robinson

Provided clarification that agreements are required prior to NTP request

364 March 11, 2015 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Request for timetable for execution of agreements

365 March 11, 2015 Email J. Anderson M. Jamieson, P. Robinson Indicated that end of next week is required for execution

366 March 11, 2015 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Indication that due to need for a council meeting, next week can’t be done

367 March 11, 2015 Email M. Jamieson J. Anderson Execution date can be March 25th with hard push

368 March 11, 2015 Call M. Jamieson J. Anderson Asked for clarification on provision in LP agreement

369 March 11, 2015 Email R. Francis S. Shaw Transmittal of revision

370 March 11, 2015 Email R. Francis S. Shaw HDI

371 March 11, 2015 Email S. Shaw R. Francis HDI

372 March 12, 2015 Email S. Shaw M. Jamieson, R. Francis LP share purchase form

373 March 12, 2015 Email R. Francis S. Shaw LP share purchase form

374 March 12, 2015 Email s. Shaw M. Jamieson Transmittal of LP resolution

375 March 12, 2015 Email M Jamieson S. Shaw Acknowledgement

Appendix A2

Six Nations Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council and Haudenosaunee Development Institute


Appendix A2: Six Nations of the Grand River (Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chief Council)

Date of Correspondence

Method of Communication

From

To

Contents of Correspondence

Project Response

32 Feb. 19, 2013 Mail Prowind H. Hill Notice of Final Public Meetings ROC 33 Feb. 28, 2013 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Additional Archaeology's studies will be sent to HDI. ROC

34

Feb. 28, 2013

Email

H. Hill

R. Rumney

Will pass on to HDI consultants, lets discuss meeting in a few weeks.

35

March 4, 2013

Mail

Prowind

Chief MacNaughton

Additional Archaeology Reports, please comment by April 23, 2013.

ROC

36 March 19, 2013 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Can we book Draft REA Review meeting? 37 April 5, 2013 Email R. Allan H. Hill Can we book Draft REA Review meeting? 38 April 5, 2013 Email R. Allan H. Hill Reminder of Gunn's Hill Open House in April 2103.

39

April 12, 2013

Email

R. Rumney

H. Hill

Confirm receipt of draft REA Reports (2 CD's and 1 hard copy) Additional Archaeology Reports, and Invitation to Open Houses in April. If you would like to meet please let us know.

40 April 12, 2013 Telephone H. Hill R. Rumney Clarify meeting requests. 41 April 12, 2013 Mail R. Rumney H. Hill Summary of telephone call.

ABORIGINAL UPDATED TRACKING INFORMATION

42 April 15, 2013 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Bursary, Province Project Review Response.

43 May 28, 2013 Email H. Hill R. Rumney HDI will send REA feedback.

44 July 9, 2013 Email R. Rumney H. Hill REA Review update, awaiting feedback.

45 August 8, 2013 Email R. Rumney H. Hill REA Review Update, awaiting feedback.

46 February 3, 2014 Letter (Email and mail) Prowind HDI Notice of Proposed Project Change: Removal of

Overhead Cable.

47 February 13, 2014 Letter (Email and mail)

Prowind HDI Notice of Posting and Environmental Registry.

48 February 19, 2014 Email H. Hill R. Rumney Set up a meeting re: Treaty Infringement. 49 February 20, 2014 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Pleased to meet to discuss next steps. 50 February 21, 2014 Email H. Hill R. Rumney Dates for meeting.

51 February 28, 2014 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Dates for meeting.

52 March 3, 2014 Email H. Hill R. Rumney Dates for meeting.

53 March 4, 2014 Email R. Rumney H. Hill March 26 meeting date?

54 March 26, 2014 Meeting Prowind HCCC/HDI Comments of REA Review, Aboriginal Bursary, and infringement

App B 2-1




From

To


Project Response

55 April 1, 2014 Email H. Hill R. Rumney REA review comments. App B 2-2 a and b

56 April 9, 2014 Email R. Allan H. Hill Thank you and will respond to your comments.

57 April 15, 2014 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Provided March 26 Meeting minutes, REA review response and Bursary Document

App B 2-3 a and b

58 April 10, 2104 Letter (Email and mail) Prowind HDI Notice of Proposed Change: Turbine Supply &

Nameplate Capacity.

59 July 17. 2014 Letter (Email and mail) Prowind HDI Notice of Posting to the Env. Registry & Overview of

Proposed Changes.

60 August 25, 2014 Email H. Hill R. Rumney Book a meeting.

61 September 15, 2014 Letter R. Rumney H. Hill Book a meeting. App B 2-4

62 October 6, 2014 Letter H. Hill Prowind Letter cc. Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Energy App C 2-5

63 October 6, 2104 Email H. Hill Prowind Letter and Engagement Agreement. App C 2-5

64 October 24, 2014 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Revised Engagement Agreement

65 October 27, 2014 Email H. Hill R. Rumney

HDI are prepared to accept annual payment offer, but would like to further negotiate the Negotiation Fee and provided counter offer. If Prowind agrees to these terms, HDI is willing to take these terms to Council on Nov 1.

66 October 28, 2014 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Thank you for your email. Prowind will discuss and get back.

67 October 31, 2014 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Happy to hear that the annual payment is satisfactory, provided counter offer for negotiation fee.

68 November 10, 2014 Email H. Hill R. Rumney

HDI has accepted the annual payment at Nov 1 council meeting, but uncertain about negotiation costs, required clarification on timing of payment.

69 November 14, 2014 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Provided clarity on timing of payment

70 Dec 10, 2014 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Check on status of recent conversation regarding negotiation fee.




From

To


Project Response

71 Dec 29, 2014 Email H. Hill R. Rumney Proposed alternative negotiation fee for Prowind’s consideration. Will work on draft Engagement Agreement and get it back for Prowind’s review and signature.

72 Jan 5, 2015 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Prowind agrees to recently proposed negotiation fee. Wanted to ensure timing of payment was acceptable. Prowind is happy to sign revised agreement with these terms.

73 Jan 6, 2015 Email H. Hill R. Rumney Fine with timing of payment.

74 Jan 19, 2015 Email H. Hill R. Rumney Attached latest draft of Engagement Agreement with revised terms as discussed previously. Advise of on-going work, archaeology, to prepare necessary monitoring.

75 Jan 20, 2015 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Thank you for the revised agreement, we will get back to you as soon as we can with any revisions.

76 Mar 3, 2015 Email H. Hill R. Rumney Please provide response or edits to engagement agreement in order to get it endorsed. Recent Notice of Change was sent to environmental supervisor for comment.

77 Mar 5, 2015 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Thanks for the email. Prowind is working on edits and will get the document back to HDI shortly.

78 Mar 5, 2015 Email H. Hill R. Rumney Thank you

79 Mar 13, 2015 Email R. Rumney H. Hill Sent engagement agreement back with a few edits, to “Engagement and Cooperation”, “Monitoring”, project capacity, office address. Let us know if there are any questions.

80 Mar 20, 2015 Phone R. Rumney H. Hill

Called to ensure agreement had been received and check on process timing. Ms. Hill indicated that review would happen early next week and hopes to have it signed quickly afterwards as long as wording is accepted by legal.

Appendix A3

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation


Appendix A3: Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation



From

To


Project

Response

43 Feb 28, 2013 Email Prowind C. King Additional Archaeology Reports

44 March 1, 2013 Meeting Prowind C. King, F. Sault Tour of Project Site, review of Draft REA.

45 March 4, 2013 Email Prowind Chief B. Laforme Additional Archaeology Reports

46 March 5, 2013 Email R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Meeting minutes for review.

47 March 21, 2013 Email R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Term sheet for Project.

48 April 5, 2013 Email R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Looking forward to hearing results from meeting on term sheets.

49 April 12, 2013 Email R. Rumney C. King, F. Sault Invitation to public meeting.

50 April 23, 2013 Public Meeting Prowind C. King, F. Sault Update on Project, review storyboards discuss term sheet.

51 April 27, 2013 Email R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Thank you for attending public meeting.


52 May 6, 2013 Telephone R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Do we need to book next meeting?

53 June 18, 2013 Telephone R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Do we need to book next meeting?

54 August 13, 2013 Telephone R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Book next meeting?

55 October 1, 2013 Email R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Lets book a meeting?

56 October 31, 2013 Meeting Prowind MNCFN Term sheet discussed. App B 3-1

57 December 18, 2013

Email Mail

C. King R. Allan Initiation to Consultation and Outreach Christmas Open House

58 January 20, 2014 Meeting R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Mohawk College Aboriginal Shmoozefest.

59 February 3, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind MNCFN Notice of Proposed Project Change: Removal of Overhead Cable.

60 February 13, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind MNCFN Notice of Posting & Environment Registry.

61 March 18, 2014 Telephone R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Book next meeting.

62 March 20, 2014 Telephone R. Allan C. King, F. Sault, M. Sault Update on Project interest.

Appendix A3: Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation



From

To


Project

Response

63 March 26, 2014 Meeting Prowind C. King, F. Sault Develop agenda for next meeting on Term Sheet. App B 3-2

64 March 27, 2014 Email R. Rumney C. King, F. Sault Confidentiality Agreement.

65 April 4, 2104 Email R. Rumney MNCFN Minutes of March 26 Meeting, signed Confidentiality Agreement.

66 April 10, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind MNCFN Notice of Proposed Change: Turbine Supply & Nameplate Capacity.

67 April 11, 2014 Meeting Prowind MNCFN Discuss Term Sheet for Project.

68 April 15, 2104 Email MNCFN Prowind Feedback on Term Sheet.

69 April 15, 2014 Email Prowind MNCFN Amended Term Sheet, Proforma, and LP Agreement. App B 3-3

70 April 24, 2014 Email R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Feedback on Term Sheet?

71 May 5, 2014 Telephone R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Confirm interest in Equity position.

72 May 5, 2104 Email R. Rumney MNCFN Support Equity position with capacity funding, if required.

73 May 6, 2014 Email F. Sault R. Rumney MNCFN unable to pursuit an Equity position.

74 July 1, 2014 Employment Fair R. Allan MNCFN Update at MNCFN Career Fair.

75 July 17, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind MNCFN Notice of Posting to Env. Registry & Overview of Proposed Changes.

76 August 12, 2014 Telephone R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Update of community interest to participate in Project.

77 September 4, 2014 Telephone R. Allan C. King, F. Sault Update of community interest to participate in Project.

78 December 10, 2014 Email R. Rumney F. Sault Status of term sheet for Gunn’s Hill project.

79 December 11, 2014 Email F. Sault R. Rumney No update on term sheet, new department is being formed

as Carolyn King is leaving.

Appendix A4

Aamjiwnaang First Nation


3

Appendix A4: Aamjiwnaang First Nation



From To Contents of Correspondence Project Response

31 April 12, 2013 Email R. Rumney S. Johnston

Confirm receipt of Draft REA Reports, Executive Summary, Additional Archaeology Reports, Invitation to Open Houses and Prowind Aboriginal Youth Bursary Program.

32 April 19,2013 Email W. Plain Jr. R. Rumney Committee and we will let you know if we wish a meeting, Bursary information has been sent to our Education department.


33

April 17, 2013

Email

S. Johnston

R. Rumney

Comment and Concerns Statement based on April 15, 2013 email from Prowind.

App B 4-1

34 May 15, 2013 Email Prowind S. Johnston W. Plain Draft comments on Comments and Concerns letter. App B 4-2

35 July 9, 2103 Email R. Rumney S. Johnston Draft letter response.

36 July 12, 2013 Email W. Plain Jr. R. Rumney Reviewed draft, concern is replacement of trees. App B 4-3

37 July 25, 2013 Letter R. Rumney S. Johnston W. Plain Final version of letter with replacement of trees. App B 4-4

38 February 3, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind AFN Notice of Proposed Change: Removal of Overhead Cable.

39 February 13, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind AFN Notice of Posting & Environmental Registry.

40 April 10, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind AFN Notice of Proposed Change: Turbine Supply & Nameplate Capacity.

41 May 29, 2014 Letter AFN Prowind AFN will not engage in full consultation. App B 4-5

42 July 17, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind AFN Notice of Posting to Env. Registry & Overview of Proposed Changes.

Appendix A5

Métis Nation of Ontario


3

Appendix A5: Métis Nation Of Ontario Date of

Correspondence Method of

Communication

From

To


Project Response

34 Feb. 19, 2013 Mail Prowind J. Young Notice of Final Public Meetings. ROC 35 Feb. 19, 2013 Mail Prowind C. Bunn Notice of Final Public Meetings. ROC 36 Feb. 28, 2013 Email Prowind J. Wager Additional Archaeology Reports. ROC 37 Jan. 13, 2013 Mail Prowind J. Wager Correction to Notice of Draft Site Plan. ROC

38

Mar. 4, 2013

Mail

Prowind

J. Young and C. Bunn

Additional Archaeology Reports to follow up Draft REA Reports; reiterate comments required by Apr 23, 2013, location for download, offer to meet.

ROC

39

Mar. 5, 2013

Email

R. Allan

J. Wager

Confirm receipt of past correspondence, available to meet when MNO is ready.

40 April 5, 2013 Email R. Allan J. Wager Reminder of Open House April 23 and 24. ROC

41

April 12, 2013

Mail

Prowind

J. Wager

Confirm receipt of Draft REA Reports, Executive Summary, Additional Archaeology Reports, Invitation to Open Houses and Prowind Aboriginal Youth Bursary Program.


42 April 5, 2013 Email R. Allan J. Wager Invitation to Open Houses.

43 December 13, 2013 Telephone R. Allan J. Wager Project Update.

44 January 7, 2104 Meeting R. Allan J. Wager Project Update.

45 February 3, 2104 Letter (Email) Prowind MNO Notice of Proposed Change: Removal of Overhead Cable.

46 February 13, 2014 Letter (email) Prowind MNO Notice of Posting to Environmental Registry.

47 April 10, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind MNO Notice of Proposed Change: Turbine Supply & Nameplate Capacity.

48 July 17, 2014 Letter (Email) Prowind MNO Notice of Posting to Env. Registry & Overview of Proposed Changes.

Appendix B

Supporting Documentation Table of Contents

1. Six Nations

1. Prowind Canada Inc. and Six Nations of the Grand River Term Sheet for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm (Original August 2013, final Signed December 3, 2014) 2

2. Six Nations Council Motion Memorandum: a. December 10, 2013 4 b. February 26, 2014 5 c. March 11, 2014 6

3. Six Nations CAP Team and Prowind Meeting Minutes

May 9, 2013 8

4. Six Nations CAP Team and Prowind Meeting Minutes August 13, 2013 10

5. Prowind letter To L. Bomberry Re: Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Economic Benefits Agreement Offer August 16, 2013 12

6. Six Nations CAP Team and Prowind Meeting Minutes

September 5, 2013 14

7. Six Nations CAP Team and Prowind Meeting Minutes November 6, 2013 15

8. Six Nations Future: Story boards for Six Nations Community Engagement Dates: January 23, February 1, and February 12, 2014.

a. Presentation Boards from meetings 17 b. Press Release 26 c. Gunn’s Hill project handout for meetings 27 d. Community meeting advertisement poster 29 e. Final meeting (Feb12) powerpoint slides 30

9. Prowind Canada: Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Aboriginal Student Bursary

Draft Final: Approved by Six Nations 43

10. Six Nations CAP Team and Prowind Meeting Minutes April 3, 2014 46

2. Haudenosaunee Development Institute

1. Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, HDI and Prowind Meeting Minutes: March 26, 2014 49

2. Haudenosaunee Development Institute to Prowind a. Letter: Project Review Summary: March 27, 2014 51 b. Document: Project Review Report 52

3. Prowind REA Response to Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council & HDI

a. Email: April 15, 2014 56 b. Environmental Report response document: April 15, 2014 58

4. Letter from Prowind to Haudenosaunee Development Institute

Re: Book Meeting: September 15, 2014 64

5. Haudenosaunee Development Institute to Prowind Letter: October 6, 2014 65

3. Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation

1. Prowind and Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation

Meeting Minutes: October 31, 2013 68

2. Prowind and Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation Meeting Minutes: March 26, 2014 70

3. Prowind and Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation

Term Sheet: April 15, 2014 72

4. Aamjiwnaang First Nation

1. Aamjiwnaang First Nation Re: Comments and Concerns for REA

Email: April 17, 2013 74

2. Prowind to Aamjiwnaang First Nation Re: Comments and Concerns Email: May 15, 2013 77

3. Aamjiwnaang First Nation Re: Draft Prowind Letter

Email: July 12, 2013 78

4. Prowind response to Aamjiwnaang First Nation Re: REA Letter Final Version: July 25, 2013 79

5. Aamjiwnaang First Nation Re: No Further Consultation. Letter: May 29, 2014 (Please note: this letter is dated 2013, but this is a typo as can be clearly seen by date references within the letter of 2014) 82

5. Project Notices

1. Notice of Project Change (Removal of Overhead Cable) 84

2. Notice of Posting on Environmental Registry 85

3. Notice of Proposed Change (Turbine Supply and Nameplate Capacity) 86

4. Notice of Posting on Environmental Registry and Overview of Proposed Changes 87

5. Notice of Proposed Change (Access Road Option) 88

Appendix B1

Six Nations of the Grand River

Supporting Documentation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Six Nations CAP and Accommodation Team and Prowind Meeting Minutes May 9, 2013

Attendees: Six Nations: Lonny Bomberry Prowind: Juan Anderson Dawn LaForme Rochelle Rumney Joanne Thomas Randi Allan Caron Smith Amy Lickers 1. Prowind Update:

• Prowind provided the history of Prowind Canada, (owned by a German Company), small (two employees in Canada) and believes in renewable energy with wind projects in several countries.

• Prowind is planning to submit their REA Application within the next two weeks and has provided the Six Nations (as requested) with a copy of the Draft Aboriginal Consultation Report. The REA has been held up as Prowind waits for a letter from the MTCS.

• Prowind held their final Open Houses in April and hopes to have all comments returned to the interested parties in the next week. In addition, Prowind has had feedback from the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation and the Aamjiwnaang First Nation. Prowind provided the Six Nations with comments received from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, which is a form for all wind projects. The HDI have received the Draft REA Reports and to date have not provided a meeting date with Prowind.

• Prowind appreciated the feedback from Dr. Hostovsky and is in the process of finishing the recommended changes and once completed will send to Six Nations for review.

• Prowind described how the Project is planned to be a 25 MW Project however, may have to be downsized to 18 MW.

• Jeff Segal will be replaced by Juan Anderson as President of Prowind Canada as of the end of May 2013.

2. Six Nations Update:

• Six Nations Accommodation Process consists of developing an agreement with

the Proponent and then taking the recommended agreement to the community. For Prowind (due to its small size) would require 2 or 3 community meetings and Prowind may be asked to attend these meetings. This process should take 4 to 6 weeks, and once approved by the community, the agreement would go to Chief and Council. The meetings may be combined with meetings for another project due to the small size of Gunn’s Hill. It may be useful to have a Prowind rep attend

8

the meetings. • Six Nations is presently engaged in this process with NextEra, • Six Nations does not think this would be a difficult Project to discuss with the

community because we have consulted together early in the process.

3. Prowind Accommodation Agreement Recommendations: Prowind provided the following offer:

• per MW; • Six Nations Aboriginal Student Bursary that can be reworded by Prowind and Six

Nations staff to best meet the needs of the community; and • Potential partnership in the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm through First Nations adder

program.

4. Next Steps: • Six Nations will review the Prowind Accommodation Agreement

Recommendations and get back to Prowind, • Prowind and Six Nations will develop wording for the Aboriginal Bursary, and • Prowind will discuss potential ownership opportunities with the owner in

Germany.

9

Six Nations CAP Team and Prowind Meeting Minutes

August 13, 2013 at 1:30 pm

Attendees: Six Nations: Lonny Bomberry Prowind: Juan Anderson Dawn LaForme Rochelle Rumney Joanne Thomas Randi Allan Caron Smith Paul General Phil Monture 1. Prowind provided Six Nations with a written offer that included:

• per MW; • Six Nations Aboriginal Student Bursary that was reworded by Prowind and Six

Nations staff to best meet the needs of the community; and • Various work opportunities; and • Notification commitments.

2. Six Nations countered with the following offer:

• per MW • Requested some changes to the wording in the Benefits Agreement • Six Nations Aboriginal Student Bursary be either:

o annually to support a student for one year or o Increase of annual amount of bursary from 2x per year to 2 x

per year. • Meet with Matt Jamieson to continue discussion of equity position • Offer is either annual amount (Benefits Agreement) or equity position.

3. Discussion initiated by Six Nations of a possible equity position in the Gunn’s Hill

Wind Farm and the additional First Nation adder. This was follow up to a conversation on this topic from an earlier Prowind/Six Nations meeting. Prowind noted that the offer may still be on the table if they are still interested, Prowind will have to get the current strategy from the company owner. Public co-op ownership is currently being offered. Aboriginal ownership would be a 10% equity position.

4. Next Steps:

• Six Nations will review equity position and meeting will be booked for early September

• Prowind will respond to Six Nations counter offer. • Prowind will prepare confidentiality agreement required to review term sheets for

equity position. • Prowind will discuss internally the Six Nations Aboriginal Bursary and report

10

back to Six Nations. • Prowind will prepare a summary of colleges offering Wind Turbine Technician

programs and requirements for admission and send to CAP team.

11

Lonny Bomberry Six Nations of the Grand River 2498 Chiefswood Rd. P. O. Box 5000 Ohsweken ON, N0A 1M0 August 16, 2013 To: Lonny Bomberry, Lands and Resources Director Re: Gunn’s Hi l l Wind Farm Economic Benefits Agreement Offer Dear Mr. Bomberry, I’d like to thank you and the CAP team for meeting with us on August 13, 2013 to discuss the Economic Benefits appendix for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm (Project). During the meeting, Six Nations made a counter-offer of in annual payments as part of the Capacity Funding Agreement, Economic Benefits appendix between Prowind Canada and Six Nations. The counter-offer also recommended that the bursaries currently offered by Prowind (2 x

) be increased (2 X ). It was previously agreed that due to the population of Six Nations, one of the two bursaries would be made available exclusively to Six Nations community members. We have evaluated your counter-offer internally and with our upper management and we are pleased to inform you that we accept your counter-offer as described above. We have included with this letter the updated Economic Benefits appendix that reflects the agreed upon annual payment and some additional revisions to the wording that were discussed during our meeting. We have also included the updated Aboriginal Student Bursary document that reflects the increased value of the bursaries. We look forward to meeting with you on September 5, 2013 to discuss the opportunity of an equity partnership in the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. As Six Nations stated, if the option for an equity partnership is chosen, acceptance of this counter-offer and the Economic Benefits appendix will become null and void in favour of the equity position.

12

Page 2 of 2

Thank you again for your time spent on this project. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me or my colleague, Rochelle Rumney, at 905 528 1747. Sincerely, Juan Anderson Vice-President

13

Six Nations CAP Team and Prowind Meeting Minutes September 5, 2013

Attendees: Six Nations: Lonny Bomberry Prowind: Juan Anderson Matt Jamieson Rochelle Rumney Joanne Thomas Randi Allan Caron Smith Nicole Kohoko 1. Prowind and Six Nations confirmed agreement on the written offer that was reviewed

at the meeting which included: • per MW; • Six Nations Aboriginal Student Bursary; and • Training, employment and contractor opportunities.

It was agreed this would be referred to as the “Six Nations and Prowind Royalty Agreement for the Gunn’s Hill Project”.

2. Discussion of an equity position for the Six Nations in the Gunn’s Hill Project. Both

parties signed a Confidentiality Agreement prior to discussion of Gunn’s Hill finances. It was agreed that Prowind would discuss with the President of their company how best to send Matt Jamieson a Term Sheet for review of the Project’s economics by the Six Nations. This is to be sent within the next two weeks. It was reiterated that if the Equity position is the preferred route, the Royalty Agreement would become null and void.

3. The schedule for Six Nations internal Community Consultation was discussed, and the

Prowind Agreement would be vetted to the community with another project, either solar or wind. Consultation could be completed within 30 days, followed up with Chief and Council Endorsement. Prowind is seeking to complete this process by early December to meet their obligations. The agreement will either be a Royalty Agreement or a Royalty and Equity Agreement.

4. Prowind described the Project, 2 possible turbine providers and review of their

financials. The REA was submitted in June, turbine contracts need to be signed and a Community Equity position in the Project to be finalized.

5. Next Steps:

• Prowind will provide term sheet information within two weeks. • Six Nations will review and determine if there is an interest in Six Nations

entering into an equity position. • Prowind will draft and send out a Draft Royalty Agreement for all to review.

14

Six Nations and Prowind Meeting Minutes November 6, 2013

Attendees: Six Nations: Lonny Bomberry Prowind: Juan Anderson Matt Jamieson Rochelle Rumney Joanne Thomas Randi Allan Caron Smith Paul General Phil Monture 1. Six Nations provided an update that included:

• Six Nations election is on November 16, 2013. • Many Councilors will not change, as they have not been challenged in their

districts. • Five people are running for Chief including the existing Chief and a long term

Councilor. • Currently involved in a “Residential” community engagement process, which had

a very interesting dialogue last night with 7 attending, several participants representing larger groups.

• Updates on community engagement can be found on Six Nations website: sixnationsfuture.com.

• Matt met with Council and there is interest in pursuing Prowind’s offer of a 10% Equity position in the Gunn’s Hill Project (with either 100% Council support or 100% community funding, or a mix of both, the preference is community funding).

• Default would be to accept the offer of royalties and bursaries. • Six Nations needs to meet with the lawyers to determine the best model the board

layout and by-laws. • The financials need to be conservative.

2. The discussion reviewed the existing royalty offer which included:

• per MW, • Over 20 years, • Aboriginal Student Bursary is for $ per year x 2 students per year, one of

which is exclusive to Six Nations members.

3. Prowind agreed to work with Six Nations on providing 2 options to the Six Nations community:

1. 10 % equity or 2. Royalty and bursaries.

15

4. Six Nations added the following: • Both the equity and royalty offers would include the bursaries • Both the equity and royalty offers would include employment and contracting

opportunities for the members and include a Job/Contractors Fair. • Prowind agreed

5. Discussion on Schedule:

• Prowind is planning to submit NTP application in April 2014, • Submission will require a financial plan to demonstrate how the funding is in

place including all equity positions. • Six Nations needs to raise in equity and would prefer to offer shares to

the community vs funding all through Chief and Council and the banks. • This will require 30-day community engagement process followed up with several

equity meetings. • Community engagement will begin on January 10, with meetings starting the

week of January 13-17. • The engagement would end the week of February 6th with additional equity

meetings to follow if required. • After Community engagement the feedback would be vetted through the Chief

and Council.

6. Prowind needs to: • Discuss with their owner the Six Nations 10% equity and where it would come

from; either Prowind’s 51% or the Community Co-op 49%. • Develop the term sheet and submit to Six Nations, with place on bottom for

signatures by Chief and Prowind Representative. • Provide Matt with an excel version of the Project’s financials • Ensure that the Aboriginal Adder is pulled into the Project’s Profits.

7. Next Steps:

• Six Nations will review financials and term sheet and the next meeting will be booked for December.

• Six Nations will take final term sheet to Council for approval on December 9. • Prowind will provide Six Nations with the information on here the 10% equity

will come from. • Next meeting will outline the details of the community engagement plan

scheduled for January, ensure the Term Sheet is signed off and next steps.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JANUARY 13, 2014 Two wind energy projects to be discussed via Six Nations community engagement process Six Nations of Grand River Territory – Six Nations Elected Council is pleased to announce the launch of community engagement to determine community support for two (2) proposed wind projects: Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm and Port Ryerse Wind Project. Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is anticipated to generate 25 megawatts in renewable energy which will be sold to the Ontario Power Authority under the Feed in Tariff (FIT) Program. This project will be owned and operated by Gunn’s Hill Windfarm Inc. and will be located in the Township of Norwich, Oxford County. The proposed benefits include a potential 10% equity investment in the project which is estimated to generate revenue in excess of over 20 years, or a default royalty payment of for the 20 year term of the FIT Contract ). In addition, the developer is offering two (2) annual post-secondary bursaries for the 20 year term of the FIT contract.

“I am very pleased that Six Nations Elected Council has been engaged by both of these renewable energy proponents; our willingness to present these opportunities to our community demonstrates our ongoing commitment to work with our neighbor’s and partners to support net positive contributions to our environment and community”, said Chief Ava Hill. The community engagement process has been designed to educate the Six Nations community about the financial, economic, and environmental impact associated with the project, and provides a community wide mechanism to gather feedback that will help guide the Six Nations Elected Council now and in the future. The community engagement process will run from January 13th to February 14th, 2014; the community meetings are scheduled to occur on January 23rd, February 1st and 12th. The community meetings will provide further information and will include the opportunity for community members to have one-on-one discussions with staff. Community members can visit www.sixnationsfuture.com to get more information about the project and to share their feedback.

Thursday, January 23, 2014 Information Session Six Nations Tourism Assembly Room 1-6pm

Saturday, February 1, 2014 Information Session Six Nations Sports Den 11am-3pm

Wednesday, February 12, 2014 Final Community Meeting Six Nations Community Hall 7-9pm

* * * For more information please contact: Amy Lickers or Nicole Kohoko Six Nations Economic Development 519-753-1950 www.sixnationsfuture.com

26

http://www.sixnationsfuture.com/

Your Voice Is Important

Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Project

Project Information

Community Benefits

Questions?

Upcoming Meetings

Prowind Canada is proposing to develop the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm on

privately owned, agricultural land as well as municipal easements (electrical

lines only) in the Township of Norwich, Oxford County, Ontario. The Project

was awarded a Feed-In-Tariff contract with the Ontario Power Authority.

The project is 25 megawatts with 10 wind turbines which will be owned

and operated by Gunn’s Hill Windfarm Inc.

Joint Equity Partnership: Prowind is inviting Six Nations to be a 10% Equity Partner in the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. Six Nations Capital Contribution will be approximately , which is estimated to generate revenue in excess of over 20 years. In the event, Six Nations is unable or unwilling to proceed with an equity interest, the community benefit will default to a royalty stream as follows:

Royalty Default provision: for 20 year term of FIT Contract ( ).

Other project benefits, regardless of Equity or Royalty: a. per year for 20 years from the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Aboriginal Student Bursary for post secondary education will be exclusively available to Six Nations of the Grand River members. b. If Six Nations members are interested in employment Prowind will ensure all resumes are passed to the hiring offices and considered for employment.

* Thursday, January 23th, 2014 Information Session Six Nations Tourism Assembly Room, 1:00pm-6:00pm

* Saturday, February 1st, 2014 Information Session Six Nations Sports Den, 11:00am-3:00pm

* Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 Final Community Meeting Six Nations Community Hall, 7:00pm-9:00pm

Coffee and refreshments provided.

Contact: Amy Lickers or Nicole Kohoko, Six Nations Economic Development

P: 519-753-1950

www.sixnationsfuture.com

A Project for Discussion by Six Nations Community Members

FACT Monitoring at all turbines will be conducted

twice weekly (3-4 day intervals) from May 1- October 31 and once weekly from November 1- November 30 for three years

following start of operation.

FACT Six Nations Capital Contribution will

be approximately , which is estimated to generate revenue in excess

of over 20 years.

FACT The project would be located in the

Township of Norwich and City of Woodstock, Oxford County, Ontario.

27

Your Comments_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Contact Information

All comments must be submitted by February 13th, 2014. Please drop off comment cards to the following locations:Six Nations Economic Development2498 Chiefswood Rd. Ohsweken, ON N0A 1H0

Six Nations Elected Council1695 Chiefswood Rd. Ohsweken, ON N0A 1M0

Name ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Address ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

City ______________________________________________________________ Postal Code _______________________________

Phone _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Email ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Age _____________

Sex ______________

Community Member

Non-Community Member

q

q

q

q q

Please contact me regarding other future projects and community engagement sessions.

www.sixnationsfuture.com

Do you support this project? YES NO

Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm ProjectA Project for Discussion by

Six Nations Community Members

It’s Our Community’s Future, Let’s Talk About It.

28

Your Voice Is Important

Learn about community options for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Project and the .

It’s your community and your voice should be heard.

For more information please contact Amy Lickers or Nicole Kohoko, Six Nations Economic Development

It’s Our Community’s Future, Let’s Talk About It

Information Sessions

Thursday, January 23th, 2014 Six Nations Tourism

Assembly Room 1:00pm-6:00pm

Saturday, February 1st, 2014 Six Nations Sports Den

11:00am-3:00pm

Final Community Meeting

Wednesday, February 12th, 2014 Six Nations Community Hall

7:00pm-9:00pm

Coffee and refreshments provided.

P: 519-753-1950 www.sixnationsfuture.com29

&


January 13th – February 14th, 2014

A Project for Discussion by Six NaIons Community Members

30





31

WHAT IS SIX NATIONS FUTURE? •  Six Na'ons Future was created to inform Six Na'ons members of communica'on and accommoda'on opportuni'es for projects happening within the Haldimand Tract and 1701 Nanfan Treaty territory.

•  The inten'on is to provide a vehicle for open proac've dialogue concerning projects within our areas of interest.

32

WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME THIS? •  The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that there is the legal Duty to Consult First Na'ons communi'es.

•  This means that when projects are being developed within the areas that land rights exist, a First Na'on community has the right to be involved in discussions about that project.

33

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ME?

•  Six Na'ons Elected Council staff (CAP Team) first review the project within their professional lens, then they bring the best nego'ated proposals to the community for input and resolu'on.

•  You have the right to be involved in discussions that involve your future and your children’s future.

YOUR VOICE IS IMPORTANT!

34

Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Project January 13th – February 14th, 2014


35

THE FACTS •  Prowind Canada is proposing to develop a ten turbine 25MW, wind projects in the Township of Norwich, Oxford County.

•  The project will be owned and operated by Gunn’s Hill Windfarm Inc.

36

37

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT •  The project is located primarily on privately owned

agricultural land, with electrical lines being located on municipal easements.

•  The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm was designed to avoid vegeta'on removal so that limited habitat is lost during construc'on.

•  Opera'onal monitoring at all turbine will be conducted twice weekly from May 1 – October 31, and once weekly from November 1 – November 30 for three years.

•  If needed mi'ga'on measure might include periodic shut downs or blade feathering

38

ARCHAEOLOGY •  Stage 1 and Stage 2 archeology was conducted. Six Na'ons monitors were present for the Stage 2 study.

•  During Stage 2 a single First Na'ons findspot, with an isolated individual ar'fact was encountered. No further work was required for the surveyed area.

39

PROPOSED BENEFITS JOINT EQUITY PARTNERSHIP = 10% Equity Partner in Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. investment for an es'mated revenue genera'on over 20 years.

OR ROYALTY PAYMENT = MW/Year (es'mated

) Plus •  Post Secondary Bursary per year for 20 years •  Employment opportuni'es

40

A CALL TO ACTION •  Let us know what your thoughts and concern are about the development and benefits being offered.

41

OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE •  WWW.SIXNATIONSFUTURE.COM •  Facebook – Six Na'ons Future •  Comment Cards •  Contact

–  Amy Lickers or Nicole Kohoko (519-‐753-‐1950) Tourism Building -‐ 2498 Chiefswood Road

•  Mee'ngs –  January 23, 2014 1pm-‐6pm – Tourism –  February 1, 2014 11am-‐3pm – Sports Den –  February 12, 2014 7pm-‐9pm – Community Hall

42

Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm

Aboriginal Student Bursary

43

Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Aboriginal Student Bursary August 15, 2013

2

Summary Prowind Inc. (“Prowind”) presents a bursary intended to promote the success of Ontario’s Aboriginal

students involved in post-secondary education and job training for Ontario’s renewable energy industry.

Bursary awards will be granted in the first year following successful commissioning of a wind farm and

annually thereafter for the lifetime of the project (estimated to be 20 years). Details of bursary allocation

and eligible persons are included in the sections below.

Bursary Details Two bursaries, each totaling CAD will be awarded annually, following successful commissioning of

the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm.

• One bursary annually) will be available exclusively to Six Nations of the Grand River members.

• One bursary ( annually) will be available to any Aboriginal student living in Ontario.

The awards will be granted to two Aboriginal students (as outlined above) who are either entering or

attending post-secondary education or job training in the renewable energy industry or related field. The

renewable energy industry can be broadly applied and may consider any aspect of the process including, but

not limited to: policy development, project development, technology design, environmental assessment,

environmental monitoring, construction, electrical, engineering, operation and maintenance, etc.

Application Details Application criteria:

1) Aboriginal person living in Ontario.

2) Registered in post-secondary education or job training that is related to renewable energy or related

field (submit program details and proof of registration).

3) Submit short essay (maximum one page) explaining how your education or training can be applied to

the renewable energy industry.

Application deadline:

All application information must be submitted by June 30 and bursary will be awarded on July 31 of each

year.

Additional information:

The successful candidates will provide documentation to support the requirements above along with a cover

letter to the address noted under the Contact Information section.

44

Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Aboriginal Student Bursary August 15, 2013

3

If a student is applying for a bursary for their second, third, etc. year in the program, please submit previous

year’s program grades along with application.

Bursary recipients will be chosen by the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Aboriginal Student Bursary Advisory

Committee. The Advisory Committee reserves the right to withhold one or both bursary awards if no

suitable candidate is identified in a given year. If funds are withheld in a given year, those funds will be held

in reserve and offered the next year in addition to those bursaries originally intended to be offered that year.

Contact Information For further details, or to apply for this bursary, please contact Prowind as noted below.

Prowind Canada Inc.

19 Bold St, Unit 2B

Hamilton, ON

L8P 1T3

Phone: 905-528-1747

Fax: 866-203-6516

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.prowind.ca

Please ensure that the letter, fax or email subject identifies that the application is for “Gunn’s Hill Wind

Farm Aboriginal Student Bursary”.

45

Six Nations CAP and Accommodation Team and Prowind Meeting Minutes April 3, 2014

Six Nations: Lonny Bomberry Prowind: Juan Anderson Matt Jamieson Rochelle Rumney Joanne Thomas Randi Allan Phil Monture 1. Update re: HCCC and HDI; •

2. Update re: MNCFN: •

3. Multi-proponent meeting: •

4. Equity Schedule As outlined in the draft LP agreement provided, the following dates are to be met by Six Nations for the equity position to be solidified

• April 30, 2014 - 10% of initial capital contribution in escrow with a binding commitment for the full amount (Section 7.3)

• June 30, 2014 – provide intension (if any) to increase capital contribution (Section 7.4) • July 30, 2014 – 10% of total promised capital contribution held in escrow with a binding

commitment for the full amount (Section 7.4) 5. Next Steps: • Prowind to investigate Six Nations access issue to data room,

46

• Provide schedule for financial milestones required by Prowind • FIT 1.5 conditions for the aboriginal adder. • Six Nations will determine if they wish to call a multi-proponent meeting.

47

Appendix B2

Six Nations Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council and Haudenosaunee Development Institute


48

Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), HDI and Prowind to discuss Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm

Meeting Minutes

Date: March 26, 2014 Time: 10:00 am Location: GREAT Boardroom, 16 Sunrise Crt., Ohsweken, On In attendance: Chiefs: Peter Sky, Arnold Hill, Brian Doolittle, Toby Williams, Herb Williams and Director HDI Hazel Hill. Prowind: Juan Anderson, Rochelle Rumney, and Randi Allan. Hazel Hill outlined the HCCC Treaty Infringement by the Project, HCCC’s Treaty Rights and the 50% equity position suggested in March 2013. She also stated that the HDI had reviewed the Gunn’s Hill REA and would send the Report by end of week. Juan Anderson provided an update on the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm (Project) and described potential Project partners: local neighbours (Oxford Community Energy Co-op) at up to 49% equity, Six Nations Elected Council at 10% equity. HCCC/HDI were aware that Six Nations Elected Council plan to offer 49% of the 10% equity share to individual Six Nations community members. Prowind offered HCCC/HDI: An expansion of the 10% equity investment opportunity to all Six Nations members to individually invest in the Project under a Six Nations Community Partnership Agreement. The HCCC/HDI rejected this offer and explained they did not want to participate with Six Nations, and wanted their own separate and distinct Equity Partnership Agreement. Prowind discussed the potential opportunity to invest, the percentage that would likely be available and the timeline, which includes an initial investment of approximately

held in escrow by April 30, 2014, as a commitment to provide the balance of by July 31, 2014. Prowind would always retain 51% voting rights, which is

required by the banks for lending of money. HCCC/HDI stated they wanted a large equity position and would discuss with the HCCC tomorrow and report back to Prowind. Prowind will see if a pro forma of the project’s financials is available to share at this time. Prowind described the Project’s Aboriginal Student Bursary, and received positive feedback from HCCC/HDI.

49

March 26, 2014 HCCC/HDI and Prowind Meeting Minutes

2

Prowind outlined the approach that will be taken to promote the employment opportunities relating to the Project. HCCC/HDI confirmed that if equity was not an option that a royalty structure could be negotiated. Prowind representatives agreed to take HCCC/HDI’s position back for discussion with management and Project ownership group. Next Steps:

1. HDI will send the Environmental Review Summary Report.

2. Prowind representatives will take HCCC/HDI’s position back for discussion with management and Project ownership group.

3. Prowind will see if a pro forma of the Project’s financials is available to share at this time.

4. The next meeting date will be discussed via email.

50

51

HDI Project Review Summary

Gunns Hill Wind Farm Project

Wind-‐Environmental Concerns:

Concern: Erosion and sedimentation problems at waterways during construction, due to vegetation removal and topsoil stockpiling

Remediation: HDI Environmental Monitor to ensure construction mitigation measures for erosion and sedimentation are functional and stockpiles within floodplains identified/protected

1

Rationale:

Concern: Potential negative effects from all the turbines in the area, on birds/bats/wildlife during operation

Remediation: Radar monitoring and/or other mitigation measures approved by MNR

2

Rationale: Radar monitoring can detect bird/bats, can be used to monitor behaviour, identify potential mortalities, and optioned to control (star/stop) turbines to lower bird mortalities. Also, radar signals have been proven to repel bats from operating wind farms.

Concern: Potential displacement of birds/wildlife from the turbine-‐generated noise (specifically, amplitude modulation)

Remediation: Conduct Pre & Post Construction wildlife studies (mortality and displacement) with HDI involvement

3

Rationale: The amplitude modulation phenomenon is characterized as periodic amplified “thumping” which is claimed as unpredictable but occurs when the speed of the turbine/blades increases as the wind speeds increase. This phenomenon has the potential to displace birds/wildlife adjacent to wind farms/turbines

52

Concern: Concrete foundations and buried electrical cables not being removed when project is decommissioned

Remediation: Complete removal of all concrete foundations and all buried electrical cables

4

Rationale: Complete restoration and/or enhancement of project area is preferred

Concern: Potential fire at wind turbine’s nacelle from a lightning strike

Remediation: Fire suppression system and containment curb around tower base

5

Rationale: Potential release of toxins into surrounding environments (air, water, and soil). Containment curb would also contain any accidental spills during turbine maintenance

Transmission Line/Electrical System Concerns:

Concern: Exact locations of electrical components (cables, poles, and cable junction boxes/pull boxes) not yet confirmed, may interfere with archaeological sites

Remediation: Provide map showing exact locations and coordinate construction activities with HDI Archaeology Group

6

Rationale:

Concern: Potential electrocution of birds and wildlife from high voltage lines and equipment

Remediation: Incorporate insulator covers at potential perching and nesting locations

7

Rationale: High voltage lines are bare, exposed aluminum/steel conductors and equipment have exposed contact points both with minimal clearance distances between lines/points and generate heat which could attract birds and wildlife

53

Concern: High voltage circuit breakers emitting greenhouse gas (SF6) into atmosphere

Remediation: Use low leakage SF6 circuit breakers or an alternate type of high voltage circuit breaker

8

Rationale:

Recommendations:

• HDI requests a copy of final REA application that Prowind submits to MOE

• With the amount of wind turbines expected to be in operation throughout southern Ontario, can the bird, bats and wildlife co-‐exist without increasing mortality rates?; there may be a saturation level with the amount of turbines when too many may be causing too much of a negative impact. Pre-‐ and Post-‐construction bird/bat/wildlife mortality monitoring should be included in HDI Environmental Monitoring responsibilities

• Request assurance that high-‐voltage fault currents of overhead power lines will not affect fish, wildlife, and soil

• HDI to monitor project progress for changes and environmental compliance

• Request that HDI receive a copy of project’s tender documents before construction starts and an Operation & Maintenance manual before construction is complete, both documents should be reviewed for HDI environmental compliance

• Vegetation/flora to be removed should be surveyed by HDI representatives for presence of rare traditional medicines before removal

• Collaborate with MNR, local Conservation Area authority and project wildlife studiers to identify potential areas where habitats could be improved/enhanced to allow area fauna/wildlife to flourish (i.e. improving wildlife movement corridors, where wildlife underpasses may be needed)

• Turbine lighting be strobed as per MNR turbine/bird lighting recommendations

• Use transformers with high-‐flammability coolant to mitigate the fire potential or the use of dry-‐type transformers

54

• Ensure all high-‐voltage electrical equipment containing insulating oil has containment basins to contain any leaks

• Alternative solutions may be required if antenna users lose TV signals coming from USA and Toronto because of signal interference turbines may create when in operation

• Eight REA water bodies were identified within the Zone of Investigation. Two will be crossed by underground collector lines and five will be crossed by overhead feeder line. Monitoring of these waterways during and post construction required.

• MNR’s Approvals and Permitting Requirements Document (APRD) for renewable energy projects report contains information pertaining to endangered and threatened species identified in the project area; HDI requests a copy for our review

• Project location is within MNR’s Wildlife Management Unit (WMU 90B), published total harvest number for WMU 90 in 2010 was 2083 deer and 687/17 wild turkey (spring/fall); Harvest numbers for fish or ducks are not made available. HDI requires post construction reports for comparison to ensure habitat not affected by turbines.

• A copy of the completed REA application should be requested and reviewed for areas of environmental concern.

• HDI also requests that all contractors be provided advanced notice of HDI’s participation in the pre and post monitoring program prior to work commencing to ensure our involvement.

55

Subject: Gunn's Hill Wind FarmFrom: Rochelle Rumney <[email protected]>Date: 14-04-15 2:48 PMTo: "Hazel E. Hill" <[email protected]>CC: Juan Anderson <[email protected]>, Randi Allan <[email protected]>

Hello HCCC and HDI, Thank you for meeting with us on March 26, 2014 to discuss the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. At that time Prowind Canada offered HCCC and HDI members an opportunity to invest and own equity in the Projectthrough the Six Nations partner. The total equity that was previously made available for that initiative would be increased tofacilitate the Haudenosaunee members’ investment. We understand from our meeting that HCCC and HDI has no interest in the above noted offer and requested a separateand independent equity partner option to own 10% or more of the project. Prowind agreed to consider this request and toconsult with our other partners on the project. At this time we are unable to offer independent equity ownership to HCCC and HDI. The opportunity for Haudenosauneemembers to invest through the Six Nations community channel or through the Oxford Community Energy Co-op (OCEC) isstill available. The financials for this Project will be shared with individual members if they choose to invest in the project through theOCEC offering statement or the Six Nations community offer. This should be available in the upcoming weeks. Prowind is also prepared to discuss job opportunities during the construction process and during the post-constructionmonitoring process. Construction tenders will be sent to HDI in advance of the general public to give HDI members andbusinesses an opportunity to be awarded these construction contracts. Additionally, as mentioned in the EnvironmentReport responses, an HDI member will be facilitated to participate in the post-construction monitoring of birds and bats andother environmental impacts. We have attached the summary of the two annual Aboriginal Bursaries that we discussed during our meeting. Onebursary will be available exclusively to Six Nations community members, the other is open to all local Aboriginal students. Additionally, we have attached our response to the Environmental Review Report you provided to us via email on April 1,2014. Thank you very much for those comments, we appreciate your feedback and review. if you have any question on ourresponses, please let us know.

We have also attached the minutes from our meeting on March 26, 2014 for your review. Please let us know if you have any questions and if you’d like to set up a meeting to discuss this further. Thank you, Rochelle Rumney

--Rochelle RumneyEnvironmental Coordinator

Please note our new office address:Prowind Canada Inc.19 Bold St., Unit 2BHamilton, ON L8P 1T3

Office: 905.528.1747Cell: 905.745.4719Fax: 866.203.6516

www.prowind.ca

56

Attachments:

Prowind_ProjectReviewResponse_HDI_20140409_Final.pdf 110 KBHDI_Prowind_MeetingMinutes_March262014.docx 25.0 KBPCI_BursaryDocument_20131129.pdf 2.1 MB

57

Prowind Canada Inc.’s Response to HDI Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Project Summary Review

Prepared: April 9, 2014 Wind-Environmental Concerns: 1. Concern: Erosion and sedimentation problems at waterways during construction, due

to vegetation removal and topsoil stockpiling. Remediation: HDI Environmental Monitor to ensure construction mitigation measures for erosion and sedimentation are functional and stockpiles within floodplains identified/protected. Prowind Response: Mitigation measures for sedimentation of surface water is addressed in the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm REA, Construction Plan Report, Section 5.10, page 37. Prowind is prepared to hire an HDI environmental monitor during the construction period when land is being disturbed.

2. Concern: Potential negative effects from all the turbines in the area, on

birds/bats/wildlife during operation.

Remediation: Radar monitoring and/or other mitigation measures approved by MNR. Rationale: Radar monitoring can detect bird/bats, can be used to monitor behaviour, identify potential mortalities, and optioned to control (star/stop) turbines to lower bird mortalities. Also, radar signals have been proven to repel bats from operating Wind farms. Prowind Response: Potential negative impacts to birds, bats and wildlife are addressed throughout the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm REA Natural Heritage Assessment Report. Prowind has conducted Radar monitoring for bats to determine abundance and diversity of bats in the Project area. Results indicate that the area is low in bat habitat and numbers. Results of this survey can be found in the Natural Heritage Assessment Report, Appendix G. Several bird studies were also conducted to determine abundance and diversity of bird species. Again, there was limited bird habitat and numbers in the project area. Results of these surveys can be found in the Natural Heritage Assessment Report, Appendix F.

58

Prowind will participate in Post-construction Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring as required and approved by the MNR. The methodology for this survey can be found in the Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan in the REA, Design and Operations Report, Appendix F. Prowind is prepared to hire a HDI monitor to participate in these surveys.

3. Concern: Potential displacement of birds/wildlife from the turbine-generated noise

(specifically, amplitude modulation).

Remediation: Conduct Pre & Post Construction wildlife studies (mortality and displacement) with HDI involvement.

Rationale: The amplitude modulation phenomenon is characterized as periodic amplified “thumping” which is claimed as unpredictable but occurs when the speed of the turbine/blades increases as the wind speeds increase. This phenomenon has the potential to displace birds/wildlife adjacent to wind farms/turbines. Prowind Response: Several bird/wildlife studies were conducted to determine abundance and diversity of species. Birds/Wildlife were observed, but with low abundance and diversity. The results of the studies can be found in various locations in the Natural Heritage Assessment report. Prowind will participate in Post-construction Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring as required and approved by the MNR. The methodology for this survey can be found in the Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan in the REA, Design and Operations Report, Appendix F. As discussed in item 2 above, Prowind is prepared to hire a HDI monitor to participate in these surveys.

4. Concern: Concrete foundations and buried electrical cables not being removed when

project is decommissioned

Remediation: Complete removal of all concrete foundations and all buried electrical cables Rationale: Complete restoration and/or enhancement of project area is preferred Prowind Response: Turbine foundations are removed in consultation with the landowner at the time of decommissioning. This is outlined in the REA, Decommissioning Report, Section 4.4.

5. Concern: Potential fire at wind turbine’s nacelle from a lightning strike.

59

Remediation: Fire suppression system and containment curb around tower base. Rationale: Potential release of toxins into surrounding environments (air, water, and soil). Containment curb would also contain any accidental spills during turbine maintenance. Prowind Response: The turbines are typically equipped with fire suppression systems in the nacelle of each turbine. An Emergency Preparedness Plan will be prepared in consultation with the local emergency services to deal with fire, spills and other emergencies. An example emergency preparedness plan is included in the REA in the Design and Operations Report, Appendix E.

6. Concern: Exact locations of electrical components (cables, poles, and cable junction

boxes/pull boxes) not yet confirmed, may interfere with archaeological sites.

Remediation: Provide map showing exact locations and coordinate construction activities with HDI Archaeology Group. Prowind Response: All electrical cables internal to the project will be buried and locations have been identified as illustrated in the map provided in the REA, Design and Operations Report, Appendix A. Any area that will be disturbed during construction, including all electrical works, have been surveyed for archaeological sites as outlined in the Archaeological and Heritage Resources Assessment Report.

7. Concern: Potential electrocution of birds and wildlife from high voltage lines and

equipment

Remediation: Incorporate insulator covers at potential perching and nesting locations Rationale: High voltage lines are bare, exposed aluminum/steel conductors and equipment have exposed contact points both with minimal clearance distances between lines/points and generate heat which could attract birds and wildlife. Prowind Response: The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm will not have any high voltage lines, only low voltage lines (27.6 kV). All electrical lines used for the Project, with the exception of a very short section (300 m) at the grid-tie location, will be buried and pose no risk to birds/wildlife.

8. Concern: High voltage circuit breakers emitting greenhouse gas (SF6) into

atmosphere

Remediation: Use low leakage SF6 circuit breakers or an alternate type of high

60

voltage circuit breaker. Prowind Response: The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm will not have any high voltage lines or equipment (>50 kV) and therefore no high voltage circuit breakers are required.

Recommendations: 1. HDI requests a copy of final REA application that Prowind submits to MOE.

Prowind: The final REA Reports are available on our website and if requested, Prowind can provide CDs copies of the REA.

2. With the amount of wind turbines expected to be in operation throughout southern

Ontario, can the bird, bats and wildlife co‐exist without increasing mortality rates? There may be a saturation level with the amount of turbines when too many may be causing too much of a negative impact. Pre- and Post- construction bird/bat/wildlife mortality monitoring should be included in HDI Environmental Monitoring responsibilities.

Prowind: Prowind will include HDI in the Post-construction Mortality Monitoring for

birds and bats. 3. Request assurance that high-voltage fault currents of overhead power lines will not

affect fish, wildlife, and soil.

Prowind: No high voltage (>50 kV) lines will be used for this Project. 4. HDI to monitor project progress for changes and environmental compliance

Prowind: Prowind will continue to engage with HDI over the life of the Project. 5. Request that HDI receive a copy of project’s tender documents before construction

starts and an Operation & Maintenance manual before construction is complete, both documents should be reviewed for HDI environmental compliance.

Prowind: Prowind will provide HDI with construction documents and O&M

materials, and will continue to engage on the availability of contracts.

6. Vegetation/flora to be removed should be surveyed by HDI representatives for presence of rare traditional medicines before removal

Prowind: The Project site is on agricultural land and municipal road allowance and

therefore no naturally occurring vegetation will be required to be removed. 7. Collaborate with MNR, local Conservation Area authority and project wildlife studiers

to identify potential areas where habitats could be improved/enhanced to allow area fauna/wildlife to flourish (i.e. improving wildlife movement corridors, where wildlife underpasses may be needed)

61

Prowind: The Project area is exclusively agricultural and municipal road allowance

and does not remove any existing wildlife habitat from the area. 8. Turbine lighting be strobed as per MNR turbine/bird lighting recommendations

Prowind: Turbine lighting will comply with all lighting requirements as per NAV Canada and any MNR requirements.

9. Use transformers with high-flammability coolant to mitigate the fire potential or the use

of dry-type transformers

Prowind: The type of transformers used at this Project will be supplied by the turbine manufacturer (Senvion). Prowind will pass along your recommendation to Senvion.

10. Ensure all high-voltage electrical equipment containing insulating oil has containment

basins to contain any leaks

Prowind: No high voltage electrical equipment (>50 kV) will be used in the Project. 11. Alternative solutions may be required if antenna users lose TV signals coming from

USA and Toronto because of signal interference turbines may create when in operation.

Prowind: Telecommunications interference is addressed in the REA in the Design

and Operations Report, Section 5.7.3 and Appendix G. 12. Eight REA water bodies were identified within the Zone of Investigation. Two will be

crossed by underground collector lines and five will be crossed by overhead feeder line. Monitoring of these waterways during and post construction required.

Prowind: The overhead electrical line has been removed from the Project scope as

per a Project Change notification dated January 31, 2014. The buried lines will pose no impacts to waterways during operation.

13. MNR’s Approvals and Permitting Requirements Document (APRD) for renewable

energy projects report contains information pertaining to endangered and threatened species identified in the project area; HDI requests a copy for our review.

Prowind: The Species at Risk report is confidential in order to protect the location of

these species. Prowind will discuss with the MNR whether that confidential document can be shared.

14. Project location is within MNR’s Wildlife Management Unit (WMU 90B), published

total harvest number for WMU 90 in 2010 was 2083 deer and 687/17 wild turkey (spring/fall); Harvest numbers for fish or ducks are not made available. HDI requires post construction reports for comparison to ensure habitat not affected by turbines.

Prowind: Prowind will provide all available data to the MNR to be used for these

counts.

62

15. A copy of the completed REA application should be requested and reviewed for

areas of environmental concern.

Prowind: Prowind provided a copy of the REA application and capacity funding for its review on February 15, 2013. The final versions the REA application can be found on our website www.prowind.ca.

16. HDI also requests that all contractors be provided advanced notice of HDI’s

participation in the pre and post monitoring program prior to work commencing to ensure our involvement.

Prowind: Prowind will inform all contractors of HDI’s participation in Post-

construction Monitoring Programs.

63

Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council RR2 Ohsweken, ON N0A 1M0

September 15, 2014 Attn: Hazel Hi l l , Director RE: Gunn’s Hi l l Wind Farm discussion Dear Ms. Hill, Thank you for your email of August 25, 2014. Prowind would be happy to meet with you to discuss the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm further. We are available to meet with you at the end of September. Please let us know dates and times you have available to meet with us around that time. We look forward to meeting with you. Thank you,

Rochelle Rumney Environmental Coordinator

64

65

66

Appendix B3

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation


67

Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation (MNCFN) and Prowind Meeting Minutes

October 31, 2013

Attendance: Carolyn King, MNCFN Randi Allan, Prowind

The following topics were discussed:

1. Question: What is the status of Prowind’s Term Sheets provided to the MNCFN?

Answer: MNCFN has hired consultants to help alleviate some of the gridlocks when working with Proponents. Carolyn’s department is over worked and there has been confusion on roles and responsibilities. A new committee has been developed and has yet to have its first meeting.

2. Question: Who is on the Committee?

Answer: Chief, two Councilors, Margaret Sault and the Economic Development Director.

3. Question: What is the mandate for the Committee?

Answer: The Duty to Consult and Accommodate is the key accountability of the Committee, and to review and negotiate Term Sheets developed through the consultation with proponents that is managed by Carolyn.

4. Question: Will the Committee like the Prowind Term Sheet?

Answer: The Project at Gunn’s Hill is small and the Term Sheet seems to fit the size. Carolyn has recommended acceptance to the Committee.

5. Question: Will Prowind need to meet with the Committee?

Answer: Not necessarily, only if there are concerns.

6. Question: When will Prowind hear from the Committee?

68

Answer: The Committee is new and has several Projects to discuss, so at this time Carolyn is not sure. As well, an election is planned for December, which may slow the process down.

7. Question: Will there be employment and contracting opportunities for the

MNCFN members? Answer: The Project will create a job for a Siemens maintenance technician and if members are interested in working with the turbine manufacture the Project team will ensure all resumes are passed to the hiring office. Construction contracting opportunities will be discussed with the community.

Next Steps: It was agreed to wait till the election is over and Prowind will contact Carolyn and or the Economic Development Director to discuss the Prowind Term Sheet.

69

Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation (MNCFN) and Prowind Meeting Minutes March 26, 2014

In attendance: Carolyn King, MNCFN Fawn Sault, MNCFN Margaret Sault, MNCFN Don Richardson, Shared Value Solutions Rochelle Rumney, Prowind Randi Allan, R. Allan & Associates Prowind provided a brief update on the Gunn’s Hill Project:

• The Project will be 10 turbines, this is unchanged • Recent project changes have reduced output to 18 MW • Received REA completion by MOE, currently under technical review • Prowind is prepared to discuss Term Sheet delivered on March 20, 2013, and • Reviewed the Prowind Aboriginal Student Bursary.

MNCFN discussed:

• Project is on MNCFN traditional lands/territories and not on Six Nations traditional lands

• New consultation protocol was approved in Dec 2013, but not yet available on their website

• Based on the Term sheet provided to MNCFN, the offer is less than Six Nations and offer should be higher for MNCFN than for Six Nations,

• Understanding is that Six Nations has been offered an equity position that Six Nation will provide funding toward or royalties of $ 1,000/MW per year

• Employment and contracts important to the community however Project is small and there are no long term employment opportunities

• Any future work tenders available for the construction of the wind farm will be vetted through the MNCFN Employment Department,

• Don Richardson discussed habitat mitigation and riparian corridor creation along access roads.

• A REA review had been provided by MNCFN staff and a third party review may be considered.

Group discussion:

• MNCFN concern that only one aboriginal artifact was found during the 2010 AMICK archeology fieldwork and that the Stage 2 should be redone with MNCFN monitors. Prowind will consider the logistics of redoing the Stage 2 work and report back to MNCFN.

• Equity position may be of interest to the MNCFN community and discussions will be held with the new MNCFN numbered company to determine if there is an interest is pursuing this option. Prowind stated this option needs to be finalized for Prowind by mid April to ensure funding is in place for bankers by April 30, 2014.

70

Next Steps:

• It was agreed that MNCFN would discuss internally the equity and royalties position and get back to Prowind in the near future.

• Prowind would research an additional Stage 2 field study and get back to the MNCFN in the near future.

71

Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation and Prowind Canada Inc.

Confidential Term Sheet Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm

April 15, 2014

Prowind Canada Inc. (Prowind) is pleased to offer the following term sheet options to the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation (MNCFN): A. Prowind is inviting the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation to be an Equity

Partner in the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm (Project). The Equity offer is 10% ownership of the Project, which is a total buy-in of approximately . A 10% security of approximately is expected by April 30, 2014 if the MNCFN wishes to go forward with this opportunity.

OR B. An annual amount of $ per megawatt for the lifetime of the Feed-in Tariff contract

of twenty years for the Project, once production has begun. $ /MW x 18 MW = $ /year

The following opportunities will accompany either of the above options: • An archaeological monitor will be hired to support the construction crews where land

will be disturbed during construction, and if there is a need for MNCFN monitors to receive field training, the Project will support trainees on the site.

• Employment and contracting opportunities will be communicated to the community. • All archaeological studies will be provided to the community. • Updates on the Project will be provided to the community.

• One annual bursary of will be available to a local Aboriginal student for

education or job training.

72

Appendix B4

Aamjiwnaang First Nation


73

74

75

76

Subject: Gunn's Hill Wind Farm - draft letter for reviewFrom: Rochelle Rumney <[email protected]>Date: 13-05-15 2:56 PMTo: Sharilyn Johnston <[email protected]>, "Wilson Plain Jr." <[email protected]>CC: Randi Allan <[email protected]>

Hi Sharilyn and Wilson,

As per my earlier voicemail, I wanted to send over a letter we have prepared in response to your feeback on the Gunn's Hill Wind Farmproposal.

We received your letter dated April 17, 2013 regarding the Gunn's Hill Wind Farm proposal and wind energy concerns. Thank you verymuch for sending that letter over, we really appreciate having some feedback from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation.

We have reviewed the letter and prepared a thorough response. We'd love to have you review it before it becomes a finalizeddocument. We want to ensure the responses are adequate and address all your concerns.

I have attached the letter as a word file, please have a look and provide any feedback or make edits. If you need more information onany topic, please let me know. I have also attached a document that provides additional information on wind turbines and healtheffects, which is an meant to be an attachment to Prowind's response.

If you'd like to call to discuss, my office number is 905-528-1747 or email anytime ([email protected]).

Thanks again for your feedback. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,Rochelle Rumney

--Rochelle RumneyEnvironmental Coordinator

Prowind Canada Inc.226 1/2 James St. N., Unit AHamilton, ON L8R 2L3www.prowind.ca

Office: 905.528.1747Cell: 905.745.4719Fax: 866.203.6516

Attachments:

Response letter to AFN_20130515_DRAFT.docx 234 KBGunnsHillWindFarm-Wind turbines and human health-20130510.pdf 148 KB

77

Subject: RE: Gunn's Hill Wind Farm - Draft letter follow-upFrom: "Wilson Plain Jr." <[email protected]>Date: 13-07-12 9:59 AMTo: "Rochelle Rumney" <[email protected]>CC: "Sharilyn Johnston" <[email protected]>

Hi Rochelle, I have had a chance to review the a3ached dra4.One ques:on I had is regarding the removal of “a few trees” to allow for an access road. There is no men:onof any these trees being replaced. Understanding the area around the turbines is an agricultural area, anequal or greater number of trees could be replaced in another suitable loca:on. Once the final version of the le3er is issued, it will be forwarded to our Environment commi3ee for theirreview and any other comments.Those comments, if any, will be forwarded to you. Thank you,Wilson

From: Rochelle Rumney [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: July-09-13 3:12 PMTo: Sharilyn Johnston; Wilson Plain Jr.Subject: Gunn's Hill Wind Farm - Draft letter follow-up Hi Sharilyn and Wilson,

I just wanted to follow-up a draft letter we sent over to your office regarding the Gunn's Hill WindFarm. This was sent to you via email on May 15, 2013 asking for any feedback you had on the draftversion.

This draft letter was prepared in response to your letter of April 17, 2013 outlining some concernsabout wind energy and the Gunn's Hill Wind Farm.

I wanted to send over a draft version first to ensure it addressed your comments appropriately andadequately.

At this time we hoping to finalize this letter for our records, so we are looking for any feedback youmight have. If none, we can just remove the word Draft from the letter and send you the final version.

Please let me know if you have any comments or not. If I haven't heard back by the end of this month,I'll assume there are no comments and I'll issue a final version of the letter to your office.

I've attached the May 15, 2013 draft letter to this email for ease of reference.

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments.

78

Aamjiwnaang First Nation 978 Tashmoo Ave. Sarnia, ON N7T 7H5 July 25, 2013 Attn: Sharilyn Johnston, Environmental Coordinator RE: Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Renewable Energy Approval Report Dear Ms. Johnston, Thank you for your letter dated April 17, 2013 providing feedback from the Aamjiwnaang First Nation Environmental Committee on the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Renewable Energy Approval reports. We appreciate your feedback and have provided the following responses to the document attached to your letter entitled “Comments and Concerns Regarding Wind Power Projects”. This letter is a revised version of the draft letter we sent to you on May 15, 2013. Bird and Bat Studies Prowind has sent the Aamjiwnaang First Nation all Environmental Reports that have been submitted to the Ontario Government to date, including any bird and bat studies and will continue to send Reports as they are made available. This will include the upcoming Bat Maternity Roost Survey and all post-‐construction monitoring surveys. Impacts to Earthworm and Snakes Prowind has not been able to identify scientifically reviewed information or documented accounts of impacts to earthworms and snakes due to operational vibration from the turbines and/or electrical impacts from buried cables. Given the number of operational turbines worldwide, we had hoped information would be available. If the Aamjiwnaang First Nation has any suggestions on Reports in this area, please let us know.

79

RE: Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Renewable Energy Approval Report July 25, 2013

Page 2 of 3

Additionally, any species that are listed under the Species At Risk Act have been considered at the Project site and appropriate studies have been conducted to evaluate their presence and abundance. No Species at Risk snake species or habitat were identified in the Project area. Vegetation Restoration around Turbines The Project is located in agriculture fields, therefore only agricultural crops will be required to be restored once construction is complete. There will not be any temporary removal of natural vegetation. A few trees will need to be removed for the construction of access roads; the trees will be replaced in a nearby location and similar tree species to that which was removed or native tree species will be used. The area immediately surrounding the turbine is exclusively agricultural and will be replaced with agricultural crop of the landowners choosing. Animal Corridors Animal corridors were considered during the design and impacts assessment of the wind farm and are discussed in the REA documents, specifically the Natural Heritage Assessment report. Animal corridors such as deer, amphibian and bat movement corridors were considered and none of the three movement corridors were present in the Project area. The Project area has very little remnant natural habitat remaining and the wind farm will not directly impact any of the remaining natural vegetation in the area. The MNR confirmed that there are no deer wintering areas in the project area. Vegetation Removal Natural vegetation will be avoided wherever possible. Very little vegetation will need to be removed for construction, only a few trees will need to be removed from hedgerows to facilitate access roads. Trees will be replaced in a nearby location and similar tree species to that which was removed or native tree species will be used. Wetland areas were avoided during the construction process and will not be directly disturbed during construction or operation. There are two areas where a vegetated area/watercourse will be crossed by buried cable and in these locations the buried cable will be bored under the stream to prevent surface disruption. Entry and exit point for the underground boring process will be a minimum of 30 m from the edge of the feature wherever possible. Any impacts that do occur to natural features will be restored to pre-‐disturbance condition. Human Health In response to your comments about health issues, we have retained the services of Dr. Loren Knopper of Intrinsik Environmental to address questions regarding wind turbines and health effects. Dr. Knopper is an expert in this field and has done extensive research on this topic. The general understanding at this time is that if sited properly (more then 550 m and less than 40 dBA) from homes, there will be no direct impacts caused by the wind turbines. I have attached a brief summary that Dr. Knopper has put together that will go in the final REA documents. I hope that it addresses your questions on human health impacts from wind turbines.

80

81

82

Appendix B5

Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm

Project Notices

83

\\cd

1220-f

02\0

1609\a

ctiv

e\6

0960823\d

raw

ing\C

ore

l\New

spaperN

otic

e\2

014-0

1_N

otic

eO

f_P

roje

ctC

hange\1

60960823_N

_P

roje

ctC

hange_2014-0

1_N

otic

e.c

dr

Project Name: Gunn's Hill Wind Farm

Project Location: Township of Norwich, Oxford County, Ontario

MOE Reference Number: 8529-98KMYC

OPA Reference Number: FIT-F565PX8

Dated at: the Township of Norwich, this the 31st of January, 2014.

Prowind Canada Inc. on behalf of Gunn’s Hill Windfarm Inc. is planning to engage in a renewable energy project in respect of which the issuance of a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) is required. The project is subject to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) Part V.0.1 and Ontario Regulation 359/09 (Regulation). This notice must be distributed in accordance with Section 16.0.1 of the Regulation. This notice is being distributed to make the public aware of a proposed change to the project.

Project Description:Pursuant to the Act and Regulation, the facility, in respect of which this project was originally proposed to be engaged in, consisted of a Class 4 wind facility with 10 turbines generating a maximum nameplate capacity of 25MW. The Project will also include electrical collector and data lines, a substation, temporary construction areas, and other ancillary facilities such as turbine access roads.

Proposed Change:A change is being proposed to the project as a result of a change in connection point based on consultation with Hydro One Networks Inc. As the connection point for the project has changed, the majority of the above-ground pole-mounted tap l ine connecting the project to the Woodstock Transformer Station (TS) will no longer be required. The new connection will be at the Project substation, or 350 m west of the substation at the end of the existing overhead lines. The buried portion of the tap line as proposed in the o r i g i na l REA may be necessary and will therefore remain a part of the scope of the project. Prowind is removing infrastructure from the REA scope that will then exclude all of the City of Woodstock, all of County Rd 59, and a portion of Firehall Rd. (see map adjacent).

Documents for Public Inspection:Further details regarding the proposed change to the Project are provided in the Modification Report on the Project's website at: http://www.prowind.ca/?page=projects-gunns-hill.

Project Contacts and Information:To learn more about the proposed Project changes or to be added to our Project distribution list, please contact the Project team:

Prowind Canada Inc.19 Bold St., Unit 2BHamilton, ON L8P 1T3Phone: (905) 528-1747Fax: (866) 203 6516Email: [email protected] Website: www.prowind.ca

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE TO ARENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT

84

\\cd

1220-f

02\0

1609\a

ctiv

e\6

0960823\d

raw

ing\C

ore

l\New

spaperN

otic

e\2

014-0

2_N

otic

e_of_

EB

Rpost

ing\1

60960823_N

_E

BR

post

ing_2014-0

2_N

otic

e.c

dr




OPA Reference Number: FIT-FS6SPX8

Dated at: the Township of Norwich, this the 13th of February, 2014.

Project Description and Documents for Public Inspection:

Environmental Bill of Rights 1993:

Project Contacts and Information:

Prowind Canada Inc.19 Bold St., Unit 2BHamilton, ON L8P 1T3Phone: (905) 528-1747Fax: (866) 203 6516Email: [email protected] Website: www.prowind.ca

Prowind Canada Inc., on behalf of Gunn's Hill Windfarm Inc., is planning to engage in a renewable energy project in respect of which the issuance of a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) is required. The proposal to engage in the Project and the Project itself are subject to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act of Ontario (Act) Part V.0.1 and Ontario Regulation 359/09 (Regulation). This notice is being distributed in accordance with Sections 15.1 and 15.2 of the Regulation following posting of the Project on the Environmental Registry.

Pursuant to the Act and Regulation, the facility, in respect of which this project is proposed to be engaged in, consists of a Class 4 wind facility with 10 turbines generating a maximum nameplate capacity of 25 MW. The Project will also include electrical collector and data lines, a substation, temporary construction areas, and other ancillary facilities such as turbine access roads (see map).

Prowind Canada Inc. has obtained or prepared, as the case may be, supporting documents in order to comply with the requirements of the Act and Regulation. Copies of all final submitted documents are available for p u b l i c i n s p e c t i o n a t www.prowind.ca/?page=projects-gunns-hill.

A proposal for a Renewable Energy Approval in respect of this renewable energy project has been posted on the Environmental Registry (www.ebr.gov.on.ca; Registry Number: 012-1069) referred to in Section 5 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 and comments in respect of the proposal may be submitted to the Director. All comments received prior to March 24, 2014 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by t h e M i n i s t r y o f t h e Environment if they are submitted in writing or electronically using the form p r o v i d e d i n t h e Environmental Registry notice.

To learn more about the proposed Project or to be added to our Project distribution list, please contact the Project team:

NOTICE OF POSTING TO THEENVIRONMENTAL REGISTRY

by Prowind Canada Inc. on behalf of Gunn's Hill Windfarm Inc. regarding a Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project

85

\\cd

1220-f

02\0

1609\a

ctiv

e\6

0960823\d

raw

ing\C

ore

l\New

spaperN

otic

e\2

014-0

4_N

otic

e_of_

Pro

ject

Change

Turb

ine\1

60960823_N

_P

roje

ctC

hange_2014-0

4_W

oodst

ock

Sentin

el.c

dr

1/4

pa

ge

- 6

.9”w

x 1

0.7

5”h





Dated at: the Township of Norwich, this the h of April, 2014.


Project Description and Documents for Public Inspection:Pursuant to the Act and Regulation, the facility, in respect of which this project was originally proposed to be engaged in, consisted of a Class 4 wind facility with 10 turbines generating a maximum nameplate capacity of 25MW. The Project will also include electrical collector and data lines, a switching station, temporary construction areas, and other ancillary facilities such as turbine access roads.

Proposed Changes:1. The nameplate capacity

o f t h e p r o j e c t i s decreasing from the original value of 25 MW to an amended final value of 18 MW.

2. The proposed turbine model is changing from the Siemens 3.0-113 2.5 MW mode l to the Senv i on ( f o rme r l y REpower) MM92 1.88 MW model.

The 10 proposed turbine locations remain unchanged and the 10 Senvion MM92 1.88 MW turbines will have their total output limited to18 MW. There are no new environmental or noise impacts due to this change. No turbines have moved, and the turbines are quieter; for the f ive receptors with the highest estimated sound pressure levels attributed to the Project, the sound level drops between 0.3 and 0.5 dBA with the switch to the Senvion turbine.



Prowind Canada Inc.19 Bold St., Unit 2BHamilton, ON L8P 1T3Phone: (905) 528-1747Fax: (866) 203-6516Email: [email protected] Website: www.prowind.ca

8t

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGETO A RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT

by Prowind Canada Inc. on behalf of Gunn's Hill Windfarm Inc.regarding a Proposal to Engage in a Renewable Energy Project

86





Dated at: the Township of Norwich, this the of July, 2014.


Project Description:Pursuant to the Act and Regulation, the facility, in respect of which this project was originally proposed to be engaged in, consisted of a Class 4 wind facility with 10 turbines generating a maximum nameplate capacity of 25MW. The Project will also include electrical collector and data lines, a switching station, temporary construction areas, and other ancillary facilities such as turbine access roads.

Environmental Bill of Rights 1993:A proposal for a Renewable Energy Approval in respect of this renewable energy project has been posted on the Environmental Registry (www.ebr.gov.on.ca; Registry Number: 012-1069) referred to in Section 5 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 and comments in respect of the proposal may be submitted to the Director. All comments received prior to August 07, 2014 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by the Ministry of the Environment if they are submitted in writing or electronically using the form provided in the Environmental Registry notice.

The purpose of this posting is to inform the public of an error in the Noise Assessment Report, to allow public comment on both the Noise Assessment Report and documentation of other technical project changes that have occurred since the REA application was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment.

Proposed Changes:1. The nameplate capacity of the project is

decreasing from the original value of 25 MW to an amended final value of 18 MW.

2. The proposed turbine model is changing from the Siemens 3.0-113 2.5 MW model to the Senvion (formerly REpower) MM92 1.88 MW model.

The 10 proposed turbine locations remain unchanged and the 10 Senvion MM92 1.88 MW turbines will have their total output limited to 18 MW. There are no new environmental or noise impacts due to this change. No turbines have moved, and the turbines are quieter; for the five receptors with the highest estimated sound pressure levels attributed to the Project, the sound level drops between 0.3 and 0.5 dBA with the switch to the Senvion turbine.




17th

NOTICE OF POSTING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTRYAND NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGETO A RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT


87

\\cd1220-f

02\0

1609\a

ctive\6

0960823\d

raw

ing\C

ore

l\N

ew

spaperN

otice\2

015-0

1_N

otice_of_

Pro

posedC

hange\1

60960823_N

_P

C_2015-0

1_N

otice.c

dr





Dated at: the Township of Norwich, this the of January, 2015.

Prowind Canada Inc., on behalf of Gunn's Hill Windfarm Inc., is planning to engage in a renewable energy project in respect of which the issuance of a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) is required. The proposal to engage in the Project and the Project itself are subject to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act of Ontario (Act) Part V.0.1 and Ontario Regulation 359/09 (Regulation). This notice is being distributed in accordance with Section 16.0.1 of the Regulation. The notice is being distributed to make the public aware of a proposed change to the project.

Project Description:

Pursuant to the Act and Regulation, the facility, in respect of which this project was originally proposed to be engaged in, consisted of a Class 4 wind facility with 10 turbines generating a maximum nameplate capacity of 18MW. The Project will also include electrical collector and data lines, a substation, temporary construction areas, and other ancillary facilities such as turbine access roads.

Proposed Change:

Prowind proposes a second road design and construction option to the Project; the use of the cement-stabilization technique in access road construction. Cement-stabilization entails the use of a highly compacted mixture of soil, cement, and water, in access road construction, rather than the traditional construction method outlined in the Construction Plan Report [i.e., strip and stockpile surface material (topsoil separate from subsoil) followed by the placement of a geotextile layer beneath a granular 'B' base and a finished surface of granular 'A' material]. The location of the access roads and the overall Project Location remain unchanged. This option is being added as an alternative for design and construction flexibility and significant schedule and cost benefit

Documents for Public Inspection:

Further details regarding the proposed change to the Project are provided in the Modification Document on the Project's website at: http://www.prowind.ca/?page=projects-gunns-hill.

Project Contacts and Information:

To learn more about the proposed Project changes or to be added to our Project distribution list, please contact the Project team:


th 26

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGETO A RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT


88