Legend - wpd

"k

"k"k

"k

"k

"k "k"k"k

"k "k"k

"k"k

"k

"k

"k "k"k

"k

"k

"k

"k "k

"k

"

""

"

"

"""

""

""

""

""

""

"""

" """

""

""

"" """ "

"

"

" "

""

""

" """

"""

"""

" "" "" """"" "" """ """

""

" " """

""

" "" ""

"

""

" "" """

"

""

"

""

""

"

" ""

"

""

"

"

""

""

""

"

_̂

OSTRANDER PT RD

GRAVELLY BAY RD

WHATTAMS RD

BABYLON RD

T29

T27

T26

T25

T28

340000

340000

4865

000

4865

000

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title Socio-EconomicFeatures

WPD CANADA CORP.WHITE PINES WIND PROJECT

September 2012160960594

Notes

Legend

1.2.

3.

Coordinate System: UTM NAD 83 - Zone 18 (N).Data Sources: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources© Queens Printer Ontario, 2011; © Natural Resources Canada,2011; © WPD Canada, 2011; © Prince Edward County, 2011.Imagery Source: © First Base Solutions, 2012Imagery Date: 2008

Study Area

Proposed Project Components!( Wind Turbine (Blade Sweep)

Access Road

Collector Line

Proposed Interconnection Line

Construction Area

Turbine Laydown Area

Crane Laydown Area

"S Storage Area

Substation

Existing FeaturesRoad

Railway! ! Transmission Line

" Building

$T Petroleum Well (Abandoned)

_̂ Conservation Area

"k

Water Well Records (MOE)

æ Church

!5 Fairgrounds

Æc Library

ÆQ RV Park

!( Cultural Heritage Resource

") Protected Property

Road Setback (55m)

Property Line Setback (100m)

Optioned Properties

Waterbody (as per MNR base mapping)

Watercourse (as per MNR base mapping)

W:\active\60960594\drawing\GIS\MXD\ConstructionReport\Updates_2014_PostSubmission\60960594_Fig3_SocioEC_Mapbook_Wind_20140409.mxdRevised: 2014-10-27 By: dharvey

0 250 500m

1:15,000

3.1

Tile 8

Tile 7

Tile 9

Tile 6

Tile 3

Tile 1

Tile 4Tile 2

Tile 5

±

$T

"k

"k

"k

"k

"k

"k

"k

"k"k

"k"k"k"k"k"k"k"k "k"k

"k"k"k

"k"k "k

"k"k

"k"k

"

""

"

""

"

""

"

" "

""" " "

"""

"

" ""

" """

"" "

"

"" """

""

" """

""" ""

" """

""" "

" "" ""

" "

"

"" " "

"""

" """

""

HELMER RD

OSTRANDER PT RD

WHATTAMS RD

BABYLON RD

T24T23

T22

340000

340000

Client/Project

Figure No.



September 2012160960594

Notes

Legend

1.2.

3.


Study Area


Access Road

Collector Line


Construction Area


Crane Laydown Area

"S Storage Area

Substation



" Building



"k


æ Church

!5 Fairgrounds

Æc Library

ÆQ RV Park



Road Setback (55m)


Optioned Properties




0 250 500m

1:15,000

3.2

Tile 8

Tile 7

Tile 9

Tile 6

Tile 3

Tile 1

Tile 4Tile 2

Tile 5

±

$T

"k"k

"k

"k

"k

"k

"k

"k

"k

"k

"k

"k "k"k

"k

"k"k

"k

"k"k "k"k

"k"k

"k

"k "k"k "k "k

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"""

"

" " "" ""

"""

""

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"""

" ""

"""

""

" """

""""

""""

"""""

"" "

"""

""

"" """ " ""

"" " "" """

" "" ""

""" ""

""" " " "

HELMER RD

DUETTA RD

DAINARD RD

BREWERS RD

HILL TOP RD

T11

T23

T22

T21

T20

T19

T18T17

T07

T05

335000

335000

Client/Project

Figure No.



September 2012160960594

Notes

Legend

1.2.

3.


Study Area


Access Road

Collector Line


Construction Area


Crane Laydown Area

"S Storage Area

Substation



" Building



"k


æ Church

!5 Fairgrounds

Æc Library

ÆQ RV Park



Road Setback (55m)


Optioned Properties




0 250 500m

1:15,000

3.3

Tile 8

Tile 7

Tile 9

Tile 6

Tile 3

Tile 1

Tile 4Tile 2

Tile 5

±

"k"k

"k

"k"k

"k

"k "k

"k"k"k "k "k

"k

"k

"k

"k

"k "k

"k

"k

"k"k"k

"k

"k

"k "k "k

"k"k"k

"k"k "k"k

"k"k"k

"

"

"

"

""

" "" "

"

" " "" ""

"

"""

""

"""

" ""

"

"

" "" "

"""

"

" "" ""

""

" " "" "

""

" ""

"

"

" " "

" "" "

"""

" "

""

"" ""

"""" " ""

"" """ " """ "

" """" ""

"

""

" """" "

" ""

" """"

"""""

""""

" "

""

""""

DUETTA RD

DAINARD RD

BREWERS RD

LIGHTHALL RD

HILL TOP RD

ARMY RESERVE RD

ROYAL RD

T11

T18T17

T16

T15

T14

T13

T12

T10

T09

T08

T07

330000

330000

4860

000

4860

000

Client/Project

Figure No.



September 2012160960594

Notes

Legend

1.2.

3.


Study Area


Access Road

Collector Line


Construction Area


Crane Laydown Area

"S Storage Area

Substation



" Building



"k


æ Church

!5 Fairgrounds

Æc Library

ÆQ RV Park



Road Setback (55m)


Optioned Properties




0 250 500m

1:15,000

3.4

Tile 8

Tile 7

Tile 9

Tile 6

Tile 3

Tile 1

Tile 4Tile 2

Tile 5

±

"k "k

"k"k

"k

"k"k"k

"k

"k "k "k "k

"k

"k"k

"k"k

"k

"k

"k "k"k"k"k"k "k"k "k"k"k"k "k "k"k"k"k

"k

"k

"k "k"k "k "k

"k"k"k

"k "k"k "k

"k"k"k "k "k"k

"k"k

"k"k

"k"k"k

"k "k"k "k"k "k"k"k "k "k"k"k "k "k"k"k

"k"k "k"k"k "k"k "k "k "k"k"k"k "k "k"k "k"k "k "k "k"k "k "k"k "k "k"k"k "k "k"k"k "k"k"k "k "k "k"k"k "k "k "k"k"k"k"k "k

"k

"k

"k "k"k"k"k

"k"k"k"k"k "k"k "k"k "k

""

""

"" ""

"""" " ""

"" """ " """ "

"

"""

""

" """

""""

""""

"

""""

"

"

"

"

"" """"

"

"

"

"" "

""

" " """"" " "

"""

"

""

""""

" "" "

" "

""

"" """

" ""

"""

" """ """

"" " """ """" " "" "" """"

"" "

"

""" " "" " "

" "

" """

"

""

"

""" """

" "" "

"

""

" """ """"

" " ""

" " " """ " " """""

" "" ""

"""

"" "

"""

"""

"

"""

""" "" "" " ""

"""" " " "" "

"" """"" " " "" """ "" "" "

"" " "" "" """ "" """ """ "" "" "" "" "" """" """ " """ " "" " " "" "" " " """"" "" ""

" "" " "" " "" """

"

""

"""

"""""

""" " "

" "

""""" """ "

" """" "

" "" "

"" " "

æ

Æc

!5

_̂

JOHNSTON RD

WALMSLEY RD

MURPHY RD

MAYPUL LAYN RD

BREWERS RD

BOND RD

COUNTY RD 17

ROYAL RD

Milford

T10

T09T07

T06

T05

T04

T03

T02

T01

330000

330000

4865

000

4865

000

Client/Project

Figure No.



September 2012160960594

Notes

Legend

1.2.

3.


Study Area


Access Road

Collector Line


Construction Area


Crane Laydown Area

"S Storage Area

Substation



" Building



"k


æ Church

!5 Fairgrounds

Æc Library

ÆQ RV Park



Road Setback (55m)


Optioned Properties




0 250 500m

1:15,000

3.5

Tile 8

Tile 7

Tile 9

Tile 6

Tile 3

Tile 1

Tile 4Tile 2

Tile 5

±

!(

!(

!(

!(")!(

!(!(

")

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

")

!(

!(

!(

!(")!(!(!(")

!(

!(

")

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

")

")

!(!(

!(

")

!(!(")

!( !(

!(!(!(

")

!(!(

!(

!(")!(!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

")

")

æÆc!5

æ")

ÆQ_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !("S

Picton Bay

Picton

Lake Ontario

SouthBay

East Lake

West Lake

Lake on theMountain

Black Creek

Outlet River

Bloomfield Mill Pond

County Road18

Miller Road

Bond Road

County Road 1

Brewers Road

Morriso

n Point Road

Crowes Road

County Road 8

County Road 4

Bethel Road

Loyalist Parkway

County Road 5

Coun

tyRo

ad24

SalmonP

oin

t Roa

d

Old M

ilford

Road

Shannon Road

Hill Top Road

May R

oad

Mowbray Road Cou nty Road 16

County Road11

Royal Road

Babylon Road

County Ro ad 14

Kingsley Road

County Road34

Brummell Road

Kings Road

Whattams Road

Gorsline Road

Eames Road

Airpo

rt La

ne

Duetta Road

R idge Road

Hull Road

Dainard Road

Jone

s Roa

d

MckinleyCrossroad

Jacksons Falls Road

Black Road

Highway 33

Murphy Road

Marisett Road

Coun

ty Ro

ad 25

Schoo

l House Road

Mitchells Crossroad

Maypul Layn Road

BongardsCrossroad

Elmbro

okRo

ad

Fry Ro

ad

Kelly Road

Walmsley Road

South Shore Road

County Road17Talbot Street

Kellars Crossroad

Bethesda Road

County R oad 3

2

County Road 10 County Road 13

Highw

ay 49

Chuckery Hill Road County Road 7

Bayshore

Road

Army Reserve Road

Fish Lake Road

Po int Petre Road

Tubbs Road

Gravelly Bay Road

Rosse

au Cros

sroad

Clarke

Roa

d

T01T02

T03

T04

T05T06

T07

T08

T09

T10

T11

T12T13

T14T15

T16

T17T18

T19T20

T21T22

T23

T24

T25

T26

T27

T28 T29

Tile 1

Tile 2

Tile 3Tile 4

Tile 5

Tile 6

Tile 7

Tile 8

Tile 9

Project Study

Proposed Project Components!( Wind Turbine (Not to Scale)

"S Storage

Substation

Access Road

Collector Line


Existing FeaturesHighway

Major Road

Local Road

Watercourse

Waterbody

Wooded



_̂ Conservation

æ Church

!5 Fairgrounds

Æc Library

") Museum

ÆQ RV Park

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Socio-Economic Features3.0

WPD Canada Corp.White Pines Wind Project

October 2014160960594

Legend

0 1,000 2,000m

W:\a

ctiv

e\60

9605

94\d

raw

ing\

GIS

\MXD

\Con

stru

ctio

nRep

ort\U

pdat

es_2

014_

Pos

tSub

mis

sion

\160

9605

94_F

ig_3

_Soc

ioE

cono

mic

Feat

ures

_201

4090

4.m

xdR

evis

ed: 2

014-

10-2

7 By

: dha

rvey

±

Notes1.2.

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 18NBase features produced under license with the OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2012.

STUDY AREA

Lake Ontario

Ottawa

Toronto

KingstonBellevillePeterborough

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

1:90,000

")

")

"S

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

Picton Bay

Picton

Lake Ontario

SouthBay

East Lake

West Lake

Lake on theMountain

Black Cree

k

Outlet River

Bloomfield Mill Pond

County Road18

Miller Road

Bond Road

County Road 1

Brewers Road

Morriso

n Point Road

Crowes Road

County Road 8

County Road 4

Bethel Road

Loyalist Parkway

County Road 5

Coun

tyRo

ad24

SalmonP

oin

t Roa

d

Old M

ilford

Road

Shannon Road

Hill Top Road

May R

oad

Mowbray Road County Road 16

CountyRoad

11

Royal Road

Babylon Road

County Road 14

Kingsley Road

County Road34

Brummell Road

Kings Road

Whattams Road

Gorsline Road

Eames Road

Airpo

rt Lan

e

Duetta Road

Ridge Road

Hull Road

Dainard Road

Jone

s Roa

d

MckinleyCrossroad

Jacksons Falls Road

Black Road

Highway 33

Murphy Road

Marisett Road

Coun

ty Ro

ad 25

Schoo

l House Road

Mitchells Crossroad

Maypul Layn Road

BongardsCrossroad

Elmbro

okRo

ad

Fry Ro

ad

Kelly Road

Walmsley Road

South Shore Road

County Road17Talbot Street

Kellars Crossroad

Bethesda Road

County Road 3

2

County Road 10 County Road 13

Highway 49

Chuckery Hill Road County Road 7

Bayshore

Road

Army Reserve Road

Fish Lake Road

Poin t Petre Road

Tubbs Road

Gravelly Bay Road

Rosse

au Crossr

oad

Clarke

Road

T01T02

T03

T04

T05T06

T07

T08

T09

T10

T11

T12T13

T14T15

T16

T17T18

T19T20

T21T22

T23

T24

T25

T26

T27

T28 T29

Tile 1

Tile 2

Tile 3Tile 4

Tile 5

Tile 6

Tile 7

Tile 8

Tile 9

Project Study Area

Proposed Project Components!( Wind Turbine (Not to Scale)

"S Storage Area

") Substation

Access Road

Collector Line


Existing FeaturesHighway

Major Road

Local Road

Watercourse

Waterbody

Wooded Area

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Project Location2.0

WPD Canada Corp.White Pines Wind Project

September 2014160960594

Legend

0 1,000 2,000m

W:\a

ctiv

e\60

9605

94\d

raw

ing\

GIS

\MX

D\C

onst

ruct

ionR

epor

t\Upd

ates

_201

4_P

ostS

ubm

issi

on\1

6096

0594

_Fig

02_P

roje

ctLo

catio

n_20

1409

04.m

xdR

evis

ed: 2

014-

09-1

0 B

y: d

harv

ey

±

Notes1.2.

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 18NBase features produced under license with the OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2012.

STUDY AREA

Lake Ontario

Ottawa

Toronto

KingstonBellevillePeterborough

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

0 1,000 2,000m

1:90,000

Picton

PRINCEEDWARD COUNTY

West Lake

SouthBay

Lake Ontario

East Lake

May

Rd

Fry

Rd

Mow

bray

Rd

Miller Rd

Crowes Rd

Hwy 62

Hwy 33

County Rd 7

Hwy 4

9

County Rd 1

County Rd 4

County Rd 10

Ridge Rd

Coun

ty R

d 5

County Rd 13

County Rd 14

County Rd 18

Coun

ty R

d 12

County Rd 11

Cou

nty

Rd

24

County Rd 17

Loyalist Pky

Burr Rd

County Rd 8

Chuckery Hill Rd

County Rd 22

Kingsley Rd

Cou

nty

Rd

25

Cou

nty

Rd

32

County Rd 16

County Rd 33

County Rd 34

Cou

nty

Rd

30

Loyalist Pky

Loyalist Pky

County Rd 8

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Project Study Area

1.0

WPD CANADA CORPWHITE PINES WIND PROJECT

September, 2014160960594

Notes

Legend

1.

2.

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 18N

Base features produced under license with theOntario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen'sPrinter for Ontario, 2011.

W:\active\60960594\drawing\GIS\MXD\ConstructionReport\Updates_2014_PostSubmission\60960594_Fig_1_ProjectStudyArea_20140904.mxdRevised: 2014-09-04 By: dharvey

Project Study Area

Highway

Major Road

Local Road

Waterbody (MNR)

Woodland (MNR)

Lake Ontario

STUDY AREA

Toronto

ONTARIO

±

wpd Canada Corporation 2233 Argentia Road, Suite 102, Mississauga, ON L5N 2X7 (p) 905-813-8400 (f) 905-813-7487

Appendix B: Post REA Summary Tables

Post REA Consultation Summary Table Original: Oct 24, 2014 | Updated: November 21, 2014 Public Correspondence Table

# Received Responded Name Type Comment or Inquiry Summary Response Summary General Public Correspondence

6.3 Aug 30, 2012 Sep 9, 2012 Don Ross Email

• Wrote in to express further support for the Project.

• Noted that they will be within 1km of the closest turbine and do not financially benefit from the turbines.

• Expressed how well he felt wpd and their consultants had conducted themselves in the face of a small but well organized opposition.

• Felt that the developers had completed all necessary requirements.

• They explained they do not believe any of the unsubstantiated fears and believe the project will be good for future generations.

•

• Thanked him for his kind words of support. • Noted that the climate is changing faster that

it has at any other time in Earth’s history. This change is happening faster due to Greenhouse Gas.

• Noted a US Department of Energy study concluded powering 20% of the U.S.’s energy from wind would reduce enough GHG to taking 140 million of the road.

• Noted that the GNG that go into building a wind turbine

17.3 17-Oct-2012 24-Oct-2012 Cheryl O`Brien, Email

• Indicated she knew that 70 foot hydro poles were going to be put up around her property and reiterated her concern about their impact on Sandy Hook Rd.

• Complained that she had received no answer from wpd -

• Explained that any construction in the area she was referring to was unrelated to wpd’s Project

• No work related to the White Pines Project had been done in the area.

• However, recent developments dictated that wpd would be assuming responsibility for the interconnection line instead of HONI, but that the lines were intended to be buried

• Stantec would be conducting new environmental assessments on behalf of wpd to examine the area.

17.4 30-Oct-2012 12-Nov-2012 Cheryl O’Brien, Email • Demanded that wpd provide more details

about HONI’s work.

• Informed her again that wpd had no information to provide as there was no construction related to the White Pines project being undertaken.

• Work might be related to another project. • No construction would be started until REA

approval is achieved.

27.5 Sep 19, 2012 Sep 25, 2012 Johanna McCarthy Email • Sent a reply responding to wpd’s

correspondence of Sep 11, 2012

• Asked the correspondent to resend the file as the attachment was not opening. Resent on Sep 29, see item 27.7 for details.

27.6 Sep 12, 2012 Oct 10, 2012 Johanna McCarthy Email

• Responding back to wpd’s Sept 12, 2012 response, she asked again what is the cut out speed of the wind turbines?

• Explained that it had been mentioned in wpd’s previous response.

• Cut-in speed is 3m/s and cut-out is 24m/s.

27.7 Sep 29, 2012 Oct 25, 2012 Johanna McCarthy Email

• Correspondent’s reply to wpd’s Sep 11, 2012 response

• She wrote that the Kent Breeze REA tribunal

• Regarding her comments on the Kent Breeze ERT, stated that wpd’s intent was to simply note that arguments on both sides

Post REA Consultation Summary Table Original: Oct 24, 2014 | Updated: November 21, 2014

noted there are some risks and uncertainties with wind turbines that merit further research

• She argued that the CMO of Ontario’s report did conduct health studies and compared wind turbines to the early days of asbestos and cigarettes.

• Argued that some of the turbines will be built on crown lands

• Stated that more people voted in the South Marysburgh event than voted in municipal elections and that depending on the source, a majority or close to a majority of the population did vote.

were given and noted the final decision. • While new in Canada, wind energy has been

used for decades in Europe. • Indicated that wpd was aware the

geography and natural features of the area and will construct accordingly but that our Project was located only on private lands.

• Acknowledged that wpd had heard from those that opposed the project but also heard from those that supported the project.

• Noted that wpd’s job was to ensure the community is aware of the details of the project.

• The project will create permanent jobs in the area, will provide income to local families and provide a general economic benefit.

• There are a number of ways for the public to express their opinion on the project.

• Questions can be asked through email, phone and at open houses.

• Feedback is included as part of the REA submission

• The MOE’s decision on the project can be appealed through the Environmental Review Tribunal.

38.8 Feb 7, 2013 Feb 22, 2013 Doug Murphy Email

• Inquired about the possibility of shadow flicker on his property. Sent wpd a report conducted by a colleague of his property which suggested that flicker will not result on his home but flicker might occur in the back of his property.

• Had submitted the report at the public meeting in October but had provided no questions or comments at the time.

• Wanted wpd to comment now.

• Apologized for the not responding to his report submitted at the open house. wpd did not realize that he was looking for comment considering wpd had already addressed his concerns about shadow flicker.

• Explained that wpd stands by the shadow flicker report that was sent to him Spring 2012. There would be no shadow flicker on his home from turbine 4 but there might be the possibility of flicker elsewhere on his property.

• As his own report noted, if there was flicker on his property somewhere it would be for a short duration and only during the summer solstice.

• Explained that the sun follows a crescent pattern in the sky during the height of the summer and does not strictly move east to west.

• wpd provided a topographic map with an image of the suns path across the project area.

• Explained that Turbine 4 is 97m from his


property line. Explained that turbines can be located less than hub height (100M in this case) away from a neighboring property if a property line assessment is completed. The distance cannot be less than blade length plus 10 metres.

40.1 Oct 22, 2012 Oct 29, 2012 Michael and Carol Cooke Email

• Family of local residents and property owners wrote to express their support for the development of the wind project.

• Expressed frustration at the approval delays the two local wind projects are facing.

• Thanked the correspondents for their words of support and encouragement.

46.8 Sep 16, 2012 n/a Henri Garand Email

• The correspondent reiterated his objections to the project.

• He criticised wpd’s response to the South Marysburgh vote on the wind project.

• Argued that depending on home the voting population is measured the majority did vote.

• Felt wpd was dismissing the vote because a majority did not take part in the vote.

• Argued that those who voted for the project were arguably participating in the project and were therefor paid off.

• Stated that even if residents of Athol were invited to vote it would make no difference to the outcome.

• wpd gave no further response, as no new questions were raised.

55.2 Sep 11, 2012 n/a Fay Garand Email

• Responding to wpd’s correspondence of Sep 11, 2012 concerning the vote organized by the South Marysburgh Mirror, she called wpd liars and made personal comments directed at staff.

• wpd does not address comments with personal attacks.

56.2 Sep 19, 2012 Oct 15, 2012 Jim McPherson Email

• Felt that wpd’s previous response to him was corporate spin and that wpd was simply dismissing all local concerns.

• Felt the wind industry was an international scam

• He heard that wpd had submitted their application despite 90% of the residents opposing the project.

• Acknowledged that local residents had gathered in opposition and that wpd has heard from them. wpd has also heard from those that support the project.


• The project will create permanent jobs in the area, will provide income to local families and provide a general economic benefit.




• The MOE’s decision on the project can be appealed through the Environmental Review


Tribunal.

56.3 Oct 15, 2012 Oct 15, 2012 Jim McPherson Email

• The correspondent asked for clarification as wpd’s reply suggested the Project was not yet submitted.

•

• wpd apologized for using the wrong tense and confirmed that the Project had been submitted for REA approval.

56.4 Oct 15, 2012 Oct 25, 2012 Jim McPherson Email

• Stated that now that the Project has been submitted it was time to remind wpd that they are at risk of causing serious harm to the population of South Marysburgh

• Asked that wpd review a previously submitted letter sent by the local opposition group’s legal representative.

• Indicated that wpd was aware of the letter that had been sent and that as per the request, wpd has made the entire ‘Erickson V. Director of MOE’ tribunal decision available at the open house.

65.4 Sep 19, 2012 n/a Brian Flack Email • Dismissed wpd’s response as spin and

community support for wind projects will never happen.

• No response given, correspondents objections had already been responded to.

70.2 Sep 12, 2012 Oct 12, 2012 Inge Radden Email

• Indicated she cannot trust wpd’s explanations, assessments and procedures.

• Felt a newspaper editorial provided a “clearer picture” referring wpd to the article.

• Noted the information wpd had provided were judicial or tribunal decisions, government regulatory legislation or academic peer reviewed articles.

• Newspaper editorial staff are free to express their opinion as much as any other person.

76.11 Sep 12, 2012 Sep 14, 2012 Liz Driver Email

• Asked whether Stantec, wpd’s consultant would be providing more information than provided in earlier correspondence.

• She was looking for maps of heritage resources that were used in the assessment reports.

• Indicated that more information would be provided from Stantec and they are working on the correspondent’s mapping request.

76.12 Sep 18, 2012 Sep 18, 2012 Liz Driver Email • A map of heritage resources and project properties was sent to the correspondent

• She Stated that the missing or incorrect information had not been fixed and wanted another copy which she could edit electronically.

76.13 Sep 19, 2012 Sep 21, 2012 Liz Driver Email • Correspondent asked for an electronic copy of

the Heritage Report exactly as submitted to the MOE.

• Stantec responded indicating they could provide a report but that it has not changed since the one that was available at the 60day public review stage.

• Indicated that the report will be updated after the planning meeting with Prince Edward Heritage Advisory Committee (PEHAC)

• Indicated that a hard copy of the Heritage Report and Project map will be emailed to her as per the request in the previous email.

76.14 Sep 21, 2012 Liz Driver Email

• The correspondent replied indicating she did not need a new copy

• Asked whether a new comment letter from MTCS had been received.

• No response recorded.

76.15 Nov 30, 2012 Dec 3, 2012 Liz Driver Email • Inquired as to whether Stantec has GIS data for specific areas in the Project area.

• Stantec responded on behalf of wpd indicating that there is a policy not to share


• Also inquired as to whether she could get CAD models of the wind turbines.

• Follow up email from correspondent was sent Nov 30, 2012 inquiring as to whether CAD models would be available.

digital files but hard copies of the maps with CAD drawings could be provided as had been done previously.

76.16 Apr 1, 2013 May 2, 2013 Liz Driver Email

• Requested the distance of turbines T11-T17 from her property line.

• In a follow up email she requested the distance of the turbines directly to her dwelling.

• Responses were provided upon each request confirming the distances.

76.17 Apr 10, 2013 n/a

Jan Kubanek and Tom Young for Liz Driver

Email

• An architect and an environmental geographer described how the area had evolved over the years and in support of the correspondents efforts to have their property’s cultural heritage value considered in the context of the White Pines Project

• No Response, no questions were asked.

76.18 May 4, 2013 Jun 27, 2013 Liz Driver Email

• Correspondent wrote to inform wpd about the possibility of native archaeological artifacts near turbine 8. The former land owner had documentation in his possession that suggested the land might have been used as a camp.

• She asked that wpd examine the information and compare it to the location of the proposed infrastructure.

• Depending on the location of turbine 8, an area the equivalent of the total turbine height should be investigated via s Stage 2 Archaeological study.

• If the supposed area is further away it should be clearly demarcated.

• wpd explained that the areas around turbine 8 had been investigated twice. A test pit survey had been conducted and then a second surface survey took place after extensive ploughing.

• The area tested was larger than what is needed for construction.

• The conditions the studies were conducted took place in ideal conditions for discoveries.

• No artifacts were found. Should anything be discovered upon construction wpd will contact MTSC.

• Explained that MTCS had inquired about her letter with our archaeologists and the ministry has expressed satisfaction with the study methods and results.

76.19 May 8, 2013 Jul 8, 2013 Liz Driver Email

• Felt that wpd had not fulfilled its responsibility to inform the public at the April open house as the public did not have the information it needs to understand the heritage impact and that no Heritage staff was present at the open house.

• Concerning vibration levels there is no maximum PPV level given in the heritage assessment report. wpd had only offered that a qualified engineer will make that assessment should the project be approved.

• No acceptable solutions are offered should maximum PPV levels be exceeded.

• wpd should commit to monitoring homes not

• . • This public meeting was intended to address

only the interconnection line. A Stantec Consultant that had been working closely on the Heritage and who had also attended the meeting with PEHAC was present to respond to questions related to Heritage

• wpd has indicated that the company has already made commitments to conduct vibration studies on identified build resources. These assessments will be made should the project be approved.

• wpd will • Concerning her questions on the collector


just PPV levels. • wpd should commit to compensating owners

in advance of construction. • There was no analysis concerning the

transmission lines leading to the interconnection

lines being evaluated (she referred to as transmission lines leading to the interconnection line, wpd explained that their impact had already been assessed in the wind portion of the Heritage reports that examined the turbine site areas. This information was not repeated in the interconnection Heritage Report.

This response was combined with answers to other outstanding questions submitted by the correspondent. See document 76.24 for full response.

76.20 Jun 5, 2013 Liz Driver Email • wpd was copied on a letter sent from the

Correspondent, requesting Stantec send a copy of the report under review.

• Response detailed in Document 76.21

76.21 Jun 19, 2013 Jun 21, 2013 Marc Kemerer Email

• Correspondent’s lawyer followed up with another request for Stantec to send a copy of the Heritage Report under review.

• wpd confirmed that the revised Heritage Report had been sent to MTCS.

• wpd is awaiting comments on the report from the ministry.

• Once comments are received wpd will make the report available on the project website along with the MTCS comment letter. A copy of the report will also be made available at the Picton Public library.

• Offered to send his client a copy of the report at that time as well.

76.22 Jun 25, 2013 Jul 8, 2013 Marc Kemerer Email

• A repeat request to be provided with copies of the revised Heritage Report or provide consent to the Ministry to release the report

• Asked for a copy of the Ministry comment letter as soon as it is available.

Did not respond to the correspondent’s lawyer but to her directly in her in a July 8, 2013 email (Document 76.24)

76.23 Jun 28, 2013 Jul 8, 2013 Liz Driver Email

Response to wpd’s reply of June 27, 2013 concerning the existence of possible aboriginal artifacts near turbine 8: • Reiterated her view that wpd must conduct

further studies on the area if the aboriginal site is within 150 metres (tower height) of the turbine site. She indicated that this was necessary in case the turbine should collapse or if ice throw should hit the suspected native archaeological site.

• wpd reiterated that all necessary archaeological studies had been conducted.

• An area larger than the construction site had been examined and no objects were found.

• Should there be any archaeological finds , wpd will contact MTCS

The Response was combined with other issues correspondence raised (Reference document 76.24)

76.24 July 2, 2013 Jul 8, 2013 Liz Driver Email

• Noted that wpd had not yet responded to her lawyer’s email of June 25, 2013.

• Requested that wpd immediately send over at a minimum the revised sections of the Heritage Report.

• Reiterated that she believed the report could be defective and she should review them

• Reiterated that wpd would release the report only after it had been reviewed by MTCS

• wpd would next contact her once it had been released.

This response was combined with answers to other outstanding questions submitted by the correspondent or her legal representative (76.19


especially sections dealing with the property on 940 Royal Rd.

76.22 and 76.23)

76.25 Sep 23, 2013 Sep 30, 2013

Marc Kemerer on Behalf of Driver

Email

• Lawyer on behalf of Correspondent contacted wpd.

• Noted that MTCS had provided comments on the IL Heritage Report but they have yet to receive a copy

• Re-requested a copy

• Interim Response Sent informing correspondent those documents will be sent within the week.

76.26 Oct 1, 2013 Oct 3, 2013


Email

• Requested clarification about documents that will be sent, assuming they would receive the Main Draft Heritage Assessment Report as the IL Heritage Report relies on the Appendices of the main report.

• Clarified that the IL Heritage Report would be provided, but wpd is still waiting for comments for the main heritage report.

76.27 4-Oct-2013 4-Oct-2013


Email

• Requested clarification that the Draft IL Heritage Report posted on the website is the report subject to the August 2nd written comments from MTCS

• Provided a copy of the IL Report • Provided link to reports posted on website

due to technical errors

76.28 8-Oct-2013 10-Oct-2013 Liz Driver Email • Correspondent commented the website format was confusing, and made some suggestions

• wpd thanked her for her suggestion, and committed to improve the website

76.29 15-Oct-2013 23-Oct-2013


Email

• Re-requested clarification about the Draft IL Heritage Report being subject to the August 2nd written comments from MTCS

• Requested information about wpd’s FOI appeal

• Explained once more that the reports posted were indeed the most up to date available and confirmed the IL Heritage Report is subject to the August 2nd comments.

• Provided general information about FOI process

76.30 23-Oct-2013 4-Nov-2013 Driver to MTCS (Forwarded to wpd)

Email

• A message forwarded from MTCS on behalf of the correspondent noted there was additional infrastructure (a substation) mentioned in the Leave to Construct application to the OEB that was not part of the Heritage Assessment Report.

• Explained to MTCS (cc’ed Correspondent) that there are no plans for additional infrastructure and the inclusion of the structure was an error in an application to the OEB.

76.30a 04-Nov-2013 n/a


Email • Notes that the response to MTCS

demonstrates importance of access to documentation

• No response required (information previously addressed and/or no question posed)

76.31 23-Oct-2013 4-Nov-2013


Email

• Correspondent’s lawyer sent a series of emails concerning an FOI to MTCS his client had sent.

• Indicated he would review the requested items and identify the documents that were already public to expedite the request.

• Sent a follow up email a few days later indicating he felt that with the exception of one document he does feel any of the other documents are part of the drafting process and should be released.

• Another email was sent on Nov 2, 2013 noting a mediator was assigned to the FOI case and

• wpd’s legal advisors responded on wpd’s behalf. Indicated that FOI matters are within the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

• Noted previous correspondence with a wpd staffer was inaccurate, and to contact the Commissioner’s Office directly for FOI matters .


that we was looking for a response from wpd to the above questions to scope the appeal as much as possible.

• On Nov 4th he noted that MTCS has reviewed and provided a comment letter on the Heritage Report. Requested that wpd drop the FOI appeal

76.31a n/a 18-Nov-2013

• wpd response to the Nov 4th email. • Noted the revised Heritage Report, taking

public consultation into account, has been submitted

• Confirmed that the report has received MTCS comment but as the application is not deemed complete, wpd will not make the report available yet.

• Expressed hope that it would be released soon

• Indicated that FOI concerns should be forwarded to the Commissioner’s Office as indicated in wpd’s legal response from earlier that month.

76.32 7-Nov-2013 n/a Liz Diver Email

• Correspondent noted that wpd's e-mail dated June 27, 2013, indicated that wpd refused to investigate the “Indian Camp” near Turbine 8.

• Correspondent indicated she carried out her own investigation, and recommended an archaeological investigation of the site

• Wants the site protected during construction of the project

• No Response provided; all comments already addressed previously.

76.33 19-Nov-2013


Email

• Disagreed with the characterization that there was extensive public input

• Noted PEHAC hadn’t received a response back from the concerns they raised

• Lack of identification of 940 Royal Road as a cultural heritage landscape

• Felt visualization choices were not prioritized fairly by wpd/Stantec (PEHAC should be consulted)

• Felt draft reports should be made available for comment (which wpd has not released)

• Requests that when wpd releases the “final” report, it will consult with the public (including the County, PEHAC, and Driver) to ensure the report reflects the public’s input before being submitted to the MOE

• No Response provided all comments already addressed previously

76.34 n/a 5-Dec-2013 Liz Driver Email • See item 76.30 for original inquiry. • wpd sent a follow-up to e-mail to the

Correspondent regarding the MTCS email on November 4, 2013, indicating the


maintenance building at 1210 Royal Road listed in the OEB application was an error and that it will be removed)

• Explained that the reference to the maintenance building at 1210 Royal Road will still appear in the application, as the application had already been published, but will be removed once the OEB approves the changes.

76.35 14-Feb-2014

• Commented that the Revised Heritage Report does not provide sufficient documentation to prove that there is a lack of alternative sites for turbines (T07, T09, and T11) that may cause negative visual impacts on cultural heritage resources.

• Requests a map and supplementary documentation that may have been provided to the MTCS regarding this matter

• Requests that the map displays: all properties leased by wpd, property-line setbacks for the properties, delineation of the entire available area created by the 550m setback, and areas of the natural environment where construction cannot occur

• Response was not provided as per the regulations only where the heritage attributes are to be removed/demolished (which is clearly not the case in this instance, as the impact is but visual), is it required that the rationale for impact and the process for documenting existing conditions be provided.

76.36 18-Feb-2014 21-Feb-2014 Liz Driver Email

• Regarding Appendix F of the Revised Heritage Report: The aerial view of the Miller Family Nature Reserve does not identify T20, T21, T22

• Wants to know if the turbines were removed or if this is an error

• wpd responded by indicating the map she was referring to was included in Appendix F to depict the property protected by the OHT conservation easement.

• As depicted throughout the body of the report the turbines remain east and west of the Miller Family Nature Reserve.

• As no heritage attributes were identified in the area and therefore, impacts were not assessed.

76.37 11-Apr-2014 21-Apr-2014 Liz Driver Email

• Asked whether the posted Consultation Report (September 2012) was the most up to date version

• Wanted to know how correspondence (post-REA submission) has been reported

• Explained that the September 2012 Consultation Report is the most up to date version

• Noted that the Regulation requires the Consultation Report to be submitted with the REA application, and that it includes all consultation activities up to that point.

76.38 21-Apr-2014 25-Apr-2014 Liz Driver Email

• Requested the distance of T15 and T17 to her west lot property line

• Notes that there are two possible T17 locations in the Revised Heritage Assessment Report, and requests distances for both, along with the reason for the alternative location

• Provided the requested distances • Explained that the Revised Heritage

Assessment Report does not include the alternative T17. Earlier reports had the alternate locations as the final location had not been determined at the time; since REA


submission and the heritage report revision, the location was decided upon.

76.39 28-Apr-2014 n/a Liz Driver Email

• Replied back in comment to the previous email that Figure 3 in Appendix F contained two locations for T17.

• Stated that Figure 3 did not identify Royal Road as a separate property and that the (shape file) did not include their southern property area as part of the cultural landscape.

• No Response provided as there were no additional questions and previously explained.

77.4 Sep 14, 2012 Oct 22, 2012 Chris Currie Email

• Correspondent asked once again why wpd send him and others the wrong notice of the proposal.

• Asked why wpd mapping contains errors and what will be done about it. Felt that the NHA maps had omitted wetlands and provided specific coordinates of what he identified as a wetland near one of the turbines.

• Asked why if wpd had conducted wildlife and bird studies in 2010 the information wasn’t released until recently.

• Stated that property value as a result of wind turbines was a fact.

• Explained that the Notice of Public Meeting sent in February contained an old mail out with 30 turbines. The letter that was sent with this Notice however contained the right coordinates of the turbines. All information on the Project contained in the reports was also correct.

• A notice with a new map representing 29 turbines was sent out in early March.

• All reports and notices published at least 60 days prior to the last open houses were also corrected.

• Explained that wpd is required to examine all natural features within 120m of project infrastructure. The coordinates in the project area that the correspondent was specifying was beyond this 120 buffer.

• Several bird and wildlife studies were conducted over the years in 2009, 2010 and 2012. Surveys and reporting needed to be completed and approved by MNR before being released to the public.

• Regarding property values, explained that a statement of claim had been made against wpd on this issue. wpd intended to defend themselves and let an independent party decide the merit of the claim.

77.5 Nov 6, 2012 Dec 7, 2012 Chris Currie Email

• Correspondent replied back asking: • What exact date the corrected notice was

published on our website (corrected March 2012 notice)

• Indicated the coordinates he provided are the corner of the feature and he asked that wpd provide the north-west coordinates of the feature which was determined not to be in the study area.

• Asked why wpd staff not mentioned the scope of the bird studies at the open house as the

• Indicated the updated Notice was published on wpd’s website on March 9, 2012

• Environmental features were identified through government registries, conservation authorities and other local groups. A site investigation was also conducted to verify this information. Neither the records reviewed nor the site investigation identified a wetland in an area 120 from project infrastructure.

• Final results of animal and bird studies were


reply provided more information that he had received prior.

• Stated that MNR approval was no assurance the studies were conducted properly.

• Asked whether wpd will provide notice about any public hearings about the claim.

not present at the first open house because the bird/animal surveys had not been approved. Staff would have been able to answer generic questions about the reports at the first public meeting. The final public meeting on August 30, 2012 provided the opportunity to present the MNR approved NHA Report. Staff was available to answer questions on this report.

• Indicated that wpd would notify the public when the project is posted to the EBR for comment. Should the project be approved wpd would notify the public of any appeal at that time.

77.6 Mar 21, 2013 Mar 28, 2013 Chris Currie Email

• Expressed disappointment with wpd’s previous responses

• Insisted that wpd has not published the correct draft site plan.

• Felt that there is undocumented wetland within 120 metres of Turbine 20, feels that wpd has omitted several environmental features.

• Complained that wpd did not describe the type or purposes of wildlife surveys when he asked about it at the open house. Also complained that there were no written materials relating to the studies.

• Reiterated he was interested in attending the hearings regarding the legal case that has been brought against wpd over property issues.

• Stated that wpd stands by their previous response. The update site plan was updated March 9, 2012.

• The NHA was prepared by qualified biology and environmental staff using methods approved by MNR. The NHA was reviewed by experts at MNR. wpd defers to the Ministry’s and Stantec expert opinion on the existence of a water body in the area.

• Bird survey information was available at the final open house.

• The pending lawsuit has been brought against wpd by private individuals. The case will be held in public court and is open to the public to attend. Information on dates can be found at the Picton Court House, no dates have been set.

77.7 Apr 25, 2013 May 8, 2013 Chris Currie Email

• Reiterated his same previous statements concerning the incorrect notice, the lack of investigation into natural features and the lack of information about wildlife studies.

• wpd indicated they had responded to these comments on four occasions and they had nothing further to add.

104.2 Jan 3, 2014 Jan 03, 2014 Gary Mooney Email • Requested the date of operation for the White Pines project under the OPA contract

• Explained that the information requested is not really known as it is -dependent on the time required for the MOECC to review and potentially approve a project, plus the time to allow for any appeals.

126.3 Sep 11, 2012 Oct 22, 2012 Gail Forcht Email

• Reiterated her general opposition to the Project.

• General concerns are about property values, environmental impact.

• Inquired as to who owned wpd Canada.

• Explained that wpd Canada is a subsidiary of wpd Europe and is active in renewable energy development in 21 countries

• wpd contributes to forest reforestation and has the status of a CO² free company.

• wpd’s White Pines consultants are from Stantec Consulting Limited. and are based


out of their Guelph office. • Explained that wpd have nothing further to

add on property values.

126.4 Sep 19, 2012 Oct 22, 2012 Gail Forcht Email

• Complained that despite her repeated questions she has not received answers from wpd or the other neighboring project.

• Felt that it didn’t matter what she said. • Reiterated previous concerns about the loss

of democracy.

• Contrary to her comments, explained that wpd had responded at least three times to her comments and that another response would be coming shortly in response to her open house comment card.

126.5 Oct 22, 2012 Oct 29, 2012 Gail Forcht Email

• Sent an email from a person who had planned to move to the area but was dissuaded because of health and setback concerns.

• Reiterated her concerns about property values.

• Says she supports green projects but only if they in no way impact the lives of people and should no impact the environment.

• Thanked her for her comments. Her concerns had been addressed in previous correspondence.

132.1 Sep 19. 2012 Oct 23, 2012 Ann Walmsley Email

• Following up her discussion with wpd staff at the final public meeting, the correspondent forwarded a link to a map that someone had created showing all current, proposed and contracted onshore and off-shore wind project in the Prince Edward County Area.

• She was looking for further comment on what wpd knew about the other projects.

• In response wpd attached a press release that was released by the company the previous year indicating the North Marysburgh Wind Project was cancelled.

• wpd had no other information on the proposed wind Projects and that only the White Pines Wind project and one other area project had FIT contracts.

• Also noted that there is a moratorium on off-shore wind projects.

• wpd was offered a contract for 60MW which will be powered by 29 REpower 2.05 MM92 turbines.

135.1 Sep 12, 2012 Oct 24, 2012 Anna Feldman Gonau

Email

• Responded back to wpd’s correspondence of Sep 11, 2012.

• Felt that the response was biased and wpd was writing from a blatantly vested interest.

• Felt that the response overlooked the major objection which is South Marysburgh does not want the project.

• Critiqued wpd’s response to the vote that was held in South Marysburgh

•



• Explained that the public had other opportunities to submit comments.

• Once MOE determines the projects “completeness” it will be posted to the EBR for 30 days of public comment. The posting will be advertised in local papers and wpd’s website.

• Questions posted to the board are considered part of the application.

•


178 Sep 14, 2012 Oct 23, 2012 Anne Gordon Letter

• The correspondent indicated that she strongly objected to wind turbines in PEC

• Felt that wpd provided insufficient information concerning ownership, finances and future liability.

• Claimed that wpd offered no compensation for the cost to pay for road and other infrastructure upgrades and no compensation for future maintenance and “dismemberment” of the turbines.

• Felt there were no benefits for the community.

• Explained that White Pines Wind Farm is a wholly owned subsidiary of wpd Canada which is a subsidiary wpd Europe Inc.

• Financing is a private matter but the project is expected to cost around $150 million to build.

• Explained that all road and infrastructure upgrades will in fact be paid for by wpd Canada. The municipality is not responsible for paying for these.

• Developers are only paid for the electricity they sell into the grid and all cost related to building, maintaining and decommissioning the turbines are borne by the developer.

• It is in wpd’s best interest to keep properly maintained turbines.

• As part of the OPA agreement all developers must decommission the project at their expense and produce a decommissioning report as part of the REA process

• As part of the standard lease agreement, money is set aside and controlled by a third party to cover decommissioning costs.

• All REA reports can be accessed at the local library and from wpd’s website.

179 Sept 19, 2012 Oct 15, 2012 Judie McLaughlin Email

• Opposed project and felt that for the project to go ahead it should require community support,

• Felt that as a corporation, wpd has the responsibility of owning the impact the project will have on the area.

• Concerned about impacts on tourism. • Felt that wpd did not listen to community

concerns. •






• Noted that there are a number of events and attractions that draw visitors to an area. Each event holds a subjective appeal. Wind energy is consistently supported by the public in Ontario and around the world. Provided a link to an article that suggests


that wind farms are not detrimental to tourism. .

180 Sep 19, 2012 Oct 12, 2012 Kathy MacPherson Email

• Indicated that the residents of South Marysburg have sent a resounding No to wpd.

• Asked wpd to disclose the level of support for the project.





• Questions posted to the EBR are considered part of the application.

181 Sep 19, 2012 Oct 23, 2012 Lisa Wood Email

• Said that “ WPD Canada's recent decision to apply for approval for its industrial turbine project in South Marysburgh is a dismal reflection of the cynical and self-satisfied stance of your industry”

• Concerned about impact on bird populations • Said that wpd knew that setbacks in Europe

are more than they are in Ontario and that the Project would not be acceptable in other jurisdictions.





• Questions posted to the board are considered part of the application

182 Sep 19, 2012 Oct 15, 2012 Robin Knight Email • Indicated that wpd was not wanted in South

Marysburgh • Told the company to “go away”






• Questions posted to the board are considered part of the application

183 Sep 28, 2012 Oct 12, 2012 Roxanne Guttin Email

• Correspondent submitted a series of questions and comments to the MOE, but coped wpd in the email.

• Wanted to report several inadequacies with the reports that were made public for the White Pines Final Public Meeting.

• Claimed a noise receptor map was not available at the public meeting

• The number of receptors was not known or available.

• Proximity of wind turbines to schools was not available.

• A map indicating that turbines were at least 550 metres from non-participating receptors was not available.

• Map showing turbine distances to right of ways was not available

• Claimed that a Stantec employee (wpd’s environmental advisors could not answer how many full time jobs would be created

• Expressed concerns about the existence of a “phase two part of the project”.

• Concerned about property values and wpd excluding reports that suggest there are property value impacts.

• Indicated that she had not received a copy of the Acoustic Assessment Report despite wpd’s email response.

• Explained there are a number of ways to hold a public meeting and wpd chose an open house format.

• The open house provides an opportunity for small groups and individuals to ask one on one questions with subject matter experts assigned to their areas of expertise.

• Health, technical, environmental and approval process experts were available to discuss the project.

• Apologized for not attaching the Acoustic Report in previous written correspondence. File was resent with email.

• Explained a large map with noise receptors and scaled rulers was available at the open house and the noise report was available to reference. A story board was also on display that showed all receptors and turbines.

• Explained receptor information may have not been identified off hand but were available in the Noise (Acoustic) Report.

• Socio-economic map was available that identified public buildings, churches parks etc. No schools were identified in the Project area. Verified that the closest school was 4km from the closest turbine.

• Explained while there was no map, road and property line setback information was available in the reports that were at the open house.

• Stantec staff were at public meeting to speak about the REA process and environmental concerns. wpd staff were available to discuss employment and job information.

• wpd has only one contract in the area. There is no phase two. A separate project was canceled because of DND concerns. wpd provided a copy of the news release relating to the cancelation of the Project.

• Regarding property values, a statement of claim had been made against wpd on this issue. wpd intended to defend themselves and let an independent party decide the merit of the claim.

185 Feb 22, 2013 Feb 22, 2013 Anne Phone • Correspondent phoned to inquire whether • Indicated that the work was being done for


Dumbrille survey work by IBW is being conducted for the Ostrander Project or for wpd.

• Also inquired as to how tall the poles would be

wpd and that they were surveying the transmission route.

• It is wpd’s intention to bury the entire transmission line so no poles would be used.

• The survey being done is to support the feasibility.

185.1 Jan 13, 2014 Jan 22, 2014 Anne Dumbrille Email • Requested a copy of the Consultation Report

as submitted for the REA application

• Explained that the Consultation Report is being reviewed for completion, and will be posted along with all other reports when the application is deemed complete.

• Noted wpd can send her a copy via CD or digital copy

186 Mar 1, 2013 Mar 1, 2013 Robert Schroen Email

• While not opposed to wind energy, the correspondent indicated that he is opposed to the way the project implementation is being handled by wpd and the government.

• The email newsletter he was responding to was unsolicited and wpd did not include a unsubscribe option.

• Lastly the property value of his residence has declined significantly and prevented him from selling the house for fair market value,

• Indicated the contact information was from the publically available Prince Edward County Business directory, he had been removed from the distribution list.


•

187 Mar 6, 2013 Mar 22, 2013 Bill Cowan Email

• Indicated that he and his family are very supportive of wind energy. Indicated that they had signed up to up to host a turbine for another proposed project that never materialized.

• Indicated he was interesting in finding work related with the project.

• Thanked him for his support and invited him to send his CV.

• No decisions on hiring will be made until the project has been approved. An decision is expected near the end of the year,

188 Apr 22, 2013 Apr 22, 2013 Phillip Knox Phone • Called inquiring about general project and turbine location information

• Indicated that the Project was south of Milford mostly within the Ward of South Marysburgh

• Provided the project’s website and indicated the Project Description Report will have maps for reference.

• Follow up email was sent with maps and coordinates of the proposed turbines.

189 Apr 25, 2013 Apr 25, 2013 Donna Shulga Email

• Advised wpd that her mailing address had changes and would like her information to be updated as she wanted to continue receiving information on the project

• Confirmed that her contact information had been updated and she should continue to receive project information going forward.

190 Apr 26, 2013 May 1, 2013 Chis Melcher Email

• Indicated that he had seen a project location and study area map that including the description “120m zone of investigation”

• Inquired as to what this meant and what impacts he could expect on this property.

• Explained that by regulation wpd had to assess lands within 120m of project infrastructure. However, the project infrastructure is located on private lands where agreements with the landowners exist


or within the public right-of-way • No construction will be taking place on his

land. • A Collector line will be buried under Babylon

Rd. He is within the zone of investigation simply because of the collector line will be within 120m of his property.

• Unless wpd or its consultants received consent from landowners, all evaluation was conducted from public property.

190.1 May 8, 2013 May 17, 2013 Chis Melcher Email

• Inquired as to whether there were any detailed plans or documents of the buried line under Babylon road.

• Asked if the zone of investigation was investigated without his permission or did we stay on a public area?

• Inquired as to how long access to his property would be impeded and if there were any dangers.

• As previously indicated wpd did not trespass on the land to evaluate the impact of the collector line. Where site access is not obtained from a landowner, studies are conducted from the Municipal right of way. Assuming the project is approved; wpd would enter a road agreement with the municipality to discuss the logistics of building infrastructure. Detailed designs would only be finalized should the project receive approval.

• wpd would try to keep road accessible at all times and look at ways of disrupting resident activities the least.

• If access to a residents driveway is blocked it would likely only be for a few hours on one day.

• The lines wpd would be installing are functionally no different than hydro worries that bring electricity to residents along the road.

• The construction area will be well marked and residents in the area will be informed well ahead of time of pending construction.

191 May 8, 2013 May 9, 2013 R. Ford Email

• Correspondent indicated that he would be unable to attend the third public meeting but would like to be placed on the contact list for the project.

• Provided his email address for contact.

• Confirmed that he had been added to the contact list.

• Provided a link to the projects website.

191.1 May 20, 2013 May 23, 2013 R. Ford Email

• Correspondent sent a list of questions: • Inquired on where to find information on what

Species at Risk (SAR) were evaluated • Has wpd applied for a leave to construct? • Will there be an occupancy agreement with

the municipality? • How will the interconnection line cross the

provincial highway network • Does wpd expect to find contaminated

• Environmental assessments of wildlife and natural features are summarized in the NHA. If SAR are found in the project area, a separate report is conducted. As it is, no SAR were identified in the IL NHA but possible impacts on woodland breeding habitat were found and mitigation measures were suggested.

• An application to LTC will be made shortly


material? What is the nature of the contamination? What actions will be taken to ensure all contaminated materials are dealt with?

• Is the Leave to Construct permit transferable to another party should wpd sell or abandon the project?

• How can responsibility for the implementation of construction mitigation methods be transferred from wpd to a third party contractor?

• Regarding impacts on agricultural lands and operation, couldn’t the field entrances be impacted by the interconnection line construction?

• What assurances are there that the construction contractor fulfils construction obligations? What is wpd’s and the municipality’s role in oversight? Expressed concern over tax payers having to pay for harm done to public roads.

• Inquired as to what specific measures will be put in place to ensure municipal road allowances are monitored and decommissioning measures are put in place. Who will be responsible for decommissioning the line and the costs?

• Roads and other municipal permits and agreements will be obtained from the municipality should the project be approved.

• It is wpd’s intention to bury the entire transmission line. A permit will be required from the Ministry of Transportation to cross a Provincial road.

• wpd does not expect to find contaminated material but the existence cannot be precluded. The procedures to be followed are mentioned in the Construction Report.

• Should project ownership change all permits including a LTC would change hands. If a permit had not been achieved prior to ownership change, the new owners would be responsible for getting the permit.

• Explained there is a difference between responsibility and liability. wpd as the project developer is ultimately responsible for ensuring the project is built according to regulation. wpd must make sure that contractors are aware of all conditions. The contractor would be responsible for ensuring the project is constructed under these conditions.

• No impacts are expected on agricultural lands as the interconnection line does not cross private agricultural lands. There might be localized short term impact on traffic.

• Municipal involvement and oversight would be part of the negotiated roads agreement. All work done in the right of way is paid for by wpd. wpd would also be responsible for restoring all roads.

• wpd would be responsible for paying for the decommissioning of the line. This would be done in agreement with the municipality. The original decommissioning report details some of the activities that would also apply to the interconnection line.

191.2 May 27, 2013 July 4, 2013 R. Ford Email

• In reply to wpd’s response, the correspondent sent several additional questions.

• Asked about where the species at risk list of targeted species was summarized within the reports.

• Asked whether the leave to construct will be posted to wpd’s website and the OEB website.

• Will wpd be applying for an occupancy permit

• Interim response was sent June 6, 2013. • Explained that no SAR were identified for

the transmission line part of the project. • Construction is located on the existing right-

of-way; it does not involve the removal of environmental features.

• Natural features within approximation to construction on the sides of the roads were


from the municipality? • Noted that the Ministry of Transportation was

not among the groups listed in Effects Assessment Report that will be contacted for permitting.

• Asked what assurances there were that wpd would take responsibility for the construction of the project. Asked whether the report can be updated to clearly delineate the responsibilities between the construction contractor and wpd.

• Has a general concern about the municipality paying for construction or administration related costs.

• Clarified whether a leave to construct permit is transferred to a new owner should the project be sold or whether they would have to apply for a new permit.

• Asked whether the obstruction of field entrances during line construction could not be seen as an impact on agricultural operation.

• Inquired as to what happens if it is not possible to negotiate a roads agreement.

• Asked for clarity’s sake whether wpd’s acknowledgement of their responsibility to decommission the interconnection line be noted more specifically within section 2.3 and 4.3 of the Effects Assessment Report.

identified and mitigation methods suggested. • Regarding the Leave to Construct Notice, it

will be available on our website and posted through the OEB.

• Occupancy agreements would be included in the list of permits and agreements that wpd would reach with the municipality.

• Regarding the list of permits, Table 1 in the Effects Assessment Report is not an exhaustive list, the list was inclusive but not exclusive of other parties wpd would need to seek permits from. Confirmed again that permits would be needed from MTO.

• Concerning contaminated materials, wpd would contact the appropriate authorities, commenting any further on responsibility and cost would be speculative. wpd would keep in contact with the municipality in the unlikely scenario something is found.

• Regarding impact on agricultural operation, explained that there is no reason to assume any long term impact on field entrances.

• wpd would notify the community ahead of construction and work with them to ensure that traffic impacts are kept at a minimum. Construction in front of a given driveway is not expected to last more than several hours.

• If agreements with the municipality are not reached parties generally turn to the IEB to arbitrate.

• It is wpd’s understanding that municipalities charge fees to permits to recoup administration costs.

• Specific decommissioning details of the transmission line will be detailed in agreement with the municipality.

192 May 27, 2013 May 31, 2013 Bill and Paula Peel Email

• The correspondent expressed concern that wpd Canada provided misinformation related to concerns about Maypul Layne Rd and the bordering property lines at the April open house.

• Questioned whether work was done based on a land survey.

• Also questions whether the company contracted by wpd had really placed stakes in to delineate the right of way

• Indicated that he had contacted the survey

• In reply wpd explained that they had incorrectly identified the use of a land survey and confirmed that a topographic survey was used instead.

• Arborist used the study along with previously inserted stakes (standard iron bars), that were not inserted by wpd, Stantec or surveyors contracted by wpd to ensure they kept within the right-of-way,


company that provided wpd with information used to conduct tree surveys on Maypul Layne Rd.

• The company indicated that they had provided topographic maps not a land survey and they had not placed stakes to delineate between the road and private property.

• Asked wpd to account for these discrepancies

192.1 June 06, 2013 June 27, 2013 Bill and Paula Peet Email

• Asked for a copy of the topographic map. Questions whether the maps detail the location of the stakes.

• Sent a follow up asking for the maps again, stated the topographic maps do not usually identify property boundary stakes.

• Is concerned that wpd is providing misinformation concerning the property boundary on Maypul Layne Rd.

• Thanked him for his patience in waiting for our response

• Explained that wpd was waiting on the results of the arborist report in order to respond

• Explained that topographic surveys can be used to delineate the borders between private land and public

• All reports required to be made available to the public have been posted on wpd’s website.

• The topographic maps wpd received from the surveyors is for planning purposes only.

• wpd has however posted a tree inventory of the report for public review. A link was provided to the report.

193 Jun 28, 2013 Aug 2, 2013 Diane Milan Email

• Correspondent sent comments relating to the White Pines IL Project Modification Report.

• Quoted sections from the report that stated no impacts to the local economy are expected and that development will have positive impacts.

• Felt that these statements showed the developer lacked an understanding of the local economy

• The area relies heavily on tourism. • Agricultural operations in the area will be

heavily impacted by the disruption in traffic. • Rejects the project going forward without

adequate consultation with the municipality. • Noted that the municipality had declared PEC

an unwilling host. • Objected to developers overriding the

authority of locally elected officials. • Indicated she did not attend the public

meeting because of the choice of format. Felt the format did not provide sufficient interaction with the community.

• Took exception to comments made by wpd’s president at the public meeting she had

• Regarding the format of the public meeting, wpd acknowledges that there are a number of different formats to hold an open house,

• wpd chose to have information panels and numerous staff spread out across the room to engage the public one-on-one or in small groups in areas of their expertise.

• If a staff member could not answer a question they would refer the person to the appropriate individual.

• Concerning economic impacts noted the Green energy act requires 50% domestic Ontario content.

• Much of which will be procured from services in the area.

• A study from Clear Sky advisors calculated that pre-operational phase of wind projects produces 10.5 person year jobs per megawatt and 3.6 jobs per year during operation. Provided job estimates the Project will create based on these calculations.

• Noted that the Project will also add substantial income to landowners in the area


previously attended • Felt that he disregarding the local concerns of

the community regarding economic impacts and impacts to the environment

• Stated that he had blown off her concerns by stating “ If you’re so concerned, take it to the tribunal”

and additional tax dollars to the municipality. • A significant amount of will also flow the

landowners which will have a spin off effect for local businesses.

• Concerning wpd’s President’s comments, he was pointing out there was a system in place to independently settle disagreements.

194 Jul 18, 2013 Jul 19, 2013 Geoff Church Email

• Responding to an email distribution list wpd sends regarding recent wind articles, he took issue with one of the articles titled ”Ongoing turbine survey finding no bird kills, so far”. He noted it was about one 900kw turbine. Nowhere near the size of the White Pines proposed models. Suggested that wpd discuss Wolfe Island (Project) instead.

• Thanked him for sharing his point of view. • Noted that a recent ERT decision on the

neighboring Ostrander Point project which found that the evidence presented did not support the position that serious and irreversible harm will happen to birds or their habitat

195 May 27, 2014 May 27, 2014 Rhonda Nemeth Email • Correspondent emailed wpd to update her

mailing address • Confirmed that the information had been

updated.

196 Sep 16, 2013 Sep 19, 2013 Andrea Brigneti Email

• The Correspondent submitted several questions concerning the transmission line including:

• Where it will be located and how large the footprint is.

• Inquired what the land option on a specific property was intended for

• How many transformers are located in the TS house?

• What is the expected wattage of the transformers and what will the total voltage of the TS be?

• What is the expected noise level? • Are their expansion plans for the Hydro One

Facilities? • Will the White Pines transmission route go

along County Rd 5 and will they be above or below ground?

• What is the voltage of the transmission line? • When is the work scheduled to begin and be

completed • Are there other proposals to add further power

to the grid at a later date?

• Manufacturing of and design has not yet been determined but TS will be no closer than 1.1km to the person’s house.

• Confirmed that the optioned land was where the proposed TS would be located for the life of the Project.

• There is one transformer. • The wattage is 65MVA and the TS will step

up the voltage from 69kV to 230kV. • As per regulation the sound from the TS

facility will not exceed 40dBA at non-participating dwellings. Exact sound emissions will be determined after design is complete but will abide by regulations.

• The correspondent should contact Hydro One regarding expansions of their facility

• Part of the transmission line will be built along County Rd 5.

• The cables will be buried underground • The voltage of the transmission line is 69kV • The Project has not been approved and

therefor exact start and finish dates of the transmission line cannot be given, but work would start no earlier than Summer/Fall 2014.

• There are no expansion plans for the facility beyond what has been proposed.

196.1 Sep 20, 2013 Andrea Brigneti Email

• Thanked wpd for their detailed response, attached map, and e-mail

• Thanked wpd for their time • No response required


197 Apr 05, 2014 Apr 8, 2014 Fern Reid Email • Requested information on the location of the

turbines as she indicated that she was planning to buy property in the area.

• wpd provided a map of the Project along with a document containing coordinates of the turbines. Recommended that she consult the Project Description Report if she wanted to know general information about the Project. A link was provided to the website.

198 Sep 25, 2014 Sep 25, 2014 Dennis Darby Email

• Contacting wpd to clarify the location of the White Pines Project turbines. He indicated that the turbines located in the wpd report were different from what he saw on a local advocacy group’s map.

• Indicated it wasn’t clear which White Pines Report he was looking at but assuming it was from the wpd website he should accept the report as accurately depicting the location of the turbines.

• Indicated that while wpd could not comment on a third party’s information, the reports on wpd’s website were the official documents submitted to the MOE for approval.

• In subsequent emails a map was sent to him clarifying the area he was looking at.

• It was also mentioned that he should consult with Gilead as their project was in the general vicinity as well.


# Received Responded Name Type Respondent

Comment or Inquiry Summary Response Summary

POH 2 Comment Cards (Received after REA Submission)

19.1 Sep 2, 2012 Oct 10, 2012 David Littman Email

• Felt that wpd’s responses did not adequately respect the communities concerns.

• Felt wpd underestimated the opposition to the project in the community.

• Concerned that there were no assurances wpd would decommission the turbines at the end of their project lifecycle.

• Questions wpd’s ethics in developing a wind project prior to the completion of health studies.

• Understood he opposed the project but thanked him for his comments

• Regarding decommissioning, explained as part of the OPA agreement all developers must decommission the project at their expense and produce a decommissioning report as part of the REA process


• Concerning health studies, wpd welcomes all new independent scientific research on wind turbines and health

• wpd believes a moratorium is unnecessary and noted that Health Canada Study’s expected outcomes and limitations states: “ . . . the results will not provide a definitive answer on their own”

• Noted that there have been at least 17 peer-reviewed studies which indicate no scientific evidence links wind turbines to adverse health effects.

•

28 Sep 10, 2012 Oct 15, 2012 Patricia Dye Comment Card

• Open House attendee explained that while she supports wind turbine development has concerns about the minimum setback distances and feels more could be done to move turbines away from the Milford community.

• Explained that the MOE established minimum setbacks. Sound is the overriding factor when determining minimum distances.

• 550 metres is the minimum distance provided that sound does not exceed 40dBA.

• 40dBA is the level consistent with the nighttime guidelines published by WHO Europe.

• A number of factors determine the location of wind project including; good wind regime, grid capacity/connection feasibility, participating landowners and setback from environmental features and


dwellings. • The eventual result limits where turbines

can be sited. • Offered to send a copy of the video

siting demonstration at the open house.

29 Sep 10, 2012 Oct 15, 2012 John Kennedy

Comment Card

• Expressed his total opposition to the Project

• Explained that he was upset that formally friendly neighbors had been turned against each other.

• Some are saddled with unsellable properties and health concerns

• wpd will face long-term anger and opposition should the turbines be built.

• Stated that “endangered species and IBA arguments have been well documented and apparently rejected out of hand.”

• Explained that PEC had become a desirable tourist destination that would stop once the turbines were erected

• Indicated that he supports alternative energy (solar)


• Noted that wpd’s job was to ensure the community is aware of the details of the project. The project will create jobs and economic benefit for the community. It will provide income for families in the area for years to come.





30 Sep 12, 2012 Oct 26, 2012 Gordon Currie

Comment Card

• Sent a list of 16 comments and question following his attendance at the final public meeting.

• Felt that wpd failed to provide information on wind energy efficiency, GHG reduction levels and comparisons to other forms of electricity.

• Noted wind cannot be stored for backup and is intermittent and provides energy when it is not needed.

• Claimed that wind turbines require 100-10,000 times the land requirements per unit of energy compared to conventional sources.

• Concerned about the visual impact the project will have on tourism,

• Felt that jobs will be lost and revenues will be flow abroad.

• Concerned about property value loss. • Felt that wind energy is an inappropriate

response to global warming. • Felt that the Green energy Act denies

people property and quality of life rights.

• Explained that the earth’s climate is changing faster now than at any other time in earth’s history partly because of GHG.

• Fossil fuels burned for electricity contribute a large portion of GHG wind energy will help offset the use of fossil fuels.

• Noted studies from the UN and the US Department of Energy that support the increased use of renewable energy.

• While no GHG studies have been conducted in the White Pines project, the little emission caused by the project lifecycle will no differ greatly from those projects included in other studies.

• The clean energy produced by the project will far exceed the amount needed to build and maintain the project.

• Noted all forms of power plants emit CO2 emissions during development but wind’s energy source is free of CO2 emissions and does not require


• Noted the community voted overwhelmingly against the project.

• Felt that developers should recognize the impact the turbines have in the living environment.

• Felt all the studies that wpd provided claiming no direct health related impacts flies in the face of actual on the ground experience. Argued that turbines are relatively new and that there are scant health studies available. Commented that the Health Canada study was coming but that it has significant deficiencies. Called for a moratorium on wind development.

• The project will impact resident’s right to quiet enjoyment of their property.

• Criticised the shadow flicker models wpd employs.

• Concerned about the placement of turbines within an IBA area, Felt it would lead to a significant amount of birds being killed.

• Was concerned about the wpd’s responsibility to decommissioning the project. Felt that that information provided was generalized and lacked specifics.

refinement of transportation. • The White Pines Project is expected to

produce enough power to meet the needs of 9682 homes a year.

• Noted that the amount of land taken out of commission is small and that owners are free to conduct agricultural activities around the turbines.

• Provided a comparison between the Bruce Nuclear power plant the White Pines Project noting that the Wind Project takes out far less land per MW.

• Noted that the correspondent failed to take into account the amount of water power plants consume, noting that apart from during construction wind turbines require very little water to operate.

• Noted his projections for capacity factor was incorrect and because wpd only earns income from the electricity the project generates, wpd has an incentive to site turbines in an appropriately windy area and to keep them well maintained.

• Wind turbines are generally available to produce energy 95-98% of the time.

• Because of cut in and cut out speeds typical turbines operate 65-90% of the time

• Turbines generate electricity throughout this range but typically but above certain speeds the output remains constant.

• Wind is intermittent but the IESO is working on models to more accurately predict wind output. Noted new technologies that were being developed to store power.

• Regarding tourism, noted that there are a number of events and attractions that draw visitors to an area. Each event holds a subjective appeal. Wind energy is consistently supported by the public in Ontario and around the world. Provided a link to an article that suggests that wind farms are not detrimental to tourism.

• Regarding economic impact, noted the Green energy act requires 50% domestic Ontario content.


• A study from Clear Sky advisors calculated that pre-operational phase of wind projects produces 10.5 person year jobs per megawatt and 3.6 jobs per year during operation. Provided job estimates the Project will create based on these calculations.

• Noted that the Project will also add substantial income to landowners in the area and additional tax dollars to the municipality.






• Regarding health, acknowledged that there is an ongoing debate. Noted arguments on both sides were presented at the ERT proceedings for the Kent Breeze project.

• Noted the panel ruled “the Appellants have not shown that engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will cause serious harm to human health as required by section 145.2 1(2)(a) of the EPA.”

• Provided a link to the decision. • Explained the program used to develop

shadow flicker reports and the variables that it incorporates to determine shadow flicker.

• Regarding birds and environmental impacts explained how the NHA report was developed and assess environmental impacts.

• The report needs to comply with government standards.


• Regarding decommissioning:, as part of the OPA agreement all developers must decommission the project at their expense and produce a decommissioning report as part of the REA process


•

31 Sep 14, 2012 Oct 24, 2012 Gail Forcht Comment Card

• Explained that potential home buyers would not entertain looking at home near wind turbines.

• Concerned about property value loss. • Concerned about impacts on water in

area noting that there are drought conditions.

• Concerned about a fire breaking out and asked whether wpd carried insurance for potential loss.

• Asked if vibrations from pounding rock will affect water levels in wells.

• Asked if wpd would be water responsible?

• wpd stated that there was nothing more to add concerning property value that was not already communicated via email in the correspondent’s previous communications.

• Noted that wpd will develop an emergency response plan with the County’s Emergency Services Department but turbine fires are very rare.

• Regarding vibration, wpd referred to a study from the University of Keele, -who have extensive experience measuring seismic activity -, that noted vibrations from wind turbines are so small that only the most sophisticated machines can measure their impact.

• Noted that turbine foundations will be about 3 metres deep well above the water table.

32 Sep 20, 2012 Oct 15, 2012 Ellen Koteen Comment Card

• Expressed her opposition to the wind project. She felt the setback distances were too close and that wpd has ignored the impact that turbines will have on bird migration.

• Felt that wpd was totally unresponsive to the sentiments in the community and asked why wpd did not make public presentation at the final public meeting.

• Regarding birds, wpd is required to follow MNR guidelines –and regulations.

• The guidelines detail post-construction monitoring as well as strict bat mortality thresholds. Should the thresholds be exceeded, operational mitigation techniques such as turbine shutdown or blade feathering as specific time of the year would be required.

• Please refer to the NHA and Design and Operations Report for details,

• Regarding the format of the public meeting, acknowledged that there are a number of different formats to hold an open house,

• wpd chose to have information panels and numerous staff spread out across


the room to engage the public one on one or in small groups in areas of their expertise.

• If a staff could not answer a question they would refer people to the appropriate individual.





•

33 Sep 21, 2012 Oct 26, 2012 Sheila Kuja Comment Card

• Expressed opposition to the project stating that the project is “not green but black and deadly”

• Said his beliefs were made clearer after watching the video presentation and seeing pictures of the excavated turbine bases.

• Asked how does wpd think the project is green?

• Regarding the comments that wind is not green, noted that climate is changing faster now than at any other point in human history.

• Fossil fuels burned for electricity contribute a large portion of GHG but wind energy will help offset the use of fossil fuels.

• Noted studies from the UN and the US Department of Energy that support the increased use of renewable energy.

• Like all renewables, there are no emissions or pollutants from the operation of wind turbines. Emissions from construction are offset early in the lifespan of the Project.




34 Oct 5, 2012 Nov 12, 2012 Janice Hanthorn

Comment Card

• Stated that wind turbines have no place in PEC and that the general population is opposed.

• Project was in the name of greed not green and wpd should stop.



• explained that the public had other opportunities to submit comments.



•

34.1 Nov 12, 2012 Nov 13, 2012 Janice Hanthorn Email

• In reply to wpd’s response. Felt that wpd did not care how residents felt.

• Stated that she supports some renewable and has solar panels but opposes wind.

• Felt the project would destroy tourism. • Felt that nobody would benefit from the

project in the long run. • In a separate follow up email she inquired

as to how much per kw/h will wind energy be paid and how much is the project production per tower.

• Explained that wind energy as per the OPA contract pays 13.5 cents per kw/h and is expected to produce 169,000,000 kW/h on average per year or the equivalent yearly consumption of 9,683 homes.

• Per turbine each will roughly produce 5,827,586 kW/h a year.

• The contract price that all renewable energy projects receive from the OPA is based on the assumption that a ROI is achieved 8-12 years after commissioning.

35 Oct 11, 2012 Nov 12, 2012 John and Jane Thompson

Comment Card

• Explained that this project and other wind projects are vital to the future of their children and grandchildren and they enthusiastically support the project.

• Thanked them for their words of encouragement, and expressed hope that the project would be approved.

• Explained that the Project was submitted to the MOE on Sept 14, 2012 and is being reviewed for completeness.

36 Oct 17, 2012 Nov 12, 2012 Paul Carruthers

Comment Card

• Stated wind turbines are unwanted in PEC.

• Feared they will provide no positive impact on the local economy, will reduce real-estate values, affect neighbors, impact tourism and wildlife.

• Regarding economic impact, noted the Green Energy Act requires 50% domestic Ontario content.

• Referred to a study that calculated that pre-operational phase of wind projects produces 10.5 person year jobs per megawatt and 3.6 jobs per year during operation. Provided job estimates the Project will create based on these


calculations. • Noted that the Project will also add

substantial income to landowners in the area and additional tax dollars to the municipality.


• Noted that there are a number of events and attractions that draw visitors to an area. Each event holds a subjective appeal. Wind energy is consistently supported by the public in Ontario and around the world. Provided a link to an article that suggests that wind farms are not detrimental to tourism.

• Regarding birds, wpd is required to follow MNR guidelines for birds and bird habitats.

• The guidelines detail post-construction monitoring as well as strict bat mortality thresholds. Should the thresholds be exceeded, operational mitigation techniques such as turbine shutdown or blade feathering as specific time of the year would be required.

• Please refer to the NHA and Design and Operations Report for details.

37 Oct 17, 2012 Nov 12, 2012 Beth Schofield

Comment Card

• Stated that she is completely opposed to wind development near homes or migratory paths.

• Asked what wpd plans to do when homes in the area of the project devalue.

• Noted that people will sue. • Stated that if anyone’s health is negatively

affected by wind turbines they will sue. • People will sue wpd over the impact the

project will have on tourism.





Agency Consultation Table

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From

Name of Correspondent

Date Sent/ Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Date Responded Response Summary

Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport

1 To MTCS 19-Mar-2013

• Revised Heritage Report is provided to MTCS.

16-Oct-2013

• Email with attached confirmation letter. • MTCS’ written comments as required

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

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

• The Ministry accepts the recommendations provided in the reports.

2, 2.1 To MTCS 13-Dec-2013

• wpd submitted an expedited review request for an updated report. The previous report had been missing portions of the assessed area.

24-Dec-2013

• The MTCS replaced the original report and letter of acceptance with revised report and letter.

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

Municiapl Correspondence Table

# Received Responded Name Type Comment or Inquiry Summary Response Summary Prince Edward County

1 10 Sep 2012 11 Sep 2012

Robert McAuley Email

• Inquiry sent to municipality asking if they had any maps or information regarding waterline or gas/utilities that are found within the county so that wpd can plan accordingly

• Municipality indicated that they did not have utility information for the county as a whole and records would be on file for individual properties.

• Indicated they would look for water main and


sewer information but did not expect to have general area information but they may be some identified private services.

2 21 Sep 2012 26 Sep 2012

Robert McAuley Email • Correspondence back and forth between wpd

engineers and PEC staff confirming a meeting • Meeting was eventually set for October 12th at

1pm.

2.1 12 Oct 2012 - Robert McAuley Meeting

• Meeting provided an opportunity for wpd to update PEC on the current status of the project, review the requirements set out by the document submitted to council, and to discuss/review the collector line strategy from the project site to the Picton TS.

• Key notes from the meeting: • Travel on County Road 39 to County Road 10

may not be allowed; review of County Roads needed

• In order to enter a Road Use Agreement: some roads would need to be upgraded to “Maintained” status

• Council position: against allowing any cabling along Maypul Layn, Army Reserve Rd., and Hilltop Rd.

3 22 Feb 2013 Mar 5 2013 Robert McAuley Email

• Correspondence back and forth between wpd engineers and PEC staff confirming a meeting date to discuss the transmission line.

• March 15th 2013 date is finally settled on.

4 1 Apr 2013 15 Apr 2013 Email

• Meeting minutes from March 15th meeting were sent to Municipality.

• Additional Correspondence back and forth between wpd and PEC over wording of the minutes.

• Final version of minutes were distributed April 15th 2013.

• PEC Public works requests wpd avoid using Maypul Layn

• The bulk of the line (from royal Road to County Road 5 across from Picton TS) is considered standard procedure for PEC and should not be many problems

5 4 Apr 2013 - Robert McAuley Email • PEC provided as-built drawings of the water

main at the roundabout. • No response needed

6 13 Apr 2013 15 Apr 2013 Robert McAuley Email

• wpd sent an inquiry about the municipality’s noise by-laws

• PEC indicated that noise law permits wpd to work 7am-2am 7 days a week. Anything outside of these hours needs Council approval.

7 16 Aug 2013 - Robert McAuley Email

• Municipality said there were some Stantec staff that had trespassed on private land off of Maypul Layne Rd while conducting vegetation surveys.

• Asked if they were working for wpd and noted that some residents were upset

• wpd indicated that Stantec staff were conducting work on Maypul Layn Rd.

• Stantec indicated to wpd that a female Stantec staff was out in the right of way (ROW) on Maypul Layn and was verbally harassed by an older gentleman who walked from one of the farms.

• Stantec indicated that the local resident was in fact incorrect in his understanding of the road ROW extent. The local resident indicated that all of Maypul Layn was unassumed and therefore any work was trespassing

• wpd recently conducted a survey of the ROW and feel confident in its accuracy.


8 12 Nov 2013 13 Nov 2013

Robert McAuley Email

• PEC inquired with wpd as to the OEB application

• Expressed concern about the use of Maypul Layne Rd. that the municipality felt had not been addressed.

• wpd responded they were sorry to hear that this is the first he had heard of the OEB application but that several voice messages were left to discuss the issue over the previous months but there were no responses.

• It was still wpd’s intention to work with the Municipality but that the company needed to respect the OEB process and the construction timelines submitted with the REA application.

• Asked if the municipality could meet wpd to discuss the routing issues.

• No Response was Received From PEC

9 2 Dec 2013 - Robert McAuley Email • wpd sent another request for meeting. • No Response was Received From PEC

10 7 Apr 2014 10 Apr 2014

Robert McAuley, Jo-Anne

Egan

• Informed PEC that wpd had an discussion with MTO that resulted in a change to the line in the area of the roundabout.

• Requested another meeting with PEC

• County indicated that they could meet with May 22nd or May 23rd

• Asked that wpd send all detailed engineering plans.

• wpd provided maps to the required level of detail in the Leave to Construct process in which the municipality is a intervener.

• No meeting was held, as the documents they required were above and beyond the requirements of the OEB. Given the municipalities feelings of the meeting it was decided that one was not needed.

# Received Responded Name Type Comment or Inquiry Summary Response Summary

Prince Edward Heritage Advisory Committee (PEHAC)

1 Jan 27, 2014 Feb 13, 2014 Janice Gibbins Email

• Chair of PEHAC wrote to wpd, criticizing the consultation process regarding the updated Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Report.

• Claimed wpd actions and inactions constitute bad faith.

• Stated that they were not properly consulted prior to the first submission of the HIA in 2012 and wpd did not have heritage representatives at the Open House.

• Failed to include protected properties in the

• Noted that MTCS had provided guidance regarding updates to the Heritage Report concerning additional heritage resources in the Project area ad as such A report was revised, completed and then accepted by the MTCS on Oct 16, 2014. The report has been - published on the wpd website.

• Regret that she characterized wpd’s consultation with PEHAC as not in good faith as wpd’s consultants met with PEHAC for a full day in October 2012 and attended a full day


HIA • Felt that PEHAC’s concerns were

misrepresented to the MTCS • Prematurely submitted a draft revised report in

Feb 2013 prior to completing consultation with PEHAC

• Refusing to discuss prioritization of visualizations with PEHAC

• Suspension of communications with PEHAC from March 2013 onwards.

• Failure to release the revised main HIA to PEHAC and the public for review.

• Asked that wpd immediately released the draft HIA for public review.

site visit with representatives in Feb 2013. wpd has also responded to more than 20 pieces of correspondence from PEHAC and other members of the community regarding heritage [throughout 2013 and 2014].

2 Feb 14, 2014 Mar 11, 2014 Janice Gibbins Email

• Noted that the revised HIA was posted but complained that PEHAC, nor the municipality were notified until Feb 13, 2014 or its release.

• Felt the heritage community had been disrespected.

• They welcomed the release of the report but stated that a period of public review and proper consultation with PEHAC must be completed before a posting to the EBR.

• Asked that wpd confirm that PEHAC will have the time needed to review the report and advise council before posting to the EBR and wpd will consult with PEHAC to find solutions relating to impacts.

• wpd recognizes that consultation is an ongoing process and will continue to address questions and concerns from the community, municipality and government agencies.

• The posting of the White Pines Project to the EBR signals the beginning of the technical review stage of the project. It also provides a forum for residents and groups to post comments about the project. The posting will be for 60 days.

• That said, wpd will response to comments sent to us during all phases of the Project.

• It is wpd’s understanding that the MOE will generally accepts comments from the Municipality at any time during the review.

Federal Aviation/Radar Consultation:

Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From


Date Sent/ Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Date

Responded Response Summary

NAV CANADA

1 David Legault 6 May 2014

• Re-submitted Land-use Proposal Form to NAV Canada prior to the one year expiration date.

• Included an excel sheet of the updated turbine coordinates and a 1:50,000 topographic map of the Project Area.

27 May 2014

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

• Noted that the interference of wind turbines to certain navigation aids is cumulative and while initial turbines may be approved, continued development may not always be possible.

• Made requests to be kept up to date on project

Post REA Consultation Summary Table Original: Oct 24, 2014 | Updated: November 21, 2014 Doc. Ref. No.

To/ From


Date Sent/ Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Date

Responded Response Summary

information, and to be notified 10 business days before commencement of construction.

Transport Canada

1 To Mike Lucking 22 Nov 2013 • Re-submitted Aeronautical Obstruction

Clearance Form for updated siting along with a spread sheet of coordinates and a 1:50,000 map of the Project area.

20 Dec 2013 • Received signed and stamped Aeronautical

Obstruction Clearance Form approving the lighting proposal accepting lighting proposal

Department of National Defence

1 To Maj T.D. Lavigne 20 Nov 2013 • A Notice was sent updating DND at CCISF/ESICC and ATESS/ESTTMA about re-siting of turbines

20 Nov 2013 • ATESS/ESTTMA responded back they had no objections to the Project as submitted.

2 To Mario Lavoie 21 Nov 2013 • Sent updated notice to FSM group informing them of the name change of the applicant

22 Nov 2013 • Confirmed that the records had been updated.

Aboriginal Consultation Summary Table

Alderville First Nation

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

Received Comment or Inquiry Summary Response

AFN-19, AFN-20

Valerie Kitchell to Dave Simpson

Email, Voicemail

31-Oct-2013 • Explained that wpd Canada was sending an arch team to perform additional field studies for 2 substations for the White Pines Project.

• Invited AFN to provide a monitor for the additional Arch work.

• Noted that the project is under review by the MOE, and linked the project website for REA documentation.

• Dave Simpson left a voicemail with Valerie Kitchell.

• Requested more details regarding the site visit, expressing interest in providing a monitor.

• Also noted that Melanie was no longer working there and her replacement is Mary McLeod.

AFN-21 Valerie Kitchell to Dave Simpson

Email 01-Nov-2013 • Provided a date and location for the site visit. • Noted that wpd is aware Tracy is not available but another

monitor may be, and that AFN would keep wpd up to date. • Understood that if the monitor was not available they would


not monitor this particular site visit, but wpd Canada would continue to keep AFN up to date regarding any potential finds.

AFN-22, AFN-23, AFN-24

Valerie Kitchell to Mary MacLeod-Beaver

E-mail 04-Nov-2013 • Sent an e-mail to verify that wpd Canada had the correct e-mail as Valerie had not received any response(s) from Mary.

• Explained she would connect with Tracy to see if he is available.

• Confirmed the correct e-mail. • Noted that Tracy Yeo indicated he

would monitor the site visit.

AFN-25 Paige Glenen (Stantec) to Mary MacLeod-Beaver & Tracy Yeo

E-mail 04-Nov-2013 • Provided details regarding the site visit (location and time), and contact information should Tracy Yeo be available to attend.

Curve Lake First Nation

CLFN-18 Valerie Kitchell to Corey Kinsella

E-mail 31-Oct-2013 • Explained that wpd Canada was sending an arch team to perform additional field studies for 2 substations for the White Pines Project.

• Invited CLFN to provide a monitor for the additional Arch work.


• Corey Kinsella indicated that CLFN would not be able to provide a monitor given the timing.

• Recommended speaking with Dave Simpson from Alderville First Nation.

CLFN-18 Valerie Kitchell to Corey Kinsella

E-mail 01-Nov-2013 • Thanked Corey for the timely response. • Indicated wpd was coordinating with Dave Simpson to have

someone on site.

Hiawatha First Nation

HFN-13 Valerie Kitchell to Chief Greg Cowie


• Invited HFN to provide a monitor for the additional Arch work.


Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation

KNFN-14 Valerie Kitchell to Chief Kris Narghang

E-mail 31-Oct-2013 • Explained that wpd Canada was sending an arch team to perform additional field studies for 2 substations for the White Pines Project

• Invited KNFN to provide a monitor for the additional Arch work.



Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation

MSIFN-14 Valerie Kitchell to Dave Mowat


• Invited MSIFN to provide a monitor for the additional Arch work.


Métis Nation of Ontario

MNO-29 Valerie Kitchell to Mark Bowler

E-mail and phone

01-Nov-2013 • Explained that wpd Canada was sending an arch team to perform additional field studies for 2 substations for the White Pines Project.

• Invited the MNO to provide a monitor for the additional Arch work.


• Mark indicated that the MNO does not typically provide monitors for archaeological fieldwork.

• Suggested that wpd see materials from James Wagar that may help wpd’s consultants in their reporting such that Métis history is included.

MNO-29 Valerie Kitchell to James Wagar

E-mail 20-Nov-2013 • Followed up regarding materials for wpd’s archaeological consultants.

• Requested to be kept informed of the Project.

Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte

MBQ-tx-2 Debbie Doreen to Shawna Peddle

Phone 02-Apr-2013 • Debbie Doreen requested additional paper copies and a CD of the Interconnection Line Addenda Reports.

• Additional copies were provided.

MBQ-9 Valerie Kitchell, Chief Donald Maracle, Amie Cowie, Paige Glenen

E-mail 04-Nov-2013 • Explained that wpd Canada was sending an arch team to perform additional field studies for 2 substations for the White Pines Project.

• Invited MBQ to provide a monitor for the additional Arch work.


• Coordinated engagement of MBQ monitoring of Project fieldwork.

Williams Treaties First Nations

WTFN-5 Valerie Kitchell to Kerry Sandy-


• Invited WTFN to provide a monitor for the additional Arch work.


McKenzie


Documents

Legend - wpd