gunn’s hill wind farm o r final...gunn’s hill wind farm design and operations report final june...

GUNN’S HILL WIND FARM

DESIGN AND OPERATIONS REPORT

FINAL

June 2013

Gunn’s Hill Windfarm Inc. 226 ½ James Street North, Unit A Hamilton, Ontario L8R 2L3 Tel: 905-528-1747 Fax: 866-203-6516 Email: [email protected]

January 8, 2014

Reference: Notice of Project Design Change – Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm

PLEASE NOTE:

The Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Application for the Gunn’s Hill wind Farm was submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in June, 2013.

The tap line connecting the project substation to Woodstock Transformer Station will no longer be required, as connection will be at or near the substation itself.

The tapline has been removed from Project mapping, but there are no changes to the Draft REA Reports provided to the MOE for review.

Please note there are no new environmental effects due to removal of the tap line from the Project description.

Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm Design and Operations Report

June 2013 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1

1.1. PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................1

1.2. PROJECT BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................5

2. FACILITY DESIGN PLAN............................................................................................................6

2.1. SITE PLAN ............................................................................................................................8

2.2. PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION FACILITY ...........................8

2.3. WIND TURBINES ................................................................................................................ 10

2.4. ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................................. 15

2.5. ROADS, TURBINE LAY-DOWN AREAS AND CRANE PADS .......................................................... 18

2.6. O&M BUILDING ................................................................................................................. 19

2.7. EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN 300 M OF THE FACILITY ........................................................ 19

2.8. UTILITY CORRIDORS WITHIN 300 M OF FACILITY ................................................................... 20

2.9. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT............................................................................................. 20

3. FACILITY OPERATION PLAN .................................................................................................. 21

3.1. TURBINE OPERATION AND MONITORING................................................................................ 21

3.2. PLANNED MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................... 22

3.3. UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................ 23

4. EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND PREPAREDNESS PLAN....................................................... 23

4.1. WIND FARM EMERGENCY RESPONSE BACKGROUND ............................................................. 23

4.2. ENTITIES AND ROLES .......................................................................................................... 25

4.3. EMERGENCY RESPONSE CHAIN OF COMMUNICATION ............................................................. 29

4.4. NON-EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN .......................................................................... 31

5. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES............................. 33

5.1. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 33

5.2. HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 33

5.3. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 35

5.4. AQUATIC RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 40

5.5. AIR QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ............................................................................ 42

5.6. LAND-USE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES...................................................................... 45

5.7. EXISTING LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE....................................................................................... 50

5.8. WASTE MANAGEMENT AND CONTAMINATED LANDS ............................................................... 54

5.9. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ............................................................................................... 57


June 2013 ii

6. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING PLAN ................................................................ 68

6.1. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ........................................................................... 69

6.2. PROGRAMS, PLANS, AND PROCEDURES................................................................................ 70

6.3. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS AND CONTINGENCY PLANS....................................................... 72

6.4. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ..................................................................................................... 76

L IST OF TABLES

Table 1 Design and Operation Report Requirements ..............................................................1

Table 2 O. Reg 359/09 Setback Requirements .......................................................................7

Table 3 Property Associated With the Project...........................................................................8

Table 4 Siemens SWT-3.0-113 Specifications ...................................................................... 10

Table 5 Siemens SWT 3.0-113 Acoustic Emissions Summary............................................. 12

Table 6 Automatic Shutdown and Restart In High Winds ..................................................... 12

Table 7 Setback Distances from Turbines ............................................................................. 14

Table 8 Turbine Setbacks from Lot Lines............................................................................... 15

Table 9 Norwich TWP and Woodstock Fire Department Resources..................................... 27

Table 10 Ambulance Resources Within 20 km of Project....................................................... 27

Table 11 Local Radio Broadcast Contacts ............................................................................... 28

Table 12 Local TV BROadcast contacts.................................................................................... 28

Table 13 Total Expected Quantities of Waste Fluids ............................................................... 55

L IST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Location Within Ontario....................................................................................6

Figure 2 Directional Bore Under Utility (or Road/water Feature) .......................................... 17

Figure 3 Emergency Communication Chain from EPC during Construction/Decomm……… 29

Figure 4 Emergency Communication Chain from Public during Construction/Decomm…… 26

Figure 5 Emergency Communication Chain from OMT during Operation ............................. 30

Figure 6 Emergency Communication Chain from Public during Operation........................... 30


June 2013 iii

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Site Plan

Appendix B Property Line Setback Assessment Report

Appendix C Turbine Specifications Report

Appendix D Noise Assessment Report

Appendix E Sample Emergency Preparedness Template

Appendix F Environmental Effect Monitoring Plan

Appendix G Preliminary Impact Study – Identification of Telecommunications Systems

Appendix H Local Aerodrome Assessment


June 2013 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose

This report outlines the information requested under Item 4 of Table 1 in Ontario Regulation 359/09 regarding Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. The report also includes information suggested in the Ministry of the Environment publication Technical Bulletin #2: Guidance for Preparing the Design and Operations Report as Part of an Application Under O. Reg 359/09.

The documentation requirements as specified under O. Reg. 359/09 are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1 DESIGN AND OPERATION REPORT REQUIREMENTS

Requirements Completed Section Reference

1. Set out a site plan of the project location at which the renewable energy project will be engaged in, including,

i. one or more maps or diagrams of,

A. all buildings, structures, roads, utility corridors, rights of way and easements required in respect of the renewable energy generation facility and situated within 300 m of the facility,

Appendix A

B. any ground water and surface water supplies used at the facility, Appendix A

C. any things from which contaminants are discharged into the air, N/A N/A

D. any works for the collection, transmission, treatment and disposal of sewage, Appendix A

E. any areas where waste, biomass, source separated organics and farm material are stored, handled, processed or disposed of,

N/A N/A

F. the project location in relation to any of the following within 125 m: the portion of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area that is subject to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the area of the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Protected Countryside, the Lake Simcoe watershed, and

N/A N/A

G. any noise receptors or odour receptors that may be negatively affected by the use or operation of the facility, Appendix A

ii. a description of each item diagrammed under subparagraph i, and Section 2

iii. one or more maps or diagrams of land contours, surface water drainage and any of the following, if they have been identified in complying with this Regulation: properties described in Column 1 of the Table to section 19, heritage resources, archaeological resources, water bodies, significant or provincially significant natural features and any other natural features identified in the Protected Countryside or in the portion of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan

Appendix A


June 2013 2

Requirements Completed Section Reference Area that is subject to the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan,

iv. a description, map or diagram of the distance between the base of any wind turbines and any public road rights of way or railway rights of way that are within a distance equivalent to the length of any blades of the wind turbine, plus 10 metres,

Table 7

v. a description, map or diagram of the distance between the base of any wind turbines and all boundaries of the parcel of land on which the wind turbine is constructed, installed or expanded within a distance equivalent to the height of the wind turbine, excluding the length of any blades, and

Table 8

vi. a description, map or diagram of the distance between the base of each wind turbine and the nearest noise receptor. Table 7

2. Set out conceptual plans, specifications and descriptions related to the design of the renewable energy generation facility, including a description of,

i. any works for the collection, transmission, treatment and disposal of sewage, including details of any sediment control features and storm water management facilities,

Section 2.6, 2.9

ii. any things from which contaminants are discharged into the air, and N/A N/A

iii. any systems, facilities and equipment for receiving, handling, storing and processing any waste, biomass, source separated organics, farm material and biogas,

N/A N/A

iv. if the facility includes a transformer substation, the works, facilities and equipment for secondary spill containment. N/A N/A

3. Set out conceptual plans, specifications and descriptions related to the operation of the renewable energy generation facility, including,

i. in respect of any water takings,

A. a description of the time period and duration of water takings expected to be associated with the operation of the facility,

Section 2.6

B. a description of the expected water takings, including rates, amounts and an assessment of the availability of water to meet the expected demand, and

Section 2.6

C. an assessment of and documentation showing the potential for the facility to interfere with existing uses of the water expected to be taken,

Section 2.6

ii. a description of the expected quantity of sewage produced and the expected quality of that sewage at the project location and the manner in which it will be disposed of, including details of any sediment control features and storm water management facilities,

Section 2.6, 2.9

iii. a description of any expected concentration of air contaminants discharged from the facility, N/A

N/A

iv. in respect of any biomass, source separated organics and farm material at the facility


June 2013 3


A. the maximum daily quantity that will be accepted, N/A N/A

B. the estimated annual average quantity that will be accepted, N/A

N/A

C. the estimated average time that it will remain at the facility, and N/A

N/A

D. the estimated average rate at which it will be used, and N/A N/A

v. in respect of any waste generated as a result of processes at the project location, the management and disposal of such waste, including,

A. the expected types of waste to be generated Section 5.8.1

B. the estimated annual average quantity that will be accepted, N/A N/A

C. the estimated average time that it will remain at the facility, and N/A N/A

D. the estimated average rate at which it will be used, N/A N/A

vi. if the facility includes a transformer substation,

A. a description of the processes in place to prevent spills, N/A N/A

B. a description of the processes to prevent, eliminate or ameliorate any adverse effects in the event of a spill, and N/A N/A

C. a description of the processes to restore the natural environment in the event of a spill. N/A N/A

4. Include an environmental effects monitoring plan in respect of any negative environmental effects that may result from engaging in the renewable energy project, setting out,

i. performance objectives in respect of the negative environmental effects, Section 5, Appendix F

ii. mitigation measures to assist in achieving the performance objectives mentioned in subparagraph i, Section 5, Appendix F

iii. a program for monitoring negative environmental effects for the duration of the time that the project is engaged in, including a contingency plan to be implemented if any mitigation measures fail.

Section 5, Appendix F

5. Include a response plan setting out a description of the actions to be taken while engaging in the renewable energy project to inform the public, aboriginal communities and municipalities, local roads boards and Local Services Boards with respect to the project, including,

i. measures to provide information regarding the activities occurring at the project location, including emergencies, Section 4

ii. means by which persons responsible for engaging in the project may be contacted, and Section 4.4.2


June 2013 4


iii. means by which correspondence directed to the persons responsible for engaging in the project will be recorded and addressed.

Section 4.4.2, 5.5.3

6. If the project location is in the Lake Simcoe watershed, a description of whether the project requires alteration of the shore of Lake Simcoe, the shore of a fresh water estuary of a stream connected to Lake Simcoe or other lakes or any permanent or intermittent stream and,

i. how the project may impact any shoreline, including the ecological functions of the shoreline, and N/A N/A

ii. how the project will be engaged in to,

A. maintain the natural contour of the shoreline through the implementation of natural shoreline treatments, such as planting of natural vegetation and bioengineering, and

N/A N/A

B. use a vegetative riparian area, unless the project location is used for agricultural purposes and will continue to be used for such purposes.

N/A N/A

7. If it is determined that the project location is not on a property described in Column 1 of the Table to section 19, provide a summary of the matters addressed in making the determination.

N/A N/A

8. If section 20 applies in respect of the project and it is determined that the project location does not meet one of the descriptions set out in subsection 20 (2) or that the project location is not in an area described in subsection 20 (3), provide a summary of the matters addressed in making the determination.

N/A N/A

9. If subsection 21 (3) or 23 (2) applies, provide a summary of the matters addressed in making the determination,

i. under subsection 21 (3) or clause 23 (2) (a), as the case may be, including a copy of the document completed under the applicable provision, and

N/A N/A

ii. under clause 23 (3) (b), if applicable. N/A N/A

A preliminary version of this report has been made available to Aboriginal stakeholders, public stakeholders and agency stakeholders for review prior to the REA submission. This report will also be available online for download at www.prowind.ca and available in hard copy at select locations identified on the website and in newspaper advertisements.

A final version of this report is included in the REA submission to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE).


June 2013 5

1.2. Project Background

The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is a 25 MW project that is categorized as a Class 4 Facility under O. Reg 359/09. The wind farm will employ the use of up to ten wind turbines from the Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 family with a maximum power output of 2.5 MW. These wind turbines have a hub height of 99.5 m and a rotor diameter of 113 m for a total height of 156 m. The wind farm will also consist of access roads, a substation, underground cabling to connect the turbines to the substation, and above ground cabling to connect the substation to the tap line.

The project is proposed on privately owned, agricultural land neighbouring the Hamlets of Oxford Centre and Curries, Ontario; located approximately 5 km southeast of the City of Woodstock, Ontario. The project area containing the turbines and associated infrastructure is bounded by Firehall Road to the north, Oriel Line to the east, Gunn’s Hill Road to the south, and Highway 59 to the west.

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

Figure 1 illustrates the project location within Ontario.


June 2013 6

FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION WITHIN ONTARIO

2. FACILITY DESIGN PLAN

This section provides design description and detail for each element of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm as well as the significant features that lie within 300 m of the project boundary.

The proposed Project Location is shown in Appendix A and includes the following major components of the Project:

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

• Step up transformers located at or within the base of each turbine (step up voltage approximately 0.69 kV to 27.6 kV);

• Underground fibre optic cables and electrical collection lines (27.6 kV) and ancillary equipment (e.g., above ground electrical junction boxes) to connect the turbines to the proposed substation;


June 2013 7

• Substation which switches the underground electrical collection lines to overhead lines and contains the necessary protection and control, switchgear, and communication equipment to safely operate the project;

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

• Turbine access roads;

• Turbine laydown and storage areas (including temporary staging areas, crane pads and turnaround areas surrounding each wind turbine);

• Temporary construction infrastructure (including laydown areas for construction materials, construction trailers, storage sheds, parking areas, concrete wash ponds);

• Optional Operations and Maintenance building, with permanent parking and/or storage shed.

The setbacks that govern project design are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2 O. REG 359/09 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS

O N T A R I O R E G U L A T I O N 3 5 9 / 0 9 S E T B A C K D I S T A N C E S

S e t b a c k D i s t a n c e ( M e t r e s ( m ) )

D e t a i l s

Noise Receptors 550* To be measured from the centre of a turbine’s base to a noise receptor.

Property Line Hub height (99.5)

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

Roads And Railway

Blade length plus 10 m

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

Significant Natural Heritage Features

120 Measured from the project location boundary to the nearest point of the natural features. Project components may be sited closer than the prescribed setback if an environmental impact study is prepared.

Water Bodies 120

Measured from the average annual high water mark of a lake, or permanent / intermittent stream (Project components may be sited closer than 120 m if a Water Body Report is prepared - note that turbines and transformers may not be sited closer than 30 m to these features).

Petroleum Resources 75

Setback may be reduced with the submission of a Petroleum Engineer’s Report to the MNR.

Note: * Setback does not apply to noise receptors on land owned by a Proponent of a wind energy facility or by a person who has entered into an agreement to permit all or part of the facility on their lands.


June 2013 8

A Property Line Setback Assessment Report has been prepared in accordance with s.53 (3) of O. Reg. 359/09, and is one component of the REA application for this Project. The purpose of this report is to provide a review of potential adverse impacts and preventative measures for wind turbines located within the prescribed setback from non-‐participating parcels of land (i.e., where there is no agreement with the landowner specifically permitting a closer setback). A copy of the report is provided in Appendix B.

2.1. Site Plan

A site plan diagram for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is provided in Appendix A. As specified in Table 1 of O. Reg 359/09, the site plan diagram details the location of the following:

1. property associated with the renewable energy facility,

2. all turbines, buildings, structures, roads, utility corridors, rights of way and easements required in respect of the renewable generation facility and situated within 300 m of the facility,

3. noise receptors, as defined in the MOE October 2008 document entitled “Noise Guidelines For Wind Farms”,

4. land contours, surface water drainage, and if applicable heritage resources, archaeological resources, water bodies, and significant or provincially significantly natural features, and

5. a boundary indicating 120 m from project infrastructure.

2.2. Property Associated with the Renewable Energy Generation Facil ity

Properties that will host project turbines, roads, substation, and/or cabling are presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3 PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT

Property ID on Site Plan

PIN# Listed Owners Legal Description

P1 00073-0004 Southlea Farms Ltd.

Part Lots 17 and 18, Concession 5, in the Township of Norwich (formerly the Township of East Oxford), County of Oxford, as described in Deed 280248

P2 00073-0031

David W. Start and Susan V. Start

Part Lot 16 and 17, Concession 5, in the Township of Norwich (formerly the Township of East Oxford), County of Oxford, as described in Deed 278250


June 2013 9



P3 00073-0069(R) Huinink Farms Inc.

Part of Lot 14, Concession 6, Township of Norwich (formerly Township of East Oxford) in the County of Oxford as 1stly described in Deed 453303 East half of the southwest ¼ of Lot 14, Concession 6, Township of Norwich (formerly Township of East Oxford) in the County of Oxford as 2ndly described in Deed 453303

West half of the southeast ¼ of Lot 14, Concession 6, Township of Norwich (formerly Township of East Oxford) in the County of Oxford as 3rdly described in Deed 453303

P4 00073-0073(R)

Joseph Bernard McKiernan and Marjorie Joyce McKiernan as joint tenants

Joseph Bernard McKiernan and Marjorie Joyce McKiernan as joint tenants as to a ½ interest Pamela Denise McKiernan and Ivan Douglas McKiernan as joint tenants as to a ½ interest

Part of Lots 13 and 14, Concession 6, Township of Norwich (formerly the Township of East Oxford), in the County of Oxford, as 1stly described in Deed No. 470968

Part of Lots 13 and 14, Concession 6, Township of Norwich (formerly the Township of East Oxford), in the County of Oxford, as 2ndly described in Deed No. 470968

P5 00074-0004(R)

Lloyd Alyea & Sons Limited

Part of Lot 12, Concession 5, Township of Norwich (formerly Township of East Oxford) in the County of Oxford (Deed 268419)

P6 00074-0006(R)

Jan Boudewin Reyneveld

Part of the south half of Lot 11, Concession 5, Township of Norwich (formerly Township of East Oxford) in the County of Oxford as described in Deed 486287

P7 00074-0005

Bartus Jan Veldhuizen and Jane Klazina Veldhuizen

East Part of the south half Lot 11, Concession 5, Township of Norwich, formerly Township of East Oxford, County of Oxford, previously described in Instrument Number A97548 (Deed #445641)

P8 00074-0048

Robert Neutel and Gerry Neutel

Part of Lot 12, Concession 6, Township of Norwich (formerly Township of East Oxford), County of Oxford, designated as Part 1 on Plan 41R-851

P9 00074-0049(R) Sonya Ann Neutel

South ¾ of the east half of Lot 12, Concession 6, Township of Norwich (formerly Township of East Oxford), in the County of Oxford as 1stly and 2ndly described in Deed 340761


June 2013 10



P10 00074-0038 1050185 Ontario Inc.

North ½ of Lot 11, Conc. 6 as 4thly described in Deed and Part of Lot 10, Conc. 6 as 5thly described in Deed 387184, Township of Norwich, formerly Township of East Oxford, County of Oxford

P11 00074-0050

Rutherford Farms Limited

Southwest ¼ of Lot 10, Conc. 6, and South ½ of Lot 11, Conc. 6, Township of Norwich, formerly Township of East Oxford, County of Oxford

P12 00074-0035 John W. C. Rutherford

1stly: South ¼ of Lot 10, Concession 5 and 2ndly: Easterly 2k/3 of the Northeast ¼ of Lot 10, Concession 6, Township of Norwich, formerly Township of East Oxford, County of Oxford, as described in Deed 286078

2.3. Wind Turbines

2.3.1. Specif ications

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

Table 4 summarizes key turbine parameters, Table 5 summarizes the Siemens SWT 3.0-‐113 acoustic emission data used in the Noise Assessment Report (contained in Appendix D), and Table 6 details certain wind conditions under which the turbine will automatically shut down as a protective measure.

TABLE 4 SIEMENS SWT-3.0-113 SPECIFICATIONS

General Manufacturer Siemens Model SWT 3.0 113 Name plate capacity (MW) 2.5 MW Cut-in wind speed (m/s) 3-5 m/s (10.8 – 18 km/hr) Cut-out speed (m/s) 25 m/s (90 km/hr) Frequency (Hz) 50 or 60 Hz Max Sound power (dBA) 102.5 dBA Tonal audibility <2dB Rotor Blade length (m) 56.5 m Rotor diameter (m) 113 m


June 2013 11

Rotor swept area (m2) 10,000 m2 Rotational speed (rpm) 6.0 – 15.5 rpm Structure Hub height (m) 99.5 m Total height (m) 156 m Diameter of tower base (m) ~4.2 m


June 2013 12

TABLE 5 SIEMENS SWT 3.0-113 ACOUSTIC EMISSIONS SUMMARY

Turbine Make/Model: Siemens SWT-3.0-113

Electrical Rating: 2.5 MW

Hub Height: 99.5 m

Wind Shear Exponent: 0.50 or higher (summer night-time average)

Octave Band Sound Power Level (dBA)

Manufacturer’s Emission Levels Generic Adjusted Emission Levels

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

Frequency (Hz)

63 89.5 89.9 91.5 91.6 91.3 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.9

125 92.6 93.0 93.0 92.5 91.7 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 93.0

250 96.4 96.5 95.4 94.8 94.1 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5

500 94.9 94.8 94.4 94.2 94.0 94.8 94.8 94.8 94.8 94.8

1000 95.0 94.9 95.0 94.9 95.2 94.9 94.9 94.9 94.9 94.9

2000 94.1 94.0 95.1 95.2 95.9 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0

4000 91.2 91.8 91.8 93.6 93.9 91.8 91.8 91.8 91.8 91.8

8000 81.8 81.9 84.1 84.1 84.1 81.9 81.9 81.9 81.9 81.9

Weighted

Total 102.4 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5

TABLE 6 AUTOMATIC SHUTDOWN AND RESTART IN HIGH WINDS

Cutout Wind Speed

at Turbine Hub Restart Wind Speed at Turbine

Hub (after cutout event)

Approximately 25 m/s Approximately 20 m/s


June 2013 13

2.3.2. Turbine Setbacks

Table 7 summarizes setbacks between turbines and relevant features as required in Table 1 of O. Reg 359/09 and the MOE publication Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals (July 2011). Setback definitions are outlined below:

‘Nearest Non-‐Participating Receptor’, ‘Lot Lines’, ‘Nearest Public Roads’, ‘Utility Corridors’, and ‘Nearest Structures of Any Kind’ setbacks were determined via professional surveyor using on-‐site survey data and geo-‐referenced ortho-‐rectified aerial images of the project area. The setbacks were measured from the centre of the turbine base.

Setbacks from ‘Cultural Heritage Resources’, ‘Archaeological Resources’, ‘Water Bodies’, and ‘Significant Natural Features’ were determined using Ontario Base Mapping data, on-‐site Ecological Land Classification mapping, and GIS software in conjunction with ortho-‐rectified aerial photography. These setbacks are measured from the edge of the blade swept area.

Turbine setbacks exceed all applicable provincial regulations outlined in O. Reg 359/09. These setabacks are listed in Table 2 of this report.

Turbine setbacks from non-‐participating receptors are less than those outlined in Section 55 of O. Reg 359/09. As such, a Noise Assessment Report has been prepared in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s publication titled “Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms” dated October 2008. The report is attached as Appendix D and demonstrates that the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm fully complies with provincial noise regulations.


June 2013 14

TABLE 7 Setback Distances from Turbines

Turbine ID #

Nearest Non-

Participating Receptor

(m)

Nearest Non-

Participating Lot Line

(m)

Nearest Structure

of Any Kind

(m)

Nearest Public Road

(m)

Uti l i ty Corridor*

(m)

Cultural Heritage

Resources closer

than 120 m (m)

Archaeological Resources

Closer than 120 m (m)

Water Body

Closer than 120

m (m)

Signif icant Natural

Features Closer than 120 m (m)

1 604.4 69.3 405.6 476.8 > 1000 n/a n/a n/a 78 - woodland 78 - wildlife hab. 33 - wildlife hab.

2 609.5 147.2 430.2 331.5 > 1000 n/a n/a n/a 116 - woodland

3 781.6 145.5 675.8 659.6 > 1000 n/a n/a n/a n/a

4 650.7 82.4 422.8 667.1 > 1000 n/a n/a n/a n/a

5 611.7 140.5 396.0 525.6 677.0 n/a n/a n/a 1 - wildlife hab.

6 578.6 69.2 386.1 522.2 > 1000 n/a n/a n/a n/a

7 737.2 68.8 582.7 723.5 > 1000 n/a n/a n/a n/a

8 709.2 307.5 437.0 600.6 622.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a

9 692.6 513.2 446.6 612.1 897.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a

10 561.7 69.9 470.4 579.6 > 1000 n/a n/a n/a n/a

*Does not include distance to utilities in municipal ROW

** Structure does not appear on site plan aerial imagery (new home)


June 2013 15

TABLE 8 TURBINE SETBACKS FROM LOT LINES

NOTE: Measurements were made parallel to lot and concession lines

2.4. Electrical Infrastructure

2.4.1. Collection System and Tap Line

Turbines will be electrically connected to one another and to the substation by buried cables referred to as the collection system. The collection system brings electricity and operational data from each turbine to the control and switchgear hardware in the substation. The electricity is then fed to the point of common coupling (PCC) with the Hydro One controlled grid via the tap line.

The collection system will consist of three electrical cables running at a system voltage of 27.6 kV, a neutral ground, and a fibre optic cable for communication and control purposes. The grounding wire will be the same diameter as the Hydro One system grounding wire to minimize any risk of “stray voltage”.

A tap line will be used to connect the project substation to the existing provincially controlled grid. The routing of the tap line was selected to follow the most direct path that has existing hydro poles back to the point of common coupling with the provincial electrical grid. The selected route follows Hydro One’s M4 feeder to the low voltage bus of the Woodstock TS. Where the M4 feeder traverses the Cedar Creek Golf and Country

Lot Line Setbacks (m) Turbine

Front Rear Side Side

1 466.32 69.85 106.59 517.45

2 319.33 1221.24 147.22 267.72

3 647.73 892.96 145.51 270.76

4 661.64 667.72 82.40 218.78

5 517.75 141.18 137.67 463.05

6 815.29 69.12 82.24 513.28

7 521.66 68.80 221.87 380.66

8 588.34 58.55 303.73 912.06

9 598.75 45.69 635.99 579.86

10 570.74 72.21 83.78 111.80


June 2013 16

Club, alternate routes were considered along Juliana Dr, Norwich Ave, and Parkinson Rd, as well as through other nearby residential streets. However, the route through the golf course was deemed preferable.

The tap line will be buried for a length of approximately 350 m from the substation west to the existing overhead Hydro One poles. The line will share the Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro poles up to the point of common coupling at or adjacent to the Woodstock TS. The overhead wires will have a rated voltage of 27.6 kV, which is common on Hydro One’s distribution network in the area. Hydro One and Woodstock Hydro will determine whether upgrades are needed to the existing poles to support the additional cables and perform the upgrades at the cost of the Proponent.

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

All works will comply with Ontario Electrical Safety Code regulations.

Installation of buried cables is typically done in two ways:

1. Trenched: An excavator will dig a trench below the tile drainage system in an agricultural field and lay all cables and fibre optic line at a depth of 1 m or greater to avoid conflict with farming operations. All damage to tile drainage will be repaired by a contractor of the landowner’s choosing. A small amount of crushed gravel or sand may be used to line the trench. Flagging will be placed above the buried cable to provide a physical warning to anyone performing future excavation. Material excavated from the trench will be used to refill the trench once the cables are in place. The trench will be compacted in approximately 20 cm increments and the original topsoil will be replaced.

TRENCHLESS: IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS IT IS NECESSARY TO USE TRENCHLESS TECHNOLOGY BETWEEN TWO POINTS AND RUN CONDUIT AND CABLES THROUGH A BOREHOLE. THIS METHOD WILL BE USED TO PASS UNDER ROADS.

Figure 2 illustrates how directional boring will pass beneath a feature.

The project requires that buried cables or overhead lines be permitted within the municipal road allowance for a 3.6 km stretch along Firehall Rd (between Middletown Line and County Road 59) and a <1 km stretch along Middletown Line (heading south from Firehall Rd). Any driveways impacted by cable burial along this route will be promptly repaired at the expense of the Proponent. Overhead Cables will also require road allowance permission for 2.8 km along Hwy 59, 0.6 km along Pattullo Ave, 0.7 km along Athlone Ave, 0.2 km along Juliana Dr, 0.2 km along Parkinson Rd, and 0.3 km along South St. All distances are approximate.

The alternate tap line outlined above would result in the elimination of the sections along Hwy 59, Pattullo Ave, Athlone Ave, Juliana Dr, Parkinson Rd, and South St.


June 2013 17

FIGURE 2 DIRECTIONAL BORE UNDER UTILITY (OR ROAD/WATER FEATURE)

2.4.2. Substation

The substation will consist of an entrance from Firehall Rd, an internal access road, and fenced-‐in metal enclosures housing switchgear and communication hardware for the project. Construction will involve the removal and storage of topsoil from an area approximately 40 m x 80 m (this is the same 40 m x 80 m area that will host the optional Operations and Maintenance Building). A concrete slab to host the metal enclosures will be poured on top of engineered gravel that raises the grade to a sufficient height to prevent standing water to develop during spring melt or heavy rains.

Substation electrical components typically consist of switchgear, SCADA, fuses, and other protection and control systems. This equipment will be housed in electrical cabinets bolted to the concrete slab and/or a small e-‐house approximately 2.5 m x 6 m that can be accessed by maintenance and emergency personnel. There is also potential for a grounding transformer to be installed at the substation. A grounding transformer differs from and should not be confused with a power transformer that is used to increase voltage for a power grid connection. The substation is not defined as a Transformer Substation according to O. Reg 359/09 or the MOE’s Oct 2008 Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms.

The metal enclosures for the electrical components will be bolted to the concrete slabs outlined above. The precise dimensions of the electrical enclosures will be determined once specific equipment has been selected by the Engineering and Procurement Contractor.


June 2013 18

A small metal lattice tower, approximately 10 m in height, will be mounted to a concrete footing. An antenna will be mounted on the tower for the purpose of allowing the electrical system operator to control the switches that connect the wind farm to the electrical grid.

2.5. Roads, Turbine Lay-down Areas and Crane Pads

2.5.1. Access Roads

Access roads to project turbines will be 5 m wide during the operational phase and will have a foundation of ‘grade B’ gravel and a finished surface of ‘grade A’ gravel. To construct the roads within agricultural fields the topsoil will be stripped and spread over the directly adjacent field of the same owner. The stored topsoil will be seeded with vegetation suitable to prevent erosion, or covered with an erosion control mat, if required.

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

2.5.2. Laydown Area

A turbine component “lay-‐down” area covering approximately 1 hectare (100 m x 100 m) will be required around each turbine during the construction phase. This area is required to store tower sections, blades, the nacelle and the rotor hub during the construction process and decommissioning process. The crane pad will also be located within this area. The turbine lay-‐down area will be constructed by stripping back the topsoil layer and covering the area with gravel. Topsoil will be stockpiled in low-‐lying windrows adjacent to the lay-‐down area and will be seeded with vegetation suitable to prevent erosion, or covered with an erosion control mat, if required. After the turbine is installed the gravel will be removed from the lay-‐down area and the topsoil will be returned to remediate the area for the operational phase.

2.5.3. Crane Pad

A crane pad approximately 20 m x 40 m will be constructed within the turbine lay-‐down area during the construction phase. The crane pad will be constructed of gravel such that the bearing capacity is approximately 200+ kPa. The gravel from the crane pad area will also be stripped away and the topsoil will be restored after the construction phase of the project.


June 2013 19

Details on soil storage during the construction phase of the project can be found in the Construction Plan Report.

As with the laydown areas, the crane pads will be remediated for the construction phase, however if there is a need to replace a major turbine component they will be reconstructed as outlined the Construction Plan Report and remediated once the replacement is complete.

2.6. O&M Building

An Operations and Maintenance building may be constructed to support the operational phase of the project. The building would have dimensions up to 16 m x 32 m and would host office space, parking for 4 vehicles, tools, equipment, and spare parts for the wind farm. New and waste lubricants and fluids would be stored within the facility. An area within the building would be built to a standard suitable for hazardous waste storage so that any leaks or spills of waste lubricants from the site are contained and prevented from contacting the ground or surface water.

If required, the building would be constructed on the property with the substation within the 40 m x 80 m area indicated in the Site Plan diagram in Appendix A. The building would be constructed on a standard concrete foundation using wood and/or steel building materials that are typical in agricultural settings. A new well would be drilled to provide the facility with water.

The facility would use less than the 50,000 L/day threshold that requires a Permit to Take Water from MOE. Water usage could occur at any hour of the day when staff would be present and would be used for drinking, hand washing, to supply domestic-‐type hoses, and to flush toilets. Geotechnical drilling and analysis at the proposed location indicates that water levels and water infiltration rates are sufficient to support the facility without interfering with water levels at nearby wells.

Sewage would be handled by a new septic system installed on-‐site. The septic system could be comprised of a storage tank and a tile seepage bed installed in a layer of gravel. If the installation of a septic field is deemed impractical for any reason, a sewage holding tank will be installed and will be pumped out by a qualified contractor.

2.7. Existing Structures Within 300 m of the Facil ity

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


June 2013 20

section of Firehall Rd and along Highway 59, Pattullo Ave, Athlone Ave, Juliana Dr, Cedar Creek Golf Club, Parkinson Ave, and South St to the Woodstock Transformer Station.

2.8. Util ity Corridors Within 300 m of Facil ity

Municipal road allowances exist throughout the project area and carry standard residential utilities such as electricity, telecommunications, water, and natural gas. Onsite locates will be performed before construction to ensure that precise locations of each utility are marked.

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

2.9. Storm Water Management

Storm water management features will be incorporated into the access roads where appropriate and constructed in accordance with appropriate regulations and local municipal engineering guidelines. In addition, area drainage from the distribution substation will be accomplished through swales/ditches adjacent to the elevated gravelled area that will collect and convey runoff. The total drainage area associated with the substation and associated access road “hard” surfaces is less than 2 ha and therefore a “wet” water quality control pond (i.e. one containing a permanent pool) is inappropriate, as per the MOE SWM Planning and Design Guidelines Manual (2003). In addition to the conveyance of runoff, the swales will also provide water quality control, which is a suitable stormwater management practice for such an area according to the MOE guidelines.


June 2013 21

3. FACILITY OPERATION PLAN

3.1. Turbine Operation and Monitoring

Turbine operation and maintenance (O&M) will be either contracted to a specialized third party service provider or handled by the project owner possessing infrastructure and capabilities for this activity. The O&M service provider will have a staff of trained Wind Turbine Technicians, Site Supervisors, and a data monitoring centre located in the O&M building (if constructed) and/or off-‐site to monitor the status of each turbine 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

The scope of the activities will include day-‐to-‐day monitoring and operation of the turbines via SCADA hardware and fibre optic communication linkage as well as on-‐going maintenance required on-‐site.

Maintenance personnel will be dispatched to the site when required from either a service building located on site, or from a regional service centre.

Turbine monitoring will encompass the following services as a minimum:

• Meteorological monitoring and corresponding turbine operational decision making to ensure that maintenance crews are not endangered and that turbine design specifications are not exceeded during extreme weather events, e.g. precautionary turbine shutdown and blade feathering during storms and extreme events to prevent damage. Table 4 lists automatic turbine shutdown conditions in high winds.

• Turbine performance monitoring and tracking in relation to expected power output to identify maintenance issues, or issues that may be causing increased noise emission.

• Equipment diagnostic monitoring for parameters such as component vibrations, component temperatures, fluid pressures, power usage, emergency sensor triggers, etc.

In total, approximately 500 parameters for each turbine will be continuously and remotely monitored by a service provider to ensure that potential issues are identified and addressed.

Turbine maintenance services will encompass the following services as a minimum:

• Response to issues identified via turbine monitoring

• Scheduled maintenance as per turbine manufacturer requirements and on-‐site diagnostics

• Fluid changes including removal and disposal of waste fluids (including those deemed to be hazardous)

• Replacement of broken or worn out minor components such as yaw motors, pitch actuators, lubricant pumps, fuses and circuit boards, etc.


June 2013 22

• Responsibility for general site cleanliness

• Major component replacement during the operational phase will be overseen by a selected Engineering and Procurement Contractor.

3.2. Planned Maintenance

The wind turbines will be subject to periodic inspection and maintenance, including routine motor maintenance, and lubricant and fluid replacement. To ensure proper operational output and safety, the wind turbines will be maintained by certified technicians according to the schedules recommended by equipment manufacturers.

Regular maintenance activities will be performed by a small crew (2-‐4 people) accessing the site using a pick-‐up truck. Periodically, major components of the wind turbines such as blades or generators may require replacement. Major component replacement will be performed with similar equipment and methods to those used in the construction phase, including cranes and oversized vehicles for transportation. Crane pads will be reconstructed as necessary for this activity.

Through the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system that is connected to the fibre optic cables installed with the collector lines, the maintenance staff will be able to monitor the performance of all turbines on-‐line in real time. The SCADA system will also identify any potential problems so that pro-‐active inspection and maintenance can be undertaken. Potentially damaged turbines will be shut down until maintenance staff can perform a site inspection. Regular maintenance of the equipment will be a key method of mitigating these potential effects.

Scheduled maintenance will include the following:

• Visual inspection;

• Inspection of mechanical components;

• Inspection of electrical components; and,

• Greasing and general maintenance.

Initial visits for planned maintenance are more frequent, slowing to once every six months or more as the Project matures. Maintenance of each wind turbine usually takes one day to complete.

The proposed turbine for the project uses direct-‐drive technology and therefore does not contain a gearbox on the main driveshaft. This results in significantly less noise and eliminates the need for gearbox oil changes. However, yaw motor oil changes will be completed in accordance with oil analysis recommendations. An oil change is not likely to occur until the findings of the annual oil analysis indicate that it is required, which could be after several years of operation. The amount of oil and grease stored


June 2013 23

on site will depend on availability, transportation schedules, and the service cycle. The maintenance team will be responsible for transport of used oil to a certified disposal/recycling site following maintenance.

Access to all turbines will be maintained year round. This is required for operations, maintenance and emergency response purposes.

Access road maintenance contract(s) will be awarded to a local service provider. The scope of access road maintenance will include snow removal and grading if/when necessary to allow all maintenance and emergency service vehicles to drive to each turbine. Snow will be ploughed to the side of each access road by a pickup truck/tractor with a plow or will be blown into adjacent fields belonging to participant owners by a tractor mounted snow blower. Other appropriate snow removal equipment may also be utilized. Sand will be applied to roads as necessary. No salt or chemical treatments will be applied to access roads.

If needed during dry conditions, a 15,000 L water tank truck will be filled off-‐site and brought to the project area for dust suppression on the access roads.

3.3. Unscheduled Maintenance

The Proponent will also provide unscheduled maintenance for the turbine units when required. Maintenance and inspection related to the electrical collector system will be sub-‐contracted.

Temporary crane pads that may be required for unscheduled maintenance activities will be constructed adjacent to individual turbine sites as required to facilitate turbine maintenance. The crane pads will be in the same location as the crane pads used during construction of the Project, if possible. Operation-‐phase crane pad construction, if required, will follow the same design and process used during the construction phase, as described in the Construction Plan Report. As a result, any potential effects from construction of the crane pads will be similar to those identified during the construction phase. Disturbed areas will be restored immediately following completion of the maintenance activities in the same manner as described in the Construction Plan Report unless the landowner asks for the crane pads to remain.

4. EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND PREPAREDNESS PLAN

4.1. Wind Farm Emergency Response Background

Emergency response at a wind farm can involve specialized training, equipment, and procedures due to the height and dynamic nature of the wind turbines. In rural areas, such as the site of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm, it is common for local emergency


June 2013 24

services such as the fire department to be volunteer-‐based with a scope of service that does not cover certain potential emergencies at wind projects. For this reason, a detailed Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan is developed with local authorities once a project gains approvals and before construction occurs. One common element of the plan involves having highly trained wind farm construction as well as operation and maintenance staff provide emergency services “up tower” and transfer responsibility to local emergency services at a pre-‐determined location on the ground such as at a point near a wind turbine base.

The potential for coordinated emergency response by two or more separate entities requires that responsibility and communication structures are clearly defined between all groups. The following sections summarize the entities involved in emergency response for the project, provide an overview of their responsibilities and resources where applicable, define the communication chain between them, and discuss the general response to potential emergency scenarios related to wind projects.

4.1.1. Construction and Decommissioning Phases

Specific emergency response procedures for the construction and decommissioning phases of the project will be established between the lead EPC conducting the work, the Proponent, and Local Emergency Services. This will take place immediately after selection of an EPC and in advance of any construction or decommissioning activity conducted onsite.

Response to emergency scenarios such as vehicle/equipment accidents, fire, environmental emergencies, extreme weather, and emergencies “up-‐tower” will be addressed.

To reduce likelihood of confusion, all turbines will be assigned a civic address that will be marked on the road following standard protocols. This aids in communication of the location of interest in both emergency and non-‐emergency situations.

4.1.2. Operation Phase

Specific emergency response procedures for the operation phase of the project will be established between the Operation and Maintenance Team (OMT) conducting the work, the Proponent, and Local Emergency Services. This will take place after a turbine supply agreement has been finalized and the project has the necessary approvals to proceed to construction, in advance of any construction activity conducted onsite. A sample Emergency Preparedness and Fire Prevention template that is adapted by one turbine manufacturer to each specific wind farm is included as Appendix E. This document is intended to provide an example of the general process and scope of emergency planning for the site during the operational phase of the project; this is NOT a final Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm.


June 2013 25

4.2. Entit ies and Roles

The emergency response may consist of any of the entities listed within this subsection.

4.2.1. Proponent

Certain staff of the Proponent will be designated with the responsibility of being available for emergency response communication. This designation carries the responsibility to ensure that during each phase of the project the EPC and/or OMT for the site is aware of any emergency issue brought to the attention of the Proponent and that local Emergency Services are also made aware of the same in the event that the emergency is beyond the scope handled exclusively by the EPC or OMT.

The Proponent will also be responsible for notifying local media/emergency broadcaster(s) (if required) and nearby residents (if required) in the event of an emergency that threatens public health or safety.

The Proponent will be available via mobile phone and/or a paging system at all times. The contact numbers for these devices will be determined and distributed to the EPC, OMT and Local Emergency Services in advance of any construction activity at the site.

4.2.2. Engineering and Procurement Contractor

The EPC selected to oversee all construction and/or decommissioning work on-‐site will be responsible for monitoring emergency response requirements during the construction and decommissioning phases.

The EPC’s Site Manager will directly coordinate emergency response on-‐site and will contact local emergency services when required in adherence to pre-‐established division of responsibilities discussed under Section 4.1.2. The EPC will also be responsible for communicating the status of ongoing emergency response to the Proponent and will be available via any number of the following contact avenues during emergencies:

• Two-‐way radio with Proponent and/or Local Emergency Services -‐ tuned to a frequency to be established in consultation with Local Emergency Services as discussed under Section 4.1.2.

• Mobile phone – specific number to be established as part of an Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan as outlined in Section 4.1.2.

4.2.3. Operation and Maintenance Team

The OMT will be responsible for coordinating onsite emergency response during the operation phase of the project in accordance with the emergency response plan as


June 2013 26

outlined in Section 4.1.2. As a minimum, the OMT will consist of a Service Site Manager to be based on site and/or a Region Manager. Either one or both will be available 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The OMT will directly coordinate emergency response on-‐site and will contact local emergency services when required in adherence to pre-‐established division of responsibilities. The OMT will be available via any number of the following contact avenues during emergencies:

• Two-‐way radio with Proponent and/or Local Emergency Services -‐ tuned to a frequency to be established in consultation with Local Emergency Services as part of the Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan, referenced in Section 4.1.2.

• Mobile phone – specific number to be established as part of the Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan, referenced in Section 4.1.2.

• A designated toll free number – specific number to be established as part of the Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan, referenced in Section 4.1.2.

The OMT will also be responsible to communicate the status of ongoing emergency response to the Proponent.

4.2.4. Local Emergency Services

Local Emergency Services consist of the fire department in Norwich Township (four districts), Woodstock Fire Department, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), and ambulance service from the Oxford County Board of Health. These emergency services will be contacted via 911 emergency dispatch, which can be initiated by any party, or by two-‐way radio as outlined above. Local Emergency Services will notify both the Proponent and the OMT when informed of an emergency on-‐site as to enable appropriate coordination.

For reference purposes, Fire Department resources and proximity to the site are outlined in Table 9. The 4 nearest ambulance stations and their proximity to the site are outlined in Table 10. The nearest hospital is the Woodstock General Hospital located 8 km from the site. There are 4 OPP detachments within 50 km of the project area: Oxford, Brant County, Norfolk County, and Middlesex (London).


June 2013 27

TABLE 9 NORWICH TWP AND WOODSTOCK FIRE DEPARTMENT RESOURCES

Fire Department Location

Approximate Distance from Project Boundary by Road (km)

Staff Equipment Resources

Station 4 - Oxford Centre 1

1 - District Chief

2 - Captains

15 - Firefighters

1 – 1000gal pumper

1 – 1800gal tanker

Station 3 - Burgessville 5

1 – District Chief

2 – Captains

15 – Firefighters

1 – 500gal pumper


1 mini pumper/rescue pickup truck

Woodstock – 1203 Parkinson Road 8 12 full-time per

shift

1- ALF Eagle aerial pumper

1- ALF Eagle 100ft mid-mount aerial platform

Station 2 – Norwich 13


2 – Captains

12-15 – Firefighters

1 - 500gal pumper


Station 1 – Otterville 18


2 – Captains

15 – Firefighters

1 – 1000gal pumper


TABLE 10 AMBULANCE RESOURCES WITHIN 20 KM OF PROJECT

Ambulance Station

Approximate Distance from Project Boundary by Road (km)

Staff Hours of Operation

Station 0 – Woodstock

377 Mill St 6.0 2 paramedic

crews

One crew 24 hours, 7 days per week

One crew 8 AM – 6 PM - Monday to Friday

Station 01 – 9.0 1 paramedic crew 24 hours, 7 days per week


June 2013 28

Woodstock

208 Bysham Park

Station 04 – Norwich

6 Tidey Street 13.5 1 paramedic crew 24 hours, 7 days per week

Station 02 – Ingersoll

162 Carneige Street 19.0 1 paramedic crew 24 hours, 7 days per week

4.2.5. MOE and/or Spi l ls Action Centre

The MOE and/or the MOE’s Spills Action Centre will be notified by the Proponent of any incident requiring MOE attention. The EPC or OMT will also notify the MOE and/or the MOE’s Spills Action Centre of any incident requiring MOE attention at 1-‐800-‐268-‐6060.

4.2.6. Media Broadcasters

Local radio and TV stations will be notified by the Proponent of emergency events that may impact public health or safety in the vicinity of the project. Proposed stations to contact are listed in Table 11 and Table 12.

TABLE 11 LOCAL RADIO BROADCAST CONTACTS

Station Name Frequency

(Hz) Station ID Contact Number

CBC Radio 1 93.5 CBCL (519) 255 3456

HOPE FM 94.3 CJFH (519) 539 2304

The Hawk 103.9 CKDK (519) 931 6000

Heart FM 104.7 CIHR (519) 537 8040

TABLE 12 LOCAL TV BROADCAST CONTACTS

Station Name Channel Contact Number

Rogers TV Cable 13 13 (519) 675 1313


June 2013 29

4.3. Emergency Response Chain of Communication

4.3.1. Construction and Decommissioning Phases

Figure 3 illustrates the chain of communication during an emergency response when the EPC detects the emergency. Figure 4 illustrates the chain of communication during an emergency response when a member of the public detects the emergency.

As previously discussed, the EPC will be responsible for determining if local emergency services are required for a potential emergency.

Once an emergency is communicated, the Proponent, the EPC, and Local Emergency Services (if required) will remain in contact to monitor the status of the emergency.

FIGURE 3 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CHAIN FROM EPC DURING CONSTRUCTION/DECOMM

FIGURE 4 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CHAIN FROM PUBLIC DURING CONSTRUCTION/ DECOMM

Proponent

Engineering and Procurement Contractor

Nearby Residents (as required)

Media/Emergency Broadcaster (as

required)

MOE and/or Spills Action

Centre (as required)

Local Emergency Services

(as required)

Proponent

Engineering and

Procurement Contractor

Public Nearby Residences (as required)





required)


June 2013 30

4.3.2. Operation Phase

Figure illustrates the chain of communication during an emergency response when the OMT detects the emergency. Figure illustrates the chain of communication during an emergency response when a member of the public detects the emergency.

As previously discussed, the OMT will be responsible for determining if local emergency services are required for a potential emergency.

Once an emergency is communicated, the Proponent, the OMT, and Local Emergency Services (if required) will remain in contact to monitor the status of the emergency.

FIGURE 5 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CHAIN FROM OMT DURING OPERATION

FIGURE 6 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CHAIN FROM PUBLIC DURING OPERATION

Proponent

Operation and Maintenance

Team Nearby Residents (as required)

Media/Emergency Broadcaster (as required)




(as required)

Proponent

Operation and Maintenance

Team

Public Nearby Residences

(as required)





required)


June 2013 31

4.3.3. Typical Emergency Response Scenarios

As referenced in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, the EPC and OMT contractors will be required by the Proponent to draft a detailed Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan, specific to the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm, in advance of any construction activity on-‐site. These plans will be developed in ongoing consultation with local emergency services. Section 5.9 elaborates on potential emergency circumstances for wind projects and provides general mitigation measures for scenarios that will be addressed in greater detail before construction.

4.4. Non-Emergency Communications Plan

Non-‐emergency communication will be conducted in a uniform manner for all phases of the project.

4.4.1. Outgoing

Non-‐emergency announcements and updates related to the project will be sent via email to the project stakeholder mailing list and posted on a website designated to the project. The current project contact list of stakeholders will continue to be utilized for ongoing announcements during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases. Stakeholders wishing to discontinue receipt of updates and announcements will be removed from the list at their request. The project website address will be sent to stakeholders and will be posted on at least one sign within public view in the project area.

4.4.2. Incoming

Non-‐emergency incoming communication will be received by phone, mail, or through a designated email address for the project. These contact details will be provided to the stakeholders as outlined in Section 4.2.3, and will be posted on at least one sign within public view in the project area.

Communication received by phone may be followed up by or directed toward written submission to ensure proper documentation.

Procedures for receiving complaints related to the project are outlined below and in Section 5.5.3.

4.4.2.1. General Complaints Monitoring

A website will be established for the wind farm in order to receive any complaints from the public. Complaints will be compared with climatic and operational conditions at the referenced time of the complaint and will be kept on record in an electronic file. The information recorded from the sender will include name, address and the telephone number; time and date of the complaint, and details of the actions taken to remediate the cause of the complaint; and proposed actions to be taken to prevent reoccurrence in the future. Complaints specific to noise are addressed in


June 2013 32

Section 5.5.3. Any complaints related to spills will be investigated and, if appropriate will be communicated to the MOE Spills Action Centre.


June 2013 33

5. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Descriptions of the existing natural heritage, water, archaeological and built heritage environments in the area and/or Project Location can be found within the Natural Heritage Assessment Report, Water Bodies and Assessment Report and Archaeological Assessment and Cultural Heritage Resources Report. These reports form part of the complete REA application.

For some natural environment and socio-‐economic features, mitigation measures are anticipated to eliminate all effects. The need, assessment, and selection of protection and mitigation measures discussed in the following sections have been predicated on the hierarchical principles of:

• avoidance – the elimination of adverse environmental effects by siting, scheduling, and design considerations;

• minimization – reduction or control of adverse environmental effects through Project modifications or implementation of protection and mitigation measures;

• rehabilitation – the improvement and monitoring of features if negative environmental effects are felt.

• compensation – enhancement or rehabilitation of affected areas.

The application of these principles has greatly reduced the potential for adverse environmental effects from the Project as demonstrated in the following subsections. The key mitigation strategy used to address potential environmental effects from operation of the facility was avoidance of significant natural features and water bodies to the extent possible during siting of the Project.

5.1. Performance Objectives

The key performance objective for each of the features discussed below is avoiding and/or minimizing potential effects (through the use of appropriate mitigation measures) to the features throughout the operational phase of the Project. The proposed mitigation measures will assist in achieving this performance objective. An Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan is provided in Appendix F.

5.2. Heritage and Archaeological Resources

5.2.1. Protected Propert ies and Heritage Resources

In accordance with O. Reg. 359/09, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was undertaken for the Project, and is included within the Archaeological Assessment and Cultural Heritage Resources Report.


June 2013 34

Two HIAs were completed for this project: 1 -‐ wind farm area excluding the overhead cable route, 2 -‐ overhead cable route. The results of both reports have been merged for the following summary. The Heritage Impact Assessments determined that:

• There are no protected properties within the Project Study Area;

• 32 properties with potential Built Heritage resources are within the Study Area (32 of which are of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest); these will not be negatively impacted by the Project; and,

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

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

5.2.1.1. Potential Effects

As operational and maintenance activities will not occur on the properties containing the Built Heritage resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes, no adverse effects on heritage resources are anticipated during operations.

The Heritage Impact Assessment Reports determined that the proposed Project infrastructure will not result in the direct or indirect obstruction of any significant views or vistas within, from, or of built or natural features associated with the Built Heritage resources or Cultural Heritage Landscapes. Significant views and vistas are not heritage attributes of any of the properties with identified heritage resources.

5.2.1.2. Mit igation Measures

As no potential effects are likely to occur as a result of the Project on heritage resources, no mitigation measures are necessary. The Heritage Impact Assessment Reports recommended that “the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm be released from further heritage concerns”.

5.2.1.3. Net Effects

No net effects are anticipated.

5.2.2. Archaeological Resources

In accordance with O. Reg. 359/09, a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments were completed for the Project.

The results of the Stage 1 indicated that:


June 2013 35

“…it was determined that the subject property and the area within which it is situated, is an area of high potential to yield evidence of potentially significant archaeological deposits. A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment of the study area was recommended.”

A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment was recommended for all areas of archaeological potential within the Project Location including the areas proposed for access roads, parking lot, optional O&M Building, collector lines, turbines and substation.

The Stage 2 assessment indicated that “…a single First Nations findspot was encountered. The First Nations findspot, an isolated individual artifact, does not represent a significant planning concern. No further work is recommended at this location.”

MTCS provided a letter of sign-‐off for the archaeology assessments on Oct 26, 2009, March 18, 2013, March 21, 2013 and May 22, 2013 and indicating that they agree with the conclusions in the reports and that further archaeology analysis would not be required.


There are no areas that will be excavated during the operation phase that will not have been assessed by a Stage 2 Archaeology Assessment; therefore no potential effects are anticipated to archaeological resources.

5.2.2.2. Mit igation Measures

No potential effects are anticipated during operation and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary.


No net effects are anticipated.

5.3. Natural Heritage Resources

In accordance with O. Reg. 359/09, a Natural Heritage Assessment Report was undertaken for the Project and is included under separate cover as part of the REA application. The following provides a summary of the potential effects and associated mitigation measures as described in that report in relation to facility operation.

The Natural Heritage Assessment Report for the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm received a Confirmation Letter from the MNR on May 8, 2013 confirming that the report was completed according to the regulations. This letter can be found in the Natural Heritage Assessment Report, Appendix I.


June 2013 36

5.3.1. Wetlands

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


No direct effects are anticipated to significant wetlands as a result of operation or maintenance activities.

Indirect impacts may occur to significant wetlands due to erosion.

During operation and maintenance of the facility, some materials such as lubricating oils and other fluids associated with turbine maintenance have the potential for discharge to the on-‐site environment through accidental spills.

5.3.1.2. Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures related to erosion are outlined in Sections 5.9 of the Construction Plan Report. Mitigation measures for accidental spills are outlined in Section 5.8.2.


Indirect impacts are expected to be short-‐term in duration, and highly localized.

Accidental spills would be spatially limited and of short duration and protocols to minimize their impact would be provided in the Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan (see Section 4.1.2).

5.3.2. Areas of Natural and Scientif ic Interest

The Study Area does not contain any Earth Science or Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs). As no ANSIs are present, no potential effects will occur and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary.

5.3.3. Woodlands

Four significant woodlands are located within the 120 m Zone of Investigation. None of the woodlands will be directly impacted by the Project..


No direct effects are anticipated to significant woodlands as a result of operation or maintenance activities.

Indirect impacts may occur to significant woodlands due to erosion.


June 2013 37

During operation and maintenance of the facility, some materials such as lubricating oils and other fluids associated with turbine maintenance have the potential for discharge to the on-‐site environment through accidental spills.


Mitigation measures related to erosion are outlined in Sections 5.9 of the Construction Plan Report. Mitigation measures for accidental spills are outlined in Section 5.8.2.


Indirect impacts are expected to be short-‐term in duration, and highly localized.

Accidental spills would be spatially limited and of short duration and protocols to minimize their impact would be provided in the Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan (see Section 4.1.2).

5.3.4. Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves

The Project Study Area does not contain any provincial parks or conservation reserves, nor is it adjacent to any such areas. As no provincial parks or conservations reserves are present, no potential effects will occur and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary.

5.3.5. Other Designated Natural Areas

The Study Area does not contain any other designated natural areas. As such no potential effects will occur and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary.

5.3.6. Signif icant Wildl i fe and Wildl i fe Habitat

The following significant wildlife habitats were identified within the Zone of Investigation. These wildlife habitats were not able to be confirmed as significant without additional fieldwork and further pre-‐construction surveying to accurately determine their significance will be conducted in the upcoming survey season.

• Amphibian Wetland Breeding (1 location)

• Bat Maternity Colonies (2 locations)


Amphibian Breeding Habitat

Due to the hydrological functions needed for Wetland Amphibian Breeding Habitat, water quality degradation could pose a threat to the quality of the habitat. A potential mode of water quality degradation is siltation of the surface water from disturbed soils from construction and decommissioning activities.


June 2013 38

Where the significant wildlife habitat is within the Zone of Investigation of a turbine location, dewatering of the turbine foundation could pose a risk to the soil and surface water of the habitat. Increased overland flow from dewatering could cause soil erosion of sensitive wildlife habitat.

During operation of the project, infrequent day to day use of access roads and maintenance activities associated with the roads may result in impacts to wildlife habitat, due to dust, but such impacts are expected to be minimal. If maintenance of access roads or collector lines adjacent to significant wildlife habitat is required during operation, potential impacts could include erosion or siltation.

Bat Maternity Colonies

There will be no direct loss of Bat Maternity Colony Habitat due to construction of the project. Indirect impacts during construction could include disturbance or disruption to roosting bats. Disturbance from construction activities, such as increased traffic, noise, or dust, may result in avoidance of adjacent habitats by bats. These effects may be greatest if disturbance occurs while rearing young. Direct impacts to the Bat Maternity Colonies during operation of the project are anticipated to be very minimal. Little information or research is available regarding indirect impacts of wind turbines from roosting bats or bat habitat. However, avoidance or disturbance to the Bat Maternity Colony Habitat is identified as a potential impact.


Pre-‐construction surveys for all of the above potential significant wildlife habitat will be conducted in the upcoming seasons. If any of the habitats are found to be significant, mitigation measures will be put in place in discussion with MNR.

Mitigation measures for amphibian species will include silt fencing located between habitat feature and wind farm infrastructure and construction activities and education of construction and maintenance crews about the risks at each particular site. If habitat is found to be significant, post-‐construction monitoring will be conducted as outlined in the Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan.

Mitigation Measures for Bat Maternity Colonies include post-‐construction mortality monitoring as outlined in the Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan. Mitigation measures described in this report include increasing cut-‐in speed, feathering of the blades or stopping the turbine during periods of high bat activity.

Elements of the post-‐construction monitoring program include:

• Bird mortality monitoring at all wind turbines will be conducted twice-‐weekly (3-‐4 day intervals) at all turbines from May 1st -‐ October 31st and raptor mortality surveys weekly from May 1st -‐ November 30th for three years following start of operations.


June 2013 39

• Bat mortality monitoring at all turbines will be conducted twice-‐weekly (3-‐4 day intervals) at all turbines from May 1st -‐ October 31st for three years following start of operations.

• Searcher efficiency and carcass removal trials will be conducted seasonally (spring, summer, and fall) between May 1 and October 31, and repeated for each searcher. Searcher efficiency and carcass removal rates are known to be more variable for bats than for birds throughout the year and depending on habitat (in part due to the relative size of the species).

• Regular reporting that includes analysis and submission of results to the MOE and MNR.


Net impacts to significant wildlife habitat during construction, operation and decommissioning of the project are anticipated to be minimal to none. The likelihood and magnitude of impacts without mitigating strategies is already low. With the application of mitigation described above the impact will be very minimal.

Consultation with the MNR will be ensured should significant impacts to any species in the area be identified.

5.3.7. General ized Signif icant Wildl i fe Habitat

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

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

• Terrestrial Crayfish (3 locations)

• Seeps and Springs (1 locations)

• Bat Maternity Colony (1 locations)


There are no potential effects to Species of Conservation Concern – River Bluet, Terrestrial Crayfish or Seeps and Springs from the Operation and Maintenance period of the wind farm life cycle.

Risks do exist for Bat Maternity Colonies during the operation period. If maternity colonies are found within 120 m of a turbine blade swept area, this increases the likelihood of bat mortality at this site from collisions with turbines.


June 2013 40


A post-‐construction monitoring plan for bird and bat mortality has been developed in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) that is consistent with guidance provided in MNR’s Bat Guidelines and MNR’s Bird Guidelines. This is contained within the Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan and is provided in Appendix F.


Pre-‐construction surveys to determine if Bat Maternity colonies are present on the landscape will help to more accurately define the effects expected at this site.

Post-‐Construction will be carried out regardless of the result of the above survey. Mortality monitoring of bats will determine the level of impact the wind farm has on bat populations, but based on pre-‐construction radar surveys of the area, bat activity is likely to be low.

Given that all mitigation and monitoring measures developed by the MNR are implemented, any adverse net effects on wildlife from operations are anticipated to be insignificant. There is some potential for disturbance to wildlife during operations and maintenance of the Project as a result of increased human activity. Some limited mortality is possible; however potential long-‐term effects to wildlife populations from this mortality and from barrier effects are anticipated to be minimal.

5.3.8. Signif icant Flora and Vegetation Communit ies

No rare flora or vegetation communities were identified within the 120 m Zone of Investigation, therefore mitigation measures are not necessary.

5.4. Aquatic Resources

5.4.1. Groundwater


It is not anticipated that operation of the Project will adversely affect groundwater quality, quantity or movement. Some materials, such as fuel, lubricating oils and other fluids associated with turbine maintenance have the potential for discharge to the on-‐site environment through accidental spills.


Mitigation measures for accidental spills are listed in Section 5.8.2


Accidental spills would be spatially limited and of short duration and protocols to minimize any impact will be provided in the Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan (Section 4).


June 2013 41

5.4.2. Surface Water, Fish and Fish Habitat

In accordance with O. Reg. 359/09, a Water Bodies and Assessment Report was undertaken for the Project to determine the presence of water bodies as defined by O. Reg. 359/09 and associated setbacks. The following provides an assessment of potential effects and mitigation measures during operation for water bodies and fish/fish habitat within the 120 m Zone of Investigation.

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


The potential effects to watercourses during operation exist from soil erosion resulting from maintenance activities (removal of stabilizing vegetative cover). Erosion can cause downstream sediment transport and a short-‐term increase in surface water turbidity, including associated impacts to fish and fish habitat. The magnitude and duration of potential effects to watercourses depend on the specific characteristics of each watercourse (e.g. flow regime, water velocity, bed substrates, bank conditions, local soils and the extent and duration of exposure). In addition, some materials, such as fuel, lubricating oils and other fluids associated with turbine maintenance have the potential for release to the environment in the event of accidental spills.


Mitigation measures related to sedimentation and erosion would be the same as discussed in Section 5.10 and 5.9 respectively of the Construction Plan Report.

The Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan (Section 4) will contain procedures for spill contingency and response plans, spill response training, notification procedures, and necessary cleanup materials and equipment. As per S.13 of the Environmental Protection Act, all spills that could potentially have an adverse environmental effect, are outside the normal course of events, or are in excess of prescribed regulatory levels will be reported to the MOE’s Spills Action Centre.

Construction activities located within 120 m of fish habitat will consider the sensitive fish spawning and rearing period of March 15 to June 30, if feasible.


Provided that maintenance activities are performed properly, no adverse net effects on surface water features and fish/fish habitat are anticipated during operation of the Project.


June 2013 42

5.5. Air Quality and Environmental Noise

5.5.1. Air Emissions


During operations, minor localized air emissions will occur from the periodic use of maintenance equipment over the life of the Project.


To reduce emissions from equipment and vehicles, several mitigation measures will be employed:

• Multi-‐passenger vehicles will be utilized to the extent practical;

• Company and construction personnel will avoid idling vehicles when not necessary for operational activities;

• Equipment and vehicles will be turned off when not in use unless required for operational activities and/or effective operation of the equipment or vehicle;

• Equipment and vehicles will be maintained in good working order with functioning mufflers and emission control systems as available;

• All vehicles will be fitted with catalytic converters as required by applicable legislation;

• All operational equipment and vehicles will meet the emissions requirements of the MOE and/or MTO;

• As appropriate, records of vehicle maintenance will be retained and made available for periodic review by the Operations and Maintenance Contractor; and

• All vehicles identified through the monitoring program that fail to meet the minimum emission standards will be repaired immediately or replaced as soon as practicable.


The application of the recommended mitigation measures during operations will limit air emissions to the work areas and limit the magnitude of combustion emissions. As a result, any adverse net effects to air quality from air emissions during operation of the Project are anticipated to be short-‐term in duration and highly localized.


June 2013 43

5.5.2. Dust and Odour Emissions


Operations related traffic and maintenance activities have the potential to create nuisance dust effects in the immediate vicinity of the Project. Unpaved road surfaces exposed to wind can also be a source of fugitive dust emissions.

No odour emissions are anticipated during operation of the Project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required to address odour.


To protect adjacent receptors from potential off-‐site dust concerns, the Operations and Maintenance Contractor and/or Proponent will implement good site practices during operations which may include:

• Maintaining equipment in good running condition and in compliance with regulatory requirements;

• Dust suppression (e.g. water) of source areas as necessary;

• Covering loads of friable materials during transport; and,

• Limiting vehicle speeds on gravel or dirt roads.

The Proponent will monitor concerns raised by the public regarding dust and noise.


The application of the recommended mitigation measures during operations will limit fugitive dust emissions to the work areas. As a result, any adverse net effects to air quality from dust emissions during operation of the facility are anticipated to be short-‐term in duration and highly localized.

5.5.3. Environmental Noise

Zephyr North conducted a Noise Assessment as per the requirements of the MOE's 2008 Noise Guidelines (see Appendix D). The Noise Assessment Report determined that that the estimated sound pressure levels at receptors and vacant lot surrogate receptors (VLSRs) in the Project area comply with the Ontario Ministry of Environment sound level limits at all qualified points of reception.


During operations of the Project, noise will be generated by the periodic use of maintenance equipment to repair the wind turbines. In addition, vehicles will travel to and from the substation property and Operation/Maintenance building during regular business hours. The audible sound at receptors beyond the turbine siting areas and substation property is expected to be a minor, short-‐term disruption.


June 2013 44

Sound will also be emitted from the wind turbines. All turbines proposed as part of the Project are located at a distance of at least 550 m from the nearest non-‐participating noise receptor. Based upon the Project design, the analysis carried out in the Noise Assessment indicates that sound produced by the Project is modeled to be within the acceptable limits established by the MOE at all noise receptors.


To minimize inconvenience brought on by vehicle noise during operations, all engines will be equipped with mufflers and/or silencers in accordance with MOE and/or MTO guidelines and regulations. Maintenance equipment noise levels will also be compliant with sound levels established by the MOE.

To the greatest extent possible, operations activities that could create excessive noise will be restricted to regular business hours and adhere to any local noise by-‐laws. If maintenance activities that cause excessive noise must be carried out outside of these time frames, adjacent residents will be notified in advance and by-‐law conformity will occur, as required. Any potential noise complaints will be handled on an individual basis by the Proponent.

The Project will be required to operate according to the terms and conditions of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA). In the event the Project does not operate according to the terms and conditions of the REA, the non-‐compliant turbine(s) may be curtailed or shut down until the problem is resolved. A regular maintenance program will largely mitigate potential effects related to noise from damaged turbines. Routine facility maintenance to ensure infrastructure is operating properly and efficiently will be performed as required.

Noise Complaint Monitoring -‐ A website will be established for the wind farm in order to receive potential complaints from the public regarding noise from the wind turbines. The website will list an email address and a mailing address for the receipt of potential noise complaints. The communication options covered in Section 4.4.2 are also a suitable avenue for reporting noise complaints. Any noise complaints will be compared with climatic and operational conditions at the referenced time of the complaint and will be kept on record in an electronic file stored in the Proponent’s database for the duration of the project lifetime. As a minimum, the information recorded from the sender will include name, address, telephone number, time and date of the complaint, and details of the complaint as well the fields listed in the Noise Complaint Form attached as Appendix A to the MOE document “Compliance Protocol for Wind Turbine Noise”. The Proponent will also add meteorological and project operational conditions to the complaint information.

Consultation with MOE and potential future MOE protocols will determine what courses of action are subsequently required. Mitigation and contingency measures are outlined below.


June 2013 45

1. The MOE document “Compliance Protocol for Wind Turbine Noise” will be followed in addressing noise complaints. Should the result indicate that there is an issue with non-‐compliance to sound regulations, the one or more contingency measures listed in items 2-‐3 will be enacted

2. Turbine components such as rotor blades, bearings, generator etc., will be evaluated for wear or damage that causes increased sound emission. An example of this process involves inspecting rotor blades for inconsistencies that could have been caused by damage during construction, a lightning strike, avian impact, or wear from operation. Timing of repair or replacement of worn or damaged components will be evaluated together with option 3 below to determine the most cost effective course of action to reduce sound emission.

3. Turbines can be programmed and controlled to operate in a manner which emits less sound (and produces less power) during certain times of day and/or certain meteorological conditions as appropriate. This course of action may be used on a temporary or permanent basis to reduce sound emission and correct an issue with non-‐compliance to sound regulations. As an example, a turbine can be controlled to limit operational intensity during night-‐time hours, or when the wind is blowing from a direction that correlates to a measured noise issue. An operating regime will be developed such that turbines conform to noise regulations.


Application of the recommended mitigation measures during operations will limit noise emissions to the general vicinity of the turbine. Given that the facility must comply with the requirements of the REA process and applicable MOE environmental noise guidelines, no significant net effects are anticipated.

Any adverse net effects due to noise during operation of the Project are anticipated to be short-‐term in duration and intermittent.

5.6. Land-use and Socio-Economic Resources

5.6.1. Areas Protected Under Provincial Plans and Pol ic ies

No areas protected under specified Provincial Plans and Policies are located within the 120 m Zone of Investigation. No potential effects are anticipated to occur and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary.

5.6.2. Exist ing Land Uses


During the operation phase of the Project, the lands which are occupied by facility components will be removed from their present agricultural land-‐use; however, existing surrounding land uses will remain unchanged.


June 2013 46

During operations there will be a temporary increase in noise and dust around the work and haul areas used by maintenance and personnel vehicles, resulting in a potential effect to adjacent land uses.

There is potential for a minor increase in traffic during operations on roadways near the Project due to maintenance vehicles. No adverse effects on existing land uses, including local businesses, are anticipated from increased traffic during operations of the Project..

No local businesses are expected to be displaced as a result of operations of the Project.


The Project is considered to be compatible with existing land use; therefore no other mitigation measures are required to address effects to the existing land use. Siting of turbines and access roads are completed with the approval of the participating landowner.

Landowners will be compensated by the Proponent for agricultural or industrial land that will be taken out of production/use during the lifespan of the Project through the land lease agreements.

Mitigation measures related to dust, noise and traffic are identified in Sections 5.5 and 5.6.8 respectively.


Although some disturbance to adjacent land uses from noise and dust is unavoidable, it is expected to be short-‐term in duration, temporary, highly localized, and will be minimized through the implementation of good site practices, transportation planning, and communication with the community.

5.6.3. Hazard Lands

There is one hazard land (valleyland) located within the 120 m Zone of Investigation. None of the hazard lands contain Project infrastructure. No potential effects will occur and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary

5.6.4. Recreation Areas and Features

No recreational areas or features are located within the 120 m Zone of Investigation. Operations activities would be limited to private land and therefore is not expected to directly affect recreation areas. As no potential effects are likely to occur as a result of the Project on recreation areas and features, no mitigation measures are necessary.


June 2013 47

5.6.5. Agricultural Lands and Operations

The existing land use within the Project Location is primarily agricultural lands. Potential effects to the agricultural lands used for the turbines access roads and collector lines are related to the change in use from agricultural to renewable energy development. However, where lands are being used for Project infrastructure, landowners are being financially compensated for the lease of the private lands, and thus offset the financial impact of removing the land from agricultural production.

Impacts to livestock from operation of the Project are not anticipated.

Dust emissions from operations activities are associated with vehicular traffic from maintenance and personnel vehicles. Dust emissions are expected to be short-‐term in duration and highly localized. No potential physical effects are anticipated on agricultural lands and operations from dust during operations of the Project, and therefore no mitigation measures are required.

5.6.6. Mineral, Aggregate and Petroleum Resources

There are no lands designated for aggregate resource extraction, including licensed pits and quarries, within the Project Area. No abandoned or active petroleum wells are located within the 120 m Zone of Investigation. A Petroleum Resource Operations Report will be produced and submitted to MNR.


Given that no mineral, aggregate or petroleum resources are located in the Study Area, no potential effects are anticipated.


Final infrastructure alignments will be confirmed prior to construction based on consultation with the MNR’s Petroleum Resources Branch and based on technical constraints that may be identified during detailed design and engineering. Underground locates would be conducted prior to construction given the potential for unrecorded and improperly decommissioned wells.

The Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan (Section 4.1.2) will contain procedures for spill contingency and response plans, spill response training, notification procedures, and necessary cleanup materials and equipment. As per S.13 of the Environmental Protection Act, all spills that could potentially have an adverse environmental effect, are outside the normal course of events, or are in excess of prescribed regulatory levels will be reported to the MOE’s Spills Action Centre.


No adverse net effects are anticipated to mineral, aggregate or petroleum resources during operation of the Project.


June 2013 48

5.6.7. Game and Fisheries Resources


Since the Project has been sited entirely on agricultural lands, potential indirect effects to wildlife and their habitats will be temporary until the Project becomes part of the environmental “background”. The mammals present on the agricultural lands are common in southern Ontario and tend to be well-‐adapted to human-‐influenced landscapes and disturbance. No impacts to traditional treaty rights are anticipated; however these will be confirmed in discussion with relevant First Nations and Métis communities as appropriate. Consultation with Aboriginal communities is detailed in the Consultation Report.


Turbines are generally placed on agricultural land, away from woodlands, and far enough away to minimize potential effects. Siting the Project on agricultural land has largely precluded disturbance to local flora, small mammals and amphibians, natural habitat, and corridor functions. No further mitigation measures are required.


Once the Project is operating, human activity around the facilities will decrease, thus allowing local wildlife movement patterns to quickly re-‐establish.

Considering the periodic nature of maintenance activities, it is likely that resident game species will adapt to the Project quickly. Consequently, no net adverse effects are anticipated during the Project to game and fishery resources.

5.6.8. Local Traff ic


The number of vehicles required during operation will be minimal. A small number of light trucks will be required for typical maintenance activities, however occasionally larger vehicles will be required to transport turbine and switching station components. The increase in traffic may result in short-‐term, localized disturbance to traffic patterns or increases in traffic volume, and/or create potential traffic safety hazards.


There may be instances during maintenance activities where excess loads (e.g. turbine and substation station components) will require special traffic planning. In addition, widening turning radii and road widths and the creation of new ingress/egress nodes from the work areas may be required. As appropriate, permits will be obtained to implement these activities. As appropriate, for public safety all non-‐conventional loads will have front and rear escort or “pilot” vehicles accompany the truck movement on public roads.


June 2013 49

Although there are no requirements for formal public notification of wind turbine component load movements, the Proponent may provide notification of non-‐conventional load movements that may interfere with local traffic, with potential methods of notification including postings on the Project website or email notification to a stakeholders list. This notification will be provided in the interest of public safety, minimization of disruption of other road users, and good community relations.


Road safety is not expected to be an issue during operations; however, the potential for accidents along the haul routes and on-‐site cannot be totally disqualified. Truck traffic will increase on some roads during maintenance activities and from personnel vehicles; however this traffic will be short-‐term in duration and intermittent.

The effect of operating the wind project is anticipated to have a limited, short term effect on traffic.

5.6.9. Local Economy


Operation of the Project is expected to continue for a minimum of approximately 20 years. The Proponent may hire a specialized Operation and Maintenance Contractor for specific tasks, and, to the extent possible, local hiring will be maximized during operations, providing work for existing tradespersons and labourers. Trades that could be provided locally may include pipefitters, electricians, ironworkers, millwrights, truck drivers, and carpenters. Since it is likely that the majority of the labour force will be supplied through local and neighbouring communities, no special housing, healthcare, or food facilities will be required as part of the Project operation activities.

No local businesses or facilities, other than agricultural land uses, are located within the Project Location or immediately adjacent to the area. The operation and maintenance of the Project will result in direct, indirect and induced benefits in terms of business income and employment.

Local economic benefits will also include a minimum of 20 years of land lease payments to participating landowners. Additionally, municipal taxes to be paid for the development by the Proponent will be paid to all applicable municipalities.


The Proponent will make all reasonable efforts, to the extent possible, to source required services and materials from local suppliers where these items are available in sufficient quantity and quality and at competitive prices.


June 2013 50


The Project provides positive benefits to the local area, including the upper and lower tier municipalities through ongoing property tax income with no increased demands for municipal services that cannot readily be met.

5.6.10. Viewscape


Siting of the facility will alter the visual landscape. However, visibility of the facility will vary from receptor to receptor based upon the following factors:

• Surficial patterns: landform – largely determined by physiography and tree cover;

• Topography: slope – the greater the slope the greater the visibility of the turbines and other project infrastructure from more vantage points;

• Observer position: viewing – distance from the facility reduces scale and the apparent size of a project is directly related to the angle between the viewer’s line-‐of-‐sight and the slope upon which the project is to take place;

• Atmospheric conditions: clarity – air pollution, natural haze, fogging, and snow affect daytime and nighttime visibility; and,

• Turbine marking: lighting – primarily affecting nighttime visibility.


There are limited opportunities for potential mitigation strategies given the height of the wind turbines and the landscape patterns.


Some disturbance to the viewscape is unavoidable due to the height of the turbines. The changed visual landscape will be present during the life of the facility.

5.7. Existing Local Infrastructure

5.7.1. Provincial , Municipal and Other Major Infrastructure


The tap line will cross over Highway 401 along an existing electrical cable crossing.

Municipal infrastructure in the Study Area includes County and Township roads, Municipal water and sewage networks (near tap line only), and Municipal groundwater supply.


June 2013 51

The Proponent will continue to consult with the Township of Norwich and City of Woodstock, regarding any potential effects to municipal interests. The Proponent is committed to obtain all necessary permits, approvals, and agreements related to the Project.

No potential effects are anticipated during operation of the Project on Provincial, Municipal or other major infrastructure other than roadways. Potential effects to traffic during the operation of the Project are discussed in Section 5.6.8. Potential effects on Provincial, Municipal or other major infrastructure from construction of the Project are described in the Construction Plan Report.


Permits from the MTO may be required to facilitate the transportation of components used for maintenance (e.g. cranes) on provincial highways. As appropriate, for public safety all non-‐conventional loads will have front and rear escort or “pilot” vehicles accompany the truck movement on public roads.

The additional traffic on the provincial highways is not expected to cause any significant traffic congestion.

Although there are no requirements for formal public notification of wind turbine component load movements, the Proponent may provide notification of non-‐conventional load movements, with potential methods of notification including postings on the Project website and/or email notification to stakeholders list. This notification will be provided in the interest of public safety, minimization of disruption of other road users, and good community relations.


No net effects are anticipated to provincial and local infrastructure during operation of the Project.

5.7.2. Navigable Waters

No navigable waters will be crossed by Project infrastructure. As such, no potential effects will occur and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary.

5.7.3. Radio Communication, Radar and Seismoacoustic Systems

A study was conducted according to the Radio Advisory Board of Canada’s “Technical Information On The Assessment of the Potential Impact Of Wind Turbines On Radio Communication, Radar And Seismoacoustic Systems” in order to screen potential impacts. The report is attached as Appendix G.

The study concluded the following:


June 2013 52

The detailed analysis of the possibilities of image ghosting for three CBC television broadcast stations covering, even partially, the area of the Gunn’s Hill proposed wind farm, made it possible to determine that a certain number of dwellings would possibly experience this type of interference in dynamic mode, static mode or even both…

… The methodology used is not considered as an extreme worst case scenario analysis; we strongly believe it represents a conservative approach and the actual impact will be significantly lower than the presented results. While the model used has not been benchmarked against actual field measurements, similar impact predictions at other wind farms resulted in no complaint.

An additional study to identify and evaluate the communication systems in the vicinity of the project was commissioned and is also included in Appendix G. The study’s purpose is quoted below:

This preliminary study report presents the results of the first phase of the study, identifying the telecommunication systems in the wind farm area that might be affected by the deployment of the Gunn’s Hill wind farm project. This study aims, among other things, to identify point-to-point microwave telecommunication links that intersect the proposed wind farm project and to define the consultation zones associated with these links and with the mobile base station located in the region. The study also aims to identify radar and navigation systems with the potential to be affected by wind turbines and to assess the potential for impact on radio and television broadcast signals in the region.

The study identified 10 digital TV stations within the project area, one land mobile base station, and 2 turbines with the 1 km consultation zone of a point-‐to-‐point microwave tower.


Impact screening and consultation suggests that impacts to Radio Communication, Radar, and Seismoacoustic systems are predicted to be either non-‐existent or within acceptable levels to system operators.


A website will be established for the wind farm in order to receive any complaints from Radio Communication, Radar, and Seismoacoustic system operators. Any complaints will be compared with climatic and operational conditions at the referenced time of the complaint and will be kept on record in an electronic file. The information recorded from the sender will include name, address and the telephone number; time and date of the complaint, and details of the complaint.

Complaints received will be addressed in consultation with the system operator and any corresponding Provincial or Federal agencies. As these types of complaints can


June 2013 53

be very specific to a given technology or electromagnetic frequency, mitigation and contingency measures will require analysis and development by specialized consultants if/when an issue is brought to the Proponent’s attention.

If proof of digital TV signal interference exists, the Proponent will offer corrective measures such as a higher quality receiver or a satellite receiver.


It is anticipated that any interference with radio communication systems will be limited and of short-‐term duration given that the Proponent will review potential incidents of radio communication interference on a case by case basis.

5.7.4. Aeronautical Systems


The presence of wind turbines presents a potential hazard to low flying aircraft. Transport Canada’s CAR621 publication specifies aeronautical obstruction lighting requirements for wind turbines. Section 12.4 of CAR621 pertains to wind turbines with a total height greater than 150 m and states “The provision of marking and lighting for wind turbines higher than 150 m shall be determined through means of a risk assessment.”

There is one local private airfield in the vicinity of the Project, identified as Curries Aerodrome. Though the airfield is not certified with NAV Canada and presently does not operate outside of Visual Flight Rules, consultation with the operator indicates that there is potential to add night-‐time operations in the future.


Prowind staff visited the airfield in March of 2010, at an early stage of project development. The locations and orientations of runway boundaries were measured in an effort to account for the airfield in a broader constraints analysis that informed turbine layout decisions. Turbine positions 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 were kept sufficiently north to avoid direct conflict with a runway approach. Turbines 1, 2, and 3 were spaced in a manner that avoids the theoretical approach path that would be protected if the runway were certified by NavCanada.

A professional third party assessment of the Crries Aerodrome was commissioned and is included as Appendix H. The assessment states that “Although Obstacle Limitation Surfaces are not required for aerodromes, either registered or non-‐registered, Prowind has taken appropriate approach surfaces into consideration in defining turbine locations.” The report also recommends establishing turbine lighting schemes in consultation with Transport Canada and the airfield owner.

Transport Canada has assessed the project and has determined that turbines 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 must be equipped with CL-‐864 medium intensity red flashing beacons. These beacons are required to have a minimum intensity of 1,500 candelas


June 2013 54

and will be programmed to turn on and off in unison. In an effort to reduce visual impact at the ground level, Prowind will also propose using recent technology with very low levels of ground scatter so visibility is heavily mitigated at ground level without restricting visibility from the air.

Due to the potential for the Curries Aerodrome to expand to night-‐time operations and for the sake of being conservative, it should be assumed that all turbines will be equipped with the above lighting during some portion of the operational phase of the project.

Confirmation will also be obtained from the Department of National Defence (DND) which indicates that the Project will not interfere with any DND radar and flight operations.

NavCanada will be responsible for updating all aeronautical charts with the turbine locations.

Routine maintenance of the turbines will include replacing safety lighting in the event of a malfunction.


With the application of the above mitigation measures, functionality of the Curries Aerodrome is preserved during operation of the facility.

5.8. Waste Management and Contaminated Lands

5.8.1. Waste Generation


Waste created at operational wind energy generation facilities is typically limited to small quantities of exchanged lubricants and cooling fluids, grease-‐soaked rags, batteries, air filters, replaced turbine parts and a minor amount of domestic waste (i.e., garbage, recycling, and organics).

All waste materials will require reuse, recycling, and/or disposal at an appropriate off-‐site facility. Improper disposal of waste material generated during operations may result in contamination to soil, groundwater, and/or surface water resources on and off the Project sites. Litter generated during operations may also become a nuisance to nearby residences if not appropriately contained. There will be no on-‐site disposal of waste during the operation of the Project.

Expected quantities of waste fluids to be created by the project during the operational phase are presented in Table 13. Some variation to these quantities is possible due to changing specifications from turbine manufacturers or increased frequency of fluid exchange due to issues identified during on-‐site monitoring. Emergency response to spills of waste fluids are addressed in Section 5.8.2.


June 2013 55

TABLE 13 TOTAL EXPECTED QUANTITIES OF WASTE FLUIDS

Type of Waste Expected Quantity Approximate Frequency

Grease 310 L Yearly

Yaw System Gear Oil 608 L Every 5 years or as needed

Hydraulic Oil 2200 L Every 5 years or as needed

It is expected that replacement of a small component will occur annually per turbine. This may typically include a fluid pump, cooling fan, circuit board, sensor, yaw motor, pitch motor, etc.

The substation does not have a power transformer for the purpose of feeding power to the electrical grid, since the turbines have step up transformers located at or within the base. Each step up transformer contains a small amount of oils and coolants and no spill containment measures are required. These oils and coolants are contained within the transformer and do not require maintenance and thus do not generate waste fluids.

It is expected that replacement of a major turbine component will occur every 7 years per turbine on average. This may typically include a gearbox, generator, or turbine blade and will require a crane to be brought to the site. Gearboxes and generators will be removed from the site for refurbishment. Turbine blades may be repaired and re-‐used but will more likely be taken off-‐site for disposal in a landfill once removed from the turbine hub.

At times of major equipment replacement, crane pads will be reconstructed in the same manner as during construction and removed thereafter.

There are no planned water takings near or above 50,000 L/day on any day of the operational phase of the project.


During operations, the Proponent and/or the Operation and Maintenance Contractor will implement a site-‐specific waste collection and disposal management plan, which will include good site practices such as:

• systematic collection and separation of waste materials within on-‐site weather-‐protected storage areas;

• contractors will be required to remove all waste materials from the turbine sites during maintenance activities;


June 2013 56

• all waste materials and recycling will be transported off-‐site by private waste collection contractors licensed with a Certificate of Approval – Waste Management System;

• labeling and proper storage of liquid wastes (e.g. used oil, drained hydraulic fluid, and used solvents) in a secure area that will ensure containment of the material in the event of a spill. As per s.13 of the Environmental Protection Act, all spills that could potentially have an adverse environmental effect, are outside the normal course of events, or are in excess of the prescribed regulatory levels will be reported to the MOE’s Spills Action Centre;

• as appropriate, spill kits (e.g. containing absorbent cloths and disposal containers) will be provided on-‐site during maintenance activities and at the operation and maintenance building;

• qualified maintenance personnel will immediately remove any replaced parts from the site or store them in the O & M building until removal can be arranged. These parts will be refurbished when possible or recycled/disposed of in accordance with local regulations.

• dumping or burying wastes within the Project sites will be prohibited;

• disposal of non-‐hazardous waste at a registered waste disposal site(s);

• if waste is classified as waste other than solid non-‐hazardous, a Generator Registration Number is required from the MOE and the generator will have obligations regarding manifesting of waste. Compliance with Schedule 4 of Regulation 347 is mandatory when determining waste category; and

• implementation of an on-‐going waste management program consisting of reduction, reuse, and recycling of materials.


With the application of the mitigation measures outlined above, no net effects from waste material disposal will occur on-‐site during operation.

5.8.2. Spil ls


Some materials, such as fuel, lubricating oils and other fluids associated with turbine maintenance have the potential for discharge to the on-‐site environment through accidental spills.


In terms of accidental spills or releases to the environment, standard containment facilities and emergency response materials will be maintained on-‐site (within the


June 2013 57

turbines or substation) as required. Refuelling, equipment maintenance, and other potentially contaminating activities will occur in designated areas. As per s.13 of the Environmental Protection Act, all spills that could potentially have an adverse environmental effect, are outside the normal course of events, or are in excess of the prescribed regulatory levels will be reported to the MOE’s Spills Action Centre.

An Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan (Section 4.1.2) will be developed and will include protocols for the proper handling of material spills and associated procedures to be undertaken in the event of a spill.


With the application of the mitigation measures outlined above, no net effects from accidental spills or releases to the environment are anticipated.

5.9. Public Health and Safety

5.9.1. Turbine Blade and Structural Fai lure


The potential exists for full or partial blade detachment from the turbine structure, resulting in damage to the landing area from the impact. Garrad Hassan Canada undertook a review of publicly-‐available literature on turbine rotor failures resulting in full or partial blade throws (Garrad Hassan Canada, 2007). Such events were found to be very rare; therefore data describing these events are scarce.

Root causes of blade failure have been continuously addressed through developments in best practice in design, testing, manufacture and operation; much of these developments have been captured in the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards to which all current large wind turbines comply (Garrad Hassan Canada, 2007). There has been widespread introduction of turbine design certification and approval that certifies compliance with standards and requires a dynamic test that simulates the complete life loading on the blade (Garrad Hassan Canada, 2007). The certification body also performs a quality audit of the blade manufacturing facilities and performs strength testing of construction materials. This approach has effectively eliminated blade design as a root cause of failures (Garrad Hassan Canada, 2007).

The reported main causes of blade failure include:

• Human interference with the control system;

• A lightning strike; and,

• A manufacturing defect in the blade.


June 2013 58

Turbine control systems are subjected to rigorous specification in the design standards for wind turbines (IEC 61400-‐1) and exhaustive analysis in the certification process. Turbines with industry certification must have a safety system completely independent of the control system. In the event of a failure of one system, the other is designed to control the rotor speed.

Lightning protection systems for wind turbines have developed significantly over the past decade and best practices have been incorporated into the industry standards to which all modern turbines must comply. This has led to a significant reduction in events where lightning causes structural damage. A review of available literature, conducted by the Chatham-‐Kent Public Health Unit (2008), revealed only four documented turbine failure issues in Ontario due to lightning strikes that required the turbine to be shut down for repair.

The occurrence of structural manufacturing defects in rotor blades has also diminished significantly due to experience and improved quality control in the industry. Design practice has evolved to improve structural margins against any manufacturing deficiencies. Even in the rare event of a blade failure in modern turbines, it is much more likely that the damaged structure will remain attached to the turbine rather than separating (Garrad Hassan Canada, 2007). Reviews of available information did not find any recorded evidence of injury to the public as a result of turbine blade or structural failure (Garrad Hassan Canada, 2007; Chatham-‐Kent Public Health Unit, 2008).

Given that accidents or malfunctions of the turbines are considered to be infrequent events, and turbines will be located at least the minimum regulated setback distance from any residence, the event of a failure of the structure will likely not fall beyond the setback distance and would, therefore, not affect public health and safety.


Modern wind turbines must meet strict international engineering standards. Standards include the ability to withstand the forces of a Level 2 tornado (i.e., wind speeds of approximately 55 m/s), and structures must be built to meet earthquake loads as per the Ontario Building Code. The structural integrity of the turbines is designed to withstand wind speeds of approximately 55 m/s. However, during high wind events (i.e., greater than 24 m/s) the turbines are designed to cease operation. Turbine braking is accomplished by aerodynamic (blade pitch) control and friction brakes. The wind turbines will be designed, installed, operated and maintained according to applicable industry standards/certifications.

The Proponent and the Operation and Maintenance Contractor will aim to minimize accidents and malfunctions with proper training and education of staff operating the control system. In addition, the turbines will be equipped with lightning protection systems and located at least the minimum regulated setback distance from receptors.


June 2013 59


As a result of the structural integrity and design features of the turbines, no adverse net effects from structural failure are anticipated during operation of the facility.

5.9.2. Ice Fal l and Shed


Another potential public health and safety issue could result from the accumulation of ice on the turbine blades under specific temperature and humidity conditions. This condition is not unique to wind turbines and has the potential to occur on any structure that is exposed to the elements. In Ontario, this condition is most likely to occur in the winter months in extreme weather events. However meteorological conditions for ice formation and build-‐up are considered to be relatively rare within the study area. Under these conditions the turbines may be subject to ice coating from freezing rain or interception of low clouds containing super-‐cooled rain.

There are two potential hazards associated with ice accumulation on wind turbines:

• The danger of falling ice that may accumulate on the turbine as a result of freeze-‐thaw of snow and ice; and,

• The throwing of ice from the moving turbine blades.

Falling ice from an immobile turbine does not differ from other tall structures like telecommunication towers, power lines, and antenna masts. The potential ground area affected by falling ice depends to a large extent on the blade position and the prevailing wind speed and direction. Garrad Hassan Canada (2007) estimated that only very high winds may cause ice fragments of any significant mass to be blown beyond 50 m of the base of a modern, stationary 2 MW turbine (80-‐100 m hub height). Operating staff and landowners are briefed on this situation; therefore the risk is considered minimal (Garrad Hassan Canada, 2007).

Wind turbines typically operate when the wind speed is within the range of 4 m/s to 25 m/s; when turbines are in operation they can accumulate ice on the rotor blades. Ice fragments which detach from the rotor blades can be thrown from the turbine; any fragments would land in the plane of the turbine rotor or downwind (Garrad Hassan Canada, 2007). Throwing distance varies depending upon the rotor azimuth, rotor speed, rotor radius, and wind speed. Also, the geometry and mass of the ice fragments would affect the flight trajectory.

Observations have shown that the ice fragments do not maintain their shape and immediately break into smaller fragments upon detaching from a blade. This will decrease drag and potentially allow the ice fragment to be thrown greater distances. For human injury to result from ice shed, several conditions would have to exist simultaneously:


June 2013 60

• Sustained weather conditions conducive to icing;

• Ice dislodging from the turbine blade;

• Ice pieces large enough to remain intact through the air;

• Ice traveling in a particular direction past setback guidelines; and,

• A person in the path of the ice as it lands (Garrad Hassan Canada, 2007).

A risk assessment methodology was developed by Garrad Hassan Canada and Partners, in conjunction with the Finnish Meteorological Institute and Deutsches Windenergie-‐Institut, as part of a research Project on the implementation of Wind Energy in Cold Climates (WECO). Guidelines produced in the WECO Project were based on a combination of numerical modelling and observations. The WECO database of observed ice fragments determined that recorded ice fragments are typically thrown to distances less than 125 m from the base of the turbine (Seifert et al., 2003).

Garrad Hassan Canada developed an Ontario-‐specific risk assessment methodology for ice shed based on the findings of the WECO Project. Modelling was undertaken to determine the probability of an ice fragment landing within one square metre of ground area, as a function of distance from the turbine. The model result determined that the critical ice shed distance would be approximately 220 m from a turbine. At distances greater than 220 m, the probability of ice shed reaching ground level at a mass that would cause injury decreases rapidly. The critical distance can effectively be regarded as a “safe” distance, beyond which there is a negligible risk of injury from ice shed (Garrad Hassan Canada, 2007).

Example calculations were presented in the Garrad Hassan Canada (2007) report, using data representative of a typical wind farm Project in rural southern Ontario. These conditions would be considered representative of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm. Risk to a fixed dwelling, vehicle travelling on a road, and individual person from being struck by an ice fragment thrown from an operating wind turbine were modelled, with the following results:

• Fixed dwelling: equivalent to 1 strike per 500,000 years;

• Vehicle travelling on a road: equivalent to 1 strike per 260,000 years; and,

• Individual person: equivalent to 1 strike in 137,500,000 years.

These predictions seem markedly low; however, it is due to the fact that icing events are limited to only a few days per year. For example, Vestas Canada, which maintains turbines across Canada, has experienced no incidents related to falling ice in Canada (Jacques Whitford, 2006).


June 2013 61


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

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


Considering the design features of the turbines which act to reduce or eliminate the potential for ice accumulation, and that the nearest receptors are located at minimum required setbacks from the turbines, no adverse net effects are expected due to ice fall and shed from turbines during operation of the Project.

5.9.3. Extreme Weather Events


Extreme weather events that could occur during operation of the Project include fire, flood, temperature extremes, heavy snow, rain, hail, ice storms, tornadoes, earthquakes, and lightning strikes.

The likelihood of a fire occurring during operation is low. If a fire were to happen, it would likely occur in the fields at the base of the turbine. Fire could damage the turbine tower paint but it is unlikely that a fire would damage the turbine components within the tower.

Since there are no major waterways near the Project Location, it is unlikely that a flood would occur. Temperature extremes, to the extent that they are outside the turbine’s operating range, are not expected.

No adverse effect is anticipated to the operation of the turbines from heavy snow, except to prevent access to the turbines during an emergency.

In the case of an extreme hail event, the nacelle could suffer cosmetic damage. However, the operation of the turbine would not be effected. It is unlikely that the nacelle cover would suffer structural damage. An extreme hail event may damage the turbine’s meteorological sensors.

Climatic fluctuations in temperature and/or humidity are unlikely to have a significant effect on the Project. A change in the annual average air temperature or relative humidity could (slightly) affect the energy production of the Project as


June 2013 62

higher density air (corresponding to lower temperatures and lower humidity) will result in higher production since the wind power density is a linear function of the air density.

Climatic variations in rainfall or snowfall are unlikely to affect the Project. Variations in freezing precipitation (but not extreme events) could change the overall energy production through inefficiencies caused by modification of the aerodynamic profile of the turbine blade. However, such events occur for such a limited time that it is very unlikely that there would be a significant impact on energy production.

A change in the wind climate is the likeliest cause for significant impact on the Project’s energy production. This results from the very high sensitivity of wind power density to the wind speed (i.e., small changes in wind speed can result in relatively large changes in kinetic energy available for conversion to electrical energy). It is not unusual for the average wind speed to fluctuate from year to year by up to +/-‐ 10%. This maximum would, typically, translate into Project energy fluctuations of +/-‐ 20 to 25%.


Weather conditions will be continuously monitored by the site manager during all project phases to identify potential emerging hazards on the project site.

When weather forecasts indicate the likelihood of extreme events, on-‐site work and operation plans will be modified to mitigate potential emergencies. This will occur in several stages as the potential for extreme weather increases. If necessary, all work will be stopped and staff will be instructed via two-‐way radio to secure equipment, vacate wind turbines and adjacent work areas, and take appropriate shelter. The status of the site and weather will be continually monitored and re-‐evaluated to determine if additional emergency response is required.

If necessary during the operation phase, turbines will be shut down, the blades will be feathered to negate lift, and the rotors will be locked to guard against excessive loads on the turbine machinery and structures.

Project components have been designed to withstand effects of extreme weather events as follows:

• Rain – surficial drainage patterns will remain intact and continue to convey rain water;

• Hail –turbine blades, nacelle, and tower are constructed of materials able to withstand damage from the impact of hail;

• Ice storms/freezing rain – as noted above, the turbines are designed to automatically shut down when ice load on the blades exceeds a predetermined threshold;


June 2013 63

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

• Earthquakes –structures will be designed to meet the earthquake loads as per the Ontario Building Code; and

• Lightning – turbines are equipped with sophisticated lightning protection; lightning strikes are safely absorbed by conductors and the current is conducted via a spark gap and cables into the ground surrounding the foundation.

The turbines will be designed, installed, operated and maintained according to applicable industry standards/certifications.


Considering the design features of the turbine, which act to reduce or eliminate the potential for damage from extreme weather events, no adverse net effects from extreme weather events are anticipated during operation of the facility.

5.9.4. Third Party Damage


Turbines are typically located away from roads and in largely open areas. Nevertheless, the possibility exists for accidental collision with off-‐road and maintenance vehicles. Although possible, it is highly unlikely that this equipment will significantly damage the towers given their structural integrity (e.g. the rolled steel in the towers is over an inch thick, supporting foundations, and surrounding gravel pad).


Access to the towers will be restricted to avoid potential accidents to unqualified persons.


As a result of restricting access of unqualified persons to the turbines, no adverse net effects from third party damage to the turbines are anticipated during operation of the Project.

5.9.5. Ground Level Injury to Personnel


Safety culture will be of utmost importance for all work on-‐site. Nevertheless, there is always potential for an injury or illness to occur or for a pre-‐existing condition to surface while personnel are on-‐site. This type of event has the potential to impact the health of the individual and increases risk to responders.


June 2013 64


All construction, operation, and decommissioning staff will be fully trained in site safety requirements and protocols, emergency first aid, and will be required to be on-‐site with at least one additional staff member at all times. All staff will have access to two-‐way radio and/or mobile phones while on-‐site with pre-‐designated emergency contacts.

All injuries on-‐site will be reported to the acting site manager for further direction on appropriate response. The chain of communication in Figure 5 and Figure 6 will be followed as required. Emergency 911 dispatch will determine the appropriate responders in the event that local emergency services are required to attend to an injury and/or to transport injured personnel to hospital. If safe to do so, injured personnel will be transported to a predetermined meeting location for transfer of care to local emergency services. The local emergency services and the EPC/OMT will remain in ongoing contact to ensure proper coordination.


The likelihood of this type of incident will be in compliance with labour laws and regulations using best industry practices.

5.9.6. Up-Tower Injury to Personnel


Safety culture will be of utmost importance for all work on-‐site. Nevertheless, there is always potential for an injury or illness to occur or for a pre-‐existing condition to surface while personnel are on-‐site. This type of event carries considerable additional complication if the individual is located somewhere above ground level within a turbine and has the potential to impact the health of the individual and significantly increases risk to responders.

Local emergency response capacity is not configured to provide services up-‐tower, and therefore this responsibility is covered by the O & M staff.


All construction, operation, and decommissioning staff will be fully trained in site safety requirements and protocols as well as emergency first aid. All work “up-‐tower” during all phases of the project requires that a minimum of 2 staff be present. Regular two-‐way radio or mobile phone contact between up-‐tower staff and a supervisor will be maintained.

All staff working up-‐tower will be fully trained in tower evacuation and rescue and will be equipped with an emergency evacuation kit either on their person or within the nacelle.

All injuries on-‐site will be reported to the acting site manager for further direction on appropriate response. The chain of communication in Figure 5 and Figure 6 will be


June 2013 65

followed as required. Emergency 911 dispatch will determine the appropriate responders in the event that local emergency services are required to attend to an injury and/or to transport injured personnel to hospital. A hand-‐over between O & M staff and local emergency responders would then occur at ground level. If safe to do so, injured personnel will be transported to a predetermined meeting location for transfer of care to local emergency services.



5.9.7. Vehicle/Equipment Accident


Safety culture will be of utmost importance for all work on-‐site. Nevertheless, there is always potential for a vehicle/equipment accident on-‐site. This can lead to ground level injury of personnel, spill of hazardous fluid, fire, damaged equipment, and trapped personnel.


Access roads have been designed with maximum visibility and few intersections. Equipment operators will be fully trained and briefed on site safety requirements. When deemed necessary, traffic directors/flags people will be used to control the flow of traffic on-‐site.

Vehicle and equipment accident prevention and response plans will be specific to the project phase and the associated equipment. Potential elements in vehicle and/or equipment accidents such as personal injury, spill of hazardous fluids, and fire are detailed in Sections 5.9.5, 5.8.2, and 5.9.8 respectively.

All accidents on-‐site will be reported to the acting site manager for further direction on appropriate response. The chain of communication in Figure 5 and Figure 6 will be followed as required. Emergency 911 dispatch will determine the appropriate responders in the event that local emergency services are required to attend to an accident.

Though extremely rare, some of the unique types of vehicle and/or equipment accident risks that can exist at wind projects involve large cranes or the turbine structures themselves. Accidents of this magnitude will require careful and specific response evaluation. Equipment on-‐site such as other cranes or heavy machinery may be required in an emergency response in addition to EPC, OMT, and local emergency services.




June 2013 66

5.9.8. Fire


Fire poses risks to personnel, project equipment, and surrounding crops and property.


Fire prevention strategies will be established for the site by the EPC and OMT for all phases of the project.

Remote monitoring of commissioned turbines will also occur to avoid operational modes that could cause a fire (such as component overheating) and will also be used to detect early signs of fire.

The turbine is equipped with ion-‐based or optical-‐based smoke detectors that link to digital inputs in the turbine control system. When an alarm is registered in case of smoke in a panel (or failure in the smoke detector circuit), the turbine is stopped and the cooling fans in all cubicles are switched off in order to reduce the admission of air to a possible fire and to prevent spreading of smoke and gasses in the tower and nacelle. Additionally, all motors and the main circuit breaker are switched off.

The weather screen and housing around the machinery in the nacelle is made of fibreglass-‐reinforced laminated panels with multiple fire-‐protecting properties. The design incorporates fully integrated lightning and Electro-‐Magnetic Current (EMC) protection. The steel tower is fully enclosed and, as such, limits a possible fire. Both Nacelle and Tower act as a Faraday Cage (blocking external static and non-‐static electric fields), thus preventing fire caused by lightning strikes. Excess grease and spilt oil are collected in reservoirs to be cleaned out during scheduled maintenance. The brake system is shielded around the moving parts, which ensures that possible sparks will not spread into the nacelle. The wind turbine has an efficient lightning protection system as additional protection against fire. The use of flammable materials has been avoided to the greatest extent possible in the turbine design.

All fires on-‐site will be reported to the acting site manager for further direction on appropriate response. The chain of communication in Figure 5 and Figure 6 will be followed as required. Emergency 911 dispatch will determine the appropriate responders in the event that local emergency services are required to respond to a fire.

All on-‐site personnel will be permitted to use fire extinguishers to eliminate fires in their incipient stage. If this is not possible, personnel will attempt to remove additional fuel sources in the vicinity of the fire (if safe to do so) and will be evacuated from the area surrounding the fire.

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


June 2013 67

The main potential type of fire unique to wind projects is a fire in the nacelle of a turbine. Fire in the nacelle of a turbine cannot be directly extinguished once past the incipient phase. The EPC or OMT and the Fire Department will be required to monitor a fire in a turbine nacelle from a safe distance to prevent any spread of the fire to other locations. OPP will be called to divert traffic if a potential risk to a public roadway is determined during this time.

Any damage to crops or property will be compensated.


Fire prevention and early detection measures reduce the risk and severity of fire on-‐site. Mitigation measures will contain a fire to the project lands and shield the public from risk.


June 2013 68

6. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MONITORING PLAN

The environmental effects monitoring plan for the Project has been designed to monitor implementation of the proposed protection and mitigation measures and to verify compliance of the Project with O. Reg. 359/09.

Environmental monitoring, which started with the collection of primary background data, will continue with appropriate follow-‐up activities during the operation of the Project. Monitoring will provide data on key functions of natural environment and socio-‐economic features that may be affected during construction or operation of the Project, and on the effectiveness of mitigation measures implemented as part of the Project. The monitoring procedures noted herein are linked to the potential effects and protection and mitigation measures discussed throughout Section 5.

Goals and Objectives

The goals of the monitoring plan are to:

• Minimize environmental effects from the Project during the operation phase;

• Minimize conflicts in the communities affected by the Project according to legal terms and to the Proponent’s policies;

• Avoid accidents and malfunctions;

• Minimize environmental effects on natural habitats, flora and fauna;

• Avoid levies or sanctions from relevant government agencies for negligent environmental performance;

• Comply with environmental quality standards set by law; and,

• Establish measures that enhance occupational safety.

Guiding Principles

The following guiding principles were considered in preparation of the monitoring plan:

• Focus upon environmental, health, and safety risk prevention;

• Conform to relevant standards, codes, and practices considered in the application of safe technologies;

• Perform all activities in a safe and effective manner, by trained personnel;


June 2013 69

• Maintain all equipment in good operating condition for protection of worker health and safety, conservation of the environment, and protection of property;

• Implement all necessary precautions to control, remove, or otherwise correct any health and safety hazards; and,

• Meet all relevant county, provincial, and federal standards that collectively ensure sufficient technical levels of safety during operation of the Project.

6.1. Environmental Management Systems

As part of the environmental monitoring objectives, several programs, plans, and procedures will be developed by the Proponent, the turbine manufacturer, and/or the operation and maintenance contractor. They will guide the operation of the Project to optimize its environmental performance. In order for the programs, plans, and procedures to be effective, appropriate management structures and contract documents must be firmly established.

6.1.1. Management Structures

The Proponent and/or the O&M Contractor will take steps to ensure that they have appropriately skilled personnel to carry out the environmental responsibilities as defined in this document. All organizations associated with Project development and operational activities will develop responsive reporting systems that clearly assign responsibility and accountability. As appropriate, the Proponent and/or the OMT will review these reporting documents.

6.1.2. Contract Documents

The Proponent is committed to operating the Project in an environmentally responsible manner and in compliance with all applicable environmental laws, regulations, and guidelines. All of the Proponent’s contractors and subcontractors will be accountable for actions that have an adverse effect on the environment. As such, any contract documents executed by the Proponent and/or the O&M Contractor will incorporate appropriate provisions from documents prepared for the REA application.

Additionally, all contractors, subcontractors, and other associates of the Project will follow the guiding principles of the monitoring program. These organizations will also comply with all relevant municipal, provincial, and federal legislation.

6.1.3. Change Management

During the operation of the Project, changes to operational plans may be required to address unforeseen or unexpected conditions or situations. The Proponent and/or the O&M Contractor will be responsible for ensuring environmental and safety issues are


June 2013 70

addressed for any such changes. The Proponent will undertake any significant changes to the Project programs, procedures and plans throughout the operation of the Project with the goal of avoiding or minimizing environmental effects.

6.2. Programs, Plans, and Procedures

As appropriate, the Proponent, and/or the O&M Contractor will implement the programs, plans, and procedures discussed below.

6.2.1. Operation and Maintenance Program

The operation and maintenance program, including turbine maintenance, is described in Section 3.

6.2.2. Environmental Procedures

The Proponent and/or the O&M Contractor will be responsible for implementing environmental procedures during the operation phase of the Project. Individual employee responsibilities will be assigned as necessary to support the full and effective implementation of the environmental procedures. As appropriate the environmental procedures will address the following issues to prevent environmental contamination and injury to personnel:

• Environmental calendar: to establish the specific dates and times for environmental inspections of turbine facilities, monitoring events, and emergency notifications;

• Spills and releases: to identify the specific procedures for the prevention, response, and notification of spills. In addition, establish the general procedures for spill clean-‐up, personnel training, and material handling and storage to prevent spills;

• Hazardous waste management: to outline the procedures for proper identification, storage, handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste. In addition, the procedures will outline specific requirements for personnel training, emergency response, product review and approval, and record keeping; and,

• Non-hazardous waste management: to establish alternative procedures for the management and disposal of used lubricants, used drums, and general waste.

These procedures will ensure internal and external risks are fully evaluated and the information communicated to personnel in advance of any accident or malfunction.

6.2.3. Occupational Health and Safety Procedures

The Proponent and/or the O&M Contractor will ensure employee health and safety is maintained throughout their employment term and will also implement the following safety procedures and protocols as appropriate in an effort to ensure employee safety is addressed throughout operation and maintenance activities:


June 2013 71

• Personal protective equipment, including non-‐slip footwear, eye protection, clothing, and hardhats, will be worn by operations and maintenance personnel when on duty;

• Elevated platforms, walkways, and ladders will be equipped with handrails, toe boards, and non-‐slip surfaces; and,

• Electrical equipment will be insulated and grounded in compliance with the appropriate electrical code.

Incidents in the work place have the potential to cause personal injury and property damage. As appropriate, the O&M Contractor will maintain a master Incident Report that documents illnesses and accidents. Incident reporting will follow the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

6.2.4. Training Program

As appropriate, the Proponent and/or the O&M Contractor will develop or have an existing operations training program to ensure personnel receive appropriate training in relation to operation and maintenance programs, environmental, health, and safety procedures, and the Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan. Training may include, but not be limited to, the following issues:

Facility Safety

• Accident reporting; • Chemical and hazardous materials handling; • Fall and arrest protection; • Eye, ear, head, hands, feet, and body protective equipment; • First aid training and equipment; • Equipment operation and hazards; • Fire prevention and response; • Lockout and tag out procedures; and, • Scaffolds and ladders.

Emergency Preparedness

• Fire preparedness and response; • Natural disasters (i.e., extreme weather events); • Hazardous materials and spill response; • Medical emergencies; and, • Rescue procedures.

6.2.5. Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan

As indicated in Section 4.1.2, an Emergency Response/Preparedness Plan will be drafted for the site in advance of construction and will cover all phases of the project. This process will be carried out in consultation with local emergency services, the EPC, and the OMT. Though a detailed and specific plan is not part of the REA process, a


June 2013 72

sample Emergency Preparedness/Response Plan template is included as Appendix E. This is a document in the public domain that a specific turbine manufacturer adapts to each site where their turbines will be operating.

6.2.6. Measurement of Performance

Once performance standards have been established and personnel have been trained (and are functional in procedural operations), the next step is to monitor the performance of the facility and individuals relative to the performance standards and programs.

Specific internal audits (e.g. management team and/or process team), and external audits against the plans, safety and environmental procedures, and other policies and procedures are all part of establishing performance standards necessary to minimize risks on a continuing basis.

As appropriate a formal audit program for the Project, with regard to loss control programs (i.e., health, safety, environment, and security) will be performed regularly.

6.3. Monitoring Requirements and Contingency Plans

Building upon the environmental management measures recommended to minimize potentially adverse effects, while enhancing the positive effects associated with the operation of the facility, the following operations monitoring and contingency planning program has been developed. The monitoring program is designed to allow the Proponent and/or the O&M Contractor to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the proposed management measures/mitigation measures and to verify compliance of the Project with O. Reg. 359/09.

The Proponent and/or the O&M Contractor will be the primary organization responsible for the implementation of the operational monitoring and contingency planning measures. Implementation of the measures will be undertaken consistent with the Proponent and/or the O&M Contractor standard environmental and engineering practices.

6.3.1. Terrestr ial Habitat and Signif icant Natural Features

Operational activities that have the potential to affect terrestrial flora and fauna include equipment operation and accidental spills and/or leaks. Stringent monitoring of operational activities is necessary to ensure terrestrial flora and fauna are protected.

As appropriate, records of vehicle maintenance will be retained and made available for periodic review by the Proponent and/or the O&M Contractor. All vehicles involved in maintenance activities must be maintained in good operating condition;


June 2013 73

all vehicles identified through the monitoring program that fail to meet the minimum emission standards will be repaired immediately or replaced as soon as practicable.

Monitoring will be required following the unlikely event of contamination from an accidental spill or leak (method for monitoring may be developed in consultation with the Spills Action Centre of the MOE). Contaminated soils will be removed and replaced as appropriate.

6.3.2. Birds and Bats

The project is located within an active agricultural landscape where there is little remnant natural habitat remaining. The focus of pre-‐construction monitoring was on breeding birds, migrating birds, wintering birds, migrating and resident bats, endangered species and significant wildlife habitat. Protocols were developed and vetted through the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR).

Some specific performance objectives were provided by the MNR and some pre-‐construction protocols were vetted through the agencies and a mutually agreed study plan was developed and implemented. Continuing consultation is maintained to ensure that professional overview of the project occurs and that adaptations can be made, if required. Pre-‐construction bird, bat and other wildlife monitoring data is included in the Natural Heritage Assessment Report.

The foremost important measure to minimize negative environmental effects was to choose a location that was unlikely to interfere with natural ecosystem functions and that was known to have limited sensitive ecosystem value such as endangered species, migration corridors or unique habitat elements. The Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm project area was screened, with the use of the Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, Christmas Bird Counts, the Breeding Bird Survey, and other sources that provided baseline historical information. This screening process was followed by scientifically designed field surveys that were tailored to provide detailed data on potentially sensitive features identified in the screening process. Comments and suggestions from EC and MNR were also incorporated into the study protocols.

The results of all aspects of the field program support the initial screening conclusion that the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm is unlikely to cause significant impact to natural heritage features. The area was shown to have few sensitive species. Indeed, all species documented are those that are well adapted to the highly disturbed habitats of this agricultural area. The area was shown to not be one of concentrated migration movements during the fall period, a period when there is most concern for migrating birds. The winter landscape was shown to be one of low diversity of species and not likely to result in significant harm to any bird species. Bat diversity was found to be relatively low. Both RADAR and acoustical surveys show that the project area is not a


June 2013 74

concentration area for either migrating or breeding bats and that there are no known bat hibernacula areas nearby.

A detailed Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan for wildlife is provided in Appendix F. A post-‐construction monitoring program has been developed for birds and bats that is consistent with guidelines provided by regulatory agencies at the time of writing. The plan gives consideration to adaptive management and operational control options. Elements of the bird and bat post-‐construction monitoring program include:

• Bird and bat mortality monitoring at all wind turbines will be conducted twice-‐weekly (3-‐4 day intervals) at all turbines from May 1 -‐ October 31 and once-‐weekly from November 1 -‐ November 30 for three years following start of operations.

• Searcher efficiency and carcass removal trials will be conducted seasonally (spring, summer, and fall) between May 1 -‐ October 31, and repeated for each searcher. Searcher efficiency and carcass removal rates are known to be more variable for bats than for birds throughout the year and depending on habitat (in part due to the relative size of the species). Data from these trials will be used to provide corrected mortality rate estimates as per standard guideline methods.

• Reports will be prepared at the end of each year of the program and submitted to the MNR within 3 months of the end of fall monitoring. Mortality frequency will be reported as per the recommendations in the MNR guideline documents, and will, in the end, be expressed as birds or bats per turbine per year, corrected for the effect of scavenger rates and searcher efficiency.

• Should significant mortality events be detected during the program, MNR will be notified. Such an event will be considered to be ten bats or ten bird mortalities detected during any single day of searching (or as otherwise defined by MNR).

• If required, mitigation techniques may include (but not limited to) operational controls, such as periodic shut-‐down and/or blade feathering (if annual mortality levels exceed MNR thresholds). Results will be reviewed by the Proponent, MNR and other relevant agencies to determine if and when additional monitoring and/or mitigation are required.

6.3.3. Signif icant Wildl i fe Habitat

A detailed Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan (EEMP) for significant wildlife habitats identified within the Zone of Investigation is provided in Appendix F.


June 2013 75

Should additional pre-‐construction surveys identify significant wildlife habitat in the Project Area, post-‐construction disturbance monitoring programs have been developed for those potential Significant Wildlife Habitats identified for Amphibian Breeding Wildlife Habitat and Bat Maternity Colonies.

Amphibian Breeding Habitat will require one year of post-‐construction monitoring as outlined in the EEMP. This involves Call Counts for anuran (frog/toad) species at the identifies habitat. Further details can be found in the EEMP in Appendix F.

Bat Maternity Colonies will require three years of exit surveys at significant bat maternity roosts to determine the impact of wind turbine operation on the use of maternity roosts. Further details can be found in the EEMP in Appendix F.

6.3.4. Surface Water Features and Aquatic Habitat

Operation activities that have the potential to affect aquatic habitat includes accidental spills and/or leaks. Proper storage of materials (e.g. maintenance fluids) at off-‐site storage containers will greatly reduce the potential for accidental spills and/or leaks. Appropriate remedial measures may be completed as necessary and additional follow-‐up monitoring conducted as appropriate in the event of an accidental spill and/or leak. The level of monitoring and reporting will be based on the severity of the spill/leak and may be discussed with the MOE (Spills Action Centre) and MNR. Environmental inspection following spring run-‐off the year after construction (first year of operation) may be considered to ensure surface drainage has been maintained.

6.3.5. Environmental Noise and Public Health and Safety

The Project will follow the guidelines put in place by the MOE regarding sound levels and minimum distances for wind projects in Ontario. The key consideration is the sound level. The requirements, supported by information from the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, Health Canada, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Europe and upheld by Ontario courts, ensure a project must be sited at least 550 m from non-‐participating receptors, provided the cumulative sound level at the receptor does not exceed thresholds established by the MOE. Siemens has guaranteed the maximum sound power level from the turbines. This level has been used in calculations to ensure the sound level at non-‐participating receptors meets the requirements of the Regulation.

The Environmental Protection Act (EPA) requires that noise emissions for any new project must not have adverse effects on the natural environment. The REA process is the mechanism through which the controls are administered under the EPA, and the Proponent commits to comply with any conditions and requirements for the approval, as directed by the MOE. In the event of a malfunctioning turbine resulting in noise emissions that are above MOE requirements, the Proponent will contact the MOE to


June 2013 76

determine the best path forward for resolving the issue. The resolution of the issue could include shutting down or reducing the nameplate capacity of the non-‐compliant turbine(s) until the problem is resolved. Routine turbine maintenance and electronic monitoring will also help minimize the likelihood of malfunctioning turbines resulting in excessive noise emissions.

Turbines will be monitored electronically twenty-‐four hours a day, seven days a week, to allow operational changes to be noted and assessed quickly. Turbine shut down will occur automatically upon detection of extreme weather. Inspections of turbines will occur after extreme weather events.

6.4. Community Relations

6.4.1. Local Expenditures

As was the case during the construction phase, the Proponent will continue to encourage the use and procurement of local goods and services where they are available in sufficient quantities and qualities and at competitive pricing.

6.4.2. Community Benefit Fund Committee

The Proponent has committed to providing a $25,000 annual community benefit fund, to be administered by an open and local committee comprised of local citizens. The proposed structure is to have the committee recommend annual funding allocation(s) to initiatives that have accessible benefit to the wider community, and present the recommendation to the Proponent for sign-‐off. Consultation to date has identified the park and playground at the corner of Curries Rd and Hwy 59 and the community centre in Oxford Centre as potential recipients.

6.4.3. Community Complaints

Avenues for the community to contact the Proponent, including with any complaints have been presented in Sections 4.4.2 and 5.5.3.