FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. Hardscrabble Wind Power Project Towns of Fairfield, Norway and Little Falls, Herkimer County, New York

Transcription

1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE Hardscrabble Wind Power Project Towns of Fairfield, Norway and Little Falls, Herkimer County, New York Lead Agency: Town of Fairfield Town Board 439 Kelly Road Little Falls, New York Contact: Bernard Melewski, Special Counsel Phone: (518) Consultants to the Lead Agency: The LA Group 40 Long Alley Saratoga Springs, NY Contact: Dean R. Long Phone: (518) Applicant: Atlantic Wind, LLC c/o Iberdrola Renewables 7557 S. State St. Suite 201 Lowville, New York Contact: Neil Habig, Project Developer Phone: (609) Prepared By: Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Environmental Services, Engineering and Surveying, P.C. (EDR) 217 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000 Syracuse, New York Contact: Ben Brazell, Project Manager Phone: (315) Date DEIS Accepted by Lead Agency: June 12, 2006 DEIS Public Comment Period: June 19, 2006 through July 31, 2006 Date SDEIS Accepted by Lead Agency: June 11, 2009 SDEIS Public Comment Period: June 11, 2009 through July 24, 2009 Date FEIS Accepted by Lead Agency: December 14, 2009

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION SUMMARY OF SEQRA PROCESS SUMMARY OF THE DEIS SUMMARY OF THE SDEIS REVISIONS TO THE DEIS/SDEIS CHANGES TO THE PROJECT LAYOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Component Specifications Decommissioning Supplement to the Joint Application for Permit Invasive Species Control Plan Raptors Cultural Resources Visual Resources Shadow Flicker Sound CORRECTIONS TO THE DEIS AND SDEIS RESPONSE TO SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS RESPONSE TO SDEIS COMMENTS RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS REFERENCES LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Potential Impacts Identified in the DEIS... 4 Table 2. Changes to Anticipated Impact Quantities Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. LIST OF FIGURES Project Modifications Revised Project Area Revised Project Layout Revised Surface Waters Revised NYSDEC Wetlands Revised Vegetative Communities Revised Area Emergency Services Revised Microwave Path Analysis Revised Land Use Revised Agricultural Districts Zoning ii

3 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I Appendix J Appendix K Appendix L Appendix M Appendix N Appendix O Appendix P Appendix Q Appendix R Appendix S Appendix T Appendix U Appendix V LIST OF APPENDICES Gamesa G MW brochure Substation Drawings Substation Tie-In Concept Plan Decommissioning Plan Joint Application for Permit Supplement to the Joint Application for Permit NYSDEC Notice of Complete Application Legal Notice of Complete Application Invasive Species Control Plan NYSDEC Correspondence regarding Avian/Bat Impacts Memorandum on Golden Eagle Flight Patterns Addendum #3 to the Archaeological and Historic Architectural Investigations OPRHP Correspondence MOA for Mitigation of Adverse Impacts on Historic Properties Memorandum on Potential Visibility from the Herkimer House Property Addendum to the Supplemental Visual Impact Assessment Revised VIA Appendix C Revised SVIA Figure 8 Demonstration of Simulation Accuracy, Maple Ridge Wind Farm Shadow Impact Assessment Supplemental Acoustical Analysis Iroquois Gas Correspondence Specification for Electrical Installation Testimony regarding Health Effects Avian Impacts Paper Revised Wildlife Species List Property Value Impacts Paper Proposed FAA Lighting Plan 2007 FAA Obstruction Marking and Lighting Advisory Circular Global Energy Concepts Public Health and Safety Report Video Documentation of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm SDEIS Written Comments SDEIS Public Hearing Transcript DEIS Written Comments DEIS Public Hearing Transcript iii

4 COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BBA Breeding Bird Atlas (New York State) BMP Best Management Practice Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dba decibels, A-rated DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement EAF Environmental Assessment Form EDR Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Planning, Environmental Services, Engineering and Surveying, P.C. FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEIS GIS geographic information system HMANA Hawk Migration Association of North America ISCP Invasive Species Control Plan kv kilovolt kw kilowatt KWh Kilowatt-hours MW megawatt NYISO New York Independent Service Operator NYCRR Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York NYS New York State NYSA&M New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDOH New York State Department of Health NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority O&M Operations and Maintenance OPRHP New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation PILOT payment in lieu of tax PCI Panamerican Consultants, Inc. PSC New York State Public Service Commission SDEIS Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act SHPO New York State Historic Preservation Office SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure iv

5 SPDES SVIA SWPPP USDA USDOE USFWS USGS VIA State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Supplemental Visual Impact Assessment Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Visual Impact Assessment v

6 1.0 INTRODUCTION This (FEIS) for the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project (the Project) is prepared pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and its implementing regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 617. This document is preceded by a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and a Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS), both of which are incorporated herein by reference. The SDEIS built upon the DEIS, providing additional information and addressing changes to the Project that occurred after the DEIS was accepted as complete and released for public comment. Although 10 turbines have been microsited to accommodate engineering concerns (see Section 2.1 of this FEIS), there have been no additional substantive changes to the proposed Project, therefore the Project remains a 37 turbine/74 megawatt (MW) commercial wind power project, as described in the SDEIS. Information presented in the SDEIS in terms of the Project layout, existing conditions, and associated impacts supercedes that presented in the DEIS, and information presented in the FEIS supercedes both the DEIS and the SDEIS. However, this FEIS does not, in general, reiterate information that remains accurate and unchanged from the SDEIS/DEIS. The purpose of these three documents (collectively referred to as the EIS Record ) is to identify and evaluate the potential significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project and, where applicable, to identify reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce the effect of those impacts to the maximum extent practicable, while weighing the social and economic considerations of the Project. 1.1 SUMMARY OF SEQRA PROCESS On January 23, 2006 Atlantic Wind, LLC, a wholly owned for-profit subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables (formerly PPM Energy) (hereafter referred to as the Project Sponsor), submitted a Wind Energy Facilities permit and a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) addressing the proposed Project. The formal submittal of this discretionary permit application to the Town of Fairfield Town Board (pursuant to Local Law No. 1 of 2006) initiated the SEQRA process for the subject action. In February of 2006, a solicitation of Lead Agency status was forwarded to involved SEQRA agencies by the Fairfield Town Board, along with a copy of the EAF document. No agency objected to the Town Board assuming the role of Lead Agency. On April 10, 2006 the Fairfield Town Board, as Lead Agency, issued a Positive Declaration, requiring the preparation of the DEIS, which was accepted as complete by the Lead Agency on June 12, Copies of the DEIS were subsequently delivered to involved/interested agencies and posted to a wesbsite (for public access) managed by the Project Sponsor. Digital versions (i.e., compact discs) of the DEIS were also provided to individuals upon request. Opportunities for detailed agency and public review were 1

7 provided during the DEIS public comment period (June 19 through July 31, 2006). A public hearing was also conducted by the Lead Agency on July 11, In order to address changes made to the project layout, present further support studies, and to provide additional detail to the public regarding the proposed Project, a SDEIS was prepared, which was accepted as complete by the Lead Agency on June 11, Copies of the SDEIS were subsequently delivered to involved/interested agencies, and a digital version of the document was posted to a publicly accessible website managed by The Project Sponsor ( Comments from interested agencies and the public were accepted from June 15, 2009 through July 24, A public hearing was conducted by the Lead Agency on June 30, Following closure of the public comment period, this FEIS was prepared and submitted to the Lead Agency. The FEIS includes a responsiveness summary (Section 4.0) to address all substantive comments received on the DEIS and the SDEIS during the public comment period. The following are the next steps in the SEQRA process for the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project: Notice of Completion of FEIS issued by Lead Agency. Distribution of FEIS (and a copy of the Notice of Completion) to the involved/interested agencies, and posting FEIS to publicly assessable website. 10-day minimum consideration period. Lead Agency issues Findings Statement, completing the SEQRA process. Involved agencies issue Findings Statements (prior to issuance of their respective discretionary permits). 1.2 SUMMARY OF THE DEIS At the time the DEIS was prepared, the Project was proposed to consist of 61 wind turbines, three meteorological towers, a system of gravel access roads, buried electrical interconnect lines, an overhead interconnect line, a collection station, an interconnection substation, and an operations and maintenance building (O&M facility). The wind turbine proposed was the GE 1.5 MW SLE, and the Project was proposed to be developed on approximately 5,865 acres of leased private land. Construction was anticipated to commence in the spring of 2007 and to finish by December 31, The Project was anticipated to employ approximately six operations and maintenance personnel. 2

8 Various plans and support studies were prepared and included in the DEIS, which provided detailed information on discrete topical areas in furtherance of the SEQRA evaluation. These studies included the following: Phase IA Cultural Resources Investigation Groundwater Assessment Transportation Assessment Vegetation and Wildlife Species List Breeding Bird Survey Phase I Avian Risk Assessment Spring 2005 Radar Study of Bird and Bat Migration Summer and Fall 2005 Radar and Acoustic Study of Bird and Bat Migration Licensed Microwave Search & Worst Case Fresnel Zone Off-Air Television Reception Analysis Visual Impact Assessment Shadow Impact Analysis Acoustic Assessment Agricultural Protection Guidelines In addition to providing a project description (Section 2.3) and summary of the regulatory process to date (Section 2.10), the DEIS presented the purpose, need and benefit of the proposed Project (Section 2.4), a discussion of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures (Section 3.0), unavoidable adverse impacts (Section 4.0), Project alternatives (Section 5.0), commitment of resources (Section 6.0), growth inducing impacts (Section 7.0), cumulative impacts (Section 8.0), and Project effects on the use and conservation of energy resources (Section 9.0). See the DEIS for a full discussion of these topics. A summary of the impacts and mitigation presented in the DEIS are given below. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation In accordance with requirements of the SEQRA process, potential impacts arising from the proposed action were identified early in the application process and were evaluated in the DEIS with respect to an array of environmental and cultural resources. The identified potential impacts are summarized in Table 1 below: 3

9 Table 1: Summary of Potential Impacts Identified in the DEIS Environmental Factor Potential Impacts Physiography, Geology, and Soils Water Resources Biological Resources Climate and Air Quality Aesthetic/Visual Resources Cultural Resources Sound Transportation Socioeconomic Public Safety Communication Facilities Community Facilities and Services Land Use and Zoning Soil disturbance Soil erosion Soil compaction Loss of agricultural land Temporary disturbance Siltation/sedimentation Stream crossings Wetland filling Vegetation clearing/disturbance Incidental wildlife injury and mortality Loss or alteration of habitat Construction vehicle emissions Dust during construction Reduced air pollutants and greenhouse gases Visual change to the landscape Visual impact on sensitive sites/viewers Shadow-flicker impact on adjacent residents Visual impacts on architectural resources Disturbance of archaeological resources Construction noise Operational impacts on adjacent residents Road wear/damage Traffic congestion/delays Road system improvements/upgrades Host communities payment/pilot Revenue to participating landowners Expenditures on goods and services Tourism Short-term and long-term employment Construction concerns related to large equipment, falling objects, open excavations, electrocution Possible ice shedding concerns Project components catching fire Temporary interference to communication signals Degraded reception to off-air television signals Demands on police and emergency services Relocated utility distribution lines and poles Adverse and beneficial impacts on farming Changes in community character and land use trends 4

10 The Executive Summary of the DEIS summarizes anticipated Project impacts in the following way: Construction of the Project will result in disturbance of up to 337 acres of soil and 408 acres of vegetation, most of which is in agricultural fields. In addition, approximately 60 acres of forest and 7.2 acres of wetland could be disturbed by Project construction. However, most of this disturbance will be temporary. A total of approximately 36 acres of agricultural land will be converted to non-agricultural use/built facilities (e.g., roads, turbines, substation, etc.), and a total of approximately 7 acres of forest will be converted to built facilities. Permanent wetland impacts are estimated to be approximately 0.3 acre. Project construction will also result in some level of temporary disturbance and congestion on area roadways. Project operation is expected to result in some level of avian and bat collision mortality. Based on data from other comparable sites, bird mortality is expected to be in the range of 0 to 7 birds per turbine per year. The turbines will be visible from many locations within the surrounding area, but will also be fully or partially screened from viewers in many locations (e.g., most of the City of Little Falls). The turbines will result in a perceived change in land use from some locations, but may actually help keep land in active agricultural use by supplementing farmer's income. Predicted noise and shadow flicker impacts are modest. Only 9 receptors have the potential to experience over 25 hours of shadow flicker annually, and turbine-related sound is not predicted to exceed 50 decibels at adjacent residences. The Project is expected to generate approximately $636,000 per year ($12.7 million over 20 years) in PILOT revenues to local taxing jurisdictions, while requiring very little in terms of municipal services. The DEIS proposes various measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate potential environmental impacts. General mitigation measures include adhering to requirements of various local, state, and federal ordinances and regulations and entering into development agreements with adjacent landowners. The Project Sponsor will also employ environmental monitors to assure compliance with permit requirements and environmental protection commitments during construction. The proposed Project will result in significant environmental and economic benefits to the area. These benefits also serve to mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts associated with Project construction and operation. The DEIS addresses the following specific measures designed to mitigate or avoid adverse potential environmental impacts during Project construction or operation: 5

11 Siting the Project away from population centers and areas of residential development. Siting turbines primarily in open field areas to minimize required clearing of mature forest land to the extent practicable. Siting turbines and access roads so as to avoid impacts to wetlands and streams. Keeping turbines a minimum of 1,250 feet from nonparticipating residences to minimize noise, shadow flicker, and public safety concerns. Using existing farm/logging roads for turbine access whenever possible to minimize disturbance to agricultural land. Utilizing construction techniques that minimize disturbance to vegetation, streams, and wetlands. Implementing agricultural protection measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on agricultural land and farm operations. Limiting turbine lighting to the minimum allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to reduce nighttime visual impacts, and following lighting guidelines to reduce the potential for bird and bat collisions. Developing and implementing various plans to minimize adverse impacts to air, soil, and water resources, including a dust control plan, sediment and erosion control plan, and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan. Entering into a PILOT agreement with the local taxing jurisdictions to provide a significant predictable level of funding for the town, county, and school districts over the first 20 years of the Project's operations. Development of an emergency response plan with local first responders. 1.3 SUMMARY OF THE SDEIS The SDEIS addressed all Project modifications that occurred between the time the DEIS was prepared and the time the SDEIS was prepared. It also included new support studies that became available during that time frame. In addition, the SDEIS addressed several issues raised in the public/agency comments received on the DEIS, although it did not include a comprehensive responsiveness summary, which is found in Section 4.0 of this FEIS. As mentioned previously, the Project was originally proposed to include approximately 61 wind turbines, each with a generating capacity of 1.5 MW. However, due to evolving wind turbine technology, more sophisticated wind resource analysis tools, detailed constructability evaluations, and shifting landowner participation, a total of 24 wind turbines were removed from the layout. 6

12 Therefore, the Project was (and is) proposed to include a total of MW wind turbines with a nameplate generating capacity of 74 MW, two 77-meter meteorological towers, an O&M Facility building, a system of gravel access roads, buried and above-ground electrical interconnect, and an interconnection facility (collection substation and interconnection station) to be built adjacent to an existing 115 kv transmission line. Additionally, preliminary engineering on the generating site and further development of the proposed electrical interconnection route was completed. This expanded the Project site and the area of land/landowners involved in the Project. The size of the Project Site increased from approximately 5,865 acres to 6,550 acres of land. The increase in the size of the Project Site was primarily due to changes in the electrical interconnect layout, which resulted in the addition of a sizeable land parcel into the Project Site. The larger Project Area and revised/refined layout of Project components required revision of several support studies and re-evaluation of potential Project impacts. Studies conducted in support of the SDEIS included the following: Revised Route Evaluation Study and Culvert Inventory Blasting Document and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Wetland Delineation Report and Addendum Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan Fall 2006 Raptor Migration Study Supplemental Visual Impact Assessment Shadow Impact Assessment Phase 1B Cultural Resources Investigation Historic Building Survey Updated Noise Analysis Community Relations Plan Environmental Compliance Program In addition to providing an updated project description (Section 2.3) and summary of the regulatory process to date (Section 2.10), the SDEIS reviewed the purpose, need and benefit of the proposed Project (Section 2.4), addressed revised potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures (Section 3.0), and reviewed unavoidable adverse impacts (Section 4.0), Project alternatives (Section 5.0), commitment of resources (Section 6.0), growth inducing impacts (Section 7

13 7.0), cumulative impacts (Section 8.0), and Project effects on the use and conservation of energy resources (Section 9.0). See the SDEIS for a full discussion of these topics. A summary of the impacts and mitigation presented in the SDEIS is presented below. Summary of Revised Impacts and Mitigation Potential impacts to environmental and cultural resources discussed in the DEIS were revisited in the SDEIS in light of revisions to the Project layout that occurred and new information that resulted from the aforementioned support studies. The Executive Summary of the SDEIS summarizes anticipated Project impacts in the following way: Construction of the Project will result in disturbance of up to 243 acres of soil and acres of vegetation (much of which is in agricultural fields). This construction disturbance includes approximately 56.5 acres of forest and 3.59 acres of wetland impact. However, most of this disturbance will be temporary. A total of approximately 35 acres of agricultural land will be converted to non-agricultural use/built facilities (e.g., roads, turbines, substation, etc.), and a total of approximately 7.5 acres of forest will be converted to built facilities. Permanent wetland impacts are estimated to be approximately 0.46 acre. Project construction will also result in some level of temporary disturbance and congestion on area roadways. Project operation is expected to result in some level of avian and bat collision mortality. Based on data from other comparable sites, bird mortality is expected to be in the range of 0 to 7 birds per turbine per year, while bat mortality is expected to range from 0 to 19 bats per turbine per year. The turbines will be visible from many locations within the surrounding area, but will also be fully or partially screened from viewers in many locations (e.g., most of the City of Little Falls). The turbines will result in a perceived change in land use from some locations, but may actually help keep land in active agricultural use by supplementing farmer's income. Predicted noise and shadow flicker impacts are modest. No receptors are anticipated to experience more than 30 hours of shadow flicker annually and turbine-related sound is not predicted to exceed 50 decibels at any adjacent residences. The Project is expected to generate approximately $592,000 per year ($11.8 million over 20 years) in PILOT revenues to local taxing jurisdictions, while requiring very little in terms of municipal services. As in the DEIS, the SDEIS addresses various measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate potential environmental impacts. General mitigation measures include adhering to 8

14 requirements of various local, state, and federal ordinances and regulations, and employment environmental monitors to assure compliance with permit requirements and environmental protection commitments during construction. As previously mentioned, the proposed Project will result in significant environmental and economic benefits to the area. These benefits also serve to mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts associated with Project construction and operation. The SDEIS addresses the following specific measures designed to mitigate or avoid adverse potential environmental impacts during Project construction or operation: Siting the Project away from population centers and areas of residential development. Siting turbines primarily in open field areas to minimize required clearing of mature forest land to the extent practicable. Using existing farm/logging roads for turbine access whenever possible to minimize disturbance to agricultural land and forested areas. Implementing agricultural protection measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on agricultural land and farm operations. Siting turbines and access roads so as to minimize or avoid impacts to wetlands and streams. Utilizing construction techniques that minimize disturbance to vegetation, streams, and wetlands. Developing and implementing various plans to minimize adverse impacts to air, soil, and water resources, including a dust control standards, sediment and erosion control plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan. Committing to post-construction monitoring studies to quantify impacts to birds and bats Keeping turbines a minimum of 1,250 feet from nonparticipating residences to minimize noise, shadow flicker, and public safety concerns. Establishing a Community Relations Plan, which includes a Complaint Resolution Process Development of an emergency response plan with local first responders. Limiting turbine lighting to the minimum allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to reduce nighttime visual impacts, and following lighting guidelines to reduce the potential for bird and bat collisions. Documenting pre-existing roadway and culvert conditions and committing to returning them to pre-existing conditions or better. 9

15 Establishing Historic Resources Funds in the Towns of Fairfield and Norway as offset mitigation for visual effects to Historic structures/properties. Entering into a PILOT agreement with the local taxing jurisdictions to provide a significant predictable level of funding for the towns, county, and school districts over the first 20 years of Project operation. 10

16 2.0 REVISIONS TO THE DEIS/SDEIS The FEIS builds upon the DEIS and SDEIS, providing additional information and addressing minor Project changes that occurred after the SDEIS was accepted as complete and released for public comment. 2.1 CHANGES TO THE PROJECT LAYOUT Since the time that the SDEIS was released, a few minor adjustments to the Project layout have occurred. The adjustments are limited to access road and electrical interconnect alignments, and minor adjustments to 10 of the 37 turbine locations (shifts ranging from 28 to 338 feet). These modifications were incorporated as a result of detailed on-site engineering analyses, and suggestions made by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSA&M) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) during site visits on July 7, July 22 and August 6, The NYSA&M suggested changes were reviewed by Project engineers, and those changes that were deemed feasible from an engineering perspective have been incorporated into the layout, and have further reduced impacts to agricultural land and farming practices. The NYSDEC required changes have been incorporated to further reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources, specifically surface waters. The minor adjustments are listed below and displayed in Figure 1, which compares the SDEIS layout to the current Project layout. Further, all SDEIS figures that displayed the Project layout or Project site have been revised to reflect the modifications discussed below, and are attached to this FEIS (Figures 2-10). Turbines DK1, DK2, FK1, HR2, MH1, MH2, SC1, SC8, WM2, and WM3 have been shifted/refined for reasons including constructability, Town setback requirements, SHPO setback requirements, and to accommodate a shift of an adjacent turbine. Specifically, the following refinements are incorporated into this FEIS: o Turbine DK1 shifted 49 feet to the south o Turbine DK2 shifted 102 feet to the south o Turbine FK1 shifted 117 feet to the west o Turbine HR2 shifted 28 feet to the west o Turbine MH1 shifted 338 feet to the northwest o Turbine MH2 shifted 257 feet to the north o Turbine SC1 shifted 48 feet to the southwest o Turbine SC8 shifted 201 feet to the southeast 11

17 o Turbine WM2 shifted 166 feet to the northwest o Turbine WM3 shifted 77 feet to the northwest The access road to Turbines MH1 and MH2 have been adjusted to account for the minor turbine shifts and to avoid potential interference with future access to a 1.0 acre, state-owned parcel (if the state determines future access is desired/necessary). The access road from Snyder Road leading to Turbine SC3 has been removed, due to landowner preferences. Instead, access to turbines in this area will be provided through a newly proposed access route off Observatory Road leading to Turbine MH1. The access road leading to Turbines SC3 and SC4 has been modified so as to minimize the impact to the landowner's agricultural fields and farming practices, as suggested by the NYSA&M. This modification will be implemented in order to avoid isolating a portion of productive agricultural land. The access road leading to Turbines SC7 and SC8 has been adjusted to account for engineering considerations. To account for engineering considerations, the access road off of Castle Road to Turbines DK1, DK2, and DK3 has been shifted south, and will approach Turbine DK3 rather than DK1. The access road off of State Route 170 to Turbine FK1 has been modified slightly so as to minimize impacts to the buffer of NYSDEC Wetland HR-3 (EDR Delineated Wetland ID GG ) and limit the amount of required tree clearing. The access road to Turbine SS3 has been adjusted to account for engineering considerations. The buried interconnect east of Turbine LP1 has been adjusted to account for engineering considerations. One additional short span of overhead electrical interconnect line has been added to the Project layout. The additional span will cross a stream (EDR delineated wetland/stream 10N), and will be located between the previously proposed overhead line sections on the 12

18 City of Little Falls property, between Military and Castle Roads. This short section of overhead line will lessen the impacts to an ecologically sensitive resource (NYSDEC classified AA(T) stream). The change from trenching through the stream to an overhead line span has been implemented based upon the requirements of NYSDEC personnel after two site visits (July 22 and August 6, 2009). One parcel has been removed from the Project Area, reducing the total size to approximately 6,540 acres (See Section 3.0 for further information). Crane turn-around areas have been added to the access roads near a number of turbine locations, where necessary to accommodate cranes exiting the turbine work spaces. As a result of these minor changes in Project layout, the acreages of impact to soils, vegetation, and land use have changed slightly from what was presented in the SDEIS as shown in Table 2. The impact acreages listed in Table 2 under the heading FEIS are the currently anticipated impacts and supercede those reported in the SDEIS. Table 2. Changes to Anticipated Impact Quantities Resource Total Disturbance (Acres) Converted to Built Facilities (Acres) Temporary Disturbance (Acres) SDEIS FEIS SDEIS FEIS SDEIS FEIS Soils Disturbance to Soils Vegetative Communities Forest Successional Old Field Successional Shrubland Agricultural Land Disturbed/Developed Total Disturbance to Vegetation Land Use Agriculture Residential Vacant Land <0.5 < <0.5 <0.5 Forested Public Services Total Disturbance to Land Uses FEIS forest disturbance (57 acres) consists of 9 acres converted to built facilities, 20.5 acres of actively maintained successional communities, and 27.5 acres of regenerating forest. 13

19 As shown in Table 2, anticipated impact acreages have increased slightly for nearly all resources quantified. This is primarily the result of the addition of the previously mentioned crane turn-around areas, which increased the overall length of proposed access roads. 2.2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This section provides an overview of additional information that will further enable the Lead Agency to make the necessary findings under SEQRA Component Specifications In response to comments submitted by the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) during the SDEIS public comment period, additional information regarding specifications of the Gamesa G MW wind turbine and the proposed substation is presented in Appendix A of this FEIS. The brochure provided on the G90 wind turbine includes specifications on the rotor, blades, tower, gearbox and generator, in addition to describing the turbine s mechanical design, brakes, lightning protection, control system, predictive maintenance system, noise control, and grid connection. The brochure also includes a diagram identifying components of the nacelle and rotor as well as a power curve and table displaying power produced at various wind speeds. Substation drawings provided include an electrical arrangement plan view, elevation, site plan, and access road plan view drawings. Substation security fencing details including corner bracing, typical gates and security signage are also provided. Additional detail has also been provided regarding the interconnection from the Project substation to the existing 115 kv transmission line (see Appendix A) Decommissioning The Project Sponsor has prepared a Decommissioning Plan, consistent with the local law in the towns of Fairfield and Norway (see Appendix B of this FEIS). The plan addresses the cost of decommissioning, establishment of the Decommissioning Fund, the decommissioning process, and site restoration activities. The Decommissioning Plan states that the cost of decommissioning will be established by a certified Professional Engineer, net of Project salvage value at the time of review, and the cost will be adjusted bi-annually to account for price level changes. The Decommissioning Fund will be equal to the cost of decommissioning net of salvage value and will be funded initially with a Letter of Credit or 14

20 other appropriate financial security. The host towns will be entitiled to draw on the Decommissioning Fund in the event that the Project Sponsor is unable or unwilling to commence decommissioning activities within a reasonable period of time (not to exceed twelve months after the notice of termination of commercial operations from the Project Sponsor or to exceed 18 months after project abandonment in the absence of notice from the Project Sponsor). The Decommissioning Fund will be established prior to commencement of commercial operation and will be adjusted commensurate with changes in the estimated cost of decommissioning. Decommissioning and restoration activities will adhere to the requirements of appropriate governing authorities and will be in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local permits, if any are required. The decommissioning and restoration process comprises removal of above-ground structures, removal of below-ground structures to a depth of 36 inches, restoration of topsoil, and seeding. The process of removing structures involves evaluating and categorizing all components and materials into categories of recondition and reuse, salvage, recycling and disposal. In the interest of increased efficiency and minimal transportation impacts, components and material may be stored on-site in a pre-approved location until the bulk of similar components or materials are ready for transport. The components and material will be transported to the appropriate facilities for reconditioning, salvage, recycling, or disposal. Specific activities associated with the removal of turbines, turbine and substation foundations, underground collection cables, overhead collection lines, substation and interconnection facilities, access roads, and construction pads are described in Appendix B. Topsoil will be removed prior to the removal of structures from all work areas and stockpiled, clearly designated, and separated from other excavated material. Following decommissioning activities, the sub-grade material and topsoil from affected areas will be de-compacted and restored to a density and depth consistent with the surrounding areas to a maximum depth of 18 inches. The affected areas will be inspected, thoroughly cleaned, and all construction-related debris removed. Disturbed areas will be reseeded to promote re-vegetation of the area to a condition reasonably similar to original condition, reasonable wear and tear expected. In all areas restoration shall include, as reasonably required, leveling, terracing, mulching, and other necessary steps to prevent soil erosion, to ensure establishment of suitable grasses and forbs, and to control noxious weeds and pests. 15

21 2.2.3 Supplement to the Joint Application for Permit On June 5, 2009, the Project Sponsor submitted a Joint Application for Permit to the NYSDEC and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to request authorization to undertake Projectrelated activities that would affect wetlands (as described in Section 3.2 of the SDEIS). The NYSDEC subsequently requested supplemental information/clarification of application materials, which were provided on August 12, Materials provided in the supplement included revised Joint Application for Permit figures (to reflect NYSDEC-required changes), information regarding the use of temporary wooden construction mats, and a summary table of NYSDEC-regulated Project activities. A copy of the Supplement to the Joint application for Permit is included as Appendix C of the FEIS. Following receipt of the supplemental information, the NYSDEC issued a Notice of Complete Application on August 14, 2009 (see Appendix C of this FEIS) and initiated a 90-day technical review period. A copy of the NYSDEC s Notice of Completion was published in the Little Falls Evening Times on August 27, 2009, which indicated the public s opportunity to comment on the Joint Application for Permit (see Appendix C of this FEIS for proof of legal notice) Invasive Species Control Plan An Invasive Species Control Plan (ISCP) was created in support of the Joint Application for Permit, and is included as Appendix D to this FEIS. This plan proposes the following four measures to control the spread of invasive species within federal and NYSDEC regulated wetlands, streams, and riparian areas; 1) construction materials inspection, 2) target species treatment and removal, 3) construction equipment sanitation, and 4) restoration. It is proposed that success of the ISCP will be monitored for a two-year period through visual inspection of disturbed regulated areas during the growing season and results will be reported in an annual monitoring report Raptors As indicated in the DEIS, all site-specific avian and bat study protocols were developed through consultation with NYSDEC personnel and ultimately approved as acceptable protocol during a meeting held March 22, However, during the DEIS public comment period NYSDEC personnel requested that additional avian studies be conducted within the Project Area, specifically related to raptor migration. The NYSDEC suggested that migrants moving toward the Franklin Mountain Hawk Watch (located 50 miles directly south of the Project Site) may pass through the Project Site and expressed particular concern about golden eagles because they are listed as endangered in New York State and are relatively common at Franklin Mountain during fall migration. 16

22 In order to accommodate this request, Curry & Kerlinger, LLC (Curry & Kerlinger) and the Project Sponsor developed protocols for study methodology and data analysis for a fall raptor migration study and provided this information to the NYSDEC for review and approval (see correspondence dated October 13, 2006 provided in Appendix E). correspondence from the NYSDEC on October 24, 2006, indicated that the submitted study protocol was acceptable with the incorporation of five minor changes (see Appendix E). These suggested changes were incorporated into the study protocol and the study was performed in the fall of 2006 as described in the Raptor Migration Study provided as Appendix I of the SDEIS. However, during the public comment period for the SDEIS, the NYSDEC submitted a number of comments requesting additional information and identifying deficiencies in pre-construction avian studies. The Project Sponsor met with NYSDEC staff August 19, 2009 to discuss these comments and to clarify the facts and history of the Project. Subsequently, draft responses to NYSDEC SDEIS comments were submitted to the NYSDEC on September 28, 2009 and discussed in a meeting between the Project Sponsor and NYSDEC staff on October 21, 2009 in the interest of ensuring that the concerns of the NYSDEC were adequately addressed. The Project Sponsor submitted revised responses to the NYSDEC comments along with an updated addendum to the Raptor Migration Study from Curry and Kerlinger to the NYSDEC on November 9, 2009 (per the October 21, 2009 meeting). These comments and responses are presented in SDEIS Comment 3 in Section 4.1 of this FEIS. A letter from the NYSDEC dated December 1, 2009 states that all of the Department s concerns have been satisfied (see FEIS Appendix E) Cultural Resources The revised Project layout was evaluated for potential impacts to cultural resources, which revealed that the area of potential affect (APE) for the revised location of Turbine SC8 is within 60 feet of the historic-period (mid-nineteenth-century) Nichols Cemetery. According to Herkimer County Historical Society, the cemetery includes 11 marked burials (Perkins, 2001), all from before In July of 2009, Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (PCI) performed a Phase 1 field investigation of the area to assess the location and limits of the cemetery in order to ensure that the cemetery would not be affected by the proposed Project (FEIS Appendix F). The area surveyed by PCI included the 0.3-acre cemetery, the Turbine SC8 APE (1.63-acres) and the buffer area between the Turbine SC8 APE and the cemetery (0.5 acres). Field reconnaissance revealed that the cemetery boundaries are clearly delimited by a stone fence/wall. No stone grave markers or any other potential indicators were found outside of this area and no cultural resources 17

23 were observed during the walkover inspection of the APE of proposed Turbine SC8. PCI concludes that Project construction will not disturb cultural resources within or adjacent to the historic Nichols Cemetery. The report included in Appendix F provides mapping of the Nichols Cemetery (historic mapping and a plan view map of the cemetery with buffer limits) as well as photographs documenting representative views of the cemetery. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has reviewed this information as indicated in Appendix F. Based on the recommendations of the OPRHP, the following measures will be included in the Avoidance Plan for the Nichols Cemetery: Temporary fencing will be installed demarking a 50-foot buffer from the stone wall of the cemetery during construction of Turbine SC8. Final construction plans will include a notation regarding the avoidance measures for Nichols Cemetery. The preconstruction meeting will include a discussion regarding the avoidance measures for Nichols Cemetery. The New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Human Remains Discovery Protocol will be included in the construction plans for the Engineer-in-Charged in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during construction (this protocol is included in the September 2009 letter from the OPRHP in Appendix F). Permanent signage identifying the Nichols Cemetery will be erected close to the eastern cemetery wall and the unpaved access road so the sign is readily visible from the Turbine location. As an additional mitigation measure, an archaeologist will be on-site when the adjacent proposed access road is being constructed and the Project Sponsor will be responsible for construction of a new iron fence or restoration of the historic stone-laid wall Visual Resources In response to comments received on the SDEIS, EDR expanded upon and revised the visual analyses undertaken as part of the Supplemental Visual Impact Assessment (SVIA) for the Project. The Town of Norway, in their comments, requested additional visual simulations from viewpoints within the Town. EDR visited locations suggested by the Town, and subsequently prepared a photo rendering from Elm Tree Road, which illustrates that 10 turbines can be seen rising above the wooded ridge in the background. (see FEIS Appendix G). Review of supplemental photos confirmed 18

24 that no unobscured views of the Project site are available from public vantage points in the Hamlet of Norway. Comments from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) requested additional analysis of potential Project visibility on the Herkimer Home State Historic Site. Consequently, additional line-of-sight cross sections and an additional photo rendering were prepared for this site (Appendix G). As indicated in the photographic rendering, only the blade tips of one turbine can be seen from the property entrance on Route 169 (the highest portion of the property). The remainder of the turbine, and other Project turbines, are blocked from view at this location by the forested ridge line north of the Mohawk River. The LOS cross sections indicate there will be no Project visibility from the Herkimer House or the Herkimer Cemetery along these lines of sight (assuming a 40-foot tree height). Supplemental field review of the Herkimer Home State Historic Site confirmed a lack of open views toward the Project site from the visitor s center, the front and backyard of the Herkimer Home, and the Herkimer Cemetery In the course of this work, EDR discovered an error in the input data used to conduct the topographic viewshed analysis for the SVIA. When inputting the proposed turbine heights, a conversion from meters to feet was inadvertently left out. Consequently, the viewshed analysis in the SVIA was based on a turbine blade tip height of 145 feet instead of 145 meters, and a nacelle (FAA warning light) height of 102 feet instead of 102 meters. This same error was made in an initial run of the vegetation viewshed analysis, and the resulting data was used to generate the vegetation viewshed maps and sensitive site table (Table 2) included in the SVIA. However, a second run of the blade tips vegetation viewshed analysis using the correct turbine height was also run to determine the acreage and percentage of the study area with potential Project visibility. The results of this analysis were correct, and were presented in the text of Section 5.1 of the SVIA. In addition, the currently proposed locations of 10 of the 37 turbines have shifted slightly (from 28 to 338 feet) since preparation of the SVIA. Consequently, the entire viewshed analysis for the Project was re-run using the ArcView Spatial Analyst computer program, and double checked using an alternate software package (Global Mapper ). The methodology used to generate the revised viewshed, including all turbine dimensions and specific procedures and assumptions, was as described in Section of the SVIA. Follow-up field review and photo documentation were conducted to verify visibility from all inventoried sensitive resources identified in the SVIA where revised viewshed analysis indicated a potential increase in Project visibility. At each site, field notes and photos oriented toward the Project site were taken to document the most open available views (see Appendix G). At several sites multiple viewpoints were visited to document the range of viewing conditions available. 19

25 The degree of potential Project visibility at each sensitive resources is documented in the photos and field notes included in Appendix G. As these data demonstrate, at 22 (63%) of the 35 sites where an increase in potential visibility was indicated by revised viewshed mapping, actual views were determined to be screened by foreground trees and/or structures. Sites determined to be screened from view included 10 of 11 properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (including the Herkimer Home) and six of 10 cemeteries. Four sites could not be visited due to lack of public access (Green Cemetery, Kyser Lake, Cranberry Lake, and Mounts Creek Lake). However, all of these sites were in densely forested settings that will effectively block views toward the Project site (see photos and field notes in Appendix G). At the remaining 13 sites, potential views from at least a portion of the site were considered possible. This determination was based on a lack of complete foreground screening in views oriented toward the Project site. In such views, actual turbines may or may not be visible, but for the purposes of this analysis, Project visibility was considered possible. The presence of trees on mid-ground and background hills were not assumed to provide any screening that would block views of the Project. Sites where potential Project visibility was documented included the following: Portions of the Little Falls Middle School/High School campus. Portions of the Little Falls Municipal Golf Course. Portions of Veterans Memorial Park in Little Falls. Portions of St. Bridget Cemetery and Tuttle Cemetery in Salisbury. Portions of the Dolgeville Central School campus. Portions of the Dolgeville Cemetery. The outskirts of the Village of Cold Brook. Portions of the hamlet of Kast Bridge. The Herkimer Elementary School. Portions of St. Mary s Cemetery in Herkimer. The Fort Herkimer Church in German Flats. Portions of the Plantation Island Wildlife Management Area. With the exception of the three sites in Little Falls, all of these resources are over 3.5 miles from the nearest proposed turbine. As such, any turbines that may be visible from these sites will be in the background of these views. In addition, as the photos illustrate, from most of these locations significant portions of the Project will be screened by intervening vegetation and topography. Further detail on the results of the supplemental and revised visual analyses undertaken by EDR since completion of the SVIA is presented in the Addendum to the Supplemental Visual Impact 20

26 Assessment. As indicated in this report, the overall conclusions presented in the original VIA and SVIA regarding the Project s potential visibility and visual impact remain, and are reinforced by the information presented in the Addendum (see Appendix G of this FEIS) Shadow Flicker A revised assessment of shadow flicker impacts was conducted by Superna Energy L.L.C. (Superna) to evaluate the revised turbine layout. The modeling assumptions and methods are described in Appendix H of this FEIS and are identical to those described in Section of the SDEIS. As stated in the SDEIS, research conducted by Superna indicates that there are no local or national regulations in regard to shadow impacts caused by wind turbines; however, the following three sources would indicate that shadow impact should be kept below 30 hours per year: Dobesch and Kury (2001) recommend that no more than 30 hours of shading be allowed per year The European Wind Energy Association publication Wind Energy The Facts Vol4 Environment states In Germany, a court has ruled that the maximum allowable shadow flicker a year is 30 hours (Danish Wind Industry Association, 2003). The State of Victoria, Australia guidelines for the development of wind projects states: The shadow flicker experienced at any dwelling in the surrounding area must not exceed 30 hours per year as a result of the operation of the wind energy facility. In compliance with this generally accepted standard, the modeling results indicate that no residences are anticipated to experience greater than 30 hours of shadow flicker per year, two residences (both owned by participating landowners) are anticipated to experience between 20 and 30 hours of shadow flicker per year, and all other residences are anticipated to experience less than 20 hours of shadow flicker per year (see Appendix H of this FEIS for shadow contour maps). This is consistent with the results of the shadow flicker assessment conducted in support of the SDEIS (SDEIS Appendix L). Superna indicates that these model results are expected to be conservative as the analysis assumes the observer has unrestricted views in all directions at all times, i.e. there are no trees, buildings, or other obstructions between the observer and turbine that might shade the sun. In addition, if the observer is in a building the shadow impact is further reduced as shadows will only be observed 21

27 through the restricted viewshed of the window (e.g. an east facing window will not be impacted by shadows from turbines in the south or west) Sound A Supplemental Acoustical Analysis was prepared by CH2MHill to address the minor adjustments to turbine locations as well as provide results for a newly identified residential structure (a cabin noted as R-375 in Appendix I of this FEIS). At the most affected residences, the adjusted turbine locations resulted in increases of 1.4 and 1.2 dba at structures R-97 and R-96, respectively. The changes at other locations were minimal, and did not exceed +/- 0.3 dba. The turbine adjustments did not result in the predicted levels exceeding 50 dba at any identified residence under full power conditions (i.e., turbine sound power level of 108 dba). The predicted level at the newly identified structure (R-375) of 48 dba under full power conditions (sound power level of 108 dba) complies with the 50 dba standard. Consistent with the previous analysis, standard acoustical engineering methods were used in the noise analysis. The noise model, CADNA/A by DataKustik GmbH of Munich, Germany, is a sophisticated software program that facilitates noise modeling of complex projects. The sound propagation factors used in the model have been adopted from ISO 9613 (ISO, 1993) and VDI 2714 (VDI, 1988). Atmospheric absorption for conditions of 10 C and 70 percent relative humidity (conditions that favor propagation) were computed in accordance with ISO , Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere. Tables 1 and 2 of FEIS Appendix I identify the locations of the additional residential structure and the revised turbine layout, respectively. Figures 1 and 2 of FEIS Appendix I provide updated sound level contours for the full and low power analysis, respectively. 22

28 3.0 CORRECTIONS TO THE DEIS AND SDEIS During the preparation of the FEIS, a small number of errors were identified within the DEIS and SDEIS. Corrections to these errors are described below. The SDEIS Figure set erroneously depicts parcel as a participating parcel. This parcel is located on the south side of Davis Road, northeast of Turbine LP1 and is owned by James Salamone. The 34.5 kv buried interconnect route was inadvertently shown to cross the corner of this parcel when, in fact, this parcel will be avoided altogether. This error has been corrected as shown in Figure 2 of this FEIS. Due to this correction, the Project Area is now approximately 6,540 acres in size. See also SDEIS Comment/Response 12A. Table 2 on page 25 of the SDEIS contains an error in identifying approvals required by the Town of Norway Planning Board. The local ordinance requires approval of a Site Plan Application, not a Special Use Permit. See also SDEIS Comment/Response 5H. Section 5.1 of the SDEIS contains a typographical error. The anticipated net annual generation of the Project is approximately 200,950 MWh (as indicated in Section and Section 9.0 of the SDEIS), not 200,950 kwh. In the course of responding to comments on the SDEIS, EDR reviewed the visual analyses undertaken as part of the SVIA for the Project. During the course of this review, EDR discovered an error in the input data used to conduct the viewshed analysis. When inputting the proposed turbine heights, a conversion from meters to feet was inadvertently left out. Consequently, the viewshed analysis in the SVIA was based on a turbine blade tip height of 145 feet instead of 145 meters, and a nacelle (FAA warning light) height of 102 feet instead of 102 meters. This same error was made in an initial run of the vegetation viewshed analysis, and the results data was used to generate the vegetation viewshed maps and sensitive site table (Table 2) included in the SVIA. However, a second run of the blade tip vegetation viewshed analysis using the correct turbine height was also run and was used to determine the acreage and percentage of the study area with potential Project visibility. The results of this analysis were correct, and were included in Section 5.1 of the SVIA. Upon discovery of the turbine height input error, the entire viewshed analysis for the Project was re-run using the ArcView Spatial Analyst computer program, and double checked using an alternate software package (Global Mapper ). An addendum to the SVIA is included in Appendix G of this FEIS (and summarized in Section 2.2.7), which presents the results of revised analysis and other subsequent visual impact analysis undertaken by EDR. 23

29 Please note that the viewshed analysis presented as part of the Phase 1B Historic Building Survey prepared by Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (SDEIS Appendix M) was prepared independently from the SVIA and was an accurate and valid representation of visibility of the Project as proposed in the SDEIS. 24

30 4.0 RESPONSE TO SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS 4.1 RESPONSE TO SDEIS COMMENTS SDEIS COMMENT 1. STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE. SDEIS Comment 1A: DPS includes the Staff of the Public Service Commission (PSC). Due to the reduction in operating capacity of the proposed project to a maximum of 74 megawatts (MW), DPS is no longer an involved agency in the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review of the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project. Pursuant to Public Service Law (PSL) 2(13), those proposing to construct renewable electric generating plant rated at 80 MW or less are not required to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) pursuant to 68, which requires developers to demonstrate their capability to function as an electric corporation and to provide safe and reliable service. As an interested agency, however, DPS recommends that the municipalities consider certain measures and demonstrations of the Project to effectively and thoroughly address these matters, as well as environmental matters, as discussed in attached comments. SDEIS Response 1A: Comment noted. SDEIS Comment 1B: The SDEIS indicates that Appendix A includes complete specifications of the proposed wind turbine. Additional information should be provided, including safety features and operating characteristics of the turbines, as well as information regarding the certification of design and accelerated operational life testing results. SDEIS Response 1B: To supplement information provided in Appendix A of the SDEIS, a technical overview of the Gamesa G90 wind turbine is provided in Appendix A of this FEIS. SDEIS Comment 1C: The substation figures should be revised to include height and layout dimensions. A plan demonstrating the location of proposed permanent access and site security features of the facility should be developed. 25

31 SDEIS Response 1C: To supplement information provided in Appendix A of the SDEIS, the following substation-related documents are provided in Appendix A of this FEIS: A drawing of the preliminary substation layout. Dimensioned elevations of the proposed substation. A site plan for the substation and interconnection facility. Typical details of security fencing for the substation. A drawing of the proposed access road to reach the substation from State Route 169. SDEIS Comment 1D: The SDEIS and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in Appendix SWPPP does not address construction of the entire electric connection lines to be installed across Little Falls watershed lands northeast of the County Route 7 crossing; and the interconnection line between the substation site and the existing National Grid 115 kv electric transmission line. SDEIS Response 1D: Section 4.0 of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Hardscrabble Wind Power Project, dated March 2009 and revised to June 8, 2009, prepared by Creighton Manning Engineering (Hereinafter SWPPP ), pertains to the Post Development Conditions of the subject project. Within the Wind Farm Components of Section 4.1 of the SWPPP, the Electrical Interconnect and Substation components of the project are summarized. Those summaries specifically identify approximately 21 miles of interconnect, which includes the portion of the system northeast of County Route 7 (a.k.a. Castle Road) between the DK and SC turbine strings, and the connection from the proposed substation to the existing National Grid 115kV line. In addition, the areas identified within Table 4 of the SWPPP include the disturbances associated with these proposed facilities. SDEIS Comment 1E: The Tables of Soil Properties in the SWPPP do not include seasonal limitations such as depth to water table. Sites with shallow depth to water table will be susceptible to erosion hazard and construction disturbance particularly in wet seasons. 26

32 SDEIS Response 1E: Some disturbed areas are expected to be wet particularly during the spring season. Iberdrola will deploy appropriate and accepted practices, as described in the SWPPP, to guard against erosion in areas of construction activity. SDEIS Comment 1F: The substation site appears to be located in an area of seasonally wet soils, which will warrant specific scheduling considerations as well as site-specific drainage and erosion control needs to limit stormwater and water quality impacts, as well as providing suitable material for the substation development. Removal and replacement of soil and subsoil material may be necessary to accommodate substation site development. Detailed construction plans should be developed for the substation site. SDEIS Response 1F: A detailed grading plan for the substation area, as well as erosion and sedimentation control plans, will be developed as part of the final engineering design in preparation of construction drawings. These plans will take into consideration anticipated seasonal wet soil conditions and appropriate scheduling and construction management practices will be employed. SDEIS Comment 1G: There also does not appear to have been any consideration of forest or habitat fragmentation across the Little Falls watershed lands, which include areas of complex topography, potential intermittent drainage channels, and intermittent woodland pools. Final facility siting through this area should include means of accommodating specific site considerations. Detailed construction plans for the electric connection line should be developed. SDEIS Response 1G: The SDEIS clearly demonstrates consideration of potential forest fragmentation in this area. Although the SDEIS does not refer to this area as the Little Falls watershed lands, it does address habitat fragmentation and wetland/stream impacts in this area in the Biological and Water Resources Sections of the SDEIS (Sections 3.3 and 3.2, respectively) as well as in the materials provided in SDEIS Appendix F. The following excerpt from Section of the SDEIS addresses habitat fragmentation specifically along the interconnect route between Turbines SC8 and DK2, which is the portion of the Project that traverses the Little Falls watershed lands. 27

33 The proposed Project will result in long-term loss or conversion of 56.5 acres of forest habitat. However, the forested habitat being impacted by the Project generally occurs as relatively small blocks or woodlots and in most places the proposed turbines and access roads are not far from a forest edge. Thus, it is questionable as to whether forest interior conditions exist in the affected areas. One possible exception is the 2.5 miles of buried interconnect between Turbines SC8 and DK2, which traverses a relatively large tract of forest. However, approximately 1.6 miles (64%) of this interconnect route utilizes existing trails created for logging and/or ATV recreation (see photo documentation in Appendix H of this SDEIS). The remaining 0.9-mile of the route will introduce new disturbance to areas where forest interior conditions may exist, with the potential to result in some level of forest fragmentation. However, clearing will be limited to a maximum width of 35 feet, and the entire disturbance will ultimately be allowed to regenerate. Additionally, Section of the SDEIS addresses the crossings of Beaver Creek that occur in this area: the revised Project layout proposes crossing Beaver Creek, class AA(T), in two locations. Both crossings of Beaver Creek are proposed to occur along the 34.5 kv electrical interconnect route between Turbines SC8 and DK2. One crossing will be via buried interconnect and the other an overhead span. The overhead 34.5 kv line spans Beaver Creek at the location of EDR delineated Wetland 10S and will not result in any disturbance of the streambed or banks. The buried interconnect crossing of Beaver Creek (at EDR Wetland 10N) is an unavoidable impact, but utilizes an existing ATV trail crossing which minimizes the required vegetative clearing, and the impact will be temporary in nature (photographs of this crossing are included in SDEIS Appendix H). Only two buried electrical interconnect circuits are required at the crossing of Wetland/Stream 10N, further reducing disturbance/impact to this area. A total of 2,623 square feet (0.06 acre) of temporary wetland impact, plus 20 linear feet of temporary stream impact, are anticipated to occur as a result of this wetland/stream crossing. As previously noted in Section 2.1 of the FEIS, the Wetland 10N crossing is now proposed to be another overhead span. 28

34 Appendix F of the SDEIS provides information regarding wetlands and streams throughout the study area (including the Little Falls watershed lands), and maps and data sheets for each wetland/stream delineated are included. Additionally, Appendix F includes figures of proposed stream and wetland impacts (Figure 6 from the Joint Application for Permit), which depict topography, wetlands and areas of disturbance as determined through detailed construction design and planning. Sheets 5 through 7 of this figure set depict the property owned by the City of Little Falls. SDEIS Comment 1H: Emissions displacement predictions for the project, as calculated by using the tool sponsored by the Leonardo Academy, are based on data and electric generation information from 2004 or earlier. There have been significant changes to the electric system in New York State since Over 1200 MW of wind-powered generation have been added within the state, as well as over 1000 MW of natural gas fired combined cycle generation, and smaller amounts of upratings at nuclear and hydro-electric plants. Based on facilities currently in construction, there will be an additional 850 MW of dual-fueled (gas and backup low-sulphur oil) combined cycle generation on-line by the end of And there are at least 500 MW of additional wind projects planned for construction by the end of In addition, significant levels of demand-reduction will have been achieved by that time, based on implementation of current and planned initiatives. These circumstances should have the effect of reducing generating emissions from the levels reported as of DPS recommends that updated information should be used in modeling projected air quality benefits. SDEIS Response 1H: The Project Sponsor is not aware of any publicly available update of emissions factors for New York State. As the commentor notes, the fuel mix of NYS electricity has changed to some extent from 2004 to present and changed in the direction of lower unit emissions per MWh. If current values were available, avoided emissions, as calculated, would likely be slightly lower. However, these calculations were conservative to begin with and likely underestimated emissions displacement. Nuclear power has zero fuel cost and is unlikely to be displaced by renewable energy in an economic dispatch model because variable cost of nuclear generation is below that of fossil generation. Therefore, methodology used in the DEIS is very conservative as it assumes the displaced MWh is generated by the aggregate fuel mix when in fact it is likely to be the fossil generation that is displaced. 29

35 SDEIS Comment 1I: The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) of the project as now proposed is a comparison of the revised project with the original proposal, rather than an assessment of the project contrasts with existing conditions. DPS notes that the number of turbines proposed has been reduced substantially, but the height of the turbines now proposed has been increased significantly. The assessment of change and contrast in the landscape should be based on existing landscape conditions, rather than an alternative that has been rejected. SDEIS Response 1I: As indicated in the SDEIS, the visual study included as Appendix K is a Supplemental Visual Impact Assessment (SVIA) prepared as an addendum to the original Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) included in the DEIS. As stated in the Introduction to the SVIA (page 1): The purpose of the original VIA was to: 1) describe the appearance of the visible components of the proposed Project, 2) define the visual character of the Project study area, 3) inventory and evaluate existing visual resources and viewer groups, 4) evaluate potential Project visibility within the study area, 5) identify key views for visual assessment, and 6) assess the visual impacts associated with the proposed action. The purpose of the SVIA is to provide supplemental analysis of Project visibility, appearance, and visual impact based on 1) public/agency comments requesting additional simulations, 2) the current dimensions and arrangement of the wind turbines, reflecting changes made since preparation of the original VIA, and 3) additional design details for the proposed substation that have become available since the VIA was prepared. The SVIA is a supplement to the original VIA, and only addresses Project updates and information not presented in the original VIA. In general, it does not reiterate information and findings from the original VIA that remain accurate and unchanged. As part of the SVIA, the 11 simulations presented in the VIA were revised to illustrate the revised turbine dimensions and layout. These simulations were then compared to the original simulations to see if the previous evaluation would be changed. The SVIA essentially confirmed the results of the VIA, and as indicated in the Conclusions of the SVIA (page 95): Re-evaluation by the panel of landscape architects that participated in the original VIA indicated that from previously-evaluated viewpoints, the revised Project s overall contrast with the visual/aesthetic character of the area will be similar to that reported 30

36 in the VIA. Eight of the 11 viewpoints subject to this evaluation showed either no change or minor reduction in visual contrast when compared to the simulations evaluated in the original VIA. In addition, the SVIA evaluated simulations from an additional seven viewpoints that had not been evaluated in the VIA. All of these were evaluated in comparison to the existing landscape. Because the SVIA serves only to supplement the information presented in the VIA, the results of both studies must be considered in evaluating the Project s potential visual impact. When reviewed in this manner, it is clear that the visual effect of the currently proposed turbine dimensions and layout has been evaluated relative to existing landscape conditions. See also the Addendum to the SVIA in Appendix G of this FEIS. SDEIS Comment 1J: The VIA should provide an assessment of impact and consistency with the New York State Scenic Byways program, and report any general or specific conflicts with Corridor Management Plans for the Scenic Byways within the project viewshed. The Final EIS should report on the length in miles of designated Scenic Byways that will have views of the project for consideration of cumulative impacts. SDEIS Response 1J: Identification and description of two state-designated scenic byways that occur within the visual study area was included in the original VIA for the Project (page 12). These include the Southern Adirondack Trail Scenic Byway and the Revolutionary Trail Scenic Byway. Approximately 57.7 miles of the former and 23 miles of the latter occur within the 10-mile radius study area evaluated in the SVIA. Vegetation viewshed analysis indicated that portions of both the Southern Adirondack Trail and the Revolutionary Trail within the study area have the potential for views of some portion of the Project. Field verification indicated a lack of balloon visibility from the Revolutionary Trail Scenic Byway, and occasional visibility from the Southern Adirondack Trail Scenic Byway (as documented with photos from 19 different viewpoints along these routes). A total of four turbine simulations were prepared from viewpoints on the Southern Adirondack Trail (Viewpoints 133, 137, 150, and S2). As presented in the SVIA, contrast rating scores from these viewpoints ranged from 1.5 to 2.46 on a scale of 1 (completely compatible) to 5 (strong contrast). These scores fall entirely within the range reported for all viewpoints evaluated. The overall conclusions of the VIA and SVIA regarding visual contrast thus apply to the simulations from this scenic byway. 31

37 In addition, copies of the above referenced corridor management plans were received from the NYS Department of Transportation. Specifically, the following documents were provided: DRAFT Revolutionary Byway Project, Schenectady to Port Ontario, Corridor Management Plan (Mowhawk Valley Heritage Corridor Commission, not dated) Southern Adirondack Trail Corridor Management Plan (Herkimer County Area Development Cooperation, 2001) The Revolutionary Byway Corridor Management Plan discusses goals and objectives in the following categories: Public Participation, Marketing and Promotion/Tourism Development, Stewardship and Resource Interpretation, Transportation Safety, Support and Implementation, and Financial Resources. The Hardscrabble Wind Power Project will not conflict with any of the stated goals and objectives. The Southern Adirondack Trail Corridor Management Plan provides discussions on the same categories listed for the Revolutionary Byway, and also provides a Goal Statement and Recommendations. The Hardscrabble Wind Power Project will not conflict with any of the stated goals or recommendations. In fact, the Project is consistent with the following stated goal: To help minimize fuel consumption and air pollution, especially with the Adirondack Park. SDEIS Comment 1K: The project substation will likely be visible from NYS Route 169, a designated Scenic Byway. Visibility will likely be similar to that reported in the VIA for views of the substation from Shells Bush Road, which is limited due to distance from the road, siting in the vicinity of the background forest land, and the relatively low-profile components of the substation. Existing overhead electric transmission lines in the vicinity of the substation provide context for the substation location. Screen planting at the substation may be effective at further limiting facility visibility from the Scenic Byway. SDEIS Response 1K: The opinion presented in this comment are consistent with the results and conclusions of the SVIA. The development of a planting plan to screen the proposed substation (if adequate natural screening were lacking) was recommended in the Mitigation discussion in the original VIA (page 28). Although panel evaluation of the proposed substation in the SVIA did not suggest that such plantings are required to mitigate visual impact, the Project sponsor is willing to provide additional screen plantings if deemed necessary. 32

38 SDEIS Comment 1L: The proposal to limit station lighting is appropriate, however the use of motion detectors can be problematic at this type of setting, since wildlife and wind blown vegetation or debris can trigger station lighting. DPS recommends the use of manually operated lighting as needed to accomplish tasks at the station. SDEIS Response 1L: Motion detectors are only applied to lighting within the substation at the entry to the control enclosure. Manually operated lighting is employed in all other portions of the substation to provide illumination for tasks as specified by the National Electrical Safety Code. However, a motion detector is utilized at the entry door to the control enclosure for safety of personnel entering or leaving during hours of darkness. SDEIS Comment 1M: The analysis of siting constraints did not specifically include designated resources of significance to the State, including Scenic Byways, and historic resources potentially eligible for listing on the State or National Register of Historic Places. The Final EIS should provide additional information regarding avoiding, minimizing and mitigating impacts on these resources. SDEIS Response 1M: The original VIA and the SVIA specifically review measures that could mitigate visual impacts to aesthetic resources of statewide and local significance, in accordance with NYSDEC Visual Policy. These potential mitigation measures include screening, relocation, camouflage, low profile, down sizing, alternate technologies, nonspecular materials, lighting, maintenance, and off-sets. As indicated in these documents, recommended mitigation includes 1) screening the proposed substation, 2) using of non-reflective paints and finishes and naturally-weathering materials, 3) installing the minimum allowable number of upwardly-directed/shielded FAA obstruction warning lights with a pulsed flash rate, 4) controlling/limiting lighting at proposed support facilities, 5) using of existing roads for turbine access whenever possible, 6) burying electric collection lines, 7) minimizing removal of trees, 8) complying with all required set-backs from roads and residences, 9) prohibiting the placement of advertising on the turbines, 10) possibly providing off-site screening at the Trinity Episcopal Church in Fairfield, and 11) providing the following off-set mitigation for potential visual impacts, including impacts to historic sites: 33

39 Restoration of the Norway Historical Center (National Register-listed structure). Restoration and maintenance of cemeteries in the Town of Norway and Fairfield. Restoration of historic Trinity Church (future Town of Fairfield Historical Center). Improvements to Town of Fairfield Community Hall and Town Park. These actions will restore/improve the aesthetic quality of these community resources, and in so doing, will improve the appearance of the landscape in which they occur. This improvement will help offset any perceived adverse aesthetic impact associated with the proposed Project. SDEIS Comment 1N: Project plans should provide details to avoid impacts to existing infrastructure, including the Iroquois Gas Transmission pipeline. Details of Wind Project access roads and electric line crossing designs should be coordinated with the pipeline operating engineers to preclude construction impacts on and avoid long-term operating and maintenance issues with the gas pipeline. SDEIS Response 1N: Ongoing discussions and coordination are underway concerning the Iroquois Gas Pipeline. The Project Sponsor s engineer has met with the pipeline company s representative on-site to discuss particulars of the planned facilities. The Project Sponsor has submitted plans and specifications (associated with crossing the pipeline with access road and underground electrical circuits) as requested in the communication provided in Appendix J. The Project Sponsor will incorporate requirements set forth by Iroquois Gas for access road construction and buried electrical lines over the 30-inch gas transmission pipe line.. In addition, Iroquois Gas has requested to be present during the crossings, and the Project Sponsor will continue coordination throughout implementation. SDEIS Comment 1O: DPS recommends that the municipalities request that the project developer provide information on a range of public interest topics as included in the listing below. DPS notes that the EIS includes information on some of the listed topics, but also notes that other topics and issues are not otherwise addressed. SDEIS Response 1O: Comment noted. 34

40 SDEIS Comment 1P: Provide a list of engineering codes, standards, guidelines and practices that the company intends to conform with when planning, designing, constructing, operating and maintaining the wind turbines, electric collection system, substation, transmission line, inter-connection, and associated buildings and structures. SDEIS Response 1P: The list of codes and standards that have been and will be considered during the design, construction, and operation of this facility is extensive. As a representative, but not complete, list of applicable codes and standards, refer to the following: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Insulated Cable Engineers Association (ICEA) American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) National Electric Code (NEC) National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) National Electric Manufacturers Association (NEMA) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Uniform Building Code (UBC) Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) United Laboratories (UL) American Iron and Steel Institute American Institute of Steel Construction International Building Code (IBC) 2006 AASHTO Standard for Aggregates ASCE 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures Federal OSHA Training SDEIS Comment 1Q: Provide a list of the permits, approvals and permissions the company will have to obtain to construct, operate, maintain and retire the wind turbines, electric collection system, substation, transmission line, inter-connection, and associated buildings and structures. Provide an estimated schedule. 35

41 SDEIS Response 1Q: Please refer to Section 2.9 of the DEIS and SDEIS for a list of project permits and approvals. SDEIS Comment 1R: Provide a Quality Assurance and Control plan, including staffing positions and qualifications necessary, demonstrating how applicant will monitor and assure conformance of facility installation with all applicable design, engineering and installation standards and criteria as indicated in [comment 1P] above. SDEIS Response 1R: Iberdrola uses a comprehensive set of standard specifications, construction checklists, test documentation forms, and commissioning procedures to verify that projects are built in accordance with applicable standards and criteria. The Towns may hire an independent consulting engineer to verify compliance with appropriate standards. The standard specifications include technical requirements for procurement of major equipment as well as construction specifications that define the safety, quality and work methods that are to be employed in the construction of major project systems and facilities (e.g. roads and infrastructure, electrical systems, substations, and communication systems). These standards and specifications are incorporated into the scope and performance requirements of contracts issued for performance of the work, along with the appropriate engineered construction drawings and plans. Construction checklists have been prepared for major systems and work activities. They are used on a regular basis during the construction process to verify work is completed per the contracted requirements. Test forms are utilized to document functionality and performance of equipment and systems. The forms identify test methods and criteria for determining successful performance. Commissioning procedures have been prepared to ensure verification of suitability for equipment or systems to be placed into service. They also specify the sequencing of steps to be utilized in placing systems into service including the verification that the prerequisite work is satisfactorily completed before advancing to the next step. The Project Manager is accountable for proper application of these standards and processes, although he is supported throughout the project by numerous other personnel. The Project Manager 36

42 reports to the Director of Project Construction who, in turn, reports to the Vice President of Construction, Wind. Other key individuals in the Wind Engineering and Construction organization include the Director of Site Construction, the Manager of Commissioning, and the Director of Quality Control. SDEIS Comment 1S: Provide a statement from a responsible company official that: company and its contractors will conform to the requirements for protection of underground facilities contained in Public Service Law 119-b, as implemented by 16 NYCRR Part 753; company will comply with pole numbering and marking requirements, as implemented by 16 NYCRR Part 217. SDEIS Response 1S: Requirements for design, construction and operations of this facility are established by the INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC. AND NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION d/b/a NATIONAL GRID AND ATLANTIC WIND, LLC (FAIRFIELD PROJECT). This agreement has been executed by a company officer. The Agreement specifically references the following documents, which contain and reference codes and standards and procedures to ensure safety to personnel and the public as well as protection of facilities: ESB No. 756 Appendix A Requirements for Parallel Generation Connected to National Grid Facilities in New York and Specification for Electrical Installation of Atlantic Wind, LLC Fairfield Wind Farm Facility 115kV Connection SDEIS Comment 1T: Provide plans and descriptions indicating design, location and construction controls to avoid interference with existing utility transmission and distribution systems. Indicate detailed locations and specify design separations of proposed facilities from existing electric, gas, and communications infrastructure. Indicate measures to minimize interferences where avoidances cannot be reasonably achieved. 37

43 SDEIS Response 1T: Plans and descriptions of each potential impact with existing utility transmission and distribution systems will be developed as the final engineering and construction plans are prepared. These will be developed consistent with the Specification for Electrical Installation of Atlantic Wind, LLC Fairfield Wind Farm Facility 115kV Connection established by National Grid (included in Appendix K of this FEIS) and referenced in the executed Interconnection Agreement. The specification document states that, where underground facilities parallel public roadways and the Company s electric facilities may exist [the facilities] shall be built to NESC Part 3 underground supply separation criteria and be 1- feet minimum from any Company pole or guy anchor or underground line: however, if this cannot be met, consult the Company for the specific situation. See Appendix K for further information. One crossing of a National Grid 345 kv transmission line by underground electrical circuits will be defined by means of an easement and crossing agreement. One crossing of an Iroquois Gas pipeline by an underground electrical circuit will similarly be defined by means of an easement and crossing agreement. Other crossings have been minimized by prudent routing. Interferences will be minimized by use of underground electrical circuits at each crossing location. SDEIS Comment 1U: Provide description and indicate details of plans to limit public access and assure security at substations, collection points, wind energy facilities and aboveground components of electrical collection system. SDEIS Response 1U: Access control and security are provided for the project facility through use of a range of methods appropriate to each portion of the facility. The facilities are almost exclusively installed on leased land or within easements secured for the facilities from private landowners. The substation will be enclosed by a chain link fence with an extension of barbed wire to meet the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code. All private access roads will have installed a locked access gate at the intersection of the public road or access area. The operations and maintenance facility will consist of a building with locked doors. In addition, the fenced storage area will be secured by a locked gate. 38

44 The electrical collection system is principally installed underground where it is secure from public access. Above ground components (three short sections) will include splice boxes and junction boxes. These pieces of equipment will comply with codes and standards for exposure to the public and will be secured by locks. The three short overhead collection system sections are in remote areas of the project, (see FEIS Figure 3) not readily accessed by the public. The poles will have no climbing facilities attached to them and all electrical components will be installed to maintain clearance and separation as required by codes and standards. The wind turbines themselves are mounted on a cylindrical steel tower that has no exterior climbing attachments. The access door to the tower is locked. SDEIS Comment 1V: Explain how the design and operation of the facilities will avoid interference with radio communications, including cell phones, AM/FM/SW radio, television, radar, GPS and LORAN, and microwave transmissions. SDEIS Response 1V: See DEIS Response 1N, Section 3.12 of the DEIS and SDEIS, DEIS Appendices K and L, and SDEIS Appendix G for information regarding potential impacts and proposed mitigation for microwave transmissions, television, cell phones, PCS phones, land mobile radio communications and federal agency communications. With respect to AM/FM broadcast systems, no degradation will occur to AM broadcast systems due to the presence of wind turbines so long as the separation distance to the nearest wind turbine is greater than 2 miles for directive AM antennas and 0.5 miles for non-directive antennas (Comsearch, 2009). With respect to FM broadcast systems, generally, FM antennas are installed higher than the tops of the proposed turbines and, therefore, will not incur interference from the proposed turbines. For antennas installed lower than the turbine height, full and medium power stations require a distance of 2.5 miles to ensure no coverage degradation and very low-power stations require a distance of 0.5 miles or more (Comsearch, 2009). Changes to audio coverage or distortion may not be readily apparent to a listener when factored together with other causes of degradation such as being out of range of the station or signal fades. Correspondence with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) included in Appendix G of the SDEIS indicates that the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee 39

45 (IRAC) did not identify any concerns regarding radio frequency blockage with respect to the proposed Project. According to the NTIA website, the IRAC consists of the following departments and agencies: Agriculture, Air Force, Army, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Coast Guard, Commerce, Energy, FAA, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, NASA, National Science Foundation, Navy, State, Transportation, Treasury, US Postal Service, Veterans Affairs. SDEIS Comment 1W: Provide transmission facility design and construction plans, indicating vegetation clearing and disposal specifications, structure locations, access requirements, grading and access improvements, and environmental control measures including stormwater and erosion control practices and facilities. SDEIS Response 1W: Transmission facility is not specifically defined in this comment. Assuming it pertains to the substation, construction plans will be developed in due course and are not a requirement of the SEQRA review (see The SEQR Handbook (NYSDEC, 1992): item 13). Access, general layout, view simulations, and grading of substation site have been provided and analyzed in the SWPPP. SDEIS Comment 1X: Provide facility maintenance and management plans, procedures and criteria. Specifically address the following topics: a. turbine maintenance, safety inspections, and tower integrity; b. electric transmission, gathering and interconnect line inspections, maintenance and repairs; vegetation clearance requirements; vegetation management plans and procedures; inspection and maintenance schedules; notification and public relations for work in public right-of-way; minimization of interference with electric and communications distribution systems; c. vegetation management practices for switchyard and substation yards, and for danger trees around stations; specifications for clearances; inspection and treatment schedules; and environmental controls to avoid off-site effects. 40

46 SDEIS Response 1X: Turbines have full component annual and semi-annual maintenance inspections. Operations staff is on-site Monday-Friday to perform maintenance as necessary for specific components of the project (including turbines). Additionally, full safety inspections are conducted twice a year. With regards to the gathering and interconnection lines, the clearing limits and burial process and reclamation is described in the DEIS section It is not anticipated that additional vegetation clearing will be required for maintenance and repairs. Should equipment need to get to any location for a repair, the original clearing limit will be utilized. Within forested areas, if trees should reestablish within the original limits of clearing necessary to complete the repair, the site operator will determine if equipment can safely pass without the removal of the re-growth. If safe passage cannot occur, the re-growth will be removed by a professional contractor. Within agricultural settings, the operator will work with the landowner to manage potential damage to agricultural land and areas will be restored through additional seeding and/or mulching of any exposed topsoil. The interconnection lines are sited on private easements, outside of any public right-of-way. Wherever interconnection lines cross existing electrical distribution or communication distribution systems or rights-of-way, crossing agreements or permits will be obtained. Once operational, the vegetation will be allowed to grow back to the substation fence. Any shrubs will be managed to one foot of the fence and any danger trees will be identified. Should any vegetation removal be necessary (danger trees or growth within one foot of the fence) a professional contractor will be obtained. It is anticipated that if any danger trees do grow near the substation or overhead line they will be hand removed. This management would occur on an as-needed basis. SDEIS Comment 1Y: If the company will entertain proposals for sharing above ground facilities with other utilities (communications, cable, phone, cell phone relays, etc.) provide criteria and procedures for review of proposals. SDEIS Response 1Y: The Project Sponsor does not consider joint use of any of the proposed above ground facilities to be appropriate to safety, security, and effective operations. Proposals will not be entertained for sharing with other utilities. 41

47 SDEIS Comment 1Z: Provide emergency response plans, notification and coordination procedures. Specify plans and procedures for addressing electric line outages, specification of 24-hours per day storm and emergency response situations. Include measures for communication and coordination with operators of existing utility facilities, and residents of adjoining or affected locations. SDEIS Response 1Z: As stated in Section of the DEIS, An employee safety manual will be incorporated into the overall operating and maintenance policies and procedures for the Project. Further, Section of the DEIS states: To mitigate any potential concerns regarding Project construction, Atlantic Wind will meet with the local emergency service personnel (fire, police, and EMS) prior to initiation of construction activities to review the planned construction process. During this meeting, unique construction equipment/material, construction traffic routing, and construction scheduling/phasing will be discussed. Prior to construction, Atlantic Wind will implement a coordinated emergency response plan, which will be developed in consultation with local emergency service personnel. The distance and response time of some of the emergency response personnel will be taken into account when initially developing the coordinated emergency response plan, along with identifying where various construction activities will be concentrated, the provision of maps and other related materials requested by emergency responders, and the development of alternate response routes in the event that the primary route is blocked by construction activities. On-going communication between Atlantic Wind and Town police, fire, and emergency services officials will help assure adequate levels of protection related to the Project. Atlantic Wind representatives will meet with fire and police and other emergency responders to develop plans to address potential public safety issues. The Fire Protection and Emergency Response Plan to be prepared for the Project will include the following components: Initial and refresher training of all operating personnel (including procedures review) in conjunction with local fire and safety officials. Regular inspection of transformer oil condition at each step-up transformer installed at the main substation. 42

48 Regular inspection of all substation components. Regular inspection of fire extinguishers at all facility locations where they are installed. All Project vehicles will be equipped with fire fighting equipment (fire extinguishers and shovels) as well as communications equipment for contacting the appropriate emergency response teams. The MSDS for all hazardous materials on the Project will be on file in the construction trailers (during construction) and the O&M building (during operation). The facility Safety Coordinator shall notify the local fire department of any situation or incident where there is any question about fire safety, and will invite an officer of the fire department to visit the workplace and answer any questions to help implement a safe operating plan. In accordance with the requirements of the Town of Fairfield and Town of Norway ordinances, Atlantic Wind shall: Provide local fire departments and emergency service agencies with training, practice drills and documentation of appropriate actions in case of emergency circumstances at the Project. Such documentation shall include the locations of all emergency shutdown controls, location of any potentially hazardous materials, and site maps showing access routes. The Operator will provide emergency plan updates to the Towns of Fairfield and Norway within 4 weeks after any changes in operation or facility occur. Due to interconnection requirements, should the Project go off-line, distribution of electricity to neighbors would not be disrupted. The Project Sponsor will make arrangements with the utility on a notification procedure if the Project were to go off-line or become non-operational. SDEIS Comment 1AA: Specify commitments for addressing public complaints, and procedures for dispute resolution during facility construction and operation. 43

49 SDEIS Response 1AA: The complaint resolution procedure is outlined in Section 4.1 of the SDEIS and included in the Community Relations Plan, SDEIS Appendix P. SDEIS Comment 1BB: Specify commitments for end-of-life facility retirement and decommissioning, with specific references to electrical gathering and transmission system, interconnection and substation facilities. SDEIS Response 1BB: A Decommissioning Plan has been prepared for the Project and is included as Appendix B of this FEIS and summarized in FEIS Section As the plan states, decommissioning is to include removing all infrastructure at depths up to three feet below finished grade, including removing turbine foundations to a depth of three feet below finished grade. In the case of infrastructure at depths greater than three feet below finished grade, the top three feet of the infrastructure would be removed and the remainder would be abandoned in place. Appropriate grading and seeding would occur where subsurface infrastructure is removed. With respect to electrical gathering systems and interconnection/substation facilities, the plan states the following: Underground collection cables. The cables and conduits contain no materials known to be harmful to the environment. As part of the decommissioning, these items will be cut back to a depth of at least 36 inches. All cable and conduit and other materials buried greater than 36 inches will be left in place and abandoned. Overhead collection lines: Overhead collection lines and poles will be removed. Substation and interconnection facilities. Disassembly of the substation and interconnection facilities will include the areas owned by Atlantic Wind Wind, LLC. Components (including steel, conductors, switches, transformers, fencing, control houses, etc.) will be removed from the site and reconditioned and reused, sold as scrap, recycled, or disposed of appropriately at Atlantic Wind Wind, LLC s sole discretion. To the extent possible to remove foundations and underground components without damaging or impacting adjacent facilities, such foundations and underground components will be removed to a depth of 36 inches and the excavation filled, contoured, and re-seeded. 44

50 Please see Appendix B for further information. SDEIS Comment 1CC: Provide switchyard and substation design drawings and site plans, indicating: a. property lines and setbacks; access road location, width and gradient; site grading, cut and fill, drainage and environmental controls; all proposed improvements and equipment; fencing and gates; permanent erosions control measures; b. Indicate any station lighting needs, and appropriate design criteria; c. provide a statement indicating that any future lighting will be designed to avoid off-site lighting effects (i.e., avoid up-light direction except for as-necessary maintenance tasklighting; avoid drop-down optics to minimize light trespass); d. listing of all electrical equipment and specifications for substation and switchyard facilities; e. interconnection facility design plan and profile information. SDEIS Response 1CC: Detailed switchyard and substation design drawings will be developed as the project is nearing construction. At this time only preliminary information is available, which is more than adequate for the purposes of SEQRA: a) A substation site plan is provided in Appendix A of this FEIS. The access road location, width and gradient are also shown in Appendix A of this FEIS. Other details will be developed as part of preparation of final construction documents. b) Substation lighting requirements are established by the National Electrical Safety Code. This code establishes safe lighting levels to perform operations activities. When unoccupied, the substation lighting will not be activated. c) Please see SDEIS Response 1L. d) Major switchyard components will include: Power Circuit Breaker 115 kv, 2000 ampere capacity, SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride) insulated Disconnect Switch 115 kv, 2000 ampere capacity, air break Capacitive Voltage Transformer 115 kv Surge Arrester 123 kv rated Control Enclosure to contain batteries, control and protection equipment Major substation components will include: 45

51 Power Circuit Breaker 115 kv, 2000 ampere capacity, SF 6 insulated Disconnect Switch 115 kv, 2000 ampere capacity, air break Capacitive Voltage Transformer 115 kv Surge Arrester 123 kv rated Transformer 34.5 to 115 kv, 80 MVA Power Circuit Breaker 34.5 kv, 1200 ampere capacity, vacuum insulated Control Enclosure to contain batteries, control and protection equipment e) The interconnection facility and substation plan and profile information are provided in Appendix A of this FEIS. SDEIS Comment 1DD: Provide a status report on equipment availability and expected delivery dates for towers, turbines, transformers, and related major equipment. SDEIS Response 1DD: The Project Sponsor will procure turbines, along with towers and other turbine components, with a broad agreement that would provide for multiple projects. At this time, turbine deliveries for this Project are anticipated to begin in early July 2010, with an expected delivery rate of five turbines per week. The substation transformer specification has been released to prospective suppliers to submit quotations. These are due in early September 2009 with an order to be placed in late September. Delivery is estimated in late August The other major equipment have delivery times that allow ordering after the detailed engineering has progressed to the point of developing project specific procurement specifications. SDEIS Comment 1EE: Specify turbine design setback requirements for the following structures: occupied structures (residences, businesses, and schools); barns and unoccupied structures; electric transmission lines. Explain the rationale for the setback distances for each type of structure or facility. SDEIS Response 1EE: Turbine manufacturer specifications do not differentiate between type of structure. 46

52 COMMENT 2. HEIDI MILLINGTON SDEIS Comment 2A: I am writing to any whom it may concern about the negative impact of the windmills being built so close to our homes. I have never been approached or contacted or asked if it would be acceptable to have four windmills behind my farm. My home is not even in the prints that I have looked at just yesterday which seems to me that I have been overlooked. SDEIS Response 2A: The house located at 591 Cole Road (the address given by the commenter) is included in relevant SEQRA analyses, such as the noise analysis and the shadow flicker impact assessment reports and associated mapping (SDEIS Appendix N and L, respectively, and FEIS Appendix I and H, respectively). This house is located approximately 1,400 feet from the nearest proposed turbine, which is in compliance with local setback regulations. SDEIS Comment 2B: Of course I am in favor of green energy but this is far from green energy. This is big business and politics taking over yet again our small communities by dangling a dollar in your eyes. SDEIS Response 2B: Clean energy that is generated by any wind farm offsets electricity that would otherwise be generated through conventional means, namely fossil fuel generating plants. While it is likely true that wind energy would not eliminate power lines, or power plants, it will reduce the amount of electricity generated by fossil plants, and therefore reduce the amount of emissions generated by fossil plants. Additionally, in response to statements by wind power opponents that such projects will not address global warning and our dependence of fossil fuels, Charles Komanoff, in a recent article in the online publication Orion (Komanoff, 2006) offers the following response: This notion is mistaken. It is true that since wind is variable, individual wind turbines can t be counted on to produce on demand, so the power grid can t necessarily retire fossil fuel generators at the same rate as it takes on windmills. The coal- and oilfired generators will still need to be there, waiting for a windless day. But when the wind blows, those generators can spin down. That s how the grid works: it allocates electrons. Supply more electrons from one source, and other sources can supply 47

53 fewer. And since system operators program the grid to draw from the lowest-cost generators first, and wind power s fuel, moving air, is free, wind-generated electrons are given priority. It follows that more electrons from wind power mean proportionately fewer from fossil fuel burning. In the same Orion article, Charles Komanoff also provides the following analysis of the existing Madison and Fenner Wind Power Projects in Madison County, New York: The Madison County turbines have an average capacity factor, or annual output rate, of 34 percent, meaning that over the course of a year they generate about a third of the electricity they would produce if they always ran at full capacity. But that still means an average three thousand hours a year of full output for each turbine. Multiply those hours by the twenty-seven turbines at Fenner and Madison, and a good 200,000 barrels of a oil or 50,000 tons of coal were being kept underground by the two wind farms each year. SDEIS Comment 2C: I personally suffer from a disorder in which my ears ring and buzz non-stop. This is very debilitating and extremely difficult to deal with and I don t wish it on anybody but sad to say, all who have homes near these noise monsters will suffer. I have chosen to live where I do for the beautiful landscape and hoping that the song of the birds will at least give me some reprieve from my disease, but now I have the sad future of more annoying, constant noise to fill my ears and make the rest of my days miserable. SDEIS Response 2C: Comment noted. SDEIS Comment 2D: If there is anything yet that can be done to make sure that I will NEVER have to hear these horrible noise towers hovering over my farm, please help me. I beg anyone who can to please help put these four hundred feet plus sky scrapers far away from the people like me who are now forced to live on top of them. SDEIS Response 2D: Comment noted. 48

54 SDEIS Comment 2E: Attached is a copy of my farm location on the map that my sister-in-law just showed me yesterday. SDEIS Response 2E: See SDEIS Response 2A. COMMENT 3. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SDEIS Comment 3A: The revised project design now involves two crossings of Beaver Creek AA(T) DEC regulated stream which are estimated to result in 0.06 acre of temporary DEC regulated wetland impact and 20 linear feet of temporary stream impact. Permanent wetland/stream impacts with the Project Area are anticipated to total 0.46 acre of wetland loss and 147 linear feet of stream impact. As a consequence of clearing acres of forest wetland will be altered. DEC review of impacts to State regulated streams and wetlands will be addressed in its response to the Joint Application also submitted in June. Hence, this letter will limit itself to other areas of review namely bird/bat impacts and noise issues. SDEIS Response 3A: Comment noted. Wetland impacts have changed slightly since the release of the SDEIS as a result of the August 6, 2009 site visit of NYSDEC, Project Sponsor, and EDR personnel. These minor changes are described in Section of this FEIS and in the Supplement to the Joint Application for Permit submitted to the NYSDEC August 12, 2009 (see Appendix C). SDEIS Comment 3B: Section of the SEIS main text states the following: the Project is not anticipated to have an undue adverse impact on birds or bats, and therefore no mitigation is required. With a higher passage rate of golden eagles than expected, at 0.19 eagles/hour, and more golden eagles observed than at any proposed wind project area at which fall raptor migration surveys have been conducted, the potential for impact to this state listed endangered species is likely greater than in other regions of the state. The post-construction study should include migration surveys to monitor use of the area by golden eagles and other raptors, as well as ground searches to estimate the direct effect the project has on listed species. 49

55 SDEIS Response 3B: Preconstruction avian surveys at proposed wind farms have created new data indicating that predevelopment numbers of raptors flying over a project area is an accurate predictor of future bird strikes at a wind turbine farm. Flight characteristics may be somewhat predictive of future mortality. Birds that passively glide over the land may be struck by turbine blades at a greater rate than the actively flying birds. Migrating hawks have never been demonstrated to be at significant risk of colliding with wind turbines. Even at raptor migration sites where the abundances of raptors is very large, fatality rates have been low, suggesting abundance or raptor passage rates of migrants are not precise predictors of risk. Two studies in the vicinity of globally significant raptor migration sites strongly indicate that raptor abundance does not predict collision mortality or lead to significant fatality rates when raptor passage rates are high. More than 140,000 raptors are recorded each fall along 19 km (12 miles) of Spanish coastline as they migrate between Europe and Africa at the Straits of Gibraltar, with smaller numbers recorded transiting the region in spring (Zalles and Bildstein 2000). Wind-energy development is concentrated on the Spanish side of the Straits, most notably at Tarifa. De Lucas et al. (2008) analyzed 10 years of bird fatality data at two wind farms in Tarifa in relation to bird abundance. The wind farms had 66 and 190 older turbines (maximum height of 40 m [131 feet]), and researchers recorded 26 and 125 large-bird carcasses at each respectively over the 10-year period. Raptor abundance and raptor mortality through collision with wind turbines were not closely related, thus challenging a frequent assumption of wind-farm assessment studies. Abundance and mortality varied greatly between seasons, but mortality was not highest in the season with highest bird abundance. The mostly year-round resident Griffon Vulture was the most frequently killed species (111 carcasses, 74%), leading researchers to identify species-specific flight behavior as predictive of mortality. The high wing-loaded vultures collided more often when uplift wind conditions were poor, mostly in winter, such as on gentle slopes, when thermals were weak, and when turbines were taller at higher elevations. Relating the de Lucas et al. study with the migration statistics of Zalles and Bildstein, of the most abundant Tarifa migrants, only one carcass in 10 years was recovered for Honey Buzzard (average of 86,700 migrants per fall) and one for Black Kite (39,000/fall). Golden Eagle is sometimes recorded at the Straits of Gibraltar, but it is not among the 19 regularly recorded migrants. It was not recorded 50

56 among fatalities in the de Lucas et al. study. Birds in active flight are able to avoid the turbine blades and, therefore, are struck by accident in limited numbers. Another study at Tarifa (Janss 2000, de Lucas et al. 2004) appeared to indicate that migrants were aware of, and possibly avoided, wind turbines. On one ridge with turbines and two ridges without turbines, over 72,000 migrating birds (principally Black Kites, White Storks, House Martins, and Swallows) were recorded during nearly 1,000 hours of observation from fixed observation points. Changes in flight direction were recorded more often over the wind farm than over the other two areas, with migrants tending to fly higher over the wind farm. Abundance also did not appear affected by the presence of wind turbines. In contrast, resident Griffon Vultures were not observed to fly higher over the wind farm. (Note. Paul Kerlinger of Curry & Kerlinger LLC has personally observed raptor migration at Tarifa, as well as movements of Griffon Vultures at that site during the non-migration season. From observations of migrating raptors it was obvious that these birds see the turbines and fly around them, thereby incurring minimal risk.) Another study demonstrating that raptor abundance is not an accurate predictor of collision mortality comes from the Erie Shores Wind Farm in Port Burwell, Ontario. This project with MW turbines is located within two miles of Lake Erie in a well-documented, fall raptor migration corridor. Twenty miles (32 km) west of Erie Shores is Hawk Cliff Hawk Watch, which averages 37,000 raptors per fall season (Zalles and Bildstein 2000). James (2008) logged more than 2,300 observations of Sharp-shinned Hawks passing through the wind farm area in migration, with 1,534 passing within 300 m (990 feet) of the turbines. Few birds, if any, hesitated to fly near an operating wind turbine, and there were only seven instances in which single birds got close enough to spinning rotors to be judged at risk. Indeed, just over 21% of birds made course changes that brought them closer to turbines. Most of these involved birds moving along a woodland edge or a fencerow of trees. Had birds not changed their headings, they would have passed turbine towers at distances greater than 100 m (330 feet), but shifting course to continue to follow tree lines brought them within 50 m (160 feet) of a turbine tower. Overall, there was nothing to indicate that the turbines were an impediment to the migration of Sharp-shinned Hawks. A concurrent mortality study found one Sharp-shinned Hawk carcass in two years of study. Other autumn migrant raptors observed at Erie Shores flying within 300 m of wind turbines were Turkey Vulture (about 1,000 observations), Osprey (12), Bald Eagle (170), Northern Harrier (115), Cooper s Hawk (60), Northern Goshawk (6), Red-shouldered Hawk (4), Broad-winged Hawk (3), Red-tailed Hawk (300), Golden Eagle (4), American Kestrel (463), Merlin (21), and Peregrine Falcon 51

57 (8). In all cases, the wind farm appeared to pose no impediment to migration, and birds appeared to negotiate the wind farm without hesitation or difficulty (James 2008). As discussed with NYSDEC staff on August 5, 2009, the Project Sponsor has implemented a company-wide Avian and Bat Protection Plan (ABPP) in coordination with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( The Project will comply with the corporate ABPP and studies would commence after construction is complete. The Project Sponsor will work with the NYSDEC to create and implement the study protocol. See SDEIS Response 3E for an evaluation of bird strikes as a result of height of flight. Literature Cited: De Lucas, M., G.F.E. Janss, and M. Ferrer The effects of a wind farm on birds in a migration point: the Strait of Gibraltar. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: De Lucas, M., G.E.F. Janss, D.P. Whitfield, and M. Ferrer Collision fatality of raptors in wind farms does not depend on raptor abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: James, R.D Erie Shores Wind Farm, Port Burwell, Ontario. Fieldwork report for 2006 and 2007, during the first two years of operation. Report to Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Erie Shores Wind Farm LP McQuarrie North American, and AIM PowerGen Corporation. Janss, G Bird behavior in and near a wind farm at Tarifa, Spain: management considerations. Proc. National Avian - Wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego, CA, May National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, DC. SDEIS Comment 3C: It should also be noted that population of bats, particularly of cave-dwelling species, have declined dramatically in New York and throughout the northeast over the past 2 years as a result of the White Nose Syndrome (WNS). Although Indiana bats are the only one of nine bat species in the state currently listed as federally endangered, most species may already be so greatly reduced in number that any impacts caused by the construction and operation of turbines could have a significant effect on the remaining populations. Data collected during post-construction monitoring will help estimate 52

58 the level of impact the Hardscrabble wind project may have on bats, and will be used to determine appropriate mitigation measures. SDEIS Response 3C: As noted in the comment above, the vast majority of bats with white nose syndrome are those that hibernate in northeastern caves during the winter months. A total of six bat species have been confirmed with white nose syndrome. Most notably the little brown bat, formerly the most common species in the Northeast, has seen the greatest decline. Indiana bats, the only federally-listed endangered species, have also been affected by white nose syndrome. To date, no Indiana bats are known to have been killed by a wind facility. This is significant in light of the fact that the Mountaineer Wind Facility in West Virginia is 8 miles from the closest Indiana bat hibernacula and Stoneycreek in Pennsylvania is 5 miles from a Priority 3 hibernacula. It is well documented in recent post-construction mortality surveys that bat mortality at wind farms is heavily skewed towards migratory tree roosting species (as opposed to cave-dwelling bats, which are targeted by white nose syndrome). In the east, this mortality is primarily comprised of two migratory species (Hoary bats and Red bats), and the tri-colored bat [formerly Eastern pipistrelle], a species that moves long distances to winter hibernacula (Arnett et al 2008). However, tri-colored bats are included in this list because they made up a high percentage of mortality at project areas in Tennessee and West Virginia (Arnett et al 2008); at project areas in New York, tri-colored bats have not been found in high numbers (Jain et al 2007, Jain et al 2009). In areas of New York and New England, the most common fatalities are to hoary, red, silver-haired, and little brown bats (Jain et al 2007, Jain et al 2009, Stantec 2008, Stantec 2009). Since white nose syndrome primarily affects cave-dwelling species and wind turbines primarily affect tree-roosting species, cumulative effects from white nose syndrome and wind turbine mortality on a particular species of bat are not anticipated. It is not yet known if white nose syndrome will affect migratory tree roosting species. To date the primary species with white nose syndrome have not been migratory tree roosting species. Of the species most affected by white nose syndrome, only the little brown bat is found in significant numbers at wind facilities in New York. Since population size for most northeastern bat species was unknown before white nose syndrome spread, the impacts of white nose syndrome will be poorly understood. Therefore, it will be difficult to tell how the combination of white-nosed syndrome and a given level of mortality at a wind facility will affect northeastern bat species. 53

59 As the comment suggests most species may already be greatly reduced it is simply not known what the impact on other species has been. Only time and further study will reveal the extent of any WNS decline. The Project Sponsor will collect data on bats in post-construction surveys, in accordance with applicable USFWS and NYSDEC evaluation protocols for wing scoring. SDEIS Comment 3D: In the applicant provided Raptor Migration Study Fall 2006 Report, it states that the study was conducted as a result of a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) request for additional information regarding raptor migration at the Project site. However, in a comment letter from the DEC on the DEIS for this project (then called Top Notch) dated July 31, 2006, DEC recommended spring, fall and winter raptor surveys and further stated, No raptor surveys were conducted within or around the project area. This is a noteworthy deficiency of the pre-construction avian studies. DEC recommends raptor surveys be done in spring and fall during times of peak migration at proposed wind sites. Winter surveys are also recommended if the habitat could potentially support waterfowl or raptors. Nearby hawk watch locations are good resources to use as a basis for what to expect at a given site, but do not alone quantify the density and number of species utilizing a specific area during migration, the breeding season, and winter. Site-specific raptor surveys need to be conducted during spring and fall migration and the winter season at the proposed Top Notch wind farm to sufficiently characterize raptor use of the site. Although the fall 2006 raptor survey was intended to target migrating golden eagles, there remains a dearth of information on spring and winter raptor use of the project area and does not fully address our above stated concern. SDEIS Response 3D: The Project sponsor acknowledges the July 31, 2006 NYSDEC comment letter. Upon receipt, The Project Sponsor worked with the NYSDEC to address their concerns for raptor migration at the Project site and a protocol was established in conjunction with the Department. Specifically, it was discussed that the Fall 2006 Raptor Migration Survey would satisfy the NYSDEC s DEIS comments regarding study needs for hawks. The Project Sponsor received protocol approval from the NYSDEC, as indicated in an from Steve Tomasick dated October 24, 2006 (See Appendix E of this FEIS for related correspondence). The Project Sponsor understands that formal NYSDEC Guidelines have been developed since that time frame and that the agreed protocol may differ in certain regards from the July 31, 2006 NYSDEC comment letter. However, at that time of approval, the executed study was determined to meet the specific needs of the NYSDEC for the Project. 54

60 With respect to spring migration of Golden Eagles, observations have revealed no inland sites where there are significant concentrations or aggregations of these birds. The website and the Hawk Migration Association of North America (HMANA) do not report the existence of any concentrations of Golden Eagles in upstate or central New York State, away from Lake Ontario. Also, Franklin Mountain does not conduct spring migration counts, mostly because the earliest studies (1976) published in Kingbird (journal of the New York State bird clubs) in 1977, demonstrated that very few raptors migrated over Franklin Mountain. In addition, there are no sites where large numbers of migrating raptors, including Golden Eagles, are concentrated during spring migration in upstate New York, away from the Great Lakes. With respect to waterfowl, water at the Project Site will, in all likelihood, be frozen through most of the winter. Thus, there is no reason to expect concentrations of wintering waterfowl on or adjacent to the site. SDEIS Comment 3E: Furthermore, the Fall 2006 Raptor Survey report states that turbine height was increased by more than 75 feet (23 m) in 2008, after designing the study which accounted for shorter turbines and towers, the percentages of birds within the different height zones and estimates of passage rate within these zones could not be estimated with precision. Nevertheless, the height class categories used and the raptor observations recorded at each height does not change. The current rotor swept zone is between 180 and 476 feet above ground level. Hence, a better estimation of bird behavior and vulnerability with respect to the higher turbines presently proposed should be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS). SDEIS Response 3E: It is not possible to re-classify the data points because pre-established height categories were applied and data was not collected on a continuum within each of those ranges. However, the fact that turbine swept height has slightly increased does not change the overall conclusions of the study. It is important to note that hawk migration, unlike the migration of birds that use powered flight, is characterized by constant changes in the altitude of flight. Radar studies in New York State (and elsewhere in the US, Europe etc.; Kerlinger, P Flight Strategies of Migrating Hawks. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, and various journal articles) demonstrate that minute to minute and second to second changes in height occur as hawks soar and glide during their migration flight. In fact, the altitude of migrating hawks over rolling hill type terrain changes at a rate of about 1 meter (m) per second as hawks glide between thermals (descending), and changes at a rate of up to 2-4 m per second as they soar in thermals. Thus, in a glide that lasts for one minute, 55

61 hawks regularly descend through 60 m (180+ feet) and while soaring in a thermal these birds gain more than m (~500 feet) in height. Data collected during the study at Hardscrabble (and elsewhere) showed that hawks changed altitude almost constantly. As a result of these confounding factors, attempting to precisely determine how many of the hawks were flying within the rotor swept height or how long they spent within the height of the rotors is not possible. Most importantly, as this relates to risk and vunerability, there has not been a study that has demonstrated that the height of raptor migration, as measured pre-construction, is related to risk of collision with wind turbines. Perhaps the most important fact is that migrating raptors have never been demonstrated to be at significant risk from wind turbines. Even in localities like Tarifa in southern Spain, where 100,000 raptors pass each spring and fall through an area with nearly 1,000 turbines, there has not been significant mortality with respect to migrating raptors. Furthermore, the height of raptors in relation to rotor swept area has never been demonstrated to be a reliable or valid predictor of risk to migrating raptors. The reason may be because these birds migrate in daylight and are looking forward as they migrate. In essence, they see the turbines and simply fly around them as has been described for raptors in Tarifa. Finally, wind power facilities on the ridges of Appalachia, where there are greater numbers of migrants than at Hardscrabble, have not reported significant fatality rates of migrating raptors, despite thousands of turbine searches over the past few years. These sites include ridges in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. There are also several studies from other locations where modern wind turbines have been erected without significant impact to non-migrating raptors that were present in higher densities. Citations for the studies that pertain to migration are as follows: See SDEIS Response 3B for a discussion of bird strikes related to bird passage at a property. Literature Citations: Arnett, E Unpublished report for the Casselman Wind Power Project, Somerset County, PA. Report to Iberdrola. Arnett, E.B., technical editor Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patters of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA. Kerns, J., and P. Kerlinger A study of bird and bat collision fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual report for Report to FPL Energy and the MWEC Technical Review Committee. 56

62 Young, Jr., D.P., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, S. Nomani, and W. Tidhar Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, Phase 1 Post-Construction Avian and Bat Monitoring, July-October Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming. 54pp. SDEIS Comment 3F: The Fall 2006 Raptor Survey also alleges, While Golden Eagle numbers at Hardscrabble were greater than expected, the correlation of Golden Eagle traffic between the Hardscrabble and Franklin Mountain sites was fairly weak. However, comparisons should be made not only with established hawk watch sites, but with data (passage rates, species composition, timing, etc.) from other proposed wind projects throughout the state. Based on the Fall 2006 survey, golden eagle numbers are far higher at Hardscrabble than any other proposed project in New York (see Raptor Table and Map included as Attachments to this document). Golden eagles comprised 10% of all raptors seen during the Hardscrabble survey (44 of 441 raptors) and potentially more as any of the 67 (of 441 in total per Table 3.2-1) observations recorded as unidentified raptor could have been eagles. Of the 374 identified raptors, golden eagles comprised 11.8% of the sightings. The elevated golden eagle passage over the project area indicates a potential for a migration corridor through this part of the State. Consequently, there is a greater impact concern for listed eagles and perhaps other raptors. A take of a state listed species would trigger DEC jurisdiction through Article 11 of the Environmental Conservation Law. SDEIS Response 3F: The purpose of the study was not to compare numbers of migrating raptors with existing wind farms. The agreed upon purpose was: a research project that is designed to answer the questions posed by the NYS DEC and others who may be concerned that the project site is a concentration area for migrating hawks. Most importantly, the data collected during the proposed study will determine whether or not there are significant concentrations of migrating hawks at the project site and determine the magnitude of the difference between the migration at the project site and the Franklin Mountain Hawk Watch. See (September 27, 2006 revised October 12, 2006) study protocol provided in Appendix E of this FEIS. The study, as executed, addressed the agreed purpose. In addition, data cited in the Raptor Table and Map was collected from studies whose scope, purpose, methodology, season and duration varied greatly. Direct comparisons would be difficult if not invalid. A total of 67 unidentified raptors (all coded UH, Unidentified Hawk) were recorded at the Hardscrabble site, with 37 at Castle Road 57

63 and 30 at Dairy Hill. Of the Castle Road birds, 20 were recorded in October and 17 in November. At Dairy Hill, 16 were recorded in October and 14 in November. Of these 67 birds, three distant ones may have been Golden Eagles, but the observer was not sure. They were: One bird on October 14, 2006: The comment read, Huge black, circling slowly west, quite low, likely eagle. This bird was observed at 9:01 am from the Castle Road OP. It was east of the OP, heading west, and judged to be flying at Middle (M) height. One bird on November 2, 2006: The comment read, Likely Golden Eagle, too distant north and west to confirm. This bird was observed at 11:41 am to the west of the Dairy Hill OP. It was heading south at Very High (VH) height. One bird on November 4, 2006: The comment read, Likely Golden Eagle far south; soared, then long glide south. This bird was observed at 1:09 pm from the Dairy Hill OP. It was south of the OP heading south at Medium (M) and High (H) heights. If these sightings are added to the Golden Eagle tally and flight analysis, they do not appreciably change the conclusions. The overall passage rate remains the same (~0.2 birds/hour), flight height continues to be predominantly above the rotor-swept zone (RSZ), and flight direction continues to be southerly. In any case, the Golden Eagle flight pattern does not put the individual bird at great risks of being accidentally struck by wind turbine blades. See Appendix E for a memo including the November and October data. SDEIS Comment 3G: For each bird, the observer made every effort to record data on the datasheet as birds passed or spent time within the visual area surrounding the observation point, and height was recorded when a bird was within 100 m of the observation location (and) if birds changed height outside of this range, additional measurements were not recorded (2.0 Study Area and Methods of Report). Further clarification needs to be provided as to how the visual area surrounding the observation point is defined. If height information was recorded only on birds within 100 meters of the observer, what about birds seen further away that never crossed the 100 meter threshold? Were more distant 58

64 birds recorded as observations, but not assigned a height class? Or were birds seen outside a 100 meter area around the observer disregarded and not included in any data collected? SDEIS Response 3G: The protocol was modeled after studies done at ridgeline sites, where raptors generally approach within 100 m of the Observation Point. Given the relative flatness of the terrain at Hardscrabble, many birds did no approach within 100 m of the observer; thus, the observer assessed flight height as birds passed the Observation Point regardless of distance. A total of 44 birds were identified as Golden Eagles (GE). Of them, only 13 (5 at Dairy Hill, 8 at Castle Road) flew within 100 m of the observation point. As explained above, the three Unidentified Hawks (UH) that may have been Golden Eagles did not approach within 100 m of the Observation Point. SDEIS Comment 3H: Most hawk watches, as well as raptor migration surveys conducted at other sites in New York, utilize an area much greater than 100 meters around appoint, ranging from 800 meters to as far as the eye can see. If no data was recorded on birds seen further than 100 meters from the observer at the Hardscrabble site, it can be assumed that an unknown, likely much higher, number of raptors actually passed over and through the project area than is reflected in this report. SDEIS Response 3H: Please see SDEIS Response 3G SDEIS Comment 3I: Recognizing the change in turbine size between when data was collected and this report written, it is still important to evaluate the percentage of birds within and below the rotor swept zone. If height data was collected for all raptors, the raw data could be re-evaluated to determine how many of what species flew in the rotor swept zone (RSZ) of the currently proposed turbines (180 to 476 feet). The height categories used in this report were Low (0-100 ft), Medium ( ft), High ( ft), and Very High (500+ ft). The RSZ falls into Medium and the majority of the High categories. According to the report ( Results section), 44.6% raptors were in the Medium zone, and 36.5% in the High zone, for a total of 81.1% of all raptors recorded flying between 100 and 500 feet. Based on Figure 3.3-4,.69 raptors per hour were seen in the Medium zone and.84 raptors per hour in the High zone during the survey period, for a total of 1.53 raptors per hour passing through an area that consists largely of the RSZ. Also see SDEIS Response 3B. 59

65 SDEIS Response 3I: The report noted that it is impossible to re-analyze this data to directly correlate it with the current rotor swept zone. As previously stated above, (SDEIS Response 3E) there has not been a study that has demonstrated that the height of raptor migration, as measured pre-construction, is related to risk of collision with wind turbines. SDEIS Comment 3J: A table should be included in the report providing more detailed data including the date, time, and site location each raptor observation was made, particularly for golden eagles. This information is useful for making correlations between: 1) weather conditions and when birds were seen, 2) detailed data from hawk watch and other sites, and 3) determining how many hours were put in each survey day relative to observed migration rates for each species. SDEIS Response 3J: The requested November 2006 data is provided in Appendix E. SDEIS Comment 3K: Although the study was designed to collect data only through the end of November, it should be noted that a large number of golden eagles are typically still migrating in December, and likely passed over the Hardscrabble project area after surveys ended. Franklin Mountain recorded the last golden eagle in November on the 25 th, with no more seen until December 2 nd when 13 birds were observed. In 2006, Franklin Mountain recorded the following number of golden eagles per month: September-0; October 3-7; November-114; December-57. SDEIS Response 3K: The Fall 2006 Raptor Migration Survey protocol, including the decision to terminate the study at the end of November, was approved by the NYSDEC (see Appendix E of this FEIS). Franklin Mountain counted 27.4% of their Golden Eagles in December. If the Hardscrabble Raptor Migration study had been continued, assuming that eagle migration continued at Hardscrabble at the same rate as Franklin Mountain, it is estimated that an additional 17 eagles may have been counted at Hardscrabble. Therefore, the Golden Eagle total for the entire season at Hardscrabble could have been about 61 birds, and would support the conclusion that the Hardscrabble area is not a significant migratory route. 60

66 SDEIS Comment 3L: During the Hardscrabble survey thirty-four birds (77%) were recorded at very high (VH) height, five at high height (11%), and five (11%) at middle height and note that these height zones do not correspond to below, within and above rotor swept height. Therefore, 10 individuals (22%) were seen flying in the Medium and High zones, which encompass the current RSZ. It is possible that some of these birds were flying outside of the RSZ between 100 and 180 ft or 476 and 500 ft, however there is no way to determine this based on the height categories used. SDEIS Response 3L: The Project Sponsor agrees with this comment, and points out that this is noted in the Methods section of the Raptor Migration study (Appendix I of the SDEIS). SDEIS Comment 3M 1 : The report states that during the study period of October 13 to November 30, 441 raptors were recorded at Hardscrabble, whereas 8,935 were recorded at Hawk Mountain. Adjusted as a per hour metric, Hardscrabble averaged 1.9 hawks/hour, as compared to Hawk Mountains average 21.5 hawks/hour. This is more than a ten fold difference. Was this difference calculated on a per hour or per observer hour basis? SDEIS Response 3M 1 : Regarding the calculation of hawks per hour, the researchers followed Hawk Migration Association of North America (HMANA) guidelines, which stipulates using one observer and this study is calculated on a per hours basis. It is important to recognize that the observations conducted at Hardscrabble were done according to HMANA guidelines. Those guidelines are used at the important and significant hawk migration sites around the United States and in Canada. SDEIS Comment 3M 2 : This distinction is an important one when comparing data between established hawk watch locations and locations at proposed wind projects. Generally two or more people are contributing to observations made at Franklin Mountain on any given day, whereas wind project surveys typically use only one observer, and often that person is moving between points within the site during a given day. The observer hours are likely to be much lower during the survey at Hardscrabble, where one person conducted surveys each day, than during the same timeframe at Franklin Mountain, where multiple pairs of eyes are searching at the same time. 61

67 SDEIS Response 3M 2 : Comment noted. Please also note that the NYSDEC did not request more than one observer during their review of the study protocol, prior to execution of the study (see agency correspondence included in Appendix E). SDEIS Comment 3N: It is also stated that this study demonstrates that the airspace at Hardscrabble experiences relatively limited hawk migration traffic during late fall Nevertheless, the total number of Golden Eagles observed (44) was greater than expected. The Golden Eagle passage rate of 0.2 birds/hour at Hardscrabble is about 40% of that at Franklin Mountain (0.5 birds/hour) and nearly the same as that at Hawk Mountain. This migration traffic rate at Hardscrabble suggests a non-random distribution of Golden eagles during fall migration through upstate New York State with more than average numbers being observed. What was the expected golden eagle passage rate for the project site area? On what data or from what location are the average numbers being derived from, and what are these numbers? Is the 0.5 birds/hour passage rate at Franklin Mountain for the entire 2006 Fall season, or just for the dates corresponding with the Hardscrabble survey? SDEIS Response 3N: The researcher s statements about expected rate of Golden Eagle passage were not quantitative. They were merely qualitative statements noting that they were surprised that there were more Golden Eagles than expected, based on what has been seen at most hawk migration sites in New York State, other than Franklin Mountain. The 0.5 birds/hour passage rate at Franklin Mountain are for the dates corresponding with the Hardscrabble survey. Please see the details at the top of page 19 in the beginning of the discussion When the results from Hardscrabble were compared with the results on the same days from nearby Franklin Mountain Hawk Watch in Delaware County SDEIS Comment 3O: No specific information is provided as to raptor passage rates from Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, though the golden eagle passage rate is nearly the same as that at Hardscrabble. In addition to making comparisons with established hawk watch sites, data from other proposed wind projects should be evaluated. However none of the available data was included in the Hardscrabble report. This is common practice when evaluating potential impacts to raptors from the development of wind projects, and one DEC recommends. This information should be provided to allow for a more thorough evaluation of the survey conducted at Hardscrabble. 62

68 SDEIS Response 3O: It is incorrect to state that no specific information is provided as to raptor passage rates from Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania The Hardscrabble report does compare raptor passage with that at Hawk Mountain. Page 18 reads as follows: To determine the magnitude of hawk migration traffic at the Hardscrabble site, comparisons have been made to regional hawk watches that are considered to have significant migrations (Zalles and Bildstein 2000). In this regard, Hawk Mountain in Pennsylvania is often used as a standard for comparison. It is located 180 miles (290 km) south-southwest of the Hardscrabble site. During the study period of October 13 to November 30, 441 raptors were recorded at Hardscrabble, whereas 8,935 were recorded at Hawk Mountain. Adjusted as a per hour metric, Hardscrabble averaged 1.9 hawks/hour, as compared to Hawk Mountains average 21.5 hawks/hour. This is more than a ten fold difference. With respect to the larger lateseason hawk migrants, Hardscrabble witnessed 44 Golden Eagles and 185 Red-tailed Hawks, as opposed to 93 Golden Eagles and 3,463 Red-tailed Hawks at Hawk Mountain half as many Golden Eagles and nearly a twentieth of Red-tailed Hawks. On a per hour basis, to correct for effort, the Golden Eagle rate at Hardscrabble was 0.19 birds/hour, nearly the same as the 0.22 birds/hour rate recorded at Hawk Mountain. For Red-tailed Hawks, the Hardscrabble rate of 0.79 birds/hour was much lower than the 8.34 birds/hour recorded at Hawk Mountain. It is noteworthy that observations at Hawk Mountain averaged more than one hour more per day than at Hardscrabble, with the extra hour of observation being earlier and later in the day. This results in a lower per hour rate of hawk migration, because fewer hawks migrate early and late in the day than during midday hours. Therefore, these comparisons are conservative. If the three Unidentified Hawks (UH) that may have been Golden Eagles are added to the tally, the passage rate comparison does not change significantly. The statement that it is common (and implicitly valid) practice to compare migration traffic rates among prospective wind power facilities is not well supported by data or practice. According to the NYSDEC July 2009 summary of hawk migration data from prospective wind power projects, there are almost no data sets that can be used for quantitative comparisons because of the 27 studies listed, only 5 coincided with the same overall time frame. Of those 5 only Jordanville 63

69 contains enough days to allow for sufficient comparison during the migration season. In addition as noted above pre-construction presence is not well correlated to impact. See also SDEIS Response 3B. SDEIS Comment 3P: The results of this report show a relatively high use of the area by golden eagles. Overall, the large number of unidentified raptors (and birds in general) as well as the termination of surveys in November, well before many of the golden eagles are seen at Franklin Mountain, indicates the possibility that even greater numbers of eagles may be migrating over the project area in the course of the Fall migration season. SDEIS Response 3P: Please note that in the Methods section of the Raptor Migration Study on Page 10, it states that observers identified non-raptors to species when time allowed and that these birds were often noted as SO for songbirds/passeriformes. For raptors, standard HMANA methods were used for identification when possible. Because the focus of the study was raptors, the identification of nonraptors was not deemed to be as important if identification of a raptor was also competing for observer attention. Extrapolating the data from Hardscrabble past the end of November is reasonable and valid if imprecise, as noted above. Noting that 27% of Golden Eagles passed a site in the same region during the month of December might be more informative than describing the end of November as well before many of the golden eagles are seen at Franklin Mountain. See also SDEIS Response 3F. SDEIS Comment 3Q: In addition to the elevated use of the area by golden eagles during migration as reported by the fall 2006 raptor migration survey, this region of the state may also exhibit some degree of concentration of nocturnal migrants. the Hardscrabble marine radar survey conducted in 2005 reports the second highest passage rate in both spring and fall among all publicly available proposed wind projects in New York, with mean passage rates that are more than twice the seasonal average for fall and well above the average for spring. Radar reports from the central New York region have the highest mean passage rate of all surveys done in the western, northern, or eastern lake Ontario regions of the state during both spring and fall (see attached radar Table and Map). Post-construction surveys 64

70 following methods in the DEC Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects (Guidelines) (available at: will provide an estimate of mortality impacts from the Hardscrabble project, and help determine how useful preconstruction data is in predicting the level of post-construction mortality impacts. SDEIS Response 3Q: As noted in NYSDEC s SDEIS Comment 3Q, there are currently no data linking pre-construction radar survey results to post construction collision related fatalities. (See also SDEIS Responses 3B and 3E for details.) In fact, passage rates seem to be the least important metric gained from radar surveys for determining risk of collision by migrating birds and bats because if most targets are flying at altitudes well above the height of the proposed turbines, then the risk of collision may be low regardless of how many fly over the site in a given night or season. Hourly, nightly, and season mean flight heights are more likely to provide useful information of collision risk. The overall season mean flight heights observed during 2005 radar surveys were on the higher end of the range as compared to other studies in New York and the Northeast with a season mean flight height of 419 meters in spring 2005 and 516 meters in fall The average flight height across all projects is approximately 377 meters during spring and 410 meters during fall overall. In addition, the season mean percentage below turbine height was at the low end of the range compared to other publicly available radar survey results during the fall (5%) and in the middle of the range during spring (16%). 1 The Project Sponsor intends on conducting post construction mortality surveys and will work with the NYSDEC to create and implement the study protocol. The following response was offered by Stantec: Passage rate: The radar station at the Top Notch radar site had exceptional views of the surrounding airspace. A clear view of the sky down to the horizon (0 above horizontal) was provided for the radar in nearly all directions. This means that very little vegetation extended above the height of the radar antenna. 1, The percent targets below turbine height can be found in the addendum to the report "Effect of Top Notch (now Hardscrabble) Wind Project revision to turbine layout and model changes on the spring and fall 2005 nocturnal radar survey reports." Prepared August 26, 2009, by Stantec Consulting Services Inc 65

71 This vegetation normally is used to block ground clutter but inevitably blocks some sections of the sky, particularly low altitudes, from the radar. The diagram below helps illustrate how vegetation can block the portions of the night sky, particularly low altitudes. As explained above, the Top Notch radar site had very little airspace hidden from the radar view. Consequently, a greater volume of the radar beam could sample the night sky than at sites where vegetation blockage occurs. A higher passage rate at the Top Notch site does not necessarily equate to more birds passing through that site than other sites if those other sites did not sample with the same volume of radar beam. Additionally, the percentage of targets flying below turbine height will invariably be greater at sites where the radar can see down to the horizontal compared to sites that have vegetation extending above the horizontal, which blocks the view of low-flying targets flying behind that vegetation. This concept has to be understood and acknowledged during the interpretation of any radar data set. 66

72 Sampling per hour: All sampling is corrected for the number of minutes per hour sampled versus the 60 minutes of each hour. This is done by tallying the number of targets from the one-minute samples of each hour, multiplying by the number of minutes per hour (60) and dividing by the number of one minute samples that were recorded during the hour. Consequently, passage rates are not higher than reported. SDEIS Comment 3R: The NYS DEC policy document, Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts places stress on reducing impacts above ambient levels. In order to follow this guidance, the proper attention needs to be placed on determining ambient levels. The applicant assumes background of 35 dba (Leq) but this may overestimate the actual background noise. For example, the Davis Road study indicates night time ambient levels in the mid to high 20 dba range (Leq). To properly determine ambient noise, the applicant is encouraged to sample multiple locations for ambient levels with a detailed discussion/rationale for their choice of placement of monitors and any factors that may cause a given location to be influenced towards a less conservative ambient level. Such factors could include work or hobbies conducted nearby (such as tractor or ATV use), traffic on nearby roads, higher wind levels (due to elevation and exposure), and quite a few other possibilities. Photographs of the monitoring locations should be provided with multiple vantage points as well as the times of day the sampling was performed. Care should be taken to explain the choice of minimum measurement periods. SDEIS Response 3R: The 35 dba assumption was based on NYSDEC guidance for wilderness areas, whereas the guidance also indicates quiet seemingly serene setting such as rural farm land will be 45 dba. The predicted project level under low wind speeds is less than NYSDEC guidance for rural farm land. As indicated in the Davis Road study, ambient levels will vary. Hourly levels in the Davis Road study were found to vary between less than 25 dba to more than 50 dba. The fluctuation in ambient noise level is a function of many factors beyond the control of the applicant, including but not limited to weather, wind conditions, presence of other noise sources (such as, road, rail and air traffic, wildlife (birds, insects and domestic dogs) and agricultural equipment operations). At times, the noise level will be greater than those assumed and at others it will be less. For wind projects, the potential for a maximum increase occurs when there are calm or quiet conditions at the receptor and sufficient 67

73 winds for turbine operation at hub height. As indicated in the comment, lower ambient noise levels may occur more frequently at night. The analysis acknowledges that NYSDEC s guideline of a 6 dba increase is exceeded. The number of locations where this would occur would increase when existing levels are less than those assumed. The NYSDEC guidance document Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (rev. 2/2/01) (hereinafter NYSDEC Guidance) states that This guidance does not supercede any local noise ordinances or regulations. The Project must be operated in a manner which will comply with the noise restrictions set forth in the local wind energy ordinances for the Towns of Fairfield and Norway (50 dba). The determination of whether given levels of sound produce adverse impacts will depend on the decision-maker s view of what constitutes an adverse impact and how or whether individual impressions of perceived noise figure into this equation. In New York, experts and reviewing agencies generally rely on the aforementioned NYSDEC guidance document when evaluating impacts from a project. As the NYSDEC Guidance explains, Establishing a maximum SPL at the point of reception can be an appropriate approach to addressing potential adverse noise impacts (NYSDEC Guidance at pg 14). We note that this is the approach that the Town of Fairfield has adopted in its law (Local Law #1,2006, Article 5, Section 5, para. 5-13), which provides that maximum noise at closest non participating residence should not exceed 50dBA. This standard is well below the maximum thresholds referenced in the NYSDEC Guidance, which indicates that most humans find a sound level of 60-70dBA as beginning to create a condition of significant noise effect... In general, the EPA s Protective Noise Levels guidance found that ambient noise levels less than or equal to 55dBA was (sic) sufficient to protect public health and welfare and, in most cases, did not create an annoyance (Citations omitted) (NYSDEC Guidance at pg 14). The NYSDEC Guidance concludes that in non-industrial settings the maximum allowable SPL should not exceed 65 dba at the receptor. SDEIS Comment 3S: For rural locations such as this, providing the L90 (the sound pressure level which is exceeded 90% of the time) in addition to the Leq is useful for providing a more through assessment of background levels. By providing the L90 (for both background and the post-construction estimate), a better grasp on the effect on the local residents can be obtained. As our Guidelines discuss, the L90 as a reference to judge the intrusiveness of the intermittent sounds. Background or ambient noise levels 68

74 are, of course, influenced by such factors as road noise and wind, but it is important that the applicant explain the choice of locations with care to show that the results could not be unduly biased towards higher readings by non-representative events. SDEIS Response 3S: The L 90 metric will always be less than the energy average L eq. Therefore the relative increase over the L 90, will be greater than those calculated though the overall project level predictions are unchanged. Approximately 24 hours of 10-minute interval statistical data, including the L 90 metric, was collected as part of the Davis Road study. The average difference between the 10 minute L eq and L 90 was 6.4 dba and the median difference was 6.9 dba. These serve as indicators as to the potential relative difference between the L eq and L 90. As noted in SDEIS Response 3R, it is acknowledged that the project will exceed existing levels and the magnitude of this exceedence will vary. Increases relative to an L 90 statistical level will be greater than those computed on an L eq basis. The Project must be operated in a manner which will comply with the noise restrictions set forth in the local wind energy ordinances for the Towns of Fairfield and Norway (50 dba). The local noise restrictions are less than the NYSDEC s 65 dba maximum guideline for non-industrial settings, as discussed in SDEIS Response 3R. SDEIS Comment 3T: While not referenced in our Guidelines, according to the World Health Organization Guidelines for Community Noise (page xiii), measures based on A-weighting may be inappropriate under conditions in which low-frequency noise may predominant. If the frequency difference is more than 10 db, the WHO recommends further study. Given that this may possibly apply to commercial wind farm generated noise, it may be advisable to take a closer look at the possibility that low frequency noise might be relatively dominant and the potential implications. SDEIS Response 3T: The World Health Organization Guidelines for Community Noise do not identify wind turbines as source of significant low frequency noise. The swishing noise associated with the rotation of turbine blades is often mistaken for low frequency noise. The frequency content of the swish is typically noted to be within the 500 to 1000 Hz range, which is entirely within the audible range and appropriately characterized by the A-weighting. For wind turbines, it should be noted that the measurement of low frequency noise is complicated by the presence of wind and the resulting wind-induced noise (self-noise) through microphone 69

75 windscreens. Recent wind tunnel testing of various windscreens 2,3 concludes that: any casual measurement of sound using a standard windscreen in a windy field will yield ostensibly high levels of low frequency or infrasonic noise whether a wind turbine is present or not. Such measurements, taken at face value, may be one of the reasons wind turbines are widely, but mistakenly, believed to be significant sources of low frequency noise. It is further documented that even when using more effective windscreens, the dbc levels from an operating turbine at 1,000 feet away and 3 miles away vary by only 1 db (74 dbc at 1,000 feet and 73 dbc at 3 miles). This is a clear indication that the low frequency noise is the result of self-generated wind noise through the windscreen rather than the actual acoustic emissions of the wind turbine. In this instance, it is estimated that the actual acoustic emissions from the wind turbine at 1,000 feet result in a level of 48 dbc. It is not uncommon for dbc and dba levels to vary by more than 10 db without substantial consequences the difference between dbc and dba levels within an office building may be 20 db (for example, 40 dba and 60 dbc). If such a threshold is to be established, guidelines on magnitudes below which the difference between dbc and dba levels is immaterial should be considered. In addition, it should also be noted that expert witness testimony was recently submitted for a pending case in Wisconsin, and this testimony refutes the claim that low frequency noise/infrasound from wind turbines results in adverse human health impacts. Specifically, testimony by Dr. Geoff Leventhall and Dr. Mark Roberts, submitted on behalf of Wisconsin Electric Power Company, was received by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin on October 20, This testimony is included in this FEIS as Appendix L, and can be obtained from: SDEIS Comment 3U: As our guidelines discuss (below), given situations which involve night-time noise (such as that generated by wind projects), a discussion of impacts on residents should consider possible disruption to during night. As mentioned below in the quote from our Guidelines, weighting nighttime noise more heavily, such as the Ldn, may be appropriate for consideration in assessing the 2 Hessler, G. F., Hessler, D. M., Brandstätt, P., Bay, K Experimental Study to Determine Wind-Induced Noise and Windscreen Attenuation Effects on Microphone Response for Environmental Wind Turbine and Other Applications, Noise Control Engineering Journal, J.56, July-August. 3 Hessler, D.M Wind Tunnel Testing of Microphone Windscreen Performance Applied to Field Measurements of Wind Turbines, Proceedings of the Third International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Aalborg Denmark June. 70

76 possible effects on local residents. Given the rural nature and low relative background levels, sleep may be disturbed at lower noise levels than in an urban/suburban environment. Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) can be combined with other types of noise analyses such as Composite Noise Rating, Community Noise Equivalent Level and daynight noise levels characterized by Ldn where an Leq (24) is measured and 10 dba is added to all noise levels measured between 10 pm and 7 am. These different types of noise analyses basically combine noise measurements into measures of cumulative noise exposure and may weight noise occurring at different times by adding decibels to the actual decibel level. Some of these analyses require more complex noise analysis than is mentioned in this guidance. SDEIS Response 3U: For a continuous source of noise, the L dn is 6.4 dba greater than the L eq. Compliance with the Town of Fairfield and Town of Norway maximum level of 50 dba L eq would therefore result in an L dn of 56 dba. This is generally consistent with the EPA s Protective Noise Levels guidance of 55 dba L dn as sufficient to protect public health and welfare as cited by NYS DEC. It is acknowledged that sleep disturbance has been reported by some residences living in proximity to wind turbine projects. SDEIS Comment 3V: The sound study provided by the applicant assumes that wind turbines generators (WTG) will act as a point source in generating sound. However, this may not be an appropriate assumption given the immense cross-section of WTGs. The rationale of this assumption should be discussed further in as if this assumption is faulty; it may underestimate the predicted sound pressure levels and effects on nearby residents. SDEIS Response 3V: Detailed acoustical testing by S. Oerlemans and G. Schepers (of the National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, The Netherlands and Energy research Centre of the Netherlands ECN respectively) identified that for an observer on the ground, most of the noise is produced by the outer part of the blades (but not the very tip), during their downward movement 4. The figures below, from their paper, are illustrative of their findings. While the rotor swept area is large, given that the dominant source of noise is limited in extent, the point source approximation is a reasonable approach. 4 Oerlemans, S. and Schepers, G. Prediction of Wind Turbine Noise and Comparison to Experiment. Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise Lyon, France, September 20 21,

77 The propagation of sound, including sound from wind turbines, is greatest in the downwind direction. It is for this reason that turbine sound power levels are determined from measurements made in the downwind direction (per the IEC standard). The modeling protocol (ISO ) includes simultaneous downwind conditions in all directions (that is, every receiver is downwind from every turbine, a wind condition that is not physically possible). When one is downwind of a wind turbine, they view the full rotor plane as shown in the figures below. The distance to the rotor plane, from a downwind receptor is not significantly affected by a potential offset from the hub to the mid span (or tip) of the rotor it is a perpendicular shift no closer to the receptor. Therefore, the point source assumption at the hub, rather than the rotor tip, is a reasonable approach. It should also be noted that evaluation of compliance with respect to the 50 dba limit includes a +2 dba adjustment to the turbine sound power levels. As stated in other responses, the Project must be operated in a manner which will comply with the local noise ordinances (50 dba). SDEIS Comment 3W: While the assessment states the 9 non-participating residences and 4 participating residences may likely exceed exposure to 6 dba over background at high wind speeds, the study also shows that 20 non-participating residences and 12 participating residences will experience 5 dba or greater exposures. As any noise study contains estimations (such as 35 kba for background) and possible measurement error and may lead to overconfidence in one s findings, an analysis should be included in the Final Environmental Impact Assessment to ensure that the results are not in danger of underestimating possible impacts. 72