fina environmental mpact statement_feis_t… · western ecosystems technology, inc. 415 west 17th...

Prepared by:Environmental Design & Research,Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Services, D.P.C.217 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000Syracuse, New York 13202

Contact: Patrick Heaton P: 315.471.0688

Prepared for:

Arkwright Summit Wind Farm LLC808 Travis Street, Suite 700Houston, Texas 77002

Contact: Jeffrey NemethP: 309.531.0440

Arkwright Summit Wind FarmChautauqua County, New York

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

January 2016

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)

FOR THE

Arkwright Summit Wind Project

Chautauqua County, New York

Prepared For: Arkwright Summit Wind Farm LLC

808 Travis Street, Suite 700 Houston, Texas 77002 Contact: Jeffrey Nemeth Phone: (309) 531-0440

Prepared By: Environmental Design & Research,

Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Services, D.P.C. 217 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000

Syracuse, New York 13202 Contact: Patrick Heaton Phone: (315) 471-0688 Date of Submittal: December 22, 2015 Date of Acceptance: January 11, 2016

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Arkwright Summit Wind

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... iv

FIRMS/ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE FEIS ............................................................ v

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Summary of SEQRA Process........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 SUMMARY OF THE DEIS............................................................................................................................. 2

1.2.1 Summary of Potential Impacts .................................................................................................................. 3

1.2.2 Summary of Potential Mitigation................................................................................................................ 5

1.3 SUMMARY OF THE SEIS ............................................................................................................................. 6

1.3.1 SEIS Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 7

1.4 SUMMARY OF THE SEIS2 ........................................................................................................................... 8

1.4.1 SEIS2 Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 9

2.0 REVISIONS TO THE SEIS2 ............................................................................................................................ 11

2.1 Changes to the Project layout ..................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Additional Analysis of environmental impacts ............................................................................................. 13

2.3 Avoidance and Minimization of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................. 14

2.3.1 Overview of Project Siting ....................................................................................................................... 16

2.3.2 History of the Project Layout ................................................................................................................... 17

2.3.3 Siting Considerations for Wind Turbine Locations .................................................................................. 18

2.3.4 History of Wetland Delineations .............................................................................................................. 20

3.0 CORRECTIONS TO THE SEIS2 ..................................................................................................................... 23

4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 28

5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 71


iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Reported in the DEIS .............................................................. 3

Table 2. Comparison of Project Facilities Proposed in the DEIS and the SEIS Layouts ............................................... 8

Table 3. Summary of SEIS2 Project Layout Relative to the DEIS and SEIS Project Layouts. .................................... 10

Table 4. Summary of Cerulean Warbler Observations. ............................................................................................... 57

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. FEIS Project Layout Figure 2. Project Layout Comparison Figure 3. Supplemental Wetland Delineation Figure 4. Siting Constraints Map Figure 5. Supplemental Visual Simulation Figure 6. Project Visibility From Recreational Resources

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Supplemental Wetland Delineation Report

Appendix B Wetland and Streams Impact Tables

Appendix C Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for 2008/2009 Wetland Delineations

Appendix D NYSDEC Letter of Determination Regarding State-Regulated Wetlands in Project Area

Appendix E Comments Received on the SEIS2

Appendix F Responses to Comments Received on the DEIS and SEIS

Appendix G Northern Long-eared Bat Take Avoidance Measures

Appendix H. USFWS Correspondence


iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition/Denotation

BMPs Best Management Practices

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EAF Environmental Assessment Form

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

NRHP National Register of Historical Places

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SEIS2 Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SEQR State Environmental Quality Review Act

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office


v

FIRMS/ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE FEIS

Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Services, D.P.C. 217 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000 Syracuse, New York 13202 Patrick Heaton (315) 471-0688

Fisher Associates 135 Calkins Road Rochester, New York 14623 Steven D. Wilkinson (585) 334-1310

Ecology & Environment, Inc. 368 Pleasant View Drive Lancaster, New York 14086 Jonathan V. Hall (412) 825-6525

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 415 West 17th Street, Suite 200 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 David Young (307) 634-1756


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is prepared for the Arkwright Summit Wind Farm (hereafter, “the

Project”) 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

two Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEIS and SEIS2).

The FEIS builds upon the DEIS, SEIS and SEIS2, providing extensive responses to substantive comments received

on these documents, and addressing Project changes that occurred after the DEIS was accepted as complete,

including changes in response to public and agency input. The DEIS is incorporated by reference into this FEIS, and

remains in full effect except where specifically corrected or the Project has been changed. Likewise, the SEIS and

SEIS2, which document changes to the Project since the acceptance of the DEIS, are incorporated into the FEIS as

well. The FEIS thus concludes a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project, 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. However, this

FEIS does not, in general, reiterate information that remains accurate and unchanged from the DEIS, SEIS or SEIS2.

Rather, this information is incorporated herein by reference.

1.1 SUMMARY OF SEQRA PROCESS

On January 10, 2008 a Joint Application for the Wind Overlay Zone and Special Use Permit, which included a Full

Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1 that addressed the proposed Project (then known as the New Grange

Wind Farm Project), was submitted by New Grange Wind Farm, LLC (now Arkwright Summit Wind Farm, LLC;

referred to herein as “the Applicant”) to the Town of Arkwright Town Board pursuant to the State Environmental

Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The submittal of this application, which requires discretionary approval, initiated the

SEQRA process for the subject action. On January 14, 2008, the Town Arkwright forwarded a solicitation of Lead

Agency status, along with a copy of the EAF document, to potentially interested/involved SEQRA agencies. It was

stated in the letter of intent to act as lead agency that, subject to the agreement of all Involved Agencies, the lead

agency determination would become effective 30 days from the date of the declaration letter. No agency objected to

the Town of Arkwright assuming the role of Lead Agency. The Town of Arkwright, as Lead Agency, subsequently

issued a Positive Declaration requiring the preparation of a DEIS. The DEIS was accepted as complete on February

27, 2008.


2

Upon acceptance of the DEIS, the 30-day public comment period began and was subsequently extended through

May 30, 2008. Public and agency comments were collected by mail, e-mail, and at the Arkwright Public Hearing, held

in the Town of Arkwright on April 30, 2008. Following submission of the DEIS, revisions to the Project layout resulted

in changes considered to be a material change by the Lead Agency, necessitating the preparation of an SEIS. The

SEIS was submitted on April 3, 2009 and accepted as complete by the Lead Agency on April 13, 2009. The

subsequent public comment period for the SEIS concluded on June 1, 2009.

As a result of subsequent changes to the Project layout, proposed use of different wind turbine technology, increase

in proposed turbine height, and the time that passed since the public was last given an opportunity to comment on

this Project, the Applicant prepared the SEIS2. The SEIS2 was submitted on October 2, 2015 and accepted as

complete by the Lead Agency on October 12, 2015. A public hearing for the Project was held on November 4, 2015.

The subsequent public comment period for the SEIS2 concluded on November 14, 2015.

The following represent the next steps in the SEQRA process for the Project, starting with issuance of this FEIS by

the Lead Agency:

FEIS issued by Lead Agency (Town of Arkwright).

Final notice of completion of FEIS published in the NY DEC Environmental Notice Bulletin.

Distribute FEIS and a copy of the public notice to the involved and other agencies listed in the SEIS2.

10-day minimum period before issuing findings.

Lead Agency issues Findings Statement, completing the SEQRA process and makes permit decisions.

Involved agencies issue Findings Statements and make their permit decisions.

1.2 SUMMARY OF THE DEIS

At the time the DEIS was prepared, New Grange Wind Farm LLC, a Delaware subsidiary of Horizon Wind Energy

LLC, was the Applicant proposing to develop a wind-powered generating facility of up to 47 wind turbines with a

maximum capacity of 79.9 megawatts (MW). As discussed in the Summary of the SEIS2 the Applicant is now known

as Arkwright Summit Wind Farm, LLC. In addition to the wind turbines, the DEIS Project Layout included construction

of up to four permanent meteorological towers, a system of gravel access roads, a buried and overhead electrical

collection system, an operation and maintenance building, and an interconnection substation facility.

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:


3

Cultural Resource Investigation

Transportation Study

Aviation Hazard Assessment and Consultation

TV Broadcast Off-Air Reception

Licensed Microwave Search and Worst Case Fresnel Zone

Avian and Bat Studies

Visual Impact Assessment Report

Shadow Flicker Impact Analysis

Environmental Sound Survey and Noise Impact Assessment

Wetland Resources Assessment

Property Value Impact Assessment

In addition to providing a Project description (Section 1.0) and summary of the purpose, need, and benefit of the

proposed Project (Section 1.4), the DEIS also presented a summary of the required approvals and regulatory

process (Section 1.10), a discussion of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts and proposed

mitigation measures (Section 2.0), unavoidable adverse impacts (Section 3.0), Project alternatives (Section 4.0),

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (Section 5.0), growth inducing impacts (Section 6.0),

cumulative impacts (Section 7.0), and Project effects on the use and conservation of energy resources (Section 8.0).

See the DEIS for a full discussion of these topics. A summary of the potential impacts and mitigation presented in

the DEIS are given below.

1.2.1 Summary of Potential Impacts

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 potential impacts identified in the DEIS are summarized in the table below:

Table 1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Reported in the DEIS

Environmental Factor Potential Impacts

Topography, Geology, and Soils Soil erosion

Soil compaction

Loss of agricultural land

Surface and Groundwater Resources Stream crossings


4

Environmental Factor Potential Impacts

Siltation/sedimentation

Temporary disturbance

Wetland filling

Permanent stream crossings

Biological Resources Vegetation clearing

Incidental wildlife injury/mortality

Loss or alteration of habitat

Land Use and Zoning Adverse and beneficial impacts on farming

Changes in community character/land use

Socioeconomic Host community payment / PILOT

Revenue to participating landowners

Expenditures on goods and services

Tourism

Short and long-term employment

Transportation Road wear

Traffic congestion/delays

Road system improvements/upgrades

Cultural Resources Visual impacts on architectural resources

Disturbance of historic archaeological resources

Visual Resources Visual change to the landscape

Visual impact on sensitive sites/viewers

Shadow-flicker impact on adjacent residents

Community Services, Public Utilities, and Infrastructure Demands on police/emergency services

Telecommunication interference

Utility distribution lines and poles

Bulk power system upgrade

New source of clean renewable energy

Communications Interference with public, private or government communication facilities

Public Safety Stray voltage

Tower collapse/blade failure

Ice throw

Lightning strike

Fire

Climate and Air Quality Construction vehicle emissions

Dust during construction

Reduced air pollutants/greenhouse gases

Noise Construction noise impacts on neighboring/adjacent residents

Operational noise impacts on neighboring/adjacent residents

The Executive Summary of the DEIS summarizes anticipated Project impacts in the following way:


5

“The Project is expected to result in positive, long-term socioeconomic impacts within the Project

Area and across the state, and to provide benefits to the region’s air quality. The Project will result

in minor, generally short-term impacts to soils, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife habitat, and

transportation facilities as a result of Project construction. The Project will have long-term effects

on community character, avian/bat resources, ambient noise levels, and some historic and visual

resources during operation. However, with the inclusion of proper mitigation measures, and a

Complaint Resolution Procedure (Appendix N), operational impacts other than the Project’s

visibility will be limited and minor.”

1.2.2 Summary of Potential Mitigation

The DEIS proposes various measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate potential environmental

impacts. General mitigation measures will include adhering to requirements of various local, state, and federal

ordinances and regulations, and entering into development agreements with adjacent landowners. The Applicant will

also employ an environmental monitor to assure compliance with permit requirements and environmental protection

commitments during construction and operation of the Project. 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. Specific measures designed to mitigate or avoid adverse

potential environmental impacts during Project construction or operations include the following:

Siting the Project away from population centers and areas of residential development.

Locating access roads and turbines along field edges where practical and in field corners to avoid or

minimize disturbance of agricultural land.

Keeping turbines a minimum of 1,200 feet from residences to minimize noise and visual impacts.

Utilizing multiple-megawatt scale turbines to reduce the length of interconnect and access roads per

megawatt of capacity.

Burying electrical interconnection lines between turbines except where unavoidable due to sensitive

environmental/cultural resources or construction constraints, in order to minimize agricultural impacts.

Using existing roads for turbine access whenever possible to minimize disturbance to agricultural land,

wildlife habitat, wetlands, and streams.

Utilizing construction techniques that minimize disturbance to vegetation, streams, and wetlands.

Siting the interconnection substation facilities in an area screened by existing mature vegetation.

Painting the turbines with a matte non-specular finish.


6

Developing and implementing a sedimentation and erosion control plan.

Proposing a compensatory stream/wetland mitigation program.

Siting select turbines to avoid or minimize wetland, wildlife, or visual impacts.

Performing post-construction monitoring to improve understanding of possible avian impacts.

Siting turbines to avoid interference with microwave and AM/FM communication systems.

Siting turbines to avoid interference with exiting gas wells and infrastructure.

Implementing agricultural protection measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on agricultural land

and farm operations.

Developing a traffic and dust management plan during construction.

Upgrading public roads utilized during construction.

Finalizing a component delivery plan that minimizes impacts on residential areas.

Developing and implementing a historic resource protection plan in concert with the New York State Historic

Preservation Office.

Developing and implementing a Complaint Resolution Procedure.

1.3 SUMMARY OF THE SEIS

Since completion of the DEIS various public and agency comments were received and reviewed, and additional

studies were conducted and data were collected and analyzed. The SEIS describes revisions to the Project layout,

presents the results of additional studies, and addresses significant issues raised during the public comment period

on the DEIS. To minimize duplication and inconsistency, the SEIS follows the same general format as the DEIS and

incorporates various sections of the DEIS by reference. Only information that has changed or been added since

preparation of the DEIS is specifically addressed in the SEIS.

New data collected for the potential impact area since the submittal of the DEIS, and which is reported on in the SEIS

includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Comprehensive field-based wetland delineation and water resources evaluation, conducted in coordination

with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE);

Subsurface archaeological resource investigations, conducted in accordance with field study guidelines for

wind energy facilities that were developed by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO);


7

A review of historic architectural resources within a 5-mile radius of the Project Site that are either listed on

or are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), conducted in

accordance with guidelines developed by the New York SHPO;

A hydrogeological study of the Project Site;

An updated assessment of avoided air emissions from the Arkwright Summit Wind Farm; and

An updated economic and fiscal impact study reflecting the current Project.

In addition, the Applicant updated the following impact assessment studies, which were originally conducted and

reported on in the Project DEIS. These revised investigations evaluate the revised Project facility layout presented in

the SEIS:

Additional aviation hazard assessment and consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA);

TV broadcast reception impacts;

Licensed microwave beam paths and worst-case Fresnel zone;

Updated information regarding potential avian and bat impacts;

Visual impact assessment, with new photo simulations from viewpoints requested since the preparation of

the DEIS, including views of both wind turbines and the proposed overhead electric transmission line;

Shadow flicker impact analysis;

Environmental sound survey and noise impact assessment;

Land use impact assessment;

Impacts to geology and soils, including farmlands of statewide significance and prime farmland soils; and

Additional information regarding potential property value impacts.

1.3.1 SEIS Project Description

At the time of the preparation of the SEIS, Arkwright Summit Wind Farm LLC (the Applicant, formerly New Grange

Wind Farm, LLC), a subsidiary of Horizon Wind Energy LLC, was proposing to develop a wind-powered generating

facility of up to 44 wind turbines with a maximum capacity of between 79.2 and 79.8 megawatts (MW), depending on

the specific wind turbine used. The Applicant planned to utilize the Vestas V-90 turbine or an equivalent model of

equal or lesser size and development footprint. The Vestas V-90 turbine has a rotor diameter of 90 meters (295 feet)

and a hub height of 80 meters (262 feet). In addition to the wind turbines, the proposed SEIS Project Layout included

the construction of four permanent meteorological towers, a system of gravel access roads, both buried and

overhead electrical collection lines, an operation and maintenance building, an electrical switchgear facility, and an


8

interconnection substation facility. A temporary construction staging area was also planned during the construction

phase of the Project.

The revised, SEIS Project Site encompassed 5,964 acres of leased, privately owned land in the Towns of Arkwright

(5,879 acres) and Pomfret (85 acres), as compared to the DEIS Project Site, which consisted of 5,930 acres. The

proposed facilities would temporarily impact approximately 359 acres of land during construction and 90 acres of land

during Project operations. These impacts are based on conservative assumptions regarding potential impact areas,

and would likely be reduced once final design is completed and associated impacts are reported in the Project FEIS.

A summary of the primary Project facilities in the SEIS layout compared to the prior DEIS layout is provided in Table

2.

Table 2. Comparison of Project Facilities Proposed in the DEIS and the SEIS Layouts

Facility Type DEIS Layout SEIS Layout

Wind Turbines 47 44

Access Roads 18 miles 15.8 miles

Power Collection Lines (buried) 21.0 miles 17.9 miles

Power Collection and Transmission Lines (overhead) 4.7 miles 5.4 miles

Permanent Meteorological Towers 4 4

Operations & Maintenance Facility 1 1

Substation/Point of Interconnection 1 1

Electrical Switchgear Facility 0 1

Temporary Construction Laydown Yard 1 1

1.4 SUMMARY OF THE SEIS2

The SEIS2 was prepared to build upon the information and analysis in both the 2008 Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) and 2009 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) that were previously prepared for

the Project. The SEIS2 addresses all changes to the proposed action that have occurred subsequent to the SEIS,

and includes additional studies and analyses. In general, the SEIS2 does not reiterate information from the previous

DEIS or SEIS that remains accurate and unchanged. In addition, the SEIS2 is not a comprehensive response to

public/agency comments received on the DEIS and SEIS; however, the SEIS2 does address substantive issues that

were raised in these comments (in those instances where the comments are applicable to the currently proposed

Project layout).


9

1.4.1 SEIS2 Project Description

The Project Layout described in the SEIS2 includes up to 36 turbines, which were anticipated to include 33 turbines

with a nameplate capacity of 2.2 megawatts (MW) and 3 turbines with a nameplate capacity of 2.0 megawatts (MW),

for a total anticipated nameplate generating capacity of 78.6 MW (see Section 2.1 of this FEIS for information related

to an anticipated change in the total generating capacity of the Project from 78.6 to 78.4 MW). The Applicant intends

to select a turbine that includes both 2.2 and 2.0 MW nameplate capacity models; however, it is anticipated that both

models will have the same physical dimensions and appearance. The Project has submitted an interconnection

request and is currently proceeding through the System Reliability Impact Study with the New York Independent

System Operator (NYISO) for 78.8 MW. Therefore, the proposed use of both 2.2 and 2.0 MW turbines allows the

Applicant to maximize the energy generation potential of the proposed Project within the constraints of their approved

interconnection request while minimizing the number of proposed wind turbines.

The largest wind turbines presently being considered for the Project are the Vestas V-110 wind turbines which are

larger than the turbines proposed in the DEIS and SEIS. Assuming use of the Vestas V-110 turbines, the anticipated

tower height for the Project, or “hub height” (height from foundation to top of tower), is approximately 95 meters (312

feet). The V-110 has a rotor diameter of 110 meters (361 feet), resulting in a total height of 150 meters (492 feet).

The change to the Vestas V-110 turbines allows the use of fewer turbines than proposed in the DEIS (47) or the

SEIS (44). In addition, to provide flexibility on final site selection, the Applicant is evaluating and seeks approval for

38 proposed turbine locations (although only 36 turbines will ultimately be built).

The current Project Site is very similar to the Project Site previously identified in the DEIS and SEIS. Relative to the

DEIS and SEIS Project Layouts, the SEIS2 Project Layout minimizes potential environmental impacts by reducing

the overall scale of the Project in the following ways:

The number of proposed turbines has been reduced from 47 (DEIS), to 44 (SEIS), to 36 (SEIS2). Notably,

seven proposed wind turbines located in the southeastern portion of the Project site have been eliminated

from the Project layout. Otherwise, the proposed turbines in the SEIS2 Project Layout are for the most part

located in close proximity to turbine locations that were previously evaluated in the SEIS.

The total distance of proposed access roads has been reduced from 18 miles (DEIS), to 15.8 miles (SEIS),

to 12.4 miles (SEIS2).

The total areas of temporary and permanent soil disturbance resulting from construction of the SEIS2

Project Layout total 289.5 and 69.5 acres (respectively), which is reduced from 359 and 90 acres

(respectively) in the SEIS Project Layout and 375 and 89 acres (respectively) in the DEIS Project Layout.


10

The SEIS2 Project Layout is sited on many of the same parcels that were previously included in the DEIS

and SEIS. The Project Site as presented in the DEIS included 5,930 acres. The SEIS Project Layout was

somewhat more dispersed and included 5,964 acres. The Project Site for the SEIS2 has been reduced to

3,883 acres.

The DEIS and SEIS Project Layouts included a 1.4-mile segment of overhead collection line in the southeastern

portion of the Project which is no longer proposed as part of the Project. The differences between the SEIS2 Project

Layout relative to the DEIS and SEIS Project Layouts are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of SEIS2 Project Layout Relative to the DEIS and SEIS Project Layouts.

Proposed Project Component

Description, Count, and/or Distance

SEIS2 Project Layout (2015)

SEIS Project Layout (2009)

DEIS Project Layout (2008)

Wind Turbine Model & Dimensions (assumes largest model under

consideration)

Vestas V-110 Hub Height: 95m (312’)

Rotor Diameter: 110m (361’) Total Height: 150m (492’)





Wind Turbines 36 (38 locations being

considered) 44 47

Project Site 3,883 acres 87 parcels

5,964 acres 116 parcels

5,930 acres 117 parcels

Temporary Disturbance 289.5 acres 359 acres 375 acres

Permanent Disturbance 69.5 acres 90 acres 89 acres

Meteorological Towers 1 4 4

Access Roads 12.4 miles 15.8 miles 18 miles

Collection Lines 18 miles underground

0 miles overhead 17.9 miles underground

5.4 miles overhead 21 miles underground

4.7 miles overhead

O&M Facility 5,000-8,000 square-foot

building 2-acre site

5,000-8,000 square-foot building

8.7-acre site

5,000-8,000 square-foot building

5-acre site

Staging Areas 6.7 acres 8.3 acres 10 acres

Generator Lead 5.9 miles (overhead) - -

POI Substation 2 acres 5 acres 4 acres

As indicated in Table 3 the Applicant is proposing the use of a taller wind turbine with a larger rotor diameter (relative

to what was considered in the DEIS and SEIS) to maximize energy production based on the site-specific wind

resource analyses. Fewer turbines are proposed in the current layout as a result of the increased nameplate

capacities of the larger wind turbine. Taller turbines can create the potential for impacts due to setback issues, the

potential for increased visibility, and higher rotor swept zones. However, when compared to a larger number of

shorter turbines, the overall benefits associated with the energy production at the taller height and the net reduction

of impacts due to fewer turbines outweigh the relatively minor differences in potential environmental impacts.


11

2.0 REVISIONS TO THE SEIS2

One of the mandates of SEQRA is to prepare an EIS as early as possible in the review process. As a result, it is

common for projects to change after an EIS is submitted, and particularly in response to comments on the EIS. The

FEIS builds upon the SEIS2, providing responses to comments and, in this Section, addressing Project changes that

occurred after the SEIS2 was accepted as complete and released for public comment.

2.1 CHANGES TO THE PROJECT LAYOUT

Subsequent to the preparation of the SEIS2, the development of the Project has advanced. In order to provide

flexibility for engineering and construction purposes, address feedback from participating landowners, and further

reduce the potential for environmental impacts, the following modifications to the Project have been proposed.

Wind Turbines: The Project layout presented in the SEIS2 utilized the Vestas V-110 turbine model in a

combination of 33 turbines with a 2.2 MW capacity, and 3 turbines with a 2.0 MW capacity. The Applicant

has subsequently determined that the use of 32 turbines with a 2.2 MW capacity and 4 turbines with a 2.0

MW capacity is a preferable combination. As described in the SEIS2, the turbine model that will be selected

for the Project has not been determined. However, the largest wind turbines presently being considered for

the Project are the Vestas V-110 wind turbines. Both the 2.2 MW and 2.0 MW of the Vestas V-110 possess

the same physical dimensions, which are described in the SEIS2. This modification will slightly reduce the

overall nameplate capacity of the Project from the 78.6 MW presented in the SEIS2 to 78.4 MW, which

represents a 0.25% decrease, or a minimal change in the proposed energy production of the Project.

However, other than the difference in the output of the turbine, there are no other differences that could

result in potential environmental impacts. Consequently, the analyses presented in the SEIS2 that take the

nameplate capacity of the Project in to account remain pertinent.

Alternate Point-of-Interconnect Substation: The Applicant is considering an alternate location for the point-

of-interconnect substation in the Town of Pomfret. The location of the alternate substation is on the west

side of Brainard Road, approximately 800 feet south of the intersection of Brainard Road and Route 83

(Figures 1 and 2). In association with the alternate substation, the Applicant is proposing to construct a 620

foot long access road that runs due west from Brainard Road to the substation. Additionally, the Applicant is

proposing to construct an approximately 450 foot long span of generator lead line to connect the proposed

alternate substation to an existing transmission line that runs adjacent to the property. The use of the

alternate location of the point-of-interconnect substation will shorten the overall length of the Project


12

generator lead line from 5.9 miles as presented in the SEIS2, to approximately 4.7 miles (see Figures 1 and

2).

In the event that the Applicant decides not to construct the point-of-interconnect substation in the alternate

location, the location presented in the SEIS2 will be utilized instead. However, to accommodate landowner

preferences, the Applicant is also proposing a minor change in the generator lead line route that leads to

this location. Specifically, the Applicant is proposing that a 910 foot long stretch of the generator lead line

that runs through an agricultural field along the north side of County Route 112 be relocated to an

agricultural field on the south side of County Route 112 (se Figure 2). This change will not significantly alter

the overall length, or associated potential impacts of the Project generator lead line.

Collection Substation: Since the preparation of the SEIS2, the Applicant has also determined the final

location of the Project collection substation. The collection substation is responsible for collecting electricity

conducted through the underground buried collection lines, and transferring it to the overhead generator

lead line. The collection substation will be located on the same parcel as the O & M facility, along Center

Road, north of the intersection with County Route 83. The footprint of the substation is approximately 0.70

acres, and an additional 770 feet of access road will be constructed in support of the facility. The location of

the collection substation is located within the corridor that was previously surveyed for wetlands as

described in the SEIS2 (see Appendix E of the SEIS2).

Minor Layout Changes: In addition to considering the alternate substation location and associated changes

to access roads and transmission lines described above, some additional minor changes have been made

to the Project layout since the preparation of the SEIS2 in other areas of the Project Site. Firstly, the

locations of two turbines have been shifted slightly (less than 25 feet) to ensure compliance with local

setback laws. Specifically, turbine 110 has been shifted approximately 20 feet to the south, and turbine 47

has been shifted approximately 10 feet to the northeast. In addition, a revision to the buried collection line

route have been made between turbine 32 and 100, where the collection line has been extended by

approximately 1,300 feet to include turbine 100 and accommodate engineering requirements.

Concurrent with the preparation of the SEIS2, Project engineering has advanced, including grading for access roads

and other components. The more refined design information provided by the Project engineering replaces and

supersedes the impact assumptions presented in the SEIS2. Although complete construction drawings have not yet


13

been developed for the entire Project, detailed design has been advanced for Project components located proximate

to delineated wetlands and streams to better characterize potential impacts to those resources.

2.2 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

As described in Section 2.1 of this FEIS, since the preparation of the SEIS2, there have been minor revisions to the

Project layout, and the Applicant is now considering an alternate location for the point-of-interconnect substation. In

some cases, these proposed modifications extend outside of the original wetland survey corridor (as presented in

SEIS2 Appendix E) during the wetland delineations that were conducted in the spring of 2015. Consequently,

additional wetland delineations were conducted for these areas by EDR in the fall of 2015, and an additional seven

wetlands and two streams were delineated (see Figure 3). More detailed results of these additional wetland

delineations are provided in the Appendix A of this FEIS.

As a consequence of the modifications to the Project layout presented in Section 2.1 of this FEIS, and advancements

in Project engineering, the anticipated temporary and permanent impacts resulting from the construction and

operation of the Project have been revised to accurately reflect these changes.

Alternate Point-of-Interconnect Substation: As described in Section 2.1 of this FEIS, the Applicant is

considering an alternate location for the point-of-interconnect (POI) substation. A 620 foot length of access

road, and a 450 foot length of generator lead line would also be constructed to support the substation in this

alternate location. If the Applicant decides to construct the POI substation in the alternate location, the

overall length of the Project generator lead line would be reduced from 5.9 miles as presented in the SEIS2,

to 4.7 miles. Taken together, the use of the alternate POI substation location would result in a reduction of

temporary impacts to vegetation resulting from Project construction by about 22.7 acres, of which

approximately 0.42 acres are wetlands. The use of the alternate substation would however incur an

additional 0.3 acres of temporary soils impact, and 0.46 acres of permanent soils impact, of which 0.006

acres would be to wetlands. All other potential impacts and mitigation measures associated with the

construction and operation of the POI substation are as described in the SEIS2.

Collection Substation: As described in Section 2.2 of this FEIS, subsequent to the preparation of the SEIS2,

the Applicant has determined the location and design of the Project collection substation. Consequently, the

potential environmental impacts associated with this facility were not included in the analysis presented in

the SEIS2, and are instead described herein. Construction of the Project collection substation and the

associated access road will result in approximately 1.2 acres of additional temporary impact to vegetation, of


14

which approximately 0.12 acres are wetlands. Construction of this facility will also incur approximately 0.35

acres of additional temporary impact to soils, of which 0.029 acres are wetlands. Furthermore,

approximately 1.30 acres of soil will be permanently impacted, of which approximately 0.28 acres are

wetlands. It is not anticipated that the construction of the collection substation will result in any other impacts

that are significantly different than those already described in the SEIS2.

Additional Buried Collection Line: As described in Section 2.1 of this FEIS, approximately 1,300 feet of

buried collection line has been added to the Project to connect Turbines 32 and 100 (Figure 2). The majority

of this collection line will be co-located with the access road that runs between Turbine 32 and 100.

However, the construction of this additional buried collection line will result in approximately 0.81 acres of

temporary impact to vegetation, of which 0.078 acres are wetlands. Furthermore, 0.647 acres of temporary

impact to soils, of which approximately 0.062 acres are wetlands, will be incurred. All other potential impacts

and mitigation measures associated with the construction and operation of this stretch of buried interconnect

are as described in the SEIS2.

Impacts to Wetlands: As described previously, Project engineering has advanced concurrent with the

preparation of the SEIS2 and FEIS. Design information provided by current Project engineering replaces

and supersedes the impact assumptions presented in the SEIS2. Although complete construction drawings

have not yet been developed for the entire Project, detailed design has been advanced for Project

components located proximate to delineated wetlands and streams to better characterize potential impacts

to those resources. Per the refined Project design, assuming that the alternate POI substation and the

alternate wind turbines are not constructed, it is now anticipated that approximately 8.24 acres of wetland

will be permanently converted to project facilities. Additionally, it is anticipated that approximately 9.0 acres

of wetland will be temporarily impacted during project construction. Appendix B of this FEIS provides tables

summarizing the updated anticipated impacts to wetlands, as well as instances where the Project

components cross New York State protected streams.

2.3 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

As described in the DEIS, SEIS, and SEIS2, the purpose of the proposed Project is to create a profitable,

economically viable wind-powered energy generation facility that will provide a significant source of clean and

renewable energy to the New York power grid. Moreover, the Applicant’s goal is to construct and operate a

renewable energy project that maximizes the economic and environmental benefits within the constraints of the


15

approved NYISO Interconnection agreement for 78.8 MW (note that the current Project proposal is for a nameplate

capacity of 78.4 MW).

The economic and environmental benefits of the Project, as described below, are important considerations relative to

evaluating the overall environmental impacts of the proposed Project. As described in the SEIS2, the Project will help

the State achieve the goals of the 2015 State Energy Plan. State Energy Law 6-104 requires the State Energy

Planning Board to adopt a State Energy Plan. The latest iteration of the New York State Energy Plan was announced

on June 25, 2015. The State Energy Plan contains a series of policy objectives and coordinates with the Reforming

the Energy Vision (REV) initiative and the objectives to increase the use of energy systems that enable to the State

to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions while stabilizing energy costs. According to the Plan, the

Plan is a “comprehensive strategy to create economic opportunities for communities and individual customers

throughout New York.” Through the State Energy Plan, New York has committed to achieving a 40% reduction in

GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 and reducing total carbon emissions 80% by 2050. In addition, the State

Energy Plan calls for 50% of generation of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. The Arkwright Summit

Wind Farm fully advances the objectives of the State Energy Plan and assists the State in achieving the 50%

renewable energy generation objective.

In addition, federal regulations also recognize the environmental benefits of renewable energy projects, such as the

Arkwright Summit Wind Farm. In fulfillment of President Obama's commitment under the 2013 Climate Action Plan,

EPA proposed “Clean Power Plan” regulations in 2014 establishing a framework for states to regulate carbon dioxide

emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (See 79 Federal Register 34830; June 18, 2014).

Once the guidelines are issued, states must develop plans that explain how they will achieve those guidelines.

Nationwide, the proposal calls for reducing CO2 from the power sector by approximately 30% from 2005 emission

levels by 2030. The proposal establishes emission rate-based CO2 goals for each state as well as guidelines for the

development, submission and implementation of state plans to achieve those goals. The proposal relies on four

basic building blocks: (1) reducing the carbon intensity of generation at individual units through heat rate

improvements; (2) substituting less carbon-intensive generating units (e.g., replacing coal with natural gas); (3)

increasing reliance on low or zero-carbon generation sources such as solar and wind; and (4) increasing reliance on

demand-side energy efficiency programs.

Unlike other states with a Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”), in New York, the New York State Energy Research

and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”) is responsible for obtaining the targets established in the RPS through

competitive bidding and contract procurements. To date, NYSERDA has conducted 10 Main Tier (larger, utility scale


16

resources) solicitations in pursuit of the RPS target. From the nine completed solicitations, NYSERDA currently has

contracts with electricity generators for 65 large-scale projects, including the Arkwright Summit Wind Farm Project

(NYSERDA, 2015). These projects will add more than 2,035 MWs of new renewable capacity to the State’s energy

mix. However, as of December 2014, the State, through NYSERDA, has only procured enough renewable energy to

meet 56% of the RPS targets. (NYSERDA, 2015).

Additional benefits include positive impacts to the local community (e.g., increased employment, increased revenues

to local municipalities and lease revenues to participating landowners and neighbors), air quality (through reduction

of emissions from fossil-fuel-burning power plants), and climate (reduction of greenhouse gases that contribute to

global warming).

2.3.1 Overview of Project Siting

In order to develop a viable commercial-scale wind project, a project site must be selected that fulfills a number of

requirements. Chief among these is wind resource. Across New York State, the wind resource varies based upon a

number of factors (and the interplay of these factors) including topography, prevailing wind direction, and location.

Commercial scale wind power projects can only be located in certain locations within the state that are conducive to

wind energy production and have available capacity of transmission lines. New York has a modest wind resource,

however this is not evenly disbursed throughout the State but is limited to certain unique areas including coastal

areas, ridge lines, and hill/mountain peaks. The site selected for the Arkwright Summit Wind Project is located in the

hills of the western edge of the Allegheny Plateau, which is an ideal location to capture the winds that blow eastward

off of Lake Erie. This location is unique and desirable to take advantage of the wind speed in this location, which is

suitable for commercial scale energy production.

In addition to wind resource, the Applicant selected the proposed site due to the relative ease of transportation

access to the site, the proximity and relative ease of connecting to the electrical transmission grid, the relative lack of

potential disturbance to cultural and visual resources, and landowners. Moreover, the local communities are

supportive of the Project, and local landowners, many of whom are farmers or foresters, are willing to allow project

components to be sited on their lands. The Project site includes many large parcels of undeveloped land, which are

vital to the successful development of a wind project as such parcels are sufficient to accommodate the setbacks of

project components required by local laws, engineering constraints, and turbine spacing needs. All of these factors

are essential for a site to be considered suitable for a commercial scale wind energy facility.


17

In 2014, the Arkwright Summit Wind Project was awarded a contract in response to the New York State Energy

Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) 9th Main Tier solicitation, which is being allocated through the

State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a policy that promotes the development of renewable energy

throughout New York State. The awarding of this contract to the Arkwright Summit Wind Farm affirms the State of

New York’s concurrence with the Applicant that the energy generation and deliverability attributes of the proposed

Project Site are ideal, and contribute to the Project having a competitive advantage over many other proposed wind

project sites that were submitted to the 9th Main Tier solicitation.

2.3.2 History of the Project Layout

As a practical matter, the siting of a windpower project is essentially a series of incremental alternatives analyses in which

the Project Sponsor and its expert consultants identify and weigh various parameters in order to select a final Project

design that balances Project impacts against Project benefits. Ultimately, the layout of all components of a windpower

project is driven by the siting considerations of the turbines themselves.

At the time the DEIS was prepared, the Applicant was proposing to develop a wind-powered generating facility of up

to 47 wind turbines with a maximum capacity of 79.9 megawatts (MW). In addition to the wind turbines, the DEIS

Project Layout included construction of up to four permanent meteorological towers, a system of gravel access roads,

a buried and overhead electrical collection system, an operation and maintenance building, and an interconnection

substation facility. 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.

As the Project advanced, and was further evaluated in the SEIS, the Applicant revised the Project Layout to reduce

the total number of turbines to up to 44 turbines with a maximum capacity of between 79.2 and 79.8 megawatts

(MW), depending on the specific wind turbine used. In addition to the wind turbines, the proposed SEIS Project

Layout included the construction of four permanent meteorological towers, a system of gravel access roads, both

buried and overhead electrical collection lines, an operation and maintenance building, an electrical switchgear

facility, and an interconnection substation facility. The revised, SEIS Project Site encompassed 5,964 acres of

leased, privately owned land in the Towns of Arkwright (5,879 acres) and Pomfret (85 acres), as compared to the

DEIS Project Site, which consisted of 5,930 acres. Various plans and support studies were also included in the SEIS.

The SEIS2 Project Layout further reduced the number of proposed wind turbines to a maximum of 36 turbines, which

were anticipated to include 33 turbines with a nameplate capacity of 2.2 megawatts (MW) and 3 turbines with a

nameplate capacity of 2.0 megawatts (MW), for a total anticipated nameplate generating capacity of 78.6 MW (see


18

Section 2.1 of this FEIS for information related to an anticipated change in the total generating capacity of the Project

from 78.6 to 78.4 MW). The SEIS2 Project Layout incorporated a taller wind turbine with a larger rotor diameter

(relative to what was considered in the DEIS and SEIS) to maximize energy production based on the site-specific

wind resource analyses. By increasing the nameplate capacities of the larger wind turbine, the Applicant was able to

propose fewer turbines in the SEIS2 Project Layout, while maximizing the Project’s energy production and associated

environmental benefits. The potential adverse environmental impacts associated with a larger turbine were identified

and analyzed in the SEIS2.

In general, the SEIS2 Project Site is very similar to the Project Site previously identified in the DEIS and SEIS.

Relative to the DEIS and SEIS Project Layouts, the SEIS2 Project Layout minimized overall environmental impacts

by reducing the scale of the Project. The number of proposed turbines was reduced from 47 (DEIS), to 44 (SEIS), to

36 (SEIS2). Notably, seven proposed wind turbines located in the southeastern portion of the Project site were

eliminated from the Project layout. Otherwise, the proposed turbines in the SEIS2 Project Layout are for the most

part located in close proximity to turbine locations that were previously evaluated in the SEIS. The total distance of

proposed access roads was also reduced from 18 miles (DEIS), to 15.8 miles (SEIS), to 12.4 miles (SEIS2). The total

areas of temporary and permanent soil disturbance resulting from construction of the SEIS2 Project Layout total

289.5 and 69.5 acres (respectively), which was reduced from 359 and 90 acres (respectively) in the SEIS Project

Layout and 375 and 89 acres (respectively) in the DEIS Project Layout. The Project Site as presented in the DEIS

included 5,930 acres. The SEIS Project Layout was somewhat more dispersed and included 5,964 acres. The

Project Site for the SEIS2 was reduced to 3,883 acres. The SEIS2 Project Layout is sited on many of the same

parcels that were previously included in the DEIS and SEIS and was designed in response to the identification of

sensitive environmental resources and analysis of impacts presented in the DEIS and SEIS, as further described

below. The DEIS and SEIS Project Layouts also included a 1.4-mile segment of overhead collection line in the

southeastern portion of the Project. The 1.4-mile overhead collection line is no longer proposed as part of the Project,

as indicated in the SEIS2.

2.3.3 Siting Considerations for Wind Turbine Locations

As stated above, carefully selecting the locations of wind turbines within a project site is key to developing a viable

windpower project, and it is ultimately the turbine locations that drive the layout of other project components.

Determining the locations of wind turbines within a project site is based on the complex interplay between a variety of

regulatory, engineering, and environmental considerations. A figure showing turbine siting constraints is included as

Figure 4 of this FEIS. This graphic study is based on the results of field studies included in the DEIS, SEIS, and SEIS2,

and illustrates the various siting limitations discussed throughout the SEQRA record: that turbines (and associated


19

components) can be located only on leased participating parcels; that this “developable” area is then further restricted by

set-back requirements of the local ordinance (e.g., set-backs from public roads, existing infrastructure, and non-

participating parcel boundaries and residences); that these “developable” areas defined by legal setbacks are further

restricted by engineering considerations (such as topography/elevation, steep slopes, and required spacing between wind

turbines); and are further restricted by the need to avoid or minimize environmental impacts and Fresnel zones. A complete

list of the various constraints and considerations taken in to account in the process of siting wind turbines for this Project is

provided below.

Regulatory and Land Use Constraints

738 foot (1.5x maximum turbine height) setback from any structure

1,200 foot setback from structures on non-participating parcels

500 foot setback from the boundary line of non-participating parcels

525 foot setback from existing gas transmission pipeline infrastructure

500 foot setback from existing gas wells

500 foot setback from existing public roads

738 foot (1.5x maximum turbine height) setback from existing overhead utility lines

1,200 foot setback from existing recreational trails or facilities Engineering Constraints

Sufficient elevation to achieve optimal wind resource at turbine hub height

Minimum separation distance between turbines to prevent wake loss (interference)

Minimization of access road lengths from nearest public road (to minimize construction costs as well as environmental impacts)

Co-locating underground collection lines with access roads (to minimize construction costs as well as environmental impacts)

Avoidance of steep slopes (typically > 10%)

Environmental Constraints

Avoidance of communication Fresnel zones

Siting turbines to avoid interference with and AM/FM communication systems

Avoidance of archaeological resources

Minimization of noise and shadow flicker impacts by siting turbines as far from residences as possible

Minimization of impacts to agricultural lands per land owner requirements and conformation with the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets

Minimization of forest fragmentation by siting project components along existing disturbed corridors to the extent practicable

Minimization of impacts to wetlands and streams (as described in following section)


20

2.3.4 History of Wetland Delineations

The presence of wetlands and streams within the Project Site was originally assessed during reconnaissance-level

field observations and on-site wetland delineations conducted by Tetra Tech in October and November of 2007, the

results of which were included in the DEIS. The 2007 study investigated a 3-acre area around each of the 47 turbine

locations, although formal delineations were only conducted at 13 sites (39 acres total) where wetland acreage was

minimal and significant layout changes were not anticipated. A total of 1.71 acres of wetland were delineated during

the 2007 survey. The analysis presented in the DEIS anticipated that 13.6 acres of wetland would be temporarily

impacted, and 1.6 acres of wetland would be permanently impacted.

Following the preparation of the DEIS, further modifications to the Project were made, which necessitated the

preparation of an SEIS. A Wetlands and Waterbodies Report was prepared and included as Appendix C of the SEIS.

This report presented the results of a field-based wetland delineation conducted during the summer and fall of 2008

and spring of 2009 by Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E). The 2008 and 2009 surveys investigated an area of

approximately 983 acres. In total, 171 wetlands and 62 streams were delineated, with the area of wetlands totaling

approximately 41.1 acres. A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (JD) for these delineations was provided by the

USACE on March 15, 2010, which is provided in Appendix C to the FEIS. Additionally, DEC issued a letter to the

Applicant on September 25, 2009 (See Appendix D of the FEIS) which confirmed the occurrence of a state-regulated

wetland within the Project Site. The letter also concurred with July 2009 Wetland and Waterbodies Report that the

Project has been sited to avoid impacts to state-regulated wetlands. The analysis presented in the SEIS anticipated

that 12.3 acres of wetland would be temporarily impacted, and 1.3 acres of wetland would be permanently impacted.

The anticipated wetland impacts presented in the SEIS represented a decrease from wetland impacts presented in

the DEIS, and were relatively low overall considering the size of the proposed Project. Together with the many other

siting considerations of the Project, the potential for relatively low wetland impacts affirm the general suitability of

proposed Project Site. Therefore, the applicant has continued to advance the development and design of the Project

based on the favorable environmental conditions at the site as well as the feedback and concurrence received from

regulatory agencies.

In the time since the preparation of the SEIS, additional modifications to the Project have been made, which

necessitated the preparation of an SEIS2. The chief modification was a reduction in the overall scale of the Project,

accomplished by dropping eight turbines, of which seven were located in the southeastern portion of the Project Site.

As a consequence of the reduction in the number turbines, the total distance of proposed access roads was reduced

from 15.8 miles (SEIS) to 12.4 miles (SEIS2), the number of permanent meteorological towers was reduced from four

(SEIS) to one (SEIS2), and the overall area of the Project site was reduced from the 5,964 acres presented in the


21

SEIS, to the 3,883 acres presented in the SEIS2. Otherwise, the proposed turbines in the SEIS2 Project layout are

for the most part located in close proximity to turbine locations that were previously evaluated in the SEIS. An

additional comprehensive field-based wetland delineation of the Project Site and the locations of proposed Project

facilities was conducted by E&E during the summer of 2015 (see Appendix E of the SEIS2). Results of the wetland

delineations were shared with the USACE and NYSDEC in September 2015 (see Appendix C of the SEIS2). In

general, surveys conducted for wetland and waterbody resources were contained within a 250-foot-wide corridor

centered on access roads and the transmission line, a 100-foot-wide corridor centered on associated electric

collection lines connecting the individual turbines, a laydown area, an interconnect facility, and a circular area with a

250-foot radius surrounding each turbine. The survey area that was investigated for the 2015 delineations totaled

approximately 797 acres. A total of 256 wetlands were delineated, totaling approximately 133.28 acres in area. The

analysis presented in the SEIS2 anticipated that 43.18 acres of wetland would be temporarily impacted, 5.87 acres of

wetland would be permanently impacted, and 36.8 acres of forested wetland would be permanently converted to non-

forested palustrine wetlands.

Despite the fact that the 2015 wetland delineation survey corridor was 186 acres smaller than the 2008/2009 wetland

delineation survey corridor, the 2015 delineation effort identified approximately 92 more acres of wetland than the

2008/2009 delineation effort. This represents an approximately 425% increase in the proportional area of wetlands

within the study corridor between 2008/2009 and 2015. The significant increase in the area of delineated wetland

between 2008/2009 and 2015 is likely due to multiple factors. Between 2009 and 2015, the USACE released the final

version of the Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation

Manual. According to E&E personnel, the updated guidance provided in the Regional Supplement included many

primary and secondary indicators of wetland hydrology that were not applied to previous wetland delineations.

Additionally, revisions to the list of wetland indicator plant species, and updated guidance on how to handle

problematic situations where not all three wetland parameters are required, contributed to changes in the approach to

how wetlands were delineated in 2015.

As noted previously, concurrent with the preparation of the SEIS2, Project engineering has advanced, including

grading for access roads and other components. The more refined design information provided by the Project

engineering replaces and supersedes the impact assumptions presented in the SEIS2. Although complete

construction drawings have not yet been developed for the entire Project, detailed design has been advanced for

Project components located proximate to delineated wetlands and streams to better characterize potential impacts to

those resources. Based on current Project engineering, it is now anticipated that approximately 8.24 acres of wetland

will be permanently converted to project facilities. Additionally, it is anticipated that approximately 9.0 acres of


22

wetland will be temporarily impacted during project construction and 1.52 acres of forested wetland will be

permanently converted to emergent wetlands.

It should be noted that approximately 44 acres of wetland delineated during the 2015 survey occur within active

agricultural land, which represents 33% of the total area of wetland delineated during 2015. Furthermore,

approximately 3.26 acres of permanent wetland impact (36% of project-wide total) and 7.46 acres of temporary

wetland impact (78% of project-wide total) are anticipated in these agricultural areas. These potential impact

estimates are based on current Project engineering and supersede the enumeration of potential impacts presented in

the SEIS2. Generally speaking, due to the frequently disturbed nature of agricultural land, these wetlands are

considered to be of lower quality, and harbor less ecological value than those that occur in forested and scrub-shrub

communities. Prior to the issuance of the 2012 USACE Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement, these

areas would not likely have been considered wetlands per accepted standards of professional practice and/or by

regulators. Furthermore, the occurrence of wetlands in agricultural land often renders these areas less productive for

growing crops due to frequently saturated soils. If the Applicant were to re-locate many of the Project components

that are currently sited in these wetlands, it would result in impacts to much higher quality agricultural land, and likely

be more detrimental to overall agricultural productivity than would be as the Project is currently sited.

In addition to the large proportion of delineated wetlands that occur in active agricultural areas, approximately 91

acres (68% of project wide total) occur within forested areas. However, due to the Applicant’s desire to site access

roads and other project components along existing corridors such as old logging roads and trails, many of the

anticipated impacts to emergent wetlands in forested areas occur along previously disturbed corridors. While, the

Applicant has explored the possibility of re-siting various Project components to avoid impacts to these forested

wetlands, this would often result in impacts to non-disturbed forested upland communities, which may be more

ecologically valuable than the already disturbed rutted forest roads and trails in which wetlands have developed.

In summary, the Project has been designed through an iterative process since 2008, including real-time

modifications to the layout to accommodate new wetland delineations as they were completed. For instance, new

turbine locations and access road alignments were developed, then re-delineated, and re-evaluated to further avoid

and minimize wetland impacts. Turbines were moved out of wetlands while maintaining the required setbacks.

Crane pads and workspaces were rotated and reconfigured to move away from and out of wetlands when possible.

Access road alignments were moved to avoid wetlands and where impacts were not avoidable, the roads were

moved to impact the narrowest point within a wetland. Where possible, access roads use existing farm lanes and

logging trails, existing culvert crossings of streams, and existing gas well access roads. The generator lead line


23

alignment and pole locations were modified to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands. Finally, the operations and

maintenance building and project substation were also re-located and re-engineered multiple times to avoid and

minimize wetland impacts.

The current Project layout represents significant effort in analyzing the development potential of the site, landowner

participation, wind resource assessment and a review of the site’s physical and zoning constraints. The current

layout presents a balance between renewable energy production, legal setbacks, engineering siting constraints, and

avoidance of environmental impacts (Figure 4). Significant relocation of any of the turbines to a site other than one of

the identified locations would significantly complicate development across the Project and could potentially create

different or new impacts than originally proposed at other locations. Therefore, reduction of environmental impacts

through significant modifications of turbine location at a few locations is not feasible.

In addition, the Applicant has consulted with the USACE and NYSDEC regarding wetlands and other potential

impacts throughout the development of the Project. Most recently, the Applicant requested a pre-application meeting

with the USACE and NYSDEC to discuss the Project’s Joint Application for Permit, which was held in Buffalo, New

York on December 9, 2015. This meeting included a discussion of the Project’s siting requirements and constraints,

as summarized above. The Applicant anticipates ongoing consultation with the USACE and NYSDEC, including the

refinement of appropriate strategies and/or projects to mitigate for the Project’s potential impacts to surface

waterbodies.

3.0 CORRECTIONS TO THE SEIS2

During the preparation of the FEIS, a small number of errors were identified within the SEIS2. Corrections to these

errors are described below.

The caption in the title block for Figure 4. Topography in the SEIS2 contains a typo and reads “Figure 3.

Topography”, it should read “Figure 4. Topography”.

Section 2.2.3 of the SEIS2 includes the statement: “However, potential stormwater impacts to wetlands and

waterbodies would be addressed and mitigated for in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)

that will be provided in the FEIS. The SWPPP that was prepared for EDPR’s Marble River Project is

attached to this SEIS2 as Appendix G. The Marble River SWPPP is substantially similar to the one that will

be prepared for the Arkwright Summit Wind Project”. The SWPPP for the Project will be finalized in

association with the detailed construction drawings, which will be completed prior to construction; therefore,


24

the SWPPP is not included in this FEIS. However, Appendix G of the SEIS2 included a model SWPPP for

EDPR’s Marble River Wind Project, which identifies all erosion and sediment control measures necessary to

mitigate impacts to soils, wetlands and streams, and wildlife habitat, and thus allowed for adequate review

and comment by the Lead Agency, the public, and interested/involved agencies. The final SWPPP

prepared for the Arkwright Project will be consistent with the mitigation measures set forth in Appendix G of

the SEIS2.

Similarly, Section 2.3.2.2 of the SEIS2 includes the statement: “The SPCC [i.e., Spill Prevention, Control,

and Countermeasures] Plan that was prepared for EDPR’s Marble River Project is attached to this SEIS2 as

Appendix F. The Marble River SPCC Plan is substantially similar to the one that will be prepared for the

Arkwright Summit Wind Project and included in the FEIS”. The SPCC for the Project will be finalized in

association with final project engineering, which will be completed prior to construction; therefore, the SPCC

is not included in this FEIS. However, Appendix F of the SEIS2 included a model SPCC Plan for EDPR’s

Marble River Project, which identifies all control measures necessary to mitigate impacts to soils, wetlands

and streams, and wildlife habitat, and thus allowed for adequate review and comment by the Lead Agency,

the public, and interested/involved agencies. The final SPCC prepared for the Arkwright Project will be

consistent with the mitigation measures set forth in Appendix F of the SEIS2.

In Section 2.3.2.2 of the SEIS2, Tables 18 and 19 provide summaries of a large number of the post-

construction avian and bat monitoring studies that have been conducted in recent years. Tables 18 and 19

also include a column that references each study that the data was acquired from. The complete citations

for these studies, as well as for five in-text citations included in Section 2.5 of the SEIS2, were not provided

in Section 9.0 (References) of the SEIS2. The complete citations for these studies and the five other in-text

citations are provide below:

Arnett, E. B., M. R. Schirmacher, M. M. P. Huso, and J. P. Hayes. 2009. Effectiveness of Changing Wind Turbine Cut-in Speed to Reduce Bat Fatalities at Wind Facilities: 2008 Annual Report. Prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Bat Conservation International (BCI), Austin, Texas. April 2009. http://www.batsandwind.org/pdf/Curtailment_2008_Final_Report.pdf

Arnett, E. B., M. R. Schirmacher, M. M. P. Huso, and J. P. Hayes. 2010. Patterns of Bat Fatality at the Casselman Wind Project in South-Central Pennsylvania. 2009 Annual Report. Annual report prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Bat Conservation International (BCI), Austin, Texas. January 2010.

Bay, K., S. Conover, D. Young, and E. Baumgartner. 2015. Post-Construction Studies for the Marble River Wind Farm, Clinton County, New York. 2014 Fatality and Acoustic Bat Report: April - November 2014. Prepared for EDP Renewables, Houston, Texas. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR). 2009. Onshore Wind: Shadow Flicker [website]. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081013085503/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/energy/sources

http://www.batsandwind.org/pdf/Curtailment_2008_Final_Report.pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081013085503/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/energy/sources/renewables/planning/onshore-wind/shadow-flicker/page18736.html


25

/renewables/planning/onshore-wind/shadow-flicker/page18736.html (Accessed May 2015). United Kingdom Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). 2011. Update of UK Shadow Flicker Evidence Base: Final Report. Parsons Brinckerhoff, London, UK, p. 5.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2009a. Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project: Post-Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2007. Final report prepared for PPM Energy and Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Maple Ridge Project Study. May 6, 2009.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, A. Fuerst, and C. Hansen. 2009b. Annual Report for the Noble Ellenburg Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, J. Histed, and J. Meacham. 2009c. Annual Report for the Noble Clinton Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, and M. Lehman. 2009d. Maple Ridge Wind Power Avian and Bat Fatality Study Report - 2008. Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project, Post-construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for Iberdrola Renewables, Inc, Horizon Energy, and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Maple Ridge Project Study. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. May 14, 2009.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, J. Quant, and D. Pursell. 2009e. Annual Report for the Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2008. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. April 13, 2009.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, L. Slobodnik, R. Curry, A. Fuerst, and A. Harte. 2010a. Annual Report for the Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC: Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2009. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May, New Jersey. March 9, 2010.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, L. Slobodnik, R. Curry, and A. Harte. 2011a. Annual Report for the Noble Wethersfield Windpark, LLC: Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2010. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May, New Jersey. January 22, 2011.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, L. Slobodnik, R. Curry, and K. Russell. 2010b. Annual Report for the Noble Clinton Windpark, LLC: Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2009. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May, New Jersey. March 9, 2010.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, L. Slobodnik, R. Curry, and K. Russell. 2010c. Annual Report for the Noble Ellenburg Windpark, LLC: Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2009. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May, New Jersey. March 14, 2010.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, L. Slobodnik, R. Curry, and K. Russell. 2011b. Annual Report for the Noble Altona Windpark, LLC: Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2010. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May, New Jersey. January 22, 2011.

Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, L. Slobodnik, R. Curry, and K. Russell. 2011c. Annual Report for the Noble Chateaugay Windpark, LLC: Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2010. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May, New Jersey. January 22, 2011.

Martin, C., E. Arnett, and M. Wallace. 2013. Evaluating Bird and Bat Post-Construction Impacts at the Sheffield Wind Facility, Vermont, 2012 Annual Report. Prepared for Bat Conservation International and First Wind. March 25, 2013. Department of Natural Resources Management, Texas Tech Univseristy, Lubbock, Texas.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2010. Stetson Mountain II Wind Project Year 1 Post-Construction Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring Study, T8 R4 Nbpp, Maine. Prepared for First Wind, LLC, Portland, Maine. Prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc., Falmouth, Maine. December 2, 2010.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081013085503/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/energy/sources/renewables/planning/onshore-wind/shadow-flicker/page18736.html


26

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2011. Year 3 Post- Construction Avian and Bat Casualty Monitoring at the Stetson I Wind Farm, T8 R4 Nbpp, Maine. Prepared for First Wind Energy, LLC, Portland, Maine. Prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc., Falmouth, Maine. December 2011.

Pasqualetti, M.J., P. Gipe, and R.W. Righter (eds.). 2002. Wind Power in View: Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Saratoga Associates. 2008. New Grange Wind Farm Visual Resource Assessment. Prepared for New Grange Wind Farm, LLC, Albany, New York. Prepared by Saratoga Associates, New York City, New York. February, 2008.

Saratoga Associates. 2009. Arkwright Summit Wind Farm Visual Resource Assesment. Prepared for Arkwright Summit Wind Farm, LLC. Albany, New York. Prepared by Saratoga Associates, New York City, New York. March, 2009.

Stantec Consulting, Inc. (Stantec). 2008. 2007 Spring, Summer, and Fall Post-Construction Bird and Bat Mortality Study at the Mars Hill Wind Farm, Maine. Prepared for UPC Wind Management, LLC, Cumberland, Maine. Prepared by Stantec (formerly Woodlot Alternatives, Inc.), Topsham, Maine. January 2008.

Stantec Consulting, Inc. (Stantec). 2009a. Post-Construction Monitoring at the Mars Hill Wind Farm, Maine - Year 2, 2008. Prepared for First Wind Management, LLC, Portland, Maine. Prepared by Stantec Consulting, Topsham, Maine. January 2009.

Stantec Consulting, Inc. (Stantec). 2009b. Post-Construction Monitoring at the Munnsville Wind Farm, New York: 2008. Prepared for E.ON Climate and Renewables, Austin, Texas. Prepared by Stantec Consulting, Topsham, Maine. January 2009.

Stantec Consulting, Inc. (Stantec). 2009c. Stetson I Mountain Wind Project: Year 1 Post-Construction Monitoring Report, 2009 for the Stetson Mountain Wind Project in Penobscot and Washington Counties, Maine. Prepared for First Wind Management, LLC. Portland, Maine. Prepared by Stantec, Topsham, Maine. December 2009.

Stantec Consulting, Inc. (Stantec). 2010. Cohocton and Dutch Hill Wind Farms Year 1 Post-Construction Monitoring Report, 2009, for the Cohocton and Dutch Hill Wind Farms in Cohocton, New York. Prepared for Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC and Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, Portland, Maine. Prepared by Stantec, Topsham, Maine. January 2010.

Stantec Consulting, Inc. (Stantec). 2011. Cohocton and Dutch Hill Wind Farms Year 2 Post-Construction Monitoring Report, 2010, for the Cohocton and Dutch Hill Wind Farms in Cohocton, New York. Prepared for Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, and Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, Portland, Maine. Prepared by Stantec, Topsham, Maine. October 2011.

Stantec Consulting, Inc. (Stantec). 2013a. Rollins Wind Project Post-Construction Monitoring Report, 2012. Prepared for First Wind, Portland, Maine. Prepared by Stantec, Topsham, Maine. March 2013.

Stantec Consulting, Inc. (Stantec). 2013b. Stetson II Wind Project Post-Construction Monitoring Report, 2012. Prepared for First Wind, Portland, Maine. Prepared by Stantec, Topsham, Maine. March 2013.

Stantec Consulting, Inc. (Stantec). 2014. Stetson I Wind Project 2013 Post-Construction Wildlife Monitoring Report, Year 5. Stetson I Wind Project, Washington County, Maine. Prepared for First Wind, Portland, Maine. Prepared by Stantec Consulting, Topsham, Maine. February 2014.

Stanton, C. 1996. The Landscape Impact and Visual Design of Windfarms. ISBN 1-901278-00X. Edinburgh College of Art, Heriot-Watt University. Edinburgh, Scotland.

Tidhar, D., L. McManus, Z. Courage, and W. L. Tidhar. 2012a. 2010 Post-Construction Fatality Monitoring Study and Bat Acoustic Study for the High Sheldon Wind Farm, Wyoming County, New York. Final Report: April 15 - November 15, 2010. Prepared for High Sheldon Wind Farm, Sheldon Energy LLC, Chicago, Illinois. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Waterbury, Vermont. April 15, 2012.


27

Tidhar, D., L. McManus, D. Solick, Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2012b. 2011 Post-Construction Fatality Monitoring Study and Bat Acoustic Study for the High Sheldon Wind Farm, Wyoming County, New York. Final Report: April 15 - November 15, 2011. Prepared for High Sheldon Wind Farm, Sheldon Energy LLC, Chicago, Illinois. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), Waterbury, Vermont. April 25, 2012.

Tidhar, D., W. Tidhar, and M. Sonnenberg. 2010. Post-Construction Fatality Surveys for Lempster Wind Project, Iberdrola Renewables. Prepared for Lempster Wind, LLC, Lempster Wind Technical Advisory Committee, and Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. (WEST), Waterbury, Vermont. September 30, 2010.

Tidhar, D., W. L. Tidhar, L. McManus, and Z. Courage. 2011. 2010 Post-Construction Fatality Surveys for the Lempster Wind Project, Lempster, New Hampshire. Prepared for Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. and the Lempster Wind Technical Committee. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Waterbury, Vermont. May 18, 2011.

Section 2.5.2.2.7 (page 99) of the SEIS2 includes the statement: “A comparison of the projected shadow

flicker at receptors located within 1,000 meters of a proposed turbine site (for the DEIS and SEIS layouts)

and 1,100 meters of the SEIS2 Project Layout are presented in Table 24. Of the 206 receptors within 1,100

feet [emphasis added] of the SEIS2 Project Layout, there are 14 receptors (6.8%) that are predicted to

exceed 30 hours of shadow flicker per year”. The reference to “within 1,100 feet” is an error, this should

have read “within 1,100 meters”.

Table 15 in Section 2.3.1.4 (page 66) of the SEIS2 states that there are no breeding records for the sedge

wren (Clistothorus platensis) in Chautauqua County. This information is incorrect. Data from the latest

Breeding Bird Atlas (2000-2005) indicate that the sedge wren was a confirmed breeder in two survey blocks,

and a probable breeder in two additional survey blocks in Chautauqua County.

Section 2.7.2.1.1 (page 115) of the SEIS2 includes the following language regarding noise impacts per the

Town’s wind energy ordinance:

The Town of Arkwright’s wind energy ordinance (Local Law No. 2 of 2007) requires that noise from any wind

energy conversion system be limited to 50 dBA measured in terms of the L10 statistical level at “the nearest

residence existing at the time of application”. In addition, the ordinance states the following:

“If the ambient sound level exceeds 50 dBA, the standard shall be ambient dBA plus 5 dBA.

Independent certification shall be provided before and after construction demonstrating compliance

with this requirement.”

This information is incorrect, and should be amended to read:

The Town of Arkwright’s wind energy ordinance (Local Law No. 2 of 2007) requires that noise from any wind

energy conversion system be limited to 50 dBA measured in terms of the L10 statistical level at the “nearest


28

existing residence at the time of the completing the SEQRA review of the application” [emphasis added]. In

addition, the ordinance states the following:

‘If the ambient sound level exceeds 48 dBA [emphasis added], the standard shall be ambient dBA

plus 5 dBA. Independent certification shall be provided before and after construction demonstrating

compliance with this requirement.”

4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

As described above in FEIS Section 1.1, the SEQRA review for the Arkwright Summit Wind Farm has included three

previous Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), as follows:

A DEIS, accepted as complete by the Lead Agency (the Town of Arkwright) and released for public

comment on February 27, 2008. The Town of Arkwright held a Public Hearing on the DEIS on April 30,

2008. The public comment period for the DEIS concluded on May 30, 2008.

An SEIS, accepted as complete by the Lead Agency and released for public comment on April 13, 2009.

The public comment period on the SEIS concluded on June 1, 2009.

An SEIS2, accepted as complete by the Lead Agency and released for public comment on October 12,

2015. The Town of Arkwright held a Public Hearing on the SEIS2 on November 4, 2015. The public

comment period for the SEIS2 concluded on November 14, 2015.

Copies of all public comments on the SEIS2, including the public hearing transcript, are included in Appendix E of

this FEIS.

Responses to all of the comments received on the DEIS (2008) and SEIS (2009) are included in tabular format in

Appendix F of this FEIS. Comments received on the DEIS are identified in Appendix F as Comment 1, Comment 2,

etc. (with corresponding Response 1, Response 2, etc.). Similarly, the comments received on the SEIS are identified

in Appendix F as Comment S-1, S-2, etc. It is worth noting that many of the comments received on the DEIS and

SEIS have been addressed and/or are superseded by information presented in the SEIS2, including the changes to

Project layout described in the SEIS2. Therefore, because many of the comments address previous layouts of the

Project and in some instances raise concerns that are addressed by the Project layout presented in the SEIS2, the

responses to comments received on the DEIS and SEIS are included separately in Appendix F to avoid confusion

with the comments received on the current layout of the Project as presented in the SEIS2.


29

Written and oral comments received during the SEIS2 public comment period are summarized and addressed in this

Section of the FEIS (below). Ten separate “comment letters” (hardcopy, email, and oral comments) were received

that provided 42 individual comments on the SEIS2. Note that the individual comments received on the SEIS2 are

identified as Comment S2-1, S2-2, etc. (with corresponding Response S2-1, Response S2-2, etc.). Each of the

specific comments received on the SEIS2 is addressed below.

Comment received from Mark Geise, Deputy Director of Planning & Economic Development, Chautauqua

County via email on August 17, 2015, RE: Eastside Overland Trail in Arkwright - Lean-to - wind towers.

Comment S2-1. This is a picture [see Inset 1, below] taken from the Lean-Tos on County owned land in Arkwright

from this weekend. This is a very important asset that has been in existence for decades and gets

a tremendous amount of use. I would dare say that if this view is spoiled by wind turbines with

blinking lights, it will cause a bit of an uproar. We need to make sure that turbines are NOT in the

line of sight of this important asset, as well as some other key spots, which I believe should require

a visual simulation study from key locations. There are many other important key locations, such as

Arkwright Falls, that we feel should be defined by key interest groups, including the Chautauqua

County Equestrian Trail (CCETS) Group, the Snowmobile Clubs, various equestrian clubs, hiking

clubs, and the Chautauqua County Parks Commission. I would suggest that we have this

discussion with some key individuals, such as Bill Tucker (in charge of Chautauqua County Trails),

a CCETS representative, a snowmobile club representative, County Planning, etc., to define key

locations to be investigated.


30

Inset 1. Photograph provided as attachment to email from Mark Geise on August 17, 2015.

Response S2-1. The Applicant prepared a visual simulation from the Eastland Overland Trail Lean-Tos, as

requested by Chautauqua County Department of Planning and Economic Development (see FEIS

Figure 5). The simulation was presented to the Lead Agency and provided to Chautauqua County

Department of Planning and Economic Development staff at the Town of Arkwright’s Town Board

meeting on October 20, 2015. The viewpoint is located northeast of the two Lean-Tos at the site

and southwest of a small pond. This location provides the most open view toward the Project from

this recreational facility/campsite. The existing view features the pond surrounded by an open lawn

area, framed by mature forest vegetation that provide a backdrop for the view. As shown in the

simulation included in Figure 5, with the proposed Project in place one wind turbine is visible above

the treeline in the center of the view. The proposed wind turbine is located approximately 1,250

feet from this viewpoint and would be a prominent feature in the view from this location. However,

the existing forest vegetation screens views of other proposed wind turbines in the vicinity. It is also

worth noting that existing mature evergreen trees along the southwestern shoreline of the pond will

partially screen views of the turbine from some areas within the campsite, including the Lean-Tos.

Regarding the potential for visual impacts at night due to FAA warning lights, the proposed turbine


31

featured in this view (proposed Turbine 12) is not proposed to be lit per the Applicant’s proposed

lighting plan currently being reviewed by FAA.

Regarding other public recreational resources in the Town of Arkwright, potential visual impacts to

visually sensitive resources, including recreational resources, are considered in the Second

Supplemental Visual Resource Assessment (SVRA2) for the Project (SEIS2 Appendix J). The

recreational resources identified in the comment from Chautauqua County Department of Planning

and Economic Development are depicted relative to the proposed SEIS2 turbine layout and

viewshed analysis in FEIS Figure 6. As described in Section 2.5.2.2.2 of the SEIS2, the viewshed

analysis shown on FEIS Figure 6 depicts the combined screening effect of topography and forest

vegetation. A base vegetation layer was created using the 2011 USGS National Land Cover

Dataset (NLCD) to identify the mapped location of forestland (including the Deciduous Forest,

Evergreen Forest, Mixed Forest, and Woody Wetland NLCD classifications). Based on standard

visual assessment practice, the mapped locations of the forest land was assigned an assumed

height of 40 feet and added to the DEM. Field review of the study area indicated that much of the

tall vegetation is significantly higher than 40 feet, making this assumption a very conservative one.

As shown in FEIS Figure 6, the Project is not anticipated to be visible from Arkwright Falls, Shumla

Falls, and most portions of the recreational trails in the area.

As noted in Section 2.11.3 of the SEIS2, the Applicant has been in consultation with local

snowmobile groups such as the Cherry Creek Snow Goers to educate snowmobilers about safety

measures for wind turbines. The Cherry Creek Snowmobile Trail crosses the access road between

turbine 15 and turbine 93 in two locations (see SEIS2 Figure 19). This access road will not be

fenced or blocked in any manner that would prevent recreational use to the trail system.

Therefore, potential impacts to recreational users’ enjoyment of the snowmobile trail have been

avoided.

Comment letter received from Bill Spencer, Project Manager, EverPower Wind Holdings, Inc. on October 26,

2015, RE: Proposed Change in Wind Ordinance Height. (note: comment letter also read aloud by Arkwright

Town Supervisor Frederic Norton at Public Hearing on November 4, 2015).

Comment S2-2. The purpose of this letter is to support the proposed increase in total wind turbine height in the

Town of Arkwright's Zoning Law. As you know, EverPower is developing the Cassadaga Wind


32

Project, which includes a small portion of the Town of Arkwright. EverPower is aware that the Town

of Arkwright is considering a change to its Zoning Law, specifically Article VI-A §639 {13), which

pertains to the maximum total height of any wind turbine. Currently the maximum total height is 420

feet and EverPower understands that the Town is considering an increase to 500 feet.

EverPower fully supports the proposed increase in maximum wind turbine total height from 420 to

500 feet. Wind turbine technology and our understanding of the wind resource have advanced

significantly over the past decade. One result of these technological advancements is that total

turbine height has increased. At higher heights there are generally higher wind speeds and

consequently, wind turbine efficiency and energy production are greater. Because of this there are

very few utility-scale wind turbine models that are available at maximum heights below 420.

Furthermore, those wind turbine models that are available at total heights less than 420 feet are

not as efficient or productive as those at greater total heights. In order for a wind project to be

financially viable, it is critical that wind turbines are allowed to be constructed at total heights

greater than 420 feet. At a maximum of 500 feet in total height, there are currently many more

turbine models available at much higher expected energy production levels.

Response S2-2. Comment noted.

Comment letter received from Kay Barlow, Fredonia, New York on November 1, 2015, RE: Arkwright Wind

Farm.

Comment S2-3. There are three reasons for my support of the wind project.

1. Along with my sister, I inherited my mother's land on Straight Road in the Town of

Arkwright. My mother, Antoinette Harris, was an ardent wind farm supporter with a strong

desire to live to see the windmills. Although she passed away in February 2015, her

Straight Road property marks the northern-most location of windmills in the Arkwright

Wind Farm. It is those windmills that travelers will see from Interstate 90. Like my mother,

I like the progressive image windmills portray for our region.

2. New York State has established a goal of reducing total carbon emissions by 80% by

2050. Clean energy produced by wind turbines plays an important part, along with solar,

hydropower and biomass, in accomplishing this important goal for the health and welfare

of NYS residents and our own micro climate as we know it.


33

3. The Arkwright Wind Farm brings needed financial rewards to our region. Local

governments, school districts and land owners all benefit financially. In these times of lost

population, lost jobs, lost tax bases, new resources are needed. The Arkwright Wind Farm

is one such source.

In conclusion, New York State has the distinction of being the ninth windiest state in the United

States. It makes sense to utilize that distinction to benefit our region financially and to make

contributions to clean energy choices for our citizens.


Comment letter received from James Wilmoth, Fredonia, New York on November 4, 2015, RE: In Regards to

the 30 day public comment period for Arkwright Summit Wind Farm’s Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement 2. (note: comment letter also read aloud by Arkwright Town Supervisor Frederic Norton at Public

Hearing on November 4, 2015).

Comment S2-4. Through my association with property at 3053 Straight Road, I often enjoy the view over Dunkirk,

Lake Erie and Canada in the distance. I witness the demise of coal fired power plants in the

struggling NRG facility I see as well as Canada’s shut down Nanticoke plant across the Lake. This

was the largest coal-fired power plant in North America and one of Canada’s top 10 single sources

of greenhouse gases. The future of energy is not fossil fuels but it is renewable energy. Our

Nation is addressing this through the Clean Power Program and our World leaders are addressing

this at the UN Climate conference in Paris this month (COP21/CMP11).

Across Lake Erie, I see dozens of Wind Turbines lining Canada’s shores. I have traveled over

there and stood beside them. Please note the Total Installed Capacities of Ontario vs New York

State as presented below.

WIND BY THE NUMBERS IN ONTARIO, CANADA (September 2015):

Number of Installations: 76

Number of Wind Turbines: 2,150

Total Installed Capacity (MW): 4,042

WIND BY THE NUMBERS IN NEW YORK (September 2015):


34

The American Wind Energy Association ranks NEW YORK eleventh in the nation for installed wind

generation capacity.

Number of Installations: 25

Number of Wind Turbines: 1014

Total Installed Capacity (MW): 1749

Let’s Compare Ontario, Canada to New York:

WIND Electric Generating Capacity: Ontario 4,042 MW, New York 1,749 MW. Population of

Province of Ontario, Canada 13,600,000, New York 19,378,102

New York State has roughly 1/3 more people but less than 1/2 of Ontario’s wind driven electric

generating capacity! We need to do more to produce clean, renewable energy!

It is safe to say that well over 2/3 of our Nation favors expansion of wind energy. Please refer to

polls listed in the footnotes.

To summarize: the need and desire for wind power is here. Environmental shortcomings not yet

eliminated by today’s wind technologies are soon to be corrected and Global Warming’s legacy will

be much worse. The adverse effects of climate change due to power plant fossil fuel combustion

(40% of total CO2) must be avoided and minimized through the production of renewable energy.

We need to do our part in this fight. Add our turbines to the 268,000 already in operation around

the world. Yes to the Arkwright Summit Wind Farm.

[Comment letter footnotes include references to polls indicating general support of wind energy.]


Oral comment by Harold Ross, Arkwright, New York provided at Town of Arkwright Public Hearing on

November 4, 2015.

Comment S2-5. I think it's time for you guys especially and us as property owners. New York State's known for red

tape, red tape, red tape. This thing's been going on for ten years. As property owners and the

board members, help the people cut some red tape and get some things going. I'm tired of going

2014, 2015, now we're going into 2017, and the largest percentage of it will be red tape. It won't be

that they don't want to build, it's not that all of us people here that are going to have them don't


35

want them. We want them. Because there's a little deal between four hundred and twenty and five

hundred feet? What the heck is the difference? Let's get this done so they know that we can move

on and roll. Thank you.

Response S2-5. Comment noted. As described in Section 1.1 of this FEIS, the Lead Agency’s review of the Project

under SEQRA has been ongoing since 2008. The Town’s review of the Project has been

conducted in accordance with Town of Arkwright Zoning Ordinance Article VI-A Wind Energy

Facilities (Local Law No. 2 of 2007) as well as 6 NYCRR Part 617. The Project’s DEIS, SEIS,

SEIS2, and FEIS provide a thorough and comprehensive identification of potential environmental

impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project, and identification of

measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate those potential impacts. The Lead Agency’s review of

the Project under SEQRA has resulted in a proposed Project layout that avoids, minimizes, and

mitigates potential impacts to the environment to the maximum extent practicable while maximizing

the potential environmental and economic benefits of the Project.

Oral comment by Vera Allen, Arkwright, New York provided at Town of Arkwright Public Hearing on

November 4, 2015.

Comment S2-6. I'm eighty-eight years old. I want to see this happen. I want to live that long, and I don't know how

many more years I have.


Oral comment by Chester Jaromin, Arkwright, New York provided at Town of Arkwright Public Hearing on

November 4, 2015.

Comment S2-7. I agree with that gentleman in the back. We got guys in -- in conference, like this guy Sheldon

Silver going to jail for what, taking bribes? We need to get this thing going.


Comment letter received from Benjamin and Amy Aldrich, Fredonia, NY on November 9, 2015 to Frederic

Norton, Town of Arkwright Supervisor.


36

Comment S2-8. It has come to my attention that the most recent proposal for the Arkwright Summit Wind Farm will

have a significantly negative impact on property owners in the Town of Arkwright. In particular, our

property which is located at 9193 Miller Rd, between Brainard Road and Skinner Road. The plan

calls for massive generator lead lines running directly North of our property. Our property currently

has a beautiful scenic view of Lake Erie, which is why we intend on building our home there.

According to Jeffrey Nemeth, the project coordinator from E.D.P. Renewables, the poles for these

lines will be between eighty and ninety feet tall, and six feet wide. There will be four of these poles

along our property, causing a significant visual obstruction of Lake Erie and Chautauqua County.

Furthermore, the proposal as pictured in Figure 17 of the plans, do not depict the true size and

impact that the lines will have. Not only will these poles and lines ruin our enjoyment of our view,

they will undoubtedly hurt the property value.

We request that the current plans be reevaluated to take into consideration the property owners,

and tax payers of the Town of Arkwright. We understand that there may be a need for the lines, but

we respectfully demand that they be buried underground, or moved, to minimize impact on the

property value and the view.

Response S2-8. The potential visual impacts of the current Project layout, including the proposed generator lead,

are described in Section 2.5 and Appendix J of the SEIS2. 9193 Miller Road is located

approximately 1,950 feet from the proposed generator lead route. The potential visual effect of the

proposed generator lead line is depicted in the SVRA2 simulations for Viewpoints 14-Alt and S15

(see SEIS2 Figure 16: Sheet 26 and Figure 17: Sheet 1). Both of these simulations depict the

proposed generator lead from much closer distances (approximately 50 and 280 feet, respectively).

Therefore, the scale and visual effect of the generator lead will be significantly reduced in the view

from 9193 Miller Road relative to the views presented in the simulations. As discussed in the

SVRA2, although the generator lead structures will be tall steel poles (they range in height from 55

to 120 feet), the proposed generator lead will not significantly affect perceptions of the existing

agricultural/rural land use. Regarding the scale and accuracy of the generator lead as shown in the

SEIS2, the methodology for preparing the visual simulations is described in Section 3.2.2 of the

Second Supplemental Visual Resource Assessment (or SVRA2; SEIS2 Appendix J). The

Applicant’s consultant (EDR) has prepared photo simulations using this methodology for dozens of


37

previous projects, and the accuracy of this method has been proven out in adjudicatory

proceedings as well as comparisons with built projects following construction.

In addition, the Lead Agency has carefully considered the potential environmental impacts of the

Project (including visual impacts) relative to the environmental and economic benefits of the

Project, as described in Section 1.4 of the SEIS2. As discussed in Section 2.9.2.2.2 of the SEIS2,

construction and operation of the Project is not expected to have a significant impact on local

property values.

Comment letter received from Sam Kent, Chautauqua County Department of Public Facilities on November

12, 2015, RE: Arkwright Summit Wind Project, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Comment S2-9. It's noted on page 129 [of the SEIS2]:

"Prior to construction, the specific terms of road use and reconstruction will be

negotiated and memorialized in a Road Agreement between the Applicant and road

owner."

As construction is planned to begin in the summer of 2016 and our law department will be involved

in the Road Agreement process, we request a template copy for preliminary review by the end of

the month.

Enclosed please find an official county map. We would appreciate it if you submit the following for

all county road vehicles will take, including those used to construct and equip the new electric

substation.

• Maximum axle load

• 18-Kip EASL counts

• Subbase analysis and structural capacity studies

Additionally, we note that verification of existing right-of-way widths and any required easements

will be the developer's responsibility. (The widening shown at NYS 39 and County TR 79, for

example, is significant.)

Response S2-9. Potential impacts to local roads and proposed mitigation is evaluated in Section 2.8 of the DEIS,

SEIS, and SEIS2. Section 2.8.2 of the SEIS2 also indicates that the Applicant is negotiating a Host


38

Community Agreement between the Applicant and the Town of Arkwright and the Road Use

Agreement with the County. As part of this process, the Applicant is consulting with the Town of

Arkwright and is currently in the process of preparing a Draft Road Use Agreement for review by

the County.

As described in Section 2.8.3 of the DEIS, the Applicant will provide documentation that will specify

the Local, County, and State roads to be used as haul routes (both within and outside of the

Project Area) by construction/transportation vehicles. The required improvements will be

coordinated with State, County, and Local highway departments (at no expense to these

departments) prior to the arrival of the oversize/overweight vehicles on-site. All public road

upgrades that may be required to accommodate construction vehicles will be identified, including

placement of steel plates or gravel to road surfaces, widening roadways, reconfiguring intersection

geometry to accommodate the turning radius of over-sized vehicles, and identifying the drainage

structures, pipes, and culverts that require improvement to accommodate the construction related

traffic. The Applicant will repair any adverse impacts to roads resulting from construction-related

transportation within the approved haul route, at no expense to the Town, County, or State. Prior to

construction, the specific terms of road use and reconstruction will be negotiated and memorialized

in a Road Agreement between the Applicant and road owner.

The Transportation Route Review included as Appendix P in the SEIS2 indicates that the only

county road that is anticipated to be used for the Project is Center Road (County Road 79 and 91)

between Straight and Meadows Roads. In support of the Draft Road Use Agreement, the

Applicant will provide the County with an existing conditions assessment of county roads that will

be used for the Project, which will include the specifics requested by the Chautauqua County

Department of Public Facilities.

Comment letter received from Andrew C. Davis, Utility Supervisor, New York State Department of Public

Service on November 13, 2015, RE: Arkwright Summit Wind Farm, Second Supplemental DEIS.

Comment S2-10. As currently configured at a maximum rating of 78.6 MW, the revised Arkwright Summit project

would not require approval by the New York State Public Service Commission. In the event that

nameplate design capacity were to increase slightly and exceed 80 MW, construction and


39

operation of the facility would be subject to Public Service Law §68, thus requiring review as an

electric corporation subject to receipt of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.

Response S2-10. The Project has submitted an interconnection request and is currently proceeding through the

System Reliability Impact Study with the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) for 78.8

MW. As described in Section 2.1 of this FEIS, the anticipated generating capacity for the Project is

78.4 MW. Therefore, the Project does not require approval under Public Service Law §68.

Comment S2-11. Wildlife and Habitats: The route of the proposed 5.8 mile overhead 34.55 kV interconnect line

involves many right-angle turns, location on steep slopes near water resources, and a high degree

of fragmentation of forestland. DPS urges applicant and review agencies to continue to refine the

proposed line location and identify mitigation strategies for impacts on forest and riparian habitats.

Response S2-11. One of the primary factors in siting the overhead line is participation by private landowners. Unlike

state or municipal entities, private developers do not have the power of condemnation or eminent

domain. Consequently, the Applicant does not have the unfettered ability to locate projects in any

area or on any parcel of land. Facilities can only be sited on private property where the landowner

has agreed to allow such construction.

As described in Section 2.3.3 of the DEIS, SEIS, and SEIS2, the Project has been designed to

avoid impacts to sensitive ecological communities such as wetlands and mature forest to the

greatest extent practicable. For most wind and/or electrical transmission projects, it is preferred to

build all electrical interconnection lines in the shortest, most direct alignment between project

facilities. Determining the route for the Project’s generator lead has been an iterative process of

advancing the design by accommodating landowner preferences, avoiding environmental impacts

where possible, and meeting engineering requirements. The resulting proposed generator lead

route avoids wetlands and other sensitive environmental areas, including archaeological resources,

to the maximum extent practicable while accommodating existing land use (e.g., agricultural uses)

and landowner preferences.

In addition, as described in Section 2.3 of the DEIS, during operation of the Project periodic

vegetation maintenance would be required along collection line corridors. Vegetation maintenance

activities would be timed to avoid sensitive breeding periods of birds and small mammals that may


40

use habitats affected by mowing. The application of herbicides or pesticides would also be

prohibited. In addition, with regard to the potential for impacts to steep slopes and nearby water

resources, the model Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Spill Prevention,

Containment, and Control Plan (SPCC) included as Appendices F and G of the SEIS2 identify all

erosion and sediment control measures and best management practices necessary to mitigate

impacts to soils, wetlands and streams, and wildlife habitat. These control measures will be

included/referenced in final Project construction drawings and implemented during Project

construction.

Comment S2-12. Shadow Flicker: At page 99 in Section 2.5.2.2.7, the discussion of receptors and distances is

confusing, as there are references to both evaluation of receptors within 1,000 meters, and within

1,100 feet. These distances are not equivalent and the analysis should be clarified.

Response S2-12. Section 2.5.2.2.7 accurately describes the shadow flicker study area for the DEIS and SEIS

Project layouts as a 1,000-meter-radius study area, and for the SEIS2 as a 1,100-meter-radius

study area. This is because the industry standard study area for shadow flicker analysis is 10 rotor

diameters around each turbine. At distances beyond roughly 10 rotor diameters, shadow-flicker

effects are generally considered negligible. Note that the turbines proposed in the DEIS (2008) and

SEIS (2009) Project Layouts featured a 90-meter rotor diameter. Therefore, for the purpose of

providing a conservative analysis, the shadow flicker study area in the DEIS and SEIS included all

areas within 1,000 meters of the proposed locations of wind turbines at that time. The study area

used in the SEIS2 was based on a Vestas V110 turbine with a 110-meter rotor diameter –

therefore, a 1,100-meter study area was used for the SEIS2. In addition, as described in Section

3.0 of this EIS, the reference to “within 1,100 feet” is an error. This should have read “within 1,100

meters”.

Comment S2-13. Utility Infrastructure: The [SEIS2] identifies locations of existing natural gas wells and mines that

are located within the project vicinity at Figure 7. There is not, however, acknowledgement of

location of interconnected gas pipeline system(s) that collect, transmit and distribute the gas from

the production wells to any end point. Installation of turbines, access roads, and interconnection

electric lines has the potential to intercept gas pipelines. There is also at least one major gas

transmission pipeline (Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.} traversing the project layout that is not

identified in the [SEIS2]. Multiple locations of crossings and co-location of facilities appear to be


41

proposed in the revised layout. Protection of this gas transmission pipeline is of paramount

importance in avoiding impacts on this critical utility infrastructure. Co-location and protection of

pipeline facilities warrants consideration in wind farm component and facility layout and design, and

should be given appropriate review in the Final EIS for the project.

Response S2-13. Early in the design process, the Applicant identified and confirmed the locations of gas pipeline

infrastructure, including the Tennessee Gas Pipeline, within the Project Site through field-based

verification and existing mapping. Although the locations of this infrastructure were not depicted on

Figures included in the DEIS, SEIS, or SEIS2, the Applicant has thoroughly considered the

locations of gas infrastructure when siting Project components to ensure that potential impacts to

gas pipelines and wells will be minimized. The Applicant will also enter into an Encroachment

Agreement that specifies how the Applicant will encroach the Tennessee Gas Pipeline and other

pipelines within the Project area.

Comment S2-14. Environmental Benefits: Beginning at page 12 of the Executive Summary and page 83 of Section

2-4.1.2, the discussion of air emissions and potential human health benefits resulting from the

project rely on state and national emissions levels. For instance, the [SEIS2] references USEIA

data suggesting that 58% of electric generation is derived from coal. While this number may be

accurate nationally, it is over an order of magnitude too large for New York State. Western New

York includes very large hydro generation and wind projects and the mix is far cleaner than the

national average, a trend that will only increase with the announced retirement of two large coal

facilities located near the project. Projected emission reductions and resulting human health

benefits should reflect the actual generation mix in the area of the project and the generation on

the margin that would likely be supplanted, rather than national or state numbers that do not reflect

the actual emission mix in the project area.

Response S2-14. The USEPA’s Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (EPA eGRID) provides

comprehensive data on the environmental characteristics of almost all electric power generated in

the United States. Data from eGRID is also organized in to subregions, which includes upstate

New York. Utilizing these data to calculate emissions offsets provides a region-specific analysis

that places the potential environmental benefits of the Project in a more local context. According

the 2012 eGRID data, the five largest sources of electricity generation in upstate New York are:

natural gas (30.4%), hydroelectric (29.4%), nuclear (28.9%), coal (5.5%), and wind (3.6%). The


42

average non-baseload output emission rates for the upstate New York eGRID subregion in 2012

were approximately equal to the following: NOx at 1.0062 pounds (lbs)/MWh, SO2 at 2.3801

lbs/MWh, and CO2 at 1,228.56 lbs/MWh (USEPA eGRID 2012). Using these figures and assuming

maximum electricity generation of 78.4 MW and a capacity factor of approximately 33%, the

Project will displace approximately:

126,283 metric tons of CO2

103.34 metric tons of NOx

244.76 metric tons of SO2

As described in Section 2.4 of the DEIS, SEIS, and SEIS2 the operation of this Project is

anticipated to result in indirect positive impacts on air quality. Furthermore, as mentioned

previously, climate change will have adverse effects for people and ecosystems, and New York

State has implemented initiatives that curb greenhouse gas emissions, with the goal of reducing

the severity of climate change in the future. By displacing significant quantities of CO2 and other

pollutants, the Project will contribute to goals set by New York State for greenhouse gas emissions

and will ultimately have a small, positive impact on reducing the severity of climate change.

Overall, the Project will have a significant long-term beneficial impact on climate and air quality.

This benefit can be viewed as mitigation for other environmental impacts associated with the

Project.

Comment S2-15. Reference Citations: Many references cited in text and tables in discussion of various analyses are

not included with complete citations in Section 9.0 References, pp. 200 - 205. Examples include

the following:

Pg. 79 at Table 19: Arnett, et. al, 2010; Jain, et. al. various dates; Martin, et. al, 2013;

Normandeau Associates, 2010-2011 ; Stantec, 201 O - 2013; Tidher, et. al, various dates;

etc.

Pg. 85 at 2.5: Saratoga Associates, 2008.

Pg. 86 at 2.5.1 .3: BERR, 2009; DECC, 2011.

Pg. 102 at 2.5.3.2.1: Pasqualetti, et. al., 2002; and Stanton, 1996.


43

Response S2-15. As described in Section 3.0 of this FEIS, Tables 18 and 19 in the SEIS2 summarize post-

construction avian and bat monitoring studies that have been conducted in recent years, and

included references to those studies. The commenter is correct that complete citations for these

studies, and for the five in-text citations from Section 2.5 of the SEIS2, were not provided in

Section 9.0 (References) of the SEIS2. Complete citations for these references that were not

included in the SEIS2 ae provided in Section 3.0 of this FEIS.

Comment letter received from Rudyard Edick, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on

November 20, 2015, Re: Arkwright Summit Wind Project, DEC Comments on Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement (SEIS).

Comment S2-16: The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC or Department)

appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the October 13, 2015 Supplemental

Environmenta l Impact Statement (SEIS) for Arkwright Summit Wind Project (Project), a

proposed 78.6 MW, 36 turbine, wind powered electric generating facility located in the Towns of

Arkwright and Pomfret, Chautauqua County, New York. In order to satisfy the requirements of

the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), the Final EIS must contain sufficient

information and analysis to allow the Department to produce a Findings Statement that

supports the DEC's final permit decisions. As an involved agency in this process , DEC is

submitting these comments related primarily to the agency's permitting authority with an

emphasis on wetland, stream, invasive species, listed species and stormwater impacts.

Response S2-16: Comment noted. The DEC has been an involved agency throughout the SEQR process for the

Arkwright Summit Wind Farm. Section 2.3 of the FEIS and the responses to comments provided below

that pertain to wetlands, streams, wildlife, and stormwater impacts, provide information and analyses that

further elaborate on the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation practices that have, and will be employed

by the Applicant in the development, construction, and operation of the Project.

Comment S2-17: Section 1.7 Operations and Maintenance Plan

The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the Project should include an

environmental management component incorporating environmental considerations for the

maintenance of the facility. The plan should also describe procedures to assess and

minimize environmenta l impacts during major repairs, emergencies, and decommissioning.


44

DEC further recommends that the Applicant explore opportunities to create additional

environmental enhancements during the life of the Project, beyond those required for

restoration and mitigation, through cooperative partnerships with landowners, local

governments, educational and conservation organizations.

Response S2-17: It is anticipated that the majority of maintenance, repairs, and decommissioning activities that take

place during Project operation will utilize the existing infrastructure (i.e., access roads and crane

pads) that will be in place following Project construction thereby avoiding any additional

environmental impacts during maintenance and repair activities. It is worth noting that the crane

pads built during construction will be left in place during Project operation to facilitate Project

maintenance (and in the event necessary, decommissioning) without the potential for additional

environmental impacts that might otherwise be incurred to reconstruct the crane pads. Although

not anticipated, to the extent the existing infrastructure is not sufficient, all maintenance,

decommissioning, emergency repairs, and restoration activities will adhere to the requirements of

appropriate governing authorities, and will be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal,

state, and local permits.

With respect to the recommendation to explore opportunities to create additional environmental

enhancements during the life of the Project, please see Section 1.4.2 (Public Need and Benefits to

be Derived from the Project) of the SEIS2, which provides significant detail associated with the

proposed Project. The following is a summary of the information provided in Section 1.4.2 of the

SEIS2:

The immediate benefits of utility scale renewable projects, such as the Arkwright Summit

Wind Farm, include economic development and jobs for the community, greater stability in

customer bills, cleaner air, and compliance with State and Federal mandates. In the long

run, as recognized by the newly issued State Energy Plan, benefits may be similar to

those New York enjoys from the State’s hydroelectricity facilities today, below-market

electricity prices and a healthier environment.

The Project will help the State achieve its goals of reducing carbon emissions that

contribute to climate change in the electricity generation industry. Global climate change

has been recognized as one of the most important environmental challenges of our time.

(See New York State Climate Action Plan Interim Report, November 2010; DEC’s

Commissioner Policy 49, issued October 22, 2010; DEC Guidance Assessing Energy Use


45

and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements, issued July 15,

2009). There is scientific consensus that human activity is increasing the concentration of

greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere and that this, in turn, is leading to serious

climate change. By its nature, climate change will continue to impact the environment and

natural resources of the State of New York. (See DEC Guidance). The overwhelming

majority of CO2 emissions in New York – estimated at approximately 250 million tons of

CO2 equivalent per year – result from fuel combustion. Overall fuel combustion accounts

for approximately 89% of total GHG emissions in New York State.

In an effort to encourage and incentivize the shift of New York State’s energy sector from

reliance on GHG emitting fuel sources to renewable energy sources, the State has

established a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which is expected to reduce CO2

emissions by 50 million tons over the life of the projects (NYSERDA, 2015). In

NYSERDA’s latest completed RPS solicitation, Arkwright Summit Wind Farm was

awarded a contract for procurement and the opportunity to contribute to NYSERDA

meeting the targets in the RPS.

The Project will also help the State achieve the goals of the 2015 State Energy Plan.

According to the Plan, “Renewable Energy sources, such as wind, will play a vital role in

reducing electricity price volatility and curbing carbon emissions” (NYSEPB, 2015). The

State Energy Plan calls for 50% of generation of electricity from renewable energy

sources by 2030. Arkwright Summit Wind Farm fully advances the objectives of the State

Energy Plan and assists the State in achieving the 50% renewable energy generation

objective.

The well-being of some ecosystems in the northeastern U.S., including New York State, is

at serious risk as a result of the negative environmental externalities associated with fossil

fuel based power plant emissions. Research conducted by scientists from the Hubbard

Brook Research Foundation concluded that "hotspots" throughout the Northeastern U.S.

have levels of mercury deposition "10 to 20 times higher than pre-industrial conditions,

and 4 to 5 times higher than current EPA estimates". This research highlights “the

connection between airborne mercury emissions from United States sources and the

existence of highly contaminated biological hotspots…Emission reductions from high-

emitting sources near biological hotspots in the United States will yield beneficial

improvements in both mercury deposition and mercury levels in fish and wildlife" (Driscoll

et al., 2007).


46

The Project will not require to use of water or water resources to generate electricity.

Protection/conservation of surface and groundwater resources is a significant

environmental concern and the development of electricity generation that is not reliant on

water resources is extraordinarily important.

Airborne mercury, released primarily by coal-fired power plants, has contaminated

numerous rivers, lakes, and streams across the State. While eating fish from State water

bodies is not prohibited, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) has issued

advisories pertaining to fish consumption from certain waterbodies. Pregnant women,

women who may become pregnant, or children under the age of 15 are advised not to

consume any fish, at any time, from any of the listed waterbodies (NYSDOH, 2014).

Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health estimated that air pollution from

conventional energy sources across the U.S. kills between 50,000 and 70,000 Americans

every year (Levy et al., 2000).

Comment S2-18: Section 2.2 Water Resources

With respect to both streams and wetlands, the SEIS needs to be supplemented with

additional information. Discussion of impacts to DEC regulated wetlands and stream

crossings needs to include an analysis of how impacts have been avoided or minimized.

Please see the relevant sections below for more detailed comment.

2.2.1.1 Surface Waters.

Based on review of the Project boundary and proposed layout, DEC regulated streams will

[be] impacted by several crossings from access roads, wind turbine collection radii, and

collection lines (see Table 10. Surface Waters within the Project Site, page 39-40 and Figure

9: Mapped Wetlands and Streams). Moreover, in its letter of November 12, 2015, the

Applicant provided a table listing approximately 30 proposed regulated DEC stream

crossings. These impacts include two proposed crossings of Walnut Creek (Class AA) , two

proposed crossings of Clinton Brook (Class C(t)), nine proposed crossings of tributaries to

Walnut Creek (Class C(t)), three proposed crossings of tributaries to Canadaway Creek (Class

C(t)), and ten proposed crossings of tributaries to Canadaway Creek (Class 8). Hence, an

Environmental .Conservation Law (ECL) Article 15 stream crossing permit will be necessary

given current Project design - unless the streams can be bored under or spanned ·- or

avoided entirely. In addition to the stream crossings listed in the table , the Applicant should


47

explain why the streams could not be avoided or further minimized and the necessary

impacts.

Response S2-18: Section 2.3 of the FEIS describes the complex factors that have been considered throughout the

history of the Project layout. As a practical matter, the siting of a windpower project is essentially a

series of incremental alternatives analyses in which the Project Sponsor and its expert consultants

identify and weigh various parameters in order to select a final Project design that balances Project

impacts against Project benefits. Ultimately, the layout of all components of a windpower project are

driven by the siting considerations of the turbines themselves. The initial layout was sited to

maximize the wind resource on the parcels under lease option by the Applicant within the

constraints of legally required setbacks, engineering considerations, and avoidance/minimization

of environmental impacts. As the current wetland and stream delineations were completed in

2015, the Project layout was further refined to avoid wetlands and streams where possible and

minimize impacts where avoidance was not achievable. New turbine locations and access road

alignments were developed, then re-delineated, and re-evaluated to further avoid and minimize

wetland and stream impacts. This process was followed multiple times to achieve a constructible

project while avoiding and minimizing wetland and stream impacts.

Furthermore, the Applicant has conducted additional review of the information provided to DEC in

its letter of November 12, 2015 and has determined that information overestimated the number of

protected stream crossings. Specifically, a number of these crossings are no longer considered

protected streams because they were delineated as intermittent or ephemeral drainages, and

therefore assume a classification of “D” (see

http://www.dec.ny.gov/imsmaps/ERM/streamsRiversLakesPonds.htm). Therefore, an updated

stream impact summary table has been generated and is included in Appendix B of this FEIS.

This table indicates that up to 22 crossings of DEC protected streams may occur, summarized as

follows:

Nine (9) buried interconnect crossings, which would result in 1,013 linear feet of

temporary stream impact.

Three (3) locations of wind turbine work space impact, which would result in 1,168 linear

feet of temporary stream impact

Seven (7) access road crossings, which would result in 708 linear feet of temporary

http://www.dec.ny.gov/imsmaps/ERM/streamsRiversLakesPonds.htm


48

stream impact and 226 linear feet of permanent impact

Three (3) Gen Lead Line crossings, which would result in 576 linear feet of temporary

stream impact

Some of these impacts may be further minimized or avoided through use of various low impact

construction methodologies such as directional boring for buried interconnect and adjusting the

work space areas for wind turbines, and such avoidance and minimization measures will be

determined during final Project engineering and through further consultation with the DEC and U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. However, to assure a worst-case analysis for the purposes of SEQRA, it

is assumed that the Project will result in the impacts summarized above. To assure impacts to

waterbodies are minimized to the greatest extent practicable, sediment and erosion control

measures will also be implemented wherever Project construction occurs within, or adjacent to,

wetlands and streams in accordance with the Project SWPPP (see SEIS2 Appendix G). Where

directional boring is not feasible, temporary construction-related stream impacts at collection line

crossings will include clearing of some streamside vegetation and disturbance of stream beds and

banks. This temporary disturbance will also occur along the periphery of access roads. Where

running water is encountered, a temporary pump-around will be used to assure that all stream and

wetland crossings are constructed “in the dry”. All temporarily disturbed stream banks and

channels will be stabilized using native substrate material, fiber rolls and appropriately sized stone

as necessary to prevent scouring and erosion. All temporarily disturbed areas adjacent to Project

access roads and temporary public road improvements will be restored to pre-construction grades,

stream beds and banks will be stabilized, and wetlands will be reseeded with a wetland seed mix at

the completion of construction. All affected wetlands in these areas will be allowed to revegetate to

their previous condition.

Comment S2-19: Once it is established that avoidance or minimization is not possible, the SEIS should include a

detailed discussion of each individual crossing, including photos and plans for the access road

crossing and buried collection line crossing sites. DEC staff are scheduled to visit the crossing

sites on 2 December , 2015 and can provide further guidance at that time.

Response S2-19: As described above in Response S2-18, the Applicant has conducted a further review of the

information provided to DEC in its letter of November 12, 2015 and has determined that information

overestimated the number of protected stream crossings. Specifically, a number of these


49

crossings are no longer considered protected streams because they were delineated as

intermittent or ephemeral drainages, and therefore assume a classification of “D” (see

http://www.dec.ny.gov/imsmaps/ERM/streamsRiversLakesPonds.htm). Therefore, an updated

stream impact summary table has been generated and is included in Appendix B of this FEIS.

This table indicates that up to 22 crossings of DEC protected streams may occur, summarized as

follows:

Nine (9) buried interconnect crossings, which would result in 1,013 linear feet of

temporary stream impact

Three (3) locations of wind turbine work space impact, which would result in 1,168 linear

feet of temporary stream impact

Seven (7) access road crossings, which would result in 708 linear feet of temporary

stream impact and 226 linear feet of permanent impact

Three (3) Gen Lead Line crossings, which would result in 576 linear feet of temporary

stream impact

Some of these impacts may be further minimized or avoided through use of various low impact

construction methodologies such as directional boring for buried interconnect and adjusting the

work space areas for wind turbines, and such avoidance and minimization measures will be

determined during final Project engineering and through further consultation with the DEC and U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. However, to assure a worst-case analysis for the purposes of SEQRA,

it is assumed that the Project will result in the impacts summarized above.

Please also note that the Applicant, along with representatives from EDR and E&E, conducted a

site review with NYSDEC personnel on December 2, 2015. This site review specifically focused on

state-protected streams, and multiple locations where project components are proposed to cross

state-protected streams were visited. In general it was determined that all of the streams that were

visited are relatively small and located in the upper portion of their respective watersheds, did not

contain fisheries, and the primary concern at these locations is down-stream turbidity due to

construction. It was further determined that this concern could be mitigated through use of

seasonal work restrictions (i.e., conducting in-stream activities from May 31 through September 15)

and typical BMPs for stream crossings, such as appropriate erosion and sediment control

measure. NYSDEC personnel also indicated that in-stream work could take place outside of the

seasonal work restriction window, as determined on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/imsmaps/ERM/streamsRiversLakesPonds.htm


50

Regarding photographs of stream crossings, E&E’s 2015 Wetland and Waterbodies Report (SEIS2

Appendix E) included photographs of each wetland and stream in the appended wetland and

stream data packages (Appendices A and B of SEIS2 Appendix E). In addition, during the

December 2, 2015 site visit, follow-up photographs of some streams were requested by the DEC

stream representative. On December 8, 2015 the requested photographs were provided to the

DEC stream representative through email correspondence. Lastly, as noted in Section 2.3 of this

FEIS, the Applicant requested a Pre-Application meeting with the U.S. Army Corps and NYSDEC

to discuss the contents of a Joint Application for Permit, which was held on December 9, 2015.

The Applicant, U.S. Army Corps, and NYSDEC were in agreement regarding the necessary

information to be presented in the Joint Application for Permit, which is anticipated to include

detailed plans showing potential impacts at each stream crossing as well as showing typical

engineering details of the proposed crossing methodologies. However, the information presented in

this FEIS appropriately characterizes and quantifies impacts in accordance with SEQRA

requirements.

Comment S2-20: With respect to stream crossings, the Applicant should comply with the Department's "Stream

Crossings: Guidelines and Best Management Practices" found at

http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/49066 .html. Stream crossings should be designed with the goal

of protecting stream continuity. All crossings of class C(t) or higher streams should be

constructed using temporary or permanent crossing structures ; driving equipment directly

through the stream should not be allowed. As noted above, if DEC regulated streams are

impacted, the Project must meet standards established by ECL Article 15 (Protection of Waters)

unless directional drilling is used to avoid all disturbance to the bed or banks of protected

streams.

Response S2-20: The Applicant intends on complying with the DEC’s stream crossing guidelines and best

management practices, including sediment control and erosion measures, and working with the

DEC throughout the Article 15 permitting process to meet the standards established by the ECL,

thereby avoiding impacts to streams. Furthermore, the Applicant is considering the use of

directional drilling in some locations to eliminate the potential for impacts to streams in these

locations. Additionally, as indicated above in response S2-19, the Applicant, along with

representatives from EDR and E&E, conducted a site review with NYSDEC personnel on

http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/49066%20.html


51

December 2, 2015. This site review specifically focused on state-protected streams, and multiple

locations where project components are proposed to cross state-protected streams were visited.

In general it was determined that all of the streams that were visited are relatively small and

located in the upper portion of their respective watersheds, did not contain fisheries, and the

primary concern at these locations is down-stream turbidity due to construction. It was further

determined that this concern could be mitigated through use of seasonal work restrictions (i.e.,

conducting in-stream activities from May 31 through September 15) and typical BMPs for stream

crossings, such as appropriate erosion and sediment control measure. NYSDEC personnel also

indicated that in-stream work could take place outside of the seasonal work restriction window, as

determined on a case-by-case basis.

Comment S2-21: 2.2.1.2 Wetlands.

A recent DEC staff site visit earlier in November, 2015 to the Project area indicates that the

Project may have significant impacts to DEC wetlands - more so than the preliminary screen

would indicate (Figure 9: Mapped Wetlands and Streams). The preliminary wetland maps do

not show all jurisdictional wetlands based on DEC staff field inspections. Further, there are

numerous locations at which additional DEC wetlands may be identified within the Project

area (as indicated on Table 5-5 of Appendix E [of the SEIS2]). This may result when field

delineations by DEC staff determine that an unmapped wetland is contiguous with an existing

DEC wetland or that a separate wetland is found that meets DEC regulatory authority. Thus ,

DEC regional staff validation of wetland delineations is critical and DEC will require field

verification by Department staff as part of the Permit process.

More specifically, DEC wetland DU-17 is in the map amendment process for which initial

notification has occurred. Another wetland, F0-13, has not been officially amended but was

identified during a previous review of this Project. Additionally, several wetlands involved in

the Applicant's new design are connected to F0-13. Thus, this wetland complex is much

larger than DEC specified in its 2008-2009 survey. The Applicant has also identified several

wetland complexes large enough to meet State criteria for jurisdiction and the DEC staff site

visit in November confirmed that many of them are jurisdictional. Based on DEC staff review

to date, a significant amount of wetland involved in this Project meet State criteria and would

require an ECL Article 24 Permit, if disturbed.


52

Response S2-21: Comment noted. At the Applicant’s request, a site-specific review of on-site

wetlands was conducted by DEC personnel and the Applicant’s representatives on November 13,

2015 (note: this site visit was in addition to the site visit with DEC stream personnel on December

2, 2015 to review potential impacts to state-protected streams). Based on feedback received from

DEC staff during the site visit, the Applicant will continue to consult with the DEC to determine

exactly which delineated wetlands will be protected under Article 24 of the ECL, and subsequent to

determining jurisdiction, will further consult with the DEC throughout the Article 24 permitting

process. As noted in Section 2.3 of the FEIS, the Applicant requested a Pre-Application meeting

with the U.S. Army Corps and NYSDEC to discuss the contents of a Joint Application for Permit,

which was held on December 9, 2015. At this meeting the process for determining the complete

extent of DEC jurisdiction under Article 24 was discussed, and the Applicant continues to work with

DEC wetland personnel in this regard. However, the full extent of all currently mapped DEC

wetlands has been reported in the EIS record, and the full extent of all delineated wetlands (i.e.,

the full extent of the wetland resource regardless of jurisdiction) is summarized in this

FEIS. Additionally, the Applicant, U.S. Army Corps, and NYSDEC were in agreement regarding

the necessary information to be presented in the Joint Application for Permit that would allow

NYSDEC to determine the extents of their jurisdiction.

Comment S2-22: It is the Department's policy that wetland impacts are not permitted, even with mitigation, until

other alternatives have been explored, including avoidance, minimization or reduction of

impacts. Generally applicants are required to: 1) examine alternative project designs that avoid

and reduce impacts to wetlands ; 2) develop plans to create or improve wetlands or wetland

funct ions to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands; and 3) demonstrate overriding

economic and social needs for the project that outweigh the environmental costs of impacts on

the wetlands.

Response S2-22: As described in Section 2.3 of this FEIS, the Project has been designed through an iterative

process since 2008. The current Project layout maximizes renewable energy production at the

site within the constraints of available participating land, legal setback requirements, engineering

constraints, and a thorough effort to identify, avoid, and/or minimize potential environmental

impacts informed by more than seven years of study at the site as documented in the DEIS,

SEIS, and SEIS2. Throughout the Project design process, the layout has been continually refined

to accommodate new wetland delineations as they were completed. For instance, new turbine


53

locations and access road alignments were developed, then re-delineated, and re-evaluated to

further avoid and minimize wetland impacts. Turbines were moved out of wetlands while

maintaining the required setbacks. Crane pads and workspaces were rotated and reconfigured to

move away from and out of wetlands. Access road alignments were moved to avoid wetlands and

where impacts were not avoidable, the roads were moved to impact the narrowest point within a

wetland. Where possible, access roads use existing farm lanes and logging trails, existing culvert

crossings of streams, and existing gas well access roads. The generator lead line alignment and

pole locations were modified to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands. Finally, the operations

and maintenance building and project substation were also moved multiple times to avoid and

minimize wetland impacts.

With respect to compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands, as indicated in Section 2.2.3

(Proposed Mitigation) of the SEIS2, “To mitigate for unavoidable permanent impacts to wetlands

and waterbodies resulting from Project development and operations, the Applicant will continue to

consult with the USACE and NYSDEC regarding acceptable and appropriate mitigation

measures. Mitigation options range from creating new wetlands to preserving existing wetlands,

and ultimately the final approved mitigation will compensate for the loss of wetlands due to

Project-related activities. The final establishment of mitigation for unavoidable permanent wetland

impacts would be determined through the permitting process with the NYSDEC and USACE.”

The Applicant is committed to implementing the mitigation plans identified in the SEIS2, in

continuing consultation with the USACE and NYSDEC and to create or improve wetlands or

wetland functions to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands.

With respect to demonstrating overriding economic and social needs for the project that

outweigh the environmental costs of impacts on the wetlands, please see the summary

presented in Section 2.3 of this FEIS as well as Response S2-17 above. In addition, as

described in Section 2.3.4 of this FEIS, approximately 3.26 acres of permanent wetland impact

(36% of project-wide total) and 7.46 acres of temporary wetland impact (78% of project-wide total)

are located in agricultural areas. Generally speaking, due to the frequently disturbed nature of

agricultural land, these wetlands are considered to be of lower quality, and harbor less ecological

value than those that occur in forested and scrub-shrub communities. Furthermore, if the Applicant

were to re-locate many of the Project components that are currently sited in these wetlands, it

would result in impacts to much higher quality agricultural land, and likely be more detrimental to


54

agricultural resources and overall agricultural productivity as compared to the Project as currently

sited. In addition to the large proportion of delineated wetlands that occur in active agricultural

areas, approximately 91 acres (68% of project wide total) occur within forested areas. However,

due to the Applicant’s desire to site access roads and other project components along existing

corridors such as old logging roads and trails, many of the anticipated impacts to emergent

wetlands in forested areas occur along previously disturbed corridors. While the Applicant has

explored the possibility of re-siting various Project components to avoid impacts to the wetlands in

disturbed areas, this would often result in impacts to intact forested upland communities, which are

more ecologically valuable than the already disturbed rutted forest roads and trails in which

wetlands have developed.

After the avoidance and minimization measures discussed above have been implemented,

this Project will result in approximately 9.0 acres of temporary and 8.24 acres of permanent

wetland impacts. These impacts have been minimized to the extent practicable. Temporary

impacts from construction will continue to be avoided and minimized through best

management practices, implementing sediment and erosion control measures, making

provisions for adequate cross-drainage, equipment and chemical use restrictions and

placement of cleared vegetation and stockpiled soils outside of wetland and stream areas.

As discussed with the U.S Army Corps and NYSDEC staff at a Pre-Application meeting on

December 9, 2015, it is anticipated that permanent impacts will be mitigated through the

construction of on-site wetlands, and/or participation in an approved in-lieu fee program, to

be further refined during the wetland permitting process. Thus, even though potential impacts

to wetlands may be significant, through the avoidance, minimization measures discussed

here, as well as the mitigation measures that the Applicant has committed to that will be

incorporated through the Applicant’s SPDES and Article 15 and Article 24 permits, the

Applicant has demonstrated that the benefits associated with this renewable energy wind

project and the contributions to State policy and goals requiring the development of

renewable energy outweigh the temporary and permanent impacts associated with wetlands.

Comment S2-23: DEC recommends that information regarding potential wetland impacts be formatted so that

wetland and adjacent area impacts are first broken down by wetland (including wetland name

and agency jurisdiction) and secondly, broken down by type of impact (road, tower,


55

transmission line, etc.). Preliminary plans of each area of impact should be provided that

includes a written description of the impacts, both temporary and permanent, to the wetland and

adjacent area. This description should include the name, size and class of the wetland, the type

of habitat impacted, the type and size of impact, a discussion of the restoration planned after

construction, a just ification of the impacts, and the steps taken for avoiding and minimizing

these impacts.

Response S2-23: A summary of anticipated potential permanent and temporary impacts to wetlands, as determined

based on current Project engineering and organized according to NYSDEC’s request, is included in

tabular format in Appendix B of this FEIS. Preliminary plans of each impact area, and the

remaining items requested in NYSDEC’s comment S2-23, are typical elements included in a Joint

Application for Permit. As noted above in Response S2-21, the Applicant requested a Pre-

Application meeting with the U.S. Army Corps and NYSDEC to discuss the contents of a Joint

Application for Permit, which was held on December 9, 2015. The Applicant, U.S. Army Corps,

and NYSDEC were in agreement regarding the necessary information to be presented in the Joint

Application for Permit, which will include the tabular summary presented in Appendix B of this FEIS

as well as the additional details regarding potential wetland impacts requested above.

Comment S2-24: While the Department reserves its rights to provide additional comments when the Project plan

is provided, the Department provides the following additional comments based on the SEIS

document:

• "New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Wetland Delineation

Manual (1995)." The Applicant should refer to DEC's Wetland Delineation Manual

when delineating freshwater wetlands regulated under 6 New York Codes Rules and

Regulations (NYCRR) Part 624 (Freshwater Wetlands)1.

• "Wetlands Regulation Guidelines on Compensatory Mitigation (1993)."

unavoidable wetland impacts are expected to result from Project construction

activities , compensatory mitigation may be required to demonstrate compliance

with the 6 NYCRR Part 624. Proposed mitigation should conform to DEC wetland

mitigation guidelines2.

1 Found at www . dec.ny.gov/docs/wi l dli fe.pdf/wdel man.pdf. 2 Found at www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wil dlife.pdf/wetmitqdln.pdf.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wil


56

Response S2-24: Comment noted. As indicated in Section 2.2.1.2.1 (2015 Wetland Delineations) of the SEIS2,

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) conducted delineations during the 2015 growing season, and

the results of the delineations were shared with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the

DEC in September 2015 (see also Appendix E of the SEIS2, which includes a full copy of the

Wetland and Waterbodies Report prepared by E&E). As described in Appendix E of the SEIS2, the

2015 wetland delineations were conducted in accordance with in the 1987 Corps of Engineers

Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Northcentral and Northeast

Regional Supplement (USACE 2012). As indicated above in Response S2-21, a site visit was

conducted by DEC personnel on November 13, 2015 to review the boundaries of delineated

wetlands. The Applicant will continue to consult with both the Corps and the DEC to determine

final jurisdiction and acceptable mitigation that conforms to DEC wetland mitigation guidelines from

among the options discussed in the SEIS2 and FEIS. Based on all regulatory consultations

conducted to date, which have included field reviews of delineated wetlands, meetings, and

email/phone correspondence, the Applicant and its consultants have obtained all information

necessary to support Jurisdictional Determinations from both the NYSDEC and the Corps.

Please also note, a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the wetland delineations conducted

for the Project in 2008/2009 was provided by the Corps on March 15, 2010 (Appendix D of this

FEIS). Additionally, DEC issued a letter to the Applicant on September 25, 2009 (See Appendix D

of the FEIS) which confirmed the occurrence of a state-regulated wetland within the Project Site.

The letter also concurred with July 2009 Wetland and Waterbodies Report that the Project has

been sited to avoid impacts to state-regulated wetlands.

Comment S2-25 2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation. As stated in this section, the Applicant must work closely with the DEC

and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop appropriate mitigation only after avoidance and

minimization have been exhausted as possibilities.

Response S2-25: Comment noted. As indicated above, the Applicant will continue to consult with both the Corps

and the DEC to determine final jurisdiction and acceptable mitigation from among the options

discussed in the SEIS2 and FEIS.

Comment S2-26: Section 2.3 Biological, Terrestrial, and Aquatic Ecology


57

2.3.1.3.1 Birds. The Cerulean warbler, a State species of special concern and interior forest

species, was observed during both the 2013 and 2015 breeding bird survey. Information on

precisely where the birds were observed, the duration of each observation , how individuals were

detected, any breeding behavior seen, and other relevant notes should be provided to

determine if any Project components may impact this species.

Response S2-26: A summary of field information collected on Cerulean warbler observations is included

below in Table 4, and a map of the locations of the observations is included below in Inset 2.

Some project components occur in the vicinity of where these observations were made,

however, this species is rarely recorded as a fatality at monitored wind projects. In addition,

tree clearing for the Project is anticipated to occur during the winter period to protect roosting

birds potentially occurring in the site. Therefore, no impacts to nesting birds are expected.

Table 4. Summary of Cerulean Warbler Observations.

transect date start time

end time

indivs distance

along tran

distance from tran

activity first

auditory notes

97T 6/26/2013 9:44 9:58 1 40 10 SI TRUE

97T 6/26/2013 9:44 9:58 1 20 40 SI TRUE

43T 6/18/2015 6:38 6:58 1 270 30 AUD TRUE

GOT BRIEF LOOK

AT BIRD AFTER

SURVEY, SINGING

FREQUENTLY


58

Inset 2. Map of Breeding Bird Survey observation transects.


59

Comment S2-27: Though it is unlikely that sedge wren regularly occurs in the Project area, Table 15 indicates

there are no breeding records for this species in Chautauqua County. This is inaccurate. Data

from the latest Breeding Bird Atlas show sedge wren as a confirmed breeder in 2 blocks, and a

probable breeder in 2 blocks in Chautauqua County.

Response S2-27: The NYSDEC is correct that this information was inaccurately presented in Table 15 of the

SEIS2. The corrected information regarding the most up-to-date Breeding Bird Atlas data for the

sedge wren is provided in Section 3.0 of this FEIS.

Comment S2-28: 2.3.2.1 Construction. The dominant cover type within the Project footprint and surrounding area

is forest and most of the turbines are currently proposed to be built in these forested areas.

Table 17 indicates that 391.2 acres of forest would incur temporary impacts and 53.6 acres

would sustain permanent impacts. DEC considers the clearing of all forested habitat to be a

permanent impact because the time it takes a forest to regenerate to pre-construction condition

is often longer than the life of the Project. The Applicant should amend Table 17 and all other

vegetation impact analyses to reflect 444.8 acres of permanent loss of forest due to the

construction and operation of the Project.

Response S2-28: Comment noted. The areas of temporary impact to forest listed in Table 17 will be allowed

to regenerate to their original state, therefore these areas were characterized as temporary

impacts. However, per the NYSDEC’s comments, if these areas are considered permanent

impacts then the total permanent impact to forested land resulting from construction of the

Project would be 444.8 acres. In addition, concurrent with the issuance of the SEIS2, Project

engineering has advanced. Per the current proposed limits of disturbance for the Project

design, it is anticipated that approximately 272 acres of tree clearing will be required in

forested areas, which is a significant reduction from the assumptions presented in the SEIS2.

Comment S2-29: Although the shrubby young forest that will grow up over the next several years following

clearing may provide valuable habitat to a suite of bird species, the forest interior species that

depend on contiguous forest will be negatively impacted by the loss of cover and habitat

fragmentation caused by turbines, roads and other infrastructure. Any contiguous forest block

of 150 acres or larger is valuable forest habitat--viable for many bird species that require interior

forests for breeding. Most of these species are protected by federal and State laws such as the


60

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) , and ECL

Article 11. Severa l sensitive species of interior forest breeding birds have been documented in

the Project area.

Response S2-29: Comment noted. The Project’s access roads and collection lines have been sited, where

possible, along existing disturbed corridors such as farm lanes, logging roads, and access roads

associated with existing natural gas wells, which contribute to existing forest fragmentation on the

site. Use of these existing disturbed corridors minimizes the need for additional forest clearing

and therefore minimizes potential impacts associated with additional forest habitat fragmentation.

In addition, the pre-project surveys were designed in conjunction with USFWS and NYSDEC

personnel to, in part, help determine the presence of sensitive species. The baseline report

provides a summary of sensitive species observations. For example, during the breeding bird

surveys only two state species of concern were observed: cerulean warbler (discussed

above) and a Cooper’s hawk. The low number of observations and apparently low density of

sensitive species is likely due to the current fragmented and impacted nature of the forests in

the Project area. Therefore, significant impacts to sensitive interior forest breeding birds are

not anticipated.

Comment S2-30: As more energy-related projects such as wind energy facilities, oil and gas pipelines, gas drilling

pads, and transmission lines are proposed and built across the State, DEC continues to

thoroughly evaluate impacts to interior forest habitat and the protected species that depend on

these forests. The Applicant should consider layout design and actions to minimize impacts to

forest interior breeding birds and bats, and to mitigate for unavoidable forest clearing. These

may include but are not limited to: placing turbines as close as possible to forest/field edges,

to reduce impact to both habitat types; conducting all tree clearing outside of the primary bird

nesting season (April 1 – August 31) and bat roosting and swarming period (April 1 – October

31); and communicating with DEC and USFWS about options to mitigate for direct and indirect

loss of forest interior habitat.

Response S2-30: With respect to layout design alternatives, as indicated above in Section 2.3 of this FEIS and

Responses S2-18 and S2-22 the Project has been designed through an iterative process since

2008, including real-time modifications to the layout to accommodate new wetland delineations and

natural resources surveys as they were completed. Where possible, Project access roads have


61

been sited along existing logging roads and farm lanes for turbine access to minimize disturbance

to forest, and reduce the severity of forest fragmentation. Of the approximately 12.6 miles of

proposed access roads, 9.8 miles of roads are sited in forest areas, of which approximately 2.5

miles are sited along existing disturbed corridors such as logging roads, gas well access roads,

and/or informal trails. In addition, access roads have generally been sited to avoid steep slopes to

minimize the need for additional clearing, grading, and filling that would be required to

accommodate steeply sloped areas. Buried collection lines (which require vegetation clearing for

construction) have been co-located with access roads to the maximum extent practicable.

As described in Section 2.3.2.1 of the SEIS2, it is not expected that any construction-related

activity will significantly impact local populations of any resident or migratory bird and bat species.

Furthermore, all tree clearing that will be required for Project construction will be conducted during

the winter, which will avoid or minimize impacts to roosting bats and nesting birds. As described in

the DEIS, SEIS, and SEIS2, the Applicant has been in regular consultation with NYSDEC and

USFWS regarding potential impacts to wildlife since 2008. To avoid impacts to the federally-listed

endangered northern long eared bats, the Applicant has proposed to USFWS that tree removal on

site will only occur during the period October 1 to March 31, except in the case of emergency tree

removal which will be carried out according to the provisions described below. During this period,

October 1 to March 31, northern long-eared bats are expected to be engaged in swarming

behavior at the hibernacula, roosting and foraging in habitat near the hibernacula, or hibernating

over the winter months and therefore not roosting in trees in the Project Area. Tree removal during

this period would avoid taking northern long-eared bats because they would not be present in the

Project Area. These measures are specified in the Arkwright Summit Wind Farm Northern Long-

Eared Bat Take Avoidance Measures document recently submitted to the USFWS for review and

comment, a copy of which is included as Appendix G of this FEIS. In correspondence dated

December 11, 2015 (see Appendix H), USFWS indicated their concurrence with the Applicant’s

proposed schedule for tree clearing.

All tree removal associated with construction of the Project will occur between October and March 31 when no northern long-eared bats are anticipated to be present in the Project area. Also, while northern long-eared bats are anticipated to occur in part of the Project area during the summer maternity season, the patchy nature of tree removal is such that we do not anticipate any harm to northern long-eared bats from any habitat removal (USFWS, 2015).


62

The Applicant will continue to consult with USFWS and NYSDEC regarding the timing of forest

clearing and will restrict clearing activities to the timing limitations imposed by USFWS, which will

assure there are no impacts to this federally-listed endangered species due to tree clearing.

If any emergency tree removal is necessary it will be conducted as needed. If removal of high risk

hazard trees is necessary from April 1 to September 30 during construction, operations, or

maintenance of the Project, the Applicant will notify the USFWS in advance and, if appropriate,

have a qualified biologist conduct an emergence survey at the tree(s) requiring removal. If no bats

are observed during the emergence survey, the high-risk hazard tree(s) will be promptly removed.

Comment S2-31: Direct impact encompasses all acres of forest cleared. Indirect impacts to interior forests are

difficult to quantify , though many studies have shown that measureable impacts are found at

least 300 feet, and up to 2000 feet, into the forest from the boundary of a disturbance . Such

impacts include increased presence of nest parasites, predators , invasive species and human

disturbance. These, as well as changes in temperature, light penetration, humidity , soil

moisture, plant composition, noise levels, prey availability, and other factors may cause birds to

avoid forest edges during nesting, feeding, and migration periods. This can lead to increased

intra-and inter-species competition for preferred interior forest habitat, changes in food

availability, decreased fledging rates, and increased energy expenditure during foraging and

territory defense in sub-par habitat. Each project that impacts interior forest habitat across the

landscape puts cumulative stress on bird and bat populations in New York and across the

northeast, potentially contributing to a gradual decline in the overall number and diversity of

interior forest-dependent species.

Response S2-31: Comment noted. See also Response S2-29.

Comment S2-32: Section 7.0 Cumulative Impacts.

While the section discusses aspects of cumulative impacts from Cassadaga and Ball Hill Wind

Projects, the section should further elaborate on the issues raised in above sections with

respect to both bird and bat impacts and cumulative loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation

due to roads and collection lines.


63

Response S2-32: There is no publically available data regarding potential impacts to wildlife or habitat for the

Cassadaga or Ball Hill Projects. Section 7.0 of the SEIS2 provides an analysis of potential

cumulative impacts to wildlife from the proposed Cassadaga and Ball Hill Wind Projects based on

the general location and proposed operating capacity of these two projects, and post-construction

monitoring data from many regional wind projects. However at present, only a roughly-defined

project area has been established for the Cassadaga Project, and no such project area exists for

the Ball Hill Project, except that it will exist entirely within the Towns of Villenova and Hannover,

New York. The locations of wind turbines and ancillary facilities for both these projects have not yet

been determined.

As described in Response S2-29, the Project’s access roads and collections have been sited,

where possible, along existing disturbed corridors such as farm lanes, logging roads, and access

roads associated with existing natural gas wells, which contribute to existing forest fragmentation

on the site. Use of these existing disturbed corridors minimizes the need for additional forest

clearing and therefore minimizes potential impacts associated with additional forest habitat

fragmentation.

Regarding cumulative impacts, while much of this region of Chautauqua County is forested, due to

the lack of project-specific details, quantifying impacts such as potential loss of forested habitat and

habitat fragmentation for the Cassadaga and Ball Hill projects with any degree of accuracy is not

possible at this time. Additionally, logging and natural gas production are common practices in this

area of Chautauqua County, and the quality of forest habitat in the Cassadaga and Ball Hill project

areas may not be comparable to that of the Arkwright Summit Wind Project.

Comment S2-33: Appendix F. Typical Spill Control and Countermeasure Plan.

Based on DEC's experience with similar wind energy projects, spills of petroleum and other

chemicals may occur during the construction and operational phases of the project. As such, the

Applicant should develop a spills management plan that is consistent the Department's regulations

regarding petroleum bulk storage, chemical bulk storage and spill response and remediation. As

guidance, the Applicant can refer to the Department's guidance document entitled "Leaks, Spills

and Accidents Management Practices Catalogue for Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention and

Water Quality Protection in New York State," found at the following link:

www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water.pdf/leaksspillsbmp.pdf. The Applicant can also refer to spill

management plans that have been developed for other recent wind energy projects. The Marble

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water.pdf/leaksspillsbmp.pdf


64

River Wind Project SPCC was provided as an example. Please work with regional spill response

staff to ensure that the plan developed will be adequate for this particular wind project.

Response S2-33: Comment noted. The model SPCC provided as Appendix F of the SEIS2 identifies the planning,

prevention, and control measures that will be adhered to during Project construction to minimize

impacts resulting from spills of fuels, petroleum products, or other regulated substances as a result

of construction. As indicated in the model plan, spills during construction will be documented and

reported to NYSDEC in accordance with applicable regulations. The Applicant will also work with

regional spill response staff to ensure that the final SPCC addresses any necessary Project-

specific concerns and conforms to the DEC guidance document referenced in the comment.

Comment S2-34: Appendix G Typical Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

Before commencing construction activity, the owner or operator of a construction project that will

involve soil disturbance of one or more acres must obtain coverage under the State Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from

Construction Activity. The SWPPP subject to the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater

Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-15-002) shall include Erosion and Sediment Controls

designed, installed and maintained in accordance with the most current version of the "New York

Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control." Additionally, for projects that

include the construction of permanent gravel access roads, the SWPPP shall include post

construction stormwater management practices designed in accordance with the most current

version of the "New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (Manual)" (see Table 2,

Appendix B of GP-0-15-002). Chapter 4 of the Design Manual should be used to determine the

minimum sizing criteria for these post-construction controls. DEC staff recommends that the

Applicant consult the Preliminary SWPPP for Construction of Crown City Wind Energy Project,

Cortland County, New York, attached hereto for your convenience.

Response S2-34: Comment noted. The Applicant will implement a SWPPP that is fully in compliance with the

requirements of the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity

(GP-0-15-002), which includes control measures designed, installed, and maintained in

accordance with the most current version of the New York Standards and Specifications for

Erosion and Sediment Control. Furthermore, the Applicant will implement post-construction


65

stormwater management practices detailed in the most current version of the New York State

Stormwater Management Design Manual.

Comment S2-35: Appendix H Avian and Bat Studies,

Breeding Bird Surveys. Grouping taxonomically related birds together in habitat analysis does

not always accurately reflect each species use of that habitat, particularly with thrushes and

warblers. For instance, bluebirds use open pasture and edge habitat, while wood thrushes use

forests; common yellowthroats and black-throated green warblers use very different habitat

types. Combining bird groups like this mask effects of the turbines and could under- or over-

estimate changes in use during post construction surveys. The Applicant should present data

by groups of birds that use similar habitat to evaluate any trends that may occur after turbines

are present on site.

Response S2-35: Comment noted. Investigations into potential displacement effects, to the extent feasible

provided sample sizes are sufficient for individual species or group of species, can be done

once turbine are constructed and similar surveys in scope, duration, and location can be

conducted.

Comment S2-36: Acoustic Broadcast Raptor Monitoring: The intent of this survey was to gather information on

the species and number of forest nesting raptors in the Project area, including sharp-shinned

hawk, Cooper's hawk, goshawk , red-shouldered hawk, broad-winged hawk, and red-tailed

hawk. The use of only red-shouldered hawk calls is unlikely to elicit a response from all of

these species . The lack of a response from most of these raptors to non-conspecific calls

cannot be used to conclude that they are not breeding in the Project area.

Response S2-36: Section 2.3.1.3.1 of the SEIS2 summarizes the range of studies that were conducted to

identify birds that could be impacted by the proposed Project. No conclusions were made

that the species listed in Comment S2-30 were not in the Project area. Observations of these

species during the various bird surveys are described in Section 2.3.1.3.1 of the SEIS2 and

in the reports included in Appendix H. Regarding the use of red-shouldered hawk calls during

the Broadcast Call Survey for Nesting Raptors, many raptor species will defend their territory

against other raptors, including other species, during the nesting season so use of other

species calls can be effective at determining presence. As noted in Section 2.3.1.3.1 of the


66

SEIS2, broadcast surveys elicited a total of 16 responses (vocal or visual) from three species (13

red-shouldered hawk, 2 red-tailed hawk, 1 American kestrel) at eight of the 60 call stations.

Comment S2-37: Winter Grassland Bird Surveys: Winter grassland bird surveys have been conducted on site

from January-March 2015, and are planned to resume November-December 2015. Survey

protocols should follow the Department's guidance as found in the Project Applicant Survey

Protocol for State-listed Wintering Grassland Raptor Species, draft dated December 22, 2014.

Standard surveys generally take place during one continuous winter, November through March.

Grassland raptor numbers were low across the state during the winter of 2014- 2015, likely due

to the very cold temperatures and persistent snow pack. As DEC has not yet received a

summary or report of the winter survey conducted January-March 2015 at the Project, we

recommend a full winter survey be done during the 2015-2016 season.

Response S2-37: As noted in Section 2.3.1.3.1 of the SEIS2, the Winter Grassland Bird Survey was

conducted in accordance with the methods described in the NYSDEC Draft Project Applicant

Survey Protocol for State listed Wintering Grassland Raptor Species (NYSDEC 2014).The

survey protocol was formally agreed upon with USFWS and NYSDEC, including the timing of

the surveys, and was modified to address NYSDEC requests. The preliminary results of the

survey are described in Section 2.3.1.3.1 of the SEIS2. A total of 96 surveys were conducted

from January 16 through April 16, 2015. Two species were observed during the surveys,

including four groups totaling five red-tailed hawks and one sharp-shinned hawk. No northern

harriers or short-eared owls were observed. Additional observations are being conducted in

November and December 2015 and a final report detailing all observations and findings will

be provided to NYSDEC to provide further context regarding potential use of the site by

grassland raptors. Based on the results of observations conducted to date, the winter of

2014-2015 was an average snowfall year, so the survey data and observations reported in

the SEIS2 represent typical conditions for the site and it is considered unlikely that additional

surveys will contradict the findings presented in the SEIS2. Based on the results of

observations conducted at the site to date, the Applicant’s avian consultants (WEST, Inc.)

would not expect, on average, that the grassland raptors would occupy the site.

Comment S2-38: Eagles: Several bald eagle nests were located within 10 miles of the Project. The closest of

these is just over 1- mile from the Project boundary. This nesting pair is known to use areas


67

within the western portion of the Project area for both foraging and roosting. The potential for

significant impacts to this, and possibly other nesting pairs exists if the operating Project causes

a direct injury or mortality, or if birds avoid the area due to the presence of turbines. Though

only one eagle was observed during the 2013 surveys, the eagle population in this area has

grown since then. DEC is aware that further surveys have been done in 2015, including spring

raptor migration surveys and eagle use surveys following USFWS guidance. DEC staff may

provide further comments after receiving and reviewing that data.

Response S2-38: As noted in Section 2.3.1.3.1 of the SEIS2, the survey protocol for eagles was developed

in consultation with USFWS and NYSDEC, and primarily followed the Eagle Conservation

Planning Guidelines of the USFWS. The potential for the project to impact eagles is being

addressed with the USFWS due to the federal protection for these species. To supplement

the eagle observation surveys conducted in 2013, additional eagle observation surveys were

initiated in the Project vicinity on January 15, 2015 using methods described in the USFWS

ECPG (USFWS 2013). The preliminary results of the survey are described in the SEIS2, and

as noted in Section 2.3.1.3.1 the surveys are being conducted until the end of December

2015. A final report detailing all observations and findings will be provided to USFWS and

NYSDEC to provide further context regarding potential use of the Project vicinity by eagles.

It is worth noting that the raptor migration survey report has previously been provided to

NYSDEC.

The results of eagle surveys and observations conducted to date indicate that some eagle

use has been recorded in the Project; however, there are limited foraging opportunities for

bald eagles within the Project area which likely limits actual use of the site by the nearby

nesting eagles. As described in Section 2.3.2.2 of the DEIS, SEIS, and SEIS2, the overall

risk to raptors (including eagles) resulting from operation of the Project is expected to be low.

Due to the numerous multi-year surveys conducted for the Project, it is considered unlikely

that additional surveys will contradict the results and conclusions presented in the DEIS,

SEIS, and SEIS2.

Comment S2-39: New eagle nests are being discovered yearly in this part of the State and the Project footprint

contains suitable habitat for additional nesting pairs, as well as for migrating and wintering

eagles. Siting a wind project in this location may prevent future expansion of the breeding


68

population, and could potentially cause long-term impacts to migrating and wintering eagles in

western New York.

Response S2-39: The potential for the project to prevent future expansion or breeding bald eagles in NY is

considered unlikely, given that the bald eagle breeding population continues to increase

despite human population increases and associated increases in development and

infrastructure throughout bald eagle range. While bald eagles have been recorded as

fatalities at some wind projects, this is a rare event and apparently the risk to bald eagles

from wind turbines is low compared to other species. The growing population of bald eagles

co-exists well throughout North America with growing wind energy development. See also

Response S2-38 regarding consultation with USFWS and DEC.

Comment S2-40: Bats: Though DEC is unaware of exact roost locations for northern long-eared bats (NLEB)

near the Project area, the species is known to occur in Chautauqua County. Individuals have

been captured in mist nets in the towns of Chautauqua and Ellington, and the applicant's

acoustic monitoring suggests NLEB is present in the town of Arkwright. To reduce potential

impacts to bats, DEC recommends all tree clearing be conducted in the winter, following

USFWS guidance. DEC also recommends operational curtailment during periods when bats

are known to be present and most active, and therefore at greater risk of collision or barotrauma

caused by turbines.

Response S2-40: Please note that the Applicant intends to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for

operation of the Project. The HCP will be developed to support an Incidental Take Permit (ITP)

application for potential take of the threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis).

In order to ensure that Project development continues during HCP development process, the

Applicant has developed interim measures that would be implemented to avoid potential take of

northern long-eared bat during construction and operation of the Project. These measures are

specified in the Arkwright Summit Wind Farm Northern Long-Eared Bat Take Avoidance

Measures document recently submitted to the USFWS for review and comment, a copy of which

is included as Appendix G of this FEIS. Per this document, the Applicant proposes that the

avoidance measures be implemented until the ITP is issued, at which time the conservation

measures in the HCP will be implemented and the interim measures will be discontinued. At this

time, and based on the Project schedule, it is anticipated that these interim measures will be in


69

place during 2016 and 2017 (the construction period) and 2018 (the first year of Project

operations) while the HCP is being developed. Please see Appendix G of this FEIS for additional

detail.

Comment S2-41: General. The proximity of the proposed Arkwright project to the proposed Cassadaga wind project

to the south and Ball Hill wind project to the northeast collectively covers a large area of northern

Chautauqua County. The Applicant should thoroughly describe and evaluate the cumulative

impacts of all these project on birds, bats, and their habitats, including estimated mortality levels

and the effects of fragmentation of contiguous forests, grasslands, and wetlands. As the project

footprint, access road and turbine layout change, the Applicant should provide the most current

shapefiles to DEC to facilitate timely and accurate review of potential impacts.

Response S2-41: There is no publically available data regarding potential impacts to wildlife, wetlands, or ecological

communities for the Cassadaga or Ball Hill Projects. Therefore, the Applicant cannot reasonably

provide a thorough description and evaluation of the cumulative impacts of all these projects on

birds, bats, and their habitats, including estimated mortality levels and the effects of fragmentation

of contiguous forests, grasslands, and wetlands, as requested by NYSDEC. As described in

Response S2-32, Section 7.0 of the SEIS2 provides an analysis of potential cumulative impacts to

wildlife from the proposed Cassadaga and Ball Hill Wind Projects based on the general location

and proposed operating capacity of these two projects, and post-construction monitoring data from

many regional wind projects.

In addition, as described in Response S2-29, the Project’s access roads and collections have been

sited, where possible, along existing disturbed corridors such as farm lanes, logging roads, and

access roads associated with existing natural gas wells, which contribute to existing forest

fragmentation on the site. Use of these existing disturbed corridors minimizes the need for

additional forest clearing and therefore minimizes potential impacts associated with additional

forest habitat fragmentation. Because there is no publicly available information regarding the

presence of forest interior habitat or other sensitive habitats, sensitive species, or project layouts

for the Cassadaga and Ball Hill Projects, it is not possible to evaluate potential cumulative impacts

due to potential habitat fragmentation.


70

The Applicant will continue to consult with NYSDEC throughout the ongoing development of the

Project and can provide the request Project layout shapefiles.

Comment S2-42: Appendix I Invasive Species and Noxious Weed Control Plan.

An acceptable invasive species plan must detail survey methods to identify existing invasive

species, listed in DEC regulations found at 6 NYCRR Part 575, in the project area to ensure that

these areas can be avoided. At a minimum, the plan must:

Specify the method used to ensure that imported fill and fill leaving the site will be free of

invasive species to the extent practicable, and whether fill within the site will either be free

of invasives or only used within the area infested with the same invasive species;

Address how site grading and erosion and sediment control will work together to prevent

invasives;

Detail all cleaning procedures for removing invasive species from equipment, preferably

with a power-washer, including personnel, location of designated equipment cleaning

stations, location of off-site disposal (if the material is not rendered incapable of growth or

reproduction) which must be either a landfill, incinerator or State-approved disposal

facility. The procedures must ensure that the equipment will arrive and leave the site

clean and all equipment and clothing-cleaning stations must be constructed so that

invasive species seeds and other viable plant parts cannot escape in runoff or through

other means;

Describe the Best Management Practices or procedures that will be implemented to

ensure that project activities do not result in introduction or spread of invasive species,

especially in or near regulated areas of special interest to DEC Natural Resources staff

such as areas containing protected species or habitats within the project area;

Provide measures for educating workers about invasive species and how to prevent their

spread, identify work areas which will trigger cleaning activities (such as prior to using

mats in streams and wetland and wetland adjacent areas) and identify methods to prevent

and control the transport of invasive species as well as how to clean equipment and

clothing using acceptable methods;

List all planting and seeding materials to be used; and

Detail post-construction monitoring and survey approaches, preferably for at least 5 years,

which would ensure that the objective of no net increase in invasive species was

accomplished. If aerial coverage of invasive species in the ROW project area increases


71

over the baseline survey level, remedial action should be considered in consultation with

DEC and USACE. If the goals of the invasive species control plan are not met within five

years post-construction, a revised control plan containing additional control actions for an

additional monitoring term must be submitted.

The example plan submitted does address education of on-site workers as well as soil disturbance

and equipment cleaning. The list of potential invasive species included in the plan should be cross-

checked by an ecologist using on-site surveys prior to construction. While our primary jurisdictional

areas tend to be wetlands, streams and the adjacent areas, controlling invasives in upland

construction sites is also important. The stated goal of 0% net increase in aerial coverage of

invasive species is appropriate.

Response S2-42: Comment noted. As described in Section 2.3.3.1 of the SEIS2, the Applicant will implement an

invasive species/noxious weed control plan (the plan) to reduce the potential introduction and

spread of invasive species during both construction and operation the Project. The Applicant

intends that this will include all of the measures and best management practices listed per

NYSDEC’s comment, above. The invasive species/noxious weed control plan provided as

Appendix I to the SEIS2, includes measures to educate construction workers about invasive

species and how to control their spread through contractor training sessions. Furthermore, the plan

details the procedures that will be utilized for construction materials inspection, target species

treatment and removal, construction equipment sanitation, restoration, and post-construction

monitoring.

5.0 REFERENCES

Driscoll, C.T., D. Evers, K.F. Lambert, N. Kamman, T. Holsen, Y-J. Han, C. Chen, W. Goodale, T. Butler, T. Clair, and R. Munson. 2007. Mercury Matters: Linking Mercury Science with Public Policy in the Northeastern United States. Hubbard Brook Research Foundation. Science Links Publication, Vol. 1, no. 3. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-81-1, United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Accessed online at: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf. Accessed on September 26, 2008. Levy, J., J. Spengler, D. Hlinka, and D. Sullivan. 2000. Estimated Public Health Impacts of Criteria Pollutant Air Emissions from Nine Fossil-Fueled Power Plants in Illinois. Harvard School of Public Health.

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf


72

New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) 2014. Fish: Health Advice on Eating Fish You Catch. Available at: http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/fish/health_advisories/. Last Accessed: October, 2015. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2015. The New York State Renewable Portfolio Standard, Annual Performance Report through December 31, 2014. Final Report. March 2015. New York State Energy Planning Board (NYSEPB). 2015. 2015 New York State Energy Plan. June 25, 2015. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-12-1. January 2012. United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2014. Draft Project Applicant Survey Protocol for State listed Wintering Grassland Raptor Species. Draft – 12/22/14. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. eGRID Subregion Output Emission Rates. Available at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/egrid2012_summarytables_0.pdf. Last Accessed: December, 2015. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. Module 1 - Land-Based Wind Energy. Version 2. Division of Migratory Bird Management, USFWS. April 2013. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Eagle_Conservation_Plan_Guidance-Module%201.pdf USFWS. 2015. Letter to Ms. Erin Johnston, EDPR Renewables, North America. December 11, 2015. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 3817 Luker Road, Cortland, NY 13045.

http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/fish/health_advisories/

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/egrid2012_summarytables_0.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Eagle_Conservation_Plan_Guidance-Module%201.pdf

fina environmental mpact statement_feis_t… · western ecosystems technology, inc. 415 west 17th...

Documents