Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-12_DEIS_Accepted_as_Complete1.pdfPrepared by: Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture and Engineering, P.C. (edr) 274 North Goodman Street Rochester, New York 14607 P. 585.271.0040 F. 585.271.0042 www.edrcompanies.com Prepared for: Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC 863 Hayts Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Black Oak Wind Farm Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York Draft Environmental Impact Statement June 2013 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE BLACK OAK WIND FARM Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Enfield Enfield Town Hall 168 Enfield Main Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Contact: Ms. Ann Rider, Town Supervisor Phone: (607) 277-3843 Prepared By: edr Companies (edr) 274 North Goodman Street Rochester, New York 14607 Contact: Mr. James B. Pippin Phone: (585) 271-0040 Date Submitted to Lead Agency: May 13, 2013 Date Accepted by Lead Agency: June 12, 2013 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Farm ii TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... x FIRMS INVOLVED IN PREPARATION OF THE DEIS ................................................................................................ xii 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF the PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................................. 8 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Wind Turbines ......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Electrical System ..................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3 Access Roads ......................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.4 Meteorological Towers ............................................................................................................................ 14 2.2.5 Staging Areas .......................................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.6 Operations and Maintenance Building .................................................................................................... 15 2.3 PROJECT PURPOSE, PUBLIC NEED, AND BENEFITS ........................................................................... 15 2.4 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ......................................................................................................... 21 2.4.1 Pre-construction Activities ....................................................................................................................... 21 2.4.2 Staging Areas .......................................................................................................................................... 23 2.4.3 Site Preparation ...................................................................................................................................... 23 2.4.4 Access Road Installation ......................................................................................................................... 23 2.4.5 Foundation Construction ......................................................................................................................... 24 2.4.6 Buried Cable Installation ......................................................................................................................... 25 2.4.7 Wind Turbine Assembly and Erection ..................................................................................................... 27 2.4.8 Substation ............................................................................................................................................... 28 2.4.9 Summary of Construction Impacts .......................................................................................................... 28 2.4.10 Operation ............................................................................................................................................ 29 2.4.11 Decommissioning and Restoration ..................................................................................................... 31 2.5 REVIEWS, APPROVALS, AND OTHER COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS ........................................... 33 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................... 35 3.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 35 3.1.1 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................... 35 3.1.1.1 Topography ..................................................................................................................................... 35 3.1.1.2 Geology .......................................................................................................................................... 35 3.1.1.3 Soils ................................................................................................................................................ 36 3.1.2 Potential Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 38 3.1.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................... 38 3.1.2.2 Operation ........................................................................................................................................ 40 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................................ 40 3.2 WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 43 3.2.1 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................... 43 3.2.1.1 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................... 43 3.2.1.2 Surface Water ................................................................................................................................. 44 3.2.1.3 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................................... 45 3.2.1.4 Floodplains and Floodways ............................................................................................................ 50 3.2.1.5 Stormwater ..................................................................................................................................... 50 3.2.2 Potential Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 50 3.2.2.1 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................... 50 3.2.2.2 Surface Waters and Wetlands ........................................................................................................ 52 3.2.2.3 Floodplains and Floodways ............................................................................................................ 55 3.2.2.4 Stormwater ..................................................................................................................................... 55 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................................ 56 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Farm iii 3.2.3.1 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................... 56 3.2.3.2 Surface Waters and Wetlands ........................................................................................................ 57 3.2.3.3 Floodplains and Floodways ............................................................................................................ 60 3.2.3.4 Stormwater ..................................................................................................................................... 61 3.3 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................... 62 3.3.1 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................... 62 3.3.1.1 Climatic Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 62 3.3.1.2 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 62 3.3.2 Potential Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 63 3.3.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................... 63 3.3.2.2 Operation ........................................................................................................................................ 63 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................................ 65 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 66 3.4.1 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................... 66 3.4.1.1 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 66 3.4.1.2 Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 69 3.4.2 Potential Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 83 3.4.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................... 83 3.4.2.2 Operation ........................................................................................................................................ 87 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................................. 103 3.4.3.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 104 3.4.3.2 Fish and Wildlife ........................................................................................................................... 105 3.4.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................................... 107 3.5 AGRICULTURE ......................................................................................................................................... 108 3.5.1 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................. 108 3.5.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 108 3.5.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 108 3.5.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 110 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................................. 111 3.6 AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 113 3.6.1 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................. 113 3.6.1.1 Landscape Similarity Zones .......................................................................................................... 113 3.6.1.2 Viewer/User Groups...................................................................................................................... 114 3.6.1.3 Visually Sensitive Resources ........................................................................................................ 115 3.6.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 116 3.6.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 116 3.6.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 116 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................................. 127 3.7 HISTORIC, CULTURAL, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................... 158 3.7.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 158 3.7.1.1 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 158 3.7.1.2 Archeological Sensitivity for Prehistoric Native American Sites .................................................... 162 3.7.1.3 Archeological Sensitivity for Historic Period Sites ......................................................................... 162 3.7.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 163 3.7.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 163 3.7.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 164 3.7.3 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................................. 166 3.7.3.1 Archeological Resources .............................................................................................................. 166 3.7.3.2 Historic and Architectural Resources ............................................................................................ 167 3.8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION .......................................................................................................... 168 3.8.1 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................. 168 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Farm iv 3.8.1.1 Connecticut Hill WMA ................................................................................................................... 168 3.8.1.2 Robert H. Treman State Park ....................................................................................................... 169 3.8.1.3 Texas Hollow State Forest ............................................................................................................ 169 3.8.1.4 Stevenson Forest Preserve .......................................................................................................... 169 3.8.1.5 Rieman Woods ............................................................................................................................. 169 3.8.1.6 Finger Lakes Trail ......................................................................................................................... 170 3.8.1.7 Snowmobile Trails......................................................................................................................... 170 3.8.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 170 3.8.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 170 3.8.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 171 3.8.3 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................................. 172 3.9 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................... 173 3.9.1 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................................. 173 3.9.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 174 3.9.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 174 3.9.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 178 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................................. 178 3.10 ENERGY ................................................................................................................................................... 181 3.10.1 Existing Condition ............................................................................................................................. 181 3.10.2 Potential Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 182 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................... 183 3.11 NOISE ....................................................................................................................................................... 183 3.11.1 Existing Condition ............................................................................................................................. 183 3.11.2 Potential Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 186 3.11.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 186 3.11.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 187 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................... 193 3.12 PUBLIC SAFETY ...................................................................................................................................... 196 3.12.1 Background Information .................................................................................................................... 196 3.12.1.1 Ice Shedding ................................................................................................................................. 196 3.12.1.2 Tower Collapse/Blade Throw ........................................................................................................ 198 3.12.1.3 Stray Voltage ................................................................................................................................ 198 3.12.1.4 Fire ................................................................................................................................................ 199 3.12.1.5 Lightning Strikes ........................................................................................................................... 199 3.12.1.6 Electrocution ................................................................................................................................. 200 3.12.1.7 Electromagnetic Fields .................................................................................................................. 200 3.12.2 Potential Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 201 3.12.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 201 3.12.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 202 3.12.3 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................... 206 3.12.3.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 206 3.12.3.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 208 3.13 GROWTH AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER ........................................................................................... 210 3.13.1 Existing Condition ............................................................................................................................. 210 3.13.2 Potential Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 214 3.13.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 214 3.13.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 214 3.13.3 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................... 216 3.14 SOCIOECONOMICS ................................................................................................................................. 218 3.14.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................................ 219 3.14.1.1 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................ 219 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Farm v 3.14.1.2 Economy and Employment ........................................................................................................... 220 3.14.1.3 Municipal Revenues and Taxes .................................................................................................... 223 3.14.2 Potential Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 225 3.14.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 225 3.14.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 227 3.14.3 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................... 234 3.14.3.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 234 3.14.3.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 235 3.15 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES ............................................................................................ 236 3.15.1 Existing Condition ............................................................................................................................. 236 3.15.2 Potential Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 239 3.15.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 239 3.15.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 241 3.15.3 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................... 242 3.16 COMMUNICATION FACILITIES ............................................................................................................... 244 3.16.1 Existing Condition ............................................................................................................................. 244 3.16.1.1 Microwave Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 244 3.16.1.2 Off-Air Television Analysis ............................................................................................................ 244 3.16.1.3 AM and FM Radio ......................................................................................................................... 245 3.16.1.4 Communication Signals ................................................................................................................ 245 3.16.1.5 Government Radar Systems ......................................................................................................... 246 3.16.1.6 NTIA Notification ........................................................................................................................... 246 3.16.1.7 FAA Aeronautical Studies ............................................................................................................. 246 3.16.2 Potential Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 247 3.16.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 247 3.16.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 247 3.16.3 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................... 251 3.16.3.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 251 3.16.3.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 251 3.17 LAND USE AND ZONING ......................................................................................................................... 252 3.17.1 Existing Condition ............................................................................................................................. 252 3.17.1.1 Regional Land Use Patterns ......................................................................................................... 252 3.17.1.2 Project Site Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................................ 253 3.17.1.3 Future Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 255 3.17.2 Potential Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 257 3.17.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................................................. 257 3.17.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................................... 258 3.17.3 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................... 260 3.18 TEMPORARY IMPACTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................... 262 3.18.1 Existing Condition ............................................................................................................................. 262 3.18.2 Potential Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 264 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................... 268 4.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS .......................................................................................................... 272 4.1 GENERAL AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................ 272 4.2 SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................................................... 274 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING PROGRAM ...................................................... 275 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 276 5.1 NO ACTION .............................................................................................................................................. 277 5.2 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT SITES ............................................................................................................. 278 5.3 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DESIGN/LAYOUT .......................................................................................... 279 5.3.1 Wind Turbine Selection ......................................................................................................................... 279 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Farm vi 5.3.2 Alternate Turbine Layouts ..................................................................................................................... 281 5.3.3 Comparison of Proposed Site Design/Layout Alternatives and Project Size ......................................... 282 5.3.4 Electrical Collection Lines ..................................................................................................................... 284 5.3.5 Electrical Transmission Line.................................................................................................................. 284 5.3.6 Collection Substation ............................................................................................................................ 284 5.3.7 Access Roads ....................................................................................................................................... 284 5.4 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT SIZE ............................................................................................................... 285 5.5 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................................................ 285 5.6 ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION PHASING ........................................................................................... 286 5.7 ALTERNATIVES THAT AVOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ........................................................................ 286 6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ............................................... 288 7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................................................................................. 289 8.0 GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS .................................................................................................................. 292 9.0 EFFECTS ON USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES ................................................... 293 10.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 295 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Farm vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Impact Assumptions and Calculations .......................................................................................................... 28 Table 2. Project Disturbance ....................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 3. Anticipated Permits and Approvals for the Black Oak Wind Farm Project .................................................... 33 Table 4. Soil Associations within the Project Site........................................................................................................ 36 Table 5. Dominant Soil Series within the Project Site. ................................................................................................ 36 Table 6. Approximate Wetlands and Streams ............................................................................................................. 47 Table 7. State-listed Wildlife Species Documented in the Vicinity of the Project Site ................................................. 82 Table 8. Impacts to Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 83 Table 9. Impacts to Ecological Communities .............................................................................................................. 84 Table 10. Bird Fatality Rates from Post-Construction Studies at New York State Wind Energy Facilities .................. 95 Table 11. Bat Fatality Rates from Post-Construction Studies in New York State Wind Energy Facilities ................... 98 Table 12. Environmental Impacts of Electricity Sources ........................................................................................... 103 Table 13. Impacts to Agricultural Lands .................................................................................................................... 109 Table 14. Impacts to Active Agricultural Soils ........................................................................................................... 110 Table 15. Summary of Viewshed Results for Five-Mile Study Area .......................................................................... 118 Table 16. Viewpoints Selected for Simulation ........................................................................................................... 120 Table 17. Receptors with Greater than 10 Hours of Shadow Flicker ........................................................................ 125 Table 18. Archeological Sites Located in the Vicinity of the Project Site .................................................................. 159 Table 19. Historic Resources Located in the Vicinity of the Project .......................................................................... 161 Table 20. Proposed Delivery Route Constraints and Anticipated Impacts ................................................................ 177 Table 21. Potential Road Improvements within the Proposed Delivery Route ........................................................... 181 Table 22. Tompkins County Energy Use and Emissions by Sector, 2008 ................................................................ 182 Table 23. Sound Monitoring Positions ...................................................................................................................... 185 Table 24. Common Sources of Sound and Associated Typical Sound Levels (dBA) ............................................... 186 Table 25. Acoustic Models Results for Receptors over 45 dBA ................................................................................ 190 Table 26. State EMF Standards and Guidelines for Transmission Lines .................................................................. 206 Table 27. Population ................................................................................................................................................. 219 Table 28. Housing ..................................................................................................................................................... 219 Table 29. Household Income and Population in Poverty, 2011 ................................................................................ 220 Table 30. Public Assistance, 2011 ............................................................................................................................ 221 Table 31. Labor Force Characteristics, 2010 ............................................................................................................ 221 Table 32. Employment by Aggregated Industry and Classification of Workers, 2011 ............................................... 222 Table 33. Tompkins County employment by industry subsectors, 2011 ................................................................... 222 Table 34. 2011 Real Property Tax Levy Per Taxing Jurisdiction. ............................................................................. 223 Table 35. Assessed Value of Property by Land Use Classification (2010) ............................................................... 224 Table 36. Municipal and County Budgets (2010) ...................................................................................................... 224 Table 37. Estimated Project-related Spending .......................................................................................................... 226 Table 38. Estimated Operational Employment .......................................................................................................... 232 Table 39. Estimated PILOT revenues per taxing jurisdiction .................................................................................... 234 Table 40. Wind Energy Facility Requirements and Approvals for the Town of Enfield ............................................. 255 Table 41. Impacts to Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 257 Table 42. Impacts to Vegetation ............................................................................................................................... 265 Table 43. Impacts to Agricultural Lands .................................................................................................................... 266 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Farm viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Regional Project Location Figure 2. Project Area Figure 3. Proposed Project Layout Figure 4. Project Setbacks Figure 5. Project Site Soils Figure 5a. Soil Erosion Hazard Figure 5b. Hydric Soils Figure 6. NYSDEC Wetland and Streams Figure 7. NWI Mapping Figure 8. Wetland and Stream Inventory Figure 9. Vegetative Communities Figure 10. Active Agricultural Soils Figure 11. Open Spaces and Recreation Figure 12. Land Use Figure 13. Alternative Layouts Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Farm ix LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Preliminary Route Evaluation Study Appendix B Typical Construction Photographs and Details Appendix C Turbine Information Appendix D Geotechnical Report Appendix E Preliminary Decommissioning Plan Appendix F Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix G Agricultural Protection Guidelines Appendix H Desktop Hydrogeologic Evaluation Appendix I Wetland Inventory Report Appendix J Invasive Species Control Plan Appendix K Wildlife and Plant Species List Appendix L Agency Correspondence Appendix M Avian Studies Appendix N Ecological Report Appendix O Proposed Work Plan for Bird and Bat Preconstruction Studies Appendix P Acoustic Bat Studies Appendix Q Visual Impact Assessment Appendix R Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey Appendix S Shadow Flicker Study Appendix T Noise Studies Appendix U Community Outreach and Communication Plan Appendix V Health Information Appendix W FAA Determinations of No Hazard Appendix X Fire Prevention and Emergency Response Plan Appendix Y Communications Studies Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Farm x COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS amsl above mean sea level BBA Breeding Bird Atlas (New York State) BBS North American Breeding Bird Survey dBA decibels, A-weighted DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement edr edr Companies EIS Environmental Impact Statement FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement GIS geographic information system kV kilovolt kW kilowatt MW megawatt MWh megawatt hours NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NHP Natural Heritage Program (New York State) NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory NYCRR Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York NYISO New York Independent Services Operators NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation NYSA&M New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets OPRHP Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (New York State) OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration O&M Operations and Maintenance PSC Public Service Commission (New York State) PILOT payment in lieu of tax RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Office (New York) SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Farm xi SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SWPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VIA Visual Impact Assessment Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Farm xii FIRMS INVOLVED IN PREPARATION OF THE DEIS edr Companies (edr) 274 North Goodman Street Rochester, New York 14607 James B. Pippin (585) 271-0040 Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC 863 Hayts Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Marguerite Wells (607) 256-2482 Juhl Wind, Inc. 1502 17th Street, SE Pipestone, Minnesota 56164 Corey Juhl (507) 777-4310 Old Bird, Inc. 605 W. State Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Bill Evans (607) 272-1786 Integrated Environmental Data, LLC (IEDAT) P.O. Box 217 Berne, New York 12023 Kathleen E. Moore, PhD. (781) 431-0500 HMMH 77 South Bedford Street Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 Phil DeVita (781) 229-0707 Comsearch 19700 Janelia Farms Blvd. Ashburn, Virginia 20147 Les Polisky (703) 726-5500 Tectonic 70 Pleasant Hill Road Mountainville, New York 10953 George Murphy, P.E. (800) 829-6531 Tech Environmental, Inc. 303 Wyman Street, Suite 295 Waltham, Massachusetts 02451 Ryan T. Callahan, INCE (781) 890-2220 Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. (Hatch) 290 Elmwood Davis Road, Suite 290 Liverpool, New York 13088 Paul Bernhardt, P.E. (315) 457-2415 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is for a proposed action known as the Black Oak Wind Project (the Project). Provided below is a brief project description, along with summaries of the regulatory process; the Project’s purpose, need, and benefit; its potential environmental impacts; and proposed mitigation measures. Alternatives to the Project and its effect on use and conservation of energy are also reviewed. Project Description Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC (Project Sponsor or Sponsor) is proposing to develop a wind-powered generating facility in the Town of Enfield, Tompkins County (Figure 1). The Project will consist of seven wind turbines, each with a nameplate capacity of 1.8 megawatts (MW), resulting in an anticipated generating capacity of approximately 12.6 MW. In addition to the wind turbines, the Project involves construction of associated components including a system of gravel access roads, electrical collection and communication cable networks, a substation, and two temporary construction staging areas. The Project will be developed on leased private land, totaling approximately 1,060 acres. Project construction is anticipated to occur in a single phase, starting in the fall of 2013 and completed by the fall of 2014. Once built, the wind turbines and associated components will operate in an almost completely automated fashion. The Project will, however, employ approximately three operations and maintenance personnel. The wind turbine currently proposed for the Project is the REpower MM100 1.8 MW model (or an equivalent machine), with a minimum wind speed of approximately 3 m/s (6.7 miles per hour [mph]) required to generate electricity. This turbine’s maximum rotational speed is 13.89 revolutions per minute (rpm). Each wind turbine has a computer to control critical functions, monitor wind conditions, and report data. Regulatory Process This DEIS has been prepared by edr Companies (edr) of Rochester, New York. The document is intended to facilitate the environmental review process and provide a basis for informed public comment and decision-making. This process is in accordance with the requirements of New York State’s Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Town Board of the Town of Enfield (Town) is acting as the lead agency pursuant to SEQRA. Various plans and support studies have also been prepared in support of the Project, which provide detailed information on discrete topical areas in furtherance of the SEQRA evaluation. These studies include the following: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 2 • Visual Impact Assessment • Shadow Flicker Analysis • Wetland Inventory Report • Groundwater Analysis • Phase IA Cultural Resources Investigation • AM and FM Broadcast Analysis • Communication Signals Assessment • Off-Air Television Reception Analysis • Government Radar System Analysis • Licensed Microwave Report • Noise Study • Route Evaluation Study • Breeding Bird Study • Raptor Migration Study • Diurnal Bird Movement Study • Avian Risk Assessment • Bat Activity Report • Invasive Species Control Plan • Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) • Preliminary Geotechnical Analysis • Fire Prevention and Control Plan Purpose, Need, and Benefit The purpose of the proposed action is to create a wind-powered electrical-generating facility that will provide a significant source of renewable energy to the New York State power grid. The Project would facilitate compliance with the Public Service Commission (PSC) "Order Approving Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Policy", issued on September 24, 2004. This Order calls for the use of renewable energy in the state to increase to 25% (from the then level of 19%) by the year 2013 (PSC, 2004a). In 2008, the PSC increased the RPS goal to 30% by 2015 (NYSERDA, 2012). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 3 The New York State Energy Plan contains a series of mandatory policy objectives that the Project will assist in achieving, including increasing the use of energy systems that enable the State to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while stabilizing long-term energy costs and improving the State’s energy independence through development of in-state energy supply resources (New York State Energy Planning Board, 2009). The State Energy Plan recognizes that wind energy projects will play a role in fulfilling this objective. In June 2007, former Governor Spitzer and then Lieutenant Governor Paterson formed the NYS Renewable Energy Task Force to investigate the implementation of increased renewable energy sources in the State. The Task Force published a report in February of 2008 that is intended to serve as a policy "road map" to address the many challenges we face in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, stimulating investment in clean energy alternatives, and moving toward a Clean Energy Economy in New York State. The authors of the report recognize the need for, and benefits of, a rapid transition toward the large-scale development of renewable energy sources such as the proposed Crown City Wind Energy Project (Renewable Energy Task Force, 2008). Summary of Potential Impacts In accordance with requirements of the SEQRA process, potential impacts arising from the proposed action were evaluated with respect to an array of environmental and cultural resources. The analysis of potential impacts is summarized below. Environmental Factor Potential Impacts Physiography, Geology, and Soils Soil disturbance Soil erosion Soil compaction Loss of agricultural land Water Resources Temporary disturbance Siltation/sedimentation Stream crossings Wetland filling Alteration of private water supplies Biological Resources Vegetation clearing/disturbance Incidental wildlife injury and mortality Loss or alteration of habitat Climate and Air Quality Construction vehicle emissions Dust during construction Reduced air pollutants and greenhouse gases Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 4 Environmental Factor Potential Impacts Aesthetic/Visual Resources Visual change to the landscape Visual impact on sensitive sites/viewers Shadow-flicker impact on adjacent residents Cultural Resources Visual impacts on architectural resources Disturbance of archaeological resources Sound Construction noise Operational impacts on adjacent residents Transportation Road wear/damage Traffic congestion/delays Road system improvements/upgrades Socioeconomic Host communities payment/PILOT Revenue to participating landowners Expenditures on goods and services Tourism Short-term and long-term employment Public Safety Construction concerns related to large equipment, falling objects, open excavations, electrocution Possible ice shedding concerns Project components catching fire Communication Facilities Temporary interference to communication signals Degraded reception to off-air television signals Community Facilities and Services Demands on police and emergency services Relocated utility distribution lines and poles Land Use and Zoning Adverse and beneficial impacts on farming Changes in community character and land use trends Construction of the Project will result in disturbance of up to 49.0 acres of soil and 60.3 acres of vegetation (including 12.5 acres of forest land). In addition, several wetlands could be disturbed by Project construction. However, most of this disturbance will be temporary. A total of approximately 1.6 acres of agricultural land will be converted to non- agricultural use/built facilities (e.g., roads, turbines, substation, etc.), and a total of approximately 1.1 acres of forest will be converted to built facilities. Project operation is expected to result in some level of avian and bat collision mortality. Based on data from other operating wind projects in New York State, mortality is expected to be in the range of 0.66 to 9.59 birds per turbine per year and 0.7 to 40 bats per turbine per year. The turbines will be visible from many locations within the surrounding area, but will also be fully or partially screened from viewers in many locations (e.g., valley settings). The turbines will result in a perceived change in land use from some locations, but will likely help keep land in active agricultural use by supplementing farmers’ incomes. Predicted noise and shadow flicker impacts are modest. Shadow flicker will not exceed 30 hours/year at any residential structure, and will only exceed 20 hours/year at one residence. None of the 88 residential receptors modeled will Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 5 experience operational noise produced by the Project in excess of 60 dBA established in the Town of Enfield Wind Energy Facilities Local Law; the maximum turbine-related sound level of 47 dBA is predicted at 14 receptors. The Project is expected to generate approximately $100,000 per year (up to $1.5 million over 15 years) in PILOT revenues to local taxing jurisdictions, while requiring very little in terms of municipal services. Project construction will result in some level of temporary disturbance and congestion on area roadways. Summary of Mitigation Measures Various measures 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. The Project Sponsor will also employ environmental monitors to assure compliance with permit requirements and environmental protection commitments during construction. The proposed Project will result in positive impacts on socioeconomics (e.g., increased revenues to local municipalities and lease revenues to participating landowners), air quality (through reduction of emissions from fossil-fuel-burning power plants), and climate (reduction of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming). By eliminating pollutants and greenhouse gases, the Project will also benefit ecological and water resources as well as human health. 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 operation include: • Siting the Project away from population centers and areas of concentrated residential development. • Siting turbines primarily in open field areas to minimize required clearing of mature forest land to the extent practicable. • Siting turbines and access roads so as to avoid impacts to wetlands and streams. • Using existing farm/logging roads for turbine access whenever possible to minimize disturbance to agricultural land. • Utilizing construction techniques that minimize disturbance to vegetation, streams, and wetlands. • Adhering to the agricultural protection guidelines to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on agricultural land and farm operations. • Limiting turbine lighting to the minimum allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to reduce nighttime visual impacts, and following lighting guidelines to reduce the potential for bird collisions. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 6 • Developing and implementing various plans to minimize adverse impacts to air, soil, and water resources, including a dust control plan, sediment and erosion control plan, and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan. • Entering into a PILOT agreement with the local taxing jurisdictions to provide a significant predictable level of funding for the town, county, and school districts over the first 15 years of the Project's operations. • Developing an emergency response plan with local first responders. Summary of Approvals and Permits Needed Implementation of the Project will require certain permits and/or approvals from local, state, and federal agencies. The permits and approvals that are expected to be required are listed in Table 3, and are summarized below: • The Town of Enfield approvals for the Project include acceptance of the DEIS and FEIS, and issuance of the SERQA Findings Statement by the Enfield Town Board (Lead Agency). Other local permits required for the Project include the Wind Facilities Permit, highway work permits, and building permits. • County approvals for the Project include administration and implementation of the Project’s payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement and highway work permits to be issued by the Tompkins County Department of Public Works. In addition, the Tompkins County Planning Department must conduct a 239-M Review. • At the State level, the Department of Environmental Conservation is expected to issue a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for construction activities and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The Department of Transportation will require a highway work permit and a Special Use Permit for the oversize/overweight trucks used to deliver the turbines. • Federal approvals required for this Project include a Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for temporary disturbance in federal jurisdictional wetlands/waters of the U.S., and a Lighting Plan and clearances for potential aviation hazard from the Federal Aviation Administration. Summary of Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed Project that were considered and evaluated include no action, alternative Project sites, alternative Project design/layout, alternate Project size, alternative technologies, and alternative construction phasing. Analysis of these alternatives revealed that both the size of the Project and the configuration of the turbines as currently proposed are necessary to produce a commercially feasible project that minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the extent practicable. A smaller project would not fully capture the available wind resource and would likely not generate enough power to be economically viable given the project development and construction costs, including the expense of connecting to the power grid. A larger facility might theoretically provide Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 7 more economic return, but it would force location of towers into areas with more marginal wind power resources and greater proximity to residents, steep slopes, and/or forested areas. This would result in a greater number of potential adverse environmental impacts than currently anticipated. A larger number of smaller turbines, while perhaps reducing visibility from some areas, would not change the overall visual impact of the Project and would increase impacts associated with the more extensive road and interconnect systems required. Alternative technologies (e.g., different sources of generation) eliminate many of the environmental advantages associated with the proposed Project. In summary, the alternatives analysis concluded that the Project as proposed offers the optimum use of resources with the fewest potential adverse impacts. Summary of Effects on Use and Conservation of Energy Resources The proposed Project will have significant, long-term beneficial effects on the use and conservation of energy resources. Energy will be expended during the construction phases of the Project, as well as for the maintenance of the wind turbines and support facilities on-site. However, the operating Project will generate approximately 12.6 MW of electricity without consuming water or producing toxic emissions. This greatly exceeds the energy required to construct and operate the Project, and the output is enough to power approximately 6,000 homes in New York State (on an average annual basis). The Project will add to and diversify the state’s sources of power generation, accommodate future growth in power demand through the use of a renewable resource (wind), and over the long term will displace some of the state’s older, less efficient, and less environmentally sustainable sources of power and/or the amount of energy imported into the state. Wind energy generation results in reductions in air emissions because of the protocol utilized to manage the electric power system. Generally, in the New York state wholesale energy market the most expensive energy consuming power sources (such as coal or natural gas) will be "backed down" first when there is a sufficient source of wind energy available. Within the wholesale energy markets governing the trading of energy, wind energy is a preferred power source on an economic basis because wind turbines consume no fuel. Therefore, wind energy is one of the last forms of generation to be backed down. At times of excess generation capacity (i.e., when demand is low) wind energy typically displaces the need for generation from individual fossil fuel-fired power plants or units, thereby reducing fuel consumption and the resulting air emissions that would have otherwise occurred (Jacobson & High, 2008). In summary, this Project is proposed at a time of significant energy uncertainty, at both the state and national levels and is being developed to contribute to satisfying the state’s mandated targets for diversifying its energy mix. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 8 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) assesses the potential significant adverse environmental impacts of constructing and operating a proposed action known as the Black Oak Wind Farm (the Project). The Town of Enfield is the Lead Agency pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (6 NYCRR Part 617). The Town of Enfield has required the preparation of this DEIS in order to evaluate the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of the Project, which is to be located within approximately 1,060 acres of privately owned land (“Project Site”) within the Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York. The purpose of this DEIS is to evaluate the potential impacts of the Project, evaluate alternatives, and consider mitigation measures. The Project is described below in terms of its components, location, construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. The Project’s purpose, need, and benefit; and permits and approvals are also discussed below, along with a description of the regulatory process under SEQRA and opportunities for public and agency involvement in that process. 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC (hereinafter referred to as the “Project Sponsor”) is proposing to develop a wind-powered generating facility in the Town of Enfield, Tompkins County (Figure 1). The Project Site is located approximately 7 miles west of the City of Ithaca, 4 miles northwest of the Newfield Hamlet, and 6.4 miles northeast of the Village of Odessa (as measured to the nearest turbine). The Project will occur on approximately 1,060 acres of private land (owned by 6 individual landowners) in an area roughly bounded by Cayutaville Road to the south, the Schuyler County line to the west, Weatherby Road to the north, and Connecticut Hill Road to the east (Figure 2). The Project Site, as depicted on Figure 2, includes those parcels that are currently proposed to host Project components. The Project Sponsor will enter into an agreement with participating landowners in the form of a standard lease agreement (for the host of the wind towers) or easement (for hosting of access roads, electrical collection lines and related facilities), that provide for compensation during the Project’s development, construction, and operation. These leases and easements will secure all the land rights necessary to develop, construct, and operate the wind turbines along with the ancillary facilities. See Section 3.14 Socioeconomics for more detailed information on Project leasing/easement arrangements. The proposed Project Site is located on rolling, elevated plateaus that are dissected by tributaries (and their associated ravines) to Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake, and the Susquehanna River. Elevations in the area range from approximately 1,600 to 2,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Within and adjacent to the Project Site the majority of the upland area consists of northern deciduous forest and open crop fields (primarily hay) and pastures. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 9 Project Site and adjacent land also include successional old field, hedgerow, successional shrubland, residential yards, farms, streams, wetlands, and ponds. Existing built features include single-family homes, seasonal homes, communication towers, barns, silos, commercial scrap yard, and other agricultural buildings. There are no additional pending developments within or adjacent to the Project area. The Project Site contains a small number of ponds and unnamed streams, which are further described in Section 3.2. Hooker’s orchid (Planthera hookeri) is the only state-listed endangered plant species recorded in the vicinity of the Project Site. There are no state-listed animal species at the Project Site. However, short-eared owl (endangered); and northern harrier, Henslow’s sparrow, bald eagle, least bittern, and pied-billed grebe (threatened) have been documented within 10 miles of the Project Site. In addition, a waterfowl winter concentration area occurs within 10 miles of the Project Site. State-listed plant and animal species, as well as habitat within the vicinity of the Project Site are further discussed in Section 3.4. In addition, several visually sensitive and historic resources occur within the vicinity of the Project Site and are further discussed in Sections 3.6 and 3.7, respectively. 2.2 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Project or Project Site will consist of seven 1.8 megawatt (MW) wind turbines for a total generating capacity of 12.6 MW, approximately 2.7 miles of access roads, approximately 4.1 miles of 34.5 kV underground electrical interconnect, a substation, a meteorological tower, and two construction staging areas (Figure 3). Project components will likely be transported from Interstate 81 through Ithaca, New York on Highway 79 and then south to the Project Site on Black Oak Road. edr Companies’ (edr) environmental staff visited the Project Site in October 2011 and again in February 2013 to assess the current condition of existing public roads and private property access points. The following observations were noted: • The intersection of New York State (NYS) Route 79 and Black Oak Road is generally in good condition. The road is approximately 21-feet wide with an approximate 3 feet of gravel road shoulder on each side of the road. This intersection will need to be widened to accommodate for component deliveries. In addition, there were overhanging telephone lines and a stop sign at the intersection of Black Oak Road and NYS Route 79 that will be a hindrance to turbine component delivery. • The only concern at the entrance to Turbine 7 was a low overhanging telephone line. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 10 • The intersection of Black Oak Road and Connecticut Hill Road will likely need to be widened for turbine component deliveries. The road is in good shape. There is a small roadside ditch that appears to be non- jurisdictional and a street sign and a stop sign that would likely need to be removed. In addition, low overhanging telephone lines may be a hindrance. • No major issues were observed at the entrance to Turbine 4. There is an existing access road that may need some minor improvements to deliver turbine components. The low-hanging telephone lines and signs identified above may need to be temporarily re-located during Project construction. In addition, minor alterations to drainage patterns, such as the extension of drainage pipes or culverts, may be required at certain intersections (see Table 20). These infrastructure modifications will be completed in consultation with the appropriate utilities and/or highway departments, and in full compliance with their standards. Additional information concerning Project component delivery can be found in Section 3.9 Traffic and Transportation and the Route Evaluation Study in Appendix A. The proposed location and spacing of the wind turbines and support facilities is based on a wind resource assessment prepared by Hatch Associates Consultants Inc. (Hatch) and guidance provided by edr’s environmental staff. Further, the Town of Enfield has adopted a Wind Energy Facilities Local Law (Local Law No. 1 of 2009) regulating the siting of wind energy facilities. Factors considered when siting the turbines included the following: Wind resource assessment: Through the use of modeling software, meteorological data, and topographic data, the wind turbines are sited to optimize exposure to wind from all directions, with emphasis on exposure to the prevailing wind directions at the Project Site. Sufficient spacing: Siting turbines too close to one another can result in decreased electricity production due to the creation of wind turbulence. Each wind turbine creates turbulence in its wake. As the flow proceeds downwind, there is a spreading of the wake and recovery to free-stream wind conditions. Therefore, Project turbines need to be sited with enough space between them to minimize wake losses and maximize the capture of wind energy. In accordance with the Town of Enfield Wind Energy Facilities Local Law, the turbine locations were selected in order to maintain a minimum setback of at least 1.1 times the total turbine height (470 feet) between turbines. The minimum setback between turbines in the proposed Project layout is approximately 1,340 feet. Distance from residences: In accordance with the Town of Enfield Wind Energy Facilities Local Law, the turbine locations were selected in order to maintain a minimum setback of at least 1.1 times the total turbine height (470 feet) Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 11 between the tower and the nearest non-participating permanent residence. The minimum setback between a tower and the nearest non-participating permanent residence in the proposed Project layout is approximately 900 feet. Distance from Non-participating Land Parcels: In accordance with the Town of Enfield Wind Energy Facility Local Law, the turbine locations have been selected to maintain a minimum setback of at least 1.1 times the rotor radius (181 feet) from the property line of adjacent non-participating landowners. The minimum setback between a turbine and the property line of the nearest non-participating landowner in the proposed Project layout is approximately 190 feet. Distance from roads: In accordance with the Town of Enfield Wind Energy Facility Local Law, there is no setback requirement for public roads, other than the requirements for property line setbacks provided above. Environmental and Cultural Resources: Special consideration was given to siting Project facilities to avoid and or minimize environmental and cultural resource impacts to the greatest extent possible. Specifically, in accordance with the Town of Enfield Wind Energy Facility Local Law, the turbine locations were selected to maintain a minimum setback of at least 100 feet from mapped or jurisdictional wetlands, except where state or federal wetland permits have been (or likely will be) issued. The minimum setback between a turbine site and an approximate wetland boundary in the proposed Project layout is approximately 106 feet. For a more detailed discussion of minimizing/avoiding impacts to environmental and cultural resources, refer to Section 3.0 (Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Proposed Mitigation). Applying these factors, a proposed facility layout was prepared by the Project Sponsor. The proposed layout of all Project components in relation to the setbacks described above is illustrated in Figure 4. These components are described individually below. In addition, typical details and photos of these components are provided in Appendix B. 2.2.1 Wind Turbines The wind turbines proposed for this Project are the REpower MM100 1.8 megawatt (MW) turbines manufactured by REpower Systems SE. Detailed information regarding these turbines is included in Appendix C. Because the Project is not scheduled to be built until late 2013, issues such as availability and cost could dictate use of an alternate turbine. However, any turbine ultimately selected will be roughly equivalent in terms of its dimensions, appearance, and electrical output. Each wind turbine consists of three major components; the tower, the nacelle, and the rotor. The height of the tower, or “hub height” (height from foundation to top of tower) will be approximately 80 meters (262.5 feet). The nacelle sits atop the tower, and the rotor hub is mounted to the front of the nacelle. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 12 three-bladed rotor has a diameter of 100 meters (328 feet). The total turbine height (i.e., height at the highest blade tip position) will be approximately 130 meters, or 426.5 feet (see graphical depiction in Appendix C). Descriptions of each of the turbine components are provided below. Tower: The tubular towers used for this Project are anticipated to be conical steel structures manufactured in multiple sections. The towers have a base diameter of approximately 13.5 feet and a top diameter of approximately 10.4 feet. Each tower will have an access door, internal lighting, and an internal ladder to access the nacelle. The towers will be painted off-white to make the structure visible to aircraft (viewing against the ground) but decrease visibility against the sky. Nacelle: The main mechanical components of the wind turbine are housed in the nacelle. These components include the drive train, gearbox, and generator. The nacelle is housed in a steel reinforced fiberglass shell that protects internal machinery from the environment and dampens noise emissions. The housing is designed to allow for adequate ventilation to cool internal machinery. The nacelle is equipped with an external anemometer and a wind vane that signals wind speed and direction information to an electronic controller. Attached to the top of the nacelle, per determinations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), will be a single, medium intensity aviation warning light. These lights are anticipated to be flashing red strobes (L-864) and to operate only at night. The nacelle is mounted on a bearing that allows it to rotate ("yaw") into the wind to maximize energy capture. Rotor: A rotor assembly is mounted to the nacelle to operate upwind of the tower. Each rotor consists of three composite blades that will be approximately 48.9 meters (160.5 feet) in length (total rotor diameter of 100 meters or (328.5 feet). The rotor swept area will be approximately 7,854 square meters (84,540 square feet). The rotor attaches to the drive train at the front of the nacelle. Hydraulic motors within the rotor hub feather each blade according to wind conditions, which enables the turbine to operate efficiently at varying wind speeds. Also, the rotor can spin at varying speeds to operate more efficiently at lower wind speeds. The Repower mm100 begins generating energy at wind speeds as low as 3 meters per second (m/s) and will cut out when wind speeds reach 22 m/s. The maximum rotor speed is approximately 13.89 revolutions per minute (rpm). Foundation: The foundation is anticipated to be a spread steel reinforced concrete type foundation. This foundation will be approximately 10 feet deep, approximately 50 to 60 feet in diameter, reinforced with pre-cut and bent reinforcement steel fixed on site and approximately 500 cubic yards (cy) of structural grade concrete. Tower 4 may use a Patrick and Henderson (P&H) pier foundation because of the shallow depth to bedrock at this site. It is not anticipated that a project-specific concrete batch plant will be required, as the concrete necessary to support construction of the Project can be viably sourced from local concrete suppliers within the vicinity of the Project Site. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 13 The Project Sponsor wishes to minimize construction impacts to the Project Site by eliminating the need for an on- site concrete batch plant. If a concrete batch plant was to be located on site, it would still need to be delivered to each turbine foundation location, thus concrete delivery truck trips would not be eliminated. Once the foundation concrete is sufficiently cured, the excavation area around and over it is backfilled with the excavated on-site material providing for suitable foundation drainage. The top of the foundation is typically an 18 -foot diameter pedestal that extends 6 to 8 inches above grade. The base of each tower will be surrounded by a 6-foot wide gravel skirt . The foundation will be constructed with adequate cableways and ducts to facilitate connection of the 34.5kV underground collector system, communications cabling and appropriate grounding conductors. 2.2.2 Electrical System Hatch Associates Consultants Inc. (Hatch) conducted an Interconnection Feasibility Study in January 2011 to evaluate the impact of the proposed Project on the reliability of the bulk power system, and to ensure that the resulting bulk power system would conform to all applicable planning standards and criteria (including those of New York State Reliability Council, Northeast Power Coordinating Council, and North American Reliability Council). The scope of the study was approved by the New York Independent System Operator’s (NYISO) Operating Committee in early 2011. This study found that, at the proposed Point of Interconnection (POI) on NYSEG’s Montour Falls – Coddington Road Line, the system was found to have sufficient strength (short-circuit) and thermal capacity to accommodate the addition of this generation facility. The addition is not expected to increase the duties on nearby apparatus and systems enough to necessitate upgrades. No adverse system impacts were found as a result. The System Reliability and Impact Study (SRIS) is presently being reviewed by the NYISO and NYSEG. Approval is expected by the end of 2013. The proposed Project will have an electrical system that consists of two parts. These include 1) a system of buried 34.5 kV shielded and insulated cables that will collect power from each wind turbine and 2) a substation that transfers the power from the 34.5 kV cables to the existing NYSEG Montour Falls-Coddington Road 115 kV transmission line and regional power grid. Each of these components is described below. Collector System: A transformer located near the base of the tower will raise the voltage of electricity produced by the turbine generator to the 34.5 kV voltage level of the collection system. From the transformer, cables will join the collector circuit and turbine communication cables (electrical collection system) that will run underground (generally along Project access roads). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 14 The location of the proposed collection system is depicted in Figure 3. This buried 34.5 kV collection system will connect the individual turbines to the substation located west of Black Oak Road and north of Cayutaville Road. The total length of buried 34.5 kV collection lines carrying electricity to the substation will be approximately 4.1 miles. There will be no new overhead lines as part of the collection system. Substation: The substation will be located west of Black Oak Road in the Town of Enfield, adjacent to the NYSEG Montour Falls - Coddington Road 115 kV transmission line. The substation will step up voltage from 34.5 kV to 115 kV to allow connection with the existing transmission line. The substation will include 34.5 and 115 kV busses, transformers, circuit breakers, towers, control houses, and related structures. It will be approximately 200 by 200 feet in size, enclosed within a chain link fence, and accessed by a new gravel access road. 2.2.3 Access Roads The Project will require the construction of new or improved roads to provide access to the proposed turbines and substation site. The proposed location of Project access roads is shown in Figure 3. As required by Section 16.C of the Town’s Wind Energy Facilities Local Law, a performance bond or other security as determined by the Town Board shall be procured prior to the issuance of any building permit, sufficient to compensate the Town for any loss or damage of Town roads and highways and their related appurtenances. In accordance with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) recommendations, access roads have been co-located with other Project components where practicable (e.g., adjacent to collection lines). The total length of access roads required to service all proposed wind turbine locations is approximately 2.7 miles, of which 2.2 miles will be upgrades to existing farm lanes. During construction, access road installation and use could result in temporary vegetation disturbance of a maximum width of 75 feet and soil disturbance of a maximum width of 40 feet. 2.2.4 Meteorological Towers There currently is an existing 60-meter guyed meteorological tower installed just northwest of the Black Oak Road and Cayutaville Road intersection. This meteorological tower will be disassembled and removed from the Project Site during construction. During operation of the Project meteorological equipment will be installed on top of the nacelle on each turbine to collect wind data and support performance testing of the Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 15 2.2.5 Staging Areas It is currently anticipated that construction of the Project will require the development of two construction staging areas. These sites will accommodate construction trailers, material storage, and parking for construction workers. One proposed staging area, anticipated to be 4.1 acres in size, will be located in a successional old field west of Black Oak Road along the access road to Turbine 4. The other proposed staging area is anticipated to be 1.3 acres in size and located in a successional old field just north of the substation, also west of Black Oak Road. No fencing or lighting of the staging areas is currently proposed (but could be added if vandalism or similar problems are experienced). 2.2.6 Operations and Maintenance Building An on-site operations and maintenance building is not anticipated for the Project. The operations and maintenance contract will be held by REpower, who has a crew of several technicians in the Town of Howard, New York. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) will be monitored from Howard. One or more local, on-call technicians may be utilized to maintain access roads and respond to turbine faults. Local personnel will be responsible for daily operations related to collection lines, substation maintenance, bill payment, clerical work, summer road maintenance and winter plowing. Existing facilities will be used for these purposes. 2.3 PROJECT PURPOSE, PUBLIC NEED, AND BENEFITS This section describes the purpose of the Project, how it would help meet economic and environmental needs, and how the proposed action is consistent with goals, objectives, orders, and directives issued by the executive and legislative branches of the United States and New York Governments. The purpose of the proposed Project is to create an economically viable wind-powered electrical-generating facility that will provide a source of renewable energy to the New York power grid to: • Satisfy regional energy needs in an efficient and environmentally sound manner; • Supplement and offset fossil-fuel electricity generation in the region, with emission-free, wind-generated energy; • Reduce the amount of electricity imported to New York State; • Realize the full potential of the wind resource in the Project Site; • Promote the long-term economic viability of rural areas in New York; and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 16 • Assist New York State in meeting its proposed Renewable Portfolio Standard for the consumption of renewable energy in the State (see below). The Project is expected to have an average annual net capacity factor (NCF) of approximately 40%, which is typical for most operational commercial wind farms in New York State. Annual NCF is a means of measuring the productivity of a wind power project (or another power production facility), and this factor compares the actual, or predicted, production of a facility over the course of a year as compared to the potential production if the facility was running at full capacity for the full year. A 40% NCF means that on average, a facility will generate approximately 40% of its potential output over a given year. For a wind project, this does not mean that it will be generating power only 30% of the time (the turbines may actually be generating power 65% to 90% of the time, just not always at full capacity), but rather the Project will generate approximately 40% of its potential maximum output over the course of each year. Total net electricity delivered to the existing New York power grid is expected to be approximately 44,150 megawatt hours (MWh) (i.e., 7 turbines x 1.8 MW x 24 hours/day x 365 days x 40%), or enough electricity to meet the average annual consumption of between approximately 3,840 and 6,048 households (based on average annual electric consumption of 11.5 MWh for the U.S and 7.3 MWh for New York; Energy Information Administration [EIA], 2012a). The Project responds to objectives identified in the 2009 State Energy Plan (New York State Energy Planning Board, 2009), and the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in New York (NYSERDA, 2012). In September 2004, the Public Service Commission (PSC) approved the RPS and identified a renewable energy policy, which calls for an increase in renewable energy used in the State to 25% by the year 2013 (PSC, 2004a). In 2008, the PSC increased the goal to 30% by 2015 (NYSERDA, 2008). The New York State Energy Plan contains a series of mandatory policy objectives that the Project will assist in achieving. Among these objectives is to increase the use of energy systems that enable the State to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions while stabilizing long-term energy costs, the key objective being to increase the percentage of non-fossil fuel consuming (‘renewable’) sources of generation, and improving the State’s energy independence through development of in-state energy supply resources. The State Energy Plan recognizes that wind energy projects will play a role in fulfilling this objective. Based on the State Energy Plan, other public benefits of the Project related to energy use include the following: • Production and use of in-state energy resources can increase the reliability and security of energy systems, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 17 reduce long-term energy costs, and contribute to meeting climate change and environmental objectives. • To the extent that renewable resources and natural gas are able to displace the use of higher carbon and particulate emitting fossil fuels, relying more heavily on these in-state resources will also reduce public health and environmental risks posed by all sectors that produce and use energy. • By focusing energy investments on in-state opportunities, New York can reduce the amount of dollars “exported” out of the State to pay for energy resources. • By re-directing those dollars back into the State economy, New York will increase the amount of business and economic activity related to power generation within the state. Renewable energy contributes to the reduction of energy price volatility in the long-term and enables wind to displace other fossil based forms of generation – particularly when there is an excess of generation capacity. In June 2007, Governor Spitzer and Lieutenant Governor Paterson formed the NYS Renewable Energy Task Force to investigate the implementation of increased renewable energy sources in the State. The Task Force published a report in February of 2008 that is intended to serve as a policy "road map" to address the many challenges faced in reducing the dependence on fossil fuels, stimulating investment in clean energy alternatives, and moving toward a Clean Energy Economy in New York State. The authors of the report state that the primary benefits of renewable energy development will be three-fold: 1) economic growth opportunities throughout the state, 2) enhanced energy security and reduced volatility in energy prices, and 3) reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The report states that New York State has the most wind energy development potential in the Northeast and the mid-Atlantic region. This potential could allow the State to move toward an innovative, clean energy economy, which would put New York State at the forefront of the transition towards a more environmentally sustainable energy future (Renewable Energy Task Force, 2008). In its 2012 annual RPS Report NYSERDA stated, “New York, through regulations adopted by the Public Service Commission (PSC or Commission), first enacted its RPS in 2004 with the goal of increasing the amount of renewable electricity used by consumers to 25% by 2013. Following a comprehensive mid-course review, and in an Order issued in January 2010, the Commission expanded the RPS target from 25% to 30% and extended the terminal year of the program from 2013 to 2015.” As part of the 2004 Order, the PSC designated NYSERDA as the central procurement administrator for the RPS Program. Unlike most states with an RPS, New York uses the corresponding central procurement model whereby NYSERDA administers or is otherwise responsible for the majority of the RPS programs goals. Specifically NYSERDA is responsible for obtaining the Main Tier (large utility scale resources – such as those being proposed by the Project) and Customer Sited Tier (CST) (smaller, behind the meter resources – such as rooftop solar, etc.). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 18 Through December 31, 2011 NYSERDA’s progress at achieving the Main Tier and Customer Sited Tier targets are 48% and 39% respectively (NYSERDA, 2012). Progress in the program through December 31, 2011 has yielded, and is expected to yield, significant economic benefits to New York State and its associated locales. Economic benefits accrue from the planning, development, construction, and operation of renewable energy facilities. Using data from 2009 mid-course program evaluation conducted by independent program contractors, NYSERDA estimates that direct economic benefits associated with all projects in the Main Tier will approach $2.4 billion over the next twenty years. When the effects induced on the broader economy are considered, the total economic benefits are estimated at more than $4.9 billion. According to NYSERDA (2012), implementation of the RPS has been highly cost effective. Program highlights include: • Progress towards the NYSERDA Main Tier and Customer Sited Tier 2015 combined target of 10.4 million MWh is approximately 47% while funding committed to date toward this progress is 39% of the total approved RPS budget. • Total new renewable capacity supported by the Main Tier and Customer Sited Tier could reach nearly 1,968 MW by the end of 2013, of which 1,898 MW will be located in New York. • Under the Main Tier component of the program, 1,456 MW of new renewable capacity from 46 projects is in operation; an additional 384 MW, from 10 projects, are currently under development and/or construction. Further, Federal policy has recognized the need for increased supply of energy to the U.S., and for new renewable energy resources. The Project fulfills a need for the production and transmission of renewable energy, which would serve the public interest. The Project is consistent with Executive Order 13212 (dated May 18, 2001), which states, “The increased production and transmission of energy in a safe and environmentally sound manner is essential to the well-being of the American people. In general, it is the policy of this Administration that executive departments and agencies shall take appropriate actions, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to expedite projects that will increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy.” In addition to partly satisfying goals set by the Executive Branch of New York State and Federal Policy, other benefits of the proposed action include: • Local socioeconomic benefits: o Increased revenues to local municipalities, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 19 o Employment during the development phase, the Project Sponsor has where feasible utilized locally based companies to undertake environmental field work, legal counsel, engineering assessments etc. o Short-term employment of construction workers and long-term employment of operating workers (Ouderkirk & Pedden, 2004). o Direct lease payments to participating landowners, who are participating in the Project on a voluntary basis. o Direct non-lease payments to residents within the footprint of the Project. o "Direct economic effects" in the form of immediate payments to consultants, contractors, and the labor pool required to develop, build, and operate the Project (Ouderkirk & Pedden, 2004). o "Induced effects" in the form of everyday purchases made by the firms and employees working at the Project Area (i.e., groceries, gas and supplies, hotel accommodations, patronization of various local establishments, etc.) (Ouderkirk & Pedden, 2004). • Environmental benefits: o Within the New York electricity market, wind-generated electricity typically displaces the use of fossil fuels in conventional power plants, producing a reduction in the emission of key air pollutants; sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (acid rain precursors); mercury; and carbon dioxide (tied to global climate change). NYSERDA found that if wind energy supplied 10% (3,300 MW) of the state’s peak electricity demand, 65% of the energy it displaced would come from natural gas, 15% from coal, and 10% from electricity imports. This equates to an annual displacement of 6,400 tons of nitrogen oxides and 12,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (GE Energy, 2005). o Energy efficiencies and renewable generation together will reduce New York’s greenhouse gas emissions, helping to achieve the State’s CO2 reduction goals (New York State Energy Planning Board, 2009). o 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 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 20 States will yield beneficial improvements in both mercury deposition and mercury levels in fish and wildlife" (Driscoll et al., 2007). • Statewide economic benefits: o New York is the fourth largest energy consuming state (EIA, 2012b), and spends approximately $65 billion annually for energy, of which 53% ($35 billion) pays for energy imports (New York State Energy Planning Board, 2009). The State Energy Plan goals promote diversity of the State’s economy through the use of alternative in-state energy sources, including renewable based energy (New York State Energy Planning Board, 2009). o An analysis undertaken for NYSERDA, by KEMA Inc. in 2009, concluded that approximately $6 billion in direct economic benefits are expected to accrue to New York from the Main Tier solicitations alone in the event of the 30% RPS target being achieved (NYSERDA, 2012). • Human health benefits: o 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 NYSDEC has issued advisories pertaining to fish consumption. Eighty-seven (87) of the 136 bodies of water with health advisories in New York State are listed in part or wholly because of mercury contamination. 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 water bodies listed by the NYSDEC (NYSDOH, 2012). o Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions react with volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere (i.e., gasoline vapors or solvents) and produce compounds that can result in severe lung damage, asthma, and emphysema (Wooley, 2000). o 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). o Research undertaken by the American Cancer Society, Harvard School of Public Health, and the Environmental Protection Agency shows that residents in every single state across the Nation were at risk of premature death from air pollution (Cooper & Sovacool, 2007). As mentioned previously, the Renewable Energy Task Force report (2008) is intended to serve as a policy road map to address the many challenges we face in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, stimulating investment in clean energy alternatives and a move toward a Clean Energy Economy in New York State. The authors of the report Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 21 recognize the need for, and benefits of, a rapid transition toward the development of renewable energy sources such as the proposed Project. 2.4 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Project construction is anticipated to occur in a single phase. It is scheduled to start in the Fall of 2013 and be completed by the Fall of 2014. Although a detailed schedule has not yet been developed, Project construction is anticipated to proceed in the following sequence: • Grading of the staging areas and collection substation areas; • General clearing and construction of access roads, crane pads and turn-around areas; • Construction of turbine tower foundations; • Installation of the electrical collection system; • Assembly and erection of the wind turbines; • Construction and installation of the collection substation; • Plant commissioning and energization; • Final grading and drainage; and • Restoration activities. Prior to the initiation of construction, various environmental protection and control plans will be developed and shared with the Town. These will include a construction routing plan, road improvement plan, dust control plan, public safety plan, and complaint resolution procedures. These plans and procedures are described in greater detail in Section 3.0 of the DEIS. Actions included in these plans and procedures will be reviewed, coordinated, and approved by the Town and County prior to implementation, to assure that the impacts of Project construction on local residents are avoided, minimized, or mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. The following section describes the various activities that will occur as part of Project construction. Representative photographs of Project construction activities and typical construction details are included in Appendix B. 2.4.1 Pre-construction Activities Before construction commences, a site survey will be performed to stake out the exact location of the wind turbines, access roads, electrical cables, and substation areas. Once the surveys are complete, completion of the detailed geotechnical investigations that have already commenced will be performed at untested sites to identify subsurface conditions and allow development of final design specifications for the access roads, foundations, underground Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 22 trenching, and electrical grounding systems. The geotechnical investigation involves use of a drill rig to obtain subsurface samples, followed by field and laboratory analysis of such samples to identify the subsurface soil and rock types and strength properties. Testing is conducted to measure the soil’s electrical properties to ensure proper grounding and electrical collection system design. A geotechnical investigation is generally performed at each turbine location and at the substation location. Using all of the data gathered for the Project (including geotechnical information, environmental conditions, site topography, etc.), the Project Sponsor will contract with a Professional Engineer to develop a set of site-specific construction plans and specifications for the various components of the Project. The design specifications will comply with applicable construction standards established by various industry practice groups such as: • American Concrete Institute (ACI) • Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) • National Electric Code (NEC) • National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) • Construction Standards Institute (CSI) The Project engineering team will ensure that all aspects of the specifications, as well as the actual on-site construction, comply with all applicable federal, state, and local codes and good industry practice. Because the Project Site is larger than one acre, the NYSDEC will likely require a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for the Project. As a result, an approved sediment and erosion control plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be submitted as part of the construction documents. Proper implementation of these plans will assure compliance with NYSDEC SPDES regulations and New York State Water Quality Standards. The SPDES permit, as well as sediment and erosion control plan and SWPPP are further discussed in Section 3.2. To assure compliance with various environmental protection commitments and permit conditions, an environmental monitor shall be mutually selected by both the Town and Project Sponsor and paid for by the Project Sponsor to oversee construction (and post-construction) activities. Prior to the start of construction at any given site, the environmental monitor, the contractor, and Project Sponsor representatives will conduct a walk-over of areas to be affected, or potentially affected, by proposed construction activities. This pre-construction walk-over will identify sensitive resources to avoid (e.g., wetlands, archaeological, or agricultural resources), as well as the limits of clearing, location of wetland and stream crossings, location of drainage features (e.g., culverts, ditches), location of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 23 underground utilities and tile lines, and layout of sediment and erosion control measures. Upon identification of these features, which will be marked in the field (by staking, flagging, fencing, etc.), specific construction procedures will be determined, and any modifications to construction methods or locations will be proposed before construction activities begin. Landowners and agency representatives will be invited to participate in these walk-overs, or consulted as needed. Once all pre-construction activities are complete, the approximately 25 on-site construction workers will begin site preparation work. 2.4.2 Staging Areas The construction staging areas will be developed by stripping and stockpiling the topsoil and grading and compacting the subsoil. It is currently anticipated that geotextile fabric and a minimum of 8 inches of gravel will then be installed to create a level working yard. Electric and communication lines will be brought in from existing distribution poles to allow connection with construction trailers. At the end of construction, utilities, gravel, and geotextile fabric will be removed from staging areas and the sites restored to their preconstruction condition. 2.4.3 Site Preparation Actual Project construction will be initiated by clearing woody vegetation as necessary from all tower sites, access roads, and interconnect routes. The limits of disturbance will be cleared with a chainsaw or brush hog. Trees cleared from the construction area will be cut into logs and removed, while limbs and brush will be chipped and spread within the Project Site. For the purposes of this DEIS, it is assumed that a 200-foot radius will be cleared around each tower, a 75-foot-wide corridor will be cleared along access roads, and a 15-foot-wide corridor will be cleared along all underground electric interconnect routes. The actual cleared area will vary on a case-by-case basis, and will depend on factors such as topography and vegetation. 2.4.4 Access Road Installation Wherever feasible, existing roads and farm lanes (2.2 miles of the proposed 2.7 miles of access roads) will be upgraded for use as Project access roads in order to minimize impacts to both active agricultural areas and wetland/stream areas. Where an existing road or farm lane is unavailable or unsuitable, new gravel-surfaced access roads will be constructed. Road construction will involve topsoil stripping and grubbing of stumps, as necessary. Stripped topsoil will be stockpiled along the road corridor for use in site restoration. Any grubbed stumps will be removed, chipped, or buried. Following removal of topsoil, subsoil will be graded, compacted, and surfaced with 8 to 12 inches of gravel or crushed stone, and a geotextile fabric or grid will be installed beneath the road surface (if necessary), to provide additional support. To the extent practicable, local sources will be used to obtain gravel (and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 24 other construction materials that may be needed such as sand) in support of Project construction. These local sources may include some shale from on Site to be used from the existing shale pit near the proposed Turbine 4 location. For applications for which shale is structurally unsuitable, the nearest active gravel mines are in the Town of Odessa, belonging to Morgan Logging and Excavation, and in the Town of Spencer, Angelo Sand and Gravel. Hanson has a gravel pit near the Town of Mecklenburg and Cayuga Crushed Stone is located further away in the Town of Lansing. See Section 3.9 and Appendix A for additional detail, including an approximation of quantities needed to support the construction of this Project, and related truck traffic. The typical finished access road will be 15 feet in width, with occasional wider pull-offs to accommodate passing vehicles, and earthen shoulders on either side to accommodate crane traffic. Maximum permanent road width will be 20 feet. Appropriately sized culverts (minimum 12 inch) will be placed in any wetland/stream crossings in accordance with state and federal permit requirements. In other locations, culverts may also be used to assure that the roads do not impede cross drainage. Where access roads are adjacent to, or cross, wetlands, streams or drainage ditches/swales, appropriate sediment and erosion control measures (e.g., silt fence) will be installed. During construction, access road installation and use could result in temporary soil disturbance of a maximum width of 40 feet, with temporary road horizontal radii of 200 feet. In agricultural areas construction activities will adhere to New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYA&M) Guidelines, and topsoil will be stripped and wind- rowed along the access road to prevent construction vehicles from driving over undisturbed soil and adjacent fields. Once construction is complete, temporarily disturbed areas will be restored (including removal of excess road material, de-compaction, and rock removal in agricultural areas) and returned to approximately their pre-construction contours. Exposed soils at restored tower sites and along roads and crane paths will be stabilized by seeding, mulching, and/or agricultural planting. Typical access road details and photographs are included in Appendix B. 2.4.5 Foundation Construction Once the roads are complete for a particular group of turbine sites, turbine foundation construction will commence on completed sections of access roads. Foundation construction occurs in several stages including hole excavation, outer form setting, rebar and bolt cage assembly, casting and finishing of the concrete, removal of the forms, backfilling and compacting, and site restoration. Excavation and foundation construction will be conducted in a manner that will minimize the size and duration of excavated areas required to install foundations. Initial activity at each tower site will involve removing vegetative cover and grading topsoil within a 200-foot radius around each tower (approximate area of disturbance of 2.9 acres). In agricultural land, the topsoil within a 200-foot Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 25 radius of each tower will be stripped and stockpiled in accordance with NYA&M. Backhoes will then be used to excavate a foundation hole. In agricultural areas, excavated subsoil and rock will be segregated from topsoil. If bedrock is encountered it is anticipated to be rippable, and will be excavated using mechanical means. If the bedrock is not rippable, it will be excavated by pneumatic jacking or hydraulic drilling. Based upon the turbine site analysis provided in Tectonic’s Geotechnical Report (see Appendix D), the use of blasting is not anticipated. However, if blasting is required, a Blasting Plan will be developed (see Section 3.1 for additional detail) to ensure compliance with all applicable laws to avoid impacts to sensitive receptors. If necessary, dewatering of foundation holes will involve pumping the water to a discharge point, which will include measures/devices to slow water velocities and trap any suspended sediment. Dewatering activities will not result in the direct discharge of water into any streams or wetlands. The foundation is anticipated to be one of two designs; either a spread footing or a pier foundation (P&H) (see Appendix B for typical details), which is the same foundation design used on existing projects such as the Fenner Wind Farm. This foundation type is approximately 10 feet deep, approximately 50 to 60 feet in diameter, and requires approximately 300 cubic yards (cy) of concrete. Once the foundation concrete is sufficiently cured, the excavation area around and over it is backfilled with the excavated on-site material. It is not anticipated that a Project-specific concrete batch plant will be required, as the concrete necessary to support construction of the Project can be viably sourced from local concrete suppliers within the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project Sponsor wishes to minimize construction impacts to the Project Site by eliminating the need for an on-site concrete batch plant. If a concrete batch plant was to be located on site, it would still need to be delivered to each turbine foundation location, thus concrete delivery truck trips would not be eliminated. See Section 3.9 for an approximation of concrete quantities needed to support the construction of this Project, and related truck traffic. The top of the foundation is a nominal 18-foot diameter pedestal that typically extends 6 to 8 inches above grade and is surrounded by a 6-foot wide gravel skirt. At the base of each tower an area approximately 100 feet by 60 feet will be developed as a temporary level crane pad. 2.4.6 Buried Cable Installation As mentioned previously, electrical interconnects will generally be co-located with Project access roads, but will also follow field edges and cut directly across fields in places. The proposed layout of the interconnect system is illustrated in Figure 3. Where buried cable is proposed to cross active agricultural fields, the location of any subsurface drainage (tile) lines will be determined (through consultation with the landowner), if possible, to avoid damaging these lines during cable installation. Direct burial methods through use of a cable plow, rock saw, and/or Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 26 trencher will be used during the installation of underground interconnect lines whenever possible. Direct burial with a cable plow will involve the installation of bundled cable (electrical and fiber optic bundles) directly into a “rip” in the ground created by the plow blade. The rip disturbs an area approximately 2 feet wide with bundled cable installed to a minimum depth of 36 inches (see photos and typical detail in Appendix B). An area up to 15 feet wide must be cleared of tall-growing woody vegetation and will be disturbed by the tracks of the installation machinery. However, this disturbance does not involve excavation of the soil. Generally, no restoration of the rip is required, other than surficial compaction and smoothing. Similarly, surface disturbance associated with the passage of machinery is typically minimal. Should additional surface restoration be required, a small excavator or small bulldozer will closely follow the installation, smoothing the area. Direct burial with a trencher involves the installation of bundled cable in a similar fashion to cable plow installation. The trencher or rock saw uses a large blade or “saw” to excavate an open trench. A 2-foot-wide trench is generally opened with a sidecast area immediately adjacent to the trench. Similar to cable plow, this direct burial method installs the cable a minimum of 36 inches deep (48 inches in active agricultural fields) and requires only minor clearing and surface disturbance (up to 15 feet wide for the installation machinery and access). In active agricultural land, a maximum of two parallel circuits can be installed by trenching without the need to strip and segregate topsoil (in accordance with NYSA&M guidance). Sidecast material will be replaced by a small excavator or small bulldozer. All areas will be returned to pre-construction grades, and restoration efforts will be as described above for cable plow installation. Where three or more cables run parallel through active agricultural fields, the topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled prior to cable installation, and replaced, regraded, and stabilized by seeding and mulching following installation. However, this project is not anticipated to require more than two parallel circuits. Any tile lines that are inadvertently cut or damaged during installation of the buried cable will be repaired as part of the restoration effort. Installation of utility lines in an open trench will be used only in areas where the previously described direct burial methods are not practicable. At this time, no open trench installation is proposed unless conditions at the time of construction make direct burial unfeasible. Areas appropriate for open trench installation will be determined at the time of construction and may include areas with unstable slopes, excessive unconsolidated rock, and standing or flowing water. Open trench installation will likely be performed with a backhoe and will generally result in a disturbed trench 3 feet wide and a minimum of 36 inches deep. The overall temporary footprint of vegetation and soil disturbance may be a maximum of 15 feet due to machinery dimensions and backfill/spoil pile placement during installation. In agricultural areas, all topsoil within the work area will be stripped and segregated from excavated subsoil. Replacement of spoil material will occur immediately after installation of the buried utility. Subgrade soil will Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 27 be replaced around the cable, and topsoil will be replaced at the surface. Any damaged tile lines will be repaired, and all areas adjacent to the open trench will be restored to original grades and surface condition. Restoration of these areas will be completed through seeding and mulching of all exposed soils. 2.4.7 Wind Turbine Assembly and Erection Beyond the tower, nacelle, and rotor blades, other smaller wind turbine components include hubs (center portion of the rotor assembly), cabling, control panels and internal facilities such as lighting, ladders, etc. All turbine components will be delivered to the Project Site on flatbed transport trucks (see Section 3.9 for routing of construction traffic along local roads), and the main components will be off-loaded at the individual turbine sites. Turbine erection is performed in multiple stages including setting of the bus cabinet and ground control panels on the foundation, erection of the tower (usually in 3 to 4 sections), erection of the nacelle, assembly and erection of the rotor, connection and termination of the internal cables, and inspection and testing of the electrical system prior to energization. Turbine assembly and erection involves mainly the use of large track-mounted cranes, smaller rough terrain cranes, boom trucks, and rough terrain fork-lifts for loading and off-loading materials. The tower sections, rotor components, and nacelle for each turbine will then be delivered to each site by specialized trailers and unloaded by crane. A large erection crane will set the tower segments on the foundation, place the nacelle on top of the tower, and following ground assembly, place the rotor onto the nacelle (see photos in Appendix B). The erection crane(s) will move from one tower to another along a designated crane path. This path will follow Project access roads. In some places, the crane will be partially disassembled and carried from one tower site to another by a specialized flatbed tractor-trailer. This mode of crane transport will not require a 40-foot-wide travel surface, but could require some additional clearing and grading adjacent to the roads to accommodate the width of the crane tracks (which will extend well beyond the edges of the trailer). Upon departure of the crane from each tower site, all required site restoration activities will be undertaken. Restoration of temporary disturbance adjacent to access roads will include removal of all temporary fill/road materials. In agricultural fields, restoration will also include subsoil de-compaction (as necessary) and rock removal, spreading of stockpiled topsoil, and reestablishing pre- construction contours. Exposed soils at restored tower sites and along access roads will be stabilized by seeding, mulching, and/or agricultural planting. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 28 To minimize safety risks to the general public, over-sized vehicles will be accompanied by an escort vehicle and/or flagman to assure safe passage of vehicles on public roads. Because construction activity will occur on private land, the general public should not be on the construction site. After hours, vehicular access to such sites may be blocked by parked equipment, and temporary construction fencing or other visible barriers will be placed around excavations that remain open during off hours. Potential impacts of the Project on public safety are further discussed in Section 3.12. 2.4.8 Substation Substation construction will begin with clearing the site and stockpiling topsoil for later use in site restoration. The site will be graded, and a laydown area for construction trailers, equipment, materials, and parking will be prepared. Concrete foundations for major equipment and structural supports will be poured, followed by the installation of various conduits, cable trenches, and grounding grid conductors. Above-ground construction will involve the installation of structural steel, bus conductors and insulators, switches, circuit breakers, transformers, control buildings, and wiring. The final steps involve laying down crushed stone across the stations, erecting a chain link perimeter fence, connecting the high voltage links, and testing the control systems. NYSEG reviewed the Project and no upgrades to the existing 115 kV line will be necessary. 2.4.9 Summary of Construction Impacts To summarize the anticipated construction activities previously discussed in Sections 2.4.1 – 2.4.8, Project components and their construction will result in disturbance to soil and vegetation and result in minor land use or conversion. Assumptions used for the purposes of the SEQRA evaluation are outlined below in Table 1. Table 1. Impact Assumptions and Calculations Project Components Typical Area of Vegetation Clearing Area of Total Soil Disturbance (Temporary and Permanent) Area of Permanent (fill/structures) Disturbance Wind Turbines and Workspaces 200’ radius per turbine 200’ radius per turbine 0.02 acre (No Permanent Crane Pad) Access Roads 75’ wide per linear foot of road 40’ wide per linear foot of road 15’ wide per linear foot of road Buried Electrical Interconnects 15’ wide per linear foot of cable 15’ wide per linear foot of cable none Staging Areas 5.4 acres 5.4 acres none Substation 3 acres 3 acres 1.75 acres Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 29 Resource-specific disturbances are calculated based on the impact assumptions presented in Table 1, and are presented in detail in Section 3.0 of the DEIS. A summary of Project disturbance by component is presented below in Table 2. Table 2. Project Disturbance Project Components Number/Linear Distance of Component Area of Maximum Disturbance (Temporary and Permanent) Area of Permanent Disturbance Wind Turbines and Workspaces 7 20.2 acres 0.1 acre Access Roads 2.7 miles 24.4 acres 4.9 acres Buried Electrical Interconnects 4.1 miles 7.3 acres none Staging Areas 2 5.4 acres none Substation 1 3.0 acres 1.75 acres TOTAL 60.3 acres 6.8 acres During all aspects of Project construction, the contractor and/or construction manager will minimize fugitive dust and airborne debris to the maximum extent practical by implementing appropriate control measures. These measures will include (but are not limited to) the application of mulch, water, stone, or an approved chemical agent on any public roads, access roads, exposed soils, or stockpiled soils when dry and windy conditions exist. Other mechanisms to initiate dust control procedures include a determination from the Environmental Monitor that control measures shall be implemented, and a complaint by a landowner or local resident. A watering vehicle shall be available for use for the duration of Project activities, including restoration. No chemical dust control measures will be implemented in the vicinity of organic farms (if applicable). 2.4.10 Operation Operation of the wind turbines and associated components is almost completely automated. However, the Project is anticipated to employ a staff of approximately 3 O&M personnel (2 wind technicians, and a project manager /administrative support person). For the wind turbines anticipated for this Project, a minimum wind speed of approximately 3 m/s is required to initiate generation. High-speed shutdown occurs at around 22 m/s. The turbines are equipped with two fully independent braking systems that allow the rotor to be brought to a halt under all foreseeable conditions. The system consists of aerodynamic braking by the rotor blades and by a separate hydraulic-disc brake system. Both braking systems operate independently, such that if there is a fault with one, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 30 other can still bring the turbine to a halt. Each wind turbine has a computer to control critical functions, monitor wind conditions, and report data back to the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. O&M staff will be on duty during core operating hours (eight hours a day, five days per week) with weekend shifts and extended hours as required. In the event of turbine or facility outages, the SCADA system will send alarm messages to on-call technicians to notify them of the outage. The Project will always have two on-call local technicians available to provide quick response in the event of any emergency. The wind turbines selected for this Project have been chosen in part for the manufacturer’s high functional reliability. Each wind turbine manufacturer studies and reports on the frequency of operation problems and malfunctions that arise when the turbines are generating electricity. Data on the turbines’ reliability is summarized by the manufacturer in the turbine’s availability rating, which estimates the percentage of time that the turbine will function. More detailed specifications on the wind turbines being proposed for the Project are included in Appendix C. Wind turbine routine preventative maintenance activities are scheduled at six month intervals with specific maintenance tasks scheduled for each interval. The Project Sponsor estimates that once operational, individual wind turbines will require maintenance and repair calls an average of three to six times per year in addition to their scheduled inspections. In certain circumstances, heavy maintenance equipment, such as a lifting crane, may need to be brought in to repair turbine problems (such as nacelle component replacement). During Project operation, a thorough analysis will be conducted prior to initiating any major repair to assure that any potential environmental impacts are avoided or minimized. At the very minimum, all major repairs (and associated activities) will adhere to the requirements of appropriate governing authorities, and will be in accordance with the conditions of all applicable federal, state, and local permits. If new permits are required, these will be obtained prior to initiating the necessary activities. In addition, the Project operator will work with the Town of Enfield and any potentially affected landowner(s) to assure that impacts are avoided and/or minimized, and any specific concerns are accounted for. As discussed in Section 2.3, the operational Project is expected to have an average annual net capacity factor (NCF) of approximately 40%, which is typical for most operational commercial wind farms in New York State. Total net electricity delivered to the existing New York power grid is expected to be approximately 44,150 MWh. The power supplied by the Black Oak Wind Project will be injected into the existing NYSEG Montour Falls-Coddington Road 115 kV transmission line. Power from the Project will reach local homes and businesses through the regional utility grid. With respect to the Project’s potential effect on local electric rates, it is not anticipated that the Project will have a direct positive or negative effect on local electric rates given that the energy will be sold competitively in the wholesale market and the fact that the NYSERDA REC budget is already accounted for in the state budget, bearing in mind that as from December 2011 NYSERDA had achieved 48% of the RPS target for 37% of the approved Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 31 budget. This wind project will provide an additional source of power generation and will therefore help meet future growing energy demand. With respect to information regarding lease/easement arrangements, please see Section 2.1. With respect to the anticipated useful life of the Project, please see Section 2.4.11. 2.4.11 Decommissioning and Restoration At the start of construction, per the Town of Enfield Wind Energy Facilities Local Law, the Project will continuously maintain a fund, bond, letter of credit, or equivalent financial security instrument payable to the Town of Enfield for the removal of non-functioning wind turbines and appurtenant facilities, in a form and amount approved by the Town Board for the period of the life of the facility. Prior to approval of the project by the Building Department of the Town of Enfield, the Project will, in writing, provide a surety bond or financial security instrument in a proposed amount not less than $125,000 per turbine, or a total of $875,000 (assuming 7 turbines), renewable on an annual basis, for the removal of non-functioning turbines and associated facilities. Per the local law, this amount may be periodically reviewed by the Town at its discretion, and the amount altered accordingly for the estimated costs of removal, decommissioning, and restoration. The established bond will ensure that there are no complications in decommissioning the Project in the future, if there was a change in Project ownership. The anticipated life of the Project is estimated to be a minimum of 20 years. The following describes how the Project will be dismantled following the operations phase of the Project. Prior to the commencement of construction, the Project Sponsor shall formulate a Decommissioning Plan (see Appendix E for a preliminary Decommissioning Plan). Unless otherwise agreed between the Town of Enfield and the Project Sponsor the Decommissioning Plan shall include: • Provision describing the triggering events for decommissioning of wind power facilities. • Provisions for the removal of all above-ground structures and debris (e.g. Turbines and substation), but not the removal of anything below a 36-inch depth (e.g., tower foundations and electrical collection lines). • Provisions for the restoration of the soil and vegetation. • A timetable approved by the Town for site restoration. • An estimate of decommissioning costs certified by an independent, Professional Engineer, to be repeated at reasonable intervals during the operational life of the Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 32 • Form of Financial Security, secured by the Project Sponsor, naming the Town as the beneficiary in the event of a default by the Project Sponsor to comply with the terms of the Decommissioning Plan, for the purpose of adequately performing decommissioning. • Identification of procedures for the Town to access Financial Security at reasonable intervals throughout the operational life of the Project. • A provision that the terms of the Decommissioning Plan shall be binding upon the Project Sponsor or any of their successors, assigns, or heirs. • A Provision that the Town shall have access to the site, pursuant to reasonable notice, to inspect the results of the complete decommissioning. • Removal of machinery, equipment, tower, and all other materials related to the Project is to be completed within one year of ceasing commercial operation. • All town, county or state roads, impacted by Project decommissioning, if any, will be restored to original condition upon completion of decommissioning. The current trend in the wind energy industry has been to replace or “re-power” older wind energy Projects by upgrading older equipment with more efficient turbines. However, if not upgraded or if the turbines are non- operational for an extended period of time (such that there is no expectation of their returning to operation), they will be decommissioned, in accordance with the Decommissioning Plan. In the event of a breach of the Project Sponsors’ obligations to decommission and remove the Project within twelve months of ceasing commercial operation, and in the absence of a mutual agreement for an extension of time, then the Town of Enfield shall be entitled to draw upon the Financial Security without the consent of the Project Sponsor. The Project Sponsor will maintain insurance sufficient to cover unforeseen events, such as the collapse of a wind turbine. The Project Sponsor shall be obligated to furnish the Town of Enfield with evidence of adequate insurance as requested by the Town. Decommissioning would consist of the following activities: • Wind turbines, including the blades, nacelles, and towers will be disassembled, and transported off site for reclamation and sale. • All of the transformers will also be transported off-site for reuse or reclamation. • Foundations at depths less than 36 inches below grade will be removed. • Except as described otherwise for active agricultural fields (in the above bullet point), all buildings, structures, wind turbines, access roads and/or driveways and foundations at depths greater than 42 inches Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 33 below finished grade will be left in place. Electrical collection lines will be buried at a depth of 48 inches in agricultural fields, therefore will not be removed. Areas where subsurface components are removed will be graded to match adjacent contours, stabilized with an appropriate seed mix, and allowed to re-vegetate naturally. At the discretion of the landowner, access road materials will be removed and transported to a disposal location. Written approval by the landowner will be obtained for any access roads to remain in place. All decommissioning and restoration activities will adhere to the requirements of appropriate governing authorities, and will be in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local permits. Such permits would likely include a subset of the same permits that would be obtained for Project construction (see Section 2.5), and could include highway work permits, Special Use Permits for oversize/overweight vehicles, and a SPDES General Permit. All materials encountered during Project decommissioning will be handled and disposed of in accordance with all applicable safety and environmental regulations. Assuming proper handling/disposing, it is not anticipated that decommissioning activities will result in exposure to radiation hazards. 2.5 REVIEWS, APPROVALS, AND OTHER COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS Implementation of the Project will require certain permits and/or approvals from local, state, and federal agencies. The permits and approvals that are expected to be required are listed in Table 3. Table 3. Anticipated Permits and Approvals for the Black Oak Wind Farm Project Agency Description of Permit or Approval Required Town Town of Enfield Town Board Acceptance of DEIS, FEIS, and issuance of findings (as Lead Agency under SEQRA). Town of Enfield Town Board Approval of Wind Facilities Permit. Town of Enfield Departments (Public Works, Codes, etc.) Issuance of building permits. Review and approval of highway work permits. Tompkins County Tompkins County Planning Department 239-M Review Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency Administration and implementation of Project payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT). Department of Public Works Highway work permits. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES General Permit. Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 34 Agency Description of Permit or Approval Required Department of Transportation Special Use Permit for oversize/overweight vehicles. Highway work permit. Use and occupancy permit. Department of Agriculture & Markets Review Notice of Intent for work in an Ag. District. Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Nationwide Permit for placement of fill in federal jurisdictional wetlands/waters of the U.S. NEPA compliance. Federal Aviation Administration Approval of Obstruction Lighting Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 35 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY 3.1.1 Existing Condition Information regarding topography, geology, and soils was obtained from on-site observations and existing published sources, including the Tompkins County Soil Survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], 1965), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping, statewide bedrock geology mapping (NYS Museum/NYS Geological Survey, 1999a), and New York State surficial geology mapping (NYS Museum/NYS Geological Survey, 1999b). In addition to a literature review of publicly available data, Tectonic Engineering & Surveying Consultants (Tectonic) also conducted site investigations, which included soil resistivity testing and the performance of test borings. Their geotechnical report is provided in Appendix D. 3.1.1.1 Topography The Project Site is located in the Allegheny Plateau segment of the Appalachian Plateau physiographic province (USDA, 1965). This area is characterized as a mature, eroded plateau with gently rolling uplands and valley topography. Valleys in the vicinity of the Project Site are associated with the Cayuta Inlet, Enfield Creek, and tributaries to Cayuga and Seneca Lakes. Regionally, the ground surface generally slopes down from the southwest to the northeast. Slopes generally range from 0 to 20 percent. Elevations in the Project Site range from approximately 1,450 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northeast corner of the site to approximately 1,960 feet amsl on Buck Hill. 3.1.1.2 Geology The bedrock within the Project Site is composed of shale and sandstone of the Devonian Age (USDA, 1965). The major bedrock formation in the Project Site is the Beer Hill Shale of the West Falls Group (NYS Museum/NYS Geological Survey, 1999a). Borings conducted by Tectonic indicate depth to bedrock ranges from approximately 3.8 to 60 feet within the Project Site. No rock outcrops, large boulders, ledges, or steep slopes were observed in upland areas or in the vicinity of proposed wind turbine locations. Surface geological materials are primarily glacial till (NYS Museum/NYS Geological Survey, 1999b; USDA, 1965), which is composed of poorly sorted material of variable texture that was deposited beneath glacial ice. These soils consist of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders in varying proportions. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 36 3.1.1.3 Soils The Tompkins County Soil Survey has mapped general soil associations and soil types within the Project Site (see Tables 4 and 5). The soil survey indicates that three soil associations and 10 soil series occur within the Project Site. Of these, Langford, Erie, Bath, and Mardin are the dominant soil series (see Figure 5). Table 4 lists the soil associations found within the Project Site and their characteristics. Table 5 summarizes the characteristics of the dominant soil series found within the Project Site. Table 4. Soil Associations within the Project Site. Soil Association Main Characteristics Howard-Valois • Well drained soils • On level, rolling or steep topography • Includes flat alluvial bottom lands, nearly level terraces, alluvial fans, steep fronts of glacial lake deltas, smooth valley walls, and rolling uplands Erie-Langford • Somewhat poorly drained soils on mild topography • Occupy the nearly level part of the landscape, as well as steeper sloped and rounded ridgetops Volusia-Lordstown • Somewhat poorly drained deep soils and well-drained moderately deep soils • On rolling to steep topography • Occupy gently rolling hilltops and moderately steep slopes, as well as very steep slopes. Table 5. Dominant Soil Series within the Project Site. Soil Series Main Characteristics Langford Series • Moderately well drained • Formed in low-lime glacial till • Undulating to moderately steep • Depth to seasonal high water table 6 to 30 inches • Fragipan at a depth of 15 to 24 inches • Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches Erie Series • Somewhat poorly drained • Formed in low-lime glacial till • Gently sloping to moderately steep • Depth to seasonal high water table 4 to 15 inches • Fragipan at a depth of 12 to 18 inches • Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches Bath Series • Well drained • Formed in acid or very low-lime glacial till • Depth to seasonal high water table 25 inches • Fragipan at a depth of 18 to 30 inches • Depth to bedrock is 48 to 72 inches Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 37 Soil Series Main Characteristics Mardin Series • Moderately well drained • Formed in very low-lime or acid glacial till • Gently sloping to moderately steep • Depth to seasonal high water table 10 to 30 inches • Fragipan at a depth of 15 to 20 inches • Depth to bedrock is greater than 72 inches Soils in the Project Site are primarily channery silt loams but gravelly silt loams and gravelly loams are also present. Erosion hazard ranges from slight to severe with approximately 87 percent of the Project Site classified as having a slight erosion hazard, 12 percent moderate, and 1 percent very severe (see Figure 5a). With respect to soil drainage, approximately 47 percent of the soils within the Project Site are moderately well drained, approximately 30 percent are somewhat poorly drained, approximately 23 percent well drained, and less than 1 percent are poorly to very poorly drained. Approximately 31 percent of the soils within the 1,063-acre Project Site are listed as hydric by the NRCS (2012), including Alluvial land; Erie channery silt loams; Ellery, Chippewa, and Alden soils; Middlebury and Tioga silt loams; and Volusia channery silt loams. Hydric soils are depicted in Figure 5b. Two Project Site soils are classified as Prime Farmland (Chenango gravelly loam, fan, 0 – 8 percent slopes and Middlebury and Tioga silt loams) (see Figure 5). Many of the Project Site soils are classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. For further discussion of agricultural soils see Section 3.5. Tectonic drew the following conclusions about Project Site soils based on their literature review, testing, and site reconnaissance: • Project Site soils are not subject to liquefaction. • Test results indicate that the plasticity indices of the soils range from approximately 10 to 17 percent. This indicates Project Site soils are non-expansive. • Project Site soils are not considered corrosive to buried concrete and steel. This assessment is based on the pH of the soil samples typically being either neutral to slightly alkaline. The most acidic sample had a pH was 6.15. Generally, pH levels above 5.5 are considered to be non-corrosive. • The thermal resistivity of the Project Site soils are predicted to vary from approximately 75 to 136 0C-cm/W over the soil moisture contents expected to be encountered at the site. The high value corresponds to a moisture content of 3 percent and is recommended for design purposes. • The glacial till soils are considered unsuitable for use as structural fill due to their high clay and silt contents, and they are often moisture sensitive, being difficult to place if the moisture conditions are not optimal. They Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 38 are therefore not recommended for use as fill beneath the foundations should fill be required. They can be used as backfill around the sides and placed over the top of gravity or anchored mat foundations, however. It is noted that of the eight soil samples obtained from depths of 2 to 4 feet and tested for Standard Proctor density, only two had moisture contents within two percent of the optimum moisture contents. The remaining six had moisture contents ranging from 3 to 8.3 percent over optimum. Therefore, if similar moisture conditions were encountered at the time of construction, much of the soil would need to be dried to achieve adequate compaction, and this can result in construction delays when these materials are used for fill. • The glacial till soils can be excavated with standard heavy duty excavators or dozers. Based on the Caterpillar Handbook of Ripping (8th Edition), shale with a compressional wave velocity of 7,400 feet per second (fps) can be ripped with a D9 Dozer equipped with a ripping bar. A 7,400 fps compressional wave velocity approximately correlates with a shear wave velocity of approximately 4,270 fps. • Subgrades consisting of the native site soils will be sensitive to disturbance. Therefore, subgrades consisting of the native soils should be protected with a gravel drainage blanket or should have a minimum 4-inch thick layer of concrete placed to protect the subgrade during placement of formwork and steel reinforcement. Tectonic’s field investigations were limited to turbine sites and routes for buried electrical collection lines. Investigations of similar scope will be conducted for the proposed substation site to assess the suitability of soil and bedrock characteristics prior to construction. This information will be included in the FEIS. 3.1.2 Potential Impacts 3.1.2.1 Construction Project components have been sited to avoid or minimize either temporary or permanent impacts to physiography, geology, and soils to the extent practical. Earth moving and general soil disturbance will increase the potential for wind/water erosion and sedimentation into surface waters. In order to minimize these impacts, construction on steep slopes was avoided to the extent possible when siting Project components. There will be no impacts to soils with slopes in excess of 25 percent. Impacts to soils with slopes in excess of 15 percent are limited to two short sections of co-located access roads and buried interconnect, totaling 0.5 acres of permanent impact and 2.1 acres of temporary impact. Accordingly, the use of trench breakers to avoid wash-out and sub-surface piping erosion hazards is not anticipated. The Project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts to geology: only temporary, minor impacts to physiography and geology are expected as a result of construction activities. For example, some cut and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 39 fill or addition of fill will be required at some turbine sites and along some access roads; however, the impact to overall topography will be minor. Depth to bedrock in the Project Site is variable and it is possible that some turbine foundations will be set into bedrock. If bedrock is encountered it is anticipated to be rippable, and will be excavated with a backhoe. If the bedrock is not rippable, it will be excavated by pneumatic jacking or hydraulic drilling. More specifically, according to the Tectonic analysis, the rock to a depth of at least 10 feet is considered rippable. Excavator mounted hydraulic hammers can also be used to efficiently break-up the rock. According to Tectonic, none of the turbine sites should require blasting. The primary impact to the physical features of the Project Site will be the disturbance of soils during construction, primarily associated with the installation of foundations, underground 34.5 kV cable, and access roads. Based on the assumptions outlined in Section 2, soil disturbance from all anticipated construction activities will total approximately 48.9 acres. Of this total, only approximately 6.8 acres will be converted to built facilities (roads, cranepads, structures), while the remaining approximately 42.1 acres will be restored and stabilized following completion of construction. Approximately 38.4 acres of land classified as farmland of statewide importance will be impacted by Project construction, of which 3.9 acres will be permanently impacted. No land classified as prime farmland will be impacted by Project construction. Approximately 18.3 acres of soils listed as hydric by the NRCS will be impacted by Project construction, of which 1.9 acres will be permanently impacted and the remainder will be restored post- construction. Approximately 2.6 acres of soils exceeding 15 percent slope will be impacted, of which 0.5 acre will be permanently impacted. There will be no impacts to sols with slopes in excess of 25 percent. Permanent impacts on steep slopes are associated with installation of two short sections of access road and co-linear buried collection lines. The actual impact of this work will likely be less than these calculations indicate, due to conservative calculation methods and the proposed use/upgrade of existing farm lanes to access most turbines sites. The calculations presented above assume that significant soil disturbance will occur in all areas in which construction occurs. This assumption is very conservative. Actual disturbance will be highly variable based on the specific construction activity; the construction techniques employed, and soil/weather conditions at the time of construction. For instance, in many locations, installation of the buried electrical interconnects will involve relatively minor soil disturbance, restricted to a 2 to 3 foot wide trench when utilizing a rock saw or cable plow. However, because use of a backhoe and soil segregation cannot be ruled out, a 15 foot wide corridor of disturbance is assumed along all interconnect routes. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 40 According to Tectonic’s Geotechnical Report (Appendix D), Project Site conditions are generally favorable for construction of the proposed Project. Both the glacial till soils and the weathered shale bedrock provide suitable support for standard-sized gravity foundations. Also, due to the very shallow depth of bedrock at the location of Turbine 4, this site is suitable for the use of an anchored foundation, which can significantly reduce the required weight of the foundation. Rock at the other tower locations is believed to be too deep to cost effectively utilize anchored foundations. This is because the foundation needs to bear entirely on competent rock in order to have strain levels that are compatible with tensioned rock anchors. Therefore, a spread foot foundation is anticipated at the other turbine locations. 3.1.2.2 Operation Overall, the Project will result in permanent conversion of approximately 6.8 acres of land into built facilities (0.02 acre of foundation at each tower site, maximum 15-foot-wide permanent access roads, and an approximately 1.0- acre substation). Beyond occasional soil disturbance associated with Project maintenance and repair, impacts caused by the operation of the Project on physiology, geography, and soils are expected to be minimal. 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures Impacts to physiography or geology have been largely avoided by siting Project components so as to minimize disturbances to steep slopes, sensitive soils, and bedrock. Nevertheless, geotechnical investigations consisting of soil boring tests have been conducted in seven test boring locations across the site to verify depth to bedrock and to perform a pre-construction evaluation of surficial and bedrock geology (see details in Appendix D). Based on these site-specific findings it is not expected that blasting will be employed for the excavation of tower foundations. In the event that blasting in select locations is required, mitigation measures will include the development and implementation of a blasting plan that limits offsite impacts. This plan will address blast size, timing, and sequencing to focus force within the area of excavation. All necessary blasting will receive oversight by an environmental monitor. In addition, pre-notification signs and warnings to affected landowners, use of best management practices, and compliance with applicable permit requirements will be instituted as mitigation measures. At a minimum, the written pre-blast survey and final basting plan will conform to the following: • Structures within a minimum distance of 1,500 feet from any blasting activity shall be surveyed as part of the pre-blast survey. The extent beyond the 1,500-foot minimum shall be determined by the contractor, their blasting subcontractor, and their insurance companies. A pre-blast well survey will also be completed if a well is located within 1,000 feet. This well pre-blast survey will include yield and turbidity measurements. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 41 • The final blasting plan shall addresses air-blast limits, ground vibrations, and maximum peak particle velocity (PPV) for ground movement; including provisions to monitor and assess compliance with the air- blast, ground vibration and PPV requirements established. • The blasting plan shall meet criteria established in Chapter 3 (Control of Adverse Effects) in the Blasting Guidance Manual of the United States Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Additional potential impacts associated with soil disturbance (erosion, sedimentation, compaction) have been minimized by siting turbines in relatively level locations where practicable and using existing roads for turbine access wherever possible. Impacts to soils will be further minimized by the following means: • Public road ditches and other locations where runoff is concentrated will be armored with rip-rap to dissipate the energy of flowing water and to hold the soils in place. • Prior to commencing construction activities, erosion control devices will be installed between the work areas and downslope surface waters or wetlands, to reduce the risk of soil erosion and siltation. • During construction activities, hay bales, silt fence, or other appropriate erosion control measures will be placed as needed around disturbed areas and stockpiled soils. • Following construction, all temporarily disturbed areas will be stabilized and restored in accordance with approved plans. Impacts to soil resources will be minimized by adherence to “best management practices” that are designed to avoid or control erosion and sedimentation, stabilize disturbed areas, and minimize the potential for spills of fuels or lubricants. In general, erosion, sedimentation, and soil drainage impacts during construction will be minimized by the implementation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan developed as part of the Stormwater Pollution Plan (SWPPP) in satisfaction of the SPDES General Permit. The SWPPP will be developed during final engineering efforts prior to construction. However, for the purposes of SEQRA a Preliminary SWPPP has been prepared, and is included in Appendix F. As indicated in the Preliminary SWPPP, erosion and sediment control measures shall be constructed and implemented in accordance with an erosion and sediment control plan. The plan will: • Describe the temporary and permanent structural and vegetative measures that will be used to control erosion and sedimentation for each stage of the Project. • Provide a map showing the location of erosion and sediment control measures. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 42 • Provide dimensional details of proposed erosion and sediment control facilities as well as calculations used in the siting and sizing of any sediment basins. • Identify any temporary erosion and sediment control facilities that will be converted to permanent stormwater management facilities. • Provide an implementation schedule for staging temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control facilities. • Provide a maintenance schedule for soil erosion and sediment control facilities and describe maintenance activities to be performed. • Erosion and sediment control measures shall be constructed prior to beginning any other land disturbances. The devices will not be removed until the disturbed land areas are stabilized. Mitigation measures to protect and restore agricultural soils will be undertaken during and after construction. These will include full restoration of temporarily disturbed agricultural land in accordance with NYSA&M Agricultural Protection Guidelines (Appendix G). For example, topsoil will not be stripped and cranes will not cross fields during saturated conditions when such actions would damage agricultural soils. This restriction may be a limiting factor for construction activities after heavy rainfalls during any season, particularly in the early spring (due to snowmelt). Existing access roads will be used for access to farmland to the extent practicable. However, for any new access roads that are required, topsoil in the work area will be stripped and stockpiled outside the area of disturbance, yet within the property from which it was removed. All vehicular movements and construction activity will be restricted to areas where topsoil has been removed. As indicated above, approximately 40.5 acres of temporarily disturbed soils will be restored following construction, including approximately 23.5 acres of agricultural land. Restored areas will include tower sites, road edges, temporary roads, and staging areas. This process will generally involve the following sequence of activities: 1. Removal of gravel or other temporary fill. 2. Decompaction of compacted subsoils using a deep ripper. 3. Disking and removal of stones from decompacted subsoil. 4. Spreading of stockpiled topsoil over decompacted subsoil to reestablish pre-construction contours to the extent practicable. 5. Disking and removal of stones from respread topsoil. 6. Seeding and mulching topsoil. Seed selection in agricultural fields will be based on guidance provided by the landowner and the NYSA&M. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 43 Additional details regarding proposed agricultural soil protection measures are included in Appendix G. Soil impacts during construction will also be minimized by providing the contractor and all subcontractors with copies of the final construction documentation and plans, which will contain all applicable soil protection, erosion control, and soil restoration measures. One or more pre-construction meetings will be held with the contractor and a representative of the NYSA&M, and, during construction, the environmental monitors will assure compliance with the construction plans and soil protection measures described above and included in Appendix G. A Notice of Intent to Undertake an Action within an Agricultural District will be filed with the NYSA&M and the Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board. In addition, an Agricultural Data Statement will be filed pursuant to Section 305-a of the Agricultural and Markets Law. 3.2 WATER RESOURCES The Project Site is located in the Seneca and Owego-Wappasening River drainage basins (USGS Hydrologic Units 4140201 and 2050103, respectively). The Seneca drainage basin includes the eastern half of the Project Site and the Owego-Wappasening drainage basin includes the western half of the Project Site. The Seneca drainage basin drains into the Southeastern Lake Ontario Basin and ultimately into the Great Lakes. The Owego-Wappasening drainage basin drains into the Susquehanna River Basin, through the Chesapeake Bay, and ultimately into the Atlantic Ocean. On-site groundwater and surface water resources are described below. 3.2.1 Existing Condition This section identifies and describes groundwater, wetlands, surface water, and drinking water resources within the Project Site based upon field observations and reviews of public records and databases, including topographic surveys of the Project footprint, documents published by the USGS, and state and federal databases. 3.2.1.1 Groundwater Tectonic Engineering & Surveying Consultants P.C. (Tectonic) conducted a desktop hydrogeologic evaluation of the Project Site (Appendix H). The purpose of this evaluation was to present a description of the groundwater resources within the Project Site, evaluate and describe the potential impacts to groundwater resources that may be caused by installation of subsurface facilities, and identify and characterize proposed means of avoiding or mitigating the potential impacts. The existing conditions described in Tectonic’s report are summarized below. The Project Site is not situated on any Primary, Principle, or Sole Source Aquifers (USGS 1998, EPA 2010). Groundwater for potable use in the Project Site is obtained primarily from the Beers Hill Shale aquifer. Because of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 44 the low primary porosity of this bedrock aquifer, relatively small amounts of water can be stored and transmitted to wells. Tectonic notes that yields range from 1 to 10 gallons per minute and are generally sufficient for households and small farms. The Town of Enfield does not have a municipal water system. Therefore, groundwater from private wells is the main water supply source for residences in and adjacent to the Project Site. As indicated in the Tectonic Report, private well locations and groundwater quality data for the Project Site and immediate surroundings are not maintained by the Town of Enfield. In order to infer the depth to potable drinking water supplies, Tectonic consulted the NYSDEC water well information database. This database was created in 2001 and does not contain information on wells installed prior to 2001. A search of the NYSDEC database returned information on two wells in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Only one of these entries (a well located along Connecticut Hill Road) contained information pertaining to groundwater depth. Depth to bedrock at this well was reported at 27 feet below ground surface and depth to groundwater was 30 feet below ground surface. A yield of 7.5 gallons per minute was reported for this well. Though the USDA soil survey reports a depth to groundwater of less than eight inches below ground surface in some locations within the Project Site, this is the result of water perched in poorly drained areas and is typically not suitable for potable use. The NYSDEC database includes multiple wells in the area surrounding the Project Site. Depth to potable water in these wells is reported to be as shallow as 12 feet below existing ground surface. Tectonic also reviewed aerial photographs to determine the locations of probable drinking water wells within 0.5-miles of the Project Site that may not have been included in the NYSDEC database (see Appendix H, Figures 1 and 2). The Beers Hill Shale has been classified as “black shale” by the USGS. Due to the chemical composition of black shales, groundwater obtained from them is generally very hard and contains some dissolved heavy metals. Therefore, groundwater drawn from the Beers Hill Shale aquifer is expected to contain high concentrations of iron, calcium, magnesium, sodium, bicarbonate, sulfate and chloride. The USGS report entitled Groundwater Quality in Central New York, 2007 contains information on three residential wells situated on bedrock aquifers in Tompkins and Schuyler Counties. One or more of these wells were found to exceed drinking-water standards for sodium, aluminum, iron, and manganese. 3.2.1.2 Surface Water Cayuga and Seneca Lakes are the dominant hydrologic features in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project is located on the uplands between these two lakes, approximately 8 miles southwest of Cayuga Lake and approximately 9 miles east of Seneca Lake at the closest point. Both Cayuga and Seneca Lakes drain to the north Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 45 into the Seneca River. The Seneca River (located approximately 35 miles north of the Project) flows east to its confluence with the Oswego and Oneida Rivers, and ultimately drains into Lake Ontario from the Oswego River. The Project Site contains a small number of ponds and unnamed streams. Although no NYSDEC protected streams occur within the Project Site, portions of streams in the vicinity of the Project Site, including Enfield Creek, are considered protected waters by the NYSDEC. Streams in the western half of the Project Site drain to Cayuta Inlet and streams in the eastern half drain to Enfield Creek. Cayuta Inlet flows to Cayuta Lake and Cayuta Creek approximately 4 miles southwest of the Project Site. Cayuta Creek drains to the Susquehanna River approximately 30 miles south of the Project Site and eventually into the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean. Enfield Creek flows to Cayuga Inlet approximately 6 miles east of the Project Site. Cayuga Inlet then drains to Cayuga Lake approximately 8.5 miles northeast of the Project Site. Streams in the Project Site (Figure 6) are highly variable, ranging from steep-gradient streams in deeply cut wooded ravines to low-gradient streams that meander through pastureland, wetlands, and valley settings. Most of these streams are less than 6-feet wide with substrate ranging from rock/gravel to silt/mud. Water depths are typically 1-4 inches in riffles, with pool depths of 1-2 feet. Aquatic vegetation is typically lacking. Most streams within the Project Site have well-defined and abrupt banks, while the banks of a small number of low-gradient streams transition into adjacent wetland vegetation, and thus are essentially indiscernible. None of the streams within the Project Site are subject to regulation under the stream protection category of the Environmental Conservation Law, Article 15 (Protection of Waters). Small farm ponds/open water areas are also interspersed throughout the Project Site. Generally, they are found in open field settings, adjacent to houses and barns, or within wetlands. Typically, these ponds are excavated or diked, and are less than 0.5 acres in size. Banks are typically well-defined and emergent wetland vegetation tends to be limited or lacking. Water depths, although not verified, are anticipated to be 4 feet or more. They may be used as a source of water for livestock as well as for fishing and aesthetic purposes. 3.2.1.3 Wetlands Wetlands within the Project Site have been examined through review of existing state and federal wetland mapping and reconnaissance-level field review. The following sections provide a description of the wetlands identified in the Project Site. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 46 3.2.1.3.1 Existing Information Review of NYSDEC mapping indicates there are no wetlands located within the Project Site that are regulated under Article 24 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law (Figure 6). State-mapped wetland (ME-5) occurs just outside the Project Site along an unnamed tributary to the northwest (see Figure 6). This is a Class 4 wetland totaling 126 acres in size. No portion of wetland ME-5 is within the Project Site. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) has mapped wetlands in the proposed Project Site (see Figure 7). The four wetlands mapped within the Project Site are very small, ranging from 0.16 acres to approximately 0.35 acres in size, for a total of approximately 1.04 acres. All four of the wetlands mapped by the NWI are palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, diked/impounded (PUBHh) wetlands. Numerous NWI mapped wetlands occur in the vicinity of the Project Site and most are similar to the mapped wetlands on-site. However, there is a large NWI-mapped wetland complex to the northwest of the Project Site, corresponding with state-mapped wetland ME-5, that is associated with an unnamed tributary to the Cayuta Inlet. 3.2.1.3.2 Field Review edr personnel performed field identification of wetlands and streams in areas proposed for Project components during the 2011 growing season. Field investigations were performed only on wetlands and streams with potential impacts resulting from Project components; including turbines, turbine workspaces, access roads, substation, potential staging areas, public road intersections (for potential widening/improvements), and buried electrical collection lines. Wetland fieldwork specifically focused on an area within approximately 100 feet of each identified Project component. Although a formal delineation and jurisdictional determination have not yet been conducted, edr identified a total of eight wetlands and streams within the Project Site. Should a permit application be required, additional field work would be conducted to hang wetland flagging along the boundaries of jurisdictional wetlands and collect further data (including soils data). The Joint Application for Permit would thoroughly describe the characteristics of each delineated wetland to be impacted, including its specific functions and values. However, for the purposes of SEQRA, the Wetland Inventory Report (Appendix I) provides all the information necessary to identify and describe the existing wetland and stream resources within the Project Site, and subsequently quantify anticipated impacts and discuss proposed mitigation measures. 3.2.1.3.3 Wetland Community Types In general, wetlands identified within the Project Site exist as one or more of the following community types: emergent wetland, scrub-shrub wetland, forested wetland, perennial stream, or intermittent stream. Information Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 47 pertaining to individual wetlands and streams is summarized in Table 6. Wetland types were classified according to the Cowardin classification (Cowardin et al., 1979). Wetlands and streams identified within the Project Site are depicted in Figure 8, and a description of each community is presented below. Table 6. Approximate Wetlands and Streams Wetland/Stream ID Community Type Figure 8, Sheet # C Intermittent Stream 2 E Perennial/Intermittent/Emergent Stream 3 J Emergent/Intermittent Stream 1 K Intermittent Stream 1 O Emergent/Intermittent Stream 4 P Forested/Intermittent Stream/Perennial Stream 4 Q Forested/Scrub-shrub 4 S Emergent 1 Forested wetland – Forested wetland communities are dominated by trees that are 20 feet or taller, but also include an understory of shrub and herbaceous species. Two (2) forested or partially forested wetlands were identified within the Project Site. Scrub-shrub wetland – Scrub-shrub wetlands are characterized by dense stands of shrub species less than 20 feet tall. One (1) wetland within the Project Site was found to contain a scrub-shrub community. Emergent wetland – Four (4) wetland areas were identified within the Project Site as emergent or partially emergent. Emergent wetlands occur where surface water collects in shallow basins and/or adjacent to open water. These wetlands are characterized by more persistent and/or deeper inundation, often containing soils that remain inundated throughout the year. Although the Cowardin classification was used to classify wetlands, some of the emergent wetlands in this category could be best described according to the Reschke definition as wet meadow (Reschke, 1990). Wet meadow wetlands are usually found in poorly drained, low-lying depressional areas. Wet meadow wetlands may resemble grasslands and are typically drier than other marshes, except during periods of seasonal high water. They generally lack standing water for most of the year, though snow melt, stormwater runoff, and/or a high water table allows the soil to remain saturated for a significant portion of the growing season. Streams – As indicated in Table 6, edr ecologists identified a total of six (6) streams within the Project Site, including intermittent and perennial channels. Streams within the Project Site are located amongst agricultural fields, forests, and old-field communities. Most of the delineated streams are perennial or intermittent, with bedrock or cobble substrate. Stream depths ranged from 1-10 inches, and widths from 0.5-6 feet. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 48 Wetland C – Wetland C is an intermittent stream located immediately south of the on-site scrap yard (Teet’s). The stream is approximately 2 feet wide with a cobble substrate and at the time of the site visit there was approximately 3 inches of flowing water observed. The hydrology source appears to be primarily from runoff associated with the adjacent scrap yard. The scrap yard and a nearby successional old field comprise the adjacent uplands. Wetland C is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE. Wetland E – Wetland E is located north of Connecticut Hill Road on the proposed access road to Turbine 3. This wetland is comprised of several different wetland/stream communities including a perennial stream, intermittent stream and shallow emergent marsh wetland. The hydrology source to the intermittent stream is discharge from drain tiles and surface water runoff from adjacent agricultural fields. The width of the intermittent stream was noted at 6 inches with a cobble substrate and approximately 4 inches of flowing water at the time of the site visit. The intermittent stream flows into a perennial stream associated with Wetland E. The perennial stream is approximately 4-6 feet wide with cobble substrate, overhanging vegetation and had approximately 10 inches of flowing water at the time of the site visit. The shallow emergent marsh is located at the confluence of the intermittent and perennial streams. Vegetation in this area consisted of cattails and sensitive fern. There was approximately 2 inches of standing water and hydrologic input appears to be surface water runoff from the adjacent agricultural fields and from the intermittent and perennial streams. Surrounding uplands include active agriculture and successional shrubland (hedgerow). Wetland E is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE. Wetland J – Wetland J is comprised of an intermittent stream and shallow emergent marsh wetland community located adjacent to the proposed access road to Turbines 4. Wetland J enters the site from the south through an 18- inch culvert underneath an existing access road (proposed access road for the Project). Hydrologic input appears to be from surface water runoff from adjacent uplands (northern deciduous forest) and groundwater recharge. Vegetation consists of arrow tearthumb, cattails, and wool grass. Wetland J is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE. Wetland K – Wetland K is an intermittent stream located approximately 50 yards to the east of Wetland J that begins on the northern side of the existing access road. Hydrologic input is from a roadside ditch along the southern side of the existing access road that then enters an 18-inch culvert under the existing access road and outfalls into the intermittent stream on the north side. The intermittent stream is approximately 1-foot wide with well-defined banks Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 49 and a cobble substrate. Surrounding upland is northern deciduous forest. Wetland K is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE. Wetland O – Wetland O begins in an active agricultural field, near proposed Turbine 1, as a shallow emergent marsh and flows northeast into an intermittent stream at a hedgerow that bisects the field. The stream eventually flows into the northern deciduous forest to the northeast. Hydrologic input appeared to be primarily from surface water runoff from the surrounding agricultural fields and at the time of the site visit there was approximately 1 inch of standing water. Surrounding upland is agricultural fields. Wetland O is likely to be considered jurisdictional by USACE. Wetland P – Wetland P consists of a forested wetland with braided intermittent streams that drain into a perennial stream to the south of Turbine 6. The perennial stream channel is a mapped unprotected stream by the NYSDEC. This stream continues to the southeast within the northern deciduous forest that borders the agricultural field containing Turbine 6. At the time of the of this survey, there was approximately 1 inch of standing water in the forested wetland portions of the wetland and 1 to 2 inches of flowing water within the intermittent stream channels. The perennial stream channel had approximately 3 inches of flowing water. Wetland Q – Wetland Q consists of both forested and scrub shrub wetlands. This wetland is located along the eastern side of Black Oak Road. The hydrologic input to this wetland was not observed; however, at the time of the site visit there were several inches of standing water. Surrounding uplands consist of northern deciduous forest and maintained road right-of-way. Wetland Q is likely to be considered jurisdictional by USACE. Wetland S – Wetland S is comprised of a shallow emergent marsh located south of proposed Turbine 2 on the southern boundary of an agricultural field. The shallow emergent marsh flows west from the small marsh along the edge of the agricultural field. Hydrologic input to the shallow marsh is primarily from forested wetlands to the south of the agricultural field and surface water runoff from surrounding agricultural fields. The forested wetlands to the south of the agricultural field were beyond the Project Site. Wetland S is likely to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE. The primary functions provided by these wetlands appear to include maintaining surface water flows, recharging groundwater supplies, storm water retention, flood protection and abatement, water quality improvement, wildlife habitat, and nutrient production and cycling. Many of the delineated wetlands are portions of larger systems, which may provide significant functions and values. Final jurisdiction of all impacted streams and wetlands will have to be determined by the respective regulatory agencies (NYSDEC and USACE). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 50 3.2.1.4 Floodplains and Floodways Review of FEMA Q3 Flood Hazards Data indicates the Town of Enfield is an unmapped area and, therefore, is classified as a Zone D - Moderate, Minimal Hazard Area. None of the relatively small streams within the Project Site are expected to pose a significant flood hazard. 3.2.1.5 Stormwater Stormwater runoff in the Project Site is typical for rural areas within Tompkins County. The Project Site is mostly undeveloped and land use is dominated by active agriculture, with farms and single-family rural residences generally occurring along road frontage. Forests are the dominant vegetative cover type, followed by agricultural fields, successional old fields, and successional shrubland. Elevations in the Project Site range from approximately 1,450 feet amsl along the northeast edge of the Project Site to approximately 1,960 feet amsl at Buck Hill on the southwestern edge of the Project Site. Slopes within the Project Site are generally less than 15%. 3.2.2 Potential Impacts 3.2.2.1 Groundwater Construction of the proposed Project may result in certain localized and insignificant impacts to groundwater. These impacts are identified and discussed in Tectonic’s groundwater analysis (Appendix H) and are summarized in the following section. Potential impacts identified in Tectonic’s groundwater analysis included: • Localized and temporary impacts to groundwater levels resulting from dewatering activities during excavation and construction of turbine foundations; • Insignificant impacts to groundwater from buried Project components; • Minor disturbance of groundwater recharge from the creation of impervious surfaces; • Increased turbidity in nearby wells should blasting be required; • Accidental discharge of pollutants during construction. Foundation excavations are not expected to exceed 20 feet below ground surface. In order to maintain a dry excavation, the groundwater level will likely be lowered up to five (5) feet below the depth of the excavation. Dewatering activities will temporarily lower groundwater levels within the immediate vicinity of the excavation during pumping. No impact on residential wells is expected because no turbines will be located within approximately 900 feet of a residential structure. Additionally, the pumped water will be discharged back into the Project Site allowing for Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 51 infiltration into the aquifer. Therefore, any impacts will be very localized and temporary. Because the Project Site is larger than one acre, the NYSDEC will likely require a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for the Project. As a result, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be submitted as part of the construction documents. Discharge and treatment of pumped water will be performed as stipulated in the Project SWPPP to eliminate impacts to residential potable water supplies. Groundwater data obtained by Tectonic from the NYSDEC database indicates that potable groundwater in the region can range from 12 to more than 30 feet below existing ground surface. Foundation excavations for wind turbines and substation are not anticipated to exceed 20 feet below ground surface. It has been conservatively estimated that each turbine foundation will occupy an area of approximately 0.06 acres. Because of the small area of disturbance and shallow excavation depths, foundation excavations are not expected to significantly change the characteristics of the bedrock aquifer. Excavations for buried electrical collection lines are not expected to exceed 10 feet below existing ground surface. As potable groundwater is found at depths greater than ten feet below existing ground surface, no significant impact will result from these excavations or the buried electrical lines. The substation and service roads are essentially surface features, and neither will extend to depths that would impact the aquifer or groundwater. The service roads are surface features that are not expected to disturb bedrock. The substation will likely require shallow foundations and slab on grade construction less than 5 feet below grade and, therefore, also will not significantly impact groundwater. The Project Site covers an area of approximately 1,060 acres of land. Construction of each wind turbine will result in approximately 0.02 acres of impervious surface. Considering the additional impervious surface associated with construction of the substation, a total long-term impervious surface area of 0.2 acres has been estimated for the Project Site. This conservative estimate results in a total impervious surface area of less than 0.02% of the Project Site, which will not significantly alter the recharge area of the aquifer. Additionally, because stormwater will be shed to the sides of these impervious surfaces and drain into the vegetated soils, the total quantity of water recharging the aquifer in the Project Site will not be significantly reduced as a result of construction. Bedrock in the Project Site ranges from exposed at the surface to depths of over 20 feet below existing grade and consists of Beers Hill Shale. Therefore, rock removal may be required for construction of the turbine foundations. Tectonic’s analysis of turbine sites (see Appendix D) indicates that, in areas where bedrock is encountered, it should be removable with the use of hydraulic hammers or dozer mounted rippers. Although Tectonic’s report does not Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 52 anticipate the need for blasting, a blasting plan will be developed if the need should arise. Due to the fissile nature of the Beers Hill Shale and poor water carrying capacity, blasting near existing wells could result in temporarily increased turbidity levels. In order to protect groundwater quality of existing residences, excavation of rock using explosives would not be recommended within 1/10 of a mile from any existing residence. Construction specifications should be prepared to address the need to disallow blasting. It is anticipated that concrete will be used for wind turbine and substation foundations. Because the nearest residential structure is approximately 900 feet from any proposed turbine, no significant adverse impact to groundwater quality from foundation materials will occur. Cement truck wash out will be performed as stipulated by the Project SPDES permit. Therefore, no impact to groundwater will be created by the use of concrete within the Project Site. Diesel and gasoline powered equipment and vehicles will be used in construction of the Project and normal turbine operation requires the use of hydraulic fluid. No significant quantities of other chemicals are generally used in the construction or maintenance of wind farms. Should gasoline, diesel fuel or hydraulic fluid be spilled as a result of turbine construction or maintenance, the NYSDEC spill hotline will be notified by the responsible party within two hours of the spill. Spill clean-up will be performed in accordance with NYSDEC Final Commissioner Policy, CP-51 by an experienced remediation contractor. Further, because no turbine is within 900 feet of an existing structure and the quantities of petroleum products used will be minor, it is unlikely that any existing groundwater well will be impacted if such a spill should occur. 3.2.2.2 Surface Waters and Wetlands To avoid or minimize the overall permanent impact on streams and wetlands, preliminary and final Project design will be guided by the following criteria during the siting of wind turbines and related infrastructure: • Large built components of the Project, including staging areas, wind turbine generators, and the substation, will be sited to avoid wetlands to the greatest extent practicable. • Number and overall impacts due to access road crossings will be minimized by routing around wetlands whenever possible and utilizing existing crossings and narrow crossing locations to the greatest extent practicable. • Buried electric collection lines will be sited to cross wetlands at narrow points whenever possible and will utilize installation techniques that minimize temporary wetland impacts. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 53 During construction, direct or indirect impacts to wetlands and surface waters may occur as a result of the installation of access roads, the upgrade of local public roads, the installation of buried electrical collection lines, and the development and use of temporary workspaces around the turbine sites. Direct impacts, including clearing of vegetation, earthwork (excavating and grading activities), and the direct placement of fill in wetlands and surface waters, are typically associated only with the development of access roads and workspaces. The construction of access roads, or the upgrade of local public roads, may result in both permanent (loss of wetland/surface water acreage) and temporary impacts to wetlands. The development and use of temporary workspaces may result in temporary impacts to wetlands/streams. The installation of buried electrical collection lines may temporarily disturb streams and wetlands during construction as a result of clearing (brushogging, or similar clearing method not requiring removal of rooted woody plants) and soil disturbance from burial of the electrical collection lines. In addition, it is anticipated that concrete will be used for wind turbine and substation foundations. Cement truck wash out will be performed as stipulated by the Project SPDES permit. Therefore, no impact to wetlands will occur from the use of concrete within the Project Site. Indirect impacts to wetlands and surface waters may result from sedimentation and erosion caused by construction activities (e.g., removal of vegetation and soil disturbance). These indirect impacts may occur at wetlands adjacent to work areas where no direct wetland impacts are anticipated, including areas adjacent to proposed access road upgrade/construction, buried collection lines, turbine sites, staging areas, met tower, or the substation. The construction of wind turbine foundations could potentially result in concrete being spilled into adjacent wetlands or water courses. Based on an analysis of the Project layout and the approximate wetland boundaries, approximately 0.46 acre of temporary wetland/stream impacts are anticipated to occur due to Project construction. These impacts will involve temporary placement of fill to accommodate proposed Project access road construction and temporary soil disturbance associated with the installation of buried electrical collection lines. Following Project construction, if any wetland areas are temporarily impacted, such areas will be restored. Restoration is anticipated to include the following: • To the extent any 200-foot radius turbine workspace cannot avoid a wetland area, such temporary workspace will be reduced to a footprint of 0.2 acre (60-foot by 100-foot gravel crane pad, 18-foot diameter turbine pedestal, and a 6-foot wide gravel skirt around the tower base) thereby allowing restoration of the wetland area. It should be noted, however, that turbine work spaces will be shifted to avoid temporarily impacting wetlands to the greatest extent practicable. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 54 • 40-foot wide access roads will be reduced to maximum width of 25 feet (except where unstable soil conditions or severe erosion hazard preclude restoration). • Buried electrical collection line routes will be allowed to regenerate naturally. In addition, during all aspects of construction, any stockpiled soil and/or spoil material will only be temporary (i.e., spread and graded to match original contours following construction activities). Proper methods for segregating stockpiled and spoil material will be implemented, and excavated soil will be reused to the maximum extent possible on the site that it was excavated from, as a means to limit opportunities for proliferation of non-native flora and other invasive species. The Black Oak Wind Farm will utilize an Invasive Species Control Plan (ISCP) to minimize the spread of invasive species within federal and state regulated wetlands, streams, and other riparian areas affected by wind development activities on-Site. The goal of the ISCP is to prevent expansion of invasive species. The ISCP is described in more detail in Section 3.4.3.1, and is attached to this DEIS as Appendix J. In addition, appropriate sediment and erosion control measures (see Section 3.2.4.3 for additional information) will be implemented, which will ensure that temporarily stockpiled soil and/or spoil material will not result in significant sedimentation or turbidity to local surface waters. Permanent impacts to surface waters and wetlands (loss of surface water/wetland acreage) will result from the footprint of permanent access roads necessary to accommodate long-term maintenance and operation activities. Based upon the preliminary layout, the permanent footprint of access roads (assumed to be a maximum of 15-feet wide) is anticipated to result in 0.01 acre of permanent impacts to wetlands/streams. Wetlands P, Q, and S will not be impacted by Project construction or operation. The following wetland/stream crossings are anticipated: • Wetland C will be crossed by the permanent access road to Turbine 7 and a co-located, buried electrical collection line. • Wetland E will be crossed by the permanent access road to Turbines 1 and 3 and co-located, buried electrical collection line. • Wetland J will be crossed by the permanent access road to Turbine 4 and a co-located, buried electrical collection line. • Wetland K will be crossed by the permanent access road to Turbine 4 and co-located, buried electrical collection line. • Wetland O will be crossed by the permanent access road to Turbines 1 and 3 and co-located, buried electrical collection line. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 55 Because a formal wetland and stream delineation has not been conducted, impacts by wetland or stream community type are not yet determined. Impacts to each wetland type will be determined subsequent to field verification during the wetland delineation process, which will be conducted prior to Project approval. A formal wetland delineation will be presented as part of a FEIS. Impacts to surface waters and wetlands primarily occur during Project construction. The operation of the constructed facility is not anticipated to have significant adverse impacts to wetlands, streams, or other surface waters within the Project Site. Vehicular access to the turbines, substation, and met tower will be completely established during Project construction, and routine operation and maintenance procedures are not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts. Minor and isolated incidences of impact may occur, which could have a minimal impact to surface waters or wetlands in or adjacent to the Project Site, including buried electrical collection line maintenance, access road washouts, culvert replacement/maintenance, or accidental fuel/chemical spills. In addition, during Project decommissioning, access roads will need to be widened to allow access for large trucks and cranes to turbines, resulting in temporary impacts. Also, in the event of a catastrophic event (e.g., turbine fire, blowdown, blade failure), when large trucks and cranes may again need to access all or portions of the Project Site, temporary impacts to wetlands will occur. 3.2.2.3 Floodplains and Floodways No FEMA-regulated floodplains or floodway areas are present in the Project Site. Therefore, Project construction will not directly impact any floodplains. In addition, flooding to local roads as a result of the Project is not anticipated. Indirect impacts to floodplains could result from soil sedimentation caused by construction activities, such as soil disturbance and the removal of vegetation. However, given the distance that floodplains lie from the Project Site, and with the implementation of mitigation measures that have proven effective at keeping soil sedimentation at very low levels, no adverse impacts to floodways are anticipated. 3.2.2.4 Stormwater The NYSDEC Stormwater Interactive Mapper indicates the eastern half of the Project Site lies within the Oswego River/Finger Lakes Watershed, which is classified as an AA/AAS watershed. However, Project components have been sited such that soils with a slope class of E or F are avoided entirely. As a result, Project impacts within the watershed will not require an individual SPDES Stormwater Permit. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 56 The proposed Project will not result in wide-scale conversion of land to built/impervious surfaces. Consequently, no significant changes to the rate or volume of stormwater runoff are anticipated. However, installation of permanent Project components could result in localized changes to runoff/drainage patterns. At the detailed design stage the Project Sponsor will validate this assessment using proprietary runoff forecasting computer software (Vflo™ or similar) to determine whether additional mitigations are likely to manage any stormwater run-off impacts arising from the construction of the Project. The FEIS will present additional mapping and site-specific information on stormwater flows, as available, based on engineering completed in support of SWPPP/SPDES General Permit. During detailed design, the exact locations of such measures will be determined and depicted on the Project sediment and erosion control drawing set. Nevertheless, specific means of avoiding or minimizing stormwater-related adverse impacts during construction and operation of the Project include adhering to a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan and the stormwater requirements set forth in the SPDES regulations. Culverts and waterbars will be installed to maintain natural drainage patterns. Appropriately sized culverts (minimum 12 inch) will be placed in any wetland/stream crossings in accordance with state and federal permit requirements. In other locations, culverts may also be used to assure that the roads do not impede cross drainage and to provide stormwater control. If culverts are required during Project construction, the Project Sponsor will provide drainage design and calculations to the County or Town for review. Any ditches or other water conveyance structures will be assessed prior to any disturbance to determine if they are part of a stream or wetland and subject to USACE jurisdiction. Where Project construction is adjacent to, or cross, wetlands, streams or drainage ditches/swales, appropriate sediment and erosion control measures will be installed and maintained according to the Project-specific NYSDEC-approved SWPPP for the Project. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures 3.2.3.1 Groundwater Tectonic’s groundwater analysis report provides the following minimization and mitigation recommendations: • As the Project Site is over 1 acre in size, a NYSDEC SPDES permit will be required during construction of the proposed Project. Any water pumped from the ground as a result of dewatering excavations will be treated and discharged as stipulated in the SPDES permit. Temporary impacts to the local shallow groundwater due to pumping will not be significant; therefore, no mitigation is required. • The Project will not require a potable water source and therefore will not withdraw any water from the aquifer. As no potable water is anticipated for use at the Project, no mitigation for water withdrawals is required. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 57 • The construction and presence of each individual wind turbine will not impact the aquifer more significantly than a new residential property. Further, the total area of impervious surface created by the construction of the Project has been conservatively estimated to be less than 0.02% of the total acreage comprising the Project Site. Based on this limited impact, no mitigation is required. • Hydraulic hammers or dozer-mounted rippers should be used to reach the minimum foundation depth in areas were bedrock is encountered. Tectonic’s Geotechnical Report (Appendix D) indicates that blasting should not be necessary; however, a blasting plan will be developed if the need should arise. In order to mitigate potential impacts from blasting, it is recommended that no blasting of bedrock be performed in the Project Site with 1/10 mile of an existing residence. The Project specifications should be prepared to include this limitation on the use of blasting. • Groundwater could be impacted as the result of accidental spills due to construction and maintenance activities. Project specifications should include measures for contractors to mitigate these potential impacts. These measures should include requiring the contractor to maintain good housekeeping practices throughout the Project, perform vehicle maintenance and refueling on impervious surfaces, and keep a spill cleanup kit readily available near refueling and maintenance areas during construction activities. Further, after construction is complete a spill cleanup kit should be maintained at a central location for use during maintenance activities. Finally, the project specifications should require the contractor to comply with all applicable NYSDEC spill regulations. 3.2.3.2 Surface Waters and Wetlands As stated above, in the first instance the Project Sponsor will mitigate any potential for impact to surface waters (streams) and wetlands by siting Project components to avoid these resources to the greatest extent practicable. To mitigate for any unavoidable permanent wetland and stream impacts above permitted thresholds, associated with the Project, the Project Sponsor will undertake a suitable on-site or off-site compensatory mitigation project, and may include the creation of in-kind wetland at a ratio of 1.5 to 1 (mitigation to impact). This compensatory mitigation project will be developed in consultation with the USACE and NYSDEC during the Joint Application for Permit process. In addition, the final mitigation area will include any currently undetermined wetland/stream impacts, such as those areas associated with public road improvement efforts. Insofar as the final location of Project components may be adjusted in response to agency and public comments on this DEIS, such compensatory mitigation projects will be included in the FEIS for this Project. No compensatory mitigation for indirect or temporary impacts to wetlands or streams is proposed because these impacts will not result in any loss of wetland acreage. However, to the extent that Project activities may result in Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 58 other temporary direct and indirect impacts to wetlands/streams (other than loss of wetland acreage which will not occur as a result of temporary impacts), such impacts will be minimized during construction as discussed below. The direct impacts to wetlands/streams will be minimized by utilizing existing or narrow crossing locations whenever possible. Upgrading existing crossings that are under-maintained/undersized will have a long-term beneficial effect on water quality, as it will help to keep not only Project-related components from disturbing surface waters, but also farm equipment and other vehicles that are unrelated to the Project and currently operate in the Project Site. Special crossing techniques, equipment restrictions, herbicide use restrictions, and erosion and sedimentation control measures will be utilized to reduce adverse impacts to water quality, surface water hydrology, and aquatic organisms. In addition, clearing of vegetation along stream banks and in wetland areas will be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Where crossings of surface waters and wetlands are required, the Project Sponsor will employ the Best Management Practices associated with particular, applicable streamside and wetland activities, as recommended by the NYSDEC and the USACE, and required by the issued wetland/waters permits. Specific mitigation measures for protecting wetlands and surface water resources will include the following: • No Equipment Access Areas. Wetlands, streams, and waterbodies will be designated “No Equipment Access,” thus prohibiting the use of motorized equipment in these areas except where crossed by permitted access roads. • Restricted Activities Area. A buffer zone of 100 feet, referred to as “Restricted Activities Area,” will be established where Project construction traverses streams, wetlands and other bodies of water. Restrictions will include: o No deposition of slash within or adjacent to a waterbody; o No accumulation of construction debris within the area; o Herbicide restrictions within 100 feet of a stream or wetland (or as required per manufacturer’s instructions); o No degradation of stream banks; o No equipment washing or refueling within the area; and o No storage of any petroleum or chemical material. • Access Through Wetlands - When crossing wetlands, routing around edges, utilizing higher ground, and crossing the narrowest portion of the wetland will be the preferred crossing options. Wherever feasible, low impact crossing methods will be used, such as timber mats or similar materials. Geotextile mats, corduroy, and/or gravel may also be used to create temporary wetland road widening. Where permanent roadways Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 59 are installed and impoundment of water is possible, the installation of culverts will maintain the natural water levels/flows on each side of the road. • Streams – The Project Sponsor will adhere to any permit special conditions pertaining to low-impact stream crossing techniques, including seasonal restrictions and/or alternative stream crossing methods, such as temporary bridging and installation of crossings "in the dry" on protected streams. Open-bottomed or elliptical culverts could be required on certain streams to minimize loss of aquatic habitat and restriction of fish passage. Adherence to these restrictions should avoid or minimize any adverse impacts on fish and other aquatic organisms. • Sediment and Siltation Control – A soil erosion and sedimentation control plan will be developed and implemented as part of the SPDES General Permit for the Project. To protect surface waters, wetlands, groundwater and stormwater quality, silt fences and temporary siltation basins will be installed and maintained throughout Project development. Exposed soil will be seeded and/or mulched to assure that erosion and siltation is kept to a minimum along the wetland boundaries. Refer to specific control measures specified in the Project Preliminary SWPPP included as Appendix F. The location of these features will be indicated on construction drawings and reviewed by the contractor and environmental monitor prior to construction. To assure impacts are minimized to the maximum extent practicable, sediment and erosion control measures will be implemented wherever project construction occurs within, or adjacent to, wetlands and/or streams. In addition, a Final SWPPP will be implemented during construction. The Environmental Monitor will inspect these features to assure that they function properly throughout the period of construction, and until completion of all restoration work (final grading and seeding). Although evaluated in this environmental review process pursuant to SEQRA, the potential wetland impacts previously described will also be independently evaluated during the state and federal wetland permitting process, subsequent to the wetland delineation process, hereinafter referred to as the Joint Application process. The Joint Application will fully address any adjustments to the location of Project components in response to agency and public comment on this DEIS. A wetland delineation report will be completed for the FEIS prior to Project approval. The Joint Application will be completed prior to project construction. The Joint Application will involve the following steps: 1. Submission of a final wetland delineation report to USACE and NYSDEC, along with request for jurisdictional determination by these agencies. 2. Site visits by USACE and NYSDEC representatives to both verify the boundaries of delineated wetlands and determine which wetlands are under the jurisdiction of each agency (pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 60 3. Evaluation of opportunities for further wetland impact avoidance and minimization through minor adjustments in the proposed location of Project components. 4. Preparation of a Joint Application for Permit, including an analysis of wetland functions and values, a description and quantification of wetland and stream impacts (temporary and permanent), an alternatives analysis, and suggested mitigation plans. Wetland mitigation could involve in-kind replacement of all permanently impacted wetlands at a ratio of at least 1.5 to 1 (mitigation to impact). 5. USACE and NYSDEC processing/review of the permit application, including public notice and consultation with other state and federal agencies (SHPO, EPA, USFWS). 6. Permit issuance, including conditions for wetland protection, impact minimization, mitigation, and monitoring. 7. Preparation and submittal of final wetland mitigation plans to the agencies. To assure compliance with proposed mitigation measures during construction, the Project Sponsor will provide the construction contractor copies of all NYSDEC and USACE permits (Section 404), and site specific plans detailing construction methodologies, sediment and erosion control plans, and required natural resource protection measures. An Environmental Monitor will be retained during construction to ensure compliance with all plans and permit conditions. The Project Sponsor will direct its contractors to adhere to any special conditions of permits issued by the NYSDEC and USACE, which may include low impact stream crossing techniques, seasonal restrictions, and/or alternative stream crossing methods. Wetlands temporarily disturbed during construction will be restored to their original grade. This will allow wetland areas to redevelop naturally following construction. 3.2.3.3 Floodplains and Floodways Erosion and sedimentation impacts during construction will be minimized by the implementation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan developed as part of the SPDES General Permit for the Project. These erosion and sediment control measures shall, at a minimum, include the measures set forth in the Preliminary SWPPP, provided in Appendix F. The FEIS will present additional mapping and site-specific information on stormwater flows, as available, based on engineering completed in support of SWPPP/SPDES General Permit. During detailed design, the exact locations of such measures will be determined and depicted on the Project sediment and erosion control drawing set. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 61 3.2.3.4 Stormwater Specific means of avoiding or minimizing stormwater-related adverse impacts during construction and operation of the Project include adhering to a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan and the stormwater requirements set forth in the SPDES regulations, as described in the Preliminary SWPPP (Appendix F). Erosion and sediment control practices are classified as either vegetative or structural controls. Vegetative erosion control is the system of seedbed preparation, soil amendments, plant selection, proper timing of planting, and mulching that will optimize the chances of successfully establishing vigorous, stable vegetation. Temporary seeding and mulching will be utilized on all areas that will be exposed for more than 14 days. Where soil disturbing activity has been temporarily or permanently ceased, temporary or permanent soil stabilization measures will be installed within 7 days from the date that soil disturbance activity has ceased. Permanent stabilization will be performed as soon as possible after establishment of finished grade. Structural erosion control practices are necessary when disturbed areas cannot be promptly stabilized with vegetation. Temporary practices are installed during construction and are removed after site stabilization has been completed. Permanent practices may be installed during or after construction, are an integral part of the Project design, and continue to be operated and maintained when the Project work has been completed. The complete SWPPP will include an erosion and sediment control plan that details the location and necessary dimensions for vegetative and structural measures that will be used for each stage of the Project. Retention of existing vegetation, stabilizing the land with plant materials, and the use of structural measures will be shown. Dewatering practices for use during installation of applicable project components will also be included. Construction phasing notes that relate the establishment of vegetative and structural practices and their timing relative to other construction practices, and an inspection and maintenance plan will be provided for the site. Erosion and sediment control measures will be inspected at least once every 7 days (or following significant storm events) by a person knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control until all soil disturbance has ceased and a vigorous vegetative cover or equivalent stabilization measures have been established on all disturbed areas across the Project Site. Inspections will be in accordance with the 2010 SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 62 Prior to beginning construction, the Project Owner will submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) in conformance with the current SPDES regulations and obtain authorization to commence construction activities from the NYSDEC Bureau of Water Permits in Albany. To avoid localized drainage problems, the Environmental Monitor will identify the need for ditches, water bars, culverts, and temporary sediment retention basins at each road and tower site prior to the initiation of construction. If drainage problems develop during or after construction, the Environmental Monitor will evaluate the problem (in consultation with the contractor, landowner, and/or agency representative) and recommend a solution. Corrective actions will be taken by the contractor after receiving the recommendation. 3.3 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY 3.3.1 Existing Condition 3.3.1.1 Climatic Conditions The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maintains and monitors National Water and Climate Centers (NWCC) in numerous locations throughout the United States, including Ithaca (Cornell University), New York, approximately 7 miles northeast of the Project Site. This NWCC substation has collected temperature and precipitation data from 1971 through 2000. Based upon the compiled 30-year averages, the average daily maximum temperature in Ithaca is 55.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and the average daily minimum is 36.3°F. Historically, January is the coldest month with an average daily temperature of 22.0°F, and July is the warmest with an average daily temperature of 68.4°F. Temperature extremes range from a high of 98°F to a low of -24°F. The 30-year annual average precipitation recorded in Ithaca is 37.08 inches. June, with an average monthly precipitation of 3.96 inches, is historically the wettest month of the year, and February, with an average monthly precipitation of 2.06 inches, is the driest. The 30-year average annual snowfall recorded in Ithaca is 67.3 inches. January and February are historically the snowiest months of the year with monthly averages of 18.1 inches and 14.1 inches, respectively (NRCS, not dated). 3.3.1.2 Air Quality Air quality data for New York State are published annually by the NYSDEC Division of Air Resources. The most recent summary of air quality data available for the state is the 2011 New York State Air Quality Report: Data Tables (NYSDEC, 2011). Included in this report are the most recent ambient air quality data, as well as long-term air quality Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 63 trends derived from data that have been collected and compiled from numerous state and private (e.g., industrial, utility) monitoring stations across the state. These trends are assessed by the appropriate NYSDEC region, and the Project Site is located in NYSDEC Region 7. Most of the air quality sampling points for Region 7 occur in the metropolitan Syracuse area, where sources of pollution and air quality concerns are most significant. The other Region 7 sampling points are located in Fulton/Granby and Camp Georgetown. During 2011, all of the Region 7 sampling points were within the acceptable levels established by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all tested parameters, which include sulfur dioxide, inhalable particulates, carbon monoxide, and ozone. One of the largest sources of air emissions in the vicinity of the proposed Project is the AES Cayuga coal fired power plant in the Town of Lansing (Tompkins County) approximately 14 miles north of the Project Site. Additionally, the NYSDEC listed this plant in the top ten facilities releasing mercury compounds in New York in 2000 (NYSDEC, not dated). However, no local air monitoring data is available to further characterize air quality in the vicinity of the proposed Project. 3.3.2 Potential Impacts 3.3.2.1 Construction During the site preparation and construction phases of the Project, minor, temporary adverse impacts to air quality could result from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. Such impacts could occur as a result of emissions from engine exhaust and from the generation of fugitive dust during earth moving activities and travel on unpaved roads. The increased dust and emissions will not be of a magnitude or duration that would significantly impact local air quality. However, dust in particular could cause annoyance and property damage at certain yards and residences that are adjacent to unpaved town roads or Project access roads. These impacts are anticipated to be short-term and localized and will be avoided or corrected quickly, as discussed below. 3.3.2.2 Operation In 2009, the NYSDEC Office of Air, Energy, and Climate issued a policy, Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Environmental Impact Statement that provides instructions for EISs that include a discussion of energy use or greenhouse gas emissions. According to this document, “Global climate change is emerging as one of the most important environmental challenges of our time. There is scientific consensus that human activity is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that this, in turn, is leading to serious climate changes. Climate change will continue to adversely affect the environment and natural resources of New York State, the nation, and the world.” The policy is meant to be applied to projects for which Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 64 energy use or greenhouse gas emissions have been identified as significant in a positive declaration, or as a result of scoping, are required to be discussed in an EIS. For example, projects involving fuel combustion processes account for 89% of greenhouse gas emissions in New York State. Because the proposed turbines will generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases, the policy is not applicable to the Black Oak Wind Project. In fact, the policy recommends incorporating renewable energy sources such as wind or solar as a mitigation measure for greenhouse gas generation (NYSDEC, 2009b). The operation of this Project is anticipated to have a positive impact on air quality by annually producing 44,150 megawatt hours (MWh) (assuming seven 1.8 MW turbines operating at 40% NCF annually) of electricity with zero emissions, except very small emissions from vehicles servicing the facilities. Power delivered to the grid from this Project can off-set the generation of energy at existing conventional power plants, as referred in Section 2.3. Based on emissions rates for the average fuel mix in the Upstate New York Region (EPA, 2012), this 44,150 MWh wind farm is estimated to annually displace: • 17,660 pounds of NOx • 43,267 pounds of SO2 • 21,986,700 pounds of CO2 The operation of this Project is not anticipated to have any measurable effect on climate. Some recent studies have suggested that there may be minor impacts to microclimates within 0.5 mile of wind turbines. Modeling conducted by Roy, et al. (2004) suggests that large scale wind turbine installations (10,000 turbines) may have a warming effect on the local climate. During the environmental review process for a wind farm in Chautauqua, NY a study group analyzed the impacts of wind turbines on vineyard microclimates (DeGaetano, et al., 2004). This study group determined that a wind turbine could influence the ground level air temperature by no more than one degree Celsius (ºC) and concluded that there were unlikely to be significant positive or negative impacts to area vineyards as a result of this potential change in microclimate. Preliminary findings from a study conducted in Iowa, found that wind turbines produce measurable effects on the microclimate near crops due to the turbines pushing air downwards, which increases air flow below the turbines (The Ames Laboratory, 2010). However, on a larger scale, the Project represents a legitimate effort to mitigate the well-established causes of global climate change by generating up to 12.6 MW of electricity without the production of “greenhouse” gasses. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 65 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures Except for minor, short-term impacts from construction vehicles, the Project will have no adverse impacts on air quality. A dust control plan will be developed and implemented to minimize the amount of dust generated by construction activities. In accordance with this plan, the extent of exposed/disturbed areas on the site at any one time will be minimized and restored/stabilized as soon as possible. The environmental monitor will identify dust problems and report them to the construction manager and the contractor. Water will be used to wet down dusty roads (public roads as well as Project access roads) as needed throughout the duration of construction activities. In more severe cases, temporary paving (e.g. oil and stone) could be used to stabilize dusty road surfaces in certain locations. In addition, the Project Sponsor will implement a Complaint Resolution Procedure to establish an efficient process by which to report and resolve any construction (or operational) related impacts. Project operation has the potential to reduce current emissions from existing power plants. The United States generates approximately 68 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels, with the biggest contribution coming from coal, the fossil fuel with the highest carbon dioxide content per unit of electricity produced (United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2012). A detailed analysis by the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest Laboratory in 1991 estimated the energy potential of the United States wind resource at 10.8 trillion kilowatt-hours (kWh) annually, or more than three times total U.S. electricity consumption in 1996 (Elliot et. al., 1991; USDOE, 1997). Every 10,000 MW of wind installed can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 33 million metric tons (MMT) annually if it replaces coal-fired generating capacity, or 21 MMT if it replaces generation from the United States average fuel mix (San Martin, 1989). The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that wind energy has the potential to reach 20% of the total installed generating capacity in the United States by 2030. If this target is achieved, wind would reduce national carbon dioxide emissions by 825 MMT annually (NREL, 2008). The PSC has estimated that achievement of the State's RPS goal will reduce New York State emissions of NOx by approximately 4,000 tons per year, emissions of SO2 by approximately 10,000 tons per year, and emissions of CO2 by approximately 4,129,000 tons per year (PSC, 2004b). Thus, by contributing to this effort, the Project will have an incremental and long-term beneficial impact on climate and air quality. This benefit should be viewed as mitigation for other environmental impacts associated with the Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 66 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4.1 Existing Condition 3.4.1.1 Vegetation Plant species and communities found within the Project Site were identified and characterized during field surveys conducted by edr during the fall of 2011. A total of 60 plant species were documented within the Project Site during these field surveys. A list of these species, as well as others likely to occur in the area, including scientific names, is included in Appendix K. All of the plant species identified during the course of field surveys are common to the region and the state. 3.4.1.1.1 Ecological Communities Vegetative communities within the Project Site were mapped based on interpretation of aerial photography and field verification. Community boundaries were then digitized, and approximate acreages were calculated through the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis. All identified ecological communities within the Project Site are depicted on Figure 9. Wetlands and surface waters within the Project Site have been quantified and described separately (see Section 3.2). All of the major plant communities found within the Project Site are common to New York State. Forestland and agricultural land are the dominant community types within the Project Site, while successional communities (shrubland, forest, and old field), open water, and developed/disturbed lands occur to a lesser extent. Brief descriptions of these ecological community types, as classified and described in Ecological Communities of New York State (Reschke, 1990), are provided below. Forestland constitutes the largest ecological community type within the Project Site, comprising a total of approximately 459 acres (43%). Forests within the Project Site most closely resemble the hemlock northern hardwood forest (258 acres), beech maple mesic forest (184 acres), and Appalachian oak-hickory forest (17 acres) described by Reschke (1990). Forests typically occur on steeper hillsides and narrow valleys, or as woodlots adjacent to agricultural areas. The hemlock northern hardwood forests on-site are dominated by eastern hemlock, along with American beech, sugar maple, red maple, black cherry, white pine, yellow birch, and red oak. The percentage of hemlock cover is variable, ranging from nearly pure stands in some steep ravines to as little as 20% of the canopy cover in other areas. The beech maple mesic forests observed on-site consist of a closed-canopy hardwood forest with co-dominating sugar maple and American beech, along with low density of eastern hemlock. Although not observed during the fall site visit, this community typically has an abundance of herbaceous plants Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 67 present, especially during the spring time flowering season. Occurrence of Appalachian oak-hickory forest is limited within the Project Site, and is dominated by white, red, and black oaks, along with various hickories. Agricultural land constitutes the second largest community on the Project Site, with approximately 266 acres (25%) of the land in row crops, field crops, or pastureland. Corn is the primary row crop. Hayfields are typically rotated into (and out of) row crop production (typically corn), and less often into pastureland. Consequently, the percentage in each agricultural type is constantly changing. Pastureland is used for the grazing of dairy cows and horses, and is typically characterized by mixed grasses and broad-leafed herbaceous species, including clovers, plantains, and dandelion. Successional old field constitutes approximately 137 acres (13%) of the Project Site, and is defined by Reschke (1990) as “a meadow dominated by forbs and grasses that occurs on sites that have been cleared and plowed (for farming or development), and then abandoned.” This ecological community is scattered throughout the Project Site, primarily along field edges or in abandoned agricultural fields. Species found in these areas include typical old-field grasses such as orchard grass and timothy. Broad-leaved herbaceous species typically found in old fields include goldenrods, clovers, common milkweed, thistles, asters, Queen Anne’s lace, and burdock. Shrubs (including multiflora rose, gray dogwood, and buckthorn) are also components of this community, but represent less than 50% of total vegetative cover. Successional shrubland occurs on approximately 72 acres (7%) of the Project Site, and is frequently associated with old fields and young forestland on the periphery of agricultural areas. Shrubland areas are commonly found in poorly drained areas, on steep slopes, or other areas that limit agricultural production. Herbaceous species similar to those found in successional old fields occur in this community. However, shrub species such as buckthorn, hawthorn, blackberry, and multiflora rose dominate. Scrub-shrub wetlands were described in Section 3.2, and are dominated by species such as willows, dogwoods, and alder. Successional northern hardwood forest occurs on approximately 62 acres (6%) of the Project Site. This community occurs on sites that have been cleared, but are regenerating. According to Reschke (1990), “A characteristic feature of successional forests is the lack of reproduction of the canopy species. Most of the tree seedlings and saplings in a successional forest are species are more shade-tolerant than the canopy species.” Dominant tree species observed in successional northern hardwood forests on-site include gray birch, quaking aspen, white pine, and red maple. The Project Site also includes approximately 66 acres (6%) of disturbed/developed land. This community is a combination of several "cultural communities" defined by Reschke (1990), and is characterized by the presence of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 68 buildings, paved areas, and lawns. Vegetation in these areas is generally either lacking or highly managed (i.e., mowed lawns or plants seeded along roadsides for erosion control). Volunteer vegetation in these areas is generally sparse, and comprised of old-field, often non-native, herbaceous species such as dandelion, thistle, ragweed, burdock, common mullein, and various upland grasses. 3.4.1.1.2 Significant Natural Communities/Rare Plant Species The USFWS hosts a website designed to assist applicants in determining the possible occurrence of species protected under the 1973 Endangered Species Act. The list includes all such species known to occur in a given county, as well as those likely to occur there. edr accessed this online database on May 16, 2012 and January 25, 2013. The resulting species list for Tompkins County is presented in Appendix L. According to the USFWS online database, no federally-listed threatened or endangered plant species (or any proposed for listing) have been documented to occur in Tompkins County. Written requests for information regarding listed threatened and endangered plant species and unique or significant natural communities were sent to the NY Natural Heritage Program (NHP) on September 8, 2011 and January 29, 2013. According to the responses from the NYSDEC (see Appendix L for Agency Correspondence), no unique or significant natural communities have been documented in the area. However, the NHP database includes records of one state-listed endangered plant species in the vicinity of the Project Site, Hooker’s orchid (Planthera hookeri). Hooker’s orchid is found in dry to moist woodlands and forests with open understories, particularly those dominated by poplar and pine. There has been a precipitous decline in populations of this orchid across the state, especially since the 1950s. In the first half of the 20th century, 36 new populations were found, but only 11 in the second half of the century, and none since the year 2000. By the 1970s only five populations were known statewide, and only two survive today (NHP, 2011a). The NHP database indicates that the population of Hooker’s orchid in the vicinity of the Project Site was last observed in 1916, and is considered historical. Recent attempts to re-locate the population have been unsuccessful; notes from these surveys indicate that the habitat is degraded. Field investigations conducted by edr during the course of ecological surveys and wetland reconnaissance confirmed that the Project Site is dominated by common ecological communities. No listed threatened and endangered plant species, or unique or significant natural communities were observed on the Project Site. Although the timing of the surveys (late fall and winter) did not allow for identification of all plant species, typical indicators or possible rare plant occurrence (e.g., rich woodlands, prairie remnants, limestone outcrops, fens, etc.) were not observed. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 69 3.4.1.1.3 Invasive Plant Species An invasive species is an organism that has been purposefully or accidentally introduced outside its original geographic range, and is able to proliferate and aggressively alter its new environment, potentially causing harm to the economy, environment, or human health. Invasive plant species spread in a number of different ways. Dispersal mechanisms include wind, water, wildlife, vegetative reproduction, and human activity. Populations of invasive species typically establish most readily in places where the ground has been disturbed, thereby exposing the soil. Field surveys identified the following invasive species within the Project Site: reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea), black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), and smooth buckthorn (Frangula alnus). Because invasive species populations often expand rapidly, the on-site ecological surveys did not delineate the current extent of existing invasive plant populations. This task will be completed closer to the start of construction activities. The Invasive Species Control Plan, described in Section 3.4.3.1 and attached as Appendix J, includes a baseline survey to document the aerial coverage of invasive species within the Project Site. 3.4.1.2 Fish and Wildlife Fish and wildlife resources within the Project Site were identified through analysis of existing data sources, on-site field surveys, correspondence received from the NHP, and on-site avian and bat studies prepared by Old Bird, Inc. (Old Bird) and Integrated Environmental Data, LLC (IEDat). The on-site studies conducted by Old Bird and IEDat were prepared according to the Proposed Work Plan for Bird and Bat Preconstruction Studies for the Black Oak Wind Farm (Work Plan), which calls for raptor migration surveys, diurnal bird movement surveys, bat acoustic surveys, breeding bird surveys, and risk assessment (Old Bird, 2011). The protocols for the site-specific studies proposed within the work plan closely follow the “standard pre-construction studies” described in the NYSDEC’s (2009b) Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects. The NYSDEC approved the Project-specific Work Plan on July 11, 2011 (see Agency Correspondence in Appendix L). In most aspects, the details of the Project-specific Work Plan and the “standard pre-construction studies” described in the NYSDEC Guidelines coincide with the pre-construction studies recommended by the USFWS in a letter dated August 12, 2010. In this correspondence, which was provided as a comment on the Draft Scoping Document, the USFWS referenced their 2003 Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines, and recommended pre-construction studies to be conducted at the Project Site. Specific studies recommended by the USFWS include migratory bird surveys, a radar study, acoustic surveys, and breeding bird surveys. Radar studies have not been completed at the Project Site. It should be noted that the NYSDEC recommends radar studies only for project sites proximate to landscape features or ecological resources that would increase the likelihood of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 70 substantial adverse impacts to bird and/or bat resources. Examples of such conditions include sites within 5 miles of the Atlantic Coast or Great Lakes, sites within 40 miles of a major bat hibernaculum, or sites in the vicinity of a National Wildlife Refuge (NYSDEC, 2009a), none of which apply to the Black Oak Project Site. With the exception of the radar study, the studies recommended by the USFWS have been completed and are described below. A total of 83 wildlife species (or sign of these species, such as identifiable tracks and/or scat) were observed within the Project Site during on-site field surveys conducted during 2009, 2010, and 2011. However, based on existing data sources and observed habitat conditions, it is estimated that over 350 different species could potentially be found at some time within the Project Site. These species of wildlife, including scientific names, are listed in Appendix K. More specific information is presented below regarding birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, fish, wildlife habitat, and listed threatened and endangered species within the Project Site. 3.4.1.2.1 Birds To determine the type and number of bird species present within the Project Site, existing data sources were consulted and on-site field surveys were conducted. Sources of information included the following: • USGS Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). • NYS Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA). • Audubon Christmas Bird Count (CBC). • On-site breeding bird surveys conducted by Old Bird during 2011 (see Appendix M). • On-site raptor migration surveys conducted by Old Bird during 2010 and 2011 (see Appendix M). • On-site diurnal bird movement surveys conducted by Old Bird during 2010 (see Appendix M). • Avian Risk Assessment prepared by Old Bird (see Appendix M). • On-site observations by edr ecologists during the fall of 2011 (see Appendix N). Protocols for the on-site avian and bat studies were developed in consultation with the NYSDEC (see the Proposed Work Plan for Bird and Bat Preconstruction Studies provided in Appendix O). Based on existing data, on-site investigations, existing habitat conditions, and species range, it appears that approximately 230 avian species could use the Project Site at some time throughout a given year (Appendix K). Details on the Project Site's avian community are presented below: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 71 Breeding Birds The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), overseen by the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center of the USGS, is a long-term, large-scale, international avian monitoring program that tracks the status and trends of North American bird populations. Each survey route is 24.5 miles long, with 3-minute point counts conducted at 0.5-mile intervals. During the point counts, every bird seen or heard within a 0.25-mile radius is recorded. The Trumansburg survey route is approximately 4.8 miles northeast of the nearest turbine. A total of 120 different species were recorded, mostly common birds of forest, forest edge, woodland, old field, grassland, and wetland habitats. The most commonly observed species include red-winged blackbird, European starling, American robin, American crow, song sparrow, common grackle, house sparrow, northern cardinal, mourning dove, chipping sparrow, barn swallow, rock dove, common yellowthroat, house wren, gray catbird, American goldfinch, and yellow warbler. No federally-listed endangered or threatened species were observed. State-listed species observed include northern harrier and Henslow’s sparrow, both threatened in New York State. In addition, eight species of special concern were observed on the BBS route: Cooper's hawk, golden-winged warbler, grasshopper sparrow, horned lark, red-headed woodpecker, red-shouldered hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and vesper sparrow (Sauer et al., 2011). The BBA is a comprehensive, statewide survey that indicates the distribution of breeding birds in New York State. Each block covers an area of 5-square kilometers. The turbine locations proposed for the Project Site occur with survey blocks 3569B and 3569D. The species totals for these blocks are 69 and 92 species, respectively, for a combined total of 112 unique species. The species composition indicated by the BBA is very similar to that indicated by the BBS, with the majority of the species being typical of the mixed forest, successional communities, and agricultural habitats that dominate the Project Site and surrounding area. BBA data indicate the presence of one state-listed threatened species (northern harrier) and six New York species of special concern (Cooper's hawk, horned lark, osprey, red-shouldered hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and vesper sparrow). No federally-listed threatened or endangered species were recorded in either survey block (NYSDEC, 2012). On-site breeding bird surveys were conducted by Old Bird during June 2011 to provide site-specific information on nesting birds at the Project Site (see Appendix M). The point count survey methodology, modeled after the USGS North American Breeding Bird Survey, was used to document the number of individuals of each species at 12 sample points. Surveys were timed to coincide with the hours of peak bird singing activity, between 5 and 10 AM. On June 7 and June 28, each point count was surveyed for 10 minutes, during which all visual and audible observations of birds were documented. A total of 43 breeding species were documented at the point counts, and one additional breeding species (ruffed grouse) was observed with young between point counts. Seven further species were documented as flyovers, but were not on breeding territory. The breeding species detected most frequently were red-eyed vireo, American robin, ovenbird, song sparrow, black-capped chickadee, eastern towhee, common yellowthroat, brown- Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 72 headed cowbird, chipping sparrow, and wood thrush. One adult male Cooper’s hawk, listed by the state of NY as a species of special concern, was observed on June 28, 2011. In addition to the point count surveys, a visual survey for juvenile northern harriers (state-listed as threatened) was conducted on August 20, 2011. Although no juveniles were documented, one adult male northern harrier was observed. No other rare, threatened, or endangered species were observed during the breeding bird survey (Old Bird, 2012a). Migrating Raptors Geography and topography are the major factors shaping raptor migration dynamics. The Project Site is located in the Eastern Continental Hawk Flyway, which extends from the Canadian Maritimes south to eastern Florida. Within this large area, raptors tend to concentrate along linear ridges, which create updrafts or “thermals” that raptors use to fly long distances with minimal exertion. Due to the northeast to southwest orientation of the northern North American coast and mountain ranges, hawks in eastern Canada and New England generally fly south/southwest to their wintering grounds in the fall and north/northeast to breeding grounds in the spring (HMANA, 2012). Old Bird conducted diurnal raptor migration surveys during 2010 and 2011 to characterize raptor activity at the Project Site, and to document species-specific flight and behavioral patterns in the area (see Appendix M). Raptor surveys were conducted primarily from a field in the south-central portion of the Project Site, with supplemental observations conducted from a second position northeast of the Project Site. Days with favorable flight conditions were targeted, typically days with clear or high cloud ceiling and winds in the seasonally favorable migration direction (south-southwest in the fall and north-northeast in the spring). The observer scanned the sky and surrounding landscape for raptors flying in the Project Site using 11 x 80 binoculars mounted on a tripod. Survey days monitored only 2-4 hours unless sustained raptor flight was noted, in which case surveys were conducted for the majority of the day. Detailed notes on each observation were recorded, including flight direction and altitude (Old Bird, 2012b). A total of 12 days of fall surveys were conducted, with six survey days between October 2 and November 6, 2010, and six surveys days between August 23 and September 26, 2011. The months of September and October were targeted to coincide with the peak period of fall migration for a range of raptor species. There were 60 hours of observation during the fall survey. A total of 297 raptors representing 14 species were observed, yielding an average observation rate of 4.95 birds/hour. Turkey vultures, broad-winged hawks, and red-tailed hawks were the most abundant species observed, accounting for 29%, 28%, and 23% of all raptor observations, respectively. Ninety-five percent of raptors were flying to the south and southwest. State-listed species observed during the fall raptor survey included one endangered species (golden eagle), two threatened species (bald eagle and northern harrier), and four species of special concern (sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, red-shouldered hawk, and osprey). No federally- listed threatened or endangered species were observed (Old Bird, 2012b). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 73 Spring raptor surveys occurred on 15 days from March 11 to May 23, 2011, during the peak period of spring migration for a range of raptor species. There were 72 hours of observation during the spring survey. A total of 393 raptors representing 14 species were observed, yielding an average observation rate of 5.5 birds/hour. Broad- winged hawks, turkey vultures, and red-tailed hawks were the most abundant species observed, accounting for 33%, 27%, and 13% of all raptor observations, respectively. Ninety-three percent of raptors were flying to the north and northeast. State-listed species observed during the spring raptor survey included two endangered species (golden eagle and peregrine falcon), two threatened species (bald eagle and northern harrier), and four species of special concern (sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, red-shouldered hawk, and osprey). No federally-listed threatened or endangered species were observed (Old Bird, 2012b). The flight height of raptors in both fall and spring surveys indicate that raptors at the Project Site fly within the blade swept zone of the proposed turbines, with 49-54% of birds flying at altitudes below 495 feet (150 meters). Old Bird reviewed the results of publicly available raptor surveys conducted for other wind projects in the region. Passage rates observed during these similar studies ranged from 2.7 to 6.2 birds/hour in the fall, and from 3 to 5.7 birds/hour in the spring, with 51-83% of raptors flying below turbine height. It should be noted that quantitative statistics from a single year of this type of raptor migration survey are highly variable depending on weather dynamics and annual variations in the flow of migrant raptors from year to year. However, results from the raptor migration study at the Project Site appear to be consistent with the observations made during raptor migration surveys at other wind farms in the region (Old Bird, 2012b). Migrating Loons The common loon is listed by the State of New York as a species of Special Concern. A study conducted in the early 1990s at Taughannock State Park, approximately 8 miles north-northeast of the Project Site, documented the largest vector of migrating loons in North America. On mornings with northerly winds and adequate visibility from mid- October through early December, loons arise from Cayuga Lake and the Sodus Bay area of Lake Ontario. Flight begins before sunrise with the peak flight of Lake Ontario birds usually passing over in the second hour after sunrise. Most of the migrating loons appear not follow the course of Cayuga Lake past Taughannock State Park (where Cayuga Lake veers to the southeast), but continue southbound overland toward an apparent destination in the mid- Atlantic (e.g., Chesapeake Bay). In so doing, they soon encounter the higher terrain of the northern reaches of the Appalachian/Allegheny Plateau (Old Bird, 2012c). To investigate the flight dynamics of common loon through the Project Site, Old Bird conducted a diurnal bird movement study was conducted during the fall of 2010 (see Appendix M). Surveys were conducted on five mornings Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 74 with good conditions for common loon migration in late October and November 2010. Observations were made using 11 x 80 binoculars on a tripod from the corner of Connecticut Hill Road and Rumsey Hill Road, just east of the Project Site. The sky to the north and east of the project was scanned for common loons and other migratory birds. The sky overhead was also scanned with the naked eye. The surveys began one half hour after sunrise and lasted for two hours. The primary focus was on assessing numbers of common loons migrating through the Project Site, their altitude above ground level, and their flight direction (Old Bird, 2012c). A total of 49 loons were detected over the three survey days, with no loons observed the other two survey days. Loons were documented in small numbers (0-23 per survey day) compared to the numbers of loons documented on the same days by birders in the southern Cayuga flyway to the east. The vast majority of loons observed were flying above the rotor swept zone of the proposed turbines with 82% flying above 984 feet (300 meters) and 14% flying between 495 and 984 feet (150-300 meters). Two loons (4%) were observed flying at altitudes below 495 feet (150 meters), within the rotor swept zone of the proposed turbines. Both of these individuals were circling under low cloud ceiling with light snow and limited visibility. All other loons observed in the survey were flying in straight-line southerly directions (Old Bird, 2012c). The fall 2010 loon migration surveys at the Project Site did not document large numbers of loons. It appears that the main concentration of migrating loons passing over Taughannock State Park continue their flight southward to the east of the Project Site. This is what might be expected based on the observed direction of flight (south) of migrant common loons as they pass over Taughannock State Park and vicinity; such a vector would take those masses of higher-altitude migrant loons about 5 km east of the Project Site (Old Bird, 2012c). Wintering Birds Use of the Project Site by wildlife during the winter months is likely somewhat limited. Food for most birds, especially woodland birds, is likely to be scarce at this time, and therefore, a low diversity and density of wintering birds would be expected. Those bird species that can be expected to consistently occur within the Project Site (i.e., occur during most winters), such as dark-eyed juncos, are generally common and abundant both on a regional and continental scale. Irruptive species, such as short-eared or snowy owls, generally have smaller populations, but their presence in the area is likely inconsistent and often brief. The Audubon Christmas Bird Count (CBC) involves volunteer birders traveling prescribed routes within specific count circles that are 15 miles (24 km) in diameter. Every bird seen or heard within that survey area is documented. The count is conducted annually, on a single day between December 14th and January 5th. Data from the CBC are used Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 75 in combination with data from other surveys, such as the BBS and BBA, to determine how bird populations are changing over time (National Audubon Society, 2010). Review of the Audubon CBC data collected in the vicinity of the Project Site documented numerous avian species commonly seen throughout the region during the winter. Portions of the Ithaca and Watkins Glen Count Circles are located approximately 3.2 miles east and 2.2 miles west of the Project Site, respectively. Over the last ten years, the number of birds observed in these count circles ranged between 60 and 94 species per year, with a total of 134 unique species recorded. The most common wintering bird species observed were European starling, Canada goose, black-capped chickadee, American crow, rock dove, ring-billed gull, house sparrow, mallard, cedar waxwing, pine siskin, evening grosbeak, American robin, herring gull, mourning dove, and house finch. The following state- listed species were also documented: golden eagle, peregrine falcon, and short-eared owl (endangered); bald eagle, northern harrier, and pied-billed grebe (threatened); and common loon, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, northern goshawk, red-shouldered hawk, red-headed woodpecker, and horned lark (species of concern). No federally-listed endangered or threatened species were recorded on the CBC routes in the last ten years (National Audubon Society, 2010). Waterbirds Waterfowl and wading birds are not well represented amongst the breeding birds documented within or near the Project Site (Old Bird, 2012a; Sauer et al., 2011; NYSDEC, 2012). There are no features within or adjacent to that Project Site that would be expected to attract high numbers of migrating waterbirds (e.g., large lakes, marshes, or mudflats). The nearest large water bodies are Cayuga and Seneca Lakes, located approximately 7.5 miles northeast and 8.8 miles west of the Project Site, respectively. While there are several small marshes, ponds, and streams in the vicinity of the Project Site, the area is not unique in this respect. Satellite imagery suggests that these habitat features are well distributed throughout Tompkins County. Therefore, waterbirds that use such habitats during migration will be spread throughout the landscape, not concentrated in any one area. 3.4.1.2.2 Mammals Due to a lack of existing data regarding mammals within the Project Site, the occurrence of mammalian species was documented through on-site field surveys and evaluation of available habitat. This effort suggests that approximately 40 species of mammals could occur in this area. Field surveys conducted by edr and IEDat documented the presence of 11 species within the Project Site (or signs of their occurrence such as tracks or scat). These species include gray squirrel, red squirrel, eastern chipmunk, whitetail deer, coyote, gray fox, and various bats. Species not observed, but likely to occur in the area include woodchuck, raccoon, skunk, red fox, weasels, and a variety of small Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 76 mammals (e.g., mice and shrews). All of the observed species are common and widely distributed throughout New York State. Bats Nine species of bat occur in New York State (Stegemann & Hicks, 2008). These include six species of cave bats (big brown bat, eastern small-footed myotis, little brown bat, Indiana bat, northern myotis, and tri-colored bat) and thee species of tree bats (silver-haired bat, eastern red bat, and hoary bat). Habitats utilized by these bats include wetlands, agricultural and reverting fields, forests, and developed areas with a variety of micro-habitats used for foraging, roosting, and maternity roosting. Cave bats require specialized habitats for winter hibernacula, where resident bat species congregate during hibernation periods (November through March). Identified hibernacula include limestone caves, old mines, and old well shafts, where a moderated constant temperature and humidity enable hibernating cave bats to survive over the winter. Resident bats migrate relatively short distances to these hibernacula, while migratory bat species travel farther south to warmer climates. Summer roosts are where bats rest during the day, and include buildings, exfoliating tree bark, tree cavities, rock piles, and caves depending on species- specific preferences. Tree bats roost in trees throughout the year, migrating south in winter to maintain access to their insect prey. Generally bats are solitary outside of mating and hibernation periods, although some colonial roosting does occur. The most common species of bats found in New York prior to the onset of white-nose syndrome were little brown bat, tri-colored bat, big brown bat, and eastern red bat. These species utilize a wide variety of habitat types including human-altered landscapes, and therefore are assumed to utilize the Project Site. Population levels for the remaining bat species are not as well-known, therefore, their potential occurrence and abundance in the area are much more difficult to predict. Indiana bat is a state and federally-listed endangered species, and eastern small-footed myotis is listed as a species of special concern by New York State. To characterize and document bat activity at the Project Site, IEDat conducted acoustic bat surveys within the Project Site (see Appendix P). The surveys used an Anabat II detector to record bat vocalizations from August 24 to October 9, 2009. The detector was installed at a height of 50 meters on a meteorological tower. Calls recorded in the on-site acoustic surveys were categorized into one of five groups: myotid, hoary bat, red bat, eastern pipistrelle, and big brown/silver-haired bat. Wherever possible, call sequences were further identified to individual species. Call sequences with too few pulses or of poor quality (such as environmental noise, distortion, or indistinct pulse characteristics) were classified as unknown. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 77 Call sequences were recorded on 39 nights during the 69-night monitoring period. Of the 166 bat call sequences recorded during the survey, 78 (47%) were unidentifiable. Of the 88 call sequences identifiable to genus or group, 53 (60%) were identified as members of the big brown/silver-haired bat group, 24 (27%) as members of the genus Myotis, and 11 (13%) as hoary bats. Individual species identified include hoary bat, silver-haired bat, and big brown bat. No red or pipistrelle bats were observed at the Project Site (IEDat, 2009). There are four species of Myotis in New York State: little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat (state- and federally-listed as endangered), and eastern small-footed bat (state-listed as special concern). Since their calls are so difficult to distinguish from those of other more common myotids, the acoustic surveys cannot rule out the possible presence of either Indiana or eastern small-footed bats. However, the inflection and duration of the vast majority of myotid calls indicate that little brown bat is the dominant Myotis species in the area (IEDat, 2009). According to NHP records (2011b, 2011c), neither Indiana nor eastern small-footed bats are known to occur in Tompkins County. Therefore, occurrence of either species within the Project Site or vicinity is considered unlikely. 3.4.1.2.3 Reptiles and Amphibians Reptile and amphibian presence within the Project Site was determined through field survey and review of the New York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas. The Atlas Project was a ten-year survey (1990 through 1999) designed to document the geographic distribution of the state’s herptofauna. Atlas data was collected and organized according to USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles (NYSDEC, 2007). Based on this data, along with documented species ranges and existing habitat conditions, it is estimated that approximately 35 reptile and amphibian species could occur in the area (NYSDEC, 2007; Gibbs et. al., 2007). Two species were documented on-site during surveys in 2011: common garter snake and red-spotted newt. Species not observed, but likely to occur in the Project Site based on existing habitat conditions include American toad, gray treefrog, spring peeper, wood frog, bull frog, green frog, black rat snake, brown snake, and red-bellied snake (Appendix K). All of these species are common and widely distributed throughout New York State. According to New York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas data, one state-listed species of special concern (Jefferson salamander) occurs in the vicinity of the Project Site (NYSDEC, 2007). 3.4.1.2.4 Fish Although no site-specific fisheries data has been obtained, ponds and streams within and adjacent to the Project Site likely support both native and stocked fish populations. The nearest state-classified trout stream, Enfield Creek, is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the Project Site. This stream likely supports a coldwater fish community including trout, creek chub, and slimy sculpin. Small unnamed creeks within the Project Site (i.e., tributaries of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 78 Enfield Creek and Cayuta Inlet) may support minnows and other small fish. Ponds/beaver impoundments in the vicinity of the Project Site likely support a warm water fish community (e.g., bass, sunfish, and shiners). 3.4.1.2.5 Wildlife Habitat There are no New York State Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) or Bird Conservation Areas (BCAs) within the Project Site. The closest BCA, comprised of the Catharine Creek WMA, is located at the southern end of Seneca Lake approximately 11.6 miles southwest of the Project Site. The Connecticut Hill WMA is located immediately south of the Project Site, with one participating parcel abutting the boundary of state land. According to the NYSDEC (2013), Connecticut Hill is the largest WMA in New York State, totaling 11,645 acres, and offers a diversity of flora and fauna. As part of the Appalachian Highlands, Connecticut Hill lies within a belt of high, rugged land with numerous streams and ponds. Many of the ponds were built between 1948 and 1950 to attract waterfowl, but provide habitat for other wildlife species as well. Beaver have added to the impounded area benefiting reptiles, amphibians, small mammals and birds. The mature forest at the WMA consists primarily of American beech, maple, and hemlock, although areas of oak and pine are also represented. Open meadows, fields and stands of evergreen are scattered throughout. With so much diversity of habitats, there is also a variety of wildlife. White-tailed deer, ruffed grouse, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, beaver, mink, muskrat, grey squirrel, eastern coyote, waterfowl and numerous small mammals and songbirds are residents of the Hill (NYSDEC, 2013). Most of the Connecticut Hill WMA and the southwest portions of the Project Site are included within a larger area designated by the National Audubon Society as an Important Bird Area (IBA). The IBA Program seeks to identify and protect essential habitats for one or more species of breeding or non-breeding birds. According to the National Audubon Society (2013), IBAs may be a few acres or thousands of acres, and may include public or private lands, that may be protected or unprotected. The Connecticut Hill IBA is one of the largest high elevation forested areas in the region. Much of area was marginal farmland purchased by the state in the 1930s and 1940s and allowed to reforest. The core property is administered by the NYSDEC (over 11,000 acres) and the surrounding lands are privately owned. Almost 95% of the IBA is forest habitat, which includes Appalachian oak pine, sugar maple mesic, oak, successional hardwood, evergreen northern hardwood, evergreen plantation, and deciduous wetland forests. This extensive forest habitat supports characteristic forest interior dwelling birds, including the black-billed cuckoo, blue-gray gnatcatcher, wood thrush, black-throated blue warbler, black-and-white warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, hooded warbler, Canada warbler, and scarlet tanager (National Audubon Society, 2013). The Connecticut Hill IBA also provides nesting habitat for northern goshawk, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and red-shouldered hawk, all listed as species of Special Concern in New York State. Most of the avian species that nest within the IBA are migrant songbirds, and many of these individuals likely migrate from the south, breed, and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 79 then migrate back south without entering the Project Site. However, little is known about post-breeding dispersal of birds before they migrate, and therefore, it is expected that some birds nesting at the Connecticut Hill WMA/IBA may pass through the Project Site (Old Bird, 2012d). The Connecticut Hill WMA and IBA are both part of the “Emerald Necklace,” an arc of forested hills and valleys stretching from east to west in the vicinity of Ithaca, recognized as a Regional Priority Conservation Project Area in the 2009 New York Open Space Conservation Plan. Priority projects included on this list represent the unique and irreplaceable open space resources of the State, which encompass exceptional ecological, wildlife, recreational, scenic, and historical values. These Projects are eligible for funding from the State's Environmental Protection Fund, and other State, federal and local funding sources. According to the Plan, a diversity of wildlife species utilizes the Emerald Necklace, ranging from a full array of nesting neotropical songbirds to an increasing number of black bears (NYSDEC & NYSOPRHP, 2009). As previously described, the Project Site includes a variety of ecological community types (see Figure 9). The value of these communities to various wildlife species is summarized below. Forestland Results of the on-site breeding bird survey indicate that forest habitat within the Project Site provides habitat for wildlife species that require forest interior conditions, such as wood thrush, veery, red-eyed vireo, hairy woodpecker, and pileated woodpecker. However, many of the forests on site have been subject to past and on-going logging activity. This activity has resulted in the clearing of overstory trees, and the development of forest roads and clearings in many forested areas on site. Consequently, these areas have already experienced some degree of forest fragmentation and may not provide the high quality forest interior conditions preferred by the afore-mentioned bird species. Mammals that utilize forested habitat include gray squirrel, red squirrel, eastern chipmunk, beaver, black bear, and whitetail deer. Successional Old Field and Wet Meadows These grass/forb dominated areas occur primarily on reverting agricultural fields and in wetlands, as well as along roadsides and electrical right-of-ways. Due to their relatively small size, most of these areas do not provide preferred nesting and foraging habitat for grassland bird species such as bobolink, horned lark, eastern meadowlark, savannah sparrow, and song sparrow. However, these species have been documented as breeding in the area (song and savannah sparrows on-site, and as bobolink, horned lark, and eastern meadowlark in the BBS and BBA). The vegetation in these fields provides forage in the form of seeds and foliage, which is utilized by a wide variety of birds, as well as small mammals (mice, shrews, etc.), whitetail deer, and eastern cottontail. Birds of prey, such as northern Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 80 harrier and red-tailed hawk, and mammalian predators, such as red fox and eastern coyote, also use such habitats as hunting areas. Successional Shrubland and Scrub-Shrub Wetland Habitats Shrub-dominated habitats (both wetland and upland) provide nesting and escape cover for a variety of wildlife species. Various songbirds, such as gray catbird, American goldfinch, indigo bunting, and yellow warbler, require low brushy vegetation for nesting and escape cover. Whitetail deer and eastern cottontail are also typically found in brushy edge habitat. In addition, many of the shrub species found in these areas produce berries, which provide food sources for birds and mammals such as raccoon, striped skunk, and opossum. 3.4.1.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species As mentioned previously, information about state- and federally-listed species was obtained from the NHP and the USFWS (see Appendix L). In addition, existing data sources were consulted to assess the potential presence of state- and federally-listed threatened and endangered species in the vicinity of the Project Site, including the NYS Amphibian and Reptile Atlas, the BBS, the BBA, and the CBC. According to correspondence from the NYSDEC dated September 26, 2011 and February 11, 2013, there are no NHP database records of state-listed endangered, threatened, or special concern animal species at the Project Site. In addition to potential occurrences within the Project Site, the 2011 correspondence also provides NHP database records for any state-listed avian and bat species within 10 miles and 40 miles of the Project Site, respectively. These records include the following state-listed bird species: short-eared owl (endangered); and northern harrier, Henslow’s sparrow, bald eagle, least bittern, and pied-billed grebe (threatened). The NYSDEC letter also notes the presence of a waterfowl winter concentration area within 10 miles of the Project Site. There are no NHP records for state-listed bat species within 40 miles of the Project Site. As described above, the USFWS maintains a website to assist applicants in determining the possible occurrence of federally-listed, proposed, and candidate rare species by county. The lists include all such species known to occur in a given county, as well as those likely to occur there. This online consultation procedure was conducted for Tompkins County on May 16, 2012 and January 25, 2013. Bog turtle, federally-listed as threatened, was identified as a species that could potentially be affected by the proposed Project. Habitat requirements, distribution, threats, and likelihood of occurrence are assessed below for this species. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 81 Bog Turtle One of the smallest turtles in North American, adult bog turtles are 3 to 4.5 inches in length. Bog turtles are found in open early successional habitat such as wet meadows or open calcareous fens, generally dominated by sedges and sphagnum moss. Habitat for this species typically includes cool, shallow, slow- moving water, deep, soft muck soils, and tussock-forming, low-lying herbaceous vegetation. Nesting and hibernation both occur within wetland habitat (Gibbs, et al., 2007). Eggs are typically laid inside the upper part of an un-shaded tussock. The USFWS listed the bog turtle as threatened in 1997. In New York State the bog turtle is listed as endangered. This species is concentrated in the southeastern portion of New York State; however, populations also occur in Seneca and Oswego Counties. Threats to this species include human collecting, invasive plant species (e.g., purple loosestrife and common reed), road mortality, and loss of suitable habitat through succession to woody cover types and alteration of wetland hydrology (NHP, 2011d). According to the USFWS online consultation, the Tompkins County bog turtle population is considered historical, and therefore occurrence within the Project Site is quite unlikely. Other sources of information about listed species include publicly available databases such as the BBS, the BBA, the CBC, and the New York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas. BBS survey data indicate that two state-listed threatened species (northern harrier and Henslow’s sparrow) and eight state-listed special concern species (Cooper's hawk, golden-winged warbler, grasshopper sparrow, horned lark, red-headed woodpecker, red-shouldered hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and vesper sparrow) have been recorded in the general area of the Project Site (Sauer et al., 2011). According to BBA data, one state-listed threatened species (northern harrier) and six state-listed special concern species (osprey, Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, red-shouldered hawk, horned lark, and vesper sparrow) have been documented in the vicinity of the Project Site (NYSDEC, 2012). According to CBC data, three state-listed endangered species (golden eagle, peregrine falcon, and short-eared owl), three state-listed threatened species (pied-billed grebe, bald eagle, and northern harrier), and seven state-listed special concern species (common loon, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, northern goshawk, red-shouldered hawk, red-headed woodpecker, and horned lark) have been observed in the vicinity of the Project Site (National Audubon Society 2012). According to New York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas data, one state-listed species of special concern (Jefferson salamander) occurs in the vicinity of the Project Site (NYSDEC, 2007). The presence of state- and federally-listed threatened and endangered species was also assessed during site- specific avian studies conducted by Old Bird. Two state-listed endangered species (golden eagle and peregrine falcon), two state-listed threatened species (northern harrier and bald eagle), and four state-listed special concern species (Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, red-shouldered hawk, and osprey) were observed during raptor migration surveys (Old Bird, 2012b). One state-listed special concern species, common loon, was observed during Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 82 the diurnal bird movement study (Old Bird, 2012c). The on-site breeding bird surveys detected one state-listed threatened species, northern harrier, and one state-listed special concern species, Cooper’s hawk (Old Bird, 2012a). A summary of state-listed wildlife species documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project Site is presented below in Table 7. Only those species with an “OS” prefix in the source column were actually observed on-site. Table 7. State-listed Wildlife Species Documented in the Vicinity of the Project Site Common Name Scientific Name NYS Legal Status Source1 Birds Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Endangered OS-RMS, CBC Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Endangered NHP, CBC Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Endangered OS-RMS, CBC Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Threatened NHP, BBS Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Threatened OS-BBS, OS-RMS, NHP, BBA, BBS, CBC Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened OS-RMS, NHP, CBC Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Threatened NHP Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Threatened NHP, CBC Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Special Concern OS-BBS, OS-RMS, BBA, BBS, CBC Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Special Concern CBC Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Special Concern OS-RMS, BBA, BBS, CBC Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Special Concern BBS Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Special Concern OS-RMS, BBA, BBS, CBC Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Special Concern BBA, BBS, CBC Common Loon Gavia immer Special Concern OS-DBMS, CBC Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Special Concern BBS, CBC Osprey Pandion haliaetus Special Concern OS-RMS, BBA Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Special Concern BBA, BBS Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Special Concern BBS Reptiles and Amphibians Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum Special Concern ARA Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Endangered2 FWS 1 Source: OS-BBS = On-site Breeding Bird Survey, OS-RMS = On-site Raptor Migration Surveys, OS-DBMS = On-site Diurnal Bird Movement Surveys NHP = Natural Heritage Program (database record within 10 miles of Project Site), FWS = US Fish & Wildlife Service (online database), ARA = New York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas, BBA = Breeding Bird Atlas, BBS = USGS Breeding Bird Survey, CBC = Christmas Bird Count. 2 Also federally-listed as threatened. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 83 3.4.2 Potential Impacts 3.4.2.1 Construction Anticipated construction-related impacts to vegetation, wildlife, and listed threatened and endangered species are outlined in the following section, based on the current Project layout and studies conducted to date. 3.4.2.1.1 Vegetation Project construction will result in temporary and permanent impacts to vegetation within the Project Site. However, Project components have been sited so as to minimize impact to undisturbed habitat. Three of the proposed turbines would be located within agricultural land, which generally does not support native plant species, and an additional two turbines are located adjacent to agricultural land. No rare or endangered plant species are known to occur within the Project Site; all of the plant species observed during field surveys are common in New York State. Therefore, it is anticipated that no plant species occurring in the Project Site will be extirpated or significantly reduced in abundance as a result of construction activities. Construction-related impacts to vegetation include cutting/clearing, removal of stumps and root systems, and increased exposure/disturbance of soil. Along with direct loss of (and damage to) vegetation, these impacts can result in a loss of wildlife food and cover, increased soil erosion and sedimentation, a disruption of normal nutrient cycling, and the introduction or spread of invasive plant species. Impacts to vegetation and ecological communities will result from site preparation, earth-moving, and excavation/backfilling activities associated with construction/installation of staging areas, access roads, foundations, and buried electrical interconnect and transmission line. Based on the area of impact assumptions described in Section 2.6 (Project Construction), these activities will result in disturbance to approximately 60.3 acres within the Project Site. As indicated in Tables 8 and 9, the majority of the calculated impacts will be temporary, and native vegetation will be allowed to regenerate following restoration of areas disturbed during construction. Construction-related impacts to wetlands were previously discussed in Section 3.2. Table 8. Impacts to Vegetation Location Total Disturbance (acres) Temporary Disturbance (acres) Permanent Loss (acres) Wind Turbines and Workspaces 20.2 20.1 0.1 Access Roads 24.4 19.5 4.9 Buried Electrical Gathering Lines 7.3 7.3 0 Staging Area 5.4 5.4 0 Substation 3.0 1.2 1.8 TOTAL 60.3 53.5 6.8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 84 Table 9. Impacts to Ecological Communities Ecological Community1 Total Disturbance (acres) Temporary Disturbance (acres) Permanent Loss (acres) Forestland 12.5 11.4 1.1 Agricultural Land 16.7 15.1 1.6 Successional Old Field 19.8 16.9 2.9 Successional Shrubland 1.3 1.3 0.0 Successional Northern Hardwood Forest 1.1 1.1 0.0 Disturbed-Developed 9.0 7.8 1.2 TOTAL 60.3 53.5 6.8 1Excludes wetland and open water communities. As indicated above, an invasive species is non-native and is able to spread rapidly, aggressively alter its new environment, and cause harm to the economy, environment, or human health. Populations of invasive species typically establish most readily in places where the ground has been disturbed, thereby exposing the soil. As indicated above, construction activities will result in the disturbance of approximately 60.3 acres within the Project Site. These areas will be especially vulnerable to the introduction of invasive species. Ecological surveys conducted during the fall of 2012 identified the following invasive species within the Project Site: reed canary-grass, black locust, multiflora rose, common buckthorn, and smooth buckthorn. The Black Oak Wind Farm will utilize an Invasive Species Control Plan (ISCP) to minimize the spread of invasive species throughout the Project Site, including within federal and NYSDEC regulated wetlands, streams, and other riparian areas affected by wind development activities on-site. The goal of the ISCP is to prevent expansion of invasive species. The ISCP is described in more detail below in Section 3.4.3.1, and is attached to this DEIS as Appendix J. 3.4.2.1.2 Fish and Wildlife Construction-related impacts to wildlife are anticipated to be limited to incidental injury and mortality due to construction activity and vehicular movement, construction-related silt and sedimentation impacts on aquatic organisms, habitat disturbance/loss associated with clearing and earth-moving activities, and displacement of wildlife due to increased noise and human activities. Each of these potential impacts is described below. Incidental Injury or Mortality Incidental injury and mortality should be limited primarily to sedentary/slow-moving species such as small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that are unable to move out of the area being disturbed by construction. If construction occurs during the nesting season, wildlife subject to mortality could also include the eggs and/or young offspring of nesting birds, as well as immature mammalian species that are not yet fully mobile. More mobile species and mature individuals should be able to vacate areas that are being disturbed by construction. Vehicle-related mortality may Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 85 increase temporarily due to the increased traffic during construction; however, as traffic decreases upon the completion of construction, so will wildlife-vehicle collisions. Tall construction cranes used to erect the turbine components, including the tower, nacelle, and rotors, could potentially serve as obstacles to a small number of migrant birds. If collisions are to occur, they would most likely occur during nighttime because the cranes would be visible and easily avoided during daylight hours. Therefore, collision risk is expected to be greater among migratory songbirds (primarily nocturnal migrants) and waterbirds (occasional nocturnal migrants) than among raptors (primarily diurnal migrants). Erected turbines would not be operational during the construction period, but would pose a similar minor collision risk. Silt and Sedimentation Earth-moving activities (including foundation excavation and back-fill, widening of existing roads and construction of new access roads) may result in sediment and siltation impacts to aquatic habitat. These impacts could occur down slope of areas subject to significant earth-moving activity (e.g., turbine sites). Siltation and sedimentation of water bodies can adversely affect water quality and aquatic habitat. It can also interfere with the respiration of aquatic organisms and the survival of fish and amphibian eggs and larvae. Habitat Disturbance/Loss As mentioned previously, Project components have been sited so as to minimize impact to undisturbed habitat. Many of the proposed turbines would be located in or adjacent to agricultural land, which in general provides habitat for only a limited number of wildlife species. In addition, these areas are already subject to periodic disturbance in the form of mowing, plowing, harvesting, etc. However, approximately 53.5 acres of wildlife habitat will be temporarily disturbed during construction, while permanent loss through conversion of natural habitat to built facilities will total 6.8 acres (see Tables 8 and 9, above). Ground-disturbing construction activities could also reduce the availability of stopover habitat for migratory birds within the landscape, directly through the loss of habitat and indirectly by inducing avoidance of stopover habitat in response to visual and/or noise disturbance (Strickland et al., 2011). Changes in vegetation could also influence the behavior of bats by changing microclimatic conditions and the quality of habitat for foraging or roosting bats (NRC, 2007). Bats may also become attracted to openings made in forested areas from tree clearing activities for turbines and access roads, as they may find foraging opportunities in the openings. It is anticipated that any bats that are present in the Project Site would return to areas that were temporarily disturbed following the completion of construction activity. Significant adverse impacts on bat populations are not expected during construction of the Project, especially since the proposed construction schedule proposes to limit tree clearing activity to the winter months. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 86 Approximately 12.5 acres of forest, 1.3 acres of shrubland, and 19.8 acres of old field will be directly impacted by Project construction; these natural communities provide habitat for wildlife species. It is also anticipated that 16.7 acres of agricultural land and 9.0 acres of disturbed/developed land will be directly impacted by Project construction. The habitats to be impacted by Project construction are common within the region, and on a landscape scale, there is abundant availability of similar habitats in close proximity to the Project Site. Construction impacts to bat species are expected to be even less than those experienced by birds. Bat habitat may be impacted by ground disturbance and tree removal. However, these activities are also associated with farming and logging, which are common in the area. At this stage of development, it cannot be verified when tree clearing activities will be conducted. Tree clearing during the winter months would present the lowest potential risk to bats by avoiding potential removal of roosting trees. Displacement Some wildlife displacement will also occur due to increased noise and human activity as a result of Project construction. The significance of this impact will vary by species and the seasonal timing of construction activities. However, the species most likely to be disturbed/displaced by Project construction include grassland bird species such as red-winged blackbird, song sparrow, and savannah sparrow. Within New York State, peak breeding time for birds common to agricultural and grassland habitat occurs in late spring and early summer. If construction begins before the initiation of breeding activities, then most breeding birds would likely avoid nesting in active construction areas. If construction begins during the breeding season, then breeding birds that are accustomed to similar disturbances, such as farming and logging, are expected remain in the area while others will likely relocate to adjacent suitable habitat, if available. These impacts are not expected to be significant because a sizable amount of suitable habitat will remain undisturbed within and adjacent to the Project Site. Outside of localized construction disturbance and some temporary displacement in the immediate vicinity of turbines, access roads, etc., no significant displacement impacts on breeding birds are anticipated during construction. None of the construction-related impacts described above will be significant enough to affect local populations of any resident or migratory wildlife species. 3.4.2.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Listed wildlife species documented in the vicinity of the Project Site utilize a variety of habitats, including wetlands/water bodies, forests, and grasslands. Project components have been sited to avoid wetlands and streams to the extent practicable. In addition, the agricultural lands being affected are generally not high quality grassland habitat, and forest land being impacted often does not display the characteristics of forest interior habitat. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 87 Consequently, the habitat being impacted by Project construction is unlikely to receive significant use by listed threatened and endangered species. However, to the extent that these species occur in the area, Project construction could result in limited disturbance/displacement of these species due to human activity and noise, and/or direct mortality impacts to eggs or young. There are no known occurrences of rare or endangered plant species within the Project Site. As indicated above, a population of the state-listed endangered Hooker’s orchid has been documented nearby, but is considered historical by the NHP since recent attempts to re-locate the population have been unsuccessful and notes from those surveys indicate that the habitat is degraded. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a rare plant survey will be conducted to confirm the absence of Hooker’s orchid at proposed construction sites. Therefore, no construction- related impacts to listed plants or significant natural communities are anticipated. 3.4.2.2 Operation 3.4.2.2.1 Vegetation As indicated in Table 9, Project construction will result in permanent conversion of 6.8 acres of vegetated land to unvegetated/built facilities (access roads, turbines, and substation) within the Project Site. This total will include approximately 1.6 acres of agricultural land, 2.9 acres of successional old-field, 1.2 acres of disturbed/developed land, and 1.1 acres of forest. It should be noted that for vegetation, permanent impacts include both conversion of natural communities to built facilities, and conversion of one vegetative community to another (e.g., forest to successional shrubland or old field) for the life of the Project. This conversion will occur within a 200-foot radius of all tower sites and along the shoulders of access roads located in forested areas. A total of 12.5 acres of forest land will be converted to successional communities for the duration of Project operation. Other than minor disturbance associated with routine maintenance and occasional repair activities, no additional disturbance to plants and vegetative communities are anticipated as a result of Project operation. 3.4.2.2.2 Wildlife With respect to impacts to wildlife in general, a recent NYSERDA report compares the risk to wildlife from six different electricity generation types: coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, and wind. For each generation method, a relative level of risk (lowest, lower, moderate, higher, and highest) was assigned for each of six different phases (resource extraction, fuel transportation, facility construction, generation, transmission and delivery, and decommissioning). While each of these generation methods pose risks to wildlife individuals and/or populations, the degree and extent of the risks depend on the energy generation source. The report concluded that non-renewable electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, typically pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable sources, such as hydro and wind. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 88 “Coal as an electricity generation source is by far the largest contributor to risks to wildlife found in the NY/NE region.” Overall, the greatest risks to wildlife occur during the resource extraction and generation phases of power production. Since wind powered electricity production does not entail a resource extraction phase, threats from fuel extraction and transportation do not apply. For the other four phases, relative risk levels for wind ranged from “lowest” to “moderate.” In contrast, each of the other five electricity generation types had at least one phase with a risk level of “higher” or “highest” (Newman et al., 2009). With respect to avian impacts, a recent peer-reviewed article presented a contextual assessment of avian mortality caused by various sources of electricity generation. Initial estimates suggest that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 avian fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity, while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for approximately 5.2 avian fatalities per GWh (Sovacool, 2009). However, wind power projects are not without impacts to wildlife, and operational impacts of the Black Oak Wind Farm are expected to include loss of habitat, possible forest fragmentation, wildlife displacement due to the presence of the wind turbines, and avian and bat mortality as a result of collisions with operating turbines. Each of these potential impacts is described briefly below: Habitat Loss As indicated in Table 9, a total of 6.8 acres of wildlife habitat will be permanently lost from the Project Site (i.e., converted to built facilities). This habitat loss represents 0.6% of the 1,063-acre Project Site. As mentioned in the previous section, approximately 24% of this loss (approximately 1.6 acres) will occur in agricultural lands and 18% (approximately 1.2 acres) in disturbed/developed lands, which have limited wildlife habitat value. In addition, approximately 12.5 acres of forest are expected to be lost (1.1 acres) or converted to a successional community (12.5 acres) for the life of the Project. Given the relatively small area of lost or converted natural communities, the cumulative habitat loss/conversion resulting from Project development is not considered significant. Forest Fragmentation The proposed Project will result in conversion of 12.5 acres of forested habitat to built facilities or successional communities (see Table 9 above). Project components are generally located along the edges of open areas and active agricultural fields to minimize impacts to forestland habitats. However, turbine 4 is located in beech maple mesic forest and turbine 5 is located on the edge of hemlock northern hardwood forest. To the extent practicable, the proposed Project utilizes existing farm lanes and logging roads to minimize forest clearing and fragmentation of forest habitat. However, in some locations impacts to contiguous forestland will occur. In most instances where forested habitat will be impacted, the forested parcels are large and primarily used for commercial timber management. Therefore, fragmentation of forest habitat is not anticipated to be significant. However, the on-site breeding bird Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 89 survey did document nesting by several forest-interior bird species (e.g., ovenbird and wood thrush), which suggests that forest clearing could impact such species (either through direct habitat loss or increased likelihood of nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds). Other avian species that are considered early successional specialists (i.e., indigo bunting, eastern towhee) may benefit from the creation of additional edge habitat. Disturbance/Displacement Habitat alteration and disturbance resulting from the operation of turbines and other wind farm infrastructure can make a site unsuitable or less suitable for nesting, foraging, resting, or other wildlife use. As mentioned above, the footprint of turbine pads, roads, and other Project infrastructure represents a very small percentage of the site following construction. Therefore, overall land use is relatively unchanged by wind power development. However, the true amount of wildlife habitat altered by a wind power project can extend beyond the functional project footprint, due to the presence of tall structures and increased human activity. A more thorough assessment of displacement risk is presented below by species groups. Breeding Birds While wildlife may become habituated to the presence of wind turbines within a few years, the rate (and degree) of habituation is currently unknown because few long-term studies have been conducted. Evidence indicates that some grassland species do not respond favorably to the presence of tall structures in their habitat. Studies conducted at wind power projects in southwest Minnesota and in Wyoming revealed that grassland nesting birds are found in reduced numbers as the proximity to wind turbines increases (Johnson et. al., 2000a; Leddy et. al., 1999). Post- construction surveys at the Noble Wethersfield Windpark in Wyoming County, New York concluded that one avian species, the bobolink, showed an effect of turbine displacement following construction, with significantly fewer bobolinks within 246 feet (75 m) of turbines situated in hayfields. However, another species, the savannah sparrow, did not show a significant difference in abundance with distance from turbines (Kerlinger & Guarnaccia, 2010). Most breeding grassland bird species are anticipated to habituate to the turbines over the long-term, though some permanent displacement may result. However, displacement is likely to be limited to the immediate area of each turbine, and is also likely to be influenced by other factors, such as size of field and agricultural practices. Any potential impacts to grassland-nesting species are anticipated to be much less than the impacts from existing hay mowing and pesticide use in the same area. Many of the proposed turbines are sited in active agriculture fields that are already subject to periodic disturbance and have limited habitat value. Therefore, there is a low risk of substantial displacement of breeding grassland birds. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 90 Forest and forest edge birds are not likely to be significantly disturbed because these species are familiar with tall features (i.e., trees) in their habitat (Kerlinger & Guarnaccia, 2007). A post-construction study of 11 turbines located on a ridgeline in Searsburg, Vermont showed that some forest-nesting birds (such as blackpoll warbler, yellow- rumped warbler, white-throated sparrow, and dark-eyed junco) appeared to habituate to the turbines within a year of construction. The study did not document how close to the turbines these species nested, but it clearly demonstrated that forest-nesting birds foraged and sang within forest habitat about 100 feet (30 m) from the turbine bases. Other species found in pre-construction surveys, such as Swainson’s thrush, were absent in the initial post-construction surveys and appeared to have been displaced by the turbines (Kerlinger, 2002). However, a subsequent visit to the Searsburg site six years later revealed that Swainson’s thrushes were singing (and likely nesting) within the forest adjacent to turbines (Kerlinger & Guarnaccia, 2007). Minimal displacement in wooded areas was also documented following construction of the Noble Bliss Wind Farm in Wyoming County, New York. This study found that bird diversity rebounded following construction of the wind project, but abundance did not. These results suggest that different species may habituate to the presence of wind turbines at different rates (Kerlinger & Guarnaccia, 2009). Waterbirds The potential impacts of the Project on migrating or foraging waterfowl should not be significant, even though migrating geese can be expected to forage in nearby farm fields, sometimes in substantial numbers. This conclusion is based on the results of a study conducted by the Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the Top of Iowa Wind Farm located in Worth County, Iowa. Due to its proximity to three state-owned wildlife management areas, the Top of Iowa Wind Farm experiences very high use by waterfowl (over 1.5 million duck and goose use-days per year). Observations at that site revealed that wind turbines did not affect the use of the fields by Canada geese or other species of waterfowl. In addition, over the two-year course of the study, no turbine-related waterfowl or shorebird mortality was documented (Koford et. al., 2005). Based on these study results, and observations at other wind power projects, the proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant, long-term displacement or mortality effect on resident or migrating waterfowl. Raptors Raptors may experience some displacement due to the loss and fragmentation of habitat from the construction of the facility. Based on studies from the Midwest, local breeding raptors may decrease in density within the Project Site after construction, but will most likely acclimate to the turbines with time (Garvin et al., 2011). Game Species While habituation to the presence of the turbines may not be immediate, game species such as deer and wild turkey generally adapt quickly to the presence of man-made features in their habitat (as evidenced by the abundance of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 91 these species in suburban settings). Significant displacement of game species from a wind power site is not expected to be an issue; edr has witnessed substantial numbers of deer and turkey foraging in open fields directly adjacent to and beneath operating wind turbines at several New York wind power sites. Bird Collision Risk Avian fatalities at wind plants can result from collisions with turbine rotors, guy wires of on-site met towers, and perhaps wind turbine towers. In 2003, an estimated 20,000 - 37,000 birds were killed at about 17,500 wind turbines in the United States (Erickson et. al., 2005). Fatalities ranged from zero to about 9 birds per turbine per year, yielding an average of 2.19 birds per turbine per year. Recent studies in the Western and Midwestern United States have confirmed the fatality levels at the lower end of the range, while studies from the Eastern United States reveal fatality levels slightly higher than the national average. For example, a study conducted in 2003 at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center in West Virginia found an average mortality rate of about 4 birds per turbine per year (Kerns & Kerlinger, 2004), and approximately 7 birds per turbine per year were reported killed at a small project in eastern Tennessee (Nicholson, 2003). Nationwide, night migrating songbirds incur the majority of collision fatalities, with other avian species experiencing many fewer collisions. Although collision risk is likely to be low, data on resident and migrating birds and bats at the Project Site were collected to determine if site-specific characteristics might suggest an elevated level of risk relative to other sites. The overall level of activity and species composition documented during those surveys is within the range documented by similar surveys that have been conducted at other proposed wind power projects in New York State. Consequently, the Project Site is not believed to be a particularly important avian corridor or an area of concentrated migration activity. A more thorough assessment of collision risk is presented below by species groups. Migratory Songbirds Based on post-construction fatality studies at operating wind projects, it is likely that nocturnal migrant passerines (songbirds) will make up the majority of bird kills due to collision with the turbines. However, there are no geographical or topographical features on or adjacent to the Project Site that are likely to attract or concentrate nocturnal migrant passerines, and the Project Site is not immediately proximate to any large water bodies where nocturnal migrants tend to concentrate at stopover areas. Outside of such concentration areas, passerine migration is typically diffuse over a broad front. Therefore, the Project is anticipated to have a fatality rate that will be within the range of fatality rates observed elsewhere in New York; (see Table 10 for a summary of the post-construction bird fatality rates at New York wind energy facilities). There are no indicators of potential elevated risk to passerines, and thus no biologically significant adverse impacts are anticipated for any passerine species. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 92 Waterbirds Due to the lack of open water habitats, the Project Site does not support a large number of water birds. In addition, post-construction studies at existing wind energy facilities have shown that waterfowl are less susceptible to collision than other species groups (Erickson et al., 2002; Langston & Pullan 2003; NWCC, 2010). Risk of collision to waterfowl and other waterbirds during migration is also likely to be minimal because these birds typically migrate at high altitudes (Kerlinger & Moore, 1989; Bellrose, 1976), and because this group of birds has not demonstrated a propensity to collide with tall structures such as other wind energy projects, communication towers, tall buildings, etc. Raptors Raptor mortality from collision with turbines has been low at most operating wind power projects outside of California and some sites in Europe, which generally speaking, are now considered to have been poorly sited. Based on comparative studies of avian mortality rates at wind farms in New York State and raptor passage rate through wind farm sites, the overall raptor fatality rate at the Project is expected to be low. Post-construction ground searches conducted at several operating wind power projects in Wyoming County, New York have consistently documented low raptor mortality. At the Noble Bliss Windpark, surveys documented seven raptor carcasses: three red-tailed hawks (one during standardized surveys and two incidental reports) and a sharp-shinned hawk during the 2008 survey (Jain et al., 2009e), and three red-tailed hawks (one during standardized surveys and two incidental reports) during the 2009 survey (Jain et al., 2010c). Post-construction ground searches conducted at the Noble Wethersfield Windpark in 2010 found two raptor carcasses; one red-tailed hawk and one sharp-shinned hawk (Jain et al., 2011a). At the High Sheldon Wind Farm, mortality of only three raptors (a sharp-shinned hawk and two turkey vultures) was documented during two years of post-construction studies (Tidhar et al., 2011b). These recent results are similar to those of other studies conducted in New York, and reflect the fact that raptor migration is typically diffuse in the region. There are no geographical or topographic features (e.g., mountain ridgelines, river valleys, or coastlines) at the Project Site that would attract or concentrate migrant raptors in large numbers. Ridgelines in the vicinity appear to steer ridge-moving raptors away from the Project Site. Surveys of the Project Site did not identify any concentrated flight paths in either spring or fall. The raptor study recorded a migratory passage rate of 5.5 birds/hour in the spring, and a passage rate of 4.95 raptors/hour in the fall. These passage rates are similar to those observed in raptor migration studies conducted for other wind power projects across the State. The flight height of raptors in both fall and spring surveys indicate that raptors at the Project Site do fly within the blade swept zone of the proposed turbines, with 49-54% of birds flying at altitudes below 495 feet (Old Bird, 2012b). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 93 However, even where concentrated hawk migration does occur around wind energy sites, evidence to date shows that risk to migrating raptors is not great and not likely to be biologically significant. At the Mountaineer Wind Energy Facility on Backbone Mountain (a long, linear ridge) in West Virginia, a study by Kerns and Kerlinger (2004) found that only one raptor, a red-tailed hawk, was killed during a year of study. Reports from Tarifa, Spain, where raptor migration is highly concentrated, strongly suggest that migrating raptors rarely collide with turbines (DeLucas et. al., 2004). Several studies have documented raptor collision avoidance behaviors at wind facilities (Whitfield & Madders, 2006; Chamberlain et. al., 2006). Although the mechanism of turbine avoidance is unknown, most raptors are diurnal and have good eyesight, suggesting they may be able to detect turbines visually as well as acoustically. Consequently, the impacts to migrating raptors from the development and operation of the Project are anticipated to be low. Based on the general lack of elevated risk factors and the results of fatality monitoring at other New York wind projects, no biologically significant adverse impacts on raptors are anticipated from operation of the Project. In summary, studies conducted at other sites outside of California have shown avian fatalities to be relatively infrequent events at wind farms. In the Midwestern and Eastern United States, night migrating songbirds have accounted for a majority of the fatalities at wind turbines. In general, the documented level of fatalities has not been large in comparison with the source populations of these species, nor have the fatalities been suggestive of biologically significant impacts to the affected species. The observed level of mortality is also minor when compared to other potential sources of avian mortality (Erickson et. al., 2001). Bird Fatality Approximations There currently is no predictive model available that has been demonstrated to accurately predict avian collision mortality as a result of wind power project operation. Therefore, risk assessments must be based on pre- construction indices and indicators of risk (e.g., site-specific survey data), along with empirical data from operating projects. Bird fatality rates have varied between 0.66 and 9.59 birds/turbine/study period and between 0.44 and 5.81 birds/MW/study period at New York sites where recent, rigorous post-construction mortality monitoring has been conducted (see Table 10). Avian fatality rates at the Project are anticipated to be similar to those recorded elsewhere within New York State. This prediction is based on the results of on-site bird studies and literature review, which did not identify any indicators of elevated risk at the Project Site. There are no species or habitats on site that would suggest elevated risk to breeding birds, and there are no features in the area that would attract or concentrate large numbers of migrating birds. It is anticipated that the bird fatality rates for the Black Oak Wind Farm will be within the range of bird fatality rates documented in the studies summarized below in Table 10. A lower bound estimate of 5 avian fatalities per year is based on the results of the 2008 survey results from the Noble Bliss Wind Project (Jain et al., 2009e). An upper Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 94 bound estimate of 68 avian fatalities per year is based on the results of 2006 surveys conducted at the Maple Ridge Wind Project (Jain et al., 2007). An average fatality rate of 18 birds per year at the Black Oak Wind Project was calculated based on the weekly bird/MW/study period rates documented in other studies. These estimations represent the full range of estimated mortality, which may be biased high or low depending on survey methods. Such comparisons can be misleading due to differences in the attention paid to avoidance measures during project design, the differences in habitat and avian abundance at the different projects, and other factors that would influence bird impacts. The number of bird fatalities at a given project can really only be determined through post-construction mortality study. However, using actual mortality rates documented at operating wind projects in comparable settings is the best available (and widely accepted) means of predicting collision mortality, and the range and average of predicted collision mortality presented above represents a reasonable estimate of the Project’s potential impacts. Although these numbers may appear large, they are a tiny fraction of the population that migrates through the area, and are not considered biologically significant impacts, since the numbers are not sufficient to impact the overall population. As indicated above, this predicted level of fatalities is quite minor when compared to other sources of mortality. Other sources of avian mortality that each greatly exceed that caused by wind turbines include collision with buildings/windows, predation by housecats, use of agricultural pesticides, collision with communication towers, collision with power lines, and collision with vehicles (Erickson et.al., 2001; Klem, 1991; Coleman & Temple, 1993; Pimental et al., 1992). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 95 Table 10. Bird Fatality Rates from Post-Construction Studies at New York State Wind Energy Facilities Wind Project and Location Monitoring Start/End Date Year Reported Mortality Rate (Adjusted for Searcher Efficiency, Scavenger Removal) Reference Bird Fatalities/ Turbine Bird Fatalities/ MW/Period Maple Ridge, Lewis County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily surveys 6/17 – 11/15 2006 9.59 5.81 Jain et al., 2007 3-day surveys 6/29 – 11/15 2006 4.47 2.71 Jain et al., 2007 Weekly surveys 7/11 – 11/13 2006 3.13 1.90 Jain et al., 2007 Weekly surveys 4/30 – 11/14 2007 3.87 2.34 Jain et al., 2009a Weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/9 2008 3.42 2.07 Jain et al., 2009b Noble Bliss, Wyoming County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily surveys 4/21 – 11/14 2008 4.30 2.86 Jain et al., 2009e 3-day surveys 5/9 – 11/14 2008 0.66 0.44 Jain et al., 2009e Weekly surveys 5/9 – 11/14 2008 0.74 0.50 Jain et al., 2009e Daily surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 4.45 2.97 Jain et al., 2010c Weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 2.87 1.91 Jain et al., 2010c Noble Clinton, Clinton County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily surveys 4/26 – 10/13 2008 1.43 0.96 Jain et al., 2009c 3-day surveys 4/26 – 10/13 2008 3.26 2.17 Jain et al., 2009c Weekly surveys 5/8 – 10/13 2008 2.48 1.65 Jain et al., 2009c Daily surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 1.50 1.00 Jain et al., 2010b Weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 1.76 1.17 Jain et al., 2010b Noble Ellenburg, Clinton County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily surveys 4/29 – 10/13 2008 2.09 1.40 Jain et al., 2009d 3-day surveys 4/28 – 10/13 2008 1.37 0.91 Jain et al., 2009d Weekly surveys 4/28 – 10/13 2008 1.18 0.78 Jain et al., 2009d Daily surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 5.69 3.79 Jain et al., 2010a Weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 2.29 1.53 Jain et al., 2010a Cohocton and Dutch Hill, Steuben County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 4.7 1.88 Stantec, 2010 Weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 2.9 1.18 Stantec, 2010 Daily surveys 7/15 – 9/17 2010 2.06 1.37 Stantec, 2011a Weekly surveys 7/15 – 9/17 2010 1.16 0.77 Stantec, 2011a Munnsville, Madison and Oneida Counties, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Dog searches (recurrence unknown) 4/15 – 11/15 2008 1.71 1.14 Stantec, 2008 Weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2008 2.22 1.48 Stantec, 2008 Noble Wethersfield, Wyoming County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Weekly surveys 4/26 – 10/15 2010 2.55 1.70 Jain et al., 2011a Noble Altona, Clinton County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily surveys 4/26 – 10/15 2010 2.76 1.84 Jain et al., 2011b Weekly surveys 4/26 – 10/15 2010 1.55 1.04 Jain et al., 2011b Noble Chateaugay, Franklin County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Weekly surveys 4/26 – 10/15 2010 2.48 1.65 Jain et al., 2011c High Sheldon, Wyoming County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily and weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2010 2.64 1.76 Tidhar et al., 2011a Daily and weekly surveys 5/15 – 11/15 2011 2.36 1.57 Tidhar et al., 2011b Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 96 Bat Collision Risk Fatality monitoring studies at operating wind power projects in the Northeast suggest that collision mortality for bats can be substantially greater than that seen for birds. Migratory tree-roosting bat species (hoary bat, eastern red bat, and silver-haired bat) appear to be especially susceptible to colliding with the operating wind turbines. Results of fatality studies at wind energy facilities in the eastern United States as well as several western sites (U.S. and Canada) seem to indicate that these species are more susceptible to collisions with wind turbines then resident bat species (NWCC, 2010; Kunz et al., 2007; Arnett et al., 2008). For example, during the post-construction surveys at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County, New York, 151 of 203 total dead bats found during the 2007 surveys and 106 of 140 total dead bats found during 2008 surveys were the three tree-roosting bat species mentioned above (Jain et al., 2009a, 2009b). Similarly, during the post-construction surveys at the Noble Bliss Windpark, 43 of the 74 total dead bats found during 2008 surveys, and 27 of the 36 total dead bats found during the 2009 surveys were hoary, eastern red, or silver-haired bats (Jain et al., 2009e, 2010c). As the population sizes, trends, and migratory patterns of most bats in New York State are unknown, it is uncertain what level of impact wind projects have, especially in light of the even greater mortality risk presented by WNS (NYSDEC, 2010a). Bat Fatality Approximations Available data from operating wind projects suggest that the risk of collision mortality will generally be higher for bats than that for birds. Johnson and Strickland (2004) found bat mortality rates of 46.2 fatalities per turbine per year at wind projects sited along forested ridgelines in the Appalachians. This differs from the much lower mortality rates documented at mid-west and western sites located in open and mixed landscapes, ranging from 0.07 to 2.32 fatalities per turbine per year (Erickson et al., 2002). Mortality rates at the Maple Ridge facility in the Tug Hill region of northern New York State are lower than those reported from studies at Appalachian ridges, but greater than those reported in Midwestern studies. Estimates ranged from 15.2 to 24.5 bats per turbine per year during the first year of post-construction monitoring (Jain et. al., 2007), and from 15.4 to 18.4 bats per turbine per year during the second year of post-construction monitoring (Jain et. al., 2009a). Bat fatality rates have varied between 0.7 and 40 bats/turbine/study period and between 0.46 and 16.3 bats/MW/study period at New York sites where recent, rigorous post-construction mortality monitoring has been conducted (see Table 11). Bat fatality rates at the Project are anticipated to be similar to those documented elsewhere in New York State. This prediction is based on the results of the on-site bat studies, which did not identify any elevated indicators of risk to bats at the Black Oak Wind Project Site (e.g., there is no evidence of large roost, hibernacula, or elevated bat activity in the area). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 97 It is anticipated that the bat fatality rates for the Project will be within the wide range of bat fatality rates documented in the New York studies summarized in Table 11. A lower bound estimate of 5 bat fatalities per year is based on the results of the 2008 survey results from the Munnsville Wind Project in Madison and Oneida Counties, New York (Stantec, 2008). An upper bound of 280 bat fatalities per year is based on the results of 2009 surveys conducted at the Cohocton Wind Project (Stantec, 2010). An average fatality rate of 46 bats per year at the Black Oak Wind Project was also calculated based on the weekly bat/MW/study period rates provided in Table 11. It should be noted that these estimates may be somewhat higher than what may occur at the Project Site, given the reduction of resident cave bat populations since the onset of WNS in winter 2006. As with estimates of avian collision morality, such comparisons can be misleading. The National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) warns that caution must be used when comparing fatality rates across studies due to the use of different estimators and varying search intensities, study lengths, timing, size of search areas, and biases from unaccounted crippling losses (Strickland et al., 2011). Research regarding impacts to bats from wind developments has been more limited until recent years; therefore, there are fewer studies with bat fatality data than bird fatality data. For many bat species, an understanding of their natural history, especially migration and foraging movements, remains incomplete (Miller, 2008). The effect of bat fatalities due to wind turbines on populations as a whole is not well understood and current research is addressing this issue. The Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC), an alliance of state and federal agencies, the wind industry, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations, is currently researching the interactions of bats and wind turbines with the intent to develop solutions for wind farm siting and mitigation that will minimize or prevent bat mortality from wind turbines. To date, there has been no confirmed correlation between habitat availability and specific atmospheric or seasonal conditions that result in increased mortality. However, most collision mortality of migratory tree bats occurs during the fall migration season (August to September), and preliminary data seem to indicate increased mortality rates during periods of lower wind speed. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 98 Table 11. Bat Fatality Rates from Post-Construction Studies in New York State Wind Energy Facilities Wind Project and Location Monitoring Start/End Date Year Reported Mortality Rate (Adjusted for Searcher Efficiency, Scavenger Removal) Reference Bat Fatalities/ Turbine Bat Fatalities/ MW/Period Maple Ridge, Lewis County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily surveys 6/17 – 11/15 2006 24.53 14.87 Jain et al., 2007 3-day surveys 6/29 – 11/15 2006 22.34 13.54 Jain et al., 2007 Weekly surveys 7/11 – 11/13 2006 15.2 9.21 Jain et al., 2007 Weekly surveys 4/30 – 11/14 2007 15.24 9.42 Jain et al., 2009a Weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/9 2008 8.18 4.96 Jain et al., 2009b Noble Bliss, Wyoming County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily surveys 4/21 – 11/14 2008 7.58 5.05 Jain et al., 2009e 3-day surveys 5/9 – 11/14 2008 14.66 9.78 Jain et al., 2009e Weekly surveys 5/9 – 11/14 2008 13.01 8.67 Jain et al., 2009e Daily surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 8.24 5.5 Jain et al., 2010c Weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 4.46 2.97 Jain et al., 2010c Noble Clinton, Clinton County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily surveys 4/26 – 10/13 2008 5.45 3.63 Jain et al., 2009c 3-day surveys 4/26 – 10/13 2008 4.81 3.21 Jain et al., 2009c Weekly surveys 5/8 – 10/13 2008 3.76 2.5 Jain et al., 2009c Daily surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 9.72 6.48 Jain et al., 2010b Weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 5.16 3.44 Jain et al., 2010b Noble Ellenburg, Clinton County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily surveys 4/29 – 10/13 2008 8.17 5.45 Jain et al., 2009d 3-day surveys 4/28 – 10/13 2008 6.94 4.63 Jain et al., 2009d Weekly surveys 4/28 – 10/13 2008 4.19 2.79 Jain et al., 2009d Daily surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 8.01 5.34 Jain et al., 2010a Weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 3.7 2.47 Jain et al., 2010a Cohocton and Dutch Hill, Steuben County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 40 16 Stantec, 2010 Weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2009 13.8 5.53 Stantec, 2010 Munnsville, Madison and Oneida Counties, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Dog searches (recurrence unknown) 4/15 – 11/15 2008 2.9 1.93 Stantec, 2008 Weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2008 0.7 0.46 Stantec, 2008 Noble Wethersfield, Wyoming County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Weekly surveys 4/26 – 10/15 2010 24.45 16.3 Jain et al., 2011a Noble Altona, Clinton County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily surveys 4/26 – 10/15 2010 6.51 4.34 Jain et al., 2011b Weekly surveys 4/26 – 10/15 2010 3.87 2.58 Jain et al., 2011b Noble Chateaugay, Franklin County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Weekly surveys 4/26 – 10/15 2010 3.66 2.44 Jain et al., 2011c High Sheldon, Wyoming County, New York – Mixed (agriculture and forest) Daily and weekly surveys 4/15 – 11/15 2010 3.50 2.33 Tidhar et al., 2011a Daily and weekly surveys 5/15 – 11/15 2011 2.67 1.78 Tidhar et al., 2011b Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 99 3.4.2.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Because limited use of the Project Site by endangered, threatened, and special concern species is anticipated, no significant adverse impact on these species is expected during Project operation. No federally-listed threatened or endangered species were observed on-site. According to the USFWS, only one federally-listed species was known from Tompkins County, the bog turtle, a threatened species. However, this occurrence is considered historical, and therefore occurrence of bog turtle, or any other federally-listed species, is unlikely to within the Project Site. Any state-listed species that transits the Project airspace at or near rotor height or, in the case of raptors, hunts at the Project Site, may be at risk of collision. However, none of the state-listed species observed on-site appear likely to engage in these behaviors at a frequency that would lead to significant collision risk, except perhaps northern harrier. Although foraging and courtship behavior by this species suggests the possibility at elevated collision risk, very low northern harrier mortality has been documented from wind turbines, even at sites that have relatively high use by this species (Erickson et al., 2002; Howe et al., 2002; Stantec, 2011b). A more detailed assessment of risk is presented below for each state-listed threatened or endangered species documented in the vicinity of the Project Site, based on the Project-specific Avian Risk Assessment (Old Bird, 2012d). Golden Eagle There are no records of this species breeding in the Project Site or vicinity (Old Bird, 2012a; Sauer et al., 2011; NYSDEC, 2012). Small numbers of migrating golden eagles (three individuals in the fall and six in the spring) were observed in high flight over the Project Site during the on-site raptor migration survey (Old Bird, 2012b). This was anticipated based on existing populations and migration patterns documented across the region. Although all observed individuals were migrants flying at estimated heights of 300 meters or more (well above turbine height), it is conceivable that on rare occasions a migrant golden eagle might pass through the Project Site below turbine height. One individual golden eagle was observed during the Ithaca CBC in January 2007 (National Audubon Society, 2012). However, although wind turbines are a known source of eagle mortality in the western United States, and are thought to be a growing threat elsewhere, no golden eagles have been reported killed by turbines in the east to date (Katzner et al., 2012; Allison, 2012). Given this, and that the topography in the Project Site lacks the characteristic features that typically concentrate migrating raptors, the proposed Project appears to present only a very small risk to golden eagles (Old Bird, 2012d). Short-Eared Owl Although 2011 correspondence from the NYSDEC/NHP indicates the presence of this species within 10 miles of the Project Site, there are no records, either historic or recent, of short-eared owls within the Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 100 Site boundaries. The species was not recorded during the on-site breeding bird surveys or raptor migrations surveys (Old Bird, 2012a, 2012b), or during the BBS or BBA surveys in the vicinity of the Project Site (Sauer et al., 2011; NYSDEC, 2012). Furthermore, no suitable breeding habitat (i.e., extensive grassland areas) occurs nearby. The last documented nesting of this species in the region was more than 20 years ago in the Finger Lakes National Forest, approximately 12 miles northwest of the Project Site. The observations noted by the NHP are most likely wintering or migrant individuals, foraging in hayfields that are more common north of the Project Site (Old Bird, 2012d). This is consistent with observations from area Christmas Bird Counts: one individual short-eared owl was observed during the Watkins Glen CBC in 2005 and two individuals during the Ithaca CBC in 2007 (National Audubon Society, 2012). Short-eared owls likely migrate over the Project Site in small numbers, and on occasion a few of these migrants may forage in the field at the southern end of the Project Site, or perhaps very rarely in the agricultural land on the eastern side of the Project Site (Old Bird, 2012d). Existing research suggests that the size of the current grassland habitat in the Project Site is not large enough to host a population of wintering short-eared owls (Herkert et al., 1999; Dechant et al., 1998). Furthermore, based on extensive searches for wintering short-eared owls in the Cayuga Lake Basin in the 1990s, the fields within the Project Site are not likely to contain wintering short-eared owls. Therefore, based on its scarcity in the region and the lack of suitable foraging and nesting habitat within the Project Site, this species has a very low risk of collision fatalities from the proposed Project (Old Bird, 2012d). Peregrine Falcon There are no records of this species breeding in the Project Site or vicinity (Old Bird, 2012a; Sauer et al., 2011; NYSDEC, 2012). One individual falcon was observed migrating over the Project Site during the on- site raptor migration survey (Old Bird, 2012b), and according to the Hawk Migration Association of North America, the species is regularly seen in the region in small numbers during spring and fall migration. Peregrine falcons have also been observed in low numbers in the Ithaca Christmas Bird Count (National Audubon Society, 2012). It is conceivable that on rare occasions a migrant peregrine falcon might pass through the Project Site below turbine height, and such birds could be at risk. However, documented peregrine falcon mortality from collision with wind turbines has been low. Only one fatality has been recorded in the eastern U.S., at a wind energy facility in New Jersey in August 2007 (NJ Audubon Society, 2008). Therefore, the risk of collision fatalities for peregrine falcons at the Project Site appears to be low (Old Bird, 2012d). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 101 Henslow’s Sparrow Although correspondence from the NHP indicates the presence of this species within 10 miles of the Project Site, Henslow’s sparrow was not recorded during either the on-site breeding bird survey (Old Bird, 2012a) or BBA surveys in the vicinity of the Project Site (NYSDEC, 2012). It was observed in low numbers during the surveys along the Trumansburg Route of the BBS (Sauer et al., 2011). Because the Project Site contains no suitable nesting habitat for this obligate grassland breeder, collision risk to Henslow’s sparrow would be limited to migrant birds. Based on regular reports in the region during their migration periods, and the fact that the Project Site is located between their breeding and wintering grounds, this species may migrate over the Project Site. However, since there are no documented fatalities of Henslow’s sparrow at wind energy facilities, and no suitable breeding habitat within the Project Site, the risk of collision fatalities appears to be low (Old Bird, 2012d). Northern Harrier The Project Site has very little suitable habitat for breeding northern harriers (Old Bird, 2012d). However, the species is known to nest in the area (Sauer et al., 2011; NYSDEC, 2012) and a single male northern harrier was observed flying at low altitude over the Project Site in August 2011 (Old Bird, 2012a). Migrating northern harriers were also observed in flight over the Project Site during the on-site raptor migration survey (Old Bird, 2012b), as was expected based on existing populations and regional migration patterns. In several cases, individuals were flying below turbine height. While the Project Site’s lack of grassland habitat did not warrant a dedicated winter raptor study, northern harriers are regular but uncommon presence in the area during the winter as well (Old Bird, 2012d). The species has also been observed in low numbers in both the Ithaca and Watkins Glen CBCs (National Audubon Society, 2012). Although foraging and courtship behavior by this species suggests the possibility of elevated collision risk, very low northern harrier mortality has been documented from wind turbines, even at sites that have relatively high use by this species, suggesting possible turbine avoidance behavior (Erickson et al., 2002; Howe et al., 2002; Stantec, 2011b). Therefore, the risk of collision fatalities for northern harriers at the Project Site appears to be a relatively low (Old Bird, 2012d). Bald Eagle There is no suitable breeding habitat within the Project Site (Old Bird, 2012d), and bald eagles were not observed during the on-site breeding bird survey (Old Bird, 2012a), or during the BBS or BBA surveys in the vicinity of the Project Site (Sauer et al., 2011; NYSDEC, 2012). However, a bald eagle nest site was reported to be established about 9 miles northeast of the Project Site in 2010, and was active again in 2011. While the nest is in the vicinity of the Project Site, it is very unlikely that the proposed Project will have an Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 102 impact on adult or juvenile eagles associated with this nest. These individuals will likely spend most their time in the vicinity of Cayuga Lake or perhaps, on occasion, in transit to Seneca Lake. The only time bald eagles nesting in Cayuga Lake or any potential future sites along Seneca Lake would be likely to venture into the Project Site would be in high soaring flight, especially after the young have fledged. Impact to eagles in such flight is a very remote possibility (Old Bird, 2012d). Small numbers of migrating bald eagles were observed in high flight over the Project Site during the on-site raptor migration survey (Old Bird, 2012b), as was expected based on existing populations and regional migration patterns. The topography in the Project Site lacks the characteristic features that typically concentrate migrating raptors, and the few observed individuals were flying well above turbine height. It is conceivable that on rare occasions a migrant bald eagle might pass through the Project Site below turbine height; however, over all there appears to be only a very small possibility for collision fatalities of migrant bald eagles (Old Bird, 2012d). In January 2011, the USFWS released Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance intended to assist parties to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects on bald and golden eagles. In this document, the USFWS (2011) recommends identifying all nesting and eagle activity within a 10-mile perimeter of a wind energy project’s footprint. As noted above, the existing nest on the southwest side of Cayuga Lake is 9 miles from the Project Site, and technically within the 10-mile perimeter of USFWS concern. In addition, the south end of Cayuga has had increase activity of nonbreeding bald eagles over the past decade (Old Bird, 2012d), and bald eagles have been observed in low numbers in both the Ithaca and Watkins Glen CBCs (National Audubon Society, 2012). Because of the factors discussed previously regarding likely bald eagle flight behavior and activity centered on Cayuga and Seneca Lakes, it seems extremely unlikely that nesting bald eagles in the area would be affected by the proposed Project (Old Bird, 2012d). However, prior to Project approval the Project Sponsor will consult with the USFWS to determine whether obtaining a take permit will be necessary. Least Bittern Although correspondence from the NHP indicates the presence of this species within 10 miles of the Project Site, least bittern was not recorded during the on-site breeding bird survey, or during the BBS, BBA, or CBC surveys in the vicinity of the Project Site (Old Bird, 2012a; Sauer et al., 2011; NYSDEC, 2012; National Audubon Society, 2012). Furthermore, there is no suitable breeding habitat within the Project Site. Therefore, collision risk to least bittern would be limited to migrant birds. Based on reports in the region during their migration periods, and the fact that the Project Site is located between their breeding and wintering grounds, least bittern may migrate over the Project Site. However, since there have been no Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 103 documented fatalities of least bittern at wind energy facilities, and no suitable breeding habitat exists within the Project Site, the risk of collision fatalities appears to be small (Old Bird, 2012d). Pied-Billed Grebe Although correspondence from the NHP indicates the presence of this species within 10 miles of the Project Site, pied-billed grebe was not recorded during the on-site breeding bird survey, or during the BBS or BBA surveys in the vicinity of the Project Site (Old Bird, 2012a; Sauer et al., 2011; NYSDEC, 2012). Furthermore, there is no suitable breeding habitat within the Project Site (Old Bird, 2012d). Christmas Bird Count data suggests that pied-billed grebes are regular but uncommon presence in the area during the winter. The species has been observed in low numbers in both the Ithaca and Watkins Glen CBCs in nine of the last ten years (National Audubon Society, 2012). Based on reports in the region during their migration periods, and the fact that the Project Site is located between their breeding and wintering grounds, this species may migrate over the Project Site (Old Bird, 2012d). Pied-billed grebe collision fatalities have been recorded in very low numbers at operating wind energy facilities in West Virginia, Minnesota, and California (BirdWatching, 2011; Johnson et al., 2000b; Smallwood & Karas, 2008). Additional listed species documented in the area are listed in Table 7. All of these species were detected in very low numbers, and many were not actually observed on-site. Therefore, the potential risks of collision, disturbance, and displacement of listed species at the Black Oak Wind Project are considered remote. 3.4.3 Mitigation Measures The development of wind power projects can legitimately be considered a form of mitigation, in that power generated from the wind can satisfy demand that would otherwise utilize power generated by other means. All electric generating facilities impact ecological resources (fish, wildlife, natural communities). However, as indicated in Table 12, environmental impacts that result from more traditional power generating facilities such as fossil fuel, hydroelectric, and nuclear are much more significant than the impacts caused by wind power projects. Table 12. Environmental Impacts of Electricity Sources Wind Hydro Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Global Warming Pollution None None None Yes Yes Air Pollution None None None Yes Limited Mercury None None None Yes None Mining/Extraction None Yes Yes Yes Yes Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 104 Wind Hydro Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Waste None Yes Yes Yes None Water Use None Yes Yes Yes Yes Habitat Impacts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (AWEA, 2008). These impacts include a larger project footprint, which results in direct habitat loss; the use of surface waters for generation and/or thermal regulation, which results in thermal discharge, fish entrainment, and impingement; the extraction and transportation of raw materials, which results in habitat disturbance and air pollution; waste disposal, which increases the effective footprint of a project and presents pollution/contamination concerns; air pollution, which results in acid precipitation and the subsequent effects on ecological resources; and/or continued contribution to global warming, which is perhaps the greatest potential impact to ecological (and human/cultural) resources worldwide. 3.4.3.1 Vegetation Mitigation of impacts to vegetation will be accomplished primarily through careful site planning. Large areas of forest and wetland are being avoided to the extent practicable. Therefore, the most ecologically significant communities within the Project Site will be largely protected from disturbance. Project access roads will be sited on existing farm lanes and forest roads wherever possible, and areas of disturbance will be confined to the smallest area possible. In addition, a comprehensive sediment and erosion control plan will be developed and implemented prior to Project construction to protect adjacent undisturbed vegetation and other ecological resources (see Section 3.2 Water Resources for further details). Mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts to vegetation will also include pre-construction surveys for rare plant species, delineating sensitive areas (such as wetlands) where no disturbance or vehicular activities are allowed, educating the construction workforce on respecting and adhering to the physical boundaries of off-limit areas, complying with guidance provided by Environmental Monitors, employing best management practices during construction, and maintaining a clean work area within the designated construction sites. Following construction activities, temporarily disturbed areas will be seeded (and stabilized with mulch and/or straw if necessary) to reestablish vegetative cover in these areas. Other than in active agricultural fields, native species will be allowed to revegetate these areas. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 105 Controlling the introduction and spread of the target species will be achieved through the implementation of an Invasive Species Control Plan (ISCP) (see Appendix J). The purpose of the ISCP is to facilitate the identification, control, and monitoring of invasive plants within sensitive environmental areas, such as streams and wetlands. A central theme of the ISCP will be educating construction workers about invasive species and how to prevent their spread. The goal is to prevent expansion of invasive species. Invasive plant control will be considered successful when 0% net increase in the aerial coverage of invasive species (compared to a baseline survey of the target area) is realized. The ISCP is proposed to consist of the following control measures, each of which is summarized briefly below: 1) Construction Materials Inspection – Construction material such as seed mixes, mulch, topsoil, sand, gravel, crushed stone, and rock brought to the Project area from an outside source will be free of invasive plant materials. 2) Target Species Treatment and Removal – If unavoidable areas containing target invasive species are encountered within regulated wetlands/streams, then appropriate treatment and removal methods will be conducted. 3) Construction Equipment Sanitation – The introduction of non-native invasive plant species will be controlled by assuring that all construction equipment is clean upon arrival on site, and that equipment utilized in areas with an abundance of invasive species will be cleaned prior to moving to another site. 4) Restoration – Regulated wetland and stream areas that are temporarily impacted during construction will be stabilized and restored in accordance with the Project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Monitoring of the control of invasive species for the Black Oak Wind Project is proposed to have two phases: 1) monitoring the implementation of the ISCP during construction and 2) monitoring the success of the ISCP for a two- year period to coincide with the monitoring of other project restoration activities (i.e., NYSDAM Guidelines). For additional detail, see Appendix J. 3.4.3.2 Fish and Wildlife As previously discussed, construction-related impacts to fish and wildlife should be limited to incidental injury and mortality due to construction activity and vehicular movement, construction-related silt and sedimentation impacts on aquatic organisms, habitat disturbance/loss associated with clearing and earth moving activities, and displacement due to increased noise and human activities. Mitigation of impacts related to construction activity will be accomplished through careful site design (e.g., utilizing existing roads, avoiding sensitive habitat, and minimizing disturbance to the extent practicable), adherence to designated construction limits, and avoidance of off-limit sensitive areas. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 106 To avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources resulting from construction-related siltation and sedimentation, an approved sediment and erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be implemented. The sediment and erosion control plan and SWPPP were previously described in Section 3.2 (Water Resources). Proper implementation of these plans will assure compliance with NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) regulations and New York State Water Quality Standards. In addition, a Spill Prevention, Containment and Counter Measures (SPCC) Plan will be developed and implemented to minimize the potential for unintended releases of petroleum and other hazardous chemicals during Project construction and operation. Mitigation for impacts related to permanent habitat loss and forest fragmentation will be accomplished through careful site design (i.e., minimizing the permanent footprint of Project components to the extent practicable) and restoration of all temporarily disturbed areas. In addition, cleared forest land along Project access roads and at the periphery of turbine sites will be allowed to grow back and reestablish forest habitat in these areas. With respect to impacts to wildlife in general, as previously stated, the relative risk levels for wind powered electricity ranged from “lowest” to “moderate” in comparison to other electricity generation types (coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, nuclear). In contrast, each of the other five electricity generation types had at least one phase with a risk level of “higher” or “highest” (Newman et al., 2009). With respect to avian impacts, a recent peer-reviewed article presented initial estimates that suggest wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 avian fatalities per GWh of electricity, while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for approximately 5.2 avian fatalities per GWh (Sovacool, 2009). Therefore, because wind powered electricity offsets electricity generated by fossil-fueled power plants, implementation of the Project can be considered mitigation for the impacts caused by coal, oil, etc. The Project has been designed to minimize bird and bat collision mortality. The turbines will be placed much further apart than in older wind farms where avian mortality has been documented, such as those in northern California. They will also be mounted on tubular towers (rather than lattice), which prevent perching by birds. In an effort to reduce avian and bat impacts, electrical collection lines between the turbines will generally be buried. Lighting of the turbines (and other infrastructure) will be minimized to the extent allowed by the FAA, and will follow specific design guidelines to reduce collision risk (e.g., using blinking lights with the longest permissible off cycle). Specific to the proposed Project, and based on the extensive expert study and analysis provided in the DEIS, the Project is not anticipated to have an undue adverse impact on birds or bats, and therefore no mitigation is required. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 107 However, the NYSDEC is requesting post-construction fatality monitoring studies at all wind power projects in New York State, and the Project Sponsor has volunteered to participate in this program in order to further the State’s understanding of bird/bat interactions with wind turbines. In addition, a work plan for a post-construction habitat displacement study will be submitted to the NYSDEC for review prior to Project implementation. The methods are anticipated to generally follow the “standard post-construction studies” described in the NYSDEC’s (2009b) Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects. To satisfy requirements of the SEQR DEIS Final Scoping Document, approved September 8, 2010, the post-construction monitoring studies may also include components of the “expanded post-construction studies,” specifically a comparison of the number of estimated collisions with passage rates obtained through radar during peak bird and bat migration periods at the Project area (standard studies do not include the use of radar). Project-specific study protocols will be developed in consultation with state and federal agencies, including details such as study duration, search frequency, search areas, number and location of turbines to be searched, concurrent data collection and analysis, carcass collection for further study, and mitigation strategies that may be implemented if post-construction monitoring reveals operational impacts in excess of that which is anticipated or otherwise considered significant. Mitigation measures will include an adaptive management strategy that incorporates options to be considered during Project operation if significant adverse impacts are identified by post-construction monitoring. Adaptive management actions or options to reduce mortality of bats and birds would be developed and implemented in consultation with state and federal agencies. While the exact components of the adaptive management strategy cannot be determined at this time, possible options could include selective operational changes such as curtailment of turbines at low wind speeds, deterrents to keep bats away from turbines, or on-site habitat manipulation. Curtailment of power production at low wind speeds may be one method of reducing bat mortality at utility-scale wind facilities, because bats tend to be most active when wind speeds are low. “Cut-in speed” is the wind threshold at which turbines begin producing electricity. The cut-in speeds at which modern turbines begin producing power, 7.8 to 9.0 mph (3.5 to 4.0 m/s), are relatively low and represent conditions where bats are often still active. Increasing cut-in speed to 11.2 to 13.4 mph (5.0 to 6.0 m/s), for example, shifts power production to periods when bats are less likely to be flying. Curtailment appears to be most effective during migration in summer and fall (Baerwald et al., 2009; Arnett et al., 2011). 3.4.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species As indicated above in Section 3.4.1.1.2, no state- or federally-listed threatened or endangered plant species have been identified within the Project Site, and no impacts to listed plants or significant natural communities are anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 108 With respect to threatened and endangered wildlife species, listed wildlife species documented in the vicinity of the Project Site utilize a variety of habitats, including wetlands/water bodies, forests, and grasslands. As indicated above in Section 3.4.2.1.3, the habitat being impacted by the Project is unlikely to receive significant use by listed threatened and endangered species. Therefore, no mitigation specific to threatened and endangered species is required. Note that should a state- or federally-listed species be found dead or injured during post-construction monitoring studies, the NYSDEC and USFWS would be notified within 48 hours. 3.5 AGRICULTURE 3.5.1 Existing Condition According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2011, 0.7% (746 residents) of the Tompkins County population listed farming, fishing or forestry as their occupation. In addition, 2.3% of residents (81 residents) within the Town of Enfield indicated farming, fishing, or forestry as their primary occupation (United States Census Bureau, 2011). The 2007 Census of Agriculture reported that 588 working farms occupied 108,739 acres in Tompkins County, or 41.9% of the land in the county. Of that total, 56,767 acres were classified as harvested cropland; 14,661 acres as pastureland, 20,560 acres as non-pastured woodland; 10,200 acres as farmsteads, buildings, livestock facilities, ponds, roads, and wasteland; and 6,551 acres as other cropland (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2007). Tompkins County has lost over 20 percent of its farmland to development and abandonment over the last 30 years (Tompkins County Planning Department, 2010). Tompkins County has a total of two designated Agricultural Districts established pursuant to the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law. The Project Site is located within Agricultural District 2. Agricultural land use is a significant component of the Project Site with approximately 543 acres of the 1,060-acre area (51%) in row crops, field crops, or pastureland. Approximately 5 acres (0.5%) of soils within the Project Site are classified as Prime Farmland and approximately 869 acres (81.7%) are classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. 3.5.2 Potential Impacts 3.5.2.1 Construction Project construction will result in temporary and permanent impacts to agricultural land within the Project Area. Construction-related impacts to agricultural lands will result from site preparation, earth-moving, and excavation/backfilling activities associated with construction/installation of staging areas, access roads, foundations, and buried electrical interconnect. Specifically, construction activities have the potential to impact soil in agricultural Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 109 fields through rutting, mixing of topsoil and subsoil, and soil compaction. In order to minimize soil disturbance impacts, construction on steep slopes (i.e., in excess of 25 percent) was avoided when siting Project components. In addition, existing roads will be used for turbine access where available. Mitigation measures will be implemented throughout the construction process to minimize the potential for these soil impacts (see Section 3.5.3 below). Based on the area of impact assumptions described in Section 2.4, these activities will result in disturbance to approximately 26 acres of land categorized as agricultural by the New York State Office of Real Property Tax Services (NYSORPTS) or 16.7 acres of land that is classified as active agriculture or pasture based on aerial photograph interpretation. (It should be noted that the NYSORPS agricultural classification and the land interpreted as agriculture or pastureland do overlap in many areas and, therefore, these impacts are not additive but are rather two different ways of quantifying agricultural impacts.) As indicated in Table 13, most of these impacts will be temporary, however, approximately 2.5 acres of NYSORPTS classified agricultural land, or 1.6 acres of aerial photograph interpreted agricultural land, will be converted to built facilities and removed from agricultural land use for the life of the Project. Approximately 58.1 acres of impacts are expected within Tompkins County Agricultural District 2 (see Figure 10). Of these 58.1 acres of disturbance, approximately 51.4 acres will be temporary. Table 13. Impacts to Agricultural Lands Classification Total Disturbance (Acres) Temporary Disturbance (Acres) Converted to Built Facilities (Acres) NYSORPTS Classified Agricultural Land 26.0 23.5 2.5 Photograph Interpreted Agricultural Land 16.7 15.1 1.6 Tompkins County Agricultural District 2 58.1 51.4 6.7 The calculations presented above assume that significant soil disturbance will occur in all areas where proposed construction occurs. This assumption is very conservative. Actual disturbance will be highly variable based on the specific construction activity; the construction techniques employed, and soil/weather conditions at the time of construction. For instance, in many locations, installation of the buried electrical interconnects will involve relatively minor soil disturbance, restricted to a 2 to 3 foot wide trench when utilizing a rock saw or cable plow. However, because use of a backhoe and soil segregation cannot be ruled out, a 15 foot wide corridor of disturbance is assumed along all interconnect routes. No soils classified as Prime Farmland will be disturbed; however, approximately 38.4 acres of soils classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance will be disturbed by the Project. Temporary impacts will account for Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 110 approximately 34.5 acres of disturbance to these soils, while approximately 3.9 acres will be converted to built facilities. Soils that are currently in agricultural production are depicted in Figure 10 and their characteristics are detailed in Table 14. Table 14. Impacts to Active Agricultural Soils Soil Symbol -Name Permanent Impact (Acres) Temporary Impact (Acres) Total Impacts (Acres) Ab – Alluvial Land 0.0 0.1 0.1 BaC1 – Bath channery silt loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes 0.2 1.2 1.4 BaD – Bath channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 0.2 1.0 1.2 BgC1 – Bath and Valois gravelly silt loams, 5 to 15 percent slopes 0.2 0.7 0.9 EbB1 – Erie channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 1.2 10.9 12.1 EbC1 – Erie channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.0 0.0 0.0 EcA1 – Ellery, Chippewa, and Alden soils, 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.0 0.1 0.1 LaB1 – Langford channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.0 11.7 12.7 LaC1 – Langford channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.0 0.1 0.1 MaB1 – Mardin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 0.9 7.5 8.4 MaC3 – Mardin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded 2.0 2.2 4.2 VbB1 – Volusia channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 0.2 1.3 1.5 VbC1 – Volusia channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.2 1.1 1.3 VbC3 – Volusia channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded 0.3 3.0 3.3 Total 6.4 40.9 47.3 1 Soil classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. Along with direct impacts to agricultural land, movement of equipment and material during construction could result in impacts to growing crops, fences and gates, subsurface drainage systems (tile lines), and temporary blockage of farmers’ access to agricultural fields. 3.5.2.2 Operation As indicated in Table 13, Project construction will result in permanent conversion of approximately 1.6 to 2.5 acres of agricultural land to unvegetated/built facilities (access roads, turbines, crane pads, substation, etc.) within the Project Site. Other than minor disturbance associated with routine maintenance and occasional repair activities, other disturbance to agricultural lands is not anticipated as a result of Project operation. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 111 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures To minimize and/or mitigate Project impacts to active agricultural land and farming operations, Project siting and construction will comply with NYSA&M Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Windpower Projects (Appendix G). Mitigation and minimization measures will include the following: • Limiting permanent road widths to 15 feet, and where possible, following hedgerows and field edges to minimize loss of agricultural land. • Siting roads that must cross agricultural fields on ridge tops and other high ground to minimize cut and fill as well as potential drainage problems. • Limiting vehicular access and equipment traffic and parking to access roads and/or designated work areas such as tower sites and laydown areas. • Maintaining access roads throughout construction so as to allow continued use/crossing by farmers and farm machinery. • In developing roads on active agricultural land, strip all topsoil from the entire work area and stockpile in windrows along the road or in designated temporary storage areas. Temporarily stockpiled topsoil shall be segregated from other excavated material (rock and/or subsoil) and located far enough from the road edge to allow vehicles to pass without driving over topsoil. However, stockpiled topsoil must be left on the property from which it was removed. • Avoiding blocking of surface water drainage due to road installation or stockpiled topsoil. • Burying interconnection lines underground wherever possible. A minimum depth of 48 inches will be used in tilled lands in order to minimize the potential for contact with agricultural implements. A minimum depth of 36 inches will be used in unimproved grazing areas and land permanently devoted to pasture. If bedrock is encountered before the depths specified above, cables will be placed entirely below the top surface of bedrock and at least 24 inches below the surface. • Consultation with landowners, the Tompkins County Soil Conservation District and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) will be conducted prior to Project construction to identify any known subsurface drainage features to avoid disturbance of surface and subsurface drainage features (ditches, diversions, tile lines, etc.) to the greatest extent practicable. Efforts will be made to avoid potential impacts. In cases where disturbance is unavoidable any necessary repair/replacement of the affected features will be undertaken. Any such structures disturbed during construction shall be repaired to as close to original condition as possible, as soon as possible, unless such structures are to be eliminated based on new design. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 112 • Prohibiting stripping of topsoil or passage of cranes across agricultural fields during saturated conditions when such actions would damage agricultural soils. This restriction may be a limiting factor for construction activities after heavy rainfalls during any season, particularly in the early spring (due to snowmelt). • Temporarily fencing open excavation areas in active pastureland to protect livestock. • Washing of concrete trucks and disposal of excess concrete outside of active agricultural areas in locations approved by the environmental monitor. • Restricting erection cranes to designated access roads, crane paths, and work pads at the structure sites for all set-up, erection, and breakdown activities. • Site restoration, including removal of excess road material, soil decompaction, rock picking, and respreading of topsoil in disturbed agricultural fields following the completion of construction. • Stabilizing restored agricultural areas with seed and/or mulch. • Removing and disposing of all construction debris offsite at the completion of restoration. • Compensation for damaged/lost crops in accordance with participating landowner lease agreements. Approximately 11.6 acres of temporarily disturbed soils on agricultural land will be restored following construction. Restored areas will include the area around turbine sites, road edges, crane paths, temporary roads, and staging areas. This process will generally involve the following sequence of activities: 1. Removal of gravel or other temporary fill. 2. Decompaction of compacted subsoils to a depth of 18 inches using a deep ripper. 3. Disking and removal of stones from decompacted subsoil. 4. Spreading of stockpiled topsoil over decompacted subsoil. Respreading of topsoil so as to reestablish pre-construction contours to the extent practicable. 5. Disking and removal of stones from respread topsoil. 6. Seeding and mulching topsoil. Seed selection in agricultural fields will be based on guidance provided by the landowner and the NYSAM. Agricultural impacts during construction will also be minimized by providing the contractor and all subcontractors with copies of the final construction documentation and plans, which will contain all applicable soil protection, erosion control, and soil restoration measures. In general, erosion, sedimentation, and soil drainage impacts to agricultural lands during construction will be minimized by the implementation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan developed as part of the SPDES General Permit for the Project. One or more pre-construction meetings will be held with the contractor and a representative of the NYSAM, and, during construction, the Environmental Monitor will assure compliance with the construction plans and soil protection measures. A Notice of Intent to Undertake an Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 113 Action within an Agricultural District will be filed with the NYSA&M and the Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board. In addition, an Agricultural Data Statement will be filed pursuant to Section 305-a of the Agricultural and Markets Law. 3.6 AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES 3.6.1 Existing Condition Existing visual and aesthetic resources within the visual study area were identified as part of a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) conducted by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH), attached hereto as Appendix Q. The visual study area for the Project was defined as the area within a five-mile radius of each of the proposed turbines. The VIA was prepared in accordance with the NYSDEC Program Policy DEP-00-2 Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts (NYSDEC, 2000), and included a review of existing data and field reconnaissance to identify landscape similarity zones, viewer groups, and sensitive visual resources within the area. These existing visual/aesthetic components of the study area are described below. 3.6.1.1 Landscape Similarity Zones Land use within the five-mile-radius visual study area for the most part consists of undeveloped land (agricultural, successional, wetland, and forest), farms, and low-density rural and suburban style residences. Rural residential development is concentrated along the frontage of the State, County, and local road system. Three distinct landscape similarity zones were identified within the five-mile study area. The general visual character of these zones is described below. 3.6.1.1.1 Rural Agricultural Zone Rural agriculture land comprises large part of the five-mile study area, and is comprised of open farmland and pastures, generally located to the west and north of the Project Site, away from town and hamlet centers. Population within this zone is sparse and there are not an abundance of buildings or structures. Typical buildings and structures in these areas include scattered residences, barns, sheds and small commercial buildings generally consisting of 1-2 levels. In addition to farmland, there are several vineyards within this zone along with state roadways, which tend to bisect the areas to the north and west of the Project Site. Views from these areas are generally distant and occur in open areas or hilltops which tend to have limited trees or structures to block views. Because of the higher elevation and open fields, the Rural Agricultural Zone is where the majority of the turbine visibility would occur. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 114 3.6.1.1.2 Forest Land Zone Forested areas define a large part of the five-mile study area and include the Robert H. Treman State Park, Texas Hollow State Forest, the Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area, and other privately held forest land. Vegetation consists of northern temperate forest dominated by deciduous trees such as maple, beech, and birch, mixed with coniferous species such as pine, hemlock, and spruce. These areas are conducive to numerous outdoor activities including but not limited to snowmobiling, hiking, camping, fishing, and swimming. The Finger Lakes Trail is located in the Connecticut Hill Wildlife Area, while the Robert H. Treman State Park also includes numerous trails. Since the Forest Land Zone typically consists of dense trees that block distant views, Project visibility from these areas is generally not expected. However, there are some hilltop areas that may have less dense forest and higher terrain, which may allow for full or limited views of the Project. 3.6.1.1.3 Village/Hamlet Zone This zone is comprised of the downtown centers of Enfield and Mecklenburg (hamlets) and Newfield Hamlet (a census-designated place), and is characterized by residential and small commercial buildings. These areas are usually identified by a main roadway running through the downtown with small community centers, churches, stores, and tree lined streets. The buildings are generally one to three stories tall and are a mix of older and modern architecture. Development and population density generally decline away from the center toward the more rural countryside. In general, distant views from these areas are limited due to buildings and trees which tend to block or obscure the distant horizon. Just beyond the town centers there are locations where the Project may be visible due to increase terrain and/or decrease tree density allowing for a more unobstructed view of the horizon. 3.6.1.2 Viewer/User Groups Three categories of viewer/user groups were identified within the visual study area. Each of these groups is described below. 3.6.1.2.1 Local Residents Local residents are those who live or work in the study area. Except when traveling, residents are likely to be stationary and view the turbines from their homes, yards, or places of employment. Residents’ sensitivity to visual quality is variable. They are familiar with the local landscape and could be sensitive to changes to their environment, especially if they currently have an unobstructed view of the landscape. Conversely, some of these groups could have an obstructed view of the distant horizon due to trees or houses, or may have a current view of a commercial or industrial facility and may be less sensitive to changes to the landscape. However, it is assumed that residents may be very sensitive to changes in views from their homes and yards. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 115 3.6.1.2.2 Through Travelers/Commuters Commuters and travelers are typically passing through the area on their way to work or other destinations, and would view the turbines from highways and roadways within the study area. These commuters could be local or they could be from other nearby towns, and their sensitivity to changes could vary. The travelers or commuters are typically moving in their vehicles, and their views of the turbines would be temporary and intermittent. These views could either be straight ahead or within the periphery of their vision. Drivers will generally be focused on the road and traffic conditions, but do have the opportunity to observe roadside scenery. Passengers in moving vehicles will have greater opportunities for prolonged off-road views than will drivers, and accordingly, may have greater perception of changes in the visual environment. 3.6.1.2.3 Tourists/Recreational Users This group includes both local residents and tourists that may travel to the region to enjoy the recreational activities, scenic vistas, and parks within the study area. Some tourists’ sensitivity to the visual quality and character of the landscape could be highly sensitive to the wind turbines. However, there may be other tourists where the presence of turbines could be less sensitive, depending on the reason for visiting the area such as hiking or fishing in a forested area where the turbines may never be seen due to the trees blocking the distance views. The type of recreational activity could also dictate the sensitivity to viewing the wind turbines. For example, joggers, snowmobilers, and bicyclists will be constantly moving and the visual impact will be temporary or intermittent compared to other types of recreationalists and tourists who are visiting the region for the recreational activity, but also for the scenic views encountered during hiking, boating or camping activities. 3.6.1.3 Visually Sensitive Resources The area within five miles of the Project includes six sites that the NYSDEC Program Policy DEP-00-2 Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts (NYSDEC, 2000) considers aesthetic resources of statewide significance. These include three properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): Newfield Covered Bridge, Enfield Falls Mill, and Miller’s House (see Appendix R for additional discussion of NRHP-listed and NRHP-eligible sites). The other three aesthetic resources of statewide significance are state-designated recreation and/or wildlife areas: Robert H. Treman State Park, Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area, and the Finger Lakes Trail. Within the visual study area here are no urban cultural parks or heritage areas; state forest preserves; national wildlife refuges; national natural landmarks; national parks, recreation areas, seashores, or forests; national or state designated wild, scenic, and recreational rivers; designated scenic sites or roadways; scenic areas of statewide significance; Adirondack Park Scenic Vistas; state nature or historic preserves; Palisades Park resources; or Bond Act properties. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 116 In addition to the scenic resources of statewide significance listed above, the visual study area also includes areas that are regionally or locally significant, sensitive to visual impacts, and/or receive significant public/recreational use. These include population centers, local parks, lakes, campgrounds, state forests, golf courses, schools, churches, cemeteries, and transportation corridors. Areas of higher population density include Enfield, Mecklenburg, and Newfield Hamlet. The visual study area also includes several highways that could be considered visually sensitive due to the number of drivers that travel these roads on a daily basis, including and New York State Routes 13, 79, 228, and 327. Identified recreational areas within the visual study area include Cayuta Lake Boat Launch, Cayuta Lake Campground, Lake Grove Park, Cool Lea Camp, Pike Creek Campground, Texas Hollow State Forest, Stevenson Forest Preserve and Trail, Rieman Woods, MacMillan Arts Center, and Hillendale Golf Course. Although located well beyond the boundary of the 5-mile visual study area (approximately 8.5 miles at the nearest point), Cayuga Lake was included as a visually sensitive resource due to its scenic and recreational value. The locations of visually sensitive resources within the study area are shown on Figure 8 in Appendix Q. Section 5.5 of Appendix Q provides a full listing of aesthetic resources of both statewide significance (organized by the 15 categories listed in Section V(A) of the NYSDEC visual policy) and local interest. 3.6.2 Potential Impacts 3.6.2.1 Construction Visual impacts during construction will include the addition of construction material and working construction vehicles and equipment to the local roads. In addition, construction activity/site disturbance, such as tree clearing, earth moving, soil stockpiling and road building, all of which will alter the character of the landscape, at least on a temporary basis, may be visible from some public vantage points. Dust generated by the movement of these vehicles could also potentially have an adverse impact on aesthetic resources. However, all of these activities will be relatively short term (i.e., generally restricted to the construction season), and at any one site, will generally occur on only a few days during the course of Project construction. In addition, the most significant earth moving, tree clearing, and general construction activity will occur at turbine sites, which are typically well removed and/or screened from public vantage points. Once construction activity ceases and site restoration activities are complete, construction-related visual impacts will no longer occur. 3.6.2.2 Operation Impacts to visual resources resulting from Project operation were evaluated through the VIA prepared by HMMH (see Appendix Q). Potential project visibility was evaluated using viewshed mapping and field verification. Visual impact Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 117 was evaluated by preparing computer-assisted visual simulations of the Project from representatives/sensitive viewpoints from throughout the five-mile-radius study area. 3.6.2.2.1 Viewshed Analysis Viewshed maps were generated for the five-mile-radius visual study area to determine the extent of potential Project visibility based on existing topography and vegetation, and the location and height of the proposed wind turbines. These maps identify the geographic area where there is a high probability that turbine(s) or portions of turbines will be visible. The purpose of the viewshed map is to provide a general understanding of potential Project visibility and to identify areas where a more refined analysis using simulations is warranted. HMMH used ArcGIS (version 10) software to develop the viewshed maps for this analysis, incorporating terrain and landcover data sets. The 10-meter (33 feet) resolution digital elevation model (DEM) data were obtained from the USGS, and vegetation data was obtained from the 2001 National Land Cover Data Set (NLCD). The NLCD data was used to estimate line-of-sight calculations assuming a canopy cover, or “leaf on” conditions. A conservative tree height of 40 feet (12.2 m) was assumed for forested areas. As confirmed by field site reconnaissance, this is conservative assumption, since the majority of trees in the area are greater than 40 feet. Two five-mile radius viewsheds were prepared, one to illustrate daytime visibility (based on a maximum blade tip height of 427 feet, or 130 meters, above existing grade) and the other to illustrate potential visibility of FAA-required turbine lights (based on a hub height of 262 feet, or 80 meters, above existing grade). Figures 6 and 7 in Appendix Q present the results of the daytime and nighttime viewshed analyses. These Figures are also included within the body of the DEIS, at the end of this section. These viewshed maps show the areas where one or more of the turbines could be visible, with different colors used to indicate the number of turbines that might be visible from any given location. As indicated by the blade tip analysis, some portion of the proposed Project could potentially be visible in the daytime from approximately 15.3% of the five-mile study area. Areas of potential nighttime visibility, as indicated by the hub height viewshed analysis include approximately 12.6% of the five-mile radius study area (HMMH, 2013a). The results of the viewshed analyses are summarized in Table 15. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 118 Table 15. Summary of Viewshed Results for Five-Mile Study Area Number of Turbines Visible Five-Mile-Radius Study Area1 Viewshed Results Daytime Visibility (Blade Tip) Nighttime Visibility (Hub Height) Acres % of Study Area Acres % of Study Area 0 52,250 84.7% 53,912 87.4% 1 1,235 2.0% 1,557 2.5% 2 1,007 1.6% 1,045 1.7% 3 882 1.4% 1,022 1.7% 4 1,096 1.8% 940 1.5% 5 825 1.3% 664 1.1% 6 888 1.4% 987 1.6% 7 3,471 5.6% 1,527 2.5% Total Project Visibility2 9,404 15.3% 7,742 12.6% 1The study area includes approximately 61,654 acres. 2This represents the portion of the study area in which any turbines are visible (i.e., between one and seven turbines). Potentially visible areas are scattered throughout the five-mile study area, but are most concentrated in the central and northern portions of the study area. Of the six identified aesthetic resources of statewide significance within the five-mile study area, five will have no views of the Project, due to topographical and vegetative screening. Based on the viewshed analyses and field verification efforts, the Finger Lakes Trail is the only aesthetic resources of statewide significance expected to have partial views of the turbines. In addition, there will be no turbines visible from the population centers of Newfield Hamlet and Enfield Center, nor from the majority of identified resources of local significance (e.g., schools, campgrounds, parks, golf courses, State Forests). Local resources expected to have partial or full views of the turbines include Rolfe Cemetery, the Noble House Farm Bed and Breakfast, State Routes 79 and 228, and Mecklenburg United Methodist Church. Views will also be available from portions of numerous local roadways, including McIntyre Road, Carley Road, Williamee Road, Black Oak Road, Swamp Road, Cox Road, Rothermich Road, County Line Road, and Kelsey Road (HMMH, 2013a). 3.6.2.2.2 Line-of-Sight Cross Section HMMR (2013a) performed a line-of-sight cross section analysis for each of the visual resources identified in Table 3 of Appendix Q, to determine the potential visibility of each of the seven turbines from the resource location. The cross sections were derived using terrain from the USGS DEM topography data and NLCD land cover data similar to the viewshed analysis. The line-of-sight analysis includes the cross-section view from the visual resource toward each turbine, taking account topography and vegetation. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 9 in Appendix Q, which shows where the turbines could be visible along the line-of-sight from the visual resource location. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 119 Areas along the line-of-sight are depicted in green where views of the turbines are available and in red where there would be no visibility. Note that Figure 9 in Appendix Q includes line-of-sight cross sections from several points beyond the 5-mile study area, including Cayuga Lake, from which there is no visibility of the Project. 3.6.2.2.3 Field Review Visibility of the proposed Project was evaluated in the field December 12-13, 2012 and March 14-15, 2013. The purpose of the field review was to (1) verify the viewshed results for a majority of visually sensitive resources and assess the vegetative land cover data, (2) photo document as many resource locations as possible, and (3) identify additional locations along local roadways and public vantage points with open views toward the Project and photo document those locations for evaluation in the photo simulation analysis. Note that many of the locations identified in the Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory (Peter J. Smith & Company, 2007) were visited and photo documented during the field review. The weather conditions for both trips consisted of mostly to partly sunny skies, which are conducive for visibility and provides for a wide variety of sky conditions for use in the photo simulation analysis. The photographs were taken with a digital camera, and the latitude and longitude of each location were obtained using a portable GPS system. Specifically, for the first field visit in December 2012, an Olympus C-7070 digital camera was used with a lens setting of 32 mm, while the second field visit in March of 2013 utilized a Panasonic DMC-FZ28 with a lens setting of 27mm. Field review confirmed that actual Project visibility is likely to be even more limited than suggested by viewshed mapping. This is due to the fact that trees within the study area provide more extensive and effective screening than assumed in these analyses (e.g., vegetation is more extensive than indicated on the USGS NLCD, and often taller than 40 feet in height). The result is that certain sites/areas where "potential" visibility was indicated by viewshed mapping were actually well screened from views of the proposed Project. Field review also confirmed a lack of visibility (due the screening effects of adjacent buildings and/or vegetation) from areas that were heavily forested and from hamlet centers. Sites of statewide significance where field review confirmed lack of visibility (due the screening effects of adjacent buildings and/or vegetation) included Newfield Covered Bridge, Enfield Falls Mill, Miller’s House, Robert H. Treman State Park, and forested portions of the Finger Lakes Trail (HMMH, 2013a). 3.6.2.2.4 Visual Simulations From the photo documentation conducted during field verification, HMMH selected a total of 12 viewpoints for development of visual simulations (see Figure 10 in Appendix Q; this Figure is also included within the body of the DEIS, at the end of this section). Table 16 summarizes the locational details and characteristics of each photo simulation. Each viewpoint is discussed in greater detail below in Section 3.6.2.2.4. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 120 Table 16. Viewpoints Selected for Simulation Viewer Location Number1 Photo Location Landscape Similarity Zone Viewer/User Group Viewing Distance2 (Miles) 17 The Noble House Rural Agriculture Residents/Tourists 0.7 18 McIntyre Road Rural Agriculture Residents 1.4 34 Farm Hill Rural Agriculture Residents 3.0 35 Williamee Road Rural Agriculture Residents/Commuters 4.5 38 Black Oak Road Rural Agriculture Residents 0.7 48 Rolfe Cemetery Rural Agriculture Residents 4.7 54 Finger Lakes Trail Forest Land Residents/Tourists 0.4 56 Bostwick & Applegate Roads Rural Agriculture Residents 2.5 57 Harvey Hill & Rothermich Roads Rural Agriculture Residents 0.9 62 County Line & Enfield Center Roads Rural Agriculture Residents 2.0 63 Chapman & County Line Roads Rural Agriculture Residents 1.0 64 Chapman Road Farm Rural Agriculture Residents 1.1 1 See Figure 8 in Appendix Q. 2 Distance from viewpoint to nearest visible turbine. These viewpoints were selected based upon the following criteria: 1. They provide open views of proposed turbines, as indicated by field verification. 2. They illustrate Project visibility from sensitive resources with the visual study area. 3. They illustrate typical views from landscape similarity zones where views of the Project will be available. 4. They illustrate typical views of the proposed Project that will be available to representative viewer/user groups within the visual study area. 5. They illustrate typical views of different numbers of turbines, from a variety of viewer distances, and under different lighting conditions, to illustrate the range of visual change that will occur with the Project in place. 6. The photos obtained from the viewpoints display good composition, lighting, and exposure. The photo simulation analysis was prepared to be consistent with the Town of Enfield Local Law. The photographs were input into the WindPro Photomontage module for proper scaling at each site. This module incorporates the latitude, longitude, and elevation of both the turbine locations and the viewer location, along with the camera focal length and weather conditions. The software implants a three dimensional model of the turbine into the image using control points, or reference point locations to make adjustments for the proper height and dimensions of the turbine. Control points used for the photo simulation renderings consisted of several sources. When possible, during the photo acquisition process, GPS coordinates were obtained for small physical features within the photo (e.g., mailboxes, fence posts and sign posts). Larger objects (e.g., utility poles, met tower and building structures) visible Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 121 within the photos were geospatially located using aerial photography. The WindPro software used for the photo simulations utilizes the terrain data to develop a horizon line visible from the photo location point to assist in proper scaling and location. For rendering purposes, the turbine orientation was directed toward the predominant wind direction to the southwest or northwest. This allowed for a greater visual impact in the rendering than to allow the wind turbines to be viewed in profile. If the angle of the wind turbine appeared less than 45°, a manual adjustment was made for individual renderings. 3.6.2.2.5 Potential Visual Impact Evaluation The photo simulations demonstrate that the visual impact of the Project will be highly variable based on landscape setting, the extent of the screening (e.g., buildings, trees, or terrain), presence of other natural or man-made features in the view, the distance of the viewer from the Project, weather conditions, and sensitivity of the viewer to change. These Figure are included within the body of the DEIS, at the end of this section; and are also located in Appendix Q. When characterizing the Project visibility, there are a number of factors involved when analyzing the impact and compatibility of the Project with the existing environment. Some of the factors include: landscape setting, visible horizon, contrast and color, and scale. The visual impact of the Project will be greatest within 1.5 mile (e.g., from locations with foreground views) where the turbines will be the largest structures and appear out of context compared to other structures within the landscape view. This is shown in Viewpoints 17, 18, 38, 54, 57, 63 and 64, which are the closest viewpoint locations to the turbines selected for the photo simulation analysis. At these locations, the turbines appear as the tallest structure on the horizon and disproportionate to other objects within view such as trees or buildings. • At Viewpoint 17 from the Noble House, there are two turbines clearly visible and the relative short distance to the turbines makes them appear large. However, this viewpoint is also above the base of the turbines, which limits their dominance by making them more proportional compared to the existing tree line. • At Viewpoint 18 from McIntyre Road, most of the turbines are not visible and are screened by the existing tree line; however, there is one turbine clearly visible along the hill top horizon. There are numerous trees in the foreground at this viewer location, which tends to partially screen the dominant views one would expect for objects within 1-2 miles of the viewer. • From Viewpoint 38 at the Black Oak Road, two turbines are clearly visible. However, the impact is somewhat reduced by the presence of other existing tall structures that are also visible from this location, such as the meteorological tower and the transmission lines. The impacts of the turbine on views at this location are further minimized due to the location of the viewer, who is elevated relative to the turbine base, a perspective which tends to diminish the dominance of the turbines. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 122 • From Viewpoint 54 at the Finger Lakes Trail along Connecticut Hill Road, there is one turbine visible. The Finger Lakes Trail is a winding long-distance trail which traverses the five-mile study area and runs from the southwest of the Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area northeast into the Robert H. Treman State Park and beyond. Most of the trail is wooded, and therefore the trees will block most potential views of the turbines. However, the open areas along Connecticut Hill Road will afford views of one of the turbine. The turbine visible from this location is the dominant structure and will contrast with the background sky and vegetation in the foreground. However, the scale and dominance of the structure is somewhat lessened by comparison with some of the taller trees in the foreground, which makes the height of the turbine appears to be similar to the height of the trees. Also, user groups at this location will generally be hikers or joggers, who will generally be moving quickly down the trail and returning shortly to areas with forest cover, limiting the duration of time spent with views of the turbine. • From Viewpoint 57 at the intersection of Harvey Hill and Rothermich Roads, three turbines are clearly visible and one turbine is partially visible through the trees in the foreground. During leaf-on seasons, this turbine will most likely not be visible from this location. The three turbines contrast with the sky and the vegetation, however, the slightly rising terrain from foreground to background partially blocks the full view of two of the turbines and reduces perceived scale contrast, as do the trees in the foreground and in the background, which appear to be similar size and height as the turbines. • From Viewpoint 63 at the intersection of Chapman and County Line Roads, six turbines are clearly visible. The turbines are the dominant structures and the off-white color contrasts with the background sky and the nearby brown and green vegetation. One turbine is clearly visible in the foreground and another turbine is visible on the top of the hillside on the right. For the remaining four turbines, the lower portions of the tower are screened by vegetation and terrain, leaving mostly the blade rotors visible. • From Viewpoint 64 at Chapman Road Farm, two turbines are clearly visible and the top blade of a third turbine is also visible. The remaining four turbines are completely screened due to vegetation and topography. The two visible turbines contrast with the background sky and the brown vegetation. The viewer elevation at this location is well below the turbine base elevation; therefore, the turbines appear larger as the viewer is looking up the hill. The photo simulations of the Project from middleground distances (i.e., 1.5 to 4.0 miles) show that the turbines will still be perceived as the dominant structures; however, the scale and dominance begin to lessen as one moves further away from the turbines, and topography and vegetation play a greater role in screening potential views. This is shown in Viewpoints 34, 56, and 62. • At Viewpoint 34 at Farm Hill, there are four turbines which could be visible, while the other three will be screened by the existing tree line and topography. The topography and tree line also screen parts of two of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 123 the visible turbines. Other structures visible in the foreground, such as the farm and tree stand, serve to reduce the dominant visual element of the turbines. • At Viewpoint 56 at the intersection of Bostwick and Applegate Road, there are six turbines which are partially visible through the trees. During leaf-on seasons, these turbines will probably not be visible from this location. One turbine is clearly visible and contrasts with the background sky; however the tall trees in the foreground tend to lessen the dominance of the turbine. In addition, the viewer is elevated above the turbine bases, which further reduces the impact of the structure height on the horizon. • At Viewpoint 62 at the intersection of County Line and Enfield Center Roads, portions of four turbines are visible. However, two of the turbines are screened by the trees in the near horizon, and will not likely be visible when the deciduous trees have leaves. In addition, there are telephone poles and medium size trees in the foreground, and structures in the background, which tends to reduce the dominance of the turbines. From background distances (i.e., beyond 4 miles), the perceived visual impact becomes less due to increasing distance and screening by topography, tree lines, and structures. As shown in the viewshed analysis, the number of locations with potential turbine views is much less compared to the middleground and foreground viewing areas. In addition, weather conditions such as haze and cloud cover will tend to mitigate impacts of the turbines at these distances. This is shown in Viewpoints 35 and 48 (Williamee Road and Rolfe Cemetery). At both these locations, views of multiple turbines are available. However, the topography and forest vegetation tends to screen some or part of the turbines, thereby reduce the impact of the Project. In addition, views from these roadway locations are mostly from commuters, for whom potential turbine views will be brief in duration. According to the NYSDEC Visual Policy, simple visibility of the Project from any of the viewing locations does not imply detrimental effect to the beauty or structure. The policy specifically states, “Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a place or structure. Significant aesthetic impacts are those that may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or one that impairs the character or quality of such a place. Proposed large facilities by themselves should not be a trigger for declaration of significance. Instead, a project by virtue of its siting in a visual proximity to an inventoried resource may lead staff to conclude that there may be a significant impact.” The photo simulations included in Appendix Q show that there will be views of the proposed Project from many locations within the visual study area. However, these views do not meet the NYSDEC criteria for significant aesthetic impacts. The turbines will not have a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a place of aesthetic resources of statewide significance, and will not cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment of such resources (HMMH, 2013a). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 124 Electrical infrastructure associated with the proposed Project also will result in some level of visual impact. Above- ground electrical infrastructure consists of the substation; there will be no overhead collection lines or transmission lines. The substation will present contrast with the largely undeveloped/agricultural character of the Project area and add visual clutter to the landscape. However, this effect will be fairly limited, due to the distance of these facilities from public vantage points, their relatively modest height, and abundant screening provided by native vegetation. 3.6.2.2.6 Assessment of Shadow Flicker In addition to the VIA, a separate assessment of the phenomenon known as “shadow flicker” was conducted by HMMH (see Appendix S). Shadow flicker is the alternating change in light intensity or shadows created by the moving turbine blades when back-lit by the sun. Shadow flicker is most pronounced in northern latitudes during winter months because of the lower angle of the sun in the winter sky. However, it is possible to encounter shadow flicker anywhere for brief periods before sunset and after sunrise (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2005). Shadow flicker does not occur when fog or clouds obscure the sun, or when turbines are not operating. Because shadow flicker results from the intersection of three points (sun, turbine, and receptor) and the position of one of those points (the sun) is not fixed, shadow flicker effects are temporal and specifically dependent on the position of the sun. Effects are variable based on both seasonal and daily position of the sun, with the greatest extent of potential impact occurring when the sun is lowest in the horizon (i.e., sunrise and sunset). In general, for wind projects in the northern hemisphere where the sun occupies the southern half of the sky, shadow flicker is generally contained within an area east-west-north from the wind turbines, except at summer solstice when the sun rises in the northeast and sets in the northwest, allowing flicker to reach southwest and southeast of the turbines. The Town of Enfield has a local wind law that addresses shadow flicker, stating “the study shall identify locations where shadow flickers could be caused by the WTG and the expected durations of the same at these locations. Shadow Flickers shall be mitigated if their impact materially affects any Residence.” However, no local, county state, or national laws or standards exist that set a threshold or quantify the allowable frequency or duration of shadow flicker at the Project Site. In general, quantified limits on shadow flicker are uncommon in the United States because studies have not shown it to be a significant issue (USDOE, 2008b, 2012; NRC, 2007). However, standards developed by some states and countries provide guidance in this regard. A model wind ordinance prepared by the North Carolina Wind Working Group in 2008 suggests a limit of 30 hours per year (generally less than 1% of annual daylight hours) at any occupied building on a Non-participating landowner’s property (NCWWG, 2008). The Ohio Power Siting Board also uses 30 annual hours of shadow flicker as a threshold of acceptability in reviewing commercial wind power projects (OPSB, 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d). In addition, several guidelines from Europe and Australia have also suggested 30 hours of shadow flicker per year as the threshold of significant impact, or the point at which shadow flicker is commonly perceived as an annoyance (NRC, 2007; Parsons Brinckerhoff, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 125 2011; DPCD, 2012). Accordingly, a threshold of 30 shadow flicker hours per year was used in the analysis of the proposed Black Oak Wind Project to identify any potentially significant impacts on residences. The shadow flicker modeling analysis for the proposed Project was conducted by HMMH (2013b) using WindPRO SHADOW Modeling Software, which is a widely accepted modeling software package developed specifically for the design and evaluation of wind power projects. Input variables and assumptions used for shadow flicker modeling calculations for the proposed Project include: • Latitude and longitude coordinates of the seven proposed wind turbine sites. • Latitude and longitude coordinates for 82 nearby residential structures. • The rotor diameter (100 meters [328 feet]) and hub height (80 meters [262 feet]) for the REpower MM100 turbine model. • The average monthly sunshine probability for Enfield. • Annual wind direction frequency, based on site specific meteorological data. • National Elevation Dataset (NED) from the USGS. • Forest cover data from the 2001 NLCD, verified by comparison with recent aerial photographs. The study results indicate relatively low shadow/flicker effects to a majority of receptor locations in the vicinity of the Project Site. Figure 3 in Appendix S depicts the expected shadow flicker from the proposed Project; this Figure is also included within the body of the DEIS, at the end of this section. Shadow flicker will not exceed the 30 hour/year threshold at any residential structures. The projected shadow flicker at each of the 82 residential structures near the Project Site is summarized below: • 52 structures (64%) are not expected to experience any shadow flicker, • 20 structures (24%) may be affected 0 to 10 hours/year, • 9 structures (11%) may be affected 10 to 20 hours/year, and • 1 structure (1%) may be affected 20 to 30 hours/year. Additional information about the anticipated shadow flicker at receptors expected to receive more than 10 hours of flicker per year can be found in Appendix S, and is summarized below in Table 17. Table 17. Receptors with Greater than 10 Hours of Shadow Flicker Receptor ID1 Predicted Shadow Flicker (hh:mm/year) Location Turbines Contributing Flicker Times of Year Receptors Potentially Affected AA 14:08 Black Oak Road 2 November – February AD 25:57 Black Oak Road 2 May – July Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 126 Receptor ID1 Predicted Shadow Flicker (hh:mm/year) Location Turbines Contributing Flicker Times of Year Receptors Potentially Affected AF 14:58 Black Oak Road 4, 5, 6 October – February AI 10:26 Connecticut Hill Road 2, 5 May – July, December – January AJ 15:44 Connecticut Hill Road 2 May – August AO 10:13 Connecticut Hill Road 2, 5 April, August, December – January AP 11:03 Connecticut Hill Road 2, 5 April, August, December – January AS 13:02 Connecticut Hill Road 5, 6 September – April BI 19:08 Black Oak Road 4, 5 January – March September – November BJ 16:46 Black Oak Road 4, 5 March – April August – September 1 Receptor IDs correspond to residences in the vicinity of the proposed turbines, as mapped on Figure 3 in Appendix S. Although shadow flicker has been alleged to cause or contribute to health effects, blade pass frequencies for modern commercial scale wind turbines are so low that the resulting flicker effect is not likely to trigger seizures. According to the Epilepsy Society (2012), approximately five percent of individuals with epilepsy have sensitivity to light. Most people with photosensitive epilepsy are sensitive to flickering around 16-25 Hz, although some people may be sensitive to rates as low as 3 Hz and as high as 60 Hz. Blades on commercial wind turbines rotate at a frequency of 1 Hz or less, and there is no evidence that wind turbines can trigger seizures (British Epilepsy Association, 2007; MADEP & MADPH, 2012; Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2011; NHMRC, 2010). The primary concern with shadow flicker is the annoyance it can cause for adjacent homeowners. Annoyance can trigger physiological reactions of the autonomic nervous and/or endocrine systems that increase the risk of cardiovascular disorders. However, it is important to note that annoyance is not a disease or physical illness in of itself; rather it is a variable and subjective response to stimuli that can include many other things besides shadow flicker. Pierpont (2009) postulates that shadow flicker, in association with low frequency noise can result in “wind turbine syndrome”, consisting of a wide variety of symptoms including headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, cognitive problems, and panic episodes. The proposed mechanism for these effects is disturbance of balance due to “discordant” stimulation of the vestibular system, along with visceral sensations, sensations of vibration in the chest and other locations in the body, and stimulation of the visual system by moving shadows, with sleep disturbances and headache as the most commonly reported symptoms. However, Pierpont’s conclusions are based on phone interviews with 23 people in 10 families who live between 1,000 feet and 1 mile from wind turbines. Study participants were selected based on self-reported health issues; participants living in similar areas without health problems were excluded from the study. The scientific rigor of Pierpont’s investigation Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 127 and the validity of her conclusions have been widely criticized (e.g., Roberts, 2009; Leventhall, 2009; NHMRC, 2010; MADEP & MADPH, 2012), and no peer-reviewed studies have supported the existence of “wind turbine syndrome”. In summary, adverse shadow flicker impacts are not anticipated. 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures Construction-related visual impacts will be minimized and mitigated through 1) careful site planning/project layout, 2) development and implementation of various construction plans, and 3) a comprehensive site restoration process following completion of construction. Site planning has already been utilized to locate turbines away from visually sensitive resources/receptors and minimize site disturbance, including tree clearing and grading. During construction, visual impacts associated with working construction equipment will be minimized through adherence to a construction routing and sequencing plan that minimizes impacts on local roads and residences. A dust control plan and a sediment and erosion control plan will be developed and implemented to minimize off-site visual impacts associated with construction activities. As described in Section 3.6.2.1, any unavoidable construction-related visual impacts will be short term. Following completion of construction, site restoration activities will occur. Restoration will include removal of excess road material from Project access roads, restoration of agricultural fields (including soil decompaction, rock removal, and topsoil spreading), and revegetating/restoring disturbed sites through seeding and mulching. These actions will assure that, as much as possible, the site is returned to its preconstruction condition and that long-term visual impacts are minimized. Mitigation options for the operating Project are limited, given the nature of the Project and its siting criteria (very tall structures typically located in open fields at the highest locally available elevations). It is also worth noting that for many individuals, views of wind power projects are not necessarily considered an adverse impact that requires mitigation (Warren et al., 2005). However, in accordance with NYSDEC Program Policy (NYSDEC, 2000), various mitigation measures were considered. These included the following: • The Project has been scaled down to seven turbines, which is far fewer than the 20 original proposed, thereby reducing the visual impacts. See Section 5.3.3 for a detailed discussion comparing alternate project sites and scales. See also Figure 13, which shows alternate turbine sites considered. • There will be no new overhead transmission or collection lines. To reduce visual impacts, the system of 34.5 kV collection lines connect the individual turbines to the substation will be buried underground. • The turbines will not be used for corporate advertising. Lettering on the turbines will be minimized and will not include the Project owner (but may include the turbine manufacturer). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 128 • The wind turbines will be simple in design and consist of a tubular structure and not lattice framework. The color of the turbines will be non-intrusive and consist of a non-reflective neutral off-white color. This color is also conducive to minimizing the visual contrast with the background sky. The turbines appearance with respect to one another will be similar throughout the facility so as to provide uniformity in overall size, geometry, and rotational speeds. • No new maintenance buildings are anticipated for the Project; however, if one is required, it will be designed to resemble an agricultural building similar in style to those found throughout the area, minimizing contrast. • Vegetation clearing around the turbines will be kept to minimum to ensure the natural landscape is maintained as much as possible. • To the extent feasible, the Project will utilize existing roadways to minimize removal of trees and vegetation during construction and maintenance activities. Any additional roadways will be designed to follow topographic contours and minimize cutting and filling. • Once construction is complete, temporarily disturbed areas will be restored (including removal of excess road material, de-compaction, and rock removal in agricultural areas) and returned to approximately their pre-construction contours. Exposed soils at restored tower sites, and along roads, crane paths, and buried collection lines will be stabilized by seeding, mulching, and/or agricultural planting. • Turbine lighting will be kept to the minimum allowable by the FAA. Medium or low intensity red blinking lights will be used at night, rather than white strobes or steady burning red lights. The lowest permissible “off-cycle” will be utilized, and fixtures with a narrow beam path will be considered as a means of minimizing the visibility/intensity of FAA warning lights at ground-level vantage points. • Lighting at the substations will be kept to a minimum, and turned on only as needed. The main security lighting at the substation will be activated by passive infrared sensors, and will be fitted with appropriate shades to direct light in a downward direction. Task lighting will be designed related to specific operational and emergency activities, and will only be activated when required. • The turbines and turbine sites will be maintained to ensure that they are clean, attractive, and operating efficiently. The towers will be re-painted as needed. Research and anecdotal reports indicate that viewers find wind turbines more appealing when the rotors are turning (Pasqualetti et al., 2002; Stanton, 1996). • Ancillary facilities, including the substation, will also be maintained to ensure they are clean and operating efficiently. The substation will be fenced. • The Project Sponsor will establish a decommissioning fund to ensure that if the Project goes out of service and is not repowered/redeveloped, all visible above-ground components will be removed. See Section 2.4.11 for a detailed discussion of Project decommissioning. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 129 • A Landscaping Plan will be prepared as part of the submission of the Wind Energy Permit application. This Plan will depict existing vegetation and areas to be cleared, as well as describe any new plant materials proposed to be added to the landscape. • Correction of an existing aesthetic problem within the viewshed is a viable mitigation strategy for wind power projects that result in significant adverse visual impacts. According to the NYSDEC (2000) visual policy, an example of an offset might be the removal of an existing abandoned structure that is in disrepair (i.e., an “eyesore”) to offset impacts from a proposal within visual proximity to the same sensitive resource. Alternatively, historic structure restoration/maintenance activities could be undertaken to offset potential visual impacts on cultural resources. Shadow Flicker Mitigation As indicated above, 30 hours of shadow flicker per year is commonly used as the threshold of significant impact, or as a measure of when shadow flicker is commonly perceived as an annoyance. When shadow flicker is anticipated to exceed 30 hours/year, mitigation measures such as plantings to provide screenings or installation of window treatments are often considered. However, shadow flicker from the proposed Project will not exceed the 30 hour/year threshold at any residential structures. Therefore, no mitigation for shadow flicker effects is warranted and none is proposed. ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 5 M ile B u fferFinger Lakes TrailFinger Lakes Trail Finger Lak es Trail Finger Lakes TrailT o m p k i n s T o m p k i n sC o u n t y C o u n t y S c h u y l e r S c h u y l e rC o u n t y C o u n t y UV79 UV228 UV227 UV327 UV224 UV96 UV13 UV228 Robert TremanState Park Finger Lakes National Forest NewfieldHamlet Odessa NorthwestIthaca Connecticut HillWildlife Management Area NewfieldState Forest Texas HollowState Forest Alpine Enfield Newfield Perry City Mecklenburg Cayutaville Krum Corner Smith Valley Reynoldsville Butternut Park Christian Hill Whipple Corner Duboise Corner Kennedy Corner Kellogg Corners Millers Corners Cloverland Park Van Dorn Corner Meadowbrook ParkTrumbull Corners Spaulding Corner Bostwick Corners Applegate Corner Black Oaks Corners Black Oak Wind Farm, LLCEnfield, New YorkPath: H:\GIS\USA\NY\304750_Enfield\304750_Enfield_Figure6_Visibility.mxdFigure 6Daytime Viewshed Analysis Results Number of Visible Turbines 7654321 Wildlife Management Area National/State Park or Forest Village/Hamlet TrailRoads ©0 1 2 3 Miles Proposed Wind Turbines  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 5 M ile B u fferFinger Lakes TrailFinger Lakes Trail Finger Lak es Trail Finger Lakes TrailT o m p k i n s T o m p k i n sC o u n t y C o u n t y S c h u y l e r S c h u y l e rC o u n t y C o u n t y UV79 UV228 UV227 UV327 UV224 UV96 UV13 UV228 Robert TremanState Park Finger Lakes National Forest NewfieldHamlet Odessa NorthwestIthaca Connecticut HillWildlife Management Area NewfieldState Forest Texas HollowState Forest Alpine Enfield Newfield Perry City Mecklenburg Cayutaville Krum Corner Smith Valley Reynoldsville Butternut Park Christian Hill Whipple Corner Duboise Corner Kennedy Corner Kellogg Corners Millers Corners Cloverland Park Van Dorn Corner Meadowbrook ParkTrumbull Corners Spaulding Corner Bostwick Corners Applegate Corner Black Oaks Corners Black Oak Wind Farm, LLCEnfield, New YorkPath: H:\GIS\USA\NY\304750_Enfield\304750_Enfield_Figure7_FAA_Visibility.mxdFigure 7Nightime FAA Lighting Viewshed Analysis Results Wildlife Management Area National/State Park or Forest Village/Hamlet TrailRoads ©0 1 2 3 Miles Proposed Wind Turbines ÂNumber of Visible FAA Lights 7654321 ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Æc Æc Æc Æc nn nnn n !!( !!( !!( !!(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa5 M ile B u fferNewfieldCovered Bridge Enfield Falls Mill and Miller's House Lattin-Crandall Octagon Barn Finger Lakes TrailFinger Lakes Trail Finger Lak es Trail Finger Lakes TrailT o m p k i n s T o m p k i n sC o u n t y C o u n t y S c h u y l e r S c h u y l e rC o u n t y C o u n t y UV79 UV228 UV227 UV327 UV224 UV96 UV13 UV228 Robert TremanState Park Finger Lakes National Forest NewfieldHamlet Odessa NorthwestIthaca Connecticut HillWildlife Management Area NewfieldState Forest Texas HollowState Forest 64 63 62 57 56 54 35 34 47 49 18 17 48 33 38 Newfield Public Library Enfield ES Newfield MSNewfield ES Odessa-Montour JSHS Alpine Enfield Perry City Mecklenburg Cayutaville Krum Corner Smith Valley Reynoldsville Butternut Park Christian Hill Whipple Corner Duboise Corner Kennedy Corner Kellogg Corners Millers Corners Cloverland Park Van Dorn Corner Meadowbrook ParkTrumbull Corners Spaulding Corner Bostwick Corners Applegate Corner Black Oaks Corners Black Oak Wind Farm, LLCEnfield, New YorkPath: H:\GIS\USA\NY\304750_Enfield\304750_Enfield_Figure10_Photo_Simulation_Locations.mxdFigure 10Viewer Locations Chosen for Photosimulation AnalysisNumber of Visible Turbines 7654321 Wildlife Management Area National/State Park or Forest Village/Hamlet TrailRoads ©0 1 2 3 Miles !!(National Register of Historic Places Æc Library n School Proposed Wind Turbines ÂaaReceptor Photograph Location Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-3 Figure A1 Photosimulation PS#38 at Black Oak Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-5 Figure A2 Photosimulation PS#38 at Black Oak Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-7 Figure A3 Photosimulation PS#17 at The Noble House Original Image Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-9 Figure A4 Photosimulation PS#17 at The Noble House Simulation Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-11 Figure A5 Photosimulation PS#48 at Rolfe Cemetery Original Image Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-13 Figure A6 Photosimulation PS#48 at Rolfe Cemetery Simulation Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-15 Figure A7 Photosimulation PS#54 at Finger Lakes Trail and Connecticut Hill Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-17 Figure A8 Photosimulation PS#54 at Finger Lakes Trail and Connecticut Hill Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-19 Figure A9 Photosimulation PS#56 at Bostwick and Applegate Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-21 Figure A10 Photosimulation PS#56 at Bostwick and Applegate Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-23 Figure A11 Photosimulation PS#18 at McIntyre Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-25 Figure A12 Photosimulation PS#18 at McIntyre Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-27 Figure A13 Photosimulation PS#34 at Farm Hill Original Image Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-29 Figure A14 Photosimulation PS#34 at Farm Hill Simulation Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-31 Figure A15 Photosimulation PS#35 at Williamee Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-33 Figure A16 Photosimulation PS#35 at Williamee Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-35 Figure A17 Photosimulation PS#57 at Harvey Hill Road and Rothermich Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-37 Figure A18 Photosimulation PS#57 at Harvey Hill Road and Rothermich Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-39 Figure A19 Photosimulation PS#62 at County Line and Enfield Center Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-41 Figure A20 Photosimulation PS#62 at County Line and Enfield Center Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-43 Figure A21 Photosimulation PS#63 at Chapman and County Line Road Original Image Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-45 Figure A22 Photosimulation PS#63 at Chapman and County Line Road Simulation Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-47 Figure A23 Photosimulation PS#64 at Chapman Road Farm Original Image Visual Impact Assessment April 8, 2013 HMMH Report No. 304750 A-49 Figure A24 Photosimulation PS#64 at Chapman Road Farm Simulation ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØ Ø ØØ ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØ Ø ØØ Ø ØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØ Ø Ø ØØØØØ ØØ ØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØ Ø Ø Ø ØØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ Ø Ø ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø Ø ØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØ Ø ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØ Ø ØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØ ØØ Ø ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØØØØØ Ø Ø ØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØ Ø Ø ØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØØ Ø ØØ Ø ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ Ø Ø ØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ ØØØØ Ø ØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø Ø ØØ Ø Ø ØØ Ø ØØØ Ø ØØØ ØØØØØØØ Ø Ø ØØØØØØØØ Ø Ø ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø ØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØ ØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØ Ø ØØØØ ØØØØØ Ø ØØ ØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØ ØØØØØØ ØØØØØ Ø ØØ ØØØ ØØØØØØØØ ØØØ ØØØØ Ø Ø Ø Ø ØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØ Ø Ø ØØØØØØØØ Ø Ø ØØØØ ØØ ØØ Ø Ø ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØØ ØØ ØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØ Ø Ø ØØØØØ ØØØØØØØØØ ØØ Ø ØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØ Ø ØØØ ØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØØ ØØØØ ØØØØØ Ø Ø ØØØØØØز ² ² ²² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²²²²² ² ²² ² ²² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²² ²ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂT o m p k i n s C o u n t y T o m p k i n s C o u n t y S c h u y l e r C o u n t y S c h u y l e r C o u n t y Cayutaville Rd Harvey Hill Rd Tower RdChapman RdGriffin RdBlack Oak RdCulver Rd Weatherby RdCounty Line RdSaxton Hill Rd Rumsey Hill Rd A M B C K D N L E G J F H O P I Q R S T U W V X Y Z CECD CA CCCB BY BZ BWBX BV AT AU BU AW BT BD AV AS BE BB AR BH AY BS BC BG BF AX BR BP BA AF AQ BO BM BL BN BJ AP AG AOAH AZ ABAC AE BI AJAD AK AL AI AM AA AN BK 1.-1-17 1.-1-2 13.-2-6.2 1.-1-4 13.-1-4.121 18.-1-6 18.-1-10 13.-2-5.2 18.-1-9 1.-1-1 1.-1-221.-1-20 13.-2-1.2 13.-1-4.11 13.-2-2.12 1.-1-15 1.-1-25 18.-2-2.22 1.-1-23 18.-1-3.22 1.-1-6 13.-2-4 18.-1-1 12.-1-7 18.-3-6 18.-3-4.2 1.-1-19 13.-1-2.1 18.-3-5.22 1.-1-16.3 13.-1-3.22 18.-1-4.2 1.-1-11 13.-2-3.2 18.-1-5 18.-2-4.3 1.-1-10 1.-1-14 12.-1-4 1.-1-18 2.-1-281.-1-13 1.-1-8.1 1.-1-3 18.-2-1.21 18.-1-3.21 1.-1-8.2 2.-1-2918.-1-2 12.-2-912.-2-10 18.-2-10 18.-1-7 18.-3-5.13 12.-2-8 1.-1-7 12.-1-5 2.-1-30.1 14.-1-1.321.-1-16.512 13.-1-4.122 1.-1-5 18.-2-8.213. -1 -6 .2513.-1-6.161.-1-12.121.-1-12.2 2.-1-1 18.-1-3.1 13.-2-1.113.-2-7.818.-3-713.-2-3.113.-1-6.1318.-2-1413.-1-2.2118.-1-3.3113.-1-2.2213.-1-6.213.-1-4.4 13.-2-1.31 13.-1-6.2718. -3 -2 .3 13.-1-4.22 1. -1 -16 .51113.-2-7.218.-1-3.418.-2-7.113.-1-6.2813.-1-6.418.-2-1.2513.-1-3.2113.-1-6.261.-1-16.521. -1 -8 .3 18.-1- 3 . 813.-1-6.51.-1-16.21.-1-12.1113.-1-6.1813.-1-6.1913.-1-6.2013.-1-6.2113.-1-6.2213.-1-6.2318.-1 - 3 . 3 2 13.-1-6.11 18.-2-1.2313.-1-6.1418.-3-4.11.-1-16.1 13.-2-3.318.-1-3.6 18.-3-5.14 1.-1-16.6 13.-2-2.2 13.-2-5.4118.-3-8.2 18.-2-13.2 18.-2-1.27 18.-3-2.5 17.-1-1.22 18.-3-1.2 13.-2-7.7 18.-3-2.4 18.-3-2.2 1.-1-24 13.-2-7.5 18.-2-4.1 14.-1-13.2 1.-1-8.4 13.-1-6.9 18.-3-8.32 18.-2-2.1 18.-2-1.24 18.-2-13.12 13.-1-6.10 13.-1-6.12 18.-3-2.11 18.-1-8 18.-2-1.32 13.-2-7.4 13.-1-3.1 2.-1-30.22 13.-1-6.6 13.-2-7.1 13.-2-5.42 13.-2-6.3 1.-1-8.5 13.-2-7.6 2.-1-30.21 18.-1-4.1 13.-1-5 18.-2-9.2 18.-1-3.5 11.-1-32.42 18.-1-3.23 13.-1-6.7 18.-3-3.1 13.-1-3.3 13.-2-5.3 18.-3-8.7 18.-1-3.24 13.-2-2.11 18.-2-1.13 13.-1-3.23 18.-2-1.34 18.-2-11 18.-2-13.11 18.-3-8.4 13.-2-6.1 13.-2-7.3 18.-3-2.12 18.-2-1.7 18.-2-1.4 18.-3-2.7 13.-1-4.3 17.-1-1.21 13.-1-6.8 18.-2-1.62 18.-3-1.1 18.-3-2.6 18.-3-2.8 18.-3-8.1 18.-2-1.33 18.-2-1.5 18.-3-8.31 18.-1-3.25 18.-2-2.21 18.-2-1.61 18.-2-1.12 13.-2-5.1 18.-3-8.6 2.-1-30.23 18.-2-1.14 11.-1-32.43 ©0 2,000 4,000 Ft Black Oak Wind Farm, LLCEnfield, New YorkPath: H:\GIS\USA\NY\304750_Enfield\304750_Enfield_Figure3a_Shadow_Flicker_Results.mxdFigure 3aShadow Flicker Calculations ReceptorÂProposed Wind Turbines Sh a do w Fli cke r 0 - 5 Hours / Year 5 - 10 Hours / Year 10 - 15 Hours / Year 15 - 20 Hours / Year 20 - 25 Hours / Year 25 - 30 Hours / Year > 30 Hours / YearØØØØØØØØØØØØTree Stand Parcel Boundary ID ² Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 158 3.7 HISTORIC, CULTURAL, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7.1 Existing Conditions A Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey was prepared for the Project (edr, 2013a; see Appendix R). The purpose of the Phase 1A survey was to determine whether previously identified cultural resources are located in the areas that may be affected by the proposed Project, and to evaluate the potential for previously unidentified cultural resources to be located in the area of potential effect (APE). These resources include archeological sites (prehistoric and historic) and standing structures or other aboveground features. The Phase 1A Cultural Resources survey for the Project consisted of a background/literature search, a site file check, and a field inspection of the Project area. Archeological and historic site files at the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) were reviewed as an initial step to determine the presence of known archeological sites within a one-mile radius of the APE. These files include data recorded at both the NYSOPRHP and the New York State Museum (NYSM). Additional research concerning cultural resources in the study area was conducted at the Tompkins County History Center, the John M. Olin Library at Cornell University, and using on-line resources (see Appendix R for additional detail). To initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concerning the Project, the Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey for the Project (edr, 2013a; see Appendix R) was provided to NYSOPRHP (which serves as the SHPO in New York) on March 5, 2013 for their review and comment. A response letter dated April 3, 2013 (see Appendix L) indicates that the SHPO concurs with the conclusions and recommendations presented in the Phase 1A report. 3.7.1.1 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources 3.7.1.1.1 Archeological Resources The review of archeological site files at the NYSOPRHP and the NYSM included in the Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey (edr, 2013a) identified 20 sites within five miles of the Project Site (see Table 18 below and Figure 5 in Appendix R). None of these previously identified archeological sites are located within the Project Site. Many of the Native American archeological sites within five miles of the Project represent recorded locations of sites from the early-twentieth century, as reported in inventories such as The Aboriginal Occupation of New York (Beauchamp, 1900) and The Archaeological History of New York State (Parker, 1922). NYSM Sites 4785 and 4796 are located along New York State Route 228 and south of State Route 79, west of the Project Site and are described as “small Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 159 villages,” which implies a concentrated area from which Native American artifacts have been recovered or reported (Parker, 1922). Table 18. Archeological Sites Located in the Vicinity of the Project Site Site Identifier Site Name Time Period Description Distance from Project Site (Miles) 097.01.0012 Rogers (SUBi-946) Late Archaic Surface traces visible; heavy debris 2.1 NYSM 9026 Unknown Unknown Unknown 2.5 NYSM 9027 Unknown Unknown Unknown 2.6 NYSM 4785 ACP SCHY-5 Unknown ACP small village 2.7 097.01.0013 Clauson (SUBi-945) Late Archaic Surface traces visible; Brewerton points, debitage 2.9 NYSM 9028 Unknown Unknown Unknown 3.1 097.01.0016 Allen I (SUBi-920) Late Woodland/ Early Owasco Surface traces visible, distinct artifact clusters 3.1 NYSM 4796 ACP SCHY-16 Prehistoric village ACP Small village 3.1 097.01.0014 Allen II (SUBi-921) Unknown One flake, one shell 3.5 NYSM 2192 ITH 3-1RMSC Prehistoric Iroquois village 3.5 NYSM 4797 ACP SCHY Unknown Traces of occupation 3.7 NYSM 4794 ACP SCHY-14 Unknown ACP Camp 4.0 NYSM 9030 Unknown Unknown Unknown 4.2 NYSM 9029 Unknown Unknown Unknown 4.2 NYSM 5029 ACP TOMK 12 Unknown Burial site 4.3 097.01.0007 Loveless II (SUBi-923) Woodland Reported pottery and net sinkers (reported ca. 1940) 4.3 097.01.0018 Sibley (SUBi-926) Unknown Disturbed; damaged from relic hunting 4.4 097.01.0015 Loveless I (SUBi-922) Late Archaic Surface traces visible 4.4 109.08.0093 Carter Creek I Pre-contact Site Unknown prehistoric Prehistoric lithic scatter 4.7 109.08.0094 Carter Creek II Pre-contact Site Unknown prehistoric Prehistoric lithic scatter 4.8 NYSM Site 4794 is described as a camp (also located west of the Project) and NYSM site 5029, located southeast of the Project in Newfield, is identified as a burial site (Parker, 1922). The Rogers, Clauson, and Loveless I sites (NYSOPRHP Sites 097.01.000012, 097.01.000013, 097.01.000015; see Table 18 above) indicate use of upland areas in the region by Native Americans during the Late Archaic Period, ca. 5,000-3,000 years ago (Levine, 2004). Continued Native American occupation and use of the study area into the Woodland Period, ca. 3,000-1,500 years ago, is indicated by the Allen I and Loveless II sites (NYSOPRHP Sites 097.01.000016 and 097.01.000007). The Carter Creek I and II sites (NYSOPRHP Sites 109.08.0093 and 109.08.0094) were identified during archeology surveys conducted in association with a bridge replacement along State Route 13 (Ross & Schmitt, 2009 and 2011; Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 160 Ross, 2010). These are prehistoric-period archeological sites that represent potential remains associated with a Native American trade route. Previous investigations at these sites determined that they lacked integrity due to the extent of previous disturbance. 3.7.1.1.2 Historic and Architectural Resources Historically significant properties include buildings, districts, objects, structures and/or sites listed, or that NYSOPRHP has formally determined are eligible for listing, on the State and/or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Criteria set forth by the National Park Service for evaluating historic properties (36 CFR 60.4) state that a historic building, district, object, structure or site is significant (i.e., eligible for listing on the NRHP) if the property conveys: “The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history” (CFR 2004a; NPS 1990). edr reviewed the State Preservation Historical Information Network Exchange (SPHINX) database maintained by NYSOPRHP to identify significant historic buildings and/or districts located within five miles of the Project. Per the SHPO Wind Guidelines, the APE for visual impacts on historic properties for wind projects is defined as those areas within five miles of a project which are within the potential viewshed (based on topography) of the project (NYSOPRHP, 2006). The analysis included herein provides a conservative presentation and includes all historic resources located within five miles of the Project (i.e., not only the resources within the Project’s viewshed), and identifies which resources have potential views of the proposed Project. Two NRHP-listed resources and nine properties that NYSOPRHP has formally determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP are located within five miles of the Project (Table 19; See Figure 5 in Appendix R). Historic resources listed on the NRHP located within five miles of the Project include the Enfield Falls Mill and Millhouse and Newfield Covered Bridge. The Enfield Falls Mill and Millowner’s House are located in Robert H. Treman State Park, 3.4-miles east of the Project. The house and mill were originally constructed ca. 1839 as part of the former community of Enfield Falls, and are used today for park facilities (Breyer, 1978). The Newfield Covered Bridge, which spans the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 161 Cayuga Inlet Creek and is located 4.3-mile southeast of the Project, is the last of three covered bridges in Tompkins County, and was erected from 1851-1853 (Smith, 1999). Table 19. Historic Resources Located in the Vicinity of the Project Site Identifier Property Name, Address, and/or Description Determination Distance from Nearest Turbine (Miles) 90NR02242 Enfield Falls Mill and Miller’s House – Robert H. Treman State Park NRHP-Listed 3.4 99NR01549 Newfield Covered Bridge – Hamlet of Newfield NRHP-Listed 4.3 95NR00761 Enfield Baptist Church – Hamlet of Enfield NRHP-Eligible 2.4 95NR00761 NY Route 228, Structure #20 (residence) Hector, Schuyler County (Location is approximate, may have been demolished) NRHP-Eligible (District) 3.0 109.08.0034 NY Route 228, Structure #26 (Chiment residence ca. 1800) Hector, Schuyler County (Location is approximate, may have been demolished) NRHP-Eligible (District) 3.2 109.08.0038 NY Route 228, Structure #15 (residence) Catharine, Schuyler County (Location is approximate, may have been demolished) NRHP-Eligible (District) 3.9 109.08.0033 1504 NY Rte 13 Farmhouse – Town of Newfield NRHP-Eligible 4.2 109.08.0082 368 Main Street – Hamlet of Newfield NRHP-Eligible 4.6 109.08.0030 NY Route 228, Structure #11 (residence), Catharine, Schuyler County (Location is approximate, may have been demolished) NRHP-Eligible (District) 4.8 109.08.0029 NY Route 228, Structure #10 (Van Lone barn), Catharine, Schuyler County (Location is approximate, may have been demolished) NRHP-Eligible (District) 4.9 109.08.0028 NY Route 228, Structure #8 (residence), Catharine, Schuyler County (Location is approximate, may have been demolished) NRHP-Eligible (District) 5.0 There are nine properties that have been determined by NYSOPRHP to be NRHP-eligible within five miles of the Project. These include three individual buildings and a potential historic district that includes six structures. The Enfield Baptist Church is a 2.5-story front-gabled church with projecting center tower and pointed arch windows, set on an elevated stone foundation, and is located 2.4-miles from the Project, in Enfield. The house at 1504 NY-13 is a two-story Italianate house with paired sawn wood brackets and decorative porch bracketing, located 4.2-mile to the southeast of the Project. The house at 368 Main Street in Newfield is a two-story Italianate house with cupola and L- shaped plan located 4.6-miles southeast of the Project. The potential historic district on NY Route 228 between the hamlets of Odessa and Mecklenburg, located between three and five miles from the Project, includes five residences and a barn that were identified as part of a cultural resource survey of NY-228 (Ewing, 1984). It is worth noting that location information in this survey report was not adequate to determine the street address or exact location of these five resources. Their present condition, including whether or not they are still standing, could not be determined using the information available in the survey. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 162 In addition, there are numerous nineteenth-century structures, primarily residences and farmsteads, which have not been previously evaluated by NYSOPRHP to determine if they are NRHP-eligible. These types of resources are typically determined NRHP-eligible under NRHP Criterion C (i.e., they “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction” [CFR, 2004a]), and often derive their significance from being representative examples of vernacular nineteenth-century architectural styles that retain their overall integrity of design and materials. The architectural integrity of historic resources throughout the five-mile radius study area is highly variable, with many showing noticeable alteration. 3.7.1.2 Archeological Sensitivity for Prehistoric Native American Sites As described in Section 2.2, although no prehistoric Native American archeological sites are reported within the Project Site, the study area within five miles of the Project includes 20 previously reported Native American archeological sites. For many of these sites, no information concerning their time period or activities that occurred at the sites are available. At minimum, the sites identified in Table 18 indicate settlement and use of the study area from at least the Late Archaic (ca. 5,000-3,000 years ago) through Iroquoian (late prehistoric and/or European contact) Periods. The relative scarcity of previously identified sites, and lack of consistent information about the sites that have been identified, reflects the general lack of systematic archeological survey or research that has been conducted for the upland areas of the Finger Lakes region of New York (Levine, 2003, 2004). In general, previously identified sites in the vicinity of the Project are located on well-drained landforms adjacent to wetlands and/or stream valleys. The Project is located on the uplands between Cayuga and Seneca Lakes, approximately eight miles southwest of Cayuga Lake and approximately nine miles east of Seneca Lake. The Project Site includes the headwaters associated with a small number of unnamed streams that drain to either Cayuta Inlet (in the western half of the Project Site) or to Enfield Creek (in the eastern half). Streams in the Project Site are highly variable, ranging from steep-gradient streams in deeply cut wooded ravines to low-gradient streams that meander through pastureland, wetlands, and valley settings. The high (relative) elevation and presence of small headwaters within the Project Site indicates that the Project Site should be considered as having low-to-moderate likelihood for Native American archeological sites to be present. 3.7.1.3 Archeological Sensitivity for Historic Period Sites Historic-period archeological sites located in the vicinity of the Project Site could include settlements, farms, or early industrial sites (e.g., mills) dating from the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The locations of nineteenth- Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 163 century structures within and near the Project Site are shown on historic maps and atlases that depict the Project area (see historic maps included as Figures 6-9 of Appendix R). Map-documented structures (MDS) within the Project Site are generally located adjacent to existing roadways. In some instances MDS represent existing buildings and/or farms. In other instances, the MDS are abandoned structures that now may be represented only by archeological remains. Potential archeological resources associated with these MDS could include abandoned farmstead sites, wherein the complete residential and agricultural complex consisting of foundations, structural remains, artifact scatters, and other features, would constitute an archeological site. In other locations more limited remains of these complexes, perhaps represented by only a foundation or an artifact scatter, may be extant. Areas located in the immediate vicinity (within approximately 200 feet) of MDS locations should be considered as having a high potential for the presence of historic-period archeological resources. The remaining portions of the Project Site exhibit minimal (if any) likelihood for significant historic period archeological sites to be present. 3.7.2 Potential Impacts 3.7.2.1 Construction 3.7.2.1.1 Archeological Resources Proposed construction of the Project will include ground disturbing activities that have the potential to impact archaeological resources. The APE for archeological resources includes all areas within the limits of disturbance for proposed construction activities. In general, there is relatively little likelihood that most portions of the Project Site contain archeologically sensitive sites. Archeologically sensitive areas are identified based on the following criteria: undisturbed areas that are environmentally sensitive with relatively level well-drained soils or in the vicinity of potable water such as springs, streams or creeks (these characteristics typify known site locations in the region); proximity to known (i.e., previously reported) prehistoric or historic site locations within or adjacent to the Project Site; and proximity to structures depicted on historic maps located within or immediately adjacent to the Project Site. To avoid any impacts to any archeological resources that may be located within the Project Site, a Phase 1B archeological survey will be conducted prior to construction of the Project. The Phase 1B archeological survey will take into account any further consultation with the NYSOPRHP (e.g., comments received on the Phase 1A report and the recommendations contained therein), and will include a pedestrian surface survey in previously cultivated areas, the excavation of shovel tests, and examination of the locations of map-documented structures. Any archeological sites identified within the Project Site will be avoided during Project construction. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 164 3.7.2.1.2 Historic and Architectural Resources As the construction of the access roads and wind turbines will not require demolition or other adverse impacts to historic and architectural resources, there will be no direct impact on architectural resources. 3.7.2.2 Operation 3.7.2.2.1 Archeological Resources Once the proposed Black Oak Wind Farm has been constructed, no significant earth-disturbing activities associated with operation and maintenance of the Project will occur. Therefore, Project operation will not have an adverse effect on archeological resources. 3.7.2.2.2 Historic and Architectural Resources The Project’s potential effect on a given historic property would be a change (resulting from the introduction of wind turbines) in the property’s visual setting, if turbines are visible when the historic property is viewed from a publicly accessible vantage point. The Federal Regulations entitled “Protection of Historic Resources” (36 CFR 800) include in Section 800.5(2) a discussion of potential adverse effects on historic resources. The following types of effects apply to wind energy projects include: “Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to: [items i-iii do not apply]; (iv) Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance; (v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features; [items vi-vii do not apply]” (CFR, 2004b). As it pertains to historic properties, setting is defined as “the physical environment of a historic property” and is one of seven aspects of a property’s integrity, which refers to the “ability of a property to convey its significance” (NPS, 1990:44-45). The other aspects of integrity include location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The potential effect resulting from the introduction of wind turbines into the visual setting for any historic or architecturally significant property is dependent on a number of factors including the number of visible turbines, distance, visual dominance, orientation of views, viewer context and activity, and the types and density of modern features in the existing view (such as buildings/residences, overhead electrical transmission lines, cellular towers, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 165 billboards, highways, and silos). It is also worth noting that visual setting may or may not be an important factor contributing to a given property’s historical significance. Scenic views and/or association with the landscape are not specifically identified as contributing to the significance of any of the historic resources in the study area. Visibility of a project does not necessarily indicate that an adverse effect will occur. The NYSDEC guidance concerning visual impacts on aesthetic resources of statewide significance (which include NRHP-listed and NRHP- eligible structures) defines significant aesthetic impacts as those “that may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resources, or one that impairs the character or quality of such a place. Mere visibility, even startling visibility of a project proposal, should not be a threshold for decision making. Instead a project, by virtue of its visibility, must clearly interfere with or reduce the public’s enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance of an inventoried resource” (NYSDEC, 2000:5). The potential visibility and visual impact of the proposed Project is evaluated in the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) for the Project (HMMH, 2013a; see Appendix Q). The VIA includes an evaluation of the potential visibility of the Project based on viewshed analysis (including the screening effects of vegetation and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warning light visibility), and preparation of representative visual simulations. Most of the historic resources previously identified within the study area were recommended NRHP-eligible under Criterion C (i.e., they “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction” [CFR, 2004a]). These properties are typically determined NRHP-eligible because they are representative examples of vernacular nineteenth-century architectural styles that retain their overall integrity of design and materials, or are associated with broad themes such as the agricultural development of the region. These properties would retain the characteristics that caused them to be recommended eligible after the introduction of wind turbines into their visual settings. For these types of resources, the potential change in the setting resulting from the Project will not necessarily result in diminished public enjoyment and appreciation of a given historic property, or impair its character or quality (per NYSDEC, 2000, see above). As discussed in the VIA and depicted in Figure 8 of that report (HMMH, 2013a), the turbines will not be visible from 85 percent of the area within five miles of the Project. Views to the Project will be screened by topography, forested areas and existing structures. None of the historic resources identified above will have views of the Project. As described in the VIA for the Project (HMMH, 2013a), the Project will result in generally greater visual contrast from vantage points located close to the turbines, where the turbines appear larger, and that provide relatively open views that feature multiple turbines. Therefore, the potential visual effect of the Project on the visual setting associated with Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 166 historic resources will generally be greater for resources where the Project is featured in the foreground and/or near mid-ground (i.e., within approximately 1.5 miles) of the view. No previously identified historic resources are located within 1.5 miles of the Project, and therefore will not have foreground or near mid-ground views. The effect on the view from vantage points where the Project will be featured in the distant mid-ground is dependent on many factors including the openness of the view, the number of visible turbines, the extent to which the Project is screened or partially screened by buildings, trees, or other objects, and the amount of existing visual clutter and/or modern intrusions in the view. From vantage points where the Project will be featured in the background, the proposed turbines will not be prominent features in the view from these areas and will not significantly affect the visual setting associated with historic resources. 3.7.3 Mitigation Measures As described in Section 3.2.3, it is anticipated that the Project will require a wetlands permit from the USACOE because of potential impacts to surface waters protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Project will also require a water quality permit from the NYSDEC per Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, in which case a Joint Application for Permit will need to be filed. As part of the wetland permit review, USACOE (and NYSDEC, if applicable) would be required to consult with the New York SHPO under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (and Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law, if applicable) regarding the potential effect of the Project on archeological and/or historic resources listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. As described in Section 3.7.1, the Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey for the Project Site (edr, 2013a; see Appendix R) was provided to the NYSOPRHP on March 5, 2013 for their review and comment (see Appendix L) to initiate SHPO consultation for this Project. It is anticipated that any mitigation measures related to impacts on cultural resources that may be required for the Project will be determined by the Lead Agency in consultation with the SHPO/NYSOPRHP. A response letter dated April 3, 2013 (see Appendix L) indicates that the SHPO concurs with the conclusions and recommendations presented in the Phase 1A report. 3.7.3.1 Archeological Resources To avoid any impacts to any archeological resources that may be located within the Project Site, a Phase 1B archeological survey will be conducted prior to construction of the Project. The Phase 1B archeological survey will be conducted in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Office Guidelines for Wind Farm Development Cultural Resources Survey Work (the SHPO Wind Guidelines) issued by the NYSOPRHP in 2006. The SHPO Wind Guidelines (NYSOPRHP, 2006) request that archeological surveys for wind projects be conducted in accordance with a specialized methodology, which includes: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 167 1. Conducting a landscape classification analysis for the project area following the criteria presented in the Archeological Investigations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State (Funk, 1993); 2. Preparing an archeological sampling protocol that provides for intensive sampling of environmental zones identified in the landscape classification analysis; 3. Providing the archeological sampling protocol (in the form of a work plan) to NYSOPRHP staff for comment prior to conducting fieldwork; and, 4. Conducting a Phase 1B archeological field survey in accordance with the approved work plan, and submitting a Phase 1B archeological survey report to NYSOPRHP for review. The Phase 1B archeological survey will take into account any further consultation with the NYSOPRHP (e.g., SHPO comments received on the Phase 1A report and the recommendations contained therein), and will include a pedestrian surface survey in previously cultivated areas, the excavation of shovel tests, and examination of the locations of map-documented structures. Any archeological sites identified within the Project Site will be avoided during Project construction. All archeological sites identified within the APE for the Project will be avoided through relatively minor modifications to the Project layout. The mapped locations of identified archeological sites will be included on Project construction maps surrounded by a 100-foot (minimum) buffer, identified as “Environmentally Sensitive Areas” or similar, and marked in the field by construction fencing with signs that restrict access. These measures should be adequate to insure that impacts to archeological resources are avoided. In the event that unanticipated archeological resources are encountered during construction, the environmental monitoring plan will include provisions to stop all work in the vicinity of the archeological finds until those resources can be evaluated and documented by a Registered Professional Archeologist. 3.7.3.2 Historic and Architectural Resources As recommended in the Phase 1A (Appendix R), a historic-architectural resources survey should be conducted prior to the construction of the Project. The SHPO Wind Guidelines (NYSOPRHP, 2006) request that cultural resources surveys for wind projects include a historic-architectural resources survey to assess all buildings greater than 50 years old within a five-mile-radius study area (as defined by topographic viewshed analysis) to evaluate potential NRHP-eligibility of previously undocumented resources. It is likely that additional NRHP-eligible properties (i.e., that have not been previously identified or formally evaluated) are located within five miles of the Project. The identification and enumeration of these properties will allow for a more thorough evaluation of the Project’s potential effect on the visual setting associated with historic resources located within five miles of the Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 168 Mitigation options are limited, given the nature of the Project and its siting criteria (very tall structures typically located in open fields at the highest locally available elevations). To address any community concerns regarding potential visual effects on any historic structures or sites within the study area, the Applicant/owner/developer will work with the SHPO and the Lead Agency to identify a worthwhile cultural resources project (or projects) within the study area. Local stakeholders, such as historic societies or local historians, will be consulted as appropriate as part of this process. Typical cultural resources mitigation projects that have been proposed for other wind energy projects in New York State have included activities such as additional historic resources surveys, NRHP nominations, monetary contributions to historic property restoration causes, development of heritage tourism promotional materials, development of educational materials and lesson plans, and development of public history materials, such as roadside markers. 3.8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 3.8.1 Existing Condition Recreational practices in the vicinity of the Project primarily occur in undeveloped natural settings such as forests and fields. Common recreational activities in the area include bird watching, hiking, bicycling, camping, hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling. Recreational areas in the vicinity of the Project Site are the Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Robert H. Treman State Park, Stevenson Forest Preserve, Rieman Woods, the Finger Lakes Trail (FLT), and a network of snowmobile trails, which are maintained by the Horseheads Snowmobile Club and are part of the NYS Snowmobile Trail System (see Figure 11). 3.8.1.1 Connecticut Hill WMA WMAs are lands owned by NYS and are under the control and management of the NYSDEC, primarily for the production and use of wildlife. Connecticut Hill, at 11,645 acres, is the largest WMA in the state. This WMA contains large areas of mature forests consisting of American beech, maple, and hemlock with smaller areas of oak and pine. Relatively small areas of open fields and meadows are scattered throughout. Wildlife species found within the WMA include white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, beaver, mink, eastern coyote, and numerous waterfowl and songbird species. The NYSDEC actively manages this WMA with an emphasis on game species and the area provides excellent hunting opportunities. In addition to hunting, the WMA is utilized for fishing, trapping, bird watching, primitive camping, cross country skiing, environmental education, and research. The Connecticut Hill WMA lies adjacent to the southwestern edge of the Project Site, with the proposed Turbine 7 site approximately 660 feet to the northeast. The proposed Turbine 4 site lies approximately 900 feet north of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 169 WMA. NYSDEC mapping indicates one unnamed, unprotected stream and an associated tributary flow out of the Project Site and into the WMA south of Turbine 7. This stream flows within the WMA for approximately 1 mile along Cayutaville Road and eventually drains to Cayuta Inlet. No other streams within the Project Site flow through the WMA. 3.8.1.2 Robert H. Treman State Park The 1,072 acre Robert H. Treman State Park is the most popular park in the area surrounding the Project. The main park area is located off Enfield Falls Road approximately 4.5 miles east of the Project Site. An isolated parcel of approximately 170 acres is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the Project Site and approximately 1,850 feet south of Turbine 7. This isolated parcel contains a section of the FLT known as the Bob Cameron Trail, an approximately 2.7-mile loop that reaches the highest elevation in Tompkins County. The focus of the main park property is the Enfield Glen gorge, which contains Enfield Creek and a series of 12 waterfalls. The park is used for picnicking, hiking, camping, swimming, and hunting. 3.8.1.3 Texas Hollow State Forest The 927 acre Texas Hollow State Forest is located approximately 5 miles west of the Project Site in Schuyler County. The forest can be accessed by either Texas Hollow Road or Newtown Road. Recreational uses of the forest include hiking, hunting, trapping, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. 3.8.1.4 Stevenson Forest Preserve The Stevenson Forest Preserve consists of 83 acres of land located approximately 1.5 miles east of the Project Site off of State Route 327 south of the Town of Enfield. The preserve is owned by the Finger Lakes Land Trust and contains a mix of mature forests, recently logged forests, and old fields. Recreational uses of the preserve include hiking, bird watching, and biking. 3.8.1.5 Rieman Woods Rieman Woods is a 37 acre property located off Porter Hill Road in the Town of Enfield and approximately 1.5 miles east of the Project Site. The property is owned by the Cayuga Trails Club and is used for hiking. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 170 3.8.1.6 Finger Lakes Trail The Finger Lakes Trail System includes the main FLT from the Pennsylvania-New York border in Allegany State Park to the Catskill Forest Preserve. The main FLT is 558 miles long. There are six branch trails and 29 loop trails and spur trails that extend from the main FLT. These branch, loop and spur trails currently total 400 miles. Including the Main Trail and all branch, loop, and side trails, the Finger Lakes Trail System offers 958 miles of hiking (Finger Lakes Trail Conference, 2013). The FLT was built by volunteers and is maintained by a network of volunteer organizations and individuals. The trail passes through a number of State Forests, State Parks, WMAs and other public lands. A significant portion of the trail also lies on private land with the landowner’s permission. The trail is open to the public and free to use. Motorized vehicles, mountain bikes, horses, and snowmobiles are not permitted unless approved by the landowner or jurisdictional authority. The FLT passes through the Connecticut Hill WMA and approaches the southern edge of the Project Site near Cayutaville Road. The trail then passes just outside the eastern edge of the Project Site along Griffin Road before entering the Project Site briefly and then continuing east. Approximately 1 mile of the FLT lies within the Project Site and this portion passes within approximately 900 feet of Turbine 3. The FLT is approximately 1,300 feet from Turbine 6 and 2,100 feet from Turbine 1. 3.8.1.7 Snowmobile Trails The Horseheads Snowmobile Club maintains a 75-mile network of snowmobile trails in areas south and west of the Project Site. This trail system is open to the public and part of the NYS Snowmobile Trail System, which is administered by the NYSOPRHP. Most of the trails in the vicinity of the Project are located along the roads within the Connecticut Hill WMA. The nearest trail lies approximately 2 miles south of Turbine 7. 3.8.2 Potential Impacts 3.8.2.1 Construction Construction of the Project would cause no direct impacts to recreational areas, because none are located within the construction footprint. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 171 As indicated in Section 3.11, Project construction will require the use of heavy equipment and construction vehicles for construction of access roads, excavation and pouring of foundations, installation of buried electrical interconnects, and the erection of turbine components. Users of recreational areas in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site (i.e., Connecticut Hill WMA, the isolated portion of Robert H. Treman State Park, and portions of the Finger Lakes Trail) may temporarily experience construction-related noise impacts similar in magnitude to repair or repaving work occurring on a nearby road. More commonly, sounds from Project construction are likely to be faintly perceived as the far off sound of diesel-powered earthmoving equipment characterized by such things as irregular engine revolutions, back up alarms, gravel dumping, and the clanking of metal tracks. In any event, construction-related noise will be a temporary impact. Some wildlife displacement may occur in the immediate vicinity of construction activities because of increased noise and human activity. The significance of this impact will vary by species and the seasonal timing of construction activities. No significant impact to hunting opportunities within the Connecticut Hill WMA are anticipated because the impact will be localized, minor, and temporary. No construction transportation routes will pass through the Connecticut Hill WMA because the roads in this area are unsuitable and do not provide an efficient route to the Project Site. As indicated in Section 3.9, construction transportation will proceed from Highway 79 south on Black Oak Road to the Project Site. Therefore, no significant impacts to the WMA will result from construction transportation. 3.8.2.2 Operation No federal, state, or local regulations regarding wind turbine operations would place additional restrictions on firearm use in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, no hunting restrictions will be imposed within the Connecticut Hill WMA and no loss of public use will result from Project operation. As discussed in Section 3.6 and in the Visual Impact Assessment prepared by HMMH (Appendix Q), the FLT is the only recreational area anticipated to have views of the Project. Trail users are likely to have intermittent turbine views as they pass along the eastern side of the Project Site. The impacts to these users are expected to be highly subjective. Some users would consider this an adverse impact and others would not be adversely impacted. In fact, the Project would likely become a sight-seeing attraction to some people. Vegetation and topography are expected to screen the Project from all other recreational areas in the vicinity of the Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 172 According to mapping provided in Tech Environmental’s acoustic modeling report (Appendix T), users of the FLT and a small, northern portion of the WMA may experience low levels of turbine noise. The sound levels experienced by these users are expected to be much less than those produced by other sources commonly encountered in the area (e.g., cars and trucks, tractors, lawnmowers, snowmobiles, etc.). In none of these areas will the ambient noise level exceed the 65 dBA maximum recommended by the NYSDEC for non-industrial settings (NYSDEC, 2001). Given the distance to all other recreational resources in the area, no noise-related impacts are anticipated to these resources. As discussed in Section 3.2, the proposed Project will not result in wide-scale conversion of land to built/impervious surfaces. Consequently, no significant changes to the rate or volume of stormwater runoff are anticipated. However, installation of permanent Project components could result in localized changes to runoff/drainage patterns. The FEIS will present additional mapping and site-specific information on stormwater flows, as available, based on engineering completed in support of SWPPP/SPDES General Permit. During detailed design, the exact locations of such measures will be determined and depicted on the Project sediment and erosion control drawing set. Nevertheless, specific means of avoiding or minimizing stormwater-related adverse impacts during construction and operation of the Project include adherence to detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plans and the stormwater requirements set forth in the SPDES regulations. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated related to waters flowing from the Project Site through the Connecticut Hill WMA. 3.8.3 Mitigation Measures The Project would result in no direct impacts to common, prominent, or customary recreational practices in the area such as hiking, bicycling, snowmobiling, camping, bird watching, hunting, or fishing. No recreational areas are located within the Project’s construction footprint and only a small portion of the FLT (approximately 1 mile) occurs within the Project Site. Construction and operation of the Project is expected to result in minor, temporary, and intermittent visual and noise impacts to recreational users in the immediate vicinity of the Project. Although impacts related to construction noise will be temporary, and are not anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures shall include: • Implementing best management practices for sound abatement during construction, including use of appropriate mufflers and limiting hours of construction. • Implementing a complaint resolution procedure to assure that any complaints regarding construction or operational sound are adequately investigated and resolved (see Section 4.1 of this DEIS for additional information). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 173 While the impacts to recreational resources resulting from the proposed Project are not of the type or magnitude to require mitigation, the Community Outreach and Communications Plan (see Appendix U) will provide area residents with a forum to log and resolve complaints if necessary. 3.9 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Wind power generating projects have the potential to create transportation impacts as a result of short-term construction activities (temporary impacts) and as a result of long-term operation and maintenance of the Project (permanent impacts). To evaluate the potential temporary and permanent impacts resulting from the proposed Project, edr and the Project Sponsor jointly prepared a Route Evaluation Study (See Appendix A). The purpose of this evaluation is to serve as an initial assessment of the road impacts and modifications required to construct and operate the Project. The public roadways in the vicinity of the Project were reviewed for width, physical conditions, and surface type. Each intersection along the construction and delivery routes was reviewed to determine what improvements, if any, would be required to accommodate delivery and construction traffic. A further and increasingly detailed analysis will occur before the commencement of construction as part of the detailed site engineering for the Project. The Project Sponsor will identify a turbine delivery company who will assess (along with REpower) the proposed route(s) in even greater detail than this analysis. 3.9.1 Existing Condition The area in the general vicinity of the Project is served by a network of State, County, and local roadways. These roads range from two-lane highways with paved shoulders to seasonally maintained, dirt/gravel roads. edr conducted a desktop assessment to identify the best delivery routes to each proposed wind turbine location and for access to the substation site, and to locate junctions and areas of the route that would require more detailed study. The desktop analysis was followed-up by a field-based study, conducted by edr staff on October 19th and 20th, 2011 and February 7, 2013. In addition, REpower personnel visited the Project area and assessed the potential delivery routes during the week of February 10th, 2013. During these field reviews, the potential delivery routes were driven, roads were measured, and road conditions were surveyed to identify any areas of concern, as well as bridges, culverts, and areas of poor road conditions. Based upon an assessment of the existing conditions, a route has been identified (by both edr and REpower) from Interstate 81 to each of the proposed wind tower access roads. Both edr and REpower identified one route as being preferred over all others analyzed. The proposed route is from exit 8 off of Interstate 81 (near Whitney Point) onto NYS Route 79, to Black Oak Road (in the Town of Enfield), and then to the proposed access road and turbine Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 174 locations. See Appendix A for a depiction of the proposed delivery route (Figure 1), and photo documentation of the roads proposed to be used for component deliveries. NY State Route 79 is an asphalt road in good condition from Interstate 81 to the Project area. There do not appear to be any hindrances for component transport vehicles anywhere along NYS Route 79 between Interstate 81 and the Project area. The vertical and horizontal curves/slopes appear suitable for transport vehicles. If this route is used for transport, it will be necessary to travel on NYS Route 79 through the City of Ithaca, but the field review did not identify any problems with the existing conditions of the road within the City limits (see Appendix A, Photos 1 -10). The intersection of NYS Route 79 and Black Oak Road is generally in good condition. However, it is possible that the intersection may need to be widened to accommodate component deliveries. Black Oak Road is approximately 21-feet wide with approximately 3 feet of gravel road shoulder on each side of the road. A roadside ditch was observed along the eastern and western sides of Black Oak Road. In addition, overhanging telephone lines and a “Stop” sign at the intersection of Black Oak Road and NYS Route 79 were noted and may need to be temporarily moved for delivery of turbine components (see Appendix A, Photos 21 and 22). The intersection of Black Oak Road and Connecticut Hill Road would likely need to be widened for turbine component deliveries as well. There is a small roadside ditch at the southeast corner that appears to be non- jurisdictional, and a street sign and a stop sign at the northeast corner that would likely need to be temporarily removed. In addition, low overhanging telephone lines may need to be temporarily raised for delivery of turbine components. Buried and pole-mounted utilities are located off the road at the western side of the intersection. Connecticut Hill Road is generally in good condition. See Appendix A, Photos 24 to 32 for representative photos of this intersection and Connecticut Hill Road. 3.9.2 Potential Impacts 3.9.2.1 Construction Some temporary impacts along the delivery route will result from the movement of vehicles involved in Project construction. These vehicles and their role in the Project are described below. The exact construction vehicles have not yet been determined; however, it is known that transportation of turbine components and associated construction material involves numerous conventional and specialized transportation vehicles, including: Wind Turbine Equipment • Blade Sections – Wind turbines consist of three blades that are transported on trailers with one blade per vehicle. Each blade weighs approximately 18,739 pounds. Blades typically control the length of the design Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 175 vehicle, and the radius of the curves along the travel route to the Project. It is anticipated that the vehicles with the blades will be longest in length (approximately 63 meters or 206 feet). Specialized transport vehicles are designed with articulating (manual or self-steering) rear axles to allow maneuverability through curves. • Tower Sections – Towers consist of three sections and are transported with one section per truck. The bottom section is the heaviest section of the tower and weighs 63 metric tons (138,891 pounds). Towers generally can control the height and width of the design vehicle dimensions. The minimum necessary height and width necessary for delivery of components is anticipated to be 5 meters (16.4 feet). • Nacelle – The turbine and related elements (which are housed in the nacelle) are anticipated to weigh approximately 71 metric tons (158,721 pounds). • Hub and Nose Cone – Typically transported with one or more of the same element on a vehicle, with a maximum of three trucks required per tower. These elements are not critical elements related to design vehicle dimensions. • Escort Vehicles Construction Equipment and Materials In addition to the wind turbine component delivery vehicles, construction traffic will also consist of standard construction equipment such as gravel/dump trucks, concrete trucks, excavation equipment, conventional semi- trailers, and employee vehicles. These standard construction vehicles should not require physical modifications to the roadways to accommodate their dimensions. Below is a list of construction vehicles typical of wind project construction: • Construction of Site Roads – Conventional trucks carrying stone, gravel, and miscellaneous construction equipment. Section 2.4.4 describes the installation of access roads, which will be designed to accommodate both standard and OS/OW vehicles. • Crane – For assembly of the wind towers, cranes are transported in sections over numerous trips to the Project Site. Assembled cranes may be crawled between tower sites. See Section 2.4.7, which describes turbine erection and assembly, including the movement of erection crane(s) from one tower to another. • Concrete trucks for tower foundations. • Variety of conventional semi-trailers for delivery of substation components and materials. • Construction staff and other incidental truck trips (primarily pickup trucks). The Project Sponsor anticipates that during construction the Project will generate both standard truck and oversized/overweight (OS/OW) vehicular traffic. There will be approximately 10 OS/OW truck type per turbine for delivery of the turbine components, in addition to approximately 45 loaded concrete trucks per foundation, two Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 176 conventional semi-trailers of reinforcing steel per turbine, and 20 truckloads for small substation component material. Delivery and transport of crane(s) will also require up to approximately 24 trucks/vehicles for each mobilization/demobilization. Additional vehicle use will include gravel trucks, pick-up trucks for equipment and tools, and trucks and cars for transporting personnel. Approximately 1,400 truckloads of gravel, stone, or other suitable materials will be required to construct Project access roads. As described in Section 2.4.4, these materials could come from local gravel mines or from the existing shale pit near the proposed Turbine 4 location, which would reduce impacts to local roads. The circulation of OS/OW vehicles along delivery route roadways will result in minor delays on these specific roads as escort vehicles, flag persons, and/or temporary traffic signals slow or stop traffic to allow for safe passage of the OS/OW vehicles. However, this will only occur when these roads are being traveled by the OS/OW vehicles. In addition, this is not anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact because the police and escort vehicles provide for smooth passage through even congested areas. It is assumed that the wind components will typically be delivered directly to the tower sites and that the laydown area will be used primarily to store spools of cable, set up the construction trailers, and park vehicles and dozers. It should be noted that while construction may begin in the spring, turbine component delivery is not anticipated to occur until early-mid summer, after access roads and turbine foundations have been prepared. Therefore, potential winter weather is not expected to affect and/or delay oversized vehicles. However, if bad weather (e.g., thunder storms) occurs while oversized vehicles are in route, such vehicles will likely be required to delay travel in accordance with NYSDOT permit conditions (e.g., pull into a rest stop). The route described above has some potentially constraining features, particularly intersection turning radii. A summary of the route constraints and associated improvements/impacts necessary to accommodate Project construction are identified in Table 20 below. The extent of the roadway segment improvements will be verified with the turbine supplier/contractor prior to Project construction, and coordinated with the relevant State, County, and local highway departments (at no expense to these departments) prior to the arrival of OS/OW vehicle on-site. However, at this time it is estimated that intersections of public roads will need to be modified to accommodate for temporary access, with a minimum of 150 foot outside turning radius and a maximum 130 foot inside turning radius. The following construction activities will likely be required at the locations of road width and turning radii improvements: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 177 Table 20. Proposed Delivery Route Constraints and Anticipated Impacts Location of Constraining Feature Turbines Accessed Impacts Intersection of Black Oak Road and NYS Route 79 1 - 7 • Clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation. • Relocating traffic signs, fences, and utility poles. • Grading of the terrain to accommodate the improvement and accommodate proper drainage. • Extension of existing drainage pipes and/or culverts as required to complete turns. • Re-establishment of ditch line (if necessary). • Construction of a suitable roadway surface to carry the construction traffic (based on the existing geotechnical conditions). Intersection of Black Oak Road and Connecticut Hill Road 1, 3 • Clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation. • Relocating traffic signs, fences, and utility poles. • Grading of the terrain to accommodate the improvement and accommodate proper drainage. • Extension of existing drainage pipes and/or culverts as required to complete turns. • Re-establishment of ditch line (if necessary). • Construction of a suitable roadway surface to carry the construction traffic (based on the existing geotechnical conditions). After further investigation of the ditch located along the eastern side of Black Oak Road, it appears that the ditch is likely non-jurisdictional and therefore work within this ditch will not require authorization by the USACE. The overhanging telephone lines and “Stop” sign at the intersection of Black Oak Road/NYS Route 79 and Black Oak Road/Connecticut Hill Road may need to be temporarily removed or raised to accommodate delivery of Project components. The buried utilities on the west side of the Black Oak Road/Connecticut Hill Road intersection should be taken into account during the engineering design phase for component deliveries. Any necessary infrastructure modifications will be completed in consultation with the appropriate utilities and/or highway departments, and in full compliance with their standards. As indicated above, the preliminary Project-specific improvements to public roads are not anticipated to result in stream or wetland impacts. Any cut and fill required for road improvements would comply with the measures set forth in the Final SWPPP developed during the engineering phase of Project design. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 178 3.9.2.2 Operation An on-site operations and maintenance building is not anticipated for the Project. The operations and maintenance contract will be held by REpower, who has a crew of several technicians in the Town of Howard, New York. SCADA will be monitored from Howard. One or more local, on-call technicians may be utilized to maintain access roads and respond to turbine faults. Local personnel will be responsible for daily operations related to collection lines, substation maintenance, bill payment, clerical work, summer road maintenance and winter plowing. Existing facilities will be used for these purposes. Once the Project is commissioned and construction activities are concluded, traffic will likely result from Project employees traveling to and from the turbines. Each turbine typically requires routine maintenance visits once every three months, but certain turbines or other Project improvements could require periods of more frequent service visits. Such service visits typically involve one to two pick-up trucks. However, because all turbines and associated access road are located on (and accessed from) leased land, public road use due to routine maintenance activities will be relatively limited. The Project owner is responsible for the maintenance of all private access roads leading to the turbine sites. Project personnel (or NYSEG personnel) may also need to service the Project substation. Routine servicing would likely be carried out on a similar quarterly basis and it is anticipated this would involve a similar number of maintenance vehicles. 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures Prior to construction, the Project Sponsor and/or contractor will obtain all necessary permits from the Town and County highway departments and the NYSDOT, for activities including new access roads, improving existing roadways, crossing roadways with buried electrical interconnects, and operating oversized vehicles on the highways. Local utilities will also be contacted to coordinate the need for the temporary relocation or removal of identified utility structures impacted by the transport of Project components. The final transportation routing documentation will be provided prior to construction, and will confirm the local, County, and State roads to be used as delivery routes (both within and outside of the Project Site) by construction/transportation vehicles. The final transportation routing will designed to minimize potential traffic hazards related to repeated movement of trucks and equipment to and from staging areas, and through intersections with poor sight distance. If repeated truck movements cannot be avoided in areas with poor sight distance, flagmen will be utilized to ensure safe passage. All public road upgrades that may be required to accommodate construction vehicles will be identified, including shoring up bridge abutments, adding steel plates or gravel to road surfaces, widening roadways, reconfiguring intersection geometry to accommodate the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 179 turning radius of large construction vehicles, and identifying the bridges, pipes, and culverts that will need reinforcement or replacement. Special hauling permits are required for loads that exceed legal dimensions or weights. Thus transport of the blades, nacelles, tower sections and cranes will require a variety of special hauling permits. Actual loads will depend on the specific turbine supplier, crane equipment chosen, and degree of disassembly of the crane. Final transportation routing documentation will be developed to assure that to the extent practical, construction vehicles avoid areas where public safety could be a concern (schools, clusters of homes, etc.). To minimize safety risks to the general public, over-sized vehicles will be accompanied by an escort vehicle and/or flagman to assure safe passage of vehicles on public roads. Construction operations will be conducted so that the traveling public is subjected to a minimum delay and hazard. Deliveries will be made during off peak hours for road use (typically 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) at the discretion of the New York State Department of Transportation, County and Town Highway Departments. In addition, it is anticipated that the New York State Police would assist in navigating component delivery vehicles from Interstate 81 to the Project (in additional to the escort vehicles). The contractor shall provide reflective warning signs, barricades, lighting and flags as necessary to protect traffic. During construction, the Project will not adversely impact the local school districts, beyond the possible delay of school bus pick-ups and drop-offs at homes in the immediate vicinity of the Project, due to temporary construction traffic/activity. There are four local school districts with bus routes in the area: • Ithaca City School District – The majority of the Project Site lies within this district. Three bus routes travel through the area twice daily, for morning pick-up and afternoon drop-off (Boynton, 2013). • Odessa-Montour Central School District – The northwest portion of the Project Site, including the proposed turbine 2 site, lie within this district. One bus route travels the section of Black Oak Road between Harvey Hill and Weatherby Roads twice daily (Lutomske, 2013; OMCSD, 2013). • Newfield Central School District – This district abuts the Project Site to the south. One bus route traverses the section of Black Oak Road between Cayutaville and Griffin Roads twice daily, at approximately 7:10 am and 3:40 pm (Brockner, 2013). • Trumansburg Central School District – This district is located within close proximity to the Project Site, approximately 0.9 and 1.2 miles to the west and north, respectively. No bus routes from this district pass through the Project Site. However, one bus route traverses Black Oak Road north of the Project Site twice daily, between NYS Route 79 and Enfield Center Road. In addition, NYS Route 79 between Mecklenburg and Enfield is utilized for morning and afternoon runs by five bus routes during the academic year, and one bus route during summer months (Babcock, 2013; Newfield Central School, 2011). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 180 To minimize safety risks to school children (including children at school bus stops on local roads), the Project Sponsor and/or contractor shall coordinate with appropriate school district personnel (i.e., director of transportation) prior to initiating construction activities to determine if the proposed delivery or construction routes pose any safety risks. If necessary, mitigation measures will be determined through consultation with school district personnel, and will address school bus and construction activity schedules, appropriate safety measures such as regularly scheduled communication between the Project Sponsor and/or contractor and school district personnel, avoidance scheduling, and alerts. The Project Sponsor has contacted both the County and Town highway supervisors to identify any concerns these departments may have regarding the Project. Neither agency was aware of any limitations on local roads in terms of access for trucks, other than the eventual wear and tear on the road surfaces from heavy use. There are no bridges or culverts that have specific weight limits and no low wires. Jerry Stern (2013), Director of Permits for the Tompkins County Highway Department, indicated that a Road Use Agreement will be required, as per the county road preservation law. According to Buddy Rollins (2013), Town of Enfield Highway Supervisor, a separate agreement will be needed with the Town. In accordance with the anticipated County and Town Road Use Agreements, directly prior to construction, a survey of the agreed delivery route will be carried out by appropriately qualified engineers (and NYSDOT, County Highway, and Town Highway Departments as available) to assess and document current existing road conditions. Any extraordinary damage or over-run caused by vehicles during the construction period is to be repaired to agreeable standards under a Road Use Agreement with the relevant authority (State, County, or Town). The Project Sponsor will repair damage done to roads affected by construction within the approved delivery route, thereby restoring the affected roads to a condition equal to or better than documented by the pre-construction survey. Roads will also be maintained in good working order during construction. The Project Sponsor will establish a road use reparation fund or purchase a reparation bond as financial assurance that the roads damaged by the activities of the Project's construction will be repaired to the standards required by the Road Use Agreement. Delivery routes may change during the design and construction preparation process; however, the municipalities will be notified of the changes throughout the continued development of the Project. Additionally, design plans will be completed for all public road improvements, and will be made available to the Town (and to the entity with jurisdiction over the respective road) to review prior to construction activities. The Road Use Agreement will identify the County, City, Town and Village officials responsible for roads or other public improvements potentially impacted by Project construction and/or delivery of Project components. Additionally, the Road Use Agreement is anticipated to include a Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 181 method for post-construction inspections to assure local roads were restored to a condition equal to or better than documented by the pre-construction survey. Following the examination of the proposed delivery routes, the following mitigation measures presented in Table 21 below are proposed for implementation prior to any construction commencing: Table 21. Potential Road Improvements within the Proposed Delivery Route Potential Impacts and Locations Potential Improvements Areas within the approved delivery route that may be damaged by construction traffic. Damage will be repaired to agreeable standards under a Road Use Agreement with the relevant authority (State, County, or Town). Damage to road surface conditions throughout the approved delivery route. Repair the roadways in consultation with the highway departments using the appropriate treatment (i.e., oil and stone, hot or cold mix asphalt, etc.) to re-establish the pre-construction surface conditions. Areas within the approved delivery route that may require road widening or construction of pull-off areas to allow two- way traffic. Coordination with municipalities and highway departments will occur to determine which improvements will be maintained after construction. Impacts to the intersection of Black Oak Road and NYS Route 79 and the intersection of Black Oak Road and Connecticut Hill Road. The Project Sponsor will coordinate with the NYSDOT, County, and Local highway departments to determine if the radii/intersection improvements will be returned to pre-construction conditions or left in place for future use. Potential impacts associated with construction vehicle weight will be evaluated throughout the approved delivery route. Posted axle weight limit will be inventoried and evaluated to determine if improvements will be necessary to accommodate Project construction. Drainage structures (i.e., culverts) will also be reviewed during the detailed design process to determine if improvements are necessary to accommodate construction traffic. 3.10 ENERGY 3.10.1 Existing Condition Tompkins County resides within the market territory of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). The NYISO is responsible for operating New York State’s electricity grid and oversees the region’s wholesale electricity markets. In a report presented in 2010, the NYISO detailed the New York regions generation by fuel type and found that wind energy composed only one percent of the states total energy input. Nuclear, gas/oil, and hydro power are the predominate fuel sources with each providing 32%, 22%, and 19% respectively. More recently a study requested Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 182 by Tompkins County narrowed the scope and detailed the fuel mix for the individual county. The fuel mix for Tompkins County is as follows: 41% gas, 23% hydro, 22% nuclear, 10% coal, 3% other renewables and 1% oil (Tompkins County; Nicklaus, 2012). From 1998 to 2008 energy consumption in Tompkins County has grown across all community sectors to a total of 13,775,524 MMBtu. However the residential sector, which composes 19.9 percent of overall county emissions, exhibited a 13.4 percent decline in energy consumption during this time period and was the only sector to demonstrate a decline in energy consumption over the 10 year period. Of particular interest is the increase use of natural gas in the Commercial and Industrial sectors. Since 1998, natural gas use has increased by 123% in the commercial sector and 79% in the industrial sector. Energy usage and emission totals for each community sector are outlined below in Table 22 (Tompkins County, 2010). Table 22. Tompkins County Energy Use and Emissions by Sector, 2008 Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Energy Consumption (MMBtu) 3,396,123 3,271,939 1,028,760 5,833,138 Emissions (Tons of CO2) 257,536 255,825 81,864 449,158 3.10.2 Potential Impacts Construction Adverse energy impacts are not expected from the construction of the Project. Energy needs will primarily arise from construction equipment and their associated fuel needs. Gasoline and diesel consumption will be minimal in comparison to the County and will not result in significant changes to the energy consumption of the transportation sector. Operation In accordance to NYISO Interconnection Procedures, a feasibility study was conducted by Hatch and submitted to the Project Sponsor on January 27, 2011. The study is required to assess the impact of the Project on the base case electrical system, which includes system upgrade facilities and attachment facilities that are required only due to the integration of the Project. The study found that the Project would result in increases of fault currents in the study area. However, the fault current levels will still be well below the lowest breaker rating of the respective substation and the incorporation of the Project will likely not result in adverse impacts in terms of short circuit analysis. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 183 Furthermore, overall results of the power flow analysis indicated that the Project will not have an adverse impact on the New York transmission system (Hatch, 2011). Tompkins County initiated a plan in 2010 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the community by at least 80% from 2008 levels by 2050. Operation of this Project is anticipated to help Tompkins County reach their goal through a positive impact on air quality by producing 44,150 MWh with zero emissions. Operations are expected to displace approximately 21,986,700 pounds of CO2. Additional information on air quality can be found within this document in Section 3.3 Climate Air Quality. Additionally, the Project will help reach New York State’s renewable portfolio standard target of 30 percent renewable energy by 2015. Renewable market prices are inherently more stable than natural gas prices and the addition of wind power to the regions fuel mix could result in more stable prices and benefits to providers and customers alike by providing a substantial hedge to the volatility of natural gas prices (RMI, 2012). 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures Outside of creating a reliable point of interconnection with the existing Montour Falls – Coddington Road 115kv Line, no mitigation measures will be necessary to ensure reliability with the grid. All impacts to energy are expected to be positive and will not result in the need for mitigation. 3.11 NOISE To obtain background sound levels Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) conducted a noise measurement study for the Project Area and prepared a Noise Study for Black Oak Wind Farm Project (HMMH, 2012). To evaluate potential sound impacts from the Project, an Acoustic Study of the Black Oak Wind Farm was prepared (Tech Environmental, Inc., 2013). These documents are included in Appendix T. The two primary phases of the study included a baseline background sound level survey conducted by HMMH to characterize the existing acoustical environment and a computer modeling analysis of future turbine sound levels conducted by Tech Environmental. 3.11.1 Existing Condition Certain activities inherently produce sound levels or sound characteristics that have the potential to create noise (i.e., unwanted sound). Some properties of sound typically measured include: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 184 1. Frequency: Frequency is the rate at which a source produces sound waves (i.e., complete cycles of high and low pressure regions). In other words, frequency is the number of times per second that a vibrating body completes one cycle of motion. The unit for frequency is the hertz (Hz = 1 cycle per second). Low pitched or bass sounds have low frequencies, while high-pitched or treble sounds have high frequencies. The sensitivity of the human ear to sound depends on the frequency or pitch of the sound. The human ear, in general, and different individuals in particular, hear some frequencies better than others. 2. Sound Pressure: Sound pressure level (SPL) is the amount of air pressure fluctuation that a sound source creates. We "hear" or perceive sound pressure as loudness. Sound pressure is usually expressed in units called pascals (Pa). The common sounds we hear have sound pressure over a very wide range (0.00002 Pa - 20 Pa). It is difficult to work with such a broad range of sound pressures. To overcome this difficulty, a unit of decibel (dB) is used which compresses the scale of numbers into a manageable range. SPL can be statistically summarized as the residual, or L90, sound level. The L90 is the sound level exceeded during 90% of a measurement interval. It excludes sporadic, short-duration sound events, thereby characterizing the more quiet lulls between such events. It is this consistently present "background" level that forms a conservative basis for evaluating the audibility of a new sound source. 3. Sound Power: The sound power is the sound energy transferred per second from the sound source to the air. A sound source has a given, constant sound power that does not change if the source is placed in a different environment. Sound power is expressed in units called watts (W). An average whisper generates a sound power of 0.0000001 watts, a truck horn 0.1 W, and a turbo jet engine 100,000 W. Like sound pressure, sound power (in W) is usually expressed as sound power levels in dB. Sound measurement readings can be adjusted to correspond to human hearing with an "A-weighting filter" which de-emphasizes frequencies or pitches that are outside the normal range of human hearing. Decibels measured using this filter are A-weighted and are called dB(A). 4. Time Distribution: Sound can be continuous, variable, intermittent, or impulsive depending on how it changes over time. Continuous sound remains constant and stable over a given time period. The Project Area is rural and sparsely populated. Although most of the residences are located in valleys, there are also a fair number of homes in higher locations relatively close to proposed turbine locations. No other high- occupancy or sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, or institutions are located within the Project Area. To evaluate background sound levels, HMMH selected seven measurement positions, which were selected to be Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 185 representative of nearby residences. The locations of the sound monitoring positions are described in Table 23 (and are mapped in Figure 1 of the HMMH report, Appendix T). Table 23. Sound Monitoring Positions Position Location Description LT-1 637 Black Oak Road Wooded residential backyard area at a setback of approximately 370 feet from the roadway edge. LT-2 691 Black Oak Road Wooded residential backyard area at a setback of approximately 350 feet from the roadway edge. LT-3 753 Black Oak Road Open residential backyard area at a setback of approximately 270 feet from the roadway edge. ST-1 655 Black Oak Road Open residential yard space at a setback of approximately 650 feet from the roadway edge. ST-2 283 Connecticut Hill Road Open residential yard space at a setback of approximately 110 feet from the roadway edge. ST-3 122 Griffin Road Open residential yard space at a setback of approximately 190 feet from the roadway edge. ST-4 Intersection of Black Oak and Cayutaville Roads Adjacent to Robert H. Treman State Park and a setback of approximately 60 feet from Black Oak Road. Bruel & Kjaer (B&K) Model 2250 sound level meters and measurement kits were used for the survey. The noise kit includes a microphone, pre-amplifier, microphone stand, gel-cell batteries, windscreen, and an acoustic calibrator. These instruments meet the “Type 1 – Precision” requirements set forth in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4 for acoustical measuring devices, and has current calibration traceable to the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). All of the microphones were located at a height of approximately five feet above local ground level, an average height for a person standing. The background sound level survey was conducted in April 2011, during leaf-off conditions. In the winter when deciduous trees are bare of leaves, ambient sound level is generally lower, because rustling leaves and insect/bird sounds are absent, resulting in relatively low sound levels compared to other seasons. Therefore, by capturing the lowest level of natural masking noise that could hide or obscure potential noise from wind turbines, measurements taken during leaf-off conditions represent a conservative, worst-case scenario for modeling future noise impacts. Noise measurements indicated that the existing background noise levels rise and fall with increasing and decreasing wind speeds, respectively. As described above, the HMMH survey was conducted during the spring when the trees were bare, and no insect or bird sounds were present. In the summertime, when outdoor activities are more common and windows might be open, higher background levels due to leaf rustle and insects can be expected to significantly increase the amount of background sound level masking. The overall Leq sound level across all monitoring locations Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 186 and hours was 39.8 dBA. Regarding seasonal variations, ambient sound levels are generally 5 dBA higher in the leaf-on summer season due to wind blowing tree foliage and warm-weather insect noise. 3.11.2 Potential Impacts Virtually everything that has moving parts will make some sound, including wind turbines. The distinction between sound and noise is subjective, as well as what constitutes ‘noisy’. Table 24 lists examples of common sound levels using typical dB(A) levels. Table 24. Common Sources of Sound and Associated Typical Sound Levels (dBA) Source/Activity Indicative sound level (dBA) Threshold of hearing 0 Rural night-time background 20-40 Quiet bedroom 35 Wind farm at 350m 35-45 Car at 40 mph at 100m 55 Busy general office 60 Truck at 30 mph at 100m 65 Pneumatic drill at 7m 95 Jet aircraft at 250m 105 Threshold of pain 140 Source: The Scottish Office, Environment Department, Planning Advice Note, PAN 45, Annex A: Wind Power, A.27. Renewable Energy Technologies, August 1994. Cited in "Noise from Wind Turbines," British Wind Energy Association, available at: http://www.bwea.com/ref/noise.html (Accessed February 1, 2013). The potential sound-related impacts resulting from the construction and operation of wind turbines are described below. 3.11.2.1 Construction Construction of wind power projects requires the operation of heavy equipment and construction vehicles for various activities including construction of access roads, excavation and pouring of foundations, the installation of buried electrical interconnects, and the erection of turbine components. Assessing and quantifying construction-related impacts is typically difficult for most wind power projects because construction activities will be constantly moving from place to place around the site, leading to highly variable impacts at any given location. A significant portion of the construction will occur in remote areas, and significant construction-related sound impacts are not anticipated. In general, the maximum potential impact at any single residence might be analogous to a few days to a week of repair Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 187 or repaving work occurring on a nearby public road. More commonly, sounds from Project construction are likely to be faintly perceived as the far off sound of diesel-powered earthmoving equipment characterized by such things as irregular engine revolutions, back up alarms, gravel dumping, and the clanking of metal tracks. Construction-related noise will not occur on a permanent basis, or outside of normal daytime working hours (when all Project construction is planned), but as a temporary, daytime occurrence during construction. Construction noise of this magnitude may go unnoticed by many in the area. In any event, Project construction noise will be a temporary impact. 3.11.2.2 Operation According to Rogers et al. (2006), the sources of sounds emitted from operating wind turbines can be divided into two categories: 1) mechanical sounds, from the interaction of turbine components, and 2) aerodynamic sounds, produced by the flow of air over the blades. Mechanical sounds originate from the relative motion of mechanical components and the dynamic response among them. Since the emitted sound is associated with the rotation of mechanical and electrical equipment, it tends to be tonal (of a common frequency), although it may have a broadband component. Aerodynamic broadband sound is typically the largest component of wind turbine acoustic emissions, and is generally characterized as a “swishing” or “whooshing” sound. It originates from the flow of air around the blades, and generally increases with rotor speed. In order to quantitatively look at potential impacts in absolute terms, a modeling study of worst-case Project sound levels was carried out to determine what specific sound levels could be expected at the nearest receptors. Using the design sound power level spectrum for the Repower MM100 turbine, worst-case Project sound levels were calculated using the Cadna/A®, noise modeling program developed by DataKustik, GmbH (Munich). This software enables the Project Site and its surroundings, including terrain features, to be realistically modeled in three-dimensions using topographical maps of the area. The program calculates distant sound levels in strict accordance with ISO 9613-2 Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors, which considers the geometrical spreading of sound waves from a source and all other natural attenuation mechanisms that might come into play such as barriers, sound wave interaction with the ground surface, air absorption, etc. In this instance, only geometric spreading (distance loss), air absorption under ISO “standard day” conditions (10 deg. C, 70% RH), and ground absorption were considered in the model. ISO 9613-2 is the primary worldwide standard for such calculations. The sound power level of the Repower MM100 was developed from field testing in accordance with IEC 61400-11. Various other conservative assumptions have been applied to help ensure that actual Project noise levels do not exceed the predicted levels – including during times when atmospheric conditions may favor noise propagation Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 188 relative to average conditions. As a consequence, the studies, which are based on these conservative assumptions, are likely to overestimate Project sound levels. Sound levels that are somewhat lower than those predicted in the modeling plots are actually expected to occur much of the time. The model represents a theoretical worst-case condition at any given receptor point based on the assumptions below: • All wind turbines were assumed to be operating simultaneously. • All wind turbine sound power levels correspond to the IEC 61400-11 maximum sound power level plus an uncertainty factor. • The acoustic model assumed the most favorable conditions for sound propagation, corresponding to a ground-based temperature inversion, such as might occur on a calm, clear night, or during a downwind condition. • No attenuation from trees or other vegetation was assumed. • Winter frozen ground conditions were assumed for minimal ground absorption. • Excess attenuation from wind shadow effects and daytime air turbulence were ignored. Compliance with NYSDEC Guidelines The predicted worst-case sound levels from the Project were compared to the NYSDEC Noise Guideline document to assess noise impacts under the SEQRA process. The Guidelines state, “in non-industrial settings the SPL should probably not exceed ambient noise by more than 6 dBA at the receptor,” and the addition of any noise source, in a non-industrial setting, should not raise the ambient noise level above a maximum of 65 dBA” (NYSDEC 2001). It is important to note that in the particular case of wind turbine noise, the NYSDEC threshold of a 6 dBA cumulative increase does not represent the point of inaudibility. Operational noise from wind turbines is often unsteady and variable with time, largely because the wind does not always blow in a completely smooth manner. When unsettled air or gusty winds interact with the rotor, or the airflow is not perpendicular to the rotor plane, an increase in turbulence (and noise) can result. On top of this, turbines often produce a periodic swishing sound. These characteristics make operational noise more perceptible than it would be if it were bland and continuous in nature. Consequently, turbines can commonly be discerned at fairly large distances even though the actual sound level may be relatively low and/or comparable to the magnitude of the background level. However, a cumulative increase in the total sound level of about 5 or 6 dBA at a given point is required before the new sound begins to be clearly perceptible or noticeable to most people. Cumulative increases of between 3 and 5 dBA for a source of this kind are generally regarded as negligible or hardly audible. Lower sound levels from the new Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 189 source are “buried” in the existing background sound level and become progressively less perceptible. Section V B(7)c of the NYSDEC program policy is excerpted below: Increases ranging from 0-3 dB should have no appreciable effect on receptors. Increases from 3-6 dB may have potential for adverse noise impact only in cases where the most sensitive receptors are present. Sound pressure increases of more than 6 dB may require closer analysis of impact potential depending on existing SPLs [sound pressure levels] and the character of surrounding land use and receptors. In other words, cumulative increases in the total ambient sound level of 6 dBA or less are unlikely to constitute an adverse community impact. For increases beyond 6 dBA, the guidelines suggest further evaluation. The guidelines go on to say “in non-industrial settings the SPL should probably not exceed ambient noise by more than 6 dBA at the receptor,” but also notes “there may be occasions where an increase in SPLs of greater than 6 dBA might be acceptable” (NYSDEC, 2001). The 10-minute Leq sound levels were analyzed to identify those time periods: (1) for which hub-height wind speeds were at least 10 m/s, approaching the design speed at which the turbines will produce maximum sound power, and (2) for which there was no measurable precipitation, a requirement of ANSI Standard S12.18-1994. These criteria were only met for the three long-term monitoring stations, LTI, LT2, and LT3. The overall Leq sound level across the three sites and all hours was 39.8 dBA. This measured ambient level is 5 dBA less than the suggested 45 dBA ambient level in the NYSDEC Noise Guideline for “a seemingly serene setting such as rural farm land,” a description that fits Enfield. Following the NYSDEC Guideline and adding 6 dBA, the Project goal for non-participating residences is therefore a sound level no higher than 45.8 dBA, rounded down to 45 dBA. This is not an enforceable regulatory limit, and the NYSDEC Guideline is used solely to judge whether sound levels are at a level to require further analysis or mitigation. Regarding seasonal variations, ambient sound levels are generally 5 dBA higher in the leaf-on summer season due to wind blowing tree foliage and warm-weather insect noise. Thus, ambient sound levels in the Project Area can be characterized as 40 dBA in the leaf-off season, and 45 dBA in the leaf-on season. The NYSDEC Guideline also notes the EPA residential goal of 55 dBA for the day-night sound level (Ldn). An Ldn of 55 dBA is equivalent to Leq of 48.6 dBA for a continuously operating sound source such as a wind farm. For this project, the NYSDEC Leq and Ldn guidelines were applied to the nearest non-participating residences in the Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 190 Area. Of these, the NYSDEC guideline of 45 dBA is lower and was used for evaluating predicted wind turbine sound levels. Cadna/A uses the sound power (energy density) level of a wind turbine along with other assumptions to calculate the sound pressure (what we hear) level heard at a receiver located a certain distance from the wind turbine. The acoustic modeling determined the maximum sound power level for a Repower MM100 turbine is 106.8 dBA, which includes a 2.0 dBA uncertainty factor. Based on the 106.8 sound power level, sound pressure level contours were created for the Project Area and are depicted on Figure 2 of the Tech Environmental report in Appendix T. The 5- dBA contour lines are based on microphones set at five feet above local ground level and wind turbines operating at the design wind speed (maximum sound power level). In Figure 2 of the Tech Environmental report in Appendix T, maximum sound levels have been mapped and include (among others) a 45 dBA isoline, which is the Project-only sound level associated with the NYSDEC threshold for receptors. This Figure is also included within the body of the DEIS, at the end of this section. Beyond this threshold, Project noise is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact under most normal atmospheric conditions. Inside of this threshold, the Project is likely to be audible above the background sound level. The vast majority of residences surrounding the Project Site lie beyond this threshold, and therefore will experience no adverse impacts from Project noise. As shown in Appendix A of Appendix T, none of the 88 residential receptors modeled will experience operational noise produced by the Project in excess of 65 dBA NYSDEC Guideline, with the highest sound level being 47 dBA. An increase above background sound levels between 6 and 8 dBA, with a maximum of 47 dBA, is predicted at 14 receptors (see Table 25 below). Agreements are expected that will include all of these residences as Project participants. Table 25. Acoustic Models Results for Receptors over 45 dBA Tax Parcel ID ID Name Total Level (dBA) 31.5 Hz Band Level (dB) 63 Hz Band Level (dB) 13.-1-4.4 R14 Black Oak Rd. 3rd from north 47 64 59 18.-2-1.7 R8 Black Oak Rd. 10th from top 46.8 63 58 18.-2-1.33 R16 Black Oak Rd. 4th from north 46.4 63 58 18.-2-2.21 R45 Connecticut Hill Rd. 6th From West 45.8 63 58 18.-2-1.12 R39 Connecticut Hill 2nd from West 45.7 63 58 18.-2-7.5 R13 Black Oak Rd. 2nd from north 45.7 63 58 18.-2-2.21 R42 Connecticut Hill Rd 5th from West 45.6 62 57 18.-2-1.13 R40 Connecticut Hill 4th from West 45.5 62 57 13.-2-6.2 R50 Connecticut Hill seventh from left 45.4 63 58 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 191 Tax Parcel ID ID Name Total Level (dBA) 31.5 Hz Band Level (dB) 63 Hz Band Level (dB) 18.-2-1.62 R20 Black Oak Rd. 7th from north 45.3 63 58 18.-2-1.27 R21 Black Oak Rd. 7th from north 45.3 63 58 13.-2-7.3 R7 Black Oak Rd furthest north 45.2 63 57 13.-2-7.6 R47 Connecticut Hill West 3rd from West 45.1 63 58 13.-2-7.1 R18 Black Oak Rd. 5th from north 45 63 58 Source: Tech Environmental, Inc., 2013. Compliance with the Town of Enfield Wind Energy Facilities Local Law The Town’s Wind Energy Facilities Local Law sets a sound limit of 60 dBA at the nearest non-participating residence. None of the 88 residential receptors modeled will experience operational noise produced by the Project in excess of 60 dBA established in the Town of Enfield Wind Energy Facilities Local Law. Low Frequency Noise Concerns The frequency spectra for the Repower MM100 turbine were also analyzed for tonality using ANSI Standard S12.9/Part 3 Appendix C, and no pure tones were found. While a spectrum was not available for the transformer at the substation, the maximum sound level from the substation transformer (alone) at a residence is only 34.4 dBA. Whereas this level is less than the ambient level of 39.8 dBA for the Project Area, no pure tone impacts are expected at any non-participating occupied residences. Low frequency sound refers to sounds below 200 Hz in frequency. The potential for low frequency noise impacts was first assessed as follows. First, using the turbine sound power level spectra for full-power operation, the broadband sound power levels for both A-weighting and C-weighting scales were calculated and the difference was then compared to a 20-decibel (dB) threshold recommended in International Standard IEC 61400-11 as a check on whether a wind turbine may produce low-frequency noise that could create annoyance. The A-weighting and C- weighting difference for the Repower MM100 wind turbine resulted in 13.0 dB difference, which is below the 20-dB IEC threshold. Thus, the frequency spectra suggest the Repower MM100 will not produce low frequency noise that could cause annoyance. To assess the potential for low frequency vibrations at residences, the protective criteria from ANSI Standard S12.9/Part 4, Annex D were employed in this study. The recommended limits at non-participating residences are 65 dB in the 31.5 and 63 Hz low-frequency octave bands. The ANSI Standard recommends these limits to prevent annoyance and noticeable vibrations in building elements. For this Project, the maximum low frequency sound levels in the 31.5 and 63 Hz octave bands at an occupied building are 64 and 59 dB, respectively. These levels are below Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 192 the 65 dB in each band, the protective criteria from ANSI Standard S12.9/Part 4, Annex D. The results suggest low frequency sound from the Project will not cause annoyance or noticeable vibrations in building elements at any nearby receptors. The hearing threshold in the 31.5 Hz low frequency octave band is 70 dB. The predicted maximum 31.5 Hz sound level from the Project is lower at 64 dB. Thus, low frequency sound below 40 Hz will not be audible from the Project. Measurements of existing sound level spectra from the three long-term monitoring locations in the Project Area reveal naturally-occurring low-frequency sound levels in the range of 63 to 80 dB for the 31.5 Hz band, and naturally - occurring low frequency sound levels in the range of 62 to 74 dB for the 63 Hz band. Whereas, the maximum wind farm low frequency sound levels at any occupied residence are lower, it can be concluded that the Black Oak Wind Farm will not expose people, wildlife, or livestock to low frequency sound levels higher than those already occurring in the natural environment of Enfield, and the Project’s sound therefore does not pose a risk to these individuals. Although concerns are often raised with respect to low frequency or infrasonic noise emissions from wind turbines, no adverse impact of any kind related to low frequency noise is expected from this Project. It is true that early wind turbines (designed with the blades downwind of the support tower) were prone to producing a periodic thumping noise each time a blade passed the tower, and the widespread belief that wind turbines generate excessive or even harmful amounts of low frequency noise likely originated with this phenomena. While modern wind turbines have been re-configured, with blades arranged upwind of the tower, and no longer produce such thumping noises, the myth of excessive low-frequency noise may have perpetuated due to confusion of low frequency sound with the amplitude modulation typical of wind turbines (i.e., the periodic swishing sound with a frequency of about 1 Hz). However, numerous studies show that the low frequency content in the sound spectrum of a typical modern wind turbine – like those proposed for this Project – is no higher than that of the natural background sound level in rural areas (Sondergaard & Hoffmeyer, 2007; Hessler et al., 2008). A noted British acoustic scientist, Dr. Geoff Leventhall, has studied infrasound extensively and he concludes, “there is insignificant infrasound from wind turbines” and “there is no reliable evidence that infrasound at levels below the hearing threshold has an adverse effect on the body.” The EPA (1974) has concluded that infrasound below the hearing threshold produces no physiological or psychological effects, and the small amount of infrasound from a turbine is less than that in the natural environment. In addition, in response to concerns that sounds emitted from wind turbines cause adverse health consequences, AWEA and CanWEA established a scientific advisory panel to conduct a review of current literature pertaining to the perceived health effects of wind turbines (Appendix V). The multidisciplinary panel is comprised of medical doctors, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 193 audiologists, and acoustical professionals from the United States, Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. The objective of the panel was to provide an authoritative reference document for legislators, regulators, and anyone who wants to make sense of the conflicting information pertaining to wind turbine sound. The panel evaluated peer- reviewed literature on sound and health effects, as well as sound produced by wind turbines. The panel concluded that there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds produced by operating wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects and the ground-borne vibrations from wind turbines are too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans. In addition, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds produced by operating wind turbines and the panel’s experience with sound exposures in occupational settings, the sounds produced from operating wind turbines are not unique and therefore do not likely cause direct adverse health consequences (Colby et al., 2009). The Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) of Ontario also reviewed existing scientific evidence on the potential health impact of noise generated by wind turbines. The report concluded, “…the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects. The sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects, although some people may find it annoying” (CMOH of Ontario, 2010). In addition, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) assembled a team of independent experts to identify any documented or potential health impacts or risks that may be associated with exposure to wind turbines and discuss public health effects relating to wind turbines, based on scientific findings. To do this the independent expert panel conducted a literature review, including peer-reviewed scientific studies, other reports, and popular media, as well as reviewed public comments received by the MassDEP and/or MDPH. According to the report, there is insufficient evidence that the noise from wind turbines is directly causing health problems or disease (Ellenbogen et al ., 2012). 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures Although impacts related to construction noise will be temporary, and are not anticipated to be significant, measures to be employed to mitigate temporary construction noise shall include: • Implementing best management practices for sound abatement during construction, including use of appropriate mufflers and limiting hours of construction. • Notifying landowners of certain construction sound impacts in advance (e.g., if blasting becomes necessary). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 194 • Implementing a complaint resolution procedure to assure that any complaints regarding construction or operational sound are adequately investigated and resolved (see Section 4.1 of this DEIS for additional information). As indicated in the Acoustic Study of the Black Oak Wind Farm (Tech Environmental, 2013) provided in Appendix T and summarized above, an increase above background sound levels between 6 and 8 dBA is predicted at 14 receptors. All of these are expected to be Project participants. However, these modeled sound levels are based on a worst case scenario, with conservative assumptions required by ISO 9613-2 propagation standards, including low ground-level wind, high hub height winds, and the residence being downwind of multiple wind turbines under different wind directions at the same time. In addition, none of the 88 residential receptors modeled will experience operational noise produced by the Project in excess of 60 dBA established in the Town of Enfield Wind Energy Facilities Local Law or 65 dBA NYSDEC Guideline, with the highest sound level being 47 dBA. Because 14 receptors exceed the noise level increase threshold of 6 dBA set by the NYSDEC Guideline, mitigation or curtailment may be necessary if complaints arise. The Community Outreach and Communications Plan (see Appendix U) will provide area residents with a forum to log and resolve complaints if necessary. Figure 2 Maximum Sound Levels (dBA) for the Black Oak Wind Energy Project Enfield, NY REpower MM100 1.8 MW Turbines at Design Wind Speed 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500 Feet ± Legend "J Occupied Structures Turbines Sound Level 35 dBA 40 dBA 45 dBA 50 dBA 55 dBA Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 196 3.12 PUBLIC SAFETY This section addresses the potential impacts of the Project on public safety. Background information on public health and safety issues associated with wind energy projects is presented first, followed by a discussion of potential impacts associated with the Project, and proposed mitigation measures. 3.12.1 Background Information Public safety concerns associated with the construction of a wind power project are fairly standard construction- related concerns. These include the potential for injuries to workers and the general public, as well as livestock, from 1) the movement of construction vehicles, equipment and materials, 2) falling overhead objects, 3) falls into open excavations, and 4) electrocution. These types of incidents are well understood and with proper safety plans can be eliminated or at least minimized, and do not require extensive background information. Public safety concerns associated with the operation of a wind power project are less well known to most people and are thus the focus of this section. In many ways, wind energy facilities are safer than other forms of energy production since a combustible fuel source and fuel storage are not required. In addition, use and/or generation of toxic or hazardous materials are minor when compared to other types of generating facilities. However, wind turbines are generally more accessible to the public, and risks to public health and safety can be associated with this form of energy generation. Examples of such safety concerns include ice shedding, tower collapse, blade throw, stray voltage, fire, lighting strikes, electrocution and electromagnetic fields. Each of these concerns is discussed below. Although concerns are sometimes raised with respect to low frequency sound emissions and vibrations from wind turbines, no adverse impact related to low frequency sound is expected from this Project. The maximum C-weighted sound level at any receptor is well below the threshold of any perceptible vibrations. For more information on noise/sound impacts, see Section 3.11. 3.12.1.1 Ice Shedding Ice shedding and ice throw refer to the phenomena that can occur when ice accumulates on rotor blades and subsequently breaks free and falls to the ground. Although a potential safety concern, there has been no reported injury caused by ice being "thrown" from an operating wind turbine (Global Energy Concepts, 2005; Garrad Hassan Canada, Inc., 2007). However, ice shedding does occur, and could represent a potential safety concern. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 197 Under certain weather conditions, ice may build up on the rotor blades and/or sensors, slowing the rotational speed, and potentially creating an imbalance in the weights of the individual blades. Such effects of ice accumulation can be sensed by the turbine's computer controls and would typically result in the turbine being shut down until the ice melts . Field observations and studies of ice shedding indicate that most ice shedding occurs as air temperatures rise and the ice on the rotor blades begins to thaw. Therefore, the tendency is for ice fragments to drop off the rotors and land near the base of the turbine (Morgan et al., 1998). Ice can potentially be “thrown” when ice begins to melt and stationary turbine blades begin to rotate again. However, prior to the re-start of a turbine after an icing event, a set procedure is typically followed, as explained in Section 3.10.3.2.1. The distance traveled by a piece of ice depends on a number of factors, including (but not limited to): the position of the blade when the ice breaks off, the location of the ice on the blade when it breaks off, the rotational speed of the blade, the shape of the ice that is shed (e.g., spherical, flat, smooth), and the prevailing wind speed. Data gathered at operating wind farms have documented ice fragments on the ground at a distance of 50 to 328 feet from the base of the tower. These fragments were in the range of 0.2 to 2.2 pounds in mass (Morgan et al., 1998). Ice throw observations are also available from a wind turbine (Tacke TW600 turbine which has a 141-foot diameter rotor at a 164-foot hub height) near Kincardine, Ontario, where the operator conducted 1,000 inspections between December 1995 and March 2001. Of the 1,000 inspections, 13 noted ice fragments, which were documented on the ground at a distance up to 328 feet from the base of the turbine, with most found within 164 feet (Garrad Hassan Canada, Inc., 2007). In addition, an ice throw study conducted at a wind power facility in the Swiss Alps in Switzerland reported 121 ice fragments during the winters of 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 (Cattin et al., 2008). The maximum length of observed ice fragments in this study was 39 inches and the maximum weight was 4 pounds, with a maximum distance of 302 feet from the wind turbine. Almost 40 percent of the ice fragments were within the distance of the rotor blade (i.e., within 66 feet of the turbine), approximately 54 percent were found between 66 feet and 263 feet, and approximately six percent were found between 263 feet and 302 feet of the turbine. Almost 50 percent of the ice fragments weighed 1.76 ounces or less, with less than five percent weighing more than 1.1 pounds. This study found that most ice throw occurred underneath the blades of the turbine and the distance ice was thrown was less than empirical models predicted. In addition, there was no relationship between the weight of the ice fragment and throwing distance, but the throwing distance was dependent of wind speed when the ice fell from the blade (Cattin et al., 2008). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 198 3.12.1.2 Tower Collapse/Blade Throw Another potential public safety concern is the possibility of a wind turbine tower collapsing or a rotor blade dropping or being thrown from the nacelle. While extremely rare, such incidents do occur. For example, a tower collapsed at the Klondike III Wind Farm in Oregon in August 2007, resulting in the death of one worker and injury to another. In addition, a wind turbine collapse occurred at the Altona Windpark in Clinton County, New York. According to Noble Environmental Power (Noble; project owner) and General Electric (turbine manufacturer), the collapse was caused by a “wiring anomaly” which prevented the turbine from shutting down as designed during a power outage (Times Union, 2009). According to Noble, the turbine collapse caused a small fire and scattered debris up to 345 feet from the base of the turbine (The Press Republican, 2009). No one was injured as a result of the incident and local setbacks proved sufficient to protect area homes and public roads. Such incidents can be dangerous for project personnel, and potentially for the general public, as well. The reasons for a turbine collapse or blade throw vary depending on conditions and tower type. The main causes of blade and tower failure are a control system failure leading to an over speed situation, a lightning strike, or a manufacturing defect in the blade (Garrad Hassan Canada, Inc., 2007). Most instances of blade throw and turbine collapse were reported during the early years of the wind industry. Technological improvements and mandatory safety standards during turbine design, manufacturing, and installation have largely eliminated such occurrences. 3.12.1.3 Stray Voltage Stray voltage is a phenomenon that has been studied and debated since at least the 1960’s. It is an effect that is primarily a concern of farmers whose livestock can receive electrical shocks, although occurrences of stray voltage have also occurred in residential urban areas. Stray voltage can be defined as a “low level of neutral-to-earth electrical current that occurs between two points on a grounded electrical system” (Schmidt, 2000), arising from the electrical resistance to earth being below those required by design and construction codes. Stray voltage is not something unique to wind project development, and in fact, most stray voltage problems have been traced to either National Electric Code wiring violations or poorly grounded electric services serving the farms or city owned lighting poles in question (J. Barrett, pers. comm.). Wind power projects and other electrical facilities can only create stray voltage in the unusual circumstance where they are not properly specified, designed, constructed, tested and commissioned. Stray voltage would arise from inadequate grounding. According to the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA, 2012), “There has been much confusion on the topic of stray voltage, and wind turbines have at times been inappropriately linked as direct sources of stray voltage. Stray voltage is a potential symptom in any system of electrical distribution, regardless of source and is especially Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 199 prevalent on working farms. Wind turbines are often located in agricultural areas, connecting to the provincial electricity grid with farm operators leasing the land on which the turbines sit. Through improved regulation and electrical code enforcement, incidences of stray voltage will be increasingly detected and eliminated.” When designed, built, and operated to appropriate electrical safety standards, wind power projects and other electrical facilities do not create any stray voltage issues. 3.12.1.4 Fire Wind turbines, due to their height, physical dimensions, and complexity, have the potential to present response difficulties to local emergency service providers and fire departments. Although the turbines contain relatively few flammable components, the presence of electrical generating equipment and electrical cables, along with various oils (lubricating, cooling and hydraulic) does create the potential for fire or a medical emergency within the tower or the nacelle. This, in combination with the elevated location of the nacelle and the enclosed space of the tower interior makes response to a fire or other emergency difficult, and beyond the capabilities of most local fire departments and emergency service providers. Other Project components create the potential for a fire or medical emergency due to the storage and use of diesel fuels, lubricating oils and hydraulic fluids. Storage and use of these substances may occur at the substation, in electrical transmission structures, and staging area(s). Due to the accessibility of these areas, response to an emergency should not pose difficulty to local fire and emergency personnel. In fact, some of the Enfield Fire Department’s trucks are equipped with aqueous fire fighting foam (AFFF), which can be used to coat the fuel and prevent combustion by eliminating contact with oxygen (D. Hubbell, pers. comm.). However, the presence of potentially hazardous materials as well as high voltage electrical equipment at the substation could present potential safety risks to local responders (see Section 3.15 for detailed information regarding emergency response services). 3.12.1.5 Lightning Strikes Due to their height and metal/carbon components, wind turbines are susceptible to lightning strikes. Statistics on lightning strikes to wind turbines are not readily available, but it is reported that lightning causes four to eight faults per 100 turbine-years in northern Europe, and up to 14 faults per 100 turbine-years in southern Germany (Korsgaard & Mortensen, 2006). Most lightning strikes hit the rotor, and their effect is highly variable, ranging from minor surface damage to complete blade failure. All modern wind turbines include lighting protection systems, which generally prevent catastrophic blade failure. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 200 3.12.1.6 Electrocution Due to the generation and transmission of electricity, a wind power project poses the risk of electrocution. Because power generation and transmission does not occur until after the wind project has been constructed, this concern is primarily associated with an operating wind power project. For the Black Oak Project, the electricity generated by each turbine will initially be transmitted through buried 34.5 kV electric lines, which will ultimately be delivered to the Project substation. The buried lines will be placed at least 3 feet below grade (4 feet in agricultural land). Therefore, any earthwork conducted at or below these depths (and in the immediate proximity of the buried lines) will introduce the risk of electrocution by accidental contact. 3.12.1.7 Electromagnetic Fields Electric and magnetic fields are sometimes jointly referred to as electromagnetic fields, or EMF. EMF is found wherever there is electricity, such as wiring, appliances, computers or power lines. Electric power transmission and collector lines create EMF because they carry electric currents at relatively high voltages. EMFs decrease in size as the distance from the source increases. For an electric transmission/collector line, EMF levels are highest next to the lines (e.g., near the center of the transmission line right-of-way) and decrease as the distance from the transmission/collector corridor increases. Electric fields are attenuated by objects such as trees and the walls of structures, and are completely shielded by materials such as metal and the earth. Electric Fields Electric fields around power lines are produced by electrical charges, measured as voltage, on the energized conductor. Electric field strength is directly proportional to the line’s voltage; that is, increased voltage produces a stronger electric field. The electric field is inversely proportional to the distance a sensor is from the conductors. The strength of the electric field is measured in units of kilovolts per meter (kV/m). The voltage, and therefore the electric field, around a power line remains practically steady and is not affected by the common daily and seasonal fluctuations in production of electricity by the Project. Magnetic Fields Magnetic fields around power lines are produced by the electrical load or the amount of current flow, measured in terms of amperage, through the conductors. The magnetic field strength is directly proportional to the amperage; that is, increased amperage produces a stronger magnetic field. The magnetic field is inversely proportional to the sensor’s distance from the conductors. Magnetic fields are expressed in units of milligauss (mG). However, unlike voltage, the amperage and therefore the magnetic field around a power line, fluctuate hourly and daily as the amount Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 201 of current flow varies. The strength of the magnetic field depends on the current in the conductor, the geometry of the construction, the degree of cancellation from other conductors, and the distance from the conductors or cables. Underground Lines For an underground 34.5-kV circuit and 115 kV transmission line, the electric field is totally contained within the insulation of the cable. Because the electric field is contained within the buried cables, no electric field is measurable at the surface of the ground. Magnetic fields are assessed on the basis of three parallel conductors, bundled together, and placed 3 ft below grade. The conservative peak line loading value assumed for assessment of each underground circuit is approximately 50% higher than expected peak loading levels. The net magnetic field of buried cables is measurable 1 meter above the surface of the ground over the cables. 3.12.2 Potential Impacts 3.12.2.1 Construction As mentioned in the background information section, public safety concerns associated with Project construction include 1) the movement of large construction vehicles, equipment and materials, 2) falling overhead objects, 3) falls into open excavations, and 4) electrocution. These issues are most relevant to construction personnel who will be working in close proximity to construction equipment and materials, and will be exposed to construction related hazards on a daily basis. The risk of construction-related injury for such personnel will be minimized through regular safety training and use of appropriate safety equipment. The general public could also be exposed to construction-related hazards due to the passage of large construction equipment on area roads and unauthorized access to the work site (e.g., on foot, by motor vehicle, ATV, or snowmobile). The latter could result in collision with stockpiled materials (soil, rebar, turbine/tower components), as well as falls into open excavations. Because construction activities will adhere to industry safety standards and occur primarily on private land, and be well removed from adjacent roads and residences, exposure of the general public to construction-related risks/hazard is expected to be very limited. Diesel and gasoline powered equipment and vehicles will be used in construction of the Project and normal turbine operation requires the use of hydraulic fluid. No significant quantities of other chemicals are generally used in the construction or maintenance of wind farms. Should gasoline, diesel fuel or hydraulic fluid be spilled as a result of turbine construction or maintenance, the NYSDEC spill hotline will be notified by the responsible party within two hours of the spill. Spill clean-up will be performed in accordance with NYSDEC Final Commissioner Policy, CP-51 by an experienced remediation contractor. In addition, Project construction will generate some solid waste, primarily Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 202 plastic, wood, cardboard and metal packing/packaging materials, construction scrap, and general refuse. This material will be collected from turbine sites and other Project work areas, and disposed of in dumpsters located at the construction staging area(s). A private contractor will empty the dumpsters on an as-needed basis, and dispose of the refuse at a licensed solid waste disposal facility. 3.12.2.2 Operation Public safety concerns associated with the operation of a wind power project are somewhat more unique, and are the focus of this section. In many ways, wind energy facilities are safer than other forms of energy production, since significant use and storage of combustible fuels are not required and there are no emissions associated with wind energy production. In addition, use and/or generation of toxic or hazardous materials are minor when compared to other types of generating facilities. However, risks to public health and safety can be associated with these facilities. Examples of such safety concerns include ice shedding, tower collapse/blade throw, stray voltage, fire, lighting strikes, electrocution, and electro-magnetic fields. In addition, there has been much debate over the alleged negative health effects caused by low frequency sound produced by operating wind turbines. It should be noted that shadow flicker is not considered a health-related issue, as blade pass frequencies for modern commercial-scale wind turbines are so low they are considered harmless. According to the British Epilepsy Association, approximately five percent of individuals with epilepsy have sensitivity to light, and most people with photosensitive epilepsy are sensitive to flickering around 16-25 Hz (Hertz or Hz = 1 flash per second), although some people may be sensitive to rates as low as 3 Hz and as high as 60 Hz. Modern wind turbines are usually built to operate at a frequency of 1 Hz or less. There is no evidence that wind turbines operating at this frequency can trigger seizures (see Appendix V for additional information). Please refer to Section 3.6 for an analysis of the anticipated shadow flicker associated with the Project. 3.12.2.2.1 Ice Shedding As stated previously, while turbine icing may occur at times, ice accumulation on the rotor blades typically will cause an imbalance, or freeze-up of the control anemometer, both of which will result in turbine shut-down. As the ice begins to thaw, it will typically drop straight to the ground. Any ice that remains attached to the blades as they begin to rotate could be thrown some distance from the tower. However, such a throw will usually result in the ice breaking into small pieces, and falling within 300 feet of the tower base. The Project's minimum setback distance of 190 feet from roads and adjacent, non-participating property lines, and 900 feet between the proposed turbines and adjacent residences, should adequately protect nearby residents and motorists from falling ice of any significant size. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 203 In addition, unauthorized public access to the site will be limited by posting signs to alert the public and maintenance workers of potential ice shedding risks. Based upon the results of studies/field observations at other wind power projects, the Project's siting criteria, and the proposed control of public access to the turbine sites, it is not anticipated that the Project will result in any measurable risks to the health or safety of the general public due to ice shedding. 3.12.2.2.2 Tower Collapse/Blade Throw Modern utility-scale turbines are certified according to international engineering standards. These include ratings for withstanding different levels of hurricane-strength winds and other criteria (AWEA, 2013). The engineering standards of the Repower wind turbines proposed for this Project are of the highest level and meet all federal, state, and local codes. In the design phase, state and local laws require that licensed professional engineers review and approve the structural elements of the turbines. State of the art braking systems, pitch controls, sensors, and speed controls on wind turbines have greatly reduced the risk of tower collapse and blade throw. As mentioned in Section 2.4.10, the wind turbines proposed for the Project will be equipped with two fully independent braking systems that allow the rotor to be brought to a halt under all foreseeable conditions. In addition, the turbines will automatically shut down at wind speeds over manufacturers threshold. They will also cease operation if significant vibrations or rotor blade stress is sensed by the turbines' blade monitoring systems. For all of these reasons, the risk of catastrophic tower collapse or blade failure is minimal. The overall risk for earthquakes in Tompkins County is low (Tompkins County Emergency Management Committee, 2004). While models estimate that Tompkins County will experience one earthquake about every three years, these earthquakes are small, with a magnitude of one or less, and only last a few minutes at most, so most are not even noticeable (Tompkins County Emergency Management Committee, 2004). In addition, the 100 year probability of a 5.0 or greater magnitude earthquake occurring in Tompkins County is zero percent probability (USGS, 2013) Therefore, risk of turbine collapse due to earthquake activity is low. 3.12.2.2.3 Stray Voltage While the concerns surrounding stray voltage are legitimate, it is important to note they are largely preventable with proper electrical installation and grounding practices. The Project’s power collection system will be properly grounded, and will be electrically isolated (in accordance with required electricity regulations) from the local electrical distribution lines that provide electrical service to on-site structures or off-site buildings and homes. It will be physically and electrically isolated from all of the buildings in and adjacent to the Project. Additionally, the bulk of the wind farm’s electrical collection lines will be located a minimum of three to four feet below ground, and will use Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 204 shielded cables with multiple ground points. This type of design eliminates the potential for stray voltage (J. Barrett, pers. comm.). 3.12.2.2.4 Fire All turbines and electrical equipment will be inspected by the utilities (for grid and system safety) prior to being brought on line. This, along with implementation of built-in safety systems, minimize the chance of fire occurring in the turbines or electrical stations. However, fire at these facilities could result from a lighting strike, short circuit or mechanical failure/malfunction. Any of these occurrences at a turbine would be sensed by the SCADA system and reported to the Project control center. Under these conditions, the turbines would automatically shut down and/or Project maintenance personnel would respond as appropriate. In the event that a wind turbine catches fire, it is typically allowed to burn itself out while maintenance and fire personnel maintain a safety area around the turbine, and protect against the potential for spot ground fires that might start due to sparks or falling material. Power to the circuit of the Project with the turbine fire is also disconnected. An effective method for extinguishing a turbine fire from the ground does not exist, and the events generally do not last long enough to warrant attempts to extinguish the fire from the air (Global Energy Concepts, 2005). However, since the public typically does not have access to the private land on which the turbines are located, risk to public safety during a fire event would be minimal. In the unlikely event that a fire ignites in the substation, the circuit breakers would trip in the event of a transformer failure, thus isolating the substation from the transmission system, and allowing the local fire department to extinguish any fire. Generally, any emergency/fire situations at a wind turbine site or substation that are beyond the capabilities of the local service providers will be the responsibility of the Project owner/operator. Construction and maintenance personnel will be trained and will have the equipment to deal with emergency situations that may occur at a wind turbine site (e.g., tower rescue, confined spaces, high voltage, etc.). Consequently, such an incident would generally not expose local emergency service providers or the general public to any public health or safety risk. 3.12.2.2.5 Lightning Strikes Lightning protection systems were first added to rotor blades in the mid-1990s, and are now a standard component of modern turbines (Korsgaard and Mortensen, 2006). These systems rely on lightning receptors and diverter strips in the blades that provide a path for the lightning strike to follow to the grounded tower. Lightning is effectively and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 205 safely intercepted at several receptor points including the outermost blade tip and the blade root surface, and transmitted to the wind turbine’s lightning conductive system. The turbine’s blade monitoring system provides documentation of all critical lightning events. If a problem is detected, the turbine will shut down automatically, or at a minimum, be inspected to assure that damage has not occurred. 3.12.2.2.6 Electrocution As previously mentioned, all electric lines will be buried at least 3 feet deep (4 feet deep in agricultural fields). Therefore, the general public will not be exposed to risk from electrocution. 3.12.2.2.7 Electromagnetic Fields As described in Section 3.12.1.7, EMFs are a combination of electric and magnetic fields generated by the operation of various Project components, including the turbine generator, electrical collection lines and transformers. The strength of an EMF is inversely proportional to the distance a sensor is from the Project component, so that the electric and magnetic field strengths decline as the distance from the component increases. The height of the turbine generator (over 250 feet) above the ground, the location of electrical collection cables underground, and the location of substation transformers and other electrical equipment inside a fenced yard provide separation of these components from the general public, livestock, and wildlife to limit EMF exposure. Humans are exposed to a wide variety of natural and man-made EMF both in the outdoor environment and in homes, schools, and businesses. The EMF produced by electric transmission lines are well within the range of EMF exposures from such other sources. Numerous public health review groups, including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Department of Energy, have examined the public's exposure to EMFs produced by power lines. The consistent overall conclusion of these groups is that available data do not support a cause and effect relationship between exposure to environmental levels of EMF and elevated risk of disease. New York is one of few states that have established standards for electric and magnetic fields produced by electric power lines. All Project components will comply with applicable standards. Table 26 summarizes EMF guidelines that have been adopted by various states. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 206 Table 26. State EMF Standards and Guidelines for Transmission Lines State/Line Voltage Electric Field Magnetic Field On ROW Edge ROW On ROW Edge ROW Floridaa 69-230 kV 500 kV 8.0 kV/m 10.0 kV/m 2.0 kV/mb - 150 mG 200 mG/250 mGc Massachusetts - - - 85 mG Minnesota 8.0 kV/m - - - Montana 7.0 kV/md 1.0 kV/me - - New Jersey - 3.0 kV/m - - New Yorkf 11.8 kV/m 11.0 kV/mg 7.0 kV/md 1.6 kV - 200 mG Oregon 9.0 kv/m - - - (NIEHS, 2002) ROW = right of way; mG = milliGauss; kV/m = kilovolts per meter Notes: a Magnetic fields for winter-normal, maximum line load capacity b Includes the property boundary of a substation c 250 mG standard applies only to certain 500 kV double-circuit lines built on existing ROWs d Maximum for highway crossings e May be waived by the landowner f Magnetic fields for winter-normal, maximum line load capacity g Maximum for private road crossings The strength of EMF's produced by Project components will not be significant at any receptor location. The height of the turbine generator (over 250 feet) above the ground; the location of electrical collection cables underground; and the location of substation transformers and other electrical equipment inside a fenced yard, should adequately separate these components from any human and livestock receptors. 3.12.3 Mitigation Measures 3.12.3.1 Construction Contractors will comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, in addition to state worker safety regulations, regarding electricity, structural climbing, and other hazards, during construction of the Project. To minimize safety risks to construction personnel, workers will be required to adhere to various health and safety compliance protocol, which are typically set forth by all construction-related entities (Project Sponsor, contractors, turbine manufacturer) prior to construction. The safety compliance program will address appropriate health and safety related issues including: • personal protective equipment such as hardhats, safety glasses, orange vest, and steel-toed boots) • job safety meetings and attendance requirements • fall prevention • construction equipment operation Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 207 • maintenance and protection of traffic • hand and power tool use • open hole and excavation area safety • parking • general first aid • petroleum and hazardous material storage, use, containment and spill prevention • posting of health and safety requirements • visitors to the job site • local emergency resources and contact information • incident reporting requirements As mentioned in Section 3.9, a construction routing plan will be developed to assure that construction vehicles avoid areas where public safety could be a concern (schools, clusters of homes, etc.). To minimize safety risks to the general public, over-sized vehicles will be accompanied by an escort vehicle and/or flagman to assure safe passage of vehicles on public roads. Because construction activity will occur on private land, the general public should not be on the construction site. After hours, vehicular access to such sites may be blocked by parked equipment, and temporary construction fencing or other visible barriers will be placed around excavations that remain open during off hours. In addition, material safety data sheets (MSDS) for potentially hazardous construction materials will be provided to local fire and emergency service personnel. The contractor will also coordinate with these entities (including but not necessarily limited to local fire departments, ambulance squads, and county emergency management services office) to assure that they are aware of where various construction activities are occurring, and avoid potential conflicts between construction activity and the provision of emergency services (e.g., road blockages, etc.). All construction and maintenance activities will adhere to the spill prevention industry best practices. Although not anticipated, to mitigate for potential impacts related to waste disposal (e.g., excessive waste), the Applicant or contractor will coordinate with the Tompkins Solid Waste Management Division County prior to Project construction. The type and quantify of waste anticipated as a result of Project construction will be discussed, and appropriate means of disposal agreed upon (see Section 3.15). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 208 3.12.3.2 Operation 3.12.3.2.1 Ice Shedding As stated previously, compliance with required set-backs and measures to control public access (gates, warning signs, etc.) should minimize any public safety risk associated with ice shedding. Black Oak Wind will also meet with local landowners and snowmobile clubs to explain the risks of ice shedding and proper safety precautions. Relocation of designated snowmobile trails that occur within 200 feet of a proposed turbine (if any) will be undertaken by the Owner in coordination with the local snowmobile clubs and affected landowners. Additionally, icing of the sensors on the wind turbines will result in automatic turbine shut-down. 3.12.3.2.2 Tower Collapse/Blade Throw Project component setbacks, which are greater than those included in the Town of Enfield Wind Energy Regulations, should assure that a tower failure would not endanger adjacent properties, roadways, or utilities. No turbine will be located closer than approximately 190 feet from roads and adjacent non-participating land parcels or approximately 900 feet of a residence. In addition, members of the public do not have access to the private land on which the turbines are located, and as previously stated, distance to the nearest public road/non-participating residence essentially eliminates risk to the public due to tower collapse/blade throw. Therefore, mitigation is not proposed. 3.12.3.2.3 Stray Voltage Stray voltage will be prevented through proper design and grounding of the Project's electrical system, supplemented by appropriate testing and commissioning. Should issues or complaints regarding stray voltage arise, these would typically be investigated by the local utility operator who will investigate the problem and isolate the source of the problem. In the unlikely event of any stray voltage issues, the Project Sponsor will coordinate with local utilities where necessary to help identify the source of the problem. Although not anticipated, any reported stray voltage problems will be addressed through the Project's Community Outreach and Community Plan (Appendix U). 3.12.3.2.4 Fire An employee safety manual will be incorporated into the overall operating and maintenance policies and procedures for the Project. Included in that manual will be specific requirements for a fire prevention program. In addition, a Fire Protection and Emergency Response Plan will be developed for the proposed Project in consultation with local fire and emergency response personnel. This plan will include the following components: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 209 • Training of all Project operating personnel and procedures review in conjunction with local fire and safety officials. Any Project-related fires will be the responsibility of the Project owner/operator. • Regular inspection of transformer oil condition at each wind turbine step-up transformer. • Regular inspection of all substation components. • Regular inspection of fire extinguishers at all facility locations where they are installed. • All Project vehicles will be equipped with firefighting equipment (fire extinguishers and shovels) as well as communications equipment for contacting the appropriate emergency response teams. • The MSDS for all hazardous materials on the Project Site will be on file in the construction trailers (during construction) and the Project vehicles (during operation), and provided to local fire departments and emergency service providers. • The facility Safety Coordinator shall notify the local fire department of any situation or incident where there is any question about fire safety, and will invite an officer of the fire department to visit the workplace and answer any questions to help implement a safe operating plan. Development and implementation of this plan will assure that Project construction and operation will not have a significant adverse impact on public safety, or the personnel and equipment of local emergency service providers. 3.12.3.2.5 Lightning Strikes Beyond the turbines' lightning protection system, and the fire/emergency response plan described previously, no additional measures to mitigate the effects of lightning strikes are proposed. 3.12.3.2.6 Electrocution The Project Sponsor has committed to burying all electric lines a minimum of 3 feet (4 feet in agricultural lands), which significantly minimizes the risk of electrocution to the public. Beyond these activities, no additional measures to mitigate the potential for electrocution are proposed. 3.12.3.2.7 Electromagnetic Fields Because no significant impacts from EMF are expected, no mitigation is required. However, to reduce the potential effects of EMF from the Project to the maximum extent practicable, the Project Sponsor will voluntarily adhere to the magnetic field strength interim standards established in the New York State PSC's Interim Policy Statement on Magnetic Fields, issued September 11, 1990. The Interim Policy establishes a magnetic field strength interim Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 210 standard of 200 mG, measured at one meter above grade, at the edge of the right-of-way, at the point of lowest conductor sag. 3.13 GROWTH AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER 3.13.1 Existing Condition The Project Site has a rural and low-density character, with active farms, forestland, and single-family rural residences as the dominant land uses. The majority of the upland area consists of successional old fields and pastures, with forestland dominating the steep slopes that descend into adjacent valleys. The Project area also includes hedgerow, successional shrubland and forest, residential yards, farms, streams, and ponds. These land uses are consistent with the regional land use characteristics, and together define the community character within the majority of the Project Site. Existing built features within the Project Site include single-family homes, seasonal homes, barns, silos, and other agricultural buildings. In addition, the public road system within the Project area consists of improved, year round roads. Local residents often inquire about the potential for property values to depreciate as a result of a proposed wind power project. This issue has come up during the siting and review of other wind power projects in New York and throughout the United States. In order to address this concern, Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) conducted a quantitative study in 2003 titled, Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values. REPP assembled a database of real estate transactions adjacent to every wind power project in the United States (10 MW or greater) that became operational between 1998 and 2001 (a total of 10 projects, including the Madison and Fenner projects in Madison County, New York). For this study, data was gathered within 5 miles of the wind projects, as this was determined to be the potential area of visual impact (viewshed). For each of the 10 projects, similar data was also gathered for a comparable community that was located outside of the project viewshed (comparable communities were based on interviews with local assessors as well as analysis of U.S. Census Bureau demographic data). The goal of the data collection was to obtain real estate transaction records for a time period covering roughly six years (three years pre-construction and three years post-construction), and for data based on actual sales values, and not necessarily assessed values. The data was then analyzed in three different ways: Case 1 examined the price changes in the viewshed and the comparable community for the entire period of the study; Case 2 examined how property values changed in the viewshed before and after the project became operational; and Case 3 examined how property values changed in the viewshed and the comparable community after the project became operational. The results of these analyses showed no negative affect on property value from existing wind farms. Of the 10 projects examined in the Case 1 analysis, property value actually increased faster within the wind power project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 211 viewshed in eight of the 10 projects. The Case 2 analysis revealed that the property values also increased faster after the wind farms became operational in nine of the 10 projects examined. In the Case 3 analysis, property values increased faster in the wind power project viewshed than in the comparable community in nine of the 10 projects (Sterzinger et al., 2003). It should be noted that the REPP study has been criticized because it assumes that all properties within the study area have a view of the respective wind facility, does not account for property distance to the wind facility, uses an unconventional statistical analysis, and includes transactions that are perceived to be inappropriate (e.g., estate sales, sales between family members, sales due to divorce, etc.). In addition, at least two property value studies (Haughton et al., 2004; Heintzelman & Tuttle, 2011) have predicted a negative effect from the proposed development of a wind power project. To present a clearer understanding of the actual effects of existing wind facilities on property values, a Master of Science thesis was prepared by Ben Hoen (2006). The purpose of this study was to analyze whether the transaction value of homes within 5 miles of the existing Fenner Wind Farm, was significantly affected by views of the wind facility. "View" is defined using a continuous variable from 0 (no view) to 60 (a full view of all 20 turbines). The study additionally investigates how effects may vary with distance (spatially), time (temporally), and house value. Lastly, the effect and degree of the PILOT payment to Fenner Township is investigated. The study utilized the hedonic pricing model, which, given enough data, is sensitive enough to allow sales to be grouped temporally (e.g., by year), spatially (e.g., by distance), and economically (by the value of the home). The data concerning transaction values and assessor information was collected from the Madison County Real Property Tax Office. From January 1, 1996 through June 1, 2005, 452 sales took place that were coded "arms- length" transactions by county assessors, and were within 5 miles of Fenner Wind Farm. Of these, 167 were removed as land-only sales (i.e., sale of parcel that did not contain a house), and five were removed as non “arms- length” sales, resulting in a total of 280 sales. Of these, 140 occurred after construction of the Fenner Wind Farm began (2001). A field analysis was conducted on October 30 and 31, 2005 to ensure complete accuracy of the "view" variables used in the model. Visits were made to those homes sold after January 1, 2001 (138 homes visited) to assess the degree to which the home has a view of the wind farm. By standing at or near the house a rating of 1 to 60 was established for each home. This rating was based on the degree to which viewers could see each of the 20 windmills in the Fenner Wind Farm. A total of 3 points per turbine were possible (one point if only the blade above the nacelle was visible, two points if the nacelle was also visible, and three points if the tower below the rotor swept area was also visible), for a cumulative maximum of 60 points. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 212 Computer modeling analysis of the 280 home sales within 5 miles of the Fenner Wind Farm did not reveal a statistically significant relationship between the sale price of homes and either proximity to, or visibility of, the wind farm. Additionally, the analysis did not demonstrate a relationship even when concentrating on homes within one mile of the wind farm that sold immediately following the announcement and construction of the Project. This study therefore concluded that in Fenner, a view of the wind farm does not produce either a universal or localized effect, adverse or otherwise. To the degree that other communities resemble the Fenner rural farming community, similar conclusions are anticipated (Hoen, 2006). A more recent study sponsored by the United States Government focused specifically on impacts of wind farm projects on residential property values. The report The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis, released in December 2009 explains the study and the conclusions drawn from the study (Hoen, 2009). A more broad approach to assessing potential impacts on property values of residences near wind farm projects was undertaken for this study and consequently it is the “most comprehensive and data-rich analysis to date in the U.S. or abroad on the impacts of wind projects on nearby property values.” (Hoen, 2009). This study’s analysis is based on information from 10 communities surrounding 24 existing wind power facilities spread across nine states. Homes included in the study were located from 800 feet to over five miles from the nearest wind energy facility. This study used a methodology based on the hedonic pricing model to identify the marginal impacts of different housing and community characteristics on residential property values. Analysis of possible impacts on property values was undertaken by dividing the impacts into three non- mutually exclusive categories, area stigma, scenic vista stigma, and nuisance stigma. An explanation of each identified stigma, as used in this study is: Area stigma may occur regardless of whether the wind facility is within view of the home. The mere fact that a wind farm is generally nearby may adversely affect a home’s value. Scenic vista stigma is based on the concern that a home may be devalued because a wind facility is within view and/or interrupts an existing scenic vista. A nuisance stigma can occur because of the potential for extenuating factors from a nearby wind facility, such as noise or shadow flicker (regardless of whether they actually occur). Exploration of the effects of all three stigmas resulted in finding no persuasive evidence that neither the view of the wind facilities nor the distance of the home to the facilities is found to have any significant effect on home sales prices. The study recognizes the possibility that the value of an individual home (or small numbers of homes) has been or could be negatively impacted by a nearby wind farm facility (Hoen, 2009). However, even if such occurrences do exist “they are either too small or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact” (Hoen, 2009). A property value study in the vicinity of Mendota Hills Wind Farm, GSG 1 Wind Farm, and Lee-Dekalb Wind Center within Lee County, Illinois also examined the wind farm anticipation stigma (Carter, 2011). The study examined 1,298 real estate transactions from 1998 to 2010. The study suggests that following announcement of the wind Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 213 project, property values near the proposed wind facility initially decline. However the analysis indicates that residential properties located near wind turbines in Lee County have not in fact been negatively affected by the installation of a wind energy facility. Assuming the wind facility is appropriately sited using modern, industry standard setbacks, and that it minimizes impacts to nearby residences, property values eventually rebound once the uncertainty surrounding how homeowners are affected by the development disappears. The study acknowledges one shortcoming of property value studies, which is that the results presented are not able to state anything about whether being in close proximity to a wind facility affects the ease of selling a home. It could be that homes near wind turbines are not for sale or selling and consequently would not be included in the studies evaluating real estate transaction data (Carter, 2011). However, the Hoen et al. (2009) study estimated a sales volume model and concluded that sales volumes did not decrease with wind energy development. Heintzelman and Tuttle (2011) examined 11,331 property transactions (including agricultural property) over nine years in Northern New York to explore the effects of new wind facilities on property values. These properties are within Lewis, Franklin, and Clinton Counties. However, only 461 transactions occur within 3 miles of a wind turbine. The study examined 194 turbines in Lewis County, which occur on top of a large plateau, as well as 85 turbines in Franklin County and 186 turbines in Clinton County, which occur within a broad river valley with small hills. Similar to the Hoen (2006), Hoen et al. (2009), Hinman (2010), and Carter (2011), the study found that in Lewis County turbines appear to have had little effect, or in some instances a positive effect. In contrast, property values in Clinton and Franklin Counties were negatively impacted by nearby wind energy facilities, with the magnitude of this effect dependent on the distance between homes and the nearest turbine. For Franklin and Clinton Counties, properties within 0.5 mile experienced an 8.8% to 15.8% decline. At a range of 3 miles the decline is between 2% and 8%. The study states that in Lewis County, landowners appear to be receiving sufficient compensation to prevent a decline in property values. In addition, the Clinton and Franklin County projects became operational in 2008 and 2009, at the very end of the 9 year study period, while the Lewis County project became operational in 2006, resulting in a much larger set of property sales and thus, more robust analysis (Heintzelman & Tuttle, 2011). Public opinion and perception seem to indicate that the presence of wind turbines diminish property values. However, numerous property value studies based on statistical analysis of real estate transactions have found that wind facilities have no significant impact on property values (Sterzinger et al., 2003; Hoen, 2006; Hoen et al.,2009; Hinman, 2010; Carter, 2011). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 214 3.13.2 Potential Impacts 3.13.2.1 Construction Visual impacts during construction will include the addition of construction material and working construction vehicles and equipment to the local roads. In addition, construction activity/site disturbance, such as tree clearing, earth moving, soil stockpiling and road building, all of which will alter the character of the landscape, at least on a temporary basis, may be visible from some public vantage points. Dust generated by the movement of these vehicles could also potentially have an adverse impact on aesthetic resources. However, all of these activities will be relatively short term (i.e., generally restricted to the construction season), and at any one site, will generally occur on only a few days during the course of Project construction. In addition, the most significant earth moving, tree clearing, and general construction activity will occur at turbine sites, which are typically well removed and/or screened from public vantage points. Once construction activity ceases and site restoration activities are complete, construction-related visual impacts will no longer occur. Little data exists with regard to the specific impacts of wind energy facility construction on nearby property values. As described above, a study conducted in Ford and McLean County, Illinois identified a “wind farm anticipation stigma.” This stigma decreases property values when the development is initially proposed, due to uncertainty about where turbines will be placed and what effect the wind facility will have on area residents. The study found that when the 240-turbine wind facility was initially announced, property values near the prospective wind facility decreased compared to elsewhere in the county. However, after the wind facility entered the operational stage, property values near the wind facility increased faster than those located elsewhere in the county (Hinman, 2010). If a similar anticipation stigma were to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project, such impacts would be expected to be similarly short-lived. 3.13.2.2 Operation As discussed in Section 3.6, the visibility and visual impact of the wind turbines will be highly variable based on the distance to the viewer and the project, viewer sensitivity, duration, landscape setting, the extent of screening (i.e. buildings, trees, forest, terrain), and the presence of other features in the view. However, the remote/rural character of the area may be impacted in those locations where a significant number of the proposed turbines can be seen, or where the turbines can be viewed from foreground distances (i.e., under 0.5 mile). The visual impact of the Project will be greatest within 1 mile where the turbines will appear out of context compared to other structures within the landscape view. Generally, beyond 3 miles, the Projects’ contrast with the visual character of the area will generally be low and continue to lessen as one moves further away from the Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 215 The landscape surrounding this Project will retain its open space character and overall spatial organization once the Project is in place. Although there are some intrusions to the vertical and overhead planes in the landscape within the Project Site, the surrounding landscape retains much of its integrity because the open sky, topography, and existing patterns of land use will remain dominant. However, the Project will introduce new elements (i.e., wind turbines) into the existing landscape, which could be considered a change in community character. It is worth noting however, that the introduction of these new elements will, in fact, help maintain the existing community character by helping area farms remain in business with supplemental income from leasing land, and slowing the trend of farm abandonment and conversion to successional vegetation and residential development. It is also worth noting that community character evolves over time, and wind power can now be considered an integral (if not essential) part of the evolving agrarian landscape. This evolution is evident along portions of U.S. Route 20 (a designated scenic byway) in Madison County, where the presence of two wind power projects within approximately 5 miles of Route 20 have helped to maintain the agrarian community character. As indicated in The U.S. Route 20 Byway Strategy (Saratoga Associates, 2004), the farming community is a critical part of why the Route 20 Byway is what it is today. These family-owned businesses provide the backdrop and frame the scenic and cultural beauty that the Route 20 Byway has to offer. These independently owned and operated establishments are important contributors to the economic vitality of the communities that define the Route 20 Byway. Programs and initiatives that support the successful operation of these businesses should be a fundamental objective of the Route 20 Byway." Therefore, by dissuading the trend of farm abandonment (and subsequent conversion of the landscape), wind power projects, such as the proposed Black Oak Wind Farm, contribute to the economic vitality that helps define an agricultural-dominated community character. Although the presence of wind turbines will increase the value of the properties on which they are located and generate income for the participating landowners, due to the allowed tax exemption pursuant to New York State Real Property Tax Law, Article 4, §487, the landowners of these properties will not be assessed a higher value to reflect these improvements. In addition, studies of wind power impact on property values have indicated that these projects typically do not have an adverse effect on assessed property values of neighboring homes (Sterzinger et. al. 2003; Hoen 2006, p. 34; Hoen et al. 2009, p. 75; Hinman 2010, p. 85; Carter 2011, p. 25), and in some cases even appear to have a beneficial effect (i.e., property values near the wind facility increased faster than those located elsewhere in the county [Hinman, 2010; Heintzelman & Tuttle, 2011]). Therefore, the Project should have no effect on future real property tax obligations for each participating landowner or property values within (or in the vicinity of) the Project area. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 216 The public road system within the Project area consists of improved, year round roads. Therefore, the improvement of existing road systems to accommodate Project component delivery (e.g. turning radii, culvert replacement, etc.) is not anticipated to substantially promote additional residential or commercial growth within the Project area than currently exists. Project access roads that will be constructed will be located within private easements, and therefore will not induce growth in the area. Other factors having an effect on population and housing could result from an aversion to living near wind energy facilities. It may be reasonable to assume that some area residents could relocate due to an objection to the presence of a wind turbine, dependent upon individual personal acceptance. No published studies could be found that document a reduction in occupied houses in a given area after the construction of a wind turbine project. The Black Oak Wind Farm is proposed, in part, because of the presence of existing resources and facilities that allow the Project to be economically viable. Specifically, the availability of adequate wind and the proximity to an existing transmission line allow for generation and transmission of the Project's electric output to the state power grid. The occurrence of these resources/facilities might suggest that other wind power projects could be proposed on adjacent lands. However, this would be the case with or without the proposed Project. Its presence alone will not encourage the development of additional wind power projects in the area. In fact, because existing transmission facilities have limited additional capacity, future projects will be more difficult to develop if such development could only be accommodated by upgrading the existing transmission line. If this were the case, such upgrades would likely make future projects less economically viable. In addition, landowner willingness and environmental sensitivity play a significant role in the location of wind power projects. Additional wind power projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project are likely to be limited due to the lack of an available wind resource, set-back constraints, more significant environmental impacts, zoning restrictions, and lack of landowner participation. 3.13.3 Mitigation Measures The Project is not expected to have a significant impact on the local property values. Therefore, mitigation measures to address property values are not necessary. However, property owners within the viewshed of proposed wind power projects often inquire about the possibility that these projects could at some point be abandoned, and that the abandoned facilities may affect local property values. To address this issue, the Project developer will establish a decommissioning fund or purchase a decommissioning bond in an amount sufficient to secure the cost of removing turbine site improvements as required under its leases with participating landowners. This fund will assure that the proposed wind power facility will be dismantled and removed in accordance with a Project Decommissioning Plan in Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 217 the event that it reaches the end of its operational life span or its operation is otherwise abandoned. For more detail on the Project Decommissioning Plan, see Section 2.4.10. The Project is compatible with the agricultural land use that dominates the Project Site. However, the Project will impact agricultural activities (at least temporarily) and will result in a change to community character and perceived land use throughout the area. Mitigation measures will be undertaken to reduce the impact of the wind energy facility on community character, which includes: • Locating all electrical collection (interconnect) lines underground or, where following existing public roads, locating all interconnect lines underground or within an existing ROW when aboveground. • Lighting towers only to the extent necessary to comply with FAA requirements. An application has been submitted to the FAA for approval, and the FAA has conducted an Aeronautical Study for each turbine location, which is included in Appendix W. These studies indicated that the proposed 7 turbines will require lighting in accordance with FAA guidelines. Lighting for the substation and other ground level facilities will be kept to a minimum and generally operated by switch or motion detector. • Not affixing television, radio or other communication antennas or advertising signs (other than the turbine manufacturer’s logo) to the towers or any other Project structures. • Utilizing tubular towers and finishing structures painted with a single, non-reflective matte finish color. • Avoiding use of guy wires on permanent meteorology towers. • Installing turbines in locations where proximity to existing fixed broadcast, retransmission, or reception antenna for radio, television, or wireless phone or other personal communications systems, will minimize potential electromagnetic interference with signal transmission or reception. • Designing all Project components in a way that minimizes the impacts of land clearing and the loss of open space. • Locating Project components so as to minimize impacts on state and federal jurisdictional wetlands. • Managing storm water run-off and erosion control in a manner consistent with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. • Removing all solid waste, hazardous materials and construction debris from the site and managing its disposal in a manner consistent with all appropriate rules and regulations. These actions will assure that adverse impacts on community character are minimized or mitigated to the extent practicable. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 218 In addition, building the currently proposed Project will not encourage the development of other wind energy projects in the area. Therefore, mitigation for growth inducing impacts is not required. In the event of re-powering or replacement, visual, noise, and/or other impacts will be extended for the length of the operational Project. If the Project is repowered/redeveloped, measures that are put in place to minimize or mitigate impacts during the current Project will continue for the duration of the repowered Project. The current trend in the wind energy industry has been to replace or “re-power” older wind energy Projects by upgrading older equipment with more efficient turbines. However, if not upgraded or if the turbines are non- operational for an extended period of time (such that there is no expectation of their returning to operation), they will be decommissioned, in accordance with the Decommissioning Plan. Decommissioning would consist of the following activities: • All turbines, including the blades, nacelles, and towers will be disassembled, and transported off site for reclamation and sale. • All of the transformers will also be transported off-site for reuse or reclamation. • Foundations at depths less than 36 inches below grade will be removed. • Except as described otherwise for active agricultural fields, all buildings, structures, wind turbines, access roads and/or driveways and foundations at depths greater than 36 inches below finished grade will be left in place. Areas where subsurface components are removed will be graded to match adjacent contours, stabilized with an appropriate seed mix, and allowed to re-vegetate naturally. At the discretion of the landowner, access road materials will be removed and transported to a disposal location. Written approval by the landowner will be obtained for any access roads to remain in place. As mentioned in Section 2.4.10, the Decommissioning Plan will detail the process, estimated cost, salvage value, and site restoration will be provided to the Town of Enfield prior to Project operation. All decommissioning and restoration activities will be in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local permits and requirements. 3.14 SOCIOECONOMICS To understand the effects this Project will have on socioeconomic conditions within the Town of Enfield, it is important to first understand the current state of the local economy. Thus, this section presents specific information regarding the labor force, including population and housing; the economy, in particular employment; and municipal revenues and taxes. The potential impacts of the Project on these existing socioeconomic conditions, during both construction and operation, are then evaluated. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 219 3.14.1 Existing Conditions 3.14.1.1 Population and Housing Table 27 shows the estimated population of the Town of Enfield and Tompkins County in 2000 and 2010. As shown below, the Town of Enfield grew by approximately 4.2% over the course of a decade, to an estimated 3,512 total population. Tompkins County experienced a greater degree of population growth, increasing by 5.2% to a total population of 101,564 in 2010. This countywide growth is projected to continue through 2020, though it is not expected to continue beyond that time (Cornell PAD, 2011). Table 27. Population 2000 Population 2010 Population % Change Town of Enfield 3,369 3,512 4.2% Tompkins County 96,501 101,564 5.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 While the number of housing units throughout both the town and county increased over this same decade, the growth in the number of vacant units slightly outpaced that increase. Table 28 shows the estimated changes in total and vacant housing units in the town and county from 2000-2010. Table 28. Housing 2000 2010 Total Housing Units Vacant Housing Units % Vacant Total Housing Units Vacant Housing Units % Vacant Town of Enfield 1,432 109 7.6% 1,567 122 7.8% Tompkins County 38,625 2,205 5.7% 41,674 2,707 6.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Owner-occupancy rate is fairly high within the Town of Enfield (72.5% in 2010), though substantially lower throughout the county as a whole (54.1%) primarily due to the high percentage of rented properties within the City of Ithaca. The 2011 estimated median housing value in Tompkins County was substantially higher than that of the Town of Enfield, at $165,900 and $112,200, respectively. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 220 3.14.1.2 Economy and Employment The economic health of the area can be generally discerned from certain indicators such as median household income, poverty level, unemployment rate, and employment sector composition. 3.14.1.2.1 Household Income and Poverty Household income is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as the sum of income received in a calendar year by all household members 15 years old or older including nonfamily household members. Included as income are wages or salary; interest, dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; Social Security or Railroad Retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and all other income. As illustrated in Table 29 below, in 2011, the estimated median household income for the town and county were approximately $46,200 and $49,789, respectively, both of which were lower than the $56,951 median household income estimate for New York State. Also included in Table 29 are estimates of the percentage of families within each jurisdiction whose income in the prior year was below the poverty level. Of significance to each community is the poverty rate, which is the percentage of individuals below the poverty level. Poverty level is determined by the level of income for a family of specific size and composition (number of adults and children) compared to established income thresholds. If the family falls below a certain threshold then they are considered below poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Table 29. Household Income and Population in Poverty, 2011 Median Household Income % of Families Below Poverty Level Town of Enfield $46,200 11.6% Tompkins County $49,789 7.7% New York State $56,951 11.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 In New York State public assistance is available for many individuals who live below the poverty level. Examples of public assistance programs in New York State include help with buying food, special tax credits, home energy assistance and WIC (Women, Infant, and Children) programs. The proportion of population receiving both cash public assistance and food stamp benefits is higher in the Town of Enfield than in either the county or state as a whole (see Table 30, below). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 221 Table 30. Public Assistance, 2011 % Population Receiving Public Assistance Cash Public Assistance Income Food Stamp/SNAP Benefits Town of Enfield 5.8% 14.7% Tompkins County 2.4% 9.0% New York State 3.1% 12.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 3.14.1.2.2 Labor Force Characteristics Of the total population over 16 years of age, a majority were in the labor force in 2011. As illustrated in Table 31 , this majority percentage was similar between both the town and county. The percent of the working age population participating in the workforce has declined since 2000, when 70.4% and 63.6% of the respective populations of the town and county were in the workforce. Table 31. Labor Force Characteristics, 2010 Working Age Population (>16 years) Population in Labor Force % of Working Age Population in Labor Force Town of Enfield 2,841 1,784 62.8% Tompkins County 86,815 53,371 61.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 The annual Tompkins County unemployment rate in 2011 was 5.8%, which represents a slight decline from the previous two years, yet is still higher than the rate over the previous decade. In comparison, the unemployment rate for New York State in 2011 was 8.2% (NYSDOL, 2012). 3.14.1.2.3 Local Industries As shown in Table 32, the two sectors that employ the most Enfield residents are education/health/social services and retail. All other sectors employ less than 10% of all residents. The education/health/social services sector provides an even greater share of county employment, and no other sector employs even 9% of county residents. Major employers within Tompkins County include Cornell University, Ithaca College, the Ithaca City School District, BorgWarner Automotive, and the Cayuga Medical Center. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 222 Table 32. Employment by Aggregated Industry and Classification of Workers, 2011 Employment by Industry (% of total employed) New York State Tompkins County Town of Enfield Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 0.6% 1.5% 5.0% Construction 5.8% 4.5% 8.8% Manufacturing 7.1% 6.5% 9.2% Wholesale trade 2.7% 1.2% 1.2% Retail trade 10.6% 7.8% 15.4% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 5.3% 2.7% 6.4% Information 3.0% 1.5% 0.8% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 8.5% 4.3% 5.2% Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 10.9% 8.5% 5.8% Educational services, and health care and social assistance 27.0% 47.4% 32.5% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 8.6% 8.1% 4.1% Other services, except public administration 5.0% 3.1% 4.0% Public administration 4.9% 2.9% 1.7% Class of Worker (% of total employed) New York State Tompkins County Town of Enfield Private wage and salary workers 77.0% 78.6% 63.4% Government workers 16.7% 13.6% 16.8% Self-employed in own not incorporated business workers 6.1% 7.8% 19.8% Unpaid family workers 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 The employment by industry figures shown in Table 32 are estimated according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s aggregated industry groupings. Table 33 provides a more detailed look at the ten largest industry subsectors by employment. Employment figures for these subsectors represent the average employment across all four quarters of 2011, and the growth percentage represents same-subsector employment change from the fourth quarter of 2010 to the fourth quarter of 2011. Table 33. Tompkins County employment by industry subsectors, 2011 Average Quarterly Employment, 2011 Growth in Employment (2010 Q4 - 2011 Q4) All NAICS subsectors 45,518 -0.4% Educational Services 18,868 -1.8% Food Services and Drinking Places 3,312 3.1% Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 223 Average Quarterly Employment, 2011 Growth in Employment (2010 Q4 - 2011 Q4) Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 2,258 2.0% Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 1,844 7.6% Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 1,809 -2.3% Ambulatory Health Care Services 1,390 8.5% Food and Beverage Stores 1,169 -12.2% Social Assistance 975 -4.0% Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing 762 1.0% Religious, Grantmaking, Civic, Professional, and Similar Organizations 736 2.7% Source: New York State Department of Labor, 2012 3.14.1.3 Municipal Revenues and Taxes Municipalities, counties, and school districts are responsible for providing specific services to those who live within their boundaries. These jurisdictions incur costs associated with providing these services, and to offset these costs, collect revenues by levying taxes. Tax revenues in the Project area accrue from both sales taxes and real property taxes. The taxing jurisdictions in the Project area include Tompkins County, the Town of Enfield, and the Ithaca and Odessa school districts. Table 34 summarizes the total 2011 property taxes levied by these taxing jurisdictions. Table 34. 2011 Real Property Tax Levy Per Taxing Jurisdiction. Taxing Jurisdiction 2010 Real Property Tax Levy Town of Enfield $854,319 Tompkins County $40,268,916 All School Districts $2,009,282 Source: NYSORPTS, 2013 The total 2011 property tax levy for the Town of Enfield was $854,319. These revenues constitute a substantial portion of the town’s operating budget. In addition to property taxes, the town receives a portion of sales taxes collected from within its jurisdiction. In the 2011 fiscal year, the town received $108,088 in sales tax revenues (NYS Office of the Comptroller, 2013). A comparison of the tax base composition by land use category for the Town of Enfield is presented in Table 35 below. This table shows the percent of parcels by broad land use category as calculated by the New York State Office of Real Property Tax Services’ (NYSORPTS) 2011 annual assessment. As illustrated below, the majority of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 224 real property within the Town of Enfield is in residential use (nearly 66%). It should be noted that many properties classified as residential also feature agricultural operations. Table 35. Assessed Value of Property by Land Use Classification (2010) Type of Land Use Town of Enfield Assessed Value Percent of Total Parcels Agricultural $17,271,800 5.8% Residential $136,320,800 65.7% Vacant Land $9,603,700 20.4% Commercial $9,628,400 2.2% Recreation and Entertainment $1,936,000 0.4% Community Service $5,400,900 0.8% Industrial $334,507 0.5% Public Service $4,223,589 1.6% Public Parks, Wild, Forested and Conservation Land $2,322,300 2.7% (Source: NYSORPTS, 2013) Table 36 provides information regarding budgets at the town and county levels. In 2011, the total expenditures for the Town of Enfield were $2,694,289, and total revenues were $2,548,013. Transportation, general government expenses, and public safety comprise the town’s three largest budget expenditures by category. Table 36. Municipal and County Budgets (2010) Area Revenue (total) Expenditure (total) Town of Enfield $ 2,548,013 $ 2,694,289 Tompkins County $186,558,217 $183,680,679 Source: NYS Office of the State Comptroller, 2013 The town, county, and school districts face the yearly challenge of meeting their service obligations (or expenditures) through the collection of sales and/or real property taxes. As with most taxing jurisdictions in upstate New York, loss of, or lack of, commercial and industrial tax base, in combination with rising labor and material costs, make it increasingly difficult to meet their budgets without significantly raising taxes. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 225 3.14.2 Potential Impacts The Project would have both direct and indirect positive economic effects on participating individual landowners, the Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, and the school districts. These effects would commence during the planning and construction phases and continue throughout the operating life of the Project. 3.14.2.1 Construction 3.14.2.1.1 Population and Housing Tompkins County and the Town of Enfield experienced a moderate growth rate between 2000 and 2010. This trend likely would continue regardless of whether or not the proposed Project is built. The Project would not generate construction employment at a level that would significantly increase population in either the Town or the County. Even though employment during the construction period would be significant (approximately 25 onsite laborers and/or service providers), this employment is relatively short-term, and is not expected to result in workers permanently relocating to the area. For the duration of construction (approximately 6 to 8 months) there could be a temporary increase in local population and demand for temporary housing by out-of-town workers. However, this demand would be relatively modest, and could easily be accommodated by the availability of vacant housing in the Town of Enfield and surrounding communities. Beyond this relatively minor (and positive) short-term impact, Project construction would not have significant impact on population and housing. Based on the above housing information and vacancy rate, there is likely an adequate supply of local housing and temporary accommodations in Tompkins County for the expected Project demand. 3.14.2.1.2 Economy and Employment As a community wind project, the Black Oak Wind Farm is focused primarily on in-state investors, contractors, and vendors. To date, the Project is supported by 72 New York State-based investors; the number of in-state investors is anticipated to reach approximately 1,500. These investors are facilitating revenue generation for New York State firms and sole proprietorships involved in the planning, design, and construction of the Project. To date, these businesses have benefitted from more than $440,000 in spending on behalf of Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC. As shown in Table 37, pre-construction services, soft costs, construction, and commissioning are expected to generate substantial spending on behalf of the Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 226 Table 37. Estimated Project-related Spending Pre-construction Costs Total Cost Portion Spent Through NYS Firms Development fee $570,000 $142,500 Interconnection/wind study/survey costs $110,000 $27,500 Engineering consulting $125,000 $31,250 Permits/liability insurance $40,000 $10,000 Debt service and main reserves $700,000 $175,000 Financing, legal, accounting, soft costs $766,103 $191,526 Preconstruction cost subtotal $2,311,103 $577,776 Balance of Plant Costs Total Cost Portion Spent Through NYS Firms Turbine freight $1,820,000 $455,000 Transformers $392,000 $98,000 Other collector system costs (e.g. cable, switches) $611,113 $152,778 Interconnection $676,000 $338,000 Substation equipment $802,900 $266,250 Substation labor $262,100 $104,840 Turbine electrical labor $164,000 $41,000 Site development $222,010 $144,307 Foundation $1,448,000 $579,200 Turbine installation $373,960 $149,584 Crane service $840,000 $ 210,000 Construction management $240,000 $ 60,000 Commissioning QC $30,000 $7,500 QC/Safety $30,000 $7,500 Balance of plant cost subtotal $7,912,083 $2,613,959 Project Total $10,223,186 $3,191,735 The Project Sponsor estimates the on-site construction workforce at approximately 25 workers. It is anticipated that a majority of the onsite workforce would be from the New York labor market, which in light of the size of the statewide labor force and the number of unemployed, can easily supply the required workforce. Local employment would benefit those in the construction trades, including equipment operators, truck drivers, laborers, and electricians. Project construction would also require workers with specialized skills, such as crane operators, turbine assemblers, specialized excavators, and high voltage electrical workers. It is anticipated that the majority of these specialized workers would be sourced from outside of the Project area and would remain only for the duration of construction. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 227 In addition to the onsite labor required for construction, this Project is expected to require the services of New York State workers throughout the turbine manufacturing industry and supply chain. Between these and the onsite workforce, the reinvestment of wages on goods and services is expected to have a positive impact throughout the local and statewide economies. 3.14.2.1.3 Municipal Revenues and Taxes The construction of the proposed Project may have a marginal positive impact on municipal budgets through sales taxes generated by construction workers’ local personal spending while onsite. The construction process is not anticipated to result in any municipal revenues from increased property taxes. The number of on-site workers associated with Project construction is not expected to require additional municipal services (e.g. snowplowing, solid waste pick-up, emergency services). The construction of the Project could result in adverse impacts to the local road system as a consequence of the weight and frequency of truck traffic. Such impacts are discussed in further detail in Section 3.15. Construction-related sales taxes are not likely to have a significant impact on municipal revenues, as many materials will be exempt from sales taxes pursuant to New York State tax law (NYS DTF, 2009). 3.14.2.2 Operation 3.14.2.2.1 Population and Housing The Project Sponsor expects that the operation of the installed Project will require between four and five full-time jobs or their equivalent (see Section 3.14.2.2.2, below). Some of these employees may be local to the Project, which could translate into a very slight increase in local population. Based on vacancy rates in the Towns, there would be an adequate number of housing units available for purchase or rent. Although this represents a positive economic impact, long-term employment associated with the Project is not large enough to have a significant impact on local population or housing characteristics. Local residents often inquire about the potential for property values to depreciate as a result of a proposed wind power project. This issue has come up during the siting and review of other wind power projects in New York and throughout the United States. In order to address this concern, Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) conducted a quantitative study in 2003 titled, Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values. REPP assembled a database of real estate transactions adjacent to every wind power project in the United States (10 MW or greater) Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 228 that became operational between 1998 and 2001 (a total of 10 projects, including the Madison and Fenner projects in Madison County, New York). For this study, data was gathered within 5 miles of the wind projects, as this was determined by REPP to be the potential area of visual impact (viewshed). For each of the 10 projects, similar data was also gathered for a comparable community that was located outside of the project viewshed (comparable communities were based on interviews with local assessors as well as analysis of U.S. Census Bureau demographic data). The goal of the data collection was to obtain real estate transaction records for a time period covering roughly six years (three years pre-construction and three years post-construction), and for data based on actual sales values, and not necessarily assessed values. The data was then analyzed in three different ways: Case 1 examined the price changes in the viewshed and the comparable community for the entire period of the study; Case 2 examined how property values changed in the viewshed before and after the project became operational; and Case 3 examined how property values changed in the viewshed and the comparable community after the project became operational. The results of these analyses showed no negative affect on property value from existing wind facilities. Of the 10 projects examined in the Case 1 analysis, property values actually increased faster within the wind power project viewshed in eight of the 10 projects. The Case 2 analysis revealed that the property values also increased faster after the wind facilities became operational in nine of the 10 projects examined. In the Case 3 analysis, property values increased faster in the wind power project viewshed than in the comparable community in nine of the 10 projects (Sterzinger et al. 2003, p. 2). It should be noted that the REPP study has been criticized because it assumes that all properties within the study area have a view of the respective wind facility, does not account for property distance to the wind facility, uses an unconventional statistical analysis, and includes transactions that are perceived to be inappropriate (e.g., estate sales, sales between family members, sales due to divorce, etc.). In addition, at least two property value studies (Haughton et al. 2004, p. 8; Heintzelman & Tuttle 2011, p. 21) have predicted a negative effect from the proposed development of a wind power project. To present a clearer understanding of the actual effects of existing wind facilities on property values, a Master of Science thesis was prepared by Ben Hoen (2006, p. 37). The purpose of this study was to analyze whether the transaction value of homes within 5 miles of the existing Fenner Wind Farm (total turbine blade tip height 328 feet), was significantly affected by views of the wind facility. "View" is defined using a continuous variable from 0 (no view) to 60 (a full view of all 20 turbines). The study additionally investigates how effects may vary with distance (spatially), time (temporally), and house value. Lastly, the effect and degree of the PILOT payment to Fenner Township was investigated. The study utilized the hedonic pricing model, which, given enough data, is sensitive enough to allow sales to be grouped temporally (e.g., by year), spatially (e.g., by distance), and economically (by the value of the home). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 229 The data concerning transaction values and assessor information was collected from the Madison County Real Property Tax Office. From January 1, 1996 through June 1, 2005, 452 sales took place that were coded "arms- length" transactions by county assessors, and were within 5 miles of Fenner Wind Farm. Of these, 167 were removed as land-only sales (i.e., sale of parcel that did not contain a house), and five were removed as non arms - length sales, resulting in a total of 280 sales. Of these, 140 occurred after construction of the Fenner Wind Farm began (2001). A field analysis was conducted on October 30 and 31, 2005 to ensure complete accuracy of the "view" variables used in the model. Visits were made to those homes sold after January 1, 2001 (138 homes visited) to assess the degree to which the home has a view of the wind facility. By standing at or near the house a rating of 1 to 60 was established for each home. This rating was based on the degree to which viewers could see each of the 20 windmills in the Fenner Wind Farm. A total of 3 points per turbine were possible (one point if only the blade above the nacelle was visible, two points if the nacelle was also visible, and three points if the tower below the rotor swept area was also visible), for a cumulative maximum of 60 points. Computer modeling analysis of the 280 home sales within 5 miles of the Fenner Wind Farm did not reveal a statistically significant relationship between the sale price of homes and either proximity to, or visibility of, the wind facility. Additionally, the analysis did not demonstrate a relationship even when concentrating on homes within one mile of the wind facility that sold immediately following the announcement and construction of the Project. This study therefore concluded that in Fenner, a view of the wind facility does not produce either a universal or localized effect, adverse or otherwise. To the degree that other communities, like the current Project area resemble the Fenner rural farming community, similar conclusions are anticipated (Hoen, 2006). A more recent study sponsored by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory focused specifically on impacts of wind facility projects on residential property values. The report The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis, released in December 2009 explains the study and the conclusions drawn from the study (Hoen et al., 2009). A more broad approach to assessing potential impacts on property values of residences near wind facility projects was undertaken for this study and consequently it is the “most comprehensive and data-rich analysis to date in the U.S. or abroad on the impacts of wind projects on nearby property values” (Hoen et al., 2009). This study’s analysis is based on information from 10 communities surrounding 24 existing wind power facilities spread across nine states. The study included the Fenner Wind Farm and Waymart Wind Farm (total turbine blade tip height 328 feet) in Wayne County, Pennsylvania, two facilities that are comparable in terms of land use and rural condition to the Copenhagen Wind Farm. While the Fenner Wind Farm is a considerably smaller Project, the study area is similar in composition and land use. Homes included in the study were located from 800 feet to over five miles from the nearest wind energy facility. This study used a methodology based on the hedonic pricing model to identify the marginal impacts of different housing and community Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 230 characteristics on residential property values. Analysis of possible impacts on property values was undertaken by dividing the impacts into three non-mutually exclusive categories: area stigma, scenic vista stigma, and nuisance stigma. An explanation of each identified stigma, as used in this study is as follows: • Area stigma may occur regardless of whether the wind facility is within view of the home. The mere fact that a wind facility is generally nearby may adversely affect a home’s value. • Scenic vista stigma is based on the concern that a home may be devalued because a wind facility is within view and/or interrupts an existing scenic vista. • A nuisance stigma can occur because of the potential for extenuating factors from a nearby wind facility, such as noise or shadow flicker (regardless of whether they actually occur). Exploration of the effects of all three stigmas resulted in finding no persuasive evidence that neither the view of the wind facilities nor the distance of the home to the facilities is found to have any significant effect on home sales prices. The study recognizes the possibility that the value of an individual home (or small numbers of homes) has been or could be negatively impacted by a nearby wind facility (Hoen et al., 2009). However, even if such occurrences do exist “they are either too small or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact” (Hoen et al., 2009). As previously mentioned, Hoen et al. (Hoen et al., 2009) categorized three types of wind turbine stigmas that could affect property values. In a site-specific study conducted in Ford and McLean County, Illinois, Hinman (Hinman, 2010) formalized a fourth stigma, wind farm anticipation stigma. This stigma decreases property values due to the uncertainty surrounding where turbines will be placed and what effect the wind facility will have on area residents when the development is initially proposed. The study examined 3,851 residential property transactions from 2001 through 2009 (Hinman, 2010). The study found that when the 240-turbine wind facility was initially announced, property values near the prospective wind facility decreased compared to elsewhere in the county. However, after the wind facility entered the operational stage, property values near the wind facility increased faster than those located elsewhere in the county. The turbines considered in this study are 398 feet from base to blade tip. A property value study in the vicinity of Mendota Hills Wind Farm (62 wind turbines, turbine height to blade tip 297 feet), GSG 1 Wind Farm (40 wind turbines, approximately 399 feet to blade tip), and Lee-Dekalb Wind Center (145 wind turbines, turbine height to blade tip 388 feet) within Lee County, Illinois also examined the wind farm anticipation stigma (Carter, 2011). The study examined 1,298 real estate transactions from 1998 to 2010. The study suggests that following announcement of the wind project, property values near the proposed wind facility initially decline. However the analysis indicates that residential properties located near wind turbines in Lee County have not in fact Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 231 been negatively affected by the installation of a wind energy facility. Assuming the wind facility is appropriately sited using modern, industry standard setbacks, and that it minimizes impacts to nearby residences, property values eventually rebound once the uncertainty surrounding how homeowners are affected by the development disappears. The study acknowledges one shortcoming of property value studies, which is that the results presented are not able to state anything about whether being in close proximity to a wind facility affects the ease of selling a home. It could be that homes near wind turbines are not for sale or selling and consequently would not be included in the studies evaluating real estate transaction data (Carter, 2011). However, the Hoen et al. (Hoen et al., 2009) study estimated a sales volume model and concluded that sales volumes did not decrease with wind energy development. Heintzelman and Tuttle (2011) examined 11,331 property transactions (including agricultural property) over nine years in Lewis, Franklin, and Clinton Counties in northern New York to explore the effects of new wind facilities on property values. Of this total, 461 transactions occurred within three miles of a wind turbine. The study examined 194 turbines (height to blade tip 395 feet) in Lewis County, which occur on top of a large plateau, as well as 85 turbines in Franklin County and 186 turbines in Clinton County (turbine height to blade tip 390 feet), which occur within a broad river valley with small hills. Similar to the Hoen (2006), Hoen et al. (2009), Hinman (2010), and Carter (2011), the study found that in Lewis County turbines appear to have had little effect, or in some instances a positive effect. In contrast, property values in Clinton and Franklin Counties were negatively impacted by nearby wind energy facilities, with the magnitude of this effect dependent on the distance between homes and the nearest turbine. For Franklin and Clinton Counties, properties within 0.5 mile experienced an 8.8% to 15.8% decline. At a range of three miles the decline is between 2% and 8%. The study states that in Lewis County, landowners appear to be receiving sufficient compensation to prevent a decline in property values. In addition, the Clinton and Franklin County projects became operational in 2008 and 2009, at the very end of the nine year study period, while the Lewis County project became operational in 2006, resulting in a much larger set of property sales and thus, more robust analysis (Heintzelman & Tuttle, 2011). Public opinion and perception may suggest that the presence of wind turbines diminish property values. However, numerous property value studies based on statistical analysis of real estate transactions have found that wind facilities have no significant impact on property values (Sterzinger et al. 2003; Hoen 2006; Hoen et al. 2009; Hinman 2010; Carter 2011). A number of vacant parcels exist within the Project Site where development potential may be impacted by required setback distances from wind turbines. As shown in Figure 4, setback distances associated with turbines 4, 5, and 7 coincide with a total of five vacant parcels; there are no required setback distances from collection systems. Of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 232 these, only one parcel (18.-1-7) does not host project-related infrastructure. All vacant properties impacted in this manner are owned by participating landowners. 3.14.2.2.2 Economy and Employment As shown in Table 38, the Project Sponsor anticipates the long-term employment of between four and five full-time jobs or their equivalent during the operational phase of the Project. At least two of these are expected to be local positions. The Project Sponsor expects that salaries in the first year of operation will total approximately $240,000. Table 38. Estimated Operational Employment Number of FTE Jobs Estimated Starting Salary Maintenance personnel OEM site manager 1 $85,000 Lead technician 1 $65,000 Technician (level 1) 1 $45,000 Local BOP maintenance 0.5 $15,000 Operations personnel Local administrative support 1 $30,000 Total 4.5 $240,000 In addition to employment, lease payments also offer a direct financial benefit to all participating landowners, and may enhance the ability of participating landowners to purchase additional goods and services. A total of five leaseholders will receive payment at a flat rate of 3% of the project gross revenue, for an estimated total of $116,250. Leases will be for a 30-year term, with two 20-year extensions beyond that. The Project Sponsor also expects to distribute “good neighbor” payments in the amount of $5,000 per year. Although the structure of such payments has not yet been formalized, the Project Sponsor’s preliminary estimates indicate that an annual payment equal to 1% of the project gross revenue (approximately $35,000) would be distributed among 80 landowners within the Project footprint. Furthermore, as a community wind project, the Project is expected to distribute annual cash dividends to its investors, which include local residents. Based on estimates for power output and Project-related expenses, total dividend distributions are estimated to reach approximately $623,000 annually in the near term. To date, approximately $1,000,000 worth of local capital has been invested in the Project. The Project Sponsor anticipates that an additional $35,000,000 in construction capital will be raised from New York State residents only. These in- state investors will receive returns on their investment, which will have a positive impact on the statewide economy. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 233 This return on investment is not accounted for in standard economic impact models because traditionally, in the US, wind farms are not owned by the residents of the community that hosts them. Profit generally leaves the state in the case of outside wind developers, whereas the community investment model employed for this Project is designed to benefit local investors. Larger wind energy generation facilities have been known to produce a positive economic impact with regard to tourism, and some tourism industry providers have begun marketing wind farms as a tourist attraction, even in rural portions of New York State (Puitt, 2011; AusWEA, 2003). Although public concern with regard to adverse impacts on tourism is common, a recent survey of visitors to Vermont's Northeast Kingdom found that 95% would not be deterred from further visits by the existence of a proposed wind farm (Institute for Integrated Rural Tourism, 2003). Given the size of the proposed Project, it is not expected to have a substantial impact on local tourism revenues. 3.14.2.2.3 Municipal Revenues and Taxes Pursuant to Section 487 of New York State Real Property Tax law (RPTL), wind energy generation systems (as defined by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, or NYSERDA) are exempt from real property taxation for a period of 15 years (NYS RPTL § 487-2). As written, this statute applies to all wind generation projects constructed between January 1, 1991 and January 1, 2015, except by way of local actions to remove such exemptions. Section 487-8 allows taxing jurisdictions to pass local laws or resolutions removing real property tax exemptions from wind energy generation facilities within their jurisdictions. This option would allow for the full taxation of installed wind energy generation infrastructure. Section 487-9 allows local taxing jurisdictions to enter into agreements with wind generation facility owners regarding payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT). PILOT agreements may be structured to allow taxing jurisdictions to collect tax revenue relative to the value of the installed facility in an amount not to exceed that which would be paid but for the exemption, and for a period of no more than 15 years. Tompkins County, the Town of Enfield, and the Ithaca City School District have opted out of the Section 487 exemption for the purposes of creating a PILOT agreement with the Project Sponsor (Tompkins County, 2012). Subject to ongoing negotiations between the Project Sponsor and the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency, it is anticipated that a PILOT agreement will be reached between the Project sponsor and the Town of Enfield, Ithaca City School District, Odessa School District, and Tompkins County. Although the structure of such payments has not yet been formalized, it is estimated that the PILOT will be approximately $100,000 per year over the course of 15 years. This annual revenue stream will be distributed among the relevant taxing jurisdictions Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 234 according to their share as determined by the local combined tax rates and pursuant to the terms of the PILOT agreement. Table 39 illustrates the potential distribution of PILOT revenues if this distribution were to follow recent local averages 1. Table 39. Estimated PILOT revenues per taxing jurisdiction Total County Town School Year 1 PILOT: $100,000 $13,000 $24,000 $63,000 15-year total: $1,500,000 $195,000 $360,000 $945,000 Local taxing jurisdictions that have opted out of the property tax exemption retain the authority to reinstate the exemption, either during the term of the PILOT or at the time of its expiration. If a local taxing jurisdiction chooses to not opt back into the Section 487 exemption, the wind energy generation facility will be fully taxable at the expiration of the PILOT agreement. The amount of tax revenue generated by the facility subsequent to expiration will be dependent on each respective jurisdiction’s assessment regime; whether a given jurisdiction’s revenue will increase or decrease will be dependent on the final structure of the PILOT, the future assessed value of the facility, and the future rate at which it will be taxed. To the extent that the operation of the proposed Project could contribute to an increase in municipal and/or school district revenues, such an increase has the potential to influence the distribution of state aid to each respective jurisdiction. However, it is noted that the distribution of state aid is dependent on many unrelated factors, including but not limited to changes in statewide tax receipts, statewide spending, and equalization rates, all of which will fluctuate regardless of whether or not the Project is constructed. 3.14.3 Mitigation Measures 3.14.3.1 Construction 3.14.3.1.1 Population and Housing Project construction is not expected to have any substantial adverse impacts on population or housing availability in the Town of Enfield or the surrounding communities. Mitigation measures to address population and housing impacts are not necessary. 1 Table 39 summarizes the projected annual PILOT payments based on the average distribution of property taxes. Within the Study Area in 2011, municipal property taxes constituted an average of 24% of each property’s total tax obligation. County taxes constituted an average of 13%, and school taxes claimed the remaining 63%. Distribution of property taxes based on average distribution as determined published 2011 tax rates (NYSORPTS, 2012). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 235 3.14.3.1.2 Economy and Employment The construction of the Project is expected to have a positive impact on the local economy and employment, in that Project-related spending may increase employment opportunities and local expenditures (i.e., local purchases of goods and services). With respect to any impacts related to construction liability, the Project Sponsor and respective contractors will be appropriately insured. Mitigation measures to address economy and employment are not necessary. 3.14.3.1.3 Municipal Revenues and Taxes Aside from the costs associated with roadway repair, which are expected to be mitigated by a negotiated Road Use Agreement between the Project sponsor and the Town of Enfield/Tompkins County, construction of the proposed Project will not create a significant demand for additional municipal facilities or services. Because Project construction will not directly increase local municipal expenses, it will have no adverse impact on municipal budgets. Beyond the Road Use Agreement, no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 3.14.3.2 Operation 3.14.3.2.1 Population and Housing The operation and maintenance of the Project is not anticipated to adversely affect population, housing availability, or property values in the Town of Enfield or the surrounding communities. Impacts relative to residential development potential on adjacent residential property are limited to parcels owned by participating landowners. Therefore, mitigation measures to address population and housing impacts are not necessary. 3.14.3.2.2 Economy and Employment The operation and maintenance of the Project is expected to have a limited positive impact on the local economy and employment. Project-related spending may create a small number of jobs and local expenditures (i.e. local purchases of goods and services). In addition, lease payments will provide participating landowners and residents inside the project footprint who receive good neighbor payments with an additional source of revenue. With respect to any impacts related to operational liability, the Project Sponsor and respective contractors will be appropriately insured. Mitigation measures to address economy and employment are not necessary. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 236 3.14.3.2.3 Municipal Revenues and Taxes Neither operation nor maintenance of the proposed Project will create a significant demand for additional municipal facilities or services. Because it will not directly increase local municipal expenses, it will have no adverse impact on municipal budgets. In addition, the PILOT to be negotiated as part of the Project is expected to provide a substantial revenue source for local taxing jurisdictions over the term of the agreement. Mitigation measures are not necessary, as the Project will have a positive impact on municipal revenues and taxes. 3.15 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Community facilities for the Project Site include public utilities, police and fire protection services, emergency medical services (EMS), education facilities, and recreational facilities. The level of services provided to the Project Site was determined through telephone communications with state, county, and town personnel, including the New York State Police Department, Tompkins County Sheriff’s Department, and local volunteer fire department. In addition, further assessment for local school districts, healthcare facilities, and parks were conducted online. 3.15.1 Existing Condition Public Utilities and Infrastructure Public utilities and infrastructure in the Project Site include various overhead and underground facilities. Aboveground components include electric distribution and telephone lines along most of the public roads within the Project Site. Communications towers also occur in and around the Project Site. Underground utilities include telephone lines and natural gas transmission lines. Currently, there is no cable television service in the Project Site. Broadband internet and cable television are accessed via satellite. Police Protection The New York State Police and the Tompkins County Sheriff’s department have jurisdiction over the Project Site. Both departments provide 24-hour coverage seven days per week. Tompkins County has a 911 emergency center that dispatches all police, emergency and fire calls. The Tompkins County Sheriff's department primary station is located at 779 Warren Road in the City of Ithaca and additional satellite stations are maintained in the villages of Newfield and Lansing. The department has 40 officers that respond to approximately 1,200 calls a year (Bowers, pers. comm.). New York State Police (Trooper Division C) provides concurrent police service to the Project Site with the division’s headquarters located at 823 State Route 7 in the Village of Unadilla and with the closest satellite station located at Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 237 130 Test Road in the Village of Newfield. The Newfield station has 4 troopers operating with 2 patrol cars. Emergency calls are dispatched by both the Tompkins County 911 center and the New York State Police headquarters (Innef, pers. comm.). Fire Protection and Emergency Response The Enfield Volunteer Fire Department provides fire protection services to the Project Site and is located at 172 Enfield Main Road in Enfield Center. Fire and emergency response services are provided 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and the volunteers are dispatched through county 911 emergency centers. The Enfield Fire department has approximately 45 active volunteers and responds to approximately 430 fire and emergency related calls annually. The department is equipped with two engines (1500 gpm), two pumpers (3000 gpm), one light rescue squad vehicle, one brush truck, and one all-terrain equipment vehicle (Denny Hubbell, pers. comm.; Enfield Volunteer Fire and Rescue, 2012). Health Care Facilities There are two hospitals located within 10 miles of the Project Site that provide health care services to the residents and visitors of Enfield. Schuyler Hospital is located at 220 Steuben Street in Montour Falls and is an acute and long term care facility with 25 beds set in the main facility and an additional 125 beds utilized in the adjacent facility, Seneca View. Medical services include surgical care, diagnostic imaging, pediatric care, prenatal, and physical therapy (DOH, 2013). Cayuga Medical Center is a not-for-profit acute care facility located approximately 7 miles from the Project Site, at 101 Dates Drive in the Town of Ithaca. The facility houses 204 beds and a medical staff of approx imately 200 physicians. Cayuga Medical Center provides a wide range of medical services including surgical care, intensive and cardiac care, psychiatry, and diagnostic imaging, and physical therapy (DOH, 2013; Cayuga Medical Center, 2013). Educational Facilities There are three public school districts and one private school that provide educational services to residents who live within and adjacent to the Project Site. However, none of the public schools are located within the Project Site. The Ithaca City School District has twelve schools that provide education to a 5,062 student population. The Enfield Elementary School is located at 20 Enfield Main in the Town of Enfield, the Beverly J. Martin Elementary School is located at 302 W. Buffalo Street in the City of Ithaca, the South Hill Elementary School is located at 520 Hudson Street in the City of Ithaca, the Fall Creek Elementary School is located at 202 King Street in the City of Ithaca, the Cayuga Heights Elementary School is located 110 E. Upland Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights, the Caroline Elementary School is located at 2439 Slaterville Road in the Hamlet of Slaterville Springs, the Belle Sherman Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 238 Elementary School is located at 501 Mitchell Street in the City of Ithaca, the Northeast Elementary School is located at 425 Winthrop Drive in the City of Ithaca, the Boynton Middle School is located at 1601 North Cayuga Street in the City of Ithaca, the DeWitt Middle School is located at 560 Warren Road in the City of Ithaca, the Ithaca High School is located at 1401 North Cayuga Street in the City of Ithaca, and the Lehman Alternative School is located at 111 Chestnut Street in the City of Ithaca (NYSED, 2012). The Newfield Central School District has three schools. The Newfield Elementary School (357, PK-5 student population), the Newfield Middle School (196, 6-8 student population), and the Newfield High School (288, 9-12 student population) which are all located at 247 Main Street in the Hamlet of Newfield (NYSED, 2012). The Odessa-Montour Central School District has three schools. The B.C. Cate Elementary School (165, PK-2 student population) is located at 262 Canal Street in the Village of Montour Falls, the Howard Hanlon Elementary School (177, 3-5 student population) and Odessa-Montour Junior/Senior High School (431, 6-12 student population) are located at 300 College Avenue in the Village of Odessa (OMCSD, 2012). The Enfield Community Christian School is located at 162 Enfield Main Rd in the Village of Enfield and serves 11 students in grades 4 through12 (Education, 2013). Solid Waste Disposal Tompkins County offers limited waste pick up and disposal for all residents and businesses. The County requires that residents and businesses purchase tags for each bag of garbage through the county or licensed hauler. The Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Division also offers biweekly curbside recycling, which is processed at the Recycling and Solid Waste Center located at 160 Commercial Avenue in the City of Ithaca. In addition, the Tompkins County transfer station is located at the same address, 160 Commercial Ave in the City of Ithaca (Tompkins County, 2013). Parks and Recreation Popular recreational activities within the vicinity of the Project Site likely include hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, bicycling and hiking. Portions of State designated recreational resources located within 10 miles of the Project Site include Connecticut Hill State Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Catharine Creek Marsh State WMA, Buttermilk Falls State Park, Watkins Glen State Park, Robert H. Treman State Park, Taughannock Falls State Park, Allan H. Treman State Marine Park, Cliffside State Forest, Danby State Forest, and Texas Hollow State Forest. Municipal parks and open space include Myers Park, Stewart Park, Cass Park, Strawberry Fields Park, and South Hill Town Recreation Way. Additionally, portions of snowmobile trails maintained by the Twin Lakes, the Spencer-VanEtten, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 239 and Horseheads Snowmobile Club occur within the vicinity of the Project Site (approximately 1 mile from the nearest proposed turbine). Furthermore, the Finger Lakes Trail passes through the Site, connecting the Danby State Forest and the Connecticut Hill WMA (Figure 11). This portion of the Finger Lakes Trail, as well as many other sections of this trail in New York State, has been certified by the National Park Service as an official component of the 4,600-mile North Country National Scenic Trail. 3.15.2 Potential Impacts 3.15.2.1 Construction The Project will not result in significant increase in the demand for utilities such as telephone, natural gas, electric, water, sanitary sewer, etc. The Project will have a beneficial impact on utilities by generating approximately 12.6 MW of clean renewable energy. With respect to the Project’s potential effect on local electric rates, it is not anticipated that the Project will have a direct positive or negative effect on local electric rates given that the energy will be sold competitively in the wholesale market and the fact that the NYSERDA REC budget is already accounted for in the state budget, bearing in mind that as from December 2011 NYSERDA had achieved 48% of the RPS target for 37% of the approved budget. This wind project will provide an additional source of power generation and will therefore help meet future growing energy demand. Short term and minor impacts to existing electric distribution facilities may occur during the construction phase of the Project. New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) manages the local overhead distribution poles and lines. Prior to the development of Project construction drawings, the Project Sponsor will review the Project layout with NYSEG representatives in order to determine potential areas of conflict between existing utility lines and construction activities. The Project Sponsor will then contract a detailed survey (pole locations, line height, etc.) of all lines identified to have potential conflict. If conflicts cannot be avoided through minor shifts in access road alignment or the delivery route, NYSEG will temporarily raise a line(s), drop a line(s), or relocate a line(s). None of these activities will require new utility easements/right of ways. Existing lines can often be temporarily lifted without service interruption. However, if disruption is necessary, construction will be planned so any service disruption to customers will be minimized, and any work that will require a service disruption will be conducted to avoid times of peak usage. Customers will be given adequate advance notice of the planned service disruption, including the expected time duration. The Project will require the installation of broadband internet capability on site, allowing access to the service by residents nearby. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 240 There is an existing buried gas pipeline within the NYSEG utility ROW running east-west through the southern portion of the Project Site. No Project components are located within this ROW. The Project Sponsor has initiated contact with the owner/operator of buried gas infrastructure, Enterprise Products in Houston, Texas, to determine the exact locations of pipeline infrastructure so as to avoid potential impacts during Project construction. The police, fire, and emergency response departments have adequate personnel and equipment to respond to routine emergency needs (e.g., traffic accidents or medical conditions such as heat stroke or heart attack) during the construction and operation of the Project. However, during construction, some roadways may be temporarily blocked or damage may occur to the roadways anticipated to be used by oversized/heavy equipment, which has the potential to reduce the response time of emergency personnel. This is not anticipated to be a significant problem due to the small number of residents within the Project area, the general availability of alternate access routes, and correspondence and coordination that will occur between construction managers and local police departments. The construction site could also experience vandalism/trespass problems that would require involvement of local police. Based on experience with other wind power projects in New York, this is not anticipated to be a significant impact. To address any emergency access issues that may occur during construction, the Project Sponsor will work with the appropriate county, town, and/or local personnel to establish an emergency response plan, if necessary, during the construction phase. In addition, as required by the Town of Enfield’s Wind Energy Facilities Local Law, the Project Sponsor will prepare a Fire Protection Plan that complies with the Tompkins County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan in consultation with the appropriate county, town and/or local fire personnel. Project construction will generate some solid waste, primarily plastic, wood, cardboard and metal packing/packaging materials, construction scrap, and general refuse. This material will be collected from turbine sites and other Project work areas, and disposed of in dumpsters located at the construction staging area(s). A private contractor will empty the dumpsters on an as-needed basis, and dispose of the refuse at a licensed solid waste disposal facility. During construction, the Project will not adversely impact the local school districts, beyond the possible delay of school bus pick-ups and drop-offs at homes within the Project area due to temporary construction traffic/activity. Temporary construction workers will not create significant demand for school district services or facilities. These workers will also not generate a significant demand on local recreational facilities or other community services/facilities. Construction is not expected to result in significant impacts to parks or recreation. While temporary through access of the Finger Lakes Trail may be limited during construction, no long term impacts are expected as a result of construction. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 241 Some temporary impacts along the delivery route will result from the movement of vehicles involved in Project construction. The Project Sponsor will repair damage to roads affected by construction within the approved delivery route, thereby restoring the affected roads to a condition equal to or better than documented by the pre-construction survey. Roads will also be maintained in good working order during construction. 3.15.2.2 Operation The Project will not result in any significant adverse long-term impacts to local utilities and energy resources. Long- term energy use will increase slightly as a result of facility maintenance. However, this impact will be minor because the amount of required electricity and fuel is small, and local fuel suppliers and utilities have sufficient capacity available to serve the Project’s needs. As a result, no improvements to the existing energy supply system will be necessary. In addition, the Project will generate approximately 12.6 MW of electric power using a renewable resource (wind), and will advance the State’s goal of having 25% of the state’s power provided by renewable sources by 2013. The operation and maintenance of the proposed facility is anticipated to have a positive impact on municipal and school district budgets through the provision of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT). It is anticipated that a PILOT agreement will be negotiated between the Project sponsor and the Town of Enfield, Ithaca City School District, Odessa School District, and Tompkins County. Economic benefits to the local services and facilities are further discussed in Section 3.14. No significant public health or safety problems are anticipated to result from Project operation. The wind turbines are located at least 400 feet from property lines, 400 feet from the nearest public road, and 1,000 feet from any nonparticipating neighboring residences. This is well outside of any area that could be affected in the unlikely event of a tower fall or catastrophic blade failure (as discussed in Section 3.12). As discussed in Section 3.9, once the Project is commissioned and construction activities are concluded, traffic will likely result from Project employees traveling to and from the turbines. Each turbine typically requires routine maintenance visits once every three months, but certain turbines or other Project improvements could require periods of more frequent service visits. Such service visits typically involve one to two pick-up trucks. However, because all turbines and associated access road are located on (and accessed from) leased land, public road use due to routine maintenance activities will be relatively limited. The Project owner is responsible for the maintenance of all private access roads leading to the turbine sites. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 242 Local fire departments do not have the specialized equipment necessary to respond to a fire should one occur in the nacelle of a Project turbine. Generally, any emergency/fire situations at a wind turbine site or substation will be the responsibility of the Project owner/operator and/or the substation owner/operator (see Fire Prevention and Emergency Response Plan in Appendix X). Construction and maintenance personnel (and properly trained and equipped regional responders) will be trained and will have the equipment to deal with emergency situations that may occur at the Project Site (e.g., tower rescue, working in confined spaces, high voltage, etc.). Training of local emergency providers and additional equipment will be funded by the Project Sponsor. As discussed in the Fire Protection and Emergency Response Plan (Appendix X) and Section 3.12, the primary cause of fires in wind turbines is lightning strikes. The REpower MM100 is installed with LPL1 lightning protection, which is the highest level of lightning protection available today. This protection helps to minimize the likelihood of fire in the turbine by diverting the lightning strike to the ground through a network of ground cables throughout the turbine, including down the length of each blade, down the tower, and on the nacelle body itself. There is also a series of surge protection devices inside the nacelle to prevent overvoltage from sparking electrical failures that could lead to fire. In addition, the REpower MM100 has substantially less hydraulic fluid than most other turbines today. Therefore, the fuel supply for any fire is limited, and the design of the nacelle prevents any oil leak from dripping downwards inside the turbine, as all floors are also containment devices. Also, the towers of the turbines are made entirely of steel, with internal ladders made of steel and aluminum. There are three floors at the joints between tower sections, preventing any burning material from falling down inside the tower. The only non-metallic item inside the towers are the electric cables running from top to bottom, which are sheathed in fire-retardant materials. Therefore, the possibility of fire spreading within the structure is highly unlikely. REpower turbines come standard with two fire extinguishers in the nacelle, and one in the base of the tower. Also, the Project is considering purchasing an additional fire protection system from Firetrace International, LLC, which provides fire control devices in individual turbine components such as the electrical cabinets and converters. The Project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in the demand on educational facilities. The operating Project is anticipated to require only three full-time employees and the existing educational facilities should have sufficient capacity to accommodate the addition of these families to the area. 3.15.3 Mitigation Measures The impacts to the local economy, population, and community services resulting from the proposed Project are not of the type or magnitude to require mitigation. In fact, development of the proposed Project will have minimal impact on population, and place little demand on community services, while at the same time providing significant income and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 243 tax revenue to the town, county, and school districts. The income anticipated from the proposed Project will more than offset any incurred costs, and will assist with the financing of community services that benefit all residents of the towns and county. If it is determined that Project components will cross existing buried gas pipelines, the Project Sponsor and the owners/operators of gas infrastructure will enter into a crossing agreement and the Project Sponsor will provide proof of insurance. The crossing agreement will require that construction not disrupt the safe operation of the natural gas infrastructure, and will designate construction parameters to ensure safe construction in the vicinity of natural gas pipelines. In addition, certain US Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety Best Practices and Federal and State occupational safety rules will influence engineering design and construction. To mitigate any potential concerns regarding Project construction, the Project Sponsor will meet with the local emergency service personnel (fire, police, and EMS) to review and discuss the planned construction process. During this meeting, unique construction equipment, the overall construction process, and schedule/phasing will be addressed. In addition, any hazardous materials that may be present during construction and/or operation will be discussed. Prior to construction, the Project Sponsor will implement a coordinated emergency response plan, which will be developed through consultation with local emergency response personnel. The volunteer nature of some of the emergency response personnel, along with the distance and response time of some responders, will be taken into account when initially developing the coordinated emergency response plan, and the presence of emergency personnel on-site during construction will be considered. Ongoing communication between town officials and police, fire, and emergency services officials will help assure adequate levels of protection potentially related to the Project. Project Sponsor representatives will meet with fire and police and other emergency responders to develop plans to address potential public safety issues. The Fire Protection and Emergency Response Plan to be prepared for the Project Sponsor will comply with the Tompkins County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan and include the following components: • Initial and refresher training of all operating personnel (including procedures review) in conjunction with local fire and safety officials. • Regular inspection of transformer oil condition at each step-up transformer installed at the main substation. • Regular inspection of all substation components. • Regular inspection of fire extinguishers at all facility locations where they are installed. • All Project vehicles will be equipped with firefighting equipment (fire extinguishers and shovels) as well as communications equipment for contacting the appropriate emergency response teams. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 244 • The MSDS for all hazardous materials on the Project will be on file in the construction trailers (during construction) and the O&M building (during operation). • The facility Safety Coordinator shall notify the local fire department of any situation or incident where there is any question about fire safety, and will invite an officer of the fire department to visit the workplace and answer any questions to help implement a safe operating plan. Although not anticipated, to mitigate for potential impacts related to waste disposal (e.g., excessive waste), the Applicant or contractor will coordinate with the Tompkins Solid Waste Management Division County prior to Project construction. The type and quantify of waste anticipated as a result of Project construction will be discussed, and appropriate means of disposal agreed upon. 3.16 COMMUNICATION FACILITIES To evaluate the potential for the Project to impact existing telecommunication signals, Comsearch was contracted to conduct a microwave path analysis, off-air television analysis, AM and FM radio report, communication signals assessment, cellular/Personal Communication System (PCS) telephone analysis, and government radar system analysis in the vicinity of the proposed Project (see reports in Appendix Y). In addition, Comsearch provided written notification of the proposed Project to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). To evaluate the potential for the Project to impact airspace and nearby airports, a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Form was filed with the FAA, which initiated the FAA to conduct aeronautical studies of the Project. 3.16.1 Existing Condition 3.16.1.1 Microwave Analysis Microwave telecommunication systems are wireless point-to-point links that communicate between two sites (antennas) and require clear line-of-sight conditions between each antenna. Comsearch identified two microwave paths that intersect the Project Site (see Figure 2 in the Licensed Microwave Report in Appendix Y). 3.16.1.2 Off-Air Television Analysis The television reception analysis identified all off-air television stations within a 150-kilometer (93.2-mile) radius of the proposed Project. Off-air television stations transmit broadcast signals from terrestrially located facilities that can be received directly by a television receiver or house-mounted antenna. The results of the Comsearch analysis indicate Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 245 that there are 151 off-air television stations within the study area (see Appendix Y). These stations are primarily located in New York, but 27 are located in Pennsylvania. Television stations most likely to provide off-air coverage to the Project Site are those within a distance of approximately 65 kilometers (40.4 miles). Of the 33 stations located within 65 kilometers of the Project Site, 18 are currently licensed and operating, four of which operate at full power (call signs WETM-TV, WENY-TV, WSKA and WYDC). The remaining 14 are low-power digital stations or translators, which have limited range and serve local audiences. The coverage areas for these 14 low-power stations or translators do not overlap the Project Site. Comsearch concludes that given the service and coverage of the stations identified, it is unlikely that off-air television stations are the primary mode of television service in the Project vicinity. Most residents in the area likely view television programming through the use of cable or a satellite dish, which are addressed in Section 3.16.1.4, below. 3.16.1.3 AM and FM Radio The Comsearch analysis determined that there are seven AM stations and 31 FM stations licensed and operational within 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) of the proposed Project. Of the 31 FM stations, 16 are translator stations that operate at low power and have limited range. The nearest AM station antenna is located 6.6 kilometers (4.1 miles) from the center of the Project Site and the nearest licensed FM station antenna is located 1.1 kilometers (0.7 mile) from the center of the site. 3.16.1.4 Communication Signals The communication signals assessment performed by Comsearch evaluated land mobile and emergency services, mobile phone, cable and satellite and other wireless signals that may potentially be impacted by the proposed Project. Types of first responder entities evaluated include emergency medical services, emergency management, hospitals, public works, transportation and other state, county and municipal agencies as well as all industrial and business land mobile radio systems and commercial E911 operators. This analysis identified 33 site-based licenses and 25 area-wide licenses for the State of New York and four area-wide licenses for Tompkins County. Information on each license identified is provided in Appendix Y. Additionally, seven mobile phone carriers with E911 Service were identified in the Project vicinity. With respect to mobile phones, Comsearch identified 18 mobile phone carriers in the Project vicinity, nine of which operate in Advanced Wireless Service (AWS), seven operate in Personal Communication Service (PCS), and the remaining two carriers utilize cellular service. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 246 Comsearch also conducted an evaluation for the presence of satellite and cable structures and identified four cable systems. Cable headend facilities handle functions such as reception and processing of broadcast or off-air television signals, decryption, and modulation of satellite programming for distribution to other cable television subscribers. Three cable headend facilities were identified in the Project vicinity. Additionally, three satellite earth stations, which receive and transmit satellite signals, were identified. 3.16.1.5 Government Radar Systems Comsearch utilized the Department of Defense (DoD) radar screening tool to evaluate potential impacts to government radar operations in the vicinity of the Project. The three types of radars that Comsearch examined as part of their analysis are: DoD military radar systems; the weather system’s Next-Generation Radar (NEXRAD); and the FAA Long Range radar systems. Comsearch determined the following existing conditions: • There are no military facilities in the area (see Section 3.16.2.2.5). • The Project Site is located 37.8 miles from the weather service NEXRAD radar system’s Binghamton site. • There are three FAA Long Range radar systems in the Project vicinity, which range from approximately 43.5 to 74.6 miles away. The locations of these resources are depicted in Appendix Y. 3.16.1.6 NTIA Notification Comsearch sent a written notification of the proposed Project to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) on December 29, 2011. Upon receipt of notification, the NTIA provides plans for the proposed Project to the federal agencies represented in the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), which include the DOC, DOD, Department of Education (DOE), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Navy (DON), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The NTIA then identifies any Project-related concerns during a 45-day review period. 3.16.1.7 FAA Aeronautical Studies As indicated in the NTIA response, the IRAC only identifies concerns related to interference with federal radio frequencies, including FAA radio frequencies. Therefore, further correspondence with the FAA is required to determine potential flight obstructions from the built Project. The objective of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, is to promote air safety and the efficient use of the navigable airspace. To meet this objective, the FAA conducts obstruction evaluation/airport airspace analysis (OE/AAA) aeronautical studies based on Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 247 parameters of the proposed project, such as wind turbine locations, maximum height above ground level (agl), and wind turbine lighting and color. For the proposed Black Oak Wind Power Project, a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) was filed on-line with the FAA, and accepted for study on November 22, 2011. FAA determinations were subsequently issued on May 8, 2012, and all turbines are classified as “No Hazard” (see Appendix W). The FAA determination was based on a 12-turbine layout in the same footprint area as the proposed Project, with a tip height of 492 feet. 3.16.2 Potential Impacts 3.16.2.1 Construction Temporary communication interference as a result of Project construction may occur. Cranes used during construction activities (and the individual turbine components being raised by the cranes) can cause temporary obstruction of microwave links, as well as some degradation to television and radio signals. However, because individual turbines have been sited to avoid interference with microwave paths that cross the Project, the potential for microwave interference by equipment assembling and erecting these turbines is expected to be minimal. Any impact on television or radio reception or other communication systems caused by construction equipment would be temporary, as turbine assembly and erection at each turbine site is typically completed within one to three days. 3.16.2.2 Operation 3.16.2.2.1 Microwave Communication Systems To assure an uninterrupted line of communications, a microwave link should be clear, not only along the axis between the center point of each antenna, but also within a mathematical distance around the center axis known as the Fresnel Zone. A Worse Case Freznel Zone (WCFZ) was calculated for each of the two microwave paths identified within the Project Site. Based upon the calculated WCFZ, it was determined that the Project, as currently proposed, will not interfere with microwave communications. 3.16.2.2.2 Off-Air Television Analysis As mentioned previously, Comsearch identified four operating full power stations within 65 kilometers of the Project Site as the off-air television stations potentially affected by the proposed Project. These stations are WETM-TV and WENY-TV out of Elmira (Channels 18 and 36, respectively) and WSKA and WYDC out of Corning (Channels 30 and 48, respectively). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 248 High-power television broadcast stations ceased analog operations in June 2009 and began broadcasting exclusively in digital format. Low-power TV broadcasters and translators were exempt from the FCC’s digital requirement, and may still broadcast analog signals. Since translator stations rebroadcast high-power stations to a limited local audience, their programming is typically in digital format as well. Analog television broadcast signals are subject to variations in signal level by the motion of wind turbine blades, which may result in distortions in the contrast, brightness, and clarity of the video. In addition, changing reflections produced by the motion of wind turbine blades may cause ghosting. Digital television signals are also subject to level variations and reflections, but as long as the signal remains above the operational threshold of the receiver, the video produced is unaffected. Wind turbines can cause signal attenuation in both analog and digital signals. However, because they require a much lower signal level to produce excellent video, digital signals can withstand the attenuation effect to a greater extent. For analog television, as the signal is degraded by external effects, video quality is reduced in a sliding scale of performance. For digital television, as the signal is degraded, the video quality remains excellent until the signal level falls below the operational threshold of the receiver. Since the conversion to digital broadcast, there has been an improvement in television reception in the vicinity of wind energy facilities (Polisky, 2011). The coverage areas of the other 14 low-power stations and translators located within 65 kilometers of the Project do not overlap the Project Site and will not be affected by Project operation. 3.16.2.2.3 AM and FM Radio AM frequency broadcast coverage can be affected when turbines are located within 3.2 kilometers of stations with directive antennas or within 0.8 kilometer of stations with non-directive antennas. Since the closest AM station to the proposed Project is located 6.6 kilometers from the Project center, no impact to the coverage of AM stations is anticipated. The coverage of FM stations can be affected when turbines are located within 4.0 kilometers of a station. Three operating FM stations (95.5 WFIZ, 104.1 W281AT, and 103.7 WQNY) are currently operating within 4.0 kilometers of the proposed Project. Comsearch evaluated the rotor-swept zone of the wind turbine (height range of 34 to 150 meters) in comparison with the heights of these three FM stations (45 meters, 39 meters and 42 meters, respectively) and concluded that there is a strong potential for the coverage of these stations to be limited by the proposed Project. 3.16.2.2.4 Communication Signals First responder, industrial/business land mobile sites, area-wide public safety, and commercial E911 communications are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed Project for the following reasons: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 249 • These networks are designed to operate reliably in a non-line-of-sight environment; • Many land mobile systems are designed with multiple base transmitter stations covering large areas with overlap between adjacent transmitter sites resulting in users receiving signals from multiple transmitter locations; and • The frequencies of operation for these services allow the signal to propagate through wind turbines. Nonetheless, to be conservative, a distance of 77.5 meters between the nearest turbine and land mobile fixed-base stations is customary. The nearest land mobile site to the Project, KEB422, is located 375 meters from the Project Site, and therefore no impact to these services is anticipated. Similarly, no significant impact to mobile phone service is anticipated. Mobile phone users often receive signals from multiple transmitter locations due to coverage overlap and should not experience a disruption in service even if one of these signals is attenuated by a turbine in a particular location. No impact to cable and satellite services is anticipated to result from the operating Project. All cable headend and satellite earth station facilities are located well beyond the Project Site and their services will not be impacted. 3.16.2.2.5 Government Radar Systems The screening tool utilized by Comsearch indicated that the Project is not anticipated to have an impact on DoD military systems or FAA Long Range radar systems, as the Project is a sufficient distance from such systems. Specifically, there are no DoD military systems documented in the Comsearch report. Comsearch recommended that edr contact Regional Environmental Coordinators for each of the military branches, for confirmation of the military system screening results (see Appendix L for a copy of email correspondence). edr contacted the DON and after discussing the Project specifics, received verbal and email confirmation that the Project will not cause problems to their specific Navy radar operations. E-mail responses from the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army, as well as phone conversation with the U.S. Marine Corp indicate that the project is reviewed by the DoD Siting Clearinghouse as part of the FAA OE/AAA process. In 2010, the Secretary of Defense established the DoD Siting Clearinghouse to provide a timely, transparent, and repeatable process to evaluate potential impacts and explore mitigation options of proposed wind projects and other alternative energy projects. According to the DoD Siting Clearinghouse (2013), the Clearinghouse’s formal review process applies to projects filed with the Secretary of Transportation, under section 44718 of title 49, U.S. Code (FAA obstruction evaluation process). The FAA obstruction evaluation process is described in Section 3.16.1.7. FAA determinations were issued on May 8, 2012, and all turbines are classified as “No Hazard” (see Appendix W). Therefore, no impacts to government radar are anticipated. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 250 With respect to the FAA Long Range radar systems, as mentioned previously three such radar systems were identified in the Project vicinity. However, these radar systems are located between 43.5 and 74.6 miles away and at these distances the signal beam from the radar will pass well above the maximum blade tip height of the proposed turbines, avoiding any potential disturbance to their coverage. Therefore, no impact to FAA Long Range radar systems is anticipated. With respect to the weather service NEXRAD radar systems, according to Comsearch the Project is located within the ‘Dark Green’ coverage zone of the Binghamton radar site, which indicates that an impact is possible. Therefore, Comsearch recommended notification is sent to the NTIA to determine more specifics regarding this potential impact (see Section 3.16.2.2.6 below). 3.16.2.2.6 NTIA Notification In a letter sent to Comsearch, the NTIA stated that two agencies, the DOC and the DON, had potential concerns. As indicated in the NTIA’s response letter, the DOC stated that the Project would be located within the Binghamton, NY WSR-88D radar line-of-sight (RLOS). The DOC further stated that the Project as proposed would have minimal impacts on the Binghamton, NY WSR-88D, and that the DOC is not requesting mitigation. However, the DOC would like to track Project completion and re-analyze if there are significant changes, such as a higher turbine blade tip height or a change in the number of turbines to be installed. The DON indicated that possible harmful impact to the DON systems could occur, and provided a point of contact. edr subsequently contacted the DON and after discussing the Project specifics, received verbal and email confirmation that the Project is no longer anticipated to cause problems to their specific Navy radar operations (see Appendix L for a copy of this email correspondence). 3.16.2.2.7 FAA Studies As indicated above, a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) was filed on-line with the FAA, and accepted for study on November 22, 2011. FAA determinations were subsequently issued on May 8, 2012, and all turbines are classified as “No Hazard” (see Appendix W). Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 251 3.16.3 Mitigation Measures 3.16.3.1 Construction If disruptions to existing communication systems occur as a result of Project construction, they will be temporary, and will only occur during the erection of a limited number of turbines. Because turbine installation/crane activity will occur at different locations and at different times during the construction period, any degradation/disruption to existing communications will not represent a constant interference to a given television/radio reception area or microwave signal. In addition, turbine erection will be performed as efficiently as possible (under favorable conditions, one turbine can be erected in one day). Therefore, mitigation is not warranted. A Community Outreach Plan has been developed to resolve issues and complaints brought up by the local community (see Appendix U). 3.16.3.2 Operation 3.16.3.2.1 Microwave Communication Systems The Project, as currently proposed, will not impact existing microwave communications. If future turbine layout revisions are necessary, the new layout will be designed so as not to interfere with existing microwave paths. A Community Outreach Plan has been developed to resolve issues and complaints brought up by the local community (see Appendix U). Beyond this, additional mitigation is not necessary and is therefore not proposed. 3.16.3.2.2 Off-Air Television Analysis Should Project operation result in adverse impacts to existing off-air television coverage, the developer/operator will address and resolve each individual problem as necessary. Mitigation actions could include adjusting existing receiving antennas, upgrading an antenna, or providing cable or satellite systems to the affected households. 3.16.3.2.3 AM and FM Radio Three licensed and operational FM radio stations are likely to have their coverage affected by the proposed Project. The Project Sponsor has initiated contact with the individual stations to determine appropriate mitigation measures, such as installation of auxiliary antennas to maintain coverage in affected areas. No impact to AM station coverage is anticipated, therefore mitigation measures are not proposed. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 252 3.16.3.2.4 Communication Signals As indicated previously, impacts to communication signals are not anticipated, therefore mitigation measures are not proposed. 3.16.3.2.5 Government Radar Systems No impact to military radar systems or FAA long range radar systems are anticipated and therefore do not require mitigation measures. A potential impact to the weather service NEXRAD Binghamton radar site has been identified in the Comsearch report. However, further evaluation and consultation through the NTIA indicated that no impacts are anticipated. 3.16.3.2.6 NTIA Notification As indicated above, according to the NTIA Notification letter, the DOC and DON identified potential concerns. However, subsequent consultation revealed the Project is not anticipated to have an impact on these agency’s systems. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 3.16.3.2.7 FAA Aeronautical Studies FAA determinations of “No Hazard” were issued for the Project. Therefore, the Project will not result in impacts to airspace and nearby airports, and mitigation is not necessary. 3.17 LAND USE AND ZONING Land use and zoning in the Project Site was determined through review of local town codes, tax parcel maps, aerial photographs, and field review conducted during 2011. Land use and zoning are discussed in terms of regional land use patterns, on-site classifications, agricultural districts, and future land use. 3.17.1 Existing Condition 3.17.1.1 Regional Land Use Patterns The proposed wind farm is located in the Town of Enfield, along the western boundary of Tompkins County. Tompkins County is located in the southern section of central New York, and contains all of the City of Ithaca. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 253 Tompkins County is bordered by Chemung and Tioga Counties to the south, Schuyler County to the west, Cortland County to the east, and Cayuga and Seneca Counties to the north. The region is characterized by dissected hill tops, with active and reverting agricultural land and small woodlots occurring on the hill tops and valleys, and forestland on the hill slopes and on some hill tops. Broad valleys are associated with the larger creeks that ultimately drain into Cayuga and Seneca Lakes. These valleys contain active agricultural land and wetlands, along with major transportation corridors and many of the larger villages and cities in the area. The county is characterized by a large agricultural base that includes primarily dairy, cattle, and crop operations. Residential land use is concentrated in and around cities, villages, and small hamlets, but occurs throughout the region along the network of state, county, and local roads. Pockets of commercial and industrial development are also scattered along the major transportation corridors. The majority of the population, as well as most commercial and industrial land uses, are located in and around the City of Ithaca. The largest state recreational lands in the county are Connecticut Hill State Wildlife Management Area, Robert H. Treman State Park, and several State Reforestation Areas (Danby, Shindagin Hollow, Hammond Hill, and Yellow Barn State Forests). Current land use patterns within the Town of Enfield are similar to those of the larger region. The town is predominantly rural, with the majority of land being either active or fallow agricultural fields, or undeveloped forestland. According to the New York State Office of Real Property Tax Services (NYSORPTS), approximately 65% of all parcels of land within the town are designated as residential properties (NYSORPTS, 2013). Many of these residential properties, although classified as residential, are large agricultural or forested lots (see Figure 12). Residential development, largely consisting of individual single-family homes and farmhouses, is concentrated along state, county, and local highways within and adjacent to the Project Site. The higher-density residential and commercial land uses are primarily located in the along major roads such as State Routes 79 and 327. 3.17.1.2 Project Site Land Use and Zoning The Project Site has a rural and low-density character, with active farms, forestland, and single-family rural residences as the dominant land uses. The majority of the upland area consists of successional old fields and pastures, with forestland dominating the steep slopes that descend into adjacent valleys. The Project area also includes hedgerow, successional shrubland and forest, residential yards, farms, streams, and ponds. These land uses are consistent with the previously mentioned regional land use characteristics, and together define the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 254 community character within the majority of the Project Site. Existing built features within the Project Site include single-family homes, seasonal homes, barns, silos, and other agricultural buildings. According to NYSORPTS and Tompkins County 2010 Tax Maps, the Project Site consists of 4 distinct land use types (Figure 12). The majority of the Project Site (approximately 546 acres [51%]) is categorized as agricultural land, which is described by the NYSORPTS as "property used for the production of crops or livestock". Approximately 284 acres (27%) of the Project Site is characterized as vacant land, which is described as "property that is not in use, is in temporary use, or lacks permanent improvement". Residential land, which constitutes approximately 197 acres (17%), is described as "property used for human habitation." Forestland, which constitutes approximately 23 acres (2%), is described as "private wild and forest lands except for private hunting and fishing clubs". Areas categorized as community services are located within the defined Project area, these are public roadways (approximately 13 acres [1%]) which bisect the Project area and are described as “property used to provide services to the general public” (NYSORPTS, 2013). The Town of Enfield does not currently have zoning districts or zoning regulations in place. However, the Town does have a local law governing Wind Energy Facilities (Local Law No. 1 of 2009). This local law provides the Town of Enfield with the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove wind energy facility applications. A Wind Energy application, if approved, allows for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a Wind Energy Facility. Table 40 summarizes the requirements and approvals necessary to permit a wind-powered electric generating facility in the Town of Enfield. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 255 Table 40. Wind Energy Facility Requirements and Approvals for the Town of Enfield Requirements Approvals • Wind energy facilities are allowed, pursuant to the approval of a wind energy facility application by the Town Board. • Guidelines, regulations, and requirements for wind energy facilities include: - Setback from adjacent property lines by a distance of at least 100 feet or 1.1 times the Blade Radius (Sweep) Measurement whichever is greater. - - Setback of 450 feet or 1.1 times the Total Height, whichever is greater to occupied structures. - - Setback of 100 feet from mapped or jurisdictional wetlands, except where wetland fill or construction permits have been issued by the NYSDEC or USACE. - - No WTG shall be lit except to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations or where required by the permit for safety reasons. - - Each WTG shall be equipped with both manual and automatic controls to limit the rotational speed of the rotor blade so it does not exceed the design limits of the rotor. - - No climbing device of any kind shall be attached to the wind turbine closer than 12 feet from the base of the structure. - - The minimum distance between the ground and any part of the rotor blade should be 20 feet • Approval of an application for a Wind Energy Facility by the Town Board 3.17.1.3 Future Land Use Both the Town of Enfield and Tompkins County have adopted comprehensive plans to help guide future development. The Town of Enfield Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2001, features a community vision statement that includes the following general goals: - preserve open, rural character; - protect natural resources for sustainable growth; - promote small-scale economic development; and - create greater awareness of conservation, the environment, resources, and ecosystems (Town of Enfield, 2001). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 256 More specific goals and objectives are identified relative to particular “areas of interest”, including the following: - Historic Preservation; - Town Beautification; - Agriculture; - Environmental and Natural Resources; - Recreational Assets; - Public Utilities, Infrastructure, and Transportation; - Community Facilities and Programs; - Housing; - Economic Development; and - Land Use. Currently, the Town of Enfield has few commercial enterprises and no industry other than farming. The community is agricultural and one goal is to preserve open space and farmland by making farming an economically viable activity (Town of Enfield, 2001). Although wind energy development is not specifically identified as a goal within the comprehensive plan, the proposed Project is generally compatible with all other goals in relevant interest areas, including but not limited to Agriculture, Environmental and Natural Resources, Public Utilities, Economic Development, and Land Use. It is noted that as of early 2013, the Town of Enfield is in the process of updating this plan. It is further noted that the proposed Project Site is located within a state-certified Agricultural District; this designation indicates that while future land uses other than agricultural use are permitted, substantial changes in the overall use pattern are not likely in the near term. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2004, and features analyses of existing conditions relative to rural resources and economic development, among other topics. The population of Tompkins County is growing at a modest rate, with the number of households in suburban and rural areas increasing (Tompkins County, 2004). Wind energy development is discussed in general terms as an opportunity to link renewable energy and the farming community; it is also discussed as an opportunity to foster manufacturing jobs within the rural economy. The Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan also identifies a series of Agricultural Resource Focus Areas (ARFAs), portions of the county where the county recommends maintaining a critical mass of agricultural land as a way to ensure agricultural viability (Tompkins County, 2004). These areas are described in further detail in the Tompkins County Conservation Plan, prepared by the Tompkins County Planning Department in 2010 (Tompkins County, 2010). The Project Site is located within the Northwest ARFA. Although the proposed Project may result in limited disturbance to agricultural land (see Section 3.17.2, below), the revenues provided to agricultural operators in the form of lease payments is expected to support the viability of their operations. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 257 3.17.2 Potential Impacts The Project will be compatible with the agricultural land use that dominates the Project Site. However, there will be temporary, construction-related impacts, as well as permanent impacts (operation related) to other land uses within the Project Site and the larger community. Anticipated land use and zoning impacts are described below. 3.17.2.1 Construction Construction-related disturbance to agricultural lands, as categorized by NYSORPTS, will total approximately 23.5 acres. Along with this direct impact to agricultural land, movement of equipment and material could result in damage to growing crops, damage to fences and gates, damage to subsurface drainage systems (tile lines), and temporary blockage of farmers’ access to agricultural fields. However, wind turbines and associated facilities have been located so as to minimize loss of active agricultural land and interference with agricultural operations, and construction activities will be in accordance with the NYSA&M agricultural protection guidelines included in Appendix G. In addition, construction will result in the disturbance of approximately 8.5 acres of land categorized as residential, 18.5 acres of land categorized as vacant, and 0.5 acres of land categorized as forest. Impacts to residential land are confined to the properties of participating landowners. Additionally, buried electrical interconnects will be placed within local roads adjacent to the Project area, which will temporarily disturb approximately 2.5 acres of lands classified as community services. Impacts to NYSORPTS land use classifications are summarized below. Table 41. Impacts to Land Use Location Total Disturbance (acres) Temporary Disturbance (acres) Permanent Loss (acres) Agricultural 26.0 23.5 2.5 Residential 11.0 8.5 2.5 Vacant 20.5 18.5 2.0 Forest 0.5 0.5 0.0 Community Service 2.5 2.5 0.0 TOTAL 60.5 53.5 7.0 Construction activities could have a similar temporary impact on forest management/timber harvest activities. Movement of equipment and materials could temporarily block or damage forest access roads. Timber harvest activities may also need to be curtailed/rescheduled in certain areas to avoid interfering with Project construction. It is anticipated that any marketable timber that results from forest clearing activities will be salvaged and stockpiled for Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 258 use/removal by the landowner. Construction impacts to forestland have also been minimized by siting turbines in previously disturbed areas and using the existing network of forest roads to accommodate proposed access road and interconnect routes to the extent practicable. Because the Project Sponsor has worked closely with landowners to design the Project footprint, improvements to existing roads to accommodate construction activity are expected to ultimately enhance access to these properties for future forest management activities. 3.17.2.2 Operation The Project as proposed is consistent with the existing Wind Energy Facilities law and land use patterns within the Town of Enfield. The Project will occur entirely on private land in areas dominated by active and reverting agricultural land, vacant land, and managed/disturbed forestland. Project components will be sited in accordance with local setback requirements and no public lands or recreational facilities will be impacted. Therefore, impacts to residential, commercial, and recreational land use will be minimized. It is not expected that blasting will be employed for the excavation of tower foundations. In the event that blasting in select locations is required, mitigation measures will include the development and implementation of a blasting plan that limits offsite impacts. The operating Project will follow NYSA&M siting guidelines and be compatible with surrounding agricultural operations. In addition, the Project may serve to help keep land within agricultural use, thus furthering the goals in the Town and County Comprehensive Plans. For example, lease payments from the wind power project in the Town of Fenner, New York, have helped to preserve that town’s rural lifestyle and protected its family farms from being taken over by large-scale commercial farming operations, according to the town supervisor (R. Cary, Pers. Comm.). In addition, according to the supervisor, “we look at them [the wind turbines] as an agricultural crop…you don’t have to water them, you don’t have to feed them and whatever you harvest, you get a percentage” (The Post Standard, 2006). Only very minor changes in land use within the Project Site are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. The 7 turbine locations, substation and other ancillary facilities represent the cumulative conversion of approximately 7 acres of land from its current use. Of these 7 acres, approximately 2.5 acres are categorized as agricultural by the NYSORPTS, 2.5 acres are categorized as residential, and 2 acres are categorized as vacant. During Project operation, additional impacts on land use should be infrequent and minimal. Other than occasional maintenance and repair activities that could have impacts similar to those described in Section 2.5 (Project Construction), the Project should not interfere with on-going land use (e.g., farming activities). As mentioned, by supplementing the income of participating farmers, the Project will help keep farms in operation and the land in agricultural use. To the extent that the Project may impact property values, such impacts are discussed in Section 3.13, Growth and Community Character and Section 3.14, Socioeconomics. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 259 However, based on edr’s experience with existing wind power projects (e.g., Madison, Fenner, and Maple Ridge), the Project may result in a perceived change in land use in many areas of the town. As discussed in Section 3.6, the visibility and visual impact of the wind turbines will be highly variable based upon distance, weather conditions, sun angle, the extent of visual screening, viewer sensitivity and/or existing land uses. However, the remote/rural character of the area may be impacted in those locations where a significant number of the proposed turbines can be seen, or where the turbines can be viewed from foreground distances (i.e., under 0.5 mile). In addition, as indicated in the VIA included as Appendix Q, the landscape surrounding this Project will retain its open space character and overall spatial organization once the Project is in place. Although there are some intrusions to the vertical and overhead planes in the landscape within the Project Site, the surrounding landscape retains much of its integrity because the open sky, topography, and existing patterns of land use will remain dominant. However, the Project will introduce new elements (i.e., wind turbines) into the existing landscape, which could be considered a change in community character. It is worth noting however, that the introduction of these new elements will, in fact, help maintain the existing community character by helping area farms remain in business, and slowing the trend of farm abandonment and conversion to successional vegetation and residential development. It is also worth noting that community character evolves over time, and wind power can now be considered an integral (if not essential) part of the evolving agrarian landscape. This evolution is evident along portions of U.S. Route 20 (a designated scenic byway) in Madison County, where the presence of two wind power projects within approximately 5 miles of Route 20 have helped to maintain the agrarian community character. As indicated in The U.S. Route 20 Byway Strategy (Saratoga Associates, 2004), the farming community is a critical part of why the Route 20 Byway is what it is today. These family-owned businesses provide the backdrop and frame the scenic and cultural beauty that the Route 20 Byway has to offer. These independently owned and operated establishments are important contributors to the economic vitality of the communities that define the Route 20 Byway. Programs and initiatives that support the successful operation of these businesses should be a fundamental objective of the Route 20 Byway." Therefore, by dissuading the trend of farm abandonment (and subsequent conversion of the landscape), wind power projects, such as the proposed Black Oak Wind Power Project, contribute to the economic vitality that helps define an agricultural-dominated community character. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 260 3.17.3 Mitigation Measures The Project is compatible with the agricultural land use that dominates the Project Site. However, the Project will impact agricultural activities (at least temporarily) and will result in a change to community character and perceived land use throughout the area. The SEQR DEIS Final Scoping Document, approved September 8, 2010, requires that this section include a brief summary review of the NYSA&M position regarding the compatibility of wind energy and agriculture. The NYSA&M website does not include any official position on the compatibility of wind energy and agriculture (NYSA&M, 2013). However, other publicly available sources suggest Department support for wind energy development in farmland. For example, the New York State Wind Energy Toolkit is a 2009 report prepared for NYSERDA, which provides information on various aspects of wind energy development, and included written contributions from experts at various state agencies, including Matt Brower of the NYSA&M. The agricultural impacts section of this report states, “Generally, wind energy projects are compatible with agricultural land uses and may help farmers who lease land to wind developers preserve their farms by providing them a supplemental income. Because wind turbines physically occupy only a small fraction of the land, most of the leased land remains available for planting and grazing” (AWS Truewind, 2009). Another example is found in a NYSA&M (2009) guidance document on Conservation Easements, which states, “The use of farms for wind energy or communication installations will be found acceptable if they are compatible with the Purpose of the Conservation Easement, subordinate to the agricultural use of the Property, and located in a manner that minimizes the impact to prime or statewide important soils.” To facilitate minimization of impacts to agricultural land, the Department has developed construction and restoration guidelines for various types of projects affecting agricultural land, including wind power projects. These guidelines are discussed in detail below. To minimize and/or mitigate impacts to active agricultural land and farming operations, Project siting and construction will fully comply with NYSA&M agricultural protection guidelines (see Appendix G) and be compatible with surrounding agricultural operations. These mitigation measures include: • Limiting permanent road widths to a maximum of 15 feet or less, and where possible, following hedgerows and field edges to minimize loss of agricultural land. • Having roads that must cross agricultural fields stay on ridge tops and other high ground to minimize cut and fill as well as potential drainage problems. • Avoiding disturbance of surface and subsurface drainage features (ditches, diversions, tile lines, etc.). • Prohibiting vehicular access to turbine sites until topsoil has been stripped and permanent access roads have been constructed. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 261 • Limiting vehicular access to construction roads only. • Prohibiting stripping of topsoil or passage of cranes across agricultural fields during saturated conditions when such actions would damage agricultural soils. • Avoiding blocking of surface water drainage due to road or installation or stockpiled topsoil. • Maintaining access roads throughout construction so as to allow continued use/crossing by farmers and farm machinery. • Temporarily fencing/securing around open excavation areas in active pastureland to protect livestock. • Disposing of excess concrete offsite (unless otherwise approved by the environmental monitor and the landowner). Under no circumstances shall excess concrete be buried or left on the surface in active agricultural areas. • Washing of concrete trucks, if necessary, outside of active agricultural areas in locations approved by the environmental monitor. • Restricting crane set-up, erection, and breakdown activities to designated access roads and work pads at the turbine sites. • Stabilizing restored agricultural areas with seed and/or mulch. • Removing and disposing of all construction debris offsite at the completion of restoration. • Compensation for damaged/lost crops. In the event that blasting in select locations is required, mitigation measures will include the development and implementation of a blasting plan that limits offsite impacts. This plan will address blast size, timing, and sequencing to focus force within the area of excavation. The blasting plan is further discussed in Section 3.1. Beyond reducing impacts to agricultural land, other mitigation measures that will be undertaken to reduce the impact of the Project on land uses are listed below. These include: • Locating all electrical collection (interconnect) lines underground or, where following existing public roads, locating all interconnect lines underground or within an existing ROW when aboveground. • Lighting towers only to the extent necessary to comply with FAA requirements. An application has been submitted to the FAA for approval, and the FAA has conducted an Aeronautical Study for each turbine location, which is included in Appendix W. These studies indicated that the proposed 7 turbines will require lighting in accordance with FAA guidelines. Lighting for the substation and other ground level facilities will be kept to a minimum and generally operated by switch or motion detector. • Not affixing television, radio or other communication antennas or advertising signs (other than the turbine manufacturer’s logo) to the towers or any other Project structures. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 262 • Utilizing tubular towers and finishing structures painted with a single, non-reflective matte finish color. • Avoiding use of guy wires on permanent meteorology towers. • Installing turbines in locations where proximity to existing fixed broadcast, retransmission, or reception antenna for radio, television, or wireless phone or other personal communications systems, will minimize potential electromagnetic interference with signal transmission or reception. • Designing all Project components in a way that minimizes the impacts of land clearing and the loss of open space. • Locating Project components so as to minimize impacts on state and federal jurisdictional wetlands. • Managing storm water run-off and erosion control in a manner consistent with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. • Removing all solid waste, hazardous materials and construction debris from the site and managing its disposal in a manner consistent with all appropriate rules and regulations. These actions will assure that adverse impacts on land use and zoning are minimized or mitigated to the extent practicable. 3.18 TEMPORARY IMPACTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION This section summarizes potential temporary environmental impacts associated with construction, including stream disturbance, vegetation removal, stormwater runoff and management, and erosion control, and potential agricultural impacts. Prior to the initiation of construction, various environmental protection and control plans will be developed and shared with the Town. Actions included in these plans and procedures will be reviewed, coordinated, and approved by the Town and County prior to implementation and overseen by the Environmental Monitor during construction, to assure that the impacts of Project construction on local residents are avoided, minimized, or mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. 3.18.1 Existing Condition Project Site contains a small number of ponds and unnamed streams. However, no NYSDEC protected streams occur within the Project Site. Streams in the Project Site (Figure 6) are highly variable, ranging from steep-gradient streams in deeply cut wooded ravines to low-gradient streams that meander through pastureland, wetlands, and valley settings. Most of these streams are less than 6-feet wide with substrate ranging from rock/gravel to silt/mud. Water depths are typically 1-4 inches in riffles, with pool depths of 1-2 feet. Aquatic vegetation is typically lacking. Most streams within the Project Site have well-defined and abrupt banks, while the banks of a small number of low- Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 263 gradient streams transition into adjacent wetland vegetation, and thus are essentially indiscernible. Surface waters within the Project Site are further discussed in Section 3.21.2. As discussed in Section 3.2.1.3.1, review of NYSDEC mapping indicates there are no wetlands located within the Project Site that are regulated under Article 24 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law (Figure 6). However, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) has mapped wetlands in the proposed Project Site (see Figure 7). The four wetlands mapped within the Project Site are very small, ranging from 0.16 acres to approximately 0.35 acres in size, for a total of approximately 1.04 acres. All four of the wetlands mapped by the NWI are palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, diked/impounded (PUBHh) wetlands. Numerous NWI mapped wetlands occur in the vicinity of the Project Site and most are similar to the mapped wetlands on-site. edr personnel performed field identification of wetlands and streams in areas proposed for Project components during the 2011 growing season. Although a formal delineation and jurisdictional determination have not yet been conducted, edr identified a total of seven wetlands and streams within the Project Site. Descriptions of these wetlands are provided in Section 3.2.1.3.3 and the Wetland Inventory Report (Appendix I). Should a permit application be required, additional field work would be conducted to hang wetland flagging along the boundaries of jurisdictional wetlands and collect further data (including soils data). The Joint Application for Permit would thoroughly describe the characteristics of each delineated wetland to be impacted, including its specific functions and values. However, for the purposes of SEQRA, the Wetland Inventory Report (Appendix I) provides all the information necessary to identify and describe the existing wetland and stream resources within the Project area, and subsequently quantify anticipated impacts and discuss proposed mitigation measures. Stormwater runoff in the Project Site is typical for rural areas within Tompkins County. The Project Site is mostly undeveloped and land use is dominated by active agriculture, with farms and single-family rural residences generally occurring along road frontage. Forests are the dominant vegetative cover type, followed by agricultural fields, successional old fields, and successional shrubland. Elevations in the Project Site range from approximately 1,450 feet amsl along the northeast edge of the Project Area to approximately 1,960 feet amsl at Buck Hill on the southwestern edge of the Project Site. Slopes within the Project Site are generally less than 15%. As discussed in Section 3.4.1.1.1, of the major plant communities found within the Project Site (Figure 9) are common to New York State. Forestland and agricultural land are the dominant community types within the Project Site, while successional communities (shrubland, forest, and old field), open water, and developed/disturbed lands occur to a lesser extent. Brief descriptions of these ecological community types, as classified and described in Ecological Communities of New York State (Reschke, 1990) are provided in Section 3.4.1.1.1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 264 As discussed in Section 3.5.1, Tompkins County has a total of two designated Agricultural Districts established pursuant to the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law. The Project Site is located within Agricultural District 2. Agricultural land use is a significant component of the Project Site with approximately 543 acres of the 1,060-acre area (51%) in row crops, field crops, or pastureland. Approximately 5 acres (0.5%) of soils within the Project Site are classified as Prime Farmland and approximately 869 acres (81.7%) are classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. 3.18.2 Potential Impacts During construction, direct or indirect impacts to wetlands and surface waters may occur as a result of the installation of access roads, the upgrade of local public roads, the installation of buried electrical collection lines, and the development and use of temporary workspaces around the turbine sites. Direct impacts, including clearing of vegetation, earthwork (excavating and grading activities), and the direct placement of fill in wetlands and surface waters, are typically associated only with the development of access roads and workspaces. The construction of access roads, or the upgrade of local public roads, may result in both permanent (loss of wetland/surface water acreage) and temporary impacts to wetlands. The development and use of temporary workspaces may result in temporary impacts to wetlands/streams. The installation of buried electrical collection lines may temporarily disturb streams and wetlands during construction as a result of clearing (brushogging, or similar clearing method not requiring removal of rooted woody plants) and soil disturbance from burial of the electrical collection lines. Indirect impacts to wetlands and surface waters may result from sedimentation and erosion caused by construction activities (e.g., removal of vegetation and soil disturbance). These indirect impacts may occur at wetlands adjacent to work areas where no direct wetland impacts are anticipated, including areas adjacent to proposed access road upgrade/construction, buried collection lines, turbine sites, staging areas, met tower, or the substation. Based on an analysis of the Project layout and the approximate wetland boundaries, approximately 0.46 acre of temporary wetland/stream impacts are anticipated to occur due to Project construction. These impacts will involve temporary placement of fill to accommodate proposed Project access road construction and temporary soil disturbance associated with the installation of buried electrical collection lines. The NYSDEC Stormwater Interactive Mapper indicates the eastern half of the Project Site lies within the Oswego River/Finger Lakes Watershed, which is classified as an AA/AAS watershed. However, Project components have been sited such that soils with a slope class of E or F are avoided entirely. As a result, Project impacts within the watershed will not require an individual SPDES Stormwater Permit. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 265 The proposed Project will not result in wide-scale conversion of land to built/impervious surfaces. Consequently, no significant changes to the rate or volume of stormwater runoff are anticipated. Nevertheless, specific means of avoiding or minimizing stormwater-related adverse impacts during construction of the Project includes adhering to a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan and the stormwater requirements set forth in the SPDES regulations. Construction-related impacts to vegetation include cutting/clearing, removal of stumps and root systems, and increased exposure/disturbance of soil. Along with direct loss of (and damage to) vegetation, these impacts can result in a loss of wildlife food and cover, increased soil erosion and sedimentation, a disruption of normal nutrient cycling, and the introduction or spread of invasive plant species. Impacts to vegetation will result from site preparation, earth-moving, and excavation/backfilling activities associated with construction/installation of staging areas, access roads, foundations, and buried electrical interconnect and transmission line. The Project Sponsor wishes to minimize construction impacts to the Project Site by eliminating the need for an on-site concrete batch plant. It is not anticipated that a project-specific concrete batch plant will be required, as the concrete necessary to support construction of the Project can be viably sourced from local concrete suppliers within the vicinity of the Project Site. Based on the area of impact assumptions described in Section 2.6 (Project Construction), these activities will result in disturbance to approximately 60.3 acres within the Project Site. As indicated in Table 42, the majority of the calculated impacts will be temporary, and native vegetation will be allowed to regenerate following restoration of areas disturbed during construction. Table 42. Impacts to Vegetation Location Total Disturbance (acres) Temporary Disturbance (acres) Permanent Loss (acres) Wind Turbines and Workspaces 20.2 20.1 0.1 Access Roads 24.4 19.5 4.9 Buried Electrical Gathering Lines 7.3 7.3 0 Staging Area 5.4 5.4 0 Substation 3.0 1.2 1.8 TOTAL 60.3 53.5 6.8 Based on the impact assumptions described in Section 2.6, construction activities will result in disturbance to approximately 26 acres of land categorized as agricultural by the New York State Office of Real Property Tax Services (NYSORPTS) or 16.7 acres of land that is classified as active agriculture or pasture based on aerial Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 266 photograph interpretation. (It should be noted that the NYSORPTS agricultural classification and the land interpreted as agriculture or pastureland do overlap in many areas and, therefore, these impacts are not additive but are rather two different ways of quantifying agricultural impacts.) As indicated in Tables 42 and 43, most of these impacts will be temporary, however, approximately 2.5 acres of NYSORPTS classified agricultural land, or 1.6 acres of aerial photograph interpreted agricultural land, will be converted to built facilities and removed from agricultural land use for the life of the Project. Also, approximately 58.1 acres of impacts are expected within Tompkins County Agricultural District 2 (see Figure 10). Of these 58.1 acres of disturbance, approximately 51.4 acres will be temporary. No soils classified as Prime Farmland will be disturbed; however, approximately 38.4 acres of soils classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance will be disturbed by the Project. Temporary impacts will account for approximately 34.5 acres of disturbance to these soils, while approximately 3.9 acres will be converted to built facilities. In agricultural areas construction activities will adhere to New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYA&M) Guidelines. Table 43. Impacts to Agricultural Lands Classification Total Disturbance (Acres) Temporary Disturbance (Acres) Converted to Built Facilities (Acres) NYSORPTS Classified Agricultural Land 26.0 23.5 2.5 Photograph Interpreted Agricultural Land 16.7 15.1 1.6 Tompkins County Agricultural District 2 58.1 51.4 6.7 During construction, access road installation and use could result in temporary soil disturbance of a maximum width of 40 feet, with temporary road horizontal radii of 200 feet. Approximately 2.2 miles of existing roads and farm lanes will be upgraded for use as Project access roads in order to minimize impacts to both active agricultural areas and wetland/stream areas. Approximately 0.5 mile of new gravel-surfaced access roads will be constructed where an existing road or farm lane is unavailable or unsuitable. Road construction will involve topsoil stripping and grubbing of stumps, as necessary. Stripped topsoil will be stockpiled along the road corridor for use in site restoration. Any grubbed stumps will be removed, chipped, or buried. Following removal of topsoil, subsoil will be graded, compacted, and surfaced with 8 to 12 inches of gravel or crushed stone, and a geotextile fabric or grid will be installed beneath the road surface (if necessary), to provide additional support. To the extent practicable, local sources will be used to obtain gravel (and other construction materials that may be needed such as sand) in support of Project construction. Typical access road details and photographs are included in Appendix B. Turbine assembly and erection involves mainly the use of large track-mounted cranes, smaller rough terrain cranes, boom trucks, and rough terrain fork-lifts for loading and off-loading materials. The tower sections, rotor components, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 267 and nacelle for each turbine will then be delivered to each site by specialized trailers and unloaded by crane. The erection crane(s) will move from one tower to another along a designated crane path. This path will follow Project access roads. In some places, the crane will be partially disassembled and carried from one tower site to another by a specialized flatbed tractor-trailer. This mode of crane transport will not require a 40-foot-wide travel surface, but could require some additional clearing and grading adjacent to the roads to accommodate the width of the crane tracks (which will extend well beyond the edges of the trailer). Upon departure of the crane from each tower site, all required site restoration activities will be undertaken. Restoration of temporary disturbed areas adjacent to access roads will include removal of all temporary fill/road materials. In agricultural fields, restoration will also include subsoil de-compaction (as necessary) and rock removal, spreading of stockpiled topsoil, and reestablishing pre-construction contours. Exposed soils at restored tower sites and along roads will be stabilized by seeding, mulching, and/or agricultural planting. In addition to construction-related impacts within the Project Site, some temporary impacts along the delivery route will result from the movement of vehicles involved in Project construction. The route described in Section 3.9.1 has some potentially constraining features, particularly intersection turning radii. A summary of the route constraints and associated improvements/impacts necessary to accommodate Project construction is below. The extent of the roadway segment improvements will be verified with the turbine supplier/contractor prior to Project construction, and coordinated with the relevant State, County, and local highway departments (at no expense to these departments) prior to the arrival of oversized/overweight (OS/OW) vehicle on-site. The following construction activities will likely be required at the locations of road width and turning radii improvements: • Clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation. • Relocating traffic signs, fences, and utility poles. • Grading of the terrain to accommodate the improvement. • Extension of existing drainage pipes and/or culverts. • Re-establishment of ditch line (if necessary). • Construction of a suitable roadway surface to carry the construction traffic (based on the existing geotechnical conditions). Specifically, the overhanging telephone lines and “Stop” sign at the intersection of Black Oak Road and NYS Route 79 may need to be temporarily removed or relocated to accommodate delivery of Project components. In addition, the Project-specific improvements to public roads are not anticipated to result in stream or wetland impacts. Any cut and fill required for road improvements would comply with the measures set forth in the SWPPP developed during the engineering phase of Project design. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 268 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures No compensatory mitigation for indirect or temporary impacts to wetlands or streams is proposed because these impacts will not result in any loss of wetland acreage. Wetlands temporarily disturbed during construction will be restored to their original grade. This will allow wetland areas to redevelop naturally following construction. Temporary erosion and sedimentation controls will remain in place at disturbed wetlands sites until they are fully revegetated. However, to the extent that Project activities may result in other temporary direct and indirect impacts to wetlands/streams (other than loss of wetland acreage which will not occur as a result of temporary impacts), such impacts will be minimized during construction as discussed below. The direct impacts to wetlands/streams will be minimized by utilizing existing or narrow crossing locations whenever possible. Upgrading existing crossings that are under-maintained/undersized will have a long-term beneficial effect on water quality, as it will help to keep not only Project-related components from disturbing surface waters, but also farm equipment and other vehicles that are unrelated to the Project and currently operate in the Project Site. Special crossing techniques, equipment restrictions, herbicide use restrictions, and erosion and sedimentation control measures will be utilized to reduce adverse impacts to water quality, surface water hydrology, and aquatic organisms. In addition, clearing of vegetation along stream banks and in wetland areas will be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Where crossings of surface waters and wetlands are required, the Project Sponsor will employ the Best Management Practices associated with particular, applicable streamside and wetland activities, as recommended by the NYSDEC and the USACE, and required by the issued wetland/waters permits. Specific mitigation measures for protecting wetlands and surface water resources are described in Section 3.2.3.2. To assure compliance with proposed mitigation measures during construction, the Project Sponsor will provide the construction contractor copies of all NYSDEC and USACE permits (Section 404), and site specific plans detailing construction methodologies, sediment and erosion control plans, and required natural resource protection measures. An Environmental Monitor will be retained during construction to ensure compliance with all plans and permit conditions. In addition, the Project Sponsor will direct its contractors to adhere to any special conditions of permits issued by the NYSDEC and USACE, which may include low impact stream crossing techniques, seasonal restrictions, and/or alternative stream crossing methods. Specific means of avoiding or minimizing stormwater-related adverse impacts during construction of the Project include adhering to a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan and the stormwater requirements set forth Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 269 in the SPDES regulations, as described in the Preliminary SWPPP (Appendix F). The complete SWPPP will include an erosion and sediment control plan that details the location and necessary dimensions for vegetative and structural measures that will be used for each stage of the Project. Dewatering practices for use during installation of applicable project components will also be included. In addition, construction phasing notes that relate the establishment of vegetative and structural practices and their timing relative to other construction practices, and an inspection and maintenance plan will be provided for the site. Prior to beginning construction, the Project Owner will submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) in conformance with the current SPDES regulations and obtain authorization to commence construction activities from the NYSDEC Bureau of Water Permits in Albany. Erosion and sediment control measures will be inspected at least once every 7 days (or following significant storm events) by a person knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control until all soil disturbance has ceased and a vigorous vegetative cover or equivalent stabilization measures have been established on all disturbed areas across the Project Area. Inspections will be in accordance with the 2010 SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction. To avoid localized drainage problems, the Environmental Monitor will identify the need for ditches, water bars, culverts, and temporary sediment retention basins at each road and tower site prior to the initiation of construction. If drainage problems develop during or after construction, the Environmental Monitor will evaluate the problem (in consultation with the contractor, landowner, and/or agency representative) and recommend a solution. Corrective actions will be taken by the contractor after receiving the recommendation. Mitigation of impacts to vegetation will be accomplished primarily through careful site planning. Large areas of forest and wetland are being avoided to the extent practicable. Therefore, the most ecologically significant communities within the Project Site will be largely protected from disturbance. Project access roads will be sited on existing farm lanes and forest roads wherever possible, and areas of disturbance will be confined to the smallest area possible. In addition, as previously discussed a comprehensive sediment and erosion control plan will be developed and implemented prior to Project construction to protect adjacent undisturbed vegetation and other ecological resources. Mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts to vegetation will also include pre-construction surveys for rare plant species, delineating sensitive areas (such as wetlands) where no disturbance or vehicular activities are allowed, educating the construction workforce on respecting and adhering to the physical boundaries of off-limit areas, complying with guidance provided by Environmental Monitors, employing best management practices during construction, and maintaining a clean work area within the designated construction sites. Following construction activities, temporarily disturbed areas will be seeded (and stabilized with mulch and/or straw if necessary) to Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 270 reestablish vegetative cover in these areas. Other than in active agricultural fields, native species will be allowed to revegetate these areas. Controlling the introduction and spread of the target species will be achieved through the implementation of an Invasive Species Control Plan (ISCP). The purpose of the ISCP is to facilitate the identification, control, and monitoring of invasive plants within sensitive environmental areas, such as streams and wetlands. Monitoring of the control of invasive species for the Black Oak Wind Project is proposed to have two phases: 1) monitoring the implementation of the ISCP during construction and 2) monitoring the success of the ISCP for a two-year period to coincide with the monitoring of other project restoration activities (i.e., NYSDAM Guidelines). For additional detail on the ISCP see Section 3.4.3.1 and Appendix J. To minimize and/or mitigate Project impacts to active agricultural land and farming operations, Project siting and construction will comply with NYSAM Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Windpower Projects (Appendix G). Specific mitigation and minimization measures are described in Section 3.5.3. Approximately 11.6 acres of temporarily disturbed soils on agricultural land will be restored following construction. Restored areas will include the area around turbine sites, road edges, crane paths, temporary roads, and staging areas. This process will generally involve the following sequence of activities: 1. Removal of gravel or other temporary fill. 2. Decompaction of compacted subsoils to a depth of 18 inches using a deep ripper. 3. Disking and removal of stones from decompacted subsoil. 4. Spreading of stockpiled topsoil over decompacted subsoil. Respreading of topsoil so as to reestablish pre-construction contours to the extent practicable. 5. Disking and removal of stones from respread topsoil. 6. Seeding and mulching topsoil. Seed selection in agricultural fields will be based on guidance provided by the landowner and the NYSAM. Agricultural impacts during construction will also be minimized by providing the contractor and all subcontractors with copies of the final construction documentation and plans, which will contain all applicable soil protection, erosion control, and soil restoration measures. In general, erosion, sedimentation, and soil drainage impacts to agricultural lands during construction will be minimized by the implementation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan developed as part of the SPDES General Permit for the Project (see Typical Details in Appendix B). One or more pre-construction meetings will be held with the contractor and a representative of the NYSAM, and, during Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 271 construction, the Environmental Monitor will assure compliance with the construction plans and soil protection measures. Prior to construction, the Project Sponsor and/or contractor will obtain all necessary permits from the Town and County highway departments and the NYSDOT, for activities including new access roads, improving existing roadways, crossing roadways with buried electrical interconnects, and operating oversized vehicles on the highways. The final transportation routing documentation will be provided prior to construction, and will confirm the local, County, and State roads to be used as delivery routes (both within and outside of the Project Site ) by construction/transportation vehicles. In accordance with the anticipated County and Town Road Use Agreements, directly prior to construction, a survey of the agreed delivery route will be carried out by appropriately qualified engineers (and NYSDOT, County Highway, and Town Highway Departments as available) to assess and document current existing road conditions. If necessary, the Project Sponsor will coordinate with local utility, telephone, and cable companies and the NYSDOT to obtain necessary permits to raise wires and traffic signals. This could include permanently raising wires/traffic signals, temporarily raising wires/traffic signals for the duration of construction, or temporarily raising wires/traffic signal as a construction vehicle passes underneath. The component delivery company selected for the Project will coordinate with the NYSDOT for the required Special Hauling Permit. To assure compliance with various environmental protection commitments and permit conditions, a third party Environmental Monitor will be selected by the Town to oversee construction (and post-construction) activities. Prior to the start of construction at any given site, the Environmental Monitor, the contractor, and Project Sponsor representatives will conduct a walk-over of areas to be affected, or potentially affected, by proposed construction activities. This pre-construction walk-over will identify sensitive resources to avoid (e.g., wetlands, archaeological, or agricultural resources), as well as the limits of clearing, location of wetland and stream crossings, location of drainage features (e.g., culverts, ditches), location of underground utilities and tile lines, and layout of sediment and erosion control measures. Upon identification of these features, which will be marked in the field (by staking, flagging, fencing, etc.), specific construction procedures will be determined, and any modifications to construction methods or locations will be proposed before construction activities begin. Landowners and agency representatives will be invited to participate in these walk-overs, or consulted as needed. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 272 4.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The proposed Project will result in significant long-term economic benefits to participating landowners, as well as to the Town of Enfield, the local school districts, and Tompkins County (see Section 3.14). When fully operational, the Project will provide up to 12.6 MW of electric power generation with no emissions of pollutants or greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The development of the site is consistent with surrounding land uses. Despite the positive effects anticipated as a result of the Project, its construction and operation will necessarily result in certain unavoidable impacts to the environment. The majority of these environmental impacts will be temporary, and will result from construction activities. However, long-term unavoidable impacts associated with operation and maintenance of the Project include turbine visibility from some locations within the area. The presence of the turbines will result in a change in perceived land use from some viewpoints. Project development will also result in an increased level of sound at some receptor locations (residences) within the study area, a minor loss of forest land, wildlife habitat changes, and some level of avian and/or bat mortality associated with bird/bat collisions with the turbines. As evaluated through site-specific expert analyses, which are presented in Section 3.0 of the DEIS, these impacts are not considered significant, and are outweighed by the benefits of providing a source of clean, renewable energy and displacing some of the energy (and emitted pollutants) created by fossil fuel generators, which result in significant environmental impacts (Jacobson and High, 2008). Although adverse environmental impacts will occur, they will be minimized through the use of various general and site-specific avoidance and mitigation measures. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the Project is expected to result in positive, long-term overall impacts that will offset the adverse effects that cannot otherwise be avoided. The following subsections summarize general mitigation and avoidance measures that have been incorporated into the Project design, and specific mitigation and avoidance measures proposed to minimize adverse impacts to specific resources. 4.1 GENERAL AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES General mitigation measures include compliance with the conditions of various state and federal regulations that govern Project development, as well as the inherent characteristics of the Project. The primary government review/approval processes that currently apply to the Project include: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 273 • State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). • New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and Tompkins County Department of Public Works (DPW) highway regulations. • Federal Clean Water Act regulations (Section 404 permit). • NYSDEC water resources regulations (Section 401, Article 15). • Town of Enfield Wind Energy Facilities Local Law. • NYSDEC SPDES regulations (stormwater management). • NYS Agricultural Districts law. • OSHA regulations (standard conditions for safe work practices during construction). SEQRA regulations require public input into the environmental review of proposed development projects so that potential adverse impacts can be identified prior to Project implementation and avoided or mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. This DEIS was prepared in accordance with these regulations, and provides a primary means by which the potential costs and benefits of the Project are described and weighed in a public forum. Compliance with SEQRA regulations will assure that public and agency comments are solicited and appropriately addressed, Project alternatives are evaluated, and potential adverse impacts are identified and mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. Response to comments and preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will provide the information necessary for the lead agency and other involved agencies to draw conclusions (Findings Statement) regarding the Project’s overall environmental impacts, and impose conditions on SEQRA approval, if necessary and where relevant. Compliance with the other various federal, state, and local regulations governing the development, design, construction and operation of the proposed Project also will serve to minimize adverse impacts. Construction activities and Project engineering will be in compliance with applicable state and local building codes and federal OSHA guidelines to protect the safety of workers and the public. Federal and state permitting required by the USACOE and/or the NYSDEC will serve to protect water resources, along with implementation of a state-approved SPDES permit. Highway permitting at the local, county, and state level will assure that safety, congestion, and damage to highways in the area is avoided or minimized. The Project's siting criteria, guidelines, and design standards that serve to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts include the following: • Siting the Project away from population centers and areas of high-density residential development. • Siting turbines in accordance with physical setback requirements found in the Town of Enfield Wind Energy Facilities Local Law, which minimizes various environmental impacts. • Following NYSA&M Agricultural Protection Guidelines. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 274 • Minimizing the number of stream and wetland crossings. • Using existing forest and/or farm roads for turbine access whenever possible, to minimize impacts to soil and ecological resources. • Designing all buried electrical lines in a manner that denies any possibility of stray voltage. • Designing, engineering, and constructing the Project in compliance with various codes and industry standards to assure safety and reliability. • Limiting turbine lighting to the minimum allowed by the FAA to reduce nighttime visual impacts, and following lighting guidelines to reduce the potential for bird collisions. • Following construction procedures in accordance with Best Management Practices for sediment and erosion control. • Installing turbines with appropriate grounding and automatic shutdown/braking capabilities to minimize public safety concerns. • Complying with the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets guidelines in order to mitigate impacts on agricultural ground and farming practices 4.2 SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES Project development and operation will also include specific measures to mitigate potential impacts to specific resources. These were described in detail in Section 3.0, but generally include the following: • Developing and implementing various plans to minimize adverse impacts to air, soil, and water resources, including a dust control plan, sediment and erosion control plan, and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan. • Documenting existing road conditions, and undertaking public road improvement/repair at no cost to the town or county. • Evaluating Project impacts on birds and bats through post-construction avian and bat monitoring studies. • Entering into a PILOT agreement with the local taxing jurisdictions to provide a significant and predictable level of funding for the town, county, and school district over the first 20 years of Project operation. • Close coordination with local first responders. In addition, the Project Sponsor will implement a Community Outreach and Communications Plan. This plan sets forth an open communication link between the Town and the Project Sponsor, and also establishes a complaint resolution procedure, including an 800 number set up by the Project Sponsor for use by local residences. The Community Outreach and Communication Plan is set forth in Appendix U. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 275 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING PROGRAM In addition to the mitigation measures described above, Black Oak Wind Farm will develop an environmental compliance program and employ environmental monitors to oversee compliance with environmental commitments and permit requirements. The environmental compliance program will be similar to that utilized on the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project in Herkimer County, New York (edr, 2010), and will include the following components: 1. Planning – Prior to the start of construction, the environmental monitors will review all environmental permits and, based upon the conditions/requirements of the permits, prepare an environmental management document that will be utilized for the duration of the Project. This document will distill and clearly present all environmental requirements for construction and restoration included in all Project permits and approvals. 2. Training – The environmental monitors will hold environmental training sessions that will be mandatory for all contractors and subcontractors. The purpose of the training sessions will be to explain the environmental compliance program in detail, prior to the start of construction. 3. Preconstruction Coordination – Prior to construction, the contractor(s) and the environmental monitors will conduct a walkover of areas to be affected by construction activities. This walkover will identify landowner concerns, sensitive resources, limits of clearing, proposed stream or wetland crossings, and placement of sediment and erosion control features. The limits of work areas, especially in sensitive resource areas, will be defined by flagging, staking or fencing prior to construction, as needed. 4. Construction and Restoration Inspection – The monitoring program will include the inspection of construction work sites by the environmental monitor. The monitor will be present during construction at environmentally sensitive locations, will keep a log of daily construction activities, and will issue periodic/regular reporting and compliance audits. Additionally, the monitor will work with the contractors to create a punch list of areas for restoration in accordance with issued permits. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 276 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SEQRA (6 NYCRR Part 617) requires that an EIS evaluate all reasonable project alternatives. In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is "reasonable". As described in §617.9 (b)(5)(v), an EIS must contain a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the Project Sponsor. As stated in Section 2.3, the objective of the proposed action is to take advantage of the available wind resource and New York bulk power transmission system availability in order to create an economically viable wind-powered electrical-generating facility that will provide a significant source of renewable energy to the New York power grid. The Project Sponsor has a 12.6 MW interconnection request with the NYISO; therefore, the preferred alternative is to construct a facility that can produce 12.6 MW of renewable energy. As proposed, the Project will have a maximum nameplate capacity of 12.6 MW, and a total net annual generation of approximately 44.2 MWh, delivered to NYSEG’s Montour Falls – Coddington Road 115 kV line. This is enough electricity to meet the average annual consumption of between approximately 3,840 and 6,048 households (based on average annual electric consumption of 11.5 MWh for the U.S and 7.3 MWh for New York; [EIA, 2012a]). Additionally, §617.9 (b)(5)(v) indicates the description and evaluation of each alternative should be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed. It is well-established law under SEQRA that “the degree of detail with which each alternative must be discussed will vary with the circumstances and nature of each proposal.” (King v Saratoga County Bd. of Sup’rs, 223 AD2d 894 [3d Dept 1996], affd 89 NY2d 341 [1996]; Impact Review, § 5.14 [3]). The range of alternatives must include the no action alternative. The no action alternative discussion should evaluate the adverse or beneficial site changes that are likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future, in the absence of the proposed action. The range of alternatives may also include, as appropriate, alternative: (a) sites; (b) technology; (c) scale or magnitude; (d) design; (e) timing; (f) use; and (g) types of action. For private project sponsors, any alternative for which no discretionary approvals are needed may be described. Site alternatives may be limited to parcels owned by, or under option to, a private project sponsor. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 277 It is appropriate to focus on those alternatives that could potentially address specific environmental impacts (as identified during the SEQRA review process) associated with the proposed action. For example, if nuisance related neighbor impacts (noise, shadow flicker) are identified as the primary concern associated with the proposed Project, alternatives under consideration should be those that specifically address nuisance related impacts. The following alternatives to the proposed action are described and evaluated: no action, alternative project sites, alternative project design/layout, alternate project size, alternative technologies, alternative construction phasing and alternatives that avoid significant impacts. These alternatives offer a potential range and scope of development for comparative analysis and consideration. 5.1 NO ACTION The no action alternative assumes that the Project Site would continue to exist as agricultural, forested, successional and rural residential land. This no action alternative would not affect on-site ambient noise conditions, construction traffic or public road conditions, wildlife or wildlife habitat, wetlands and streams, or television/communication systems, and would maintain community character, economic and energy-generating conditions as they currently exist. Under this alternative, no wind turbines or infrastructure (e.g., roads, buried or above ground electrical interconnects, and substations) would be developed on the site. Consequently, none of the environmental impacts associated with Project construction and operation would occur. In addition, no economic benefits would accrue to the area. These unrealized economic benefits would include income from construction jobs, lease payments to the landowners, and annual PILOT payments to the affected Town, school district, and County. Annual revenues to the Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, and the school district remain to be negotiated in the final terms of a PILOT agreement, but are anticipated to be approximately $100,000 per year for the first 15 years of Project operation, declining thereafter based on depreciation. Under the no action alternative, multiplier effects from these economic benefits would also not be realized. Furthermore, the benefits of adding up to 12.6 MW of clean, renewable electric energy to the power grid would be lost, and this renewable energy would not be available to off-set electricity produced by fossil-fuel-fired generators, which contribute to emissions of sulfur dioxide (a precursor of acid rain), nitrogen oxide (a smog precursor), and carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas). Given the short-term nature of anticipated construction impacts and the generally minor long-term impacts of Project operation, as compared to the significant economic benefits that the Project would generate, the no action alternative is not considered a preferred alternative. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 278 5.2 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT SITES Under 6 NYCRR § 617.9(b)(5)(v)(g), site alternatives addressed in an EIS may be limited to parcels owned by, or under option to, a private project sponsor. Black Oak Wind, LLC does not own, or have under option, any contiguous parcels in Tompkins County other than those constitute the Project Site. Therefore, there is no requirement to evaluate any alternative project sites. Nonetheless, this section provides background information on the selection of the Project Site to facilitate understanding of the criteria that the Project Sponsor employed. The preliminary selection of wind turbine locations on a regional or statewide basis is constrained by several factors that are essential for the Project to operate in a technically and economically viable manner. These factors include the following: • adequate wind resource; • adequate access to the bulk power transmission system, from the standpoints of proximity and ability of the system to accommodate the interconnection and accept and transmit the power from the Project; • contiguous areas of available land; • compatible land use; • willing land lease participants and host communities; and • limited population/residential development. In selecting a specific project site, several design factors greatly favor rural areas for commercial wind development, particularly turbine spacing and setback requirements. Generally, approximately 60 acres of land is required for each MW-scale wind turbine to perform properly under New York state wind conditions. Although the actual footprint of the wind turbine is much smaller, this amount of airspace is generally required to minimize effects turbines have on one another when sited down wind. A dense array of wind turbines may result in reduced wind capture and impose unacceptable stresses on operating wind turbine components. These larger land requirements also favor other design considerations including acceptable setback distances from residential areas. Several areas of the southern tier of New York have the desired combination of these attributes that make them more suitable for commercial wind development such as rural settings, proximity to high-voltage power lines, and higher elevations and proximity to lake-effect weather. However, the Project sponsor has not researched other potentially suitable sites in New York or areas in the vicinity of Tompkins County. The Project began with an idea by a local landowner and decided to expand it into a community based wind project by engaging other neighbors in the area. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 279 The Project sponsor initiated a criteria evaluation that included the above referenced essential factors to operate a viable wind power facility. In addition to local landowner support, the Project sponsor continued with the development of a community based wind project for the following reasons: • It provides a desirable wind resource; based upon an ongoing meteorological monitoring program initiated in November 2006. • It is immediately adjacent to the NYSEG Montour Falls – Coddington Road Line; a suitable 115kV interconnection transmission facility, which has available capacity to transmit power from the Project to the New York State grid; • The site is relatively rural, and the area within the vicinity of the proposed Project generating site is of low population and residential density. Therefore turbines on the site will generally be remote from significant population centers and occupied structures and will readily exceed setback requirements as set forth in the Town’s Wind Energy Law. In addition, the Project Site includes existing farm lanes within the generating site that can be upgraded, thereby minimizing impacts associated with construction access roads in new locations. For all of the reasons described above, the Project Site is the preferred location for the proposed action. 5.3 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DESIGN/LAYOUT 5.3.1 Wind Turbine Selection Several factors drive the selection of wind turbines for the Project, including market competition, market (supply) availability, industry trends, and importantly, site and wind resource suitability. As discussed in Section 2.2.1, the type of wind turbine generator proposed for the Project is a 1.80 MW, three-bladed, upwind turbine design with 80- meter hub height and 100-meter rotor diameter. Most modern commercial scale wind turbines are three-bladed designs with the rotor position maintained upwind (on the windy side of the tower) using electrical motors in their yaw mechanism (used to turn the wind turbine rotor against the wind). The vast majority of commercial scale turbines sold in world markets have this design. Wind power projects in New York (both proposed and operational) include turbines that range in size from 660 kW to 3 MW. Driven by both economics and technological change, the national and international trend in the industry is Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 280 towards larger turbines, in the form of taller towers and larger rotor diameters. Typically proposed turbines have 80 meter (262.5 feet) to 100 meter (328 feet) tall hub heights and 80 meter (262.5 feet) to 112 meter (367.4 feet) diameter rotors, and 120 meter (393.6 feet) hub heights and 120 meter (393.6 feet) rotor diameters are starting to enter the market. Higher hub heights generally equate to higher wind speeds while larger rotor diameters capture more of the available wind energy. The site specific wind resource characteristics are the drivers in selecting the optimal hub height, rotor diameter, as well as the turbine design to maximize wind energy capture and electricity generation. Wind turbines are designed for various wind speed profiles from very energetic Class I regimes (average wind speeds greater than 8.5 m/s) to lower Class III regimes (< 7.5 m/s). These lower Class III wind conditions are typical to New York, and the use of Class III turbines here is consistent with the stated objectives of the Project Sponsor and current industry practices. Fewer small turbines types are available in the US market for low wind regimes. However, if the Project specified the use of smaller turbine (lower hub height/smaller rotor diameter/smaller rated capacity) the number of turbines required to meet the Project’s stated purpose, need and benefits would have to increase. The current generating site boundary cannot accommodate a project of greater than seven turbines, due to landowner participation, site constraints including turbine spacing requirements and significant freshwater wetlands. See Figure 4 with required setbacks depicting where turbines can be sited within the Project Site. The use of a greater number of smaller turbines (lower hub height and/or smaller rotor diameter) may have the effect of minimizing visibility (See section 3.6 for a discussion of visual impacts of the proposed turbines), but would be limited given the elevated setting of the generating site. Temporary and permanent impacts to streams, wetlands, soils, and vegetation associated with constructing more than seven turbines and associated infrastructure (gathering lines, staging areas and roads) would significantly outweigh any slight potential benefits associated with smaller turbines. For example, if the Project chose to use a Gamesa 850 (850 kW) wind turbine (a wind turbine available in the US in low wind regimes), the overall height of the turbine could be reduced to 74 meters, but require up to 15 wind turbines to reach approximately 12.6 MW. Development of 15 turbines is an approximately 54% increase in site development footprint. It is reasonable to assume there would be a proportional increase in length of new access roads, electrical interconnection lines, and staging area size. Using these assumptions, it is estimated that the overall impacts to vegetation, streams, wetlands and soils will also increase by approximately 54%. Another possible alternative is the selection of an even larger Class III wind turbine generator. With both a longer turbine radius and a higher generator capacity rating, it is possible to generate an equivalent amount of clean power with a smaller number of total towers and thus an even smaller footprint (fewer turbines). For example, a Vestas V112 3.0 MW machine with a 112-meter rotor could be selected which would require 4 turbines to generate Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 281 approximately 12.6 MW. However, for a project anticipated to be energized in 2014, the Project sponsor does not currently have access to any wind turbines larger than the proposed Repower MM100. In addition, larger machines have a higher construction cost and have a lower capacity factor. After further analysis, it was evident that a smaller machine was the most economical option for the Project. 5.3.2 Alternate Turbine Layouts The process of determining Project design and layout involves continuous evaluation of alternatives. This process resulted in a number of interim layouts since its inception in early 2009. The evolution of turbine layouts provides additional basis for this alternatives analysis. The number of turbines has fluctuated throughout the Project design/layout process so the differences among the evolving layout alternatives are the result of shifts in turbine locations and associated infrastructure. These shifts have occurred primarily as a result of wetland impact minimization, wind resource optimization, construction constraints, nuisance impact avoidance and increased landowner participation. The steps involved in determining the final location of project components (wind turbines, electrical lines, access roads, and substation) generally include: 1. Measure site-specific wind resource patterns and quantities. 2. Obtain volunteer landowner and neighbor agreements. 3. Perform a site constraint analysis. 4. Develop a preliminary turbine layout. 5. Develop a preliminary access road and electrical layout. 6. Perform site specific studies and data collection 7. Minimize impacts to identified constraints; revise layout as required. 8. Review layout changes with participating landowners, revise layout as required. Once the overall Project Site was evaluated for initial siting criteria, the Project Sponsor installed a wind measurement/meteorological tower to collect site specific data to develop a turbine array design. During the array development, the Project Sponsor developed voluntary agreements with willing landowners and neighbors that would allow for the construction and operation of all Project components including turbines, buried electrical lines, access roads, and the substation. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 282 After landowner participation status was substantially advanced, a site constraint analysis was performed to identify suitable preliminary locations for wind turbines only. Site constraints include, but are not limited to, mapped wetlands and streams, local law setback requirements to property lines/roads, proximity to non-participating permanent residential structures, microwave paths (Fresnel zones), noise levels, agricultural land and steep slopes. The Project Sponsor specifically avoided siting turbines or turbine workspaces directly in wetlands. Preliminary turbine siting is intended to maximize/optimize wind resource and landowner participation, while avoiding site constraints and impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Once a preliminary turbine layout is identified through the constraint analysis and optimization process, access roads and electrical collection lines are defined. The Project Sponsor has several engineering criteria required in initial access road and electrical line layout, including designing the alignments to minimize installation/material costs (shortest sections of road and electrical lines possible). After this initial access road and electrical line layout, modifications are made to avoid or minimize impacts to the identified site resources and to meet landowner requirements for individual siting on private land. Additionally, site modifications are made to minimize impacts including co-locating electrical lines with access roads (where feasible), minimizing new wetland crossings, and re- using the substantial existing network of farm lanes for proposed Project access roads. All preliminary layout efforts were reviewed on site with the landowners, Project engineering and environmental consultants, to minimize impacts to identified site resources and meet landowner requirements. Through an analysis of site develop-ability, wind resource assessment, environmental resource factors, and review of the site’s zoning constraints, a proposed project layout was developed by the Project sponsor. The layout of seven turbine sites as proposed is satisfactory to the participating landowners and results in a carefully achieved balance of energy production and environmental protection. Significant relocation of any of the turbines to a site other than one of the identified seven sites would have a ripple effect, in that the location of other turbines would have to be reexamined and possibly changed to maintain an efficient/workable Project design. Therefore, reduction of environmental impacts in one location could result in increased impact in another location and/or reduced power generation. In the case of visual impact, removal or relocation of one or two individual turbines from a seven-turbine array is unlikely to result in a significant change in Project visibility and visual impact from most locations. 5.3.3 Comparison of Proposed Site Design/Layout Alternatives and Project Size The design and layout of the Project and the Project size represent a continuous process of evaluating alternatives. The planning and siting process described above resulted in numerous interim layouts since its inception in 2009. In addition to the no action alternative, the key layouts explored through this process provide the basis for this Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 283 alternatives analysis: a 20 turbine layout (2009), a 13 turbine layout (2011) and the currently proposed seven-turbine layout (Figure 13). The initial concept 20-turbine layout was generated based almost solely on maximizing the wind generation and energy output or wind resource optimization and served as a starting point for desktop and on-site evaluation of environmental impacts (See Figure 13). As mentioned previously, various siting constraints dictate the size and layout of a wind power project. These constraints make a significantly larger project highly unlikely. A larger project has the potential to result in location of wind turbine towers in areas that do not have ideal wind resources, and would also require installation of more turbines in areas with more sensitive resources, constructability issues and/or higher population density. Although a larger facility would have more economic value, the greater environmental and social impacts do not justify the increased power generation potential of the Project. In the case of the 20- turbine layout it was determined that the turbines were spaced too close, therefore modifications to the array design were necessary to minimize the power loss due to increased wake effect and turbulence, as well as turbulence induced component wear. The initial Project footprint was maintained but the Project layout was next reduced to 13 turbines, which increased spacing between turbines in the interest of wind resource optimization (See Figure 13). Additionally, the 13 turbine layout reduces other land disturbance impacts associated with construction related grading and conversion of land to built facilities, as compared to the 20-turbine alternative. However, after further environmental review, specifically to impacts relating to noise and additional wind resource optimization, it was determined that further reduction of the number of turbines was needed. The initial Project footprint was maintained but the Project layout was next reduced to seven turbines, which increased spacing between turbines in the interest of wind resource optimization and reduced environmental impacts such as noise. Additionally, the seven turbine layout reduces other land disturbance impacts associated with construction related grading and conversion of land to built facilities, as compared to the 13-turbine alternative. A project of significantly fewer turbines than the currently proposed seven turbine layout has the potential to pose challenges to the economic feasibility of the Project, particularly given the estimated interconnection costs in excess of $4 million (NYSEG, Project Sponsor estimates), and the Project’s other substantial fixed and soft costs. If the proposed number of turbines is significantly reduced, the economic feasibility of the Project would be jeopardized and the maximum benefit of the available wind resource would not be realized. As previously mentioned, part of the objective of the proposed action is to create an economically viable wind-powered electrical-generating facility. Therefore, the current seven-turbine layout was proposed within a similar Project footprint to maximize the wind resource on-site without overbuilding the Project Site, while maintaining an economically viable Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 284 5.3.4 Electrical Collection Lines As a matter of general economical design preference, the Project Sponsor would prefer to build all electrical lines in the shortest, most direct alignment between turbines. However, the Project’s electrical collection system will be entirely buried along existing and proposed access roads to significantly consolidate and minimize crossing impacts to on-site vegetative communities, wetland/stream systems and agricultural land. Other potential alternatives including sections of overhead electrical collection lines, or electrical collection lines that were not substantially adjacent to access roads were not considered, as they would result in increased impacts compared to the current Project proposal. 5.3.5 Electrical Transmission Line Because the Project is immediately adjacent to the existing NYSEG Montour Falls-Coddington Road 115kV transmission line, an electrical transmission line is not necessary and therefore was not evaluated. 5.3.6 Collection Substation The location of the substation has been selected for its proximity to other Project components and the electrical collection system. The specific site was selected from a broader area adjacent to the existing electric transmission line based upon existing grade, avoidance of wetlands, and landowner requests/concerns. The proposed location consists of open agricultural land, thus eliminating the need for significant tree removal/clearing. 5.3.7 Access Roads Permanent access road widths will be the minimum necessary to operate and maintain the project. Approximately four miles of access road will be built within the footprint of existing farm drives to reduce the impacts of constructing new roadways in undisturbed land conditions. Access roads will be reduced in size from a construction width of 40 feet to an operation/maintenance width of 15 feet (unless determined otherwise through landowner requests and/or negotiations). Shorter, more direct routes are a more desirable alternative from a project development/cost perspective. However, by following siting guidelines such as utilizing existing farm roads and avoiding significant wetland crossings, this alternative has been rejected. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 285 5.4 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT SIZE Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC had, as of June 2012, a 50 MW interconnection request with the NYISO. However, after site constraints and avoidance and minimization measures were reviewed it was apparent that a 50 MW project in the proposed Project Site was not feasible. As a result, a new interconnection request was submitted to NYISO and approved in February 2013 for 12.6 MW. Therefore the preferred alternative is to construct a facility that has the ability to produce 12.6 MW. A project of significantly more, or fewer, turbines would pose challenges to the technical or economic feasibility of the Project, and would not meet the stated objectives of the Project. If the proposed number of turbines were significantly reduced, the maximum benefit of the available wind resource would not be realized. If the turbine number was even moderately reduced, the Project would cease to be economically viable due to the high fixed cost of interconnection with the power grid. As with environmental impacts, economic benefits would also be reduced proportionately with a smaller project. PILOT payments to local taxing jurisdictions (which are typically developed on a per MW or per turbine basis), as well as construction expenditures, would be greatly reduced. If the proposed number of turbines were significantly increased above seven, the Project Sponsor would need to obtain more leased land area. As mentioned previously, various siting constraints dictate the size and layout of a wind power project. These constraints make a significantly larger number of turbines within the Project Site highly unlikely. A larger project would result in location of wind turbine towers in areas that do not have ideal wind resources, and which may not have willing landowner participants. This alternative would also require installation of more turbines in areas with more sensitive resources. Although a larger facility might theoretically have more economic value, the greater environmental impacts would not justify the marginally increased power generation potential of the Project. 5.5 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES The turbines proposed for the Project will utilize the latest in wind power generation technology to enhance Project efficiency and safety and minimize impacts such as noise. The Project sponsor is proposing to develop up to 12.6 MW of renewable energy. Alternative power generation technologies, such as fossil-fuel and biomass combustion, would not meet the goals of the Project, are not the area of expertise of the Project sponsor, and would pose more significant adverse environmental impacts, particularly on air quality but also on land use, aesthetics, and water resources. Most fossil fuel-fired generating facilities would require significant amounts of water to operate, the use of which may pose impacts to surface water or groundwater resources as well as fish and other aquatic organisms. Nuclear power plants have not been constructed in the U.S. for over 25 years, due primarily to public opposition, high Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 286 cost, and concerns over the safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste. These plants also present potential public safety and security/terrorism concerns. Conventional power plants also would not advance the RPS goal of generating 30% of the state's power by 2015. In regard to other renewable sources of generation, hydroelectric plants have significant impacts on terrestrial and aquatic ecological resources, land use, and aesthetics. In addition, they can only be developed in places with appropriate water volumes and topographic conditions (which do not exist within the Project Site). Other renewable energy technologies, such as solar power and hydrogen, are still either cost-prohibitive, or in the case of solar power, would require a substantially larger area to generate an equivalent amount of electricity. Specific to this site, wind is the only renewable energy source that can help meet energy needs in a technologically and economically efficient manner. It can also do this without the emission of greenhouse gases and other environmental impacts that conventional power generation technologies would create. 5.6 ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION PHASING The Project Sponsor proposes to construct the Project in a single phase during the 2013/2014 construction season. Single phase construction will result in a more efficient construction process, with a shorter duration of construction- related impacts, than a multiple phase construction approach, and will allow resources, such as soils, wildlife, and vegetation, that are temporarily impacted by construction, to begin to recover and/or habituate sooner. In contrast, a multiple phase construction process would result in a longer period of construction disturbance, and would be less economically efficient for both the sponsor and the local beneficiaries of the direct and indirect economic benefits of the Project. 5.7 ALTERNATIVES THAT AVOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS With the exception of the no action alternative, the currently proposed action (seven turbine Project) is considered the alternative that most avoids significant adverse impacts. As discussed above in Section 5.1, the No Action Alternative that the Project Site would continue to exist as agricultural, forested, successional and rural residential land with no impacts including economic benefits and would therefore, not be considered a preferred alternative. With respect to the currently proposed action, unavoidable adverse impacts resulting from Project construction and operation are described in Section 4.0. Temporary, short-term construction related impacts as well as long term operational related impacts are discussed. As described in Section 4.0 and also Section 3.18, the majority of impacts to soils/topography, streams and wetlands, terrestrial ecological communities/wildlife habitat, air quality, and transportation and travel will be temporary and localized and no significant loss of these resources is anticipated. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 287 The permanent displacement, conversion or loss of habitat, as well as stream and wetland acreage has been minimized due to significant siting avoidance measures (See Section 3.2 Water Resources and 3.3 Biological Resources). Operational-related impacts will result from the Project due to its location near rural residential areas and surrounding hamlets and villages (e.g. sound, shadow flicker, visual impact). Relative to other Project impacts, operational impacts may be more significant. The preferred alternative largely avoids these impacts to the maximum extent practicable, through the adherence to local setbacks as applicable. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 288 6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The proposed Project will require the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of certain human, material, environmental, and financial resources, as described below. For the most part, the commitment of these resources will be offset by the benefits that will result from implementation of the Project. Human and financial resources have already been expended by the Project Sponsor, the State of New York (i.e., various state agencies), Tompkins County, and the Town of Enfield for the planning and review of the Project. The expenditure of funds and human resources will continue to be required throughout the permitting and construction phases of the Project (e.g., for environmental reviews and permitting, site plan approval, building and construction inspections). The Project also represents a commitment of land for the life of the Project. Specifically, the approximately 7.0 acres of land to be developed for wind turbines, access roads, and substations will not be available for alternative purposes for the life of the Project. However, because the turbines/towers could be removed, and the land reclaimed for alternative uses at some future date, the commitment of this land to the Project is neither irreversible nor irretrievable. Various types of construction materials and building supplies will be committed to the Project. The use of these materials, such as gravel, concrete, steel, etc., will represent a long-term commitment of these resources, which will not be available for other projects. However, some of these materials (e.g., steel, gravel) will be retrievable following the operational life of the Project, and will likely be retrieved in accordance with Project decommissioning. Energy resources will also be irretrievably committed to the Project, during both the construction and operation of the Project. Fuel, lubricants, and electricity will be required during site preparation and turbine construction activities for the operation of various types of construction equipment and vehicles, and for the transportation of workers and materials to the Project Site. However, the energy resources utilized to construct and operate the Project will be minor compared to the energy generated by the Project and made available to the people of New York State. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 289 7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS In accordance with 6 NYCRR § 617.9(b)(5)(iii)(a), SEQRA requires a discussion of cumulative impacts where such impacts are “applicable and significant.” Cumulative impacts are two or more individual environmental effects which, when taken together, are significant or that compound or increase other environmental effects. The individual effects may be effects resulting from a single project or from separate projects. Where individual effects of the Project may interact with other effects of the Project, such potential cumulative impacts have been addressed in Section 3.0 of the DEIS. This section addresses the potential cumulative impacts that may arise from interactions between the impacts of the Black Oak Wind Farm and the impacts of other projects. In general, cumulative impact analysis of external projects is required where the external projects have been specifically identified and either are part of a single plan or program, or there is a sufficient nexus of common or interactive impacts to warrant assessing such impacts together. Some cumulative impacts are the simple additive effect of the projects (i.e., each will disturb a certain amount of ground surface, wetlands, or natural communities). These additive impacts can be quantified by simply tallying the total impacts resulting from each project, to the extent that such information is known and has been publicly presented. Certain other cumulative impacts may not simply be additive and therefore need a certain level of further analysis. The subsections below discuss whether there are identified projects for which a cumulative impact analysis is required, and assess the extent to which the impacts of such projects will be cumulative with the impacts of the Black Oak Wind Farm. Existing and Approved Projects The Project Sponsor is not aware of any other existing or approved projects within the Town or surrounding area that do, or if constructed, would, have environmental effects that would interact with those of the Project. The nearest existing project is the Howard Wind Power Project located in Steuben County approximately 30 miles east of the Black Oak Wind Project. Due to the separation of this project from the Black Oak Wind Farm, there will be no cumulative construction or operational impacts. Proposed or Future Projects Across New York State, several additional wind-powered generating facilities are in the project planning and development phases. The review and approval status of these projects is highly variable, ranging from preliminary site investigations to those with completed system reliability impact studies (requirement of NYISO), detailed project plans, and landowner agreements. The NYISO reviews projects in three main phases: submittal of an interconnection request, preparation of a feasibility study, and completion of a system reliability impact study. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 290 review process separates projects, initially by feasibility to connect to the New York power grid via a selected transmission facility. Proposed projects in any phase of project review by the NYISO are listed on a comprehensive queue listing maintained by NYISO on their website http://www.nyiso.com. It is reasonable to assume, that wind power projects with in-progress system reliability impact studies and with upcoming proposed operation dates may be considered ‘proposed’ or ‘future’ projects for the purposes of cumulative impact analysis. There are no additional projects proposed in Tompkins County. However, due to the proximity of the Black Oak Wind Farm to Schuyler County, the NYISO queue was researched for any proposed projects for this county. Based on the NYISO queue (updated 2/5/2013), one wind power project is proposed in Schuyler County. The project is the Watkins Glen Wind project (122.4 MW) proposed by NextEra Energy Resources, LLC. To obtain additional information about this project, data available from the NYISO website was reviewed, which revealed that the precise location of this proposed facility is not publicly available. As a result, the actual locations or proposed layout/design of the project is not available, and therefore a detailed cumulative impact analysis cannot be provided. NextEra Energy Resources website was also consulted, however there was no information available on the Watkins Glen Wind project available. According to The Corning Leader (2012), NextEra plans to install 50 to 75 wind turbines across the Towns of Dix, Catharine, and Hector in Schuyler County, and the Town of Catlin in Chemung County. Based on this information, turbines at the proposed Watkins Glen Wind project could be located anywhere from 0.5 mile to 20 miles from the proposed Black Oak Wind Farm. It is important to note that the assumption that the proposed Watkins Glen Wind project would complete the NYISO review; complete SEQRA review; complete state, federal, and local permitting; receive funding; and be constructed is also speculative. The proposed project may not be approved and/or constructed, and therefore would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Black Oak Wind Farm. Nonetheless, for purposes of this DEIS, the Project Sponsor assumes that the proposed project will be approved and constructed, and provides the following analysis of potential cumulative impacts to the extent ascertainable. Due to the limited information about the Watkins Glen Wind project, only a limited analysis is possible. It is reasonable to assume, based upon the limited information available on the Watkins Glen Wind project, that the proposed turbine locations could be located from 0.5 mile to 20 miles from the Project Site. Given that, cumulative impacts to area residences from noise or shadow flicker are unlikely, as the turbines would not overlap or be interspersed with proposed Black Oak Wind Farm turbines (i.e., be located within 0.5 mile of each other). However, potential cumulative impacts could include construction-related impacts to area roads and bridges. This would only occur if two or more projects were constructed simultaneously and if they used the same construction delivery routes. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 291 Should this situation arise, coordination of transportation routes would be undertaken by the involved project developers to assure that the duration and extent of impact is minimized and that road repair/restoration work is accomplished at the appropriate time, and at no cost to the affected jurisdictions. The most likely cumulative impact resulting from the construction of multiple proposed wind power projects near each other would be the effects on visual/aesthetic resources and community character. The cumulative impact of multiple projects will be highly variable depending upon the number of turbines visible, their proximity to the viewer, the landscape setting and the viewer’s attitude toward wind power. If multiple projects were visible from a particular viewpoint, the typical scenario would have portions of one project being visible in the foreground or midground while another is visible in the background. Although a project may be visible from many miles away, its visual impact diminishes significantly at distances over 3.5 miles (Eyre, 1995). In addition, long distance views across Tompkins and Schuyler Counties are highly variable and often screened by valley topography and forest vegetation. As indicated in the cumulative viewshed analysis prepared as part of the VIA (Appendix Q), visibility of multiple projects (if they are ultimately built) would generally be restricted to elevated, open (agricultural) ridgetops, where residential density is generally lower (as opposed to villages and hamlets which are often located in valley settings and have limited outward views to the landscape due to the presence of building and trees and intervening topography). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 292 8.0 GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS Certain proposed actions covered under the SEQRA process have the potential to trigger further development by either attracting a significant local population, inviting commercial or industrial growth, or by inducing the development of similar projects adjacent to the built facility. The proposed Project does not require a work force greater than approximately three employees during operations, and therefore will not lead to significant growth in local population or housing. Although it will support the local economy through the purchase of goods and services, the type and level of expenditures are not of the sort that would generate significant growth of businesses that serve the proposed facility. Therefore, secondary/indirect impacts resulting in local growth are not anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed action. The Black Oak Wind Project is proposed, in part, because of the presence of existing resources and facilities that allow the Project to be economically viable. Specifically, the availability of adequate wind and the presence of an existing transmission line allow for generation and transmission of the Project's electric output to the state power grid. The occurrence of these resources/facilities might suggest that other wind power projects could be proposed on adjacent lands. However, this would be the case with or without the proposed Project. Its presence alone will not necessarily encourage the development of additional wind power projects in the area. In fact, because existing transmission facilities have limited additional capacity, future projects will be more difficult to develop if such development could only be accommodated by upgrading the existing transmission line. If this were the case, such upgrades would likely make future projects less economically viable. In addition, landowner willingness and environmental sensitivity play a significant role in the location of wind power projects. As currently proposed, the Project maximizes the available land resource of willing landowners while maintaining environmental sensitivity. Any further development of wind power within the Town of Enfield will be subject to these same environmental, regulatory, and access constraints, regardless of whether or not the proposed Project is constructed. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 293 9.0 EFFECTS ON USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES In a July 15, 2009 policy titled Guide for Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Environmental Impact Statement, the NYSDEC Office of Air, Energy, and Climate states, “Global climate change is emerging as one of the most important environmental challenges of our time. There is scientific consensus that human activity is increasing the concentration of [greenhouse gas] in the atmosphere and that this, in turn, is leading to serious climate change. These climate changes will continue to affect the environment and natural resources of the State of New York” (NYSDEC, 2009b). A subsequent policy titled Climate Change and DEC Action released by NYSDEC Commissioner Grannis on October 22, 2010 states, “Based on overwhelming scientific evidence, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recognizes that New York State’s air and water quality, forests, fish and wildlife habitats, and people and communities, are at risk from climate change. In order to perform its core mission of conserving, improving, and protecting the State’s natural resources and environment, DEC must incorporate climate change considerations into all aspects of its activities…” (NYSDEC, 2010b). In addition, the NYSDEC has revised the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), effective 2013, which requires a more detailed analysis of a proposed action’s potential impact on air quality. Specifically, the revised EAF will require a relative quantification of greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Clearly the NYSDEC, whose mission is “to conserve, improve and protect New York’s natural resources and environment, and to prevent, abate and control water, land and air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well-being”, is concerned about the negative effects of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed Project will have significant, long-term beneficial effects on the use and conservation of energy resources. The operating Project will generate up to approximately 13 MW of electricity without consuming cooling water or emitting pollutants. Assuming that the average house in New York uses approximately 7.3 MWh of electric power per year and that the average house in the United States uses approximately 11.5 MWh of electric power per year (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012a), and assuming the Project generates approximately 35% of its nameplate generating capacity, this is enough power to support between approximately 5,400 and 3,500 average homes (based on the New York and national averages, respectively). The Project will add to and diversify the state’s sources of power generation, accommodate future growth in power demand through the use of a renewable resource (wind), and over the long term will displace some of the state’s older, less efficient, and dirtier sources of power. Wind energy generation results in reductions in air emissions because of the way the electric power system works. Generally, the most expensive power sources will be "backed down" when there is a sufficient source of wind energy available. Wind energy is a preferred power source on an Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 294 economic basis because the operating costs to run the turbines are low and there are no fuel costs. Therefore, wind turbines produce power that reduces the need for generation from individual fossil fuel-fired power plants or units, thereby reducing fuel consumption and the resulting air emissions that would have otherwise occurred (Jacobson and High, 2008). The specific types of fossil fuel-fired power units and associated emissions that will be displaced by wind energy generation vary significantly among states and regions of the country. The displaced emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and mercury generally will be greater in regions with large amounts of coal-fired generation and lower in areas where natural gas is the primary fuel (such as New England). However, even in New England, where natural gas is a major source of generation, wind energy backs down some generating units fired by coal and residual oil at certain times (GE Energy, 2005). In June 2007, former Governor Spitzer and Lieutenant Governor Paterson formed the NYS Renewable Energy Task Force to investigate the implementation of increased renewable energy sources in the State. The Task Force published a report in February of 2008 that is intended to serve as a policy "road map" to address the many challenges we face in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, stimulating investment in clean energy alternatives, and moving toward a Clean Energy Economy in New York State. In the conclusion of their report, the Task Force provides the following message: "New York faces compelling reasons to put renewable technologies to use in large scale…New York has significant opportunities to advance these technologies, which will in turn improve our energy security, the reliability of our current energy infrastructure, and create new business opportunities and green collar jobs of every level. If our society is to begin addressing these critical challenges we face, New York must begin transitioning away from relying on conventional energy sources. Rather, we need to adequately educate our citizens to use and accept renewable resources as an integral part of the solution" (Renewable Energy Task Force, 2008). In addition, in December 2012 the New York Energy Highway Task Force issued the New York Energy Highway Blueprint, on behalf of Governor Andrew Cuomo. Regarding the importance of renewable energy in New York State, the Blueprint states that “modernizing our generation assets promotes environmental and efficiency goals and preparing well in advance for the potential closure of power plants is critical to safeguarding system reliability and protecting consumers.” The Blueprint also contends that new renewable energy projects provide sustained environmental benefits through reduced local and state air emissions, and can also generate short- and long-term economic development through construction, operation, and maintenance jobs, expenditures for supplies and materials, and tax payments to local communities (NY Energy Highway Task Force, 2012). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 295 10.0 REFERENCES Allison, T.D. 2012. Eagles and Wind Energy: Identifying Research Priorities. Prepared for the American Wind Wildlife Institute, Washington, DC. May 2012. American Wind Energy Association. 2008. Wind Energy and the Environment. Available at: http://www.awea.org/faq/ (Accessed October 22, 2008). Ames Laboratory, The. 2010. Wind Turbines on Farmland May Benefit Crops. Available at: http://www.ameslab. gov/news/news-releases/wind-turbines (Accessed November 26, 2012). AWEA. 2013. The AWEA Blog: Into the Wind. Available at: http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm? customel_dataPageID_1699=19460 (Accessed January 21, 2013). AWS Truewind, LLC. 2009. New York State Wind Energy Toolkit. Prepared for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. May 2009. Available at: http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/BusinessAreas/Energy- Efficiency-and-Renewable-Programs/Renewables/Large-Wind/Wind-Energy-Toolkit.aspx?sc_database=web (Accessed May 2013). Australian Wind Energy Association. 2003. Wind Farming & Tourism. Published by the Clean Energy Council. Available at: http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/technologies/wind/AusWEA-fact-sheets.html (Accessed June 2012). Arnett, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J.K. Fiedler, B.L. Hamilton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R. Koford, C.P. Nicholson, T.J. O’Connell, M.D. Piorkowski, and R.D. Tankersley, Jr. 2008. Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1): 61-78. Arnett, E.B., M.M.P Huso, M.R. Schirmacher, and J.P. Hayes. 2011. Altering Turbine Speed Reduces Bat Mortality at Wind-energy Facilities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(4): 209–214. Babcock, M. 2013. [Personal Communication]. Transportation Supervisor, Trumansburg Central School District. Email correspondence with Sara Stebbins on May 30, 2013. Baerwald, E.F., J. Edworthy, M. Holder, and R.M.R. Barclay. 2009. A Large-scale Mitigation Experiment to Reduce Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7):1077–1081. Baidya Roy, S., S.W. Pacala, and R.L. Walko. 2004. Can Large Wind Turbines Affect Local Meteorology? Journal of Geophysical Research: Volume 109, D190101. Barrett, J. 2006. [Personal Communication]. Professional Engineer. Electronic mail correspondence on May 4, 2006. BirdWatching. 2011. Birding Briefs: Birds Killed at West Virginia Wind Farm. Birdwatching Magazine, digital edition. Published December 22, 2011. Available at: http://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/Getting%20Started/Birding% 20Briefs/2011/12/Hundreds%20of%20birds%20killed%20at%20West%20Virginia%20wind%20farm.aspx (Accessed February 14, 2013). Bowers, C. 2013. [Personal Communication]. Deputy Officer. Phone correspondence on February, 11, 2013. Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Wildlife Management Institute Publication. Stackpole Books. Mechanicsburg, PA. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 296 Boynton, R. 2013. [Personal Communication]. Route Coordinator, Ithaca City School District. Email correspondence with Sara Stebbins on May 30, 2013. British Epilepsy Association. 2007. Photosensitive Epilepsy. Epilepsy Action, Yeadon Leeds, UK. Brockner, C. 2013. [Personal Communication]. Transportation Supervisor, Newfield Central Schools. Email correspondence with Sara Stebbins on May 30, 2013. Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA). 2012. About Stray Voltage: Stray Voltage Fact Sheet. Carter, J. 2011. The Effect of Wind Farms on Residential Property Values in Lee County, Illinois. Available at: http://renewableenergy.illinoisstate.edu/wind/publications/2011%20Wind%20Farms%20Effect%20on%20Property%2 0Values%20in%20Lee%20County.pdf (Accessed February 18, 2013). Cattin, R., Kunz, S., Heimo, A., Russi, G., Russi, M., Tiefgraber, M. 2008. Wind Turbine Ice Throw Studies in the Swiss Alps. Produced for Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research, Swiss Federal Offices of Energy and of Transport, Elektrizitätswerk, Ursern, Enercon, Boschung, Kelag, Markasub and Swisscom. Cayuga Medical Center. 2013. Cayuga Medical Center. Available at: http://www.cayugamed.org/cmcindex.cfm. (Accessed January 28, 2013). Chamberlain, D.E., M.R. Rehfisch, A.D. Fox, M. Desholm, and S.J. Anthony. 2006. The Effect of Avoidance Rates on Bird Mortality Predictions Made by Wind Turbine Collision Risk Models. Ibis 148: 198-202. Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) of Ontario. 2010. The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines. May 2010. Available at: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/ministry/publications/reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdf (Accessed February 18, 2013). Colby, W.D., R. Dobie, G. Leventhall, D. M. Lipscomb, R. J. McCunney, M. T. Seilo, and B. Sondergaard. 2009. Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review. Prepared for American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association. Coleman, J. and S. Temple. 1993. Rural Residents’ Free-Ranging Cats: A Survey. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:381- 389. Cooper, C. and B. Sovacool. 2007. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Network for New Energy Choices. Report No. 01-07. June 2007. Cornell Program on Applied Demographics (Cornell PAD). 2011. New York State Projection Data by County. Available at http://pad.human.cornell.edu/counties/projections.cfm. (Accessed January 24, 2013). Corning Leader, The. 2012. NextEra Plans Wind Turbines at WGI. Article by Derrick Ek, published May 3, 2012. Available at: http://www.the-leader.com/news/x1018081840/NextEra-plans-wind-turbines-at-WGI (Accessed February 18, 2013). Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goblet and E.T. LaRoae. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, OBS-79/31, Washington, D.C. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 297 DeGaetano, A., T. Bates, H. Walter-Peterson, J. Hecklau, and T. Davenport. 2004. Chautauqua Windpower Project: Report on Potential Microclimatic Impacts to Vineyards. Prepared for the Towns of Ripley and Westfield, New York. December 8, 2004. Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, M.P. Nenneman, and B.R. Eulis. 1998. Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Short-eared Owl. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 10 pp. Revised 2000. DeLucas, M., G.F.E. Janss, and M. Ferrer. 2004. The Effects of a Wind Farm on Birds in a Migration Point: The Strait of Gibraltar. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 395-407. Department of Defense Siting Clearinghouse (DoD Siting Clearinghouse). 2013. Department of Defense Siting Clearinghouse. Available at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dodsc/ (Accessed March 6, 2013). Department of Health (DOH). 2012. Department of Health Information for a Healthy New York. Available at: http://www.health.ny.gov/ (Accessed January 28, 2013). Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD). 2012. Policy Planning and Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria. The State of Victoria, Department of Planning and Community Development, Melbourne, Australia. 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. Education. 2013. Enfield Community Christian School. Available at: http://www.education.com/ (Accessed February, 11, 2013). edr Companies (edr). 2010. Environmental Compliance Manual. Hardscrabble Wind Power Project, Herkimer County, New York. Prepared for Iberdrola Renewables. June 2010. Ellenbogen, J. M., S. Grace, W. J. Heigher-Bernays, J. F. Manwell, D. A. Mills, K. A. Sullivan, M. G. Weisskopf. 2012. Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel. January 2012. Prepared for Massachusetts Deparment of Environmental Protection and Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Available at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/turbine_impact_study.pdf (Accessed February 18, 2013). Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012a. Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/ tools/faqs/#electricity (Accessed December 18, 2012). EIA. 2012b. State Energy Data System. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_sum/plain_ html/rank_use.html (Accessed December 18, 2012). EIA. 2012c. AEO2012 Early Release Overview. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er% 282012%29.pdf (Accessed June 5, 2012). Enfield Volunteer Fire and Rescue. 2012. Enfield Volunteer Fire and Rescue. Available at: http://www. enfieldfirecompany.com/index.html (Accessed January 28, 2013). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Office of Noise Abatement and Control Publication 550/9-74-004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 298 EPA. 2012. How Does the Electricity I Use Compare to the National Average? Available using ZIP code 14850 at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html (Accessed January 31, 2013). Epilepsy Society. 2012. Wind Turbines and Photosensitive Epilepsy. Available at: http://www.epilepsysociety. org.uk/AboutEpilepsy/Whatisepilepsy/Triggers/Photosensitiveepilepsy/windturbines (Accessed April 12, 2013). Last updated June 2012. Erickson, W., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, K.J. Sernka, and R. Good. 2001. Avian Collisions With Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Collision Mortality in the United States. White paper prepared for the National Wind Coordinating Committee, Avian Subcommittee. Washington, DC. Erickson, W.G., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, and K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting, and Mortality Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Power Developments. Booneville Power Administration. Portland, OR. Erickson, W., G.D. Johnson, and D.P. Young. 2005. A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-GTR- 191. Eyre, N.J. 1995. European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, JOULE, Externalities of Energy, “Extern E” Project. Volume 6. Wind and Hydro, Part I, Wind, pp1-121, Report No. EUR 16525. Finger Lakes Trail Conference. 2013. About the Finger Lakes Trail. Available at: http://www.fltconference.org/trail/go-hiking/about-trail/ (Accessed February 2013). Garrad Hassan Canada, Inc. 2007. Recommendations For Risk Assessments of Ice Throw and Blade Failure in Ontario. Prepared for the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). Document Number 38079/OR/01. May 2007. Garvin, J.C., C.S. Jennelle, D. Drake, and S.M. Grodsky. 2011. Response of Raptors to a Windfarm. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 199-209. GE Energy. 2005. The Effects of Integrating Wind Power on Transmission System Planning, Reliability, and Operations. Report on Phase 2: System Performances Evaluation. Prepared for NYSERDA. March 4, 2005. Gibbs, J.P., A.R. Breisch, P.K. Ducey, G. Johnson, J.L. Behler, and R.C. Bothner. 2007. The Amphibians and Reptiles of New York State. Oxford University Press. 422 pp. Global Energy Concepts. 2005. Public Health and Safety. Prepared for New York Energy Research and Development Authority, October 2005. Available at: http://www.powernaturally.org/Programs/Wind/toolkit/18_ publichealthandsafety.pdf (Accessed October 4, 2011). Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH). 2012. Noise Study for Black Oak Wind Farm Project. Prepared for Black Oak Wind LLC. March 9, 2012. HMMH. 2013a. Visual Impact Assessment, Black Oak Wind Project. Prepared for Black Oak Wind LLC. HMMH Report No. 304750.0. March 2013. HMMH. 2013b. Black Oak Wind Farm Shadow Flicker Study. Prepared for Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC. HMMH Report No. 304750. March 2013. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 299 Hatch. 2011. Black Oak Wind Project – NYISO Interconnect Feasibility Study. Prepared for Enfield Energy, Ithaca New York by Hatch, Mississauga, ON. Haughton, J., D. Giuffre, J. Barrett, and D.G. Tuerck. 2004 An Economic Analysis of a Wind Farm in Nantucket Sound. Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, Boston, MA. May 2004. 83 pages. Available at: http://www. beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/Windmills2004/WindFarmArmyCorps.pdf (Accessed February 18, 2013). Hawk Migration Association of North America. 2012. Eastern Continental Flyway [website]. Available at: http://www.hmana.org/ecf.php (Accessed April 2012). Heintzelman, M.D. and C.M. Tuttle. 2011. Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis of Wind Power Facilities. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1803601 (Accessed February 18, 2013). Herkert, J.R., S.A. Simpson, R.L. Westemeier, T.L. Esker, and J.W. Walk. 1999. Response of Northern Harriers and Short-eared Owls to Grassland Management in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 517-523. Hessler, G.F., D.M. Hessler, P. Brandstaett, and K. Bay. 2008. Experimental Study to Determine Wind-Induced Noise and Windscreen Attentuation Effects on Microphone Response for Environmental Wind Turbine and Other Applications. Noise Control Engineering Journal, J.56, July-August 2008. Hinman, J. 2010. Wind Farm Proximity and Property Values: A Pooled Hedonic Regression Analysis of Property Values in Central Illinois. Thesis. Illinois State University. May 2010. 143 pages. Available at http://renewable energy.illinoisstate.edu/wind/publications/2010%20Wind%20Farm%20Proximity%20and%20Property%20Values.pdf (Accessed February 18, 2013). Hoen, B. 2006. Impacts of Windmill Visibility on Property Values in Madison County, New York. Master’s thesis. Bard Center for Environmental Policy. April, 2006. Hoen, B., R. Wiser, P. Cappers, M. Thayer, and G. Sethi. 2009. The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division. December 2009. Howe, R.W., W. Evans, and A.T. Wolf. 2002. Effects of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats in Northeastern Wisconsin. Prepared for the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and Madison Gas and Electric Company. November 21, 2002. Hubbell, D. [Personal Communication]. President of Enfield Fire Company. Phone correspondence on January 31, 2013. Innef, J. 2013. [Personal Communication]. State Police Trooper. Phone correspondence on February, 11, 2013. Institute for Integrated Rural Tourism. 2003. Tourism Questionnaires: tourism impacts of the proposed East Haven Wind Farm. Available at: http://www.easthavenwindfarm.com/ (Accessed June, 2012). Integrated Environmental Data, LLC (IEDat). 2009. Report on Bat Activity in Enfield, NY. December 2009. Jacobson, D.J. and C. High. 2008. Wind Energy and Air Emission Reduction Benefits: A Primer. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/policy/wind_air_ emissions.pdf (Accessed February 6, 2013). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 300 Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2007. Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project Post Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study – 2006. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC for PPM Energy, Horizon Energy, and the Technical Advisory Committee for the Maple Ridge Project Study. May 31, 2007. 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. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC for PPM Energy, Horizon Energy, and the Technical Advisory Committee for the Maple Ridge Project Study. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2009b. Annual Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project Post Construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study – 2008. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC for PPM Energy, Horizon Energy, and the Technical Advisory Committee for the Maple Ridge Project Study. Jain A., P. Kerlinger P., R. Curry, L. Slobodnik L., J. Histed, and J. Meacham. 2009c. Post-construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study – 2008: Annual Report for the Noble Clinton Windpark, LLC. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Jain A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik, A. Fuerst, and C. Hansen. 2009d. Post-construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study – 2008: Annual Report for the Noble Ellenburg Windpark, LLC. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik , J. Quant, and D. Pursell. 2009e. Annual Report for the Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC, Post-construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study – 2008. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, L. Slobodnik, R. Curry, and K. Russell. 2010a. Annual Report for the Noble Ellenburg Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study – 2009. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May, NJ. 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 by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May, NJ. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, L. Slobodnik, R. Curry, A. Fuerst, and A. Harte. 2010c. Annual Report for the Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC, Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study – 2009. Prepared by Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May, NJ. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik , J. Quant, and D. Pursell. 2011a. Annual Report for the Noble Wethersfield Windpark, LLC: Pre-construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study – 2010. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik , J. Quant, and D. Pursell. 2011b. Annual Report for the Noble Altona Windpark, LLC Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study – 2010. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, L. Slobodnik , J. Quant, and D. Pursell. 2011c. Annual Report for the Noble Chateaugay Windpark, LLC Post-construction Bird and Bat Fatality Study – 2010. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, R.E. Good, and P. Becker. 2000a. Avian and Bat Mortality Associated in the Initial Phase of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming: November 3, 1998-October 31, 1999. Report to SeaWest Energy Corp. and Bureau of Land Management. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 301 Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, and D.A. Shepherd. 2000b. Avian Monitoring Studies at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Wind Resource Area: Results of a 4-Year Study. Prepared for Northern States Power Company by Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, WY. September 22, 2000. Johnson, G.D., and M.D. Strickland. 2004. An Assessment of Potential Collision Mortality of Migrating Indiana Bats (Myotis sodalis) and Virginia Big-eared Bats (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) Traversing Between Caves. Supplement to: Biological Assessment for the Federally Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) and Virginia Big- eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus). Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. Cheyenne, WY. Katzner, T., B.W. Smith, T.A. Miller, D. Brandes, J. Cooper, M. Lanzone, D. Brauning, C. Farmer, S. Harding, D.E. Kramar, C. Koppie, C. Maissonneuve, M. Martell, E.K. Mojica, C. Todd., J.A. Tremblay, M. Wheeler, D.F. Brinker, T.E. Chubbs, R. Gubler, K. O’Malley, S. Mehus, B. Porter, R.P. Brooks, B.D. Watts, and K.L. Bildstein. 2012. Status, Biology, and Conservation Priorities for North America’s Eastern Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Population. The Auk 129(1): 168-176. Kerns, J., and P. Kerlinger. 2004. A Study of Bird and Bat Collision Fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual Report for 2003. Report to FPL Energy and the MWEC Technical Review Committee. Kerlinger, P. 2002. An Assessment of the Impacts of Green Mountain Power Corporation's Wind Power Facility on Breeding and Migrating Birds in Searsburg, Vermont. Report to National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. Golden, CO. Kerlinger, P., and J. Guarnaccia. 2007. Phase I Avian Risk Assessment Roaring Brook Wind Power Project, Lewis County, NY. Prepared for PPM Energy. July 2007. Kerlinger, P., and J. Guarnaccia. 2009. Breeding Bird Survey – 2009 Noble Bliss Windpark, Wyoming County, New York. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Prepared by Curry & Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May Point, NJ. Kerlinger, P., and J. Guarnaccia. 2010. Grassland Nesting Bird Displacement Study – 2010, Noble Wethersfield Windpark, Wyoming County, New York. Prepared for Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Prepared by Curry & Kerlinger, LLC, Cape May Point, NJ. Kerlinger, P., and F.R. Moore. 1989. Atmospheric Structure and Avian Migration. Current Ornithology (6): 109-142. Plenum Press, NY. Klem, D., Jr. 1991. Glass and Bird Kills: an Overview and Suggested Planning and Design Methods of Preventing a Fatal Hazard. In Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environments, pp. 99-103. NIUW Symposium Series 2. L.W. Adams and D.L. Leedy (eds). National Institute for Urban Wildlife. Columbia, MD. Koford, R., A. Jain, G. Zenner, and A. Hancock. 2005. Avian Mortality Associated With the Top of Iowa Wind Farm. Iowa Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Iowa State University. Ames, IA. Korsgaard, J., and I. Mortensen. 2006. Lightning Protection Sought for Wind Turbine Blades. North American Windpower 3(1): 16-19. Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland, R. W. Thresher, and M.D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats: Questions, Research Needs, and Hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(6): 315-324. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 302 Langston, R.H.W., and J.D. Pullan. 2003. Windfarms and Birds: An Analysis of the Effects of Wind Farms on Birds, and Guidance on Environmental Assessment Criteria and Site Selection Issues. Report T-PVS/Inf (2003) 12, by BirdLife International to the Council of Europe, Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. RSPB/BirdLife in the UK. Leventhall, G. 2009. Direct Testimony of Dr. Mark Roberts on Behalf of Wisconsin Electric Power Company. Docket No. 6630-CE-302. October 20, 2009. Leddy, K., K. Higgins, and D. Naugle. 1999. Effects of Wind Turbines on Upland Nesting Birds in Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111:100-104. 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. Lutomske, A. 2013. [Personal Communication]. Director of Transportation, Odessa-Montour Central School District. Email correspondence with Sara Stebbins on May 30, 2013. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADEP & MADPH). 2012. Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel. January 2012. Miller, A. 2008. Patterns of Avian and Bat Mortality at a Utility-Scaled Wind Farm on the Southern High Plains. Thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. Morgan, C., and E. Bossanyi, H. Seifert. 1998. Assessment of Safety Risks Arising from Wind Turbine Icing. BOREAS IV. March 31 – April 2, 1998. Hetta, Finland. National Audubon Society. 2010. The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results. Available at: http://www.christmasbirdcount.org (Accessed May 2012). National Audubon Society. 2013. Important Bird Areas Program. Available at: http://web4.audubon.org/bird/ iba/index.html (Accessed February 5, 2013). National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). 2010. Wind Turbines and Health: A Rapid Review of the Evidence. Australian Government, July 2010. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 2002. EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power: Questions and Answers. National Institute of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. June 2002. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2008. 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply. Prepared for Department of Energy (DOE). 2008. Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdf (Accessed January 31, 2013) National Research Council (NRC). 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. Prepared by the Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects. National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC). 2010. Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds and Bats: a Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions. NWCC c/oRESOLVE, Washington, DC. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 303 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Climate Information for Tompkins County in the State of New York. Retrieved September 19, 2011 from http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/climchoice.pl?state=ny& county=36109. NRCS. 2012. New York Portion of the 2012 National Hydric Soil List. Available at: http://soils.usda.gov/ use/hydric/ (Accessed May 2013). Last updated April 2012. Newfield Central School. 2011. Newfield Central School Bus Routes – 2011-2012. Available at: http://www.newfieldschools.org/sites/default/files/Bus%20Route%20Description%202011.pdf (Accessed May 2013). New Jersey Audubon Society. 2008. Post-Construction Wildlife Monitoring at the Atlantic City Utilities Authority – Jersey Atlantic Wind Power Facility. Prepared for the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. February 18, 2008. New York Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 2011a. Online Conservation Guide for Platanthera hookeri. Available at: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=9707 (Accessed May 2012). NHP. 2011b. Online Conservation Guide for Myotis sodalis. Available at: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php? id=7405 (Accessed May 2012). NHP. 2011c. Online Conservation Guide for Myotis leibii. Available at: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php? id=7406 (Accessed May 2012). NHP. 2011d. Online Conservation Guide for Glyptemys muhlenbergii. Available at: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/ guide.php?id=7507 (Accessed January 2013). New York Energy Highway Task Force. 2012. New York Energy Highway Blueprint. December 2012. New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSA&M). 2009. Guidance Document Series, Farmland Protection Implementation Grant Program: Title Commitment and Curatives for Conservation Easements. GD#5, January 7, 2009. NYSA&M. 2013. Department of Agriculture & Markets [website]. Available at: http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/ (Accessed May 2013). New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Not Dated. New York State 2000 Toxic Release Inventory Report. Retrieved September 19, 2011 from http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8434.html. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2000. Program Policy: Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts. DEP-00-2. Division of Environmental Permits, Albany, NY. NYSDEC. 2001. Program Policy: Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. DEP-00-1. Division of Environmental Permits, Albany, New York. Issued October 6, 2000; revised February 2, 2001. NYSDEC. 2007. New York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas Data. Bureau of Wildlife, Albany NY. November 20, 2007. NYSDEC. 2009a. Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects. Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/finwindguide.pdf (Accessed February 2013). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 304 NYSDEC. 2009b. Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements. Issued July, 15, 2009. NYSDEC. 2010a. “White Nose Syndrome” Likely in All NYS Bat Caves. Environment DEC, December 2010. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/environmentdec/70125.html (Accessed July 2012). NYSDEC. 2010b. Climate Change and DEC Action. Issued October 22, 2010. NYSDEC. 2011. New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2011 [website]. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8536.html (Accessed March 15, 2013). NYSDEC. 2012. New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html (Accessed April 26, 2012). NYSDEC. 2013. Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9331.html (Accessed February 5, 2013). NYSDEC and New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP). 2009. New York State Open Space Conservation Plan. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_ forests_pdf/osp09complete.pdf (Accessed February 5, 2013). New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). 2012. Regional Fish Health Advisories. Available at: http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/fish/health_advisories/regional/ (Accessed December 18, 2012). New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Office of Council Advisory Opinion Unit (NYS DTF). 2009. Advisory Opinion, Petition No. S090220A. Available at: http://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/advisory_opinions/sales_ao_2009.htm. (Accessed March, 2013). New York State Education Department (NYSED). 2012. New York State Report Cards. Available at: https:// reportcards.nysed.gov/ (Accessed January 28, 2013). New York State Energy Planning Board. 2009. 2009 State Energy Plan. Issued December 2009. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2008. Wind Energy: A Guide for Wind Site Development. Available at: http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/en/Programs/Renewables/~/media/Files/EERP/ Renewables/guide-to-wind-dev.ashx (Accessed January 22, 2013). NYSERDA. 2012. The New York State Renewable Portfolio Standard Performance Report. Available at: http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/en/Page-Sections/Energy-and-Environmental-Markets/Renewable-Portfolio-Standard/~/ media/Files/Publications/NYSERDA/2012-rps-report.ashx (Accessed December 18, 2012). New York State Independent System Operator (NYISO). 2010 Load & Capacity Data: “Gold Book.” Available at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/markets_operations/services/planning/Documents_and_Resources/Planning_ Data_and_Reference_Docs/Data_and_Reference_Docs/2010_GoldBook_Public_Final_033110.pdf (Accessed March 7, 2013). New York State Museum/New York State Geological Survey. 1999a. Surficial Geology. Available at: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/gis/#surf (Accessed January 29, 2013). New York State Museum/New York State Geological Survey. 1999b. Statewide Bedrock Geology. Available at: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/gis/#bedr (Accessed January 29, 2013). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 305 New York State Office of the State Comptroller. 2013. Financial Data: Data for Local Governments. Available at: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/datanstat/findata/index_choice.htm (Accessed January, 2013). New York State Office of Real Property Tax Services (NYSORPTS). 2013. Municipal Profiles. Available at: http://www.orps.state.ny.us/MuniPro/ (Accessed January 2013). New York State Real Property Tax Law (NYS RPTL). Section 487- Exemption from taxation of certain solar or wind energy systems or farm waste energy systems. Available at: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi. (Accessed March 2013). Newman, J., E. Zillious, C. Newman, C. Denny, P. Colverson, K. Hill, W. Warren-Hicks, and S. Marynowski. 2009. Comparison of Reported Effects and Risks to Vertebrate Wildlife from Six Electricity generation types in the New York/New England region. Prepared for NYSERDA. Prepared by Environmental Bioindicators Foundation, Inc. and Pandion Systems, Inc. March 2009. Nicholson, C.P. 2003. Buffalo Mountain Windfarm Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring Report: October 2000 – September 2002. Tennessee Valley Authority. Knoxville, TN. North Carolina Wind Working Group (NCWWG). 2008. Model Wind Ordinance for Wind Energy Facilities in North Carolina. Available at: http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/Incentives/NC18R.pdf (Accessed July 31, 2012). Odessa – Montour Central School District (OMCSD). 2012. Odessa – Montour Central School District. Available at: http://www.omschools.org/ (Accessed January 28, 2013). OMCSD. 2013. Bus Routes. Available at: http://transportation.omschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/gwp/2 367440/3017065/File/Bus%20Routes.pdf?sessionid=18a872b52e9f398e5d416368055dadf0 (Accessed May 2013). Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB), 2008. Opinion, Order, and Certificate in the Matter of Buckeye Wind, LLC. Case No. 08-666-EL-BGN. Conclusions and Conditions Section (31), p. 89. OPSB. 2009a. Opinion, Order, and Certificate in the Matter of JW Great Lakes Wind, LLC. Case No. 09-277-EL- BGN. Stipulation’s Recommended Conditions, Section (23), p. 22. OPSB. 2009b. Opinion, Order, and Certificate in the Matter of Hardin Wind Energy, LLC. Case No. 09-479-EL- BGN. Summary of the Evidence, Section D (2) and Stipulation’s Recommended Conditions, Sections (34) and (35), pp. 16 & 28. OPSB. 2009c. Opinion, Order, and Certificate in the Matter of Paulding Wind Farm, LLC. Case No. 09-980-EL- BGN. Summary of the Evidence Section D (3) and Stipulation’s Recommended Conditions, Section (39), pp. 17 & 31. OPSB. 2009d. Opinion, Order, and Certificate in the Matter of Heartland Wind, LLC. Case No. 09-1066-EL-BGN. Summary of the Evidence Section D (3), p. 16. Old Bird, Inc. 2011. Proposed Work Plan for Bird and Bat Preconstruction Studies for the Black Oak Wind Farm – Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, NY. Prepared for Enfield Energy, Ithaca, NY. March 2011. Old Bird, Inc. 2012a. Breeding Bird Survey, Black Oak Wind Farm 2011. Prepared for Enfield Energy, Ithaca, NY. January 12, 2012. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 306 Old Bird, Inc. 2012b. Raptor Migration Study, Black Oak Wind Farm 2011. Prepared for Enfield Energy, Ithaca, NY. January 12, 2012. Old Bird, Inc. 2012c. Diurnal Bird Movement Study, Black Oak Wind Farm 2011. Prepared for Enfield Energy, Ithaca, NY. January 13, 2012. Old Bird, Inc. 2012d. Avian Risk Assessment, Black Oak Wind Farm. Prepared for Enfield Energy, Ithaca, NY. March 20, 2012. Ouderkirk, B. and M. Pedden. 2004. Windfall from the Wind Farm: Sherman County, Oregon. Renewable Northwest Project, 2004 (Revised August 2005). Presented at Windpower 2005 Conference. Parsons Brinckerhoff. 2011. Update of UK Shadow Flicker Evidence Base. Prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. March 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. Peter J. Smith & Company. 2007. Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory. January 2007. Pierpont, N. 2009. Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment. Pre-publication Draft. K-Selected Books. Santa Fe, NM. Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, M. Biltonen, P. Rice, M. Silva, J. Nelson, V. Lipner, S. Giordano, A. Horowitz, M. D’Amore. 1992. The Environmental and Economic Costs of Pesticide Use. BioScience 42(10): 750-760. Polisky, L. 2011. Memorandum from Les Polisky, Comsearch, Off-Air Digital Television Reception in the Vicinity of Wind Energy Facilities. July 22, 2011. Press Republican, The. 2009. Wiring Anomaly Linked to Turbine Collapse. Article by Dan Heath, published March 15, 2009. Available at: http://pressrepublican.com/0100_news/x155046109/Wiring-anomaly-linked-to-turbine- collapse (Accessed January 21, 2013). Public Service Commission (PSC). 2004. PSC Votes to Adopt Aggressive Renewable Energy Policy for New York State. Press Release dated September 22, 2004. Available at: http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/ Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={C16B8531-A541-47F6-815D-7A607E0E2729} (Accessed January 22, 2013). PSC. 2004b. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Case 03-E-0188 – Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Regarding a Renewable Portfolio Standard. August 26, 2004. Puitt, G. 2011. Do Wind Turbines Turn Off Tourists? Michigan Land Use Institute. Published July 7, 2011. Available at: http://mlui.org/landwater/fullarticle.asp?fileid=17497 (Accessed June, 2012). Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Latham, NY. Renewable Energy Task Force. 2008. Clean, Secure Energy and Economic Growth: A Commitment to Renewable Energy and Enhanced Energy Independence. The First Report of the Renewable Energy Task Force to Lieutenant Governor David A. Paterson, February 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 307 Roberts, M. 2009. Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Mark Roberts on Behalf of Wisconsin Electric Power Company. Docket No. 6630-CE-302. October 20, 2009. Rocky Mountain Institute. 2012. Utility-Scale Wind and Natural Gas Volatility. Uncovering the Hedge Value of Wind For Utilities and Their Customers. Available at: http://www.rmi.org/ (Accessed on March 7, 2013). Rogers, A., J.F. Manwell, and S. Wright. 2006 Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise. Renewable Energy Research Laboratory. Amherst, Massachusetts. Rollins, B. 2013. [Personal Communication]. Town of Enfield Highway Supervisor. Phone conversation with Marguerite Wells, May 25, 2013. Saratoga Associates. 2004. Route 20 Byway Strategy. The Saratoga Associates, Saratoga Springs, NY. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W.A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2010. Version 12.07.2011. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Laurel, MD. Available at: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html (Accessed April 26, 2012). Schmidt, D. 2000. Wisconsin Legislature, Information Memorandum 13. The Wisconsin Rural Energy Management Council. Smallwood, K.S. and B. Karas. 2008. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and Repowered Wind Turbines in California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1062-1071. Sondergaard, B. and D. Hoffmeyer. 2007. Low Frequency Noise from Wind Turbines. Proceedings from Wind Turbine Noise 2007. Lyon, France. September 21, 2007. Sovacool, B.K. 2009. Contextualizing Avian Mortality: A Preliminary Appraisal of Bird and Bat Fatalities from Wind, Fossil-fuel, and Nuclear Electricity. Energy Policy 37:2241-2248. Stantec Consulting. 2008. Post-construction Monitoring at the Munnsville Wind Farm, New York 2008. Prepared for E.ON Climate and Renewables. Stantec Consulting. 2010. Cohocton and Dutch Hill Wind Farms, Year 1 Post-construction Monitoring Report, 2009. Topsham, ME. March 2010. Stantec Consulting. 2011a. Cohocton and Dutch Hill Wind Farms, Year 2 Post-construction Monitoring Report, 2010. Topsham, ME. January 2011. Stantec Consulting. 2011b. Wolfe Island Wind Plant Post-construction Follow-up Plan, Bird and Bat Resources. Monitoring Report No. 5, January – June 2011. File No. 160960494. Prepared for TransAlta Corporations’s wholly owned subsidiary Canadian Renewable Energy Corporation. December 2011. Stanton, C. 1996. The Landscape Impact and Visual Design of Windfarms. ISBN 1-901278-00X. Edinburgh College of Art, Heriot-Watt University. Edinburgh, Scotland. Stegemann, E. and A. Hicks. 2008. Bats of New York. New York State Conservationist 62(4): 19-22. Stern, J. 2013. . [Personal Communication]. Director of Permits, Tompkins County Highway Department. Phone conversation with Marguerite Wells, May 28, 2013. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 308 Sterzinger, G., F. Beck, and D. Kostiuk. 2003. The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values. Published by the Renewable Energy Policy Project. May 2003. Strickland, M.D., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, D.H. Johnson, G.D. Johnson, M.L., Morrison, J.A. Shaffer, and W. Warren-Hicks. 2011. Comprehensive Guide to Studying Wind Energy/Wildlife Interactions. Prepared for the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, Washington, DC. Tech Environmental, Inc. 2013. Acoustic Study of the Black Oak Wind Farm. Prepared for Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC. February 13, 2013. Tidhar, D., Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2011a. Fatality and Acoustic Bat Monitoring 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 by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., NE/Mid-Atlantic Branch, Waterbury, Vermont. Tidhar, D., L. McManus, D. Solick, Z. Courage, and K. Bay. 2011b. 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 by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., NE/Mid-Atlantic Branch, Waterbury, Vermont. Times Union. 2009. PSC Probes Wind Tower Collapse, Fire. Article by Brian Nearing, published March 12, 2009. Tompkins County. 2004. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan: Planning for Our Future. Available at: http://www.tompkins-co.org/planning/ (Accessed February 2013). Tompkins County. 2010. Tompkins County Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, 1998-2008. Available at: http://www.tompkins-co.org/planning/energyclimate/documents/DraftCommunity10-yearGHGEmissionsReport.pdf (Accessed March 7, 2013). Tompkins County. 2010. Tompkins County Conservation Plan, Part II: A Strategic Approach to Agricultural Resource Stewardship. Available at: http://www.tompkins-co.org/planning/ (Accessed February 2013). Tompkins County. 2012. Resolution RES-2012-84. Adoption of Local Law- A Local Law to Opt-Out of Section 487 of the New York State Real Property Tax Law. Adopted May 15, 2012. Available at: http://tompkinscountyny.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?ID=3219. (Accessed March 2013). Tompkins County. 2013. Recycling and Solid Waste, Tompkins County. Available at http://www.recycletompkins. org/Recycling (Accessed January 30, 2013). Tompkins County Emergency Management Committee. 2004. Earthquakes. Available at: http://www.tompkinsready.org/disaster/earthquake.htm (Accessed March 19, 2013). Tompkins County Planning Department. 2010. Tompkins County Conservation Plan – Part II: A Strategic Approach to Agricultural Resource Stewardship. Available at: http://www.tompkins- co.org/planning/Rural%20Resources/documents/FINAL_Tompkins_Conservation_Plan_Part_II04-10_000.pdf (Accessed January 2013). Tompkins County; Frank Nicklaus. Energy Supply and Demand in Tompkins County, New York. Available at: http://www.tompkins-co.org/planning/energyclimate/index.htm (Accessed on March 7, 2013). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 309 Town of Enfield. 2001. Town of Enfield Comprehensive Plan. Available at: http://townofenfield.org/ content/Generic/View/15 (Accessed February 2013). United States Census Bureau. 2011. American Fact Finder. Available at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml### (Accessed January 2013). United States Census Bureau. 2013. State and County Quickfacts. Available at: http://quickfacts.census. gov/qfd/states/36/36109.html (Accessed January 5, 2012). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1965. Soil Survey Tompkins County, New York. Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C. July 1965. USDA. 2007. National Agricultural Statistics Service Quick Stats. Available at http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ (Accessed January 2013). United States Department of Energy (USDOE). 2008a. 20% Wind by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to the U.S. Electricity Supply. DOE/GO-102008-2567. July 2008. USDOE. 2008b. An Overview of Existing Wind Energy Ordinances. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/policy/2008/ordinances_overview.pdf (Accessed July 31, 2012). USDOE. 2012. Wind Resource Potential. Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available at: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/windmaps/resource_potential.asp (Accessed June 5, 2012). United States Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory (USDOE NREL). 2010. JEDI: Jobs and Economic Development Impacts Model. Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/ (Accessed January 2013). U.S. Department of the Interior. 2005. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. Bureau of Land Management. United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2012. How much of our electricity is generated from renewable energy? Available at: http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/renewable_electricity.cfm (Accessed February 2013). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Region 2: Sole Source Aquifers. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/region02/water/aquifer/ (Accessed January 2013). United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. January 2011. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ (Accessed January 2013). USGS. 2007. Groundwater Quality in Central New York, 2007. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1257/pdf/ofr20091257.pdf (Accessed January 2013). USGS. 2010. Earthquake Hazards Program. Available at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/?source=sitenav (Accessed March 19, 2013). Draft Environmental Impact Statement Black Oak Wind Project 310 Warren, C.R., C Lumsden, S. O’Dowd, and R.V. Birnie. 2005. ‘Green On Green’: Public Perceptions of Wind Power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 48(6): 853-875. Whitfield, D.P. and M. Madders. 2006. A Review of the Impacts of Wind Farms on Hen Harriers (Circus cyaneus) and an Estimation of Collision Avoidance Rates. Natural Research, LTD. Natural Research Information Note 1 (Revised). Wooley, D. 2000. A Guide to the Clean Air Act for the Renewable Energy Community. Issue Brief No. 15, Renewable Energy Policy Project. February 2000.