HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSEIS_BlackOakWind_NarrativeFinal.pdfi
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE BLACK OAK WIND FARM
Towns of Enfield and Newfield, 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) 277‐3478
Prepared By: Haley and Aldrich of New York
200 Town Centre Drive, Suite 2
Rochester, New York 14623
Phone: (585) 359‐9000
Date Submitted to Lead Agency: February 22, 2016
Date Accepted by Lead Agency: March 9, 2016
Table of Contents
ii
Appendices v
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 SUMMARY OF THE MODIFIED PROJECT 1
1.2 MODIFIED PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING 3
1.3 HISTORY OF SEQRA PROCESS 3
1.4 ISSUED PERMITS AND APPROVALS 4
1.5 MODIFIED PROJECT SCHEDULE 4
2. Assessment of Potential Impacts of the Modified Project and Proposed
Mitigation 5
2.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY 6
2.1.1 Existing Conditions 6
2.1.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 9
2.1.3 Mitigation 10
2.2 WATER RESOURCES 10
2.2.1 Existing Conditions 10
2.2.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 11
2.2.3 Mitigation 14
2.3 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY 14
2.3.1 Existing Conditions 14
2.3.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 14
2.3.3 Mitigation 15
2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 15
2.4.1 Existing Conditions 15
2.4.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 16
2.4.3 Mitigation 19
2.5 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 19
2.5.1 Existing Conditions 19
2.5.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 19
2.5.3 Mitigation 20
2.6 LAND USE AND ZONING 20
2.6.1 Existing Conditions 20
2.6.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 22
2.6.3 Mitigation 22
2.7 ENERGY 22
2.7.1 Existing Condition 22
2.7.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 22
2.7.3 Mitigation 23
2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 23
2.8.1 Existing Conditions 23
Table of Contents
iii
2.8.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 23
2.8.3 Mitigation 23
2.9 GROWTH AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER 24
2.9.1 Existing Condition 24
2.9.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 24
2.9.3 Mitigation 24
2.10 HISTORIC, CULTURAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 24
2.10.1 Existing Conditions 24
2.10.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 25
2.10.3 Mitigation 25
2.11 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 26
2.11.1 Existing Condition 26
2.11.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 26
2.11.3 Mitigation 27
2.12 AESTHETIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES 27
2.12.1 Existing Conditions 27
2.12.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 27
2.12.3 Mitigation 33
2.13 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 34
2.13.1 Existing Condition 34
2.13.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 34
2.13.3 Mitigation 34
2.14 SOCIOECONOMICS 34
2.14.1 Existing Condition 34
2.14.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 35
2.14.3 Mitigation 35
2.15 PUBLIC SAFETY 35
2.15.1 Comparison of Potential Impacts 36
2.15.2 Mitigation 36
2.16 NOISE 37
2.16.1 Existing Conditions 37
2.16.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts 37
2.16.3 Mitigation 38
2.17 COMMUNICATION FACILITIES 38
2.17.1 Comparison of Potential Impacts 38
2.17.2 Mitigation 39
3. Alternatives Analysis 40
3.1 NO ACTION 40
3.2 ALTERNATE TURBINE LAYOUTS 40
3.2.1 Alternative 1 (Construction of Turbines A and B) 42
3.2.2 Alternative 2 (Construction of Turbines B and C) 43
3.2.3 Alternative 3 (Construction of Turbines A and C) 44
4. Cumulative Impacts 46
Table of Contents
iv
4.1 EXISTING AND APPROVED PROJECTS 46
4.2 PROPOSED OR FUTURE PROJECTS 46
References 48
Table of Contents
v
Appendices
Appendix A ‐ Findings Statement Issued by the Town of Enfield dated 14 Jan 2015
Appendix B – Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Update
Appendix C ‐ USFWS Information Planning and Conservation System Report
Appendix D ‐ Enterprise Products Letter of No Objection
Appendix E ‐ Summary of Cultural Resources Studies Relative to Modified Project
Layout
Appendix F – Revised Visual Impact Assessment
Appendix G – Revised Shadow Flicker Study for Black Oak Wind Farm Project
Appendix H – Acoustic Study Update
Appendix I – Microwave Study Update
vi
List of Tables
Table No. Title
1 Issued Permits, Approvals or Authorizations
2 Changes to Anticipated Impact Quantities
3 Dominant Soil Series
4 Delineated Wetlands and Streams within the Study Area
5 Impact Assumptions and Calculations
6 Temporary Impacts from Collection Line Reroute
7 Temporary Impacts from Alternative 1
8 Temporary Impacts from Alternative 2
9 Permanent Impacts from Alternative 2
10 Temporary Impacts from Alternative 3
11 Permanent Impacts from Alternative 3
12 Impacts to Vegetative Communities
13 Local Law Summary
14 Revised Daytime Viewshed Coverage Summary within Five Miles of the Project
Site for the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project
15 Revised Nighttime FAA Lighting Viewshed Coverage Summary within Five Miles
of the Project Site for the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project
16 Additional Observer Locations Selected for Photo‐simulation
17 Receptors Expected to Receive >10 Hours/Year of Shadow Flicker Under
Alternative 1
18 Receptors Expected to Receive >10 Hours/Year of Shadow Flicker Under
Alternative 2
19 Receptors Expected to Receive >10 Hours/Year of Shadow Flicker Under
Alternative 3
20 Alternative 1 Impact Acreages
21 Alternative 2 Impact Acreages
22 Alternative 3 Impact Acreages
vii
List of Figures
Figure No. Title
1 Project Modifications
2 Typical Self‐Supporting Meteorological Tower
3 Modified Project Site
4 Vegetative Communities
5 Setback Distances
6 Daytime Viewshed Analysis Results
7 Nighttime Viewshed Analysis Results
8 Photosimulations
9 GE 2.0‐2.4 Turbine Shadow Flicker Calculations Including Turbine Locations 7A &
7C
10 GE 2.0‐2.4 Turbine Shadow Flicker Calculations Including Turbine Locations 7A &
7B
11 GE 2.0‐2.4 Turbine Shadow Flicker Calculations Including Turbine Locations 7B &
7C
1
1. Introduction
This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“SEIS”) addresses certain necessary modifications
to the Black Oak Wind Farm, planned to be located in the Towns of Enfield and Newfield, Tompkins
County, New York (See Figure 1). The purpose of this report is to describe the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed modifications made to the Black Oak Wind Farm since it was previously
reviewed pursuant to Section 617.9(a)(7) of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law (“SEQRA”) and local laws. Consistent with the requirements of SEQRA,
this report contains a comparative analysis of potential adverse impacts of the proposed modifications
with the impacts of the permitted Project as analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(“DEIS”) dated June 12, 2013, the Final Environmental Impact Statement dated November 12, 2014, and
the Findings Statement issued by the Town of Enfield on January 14, 2015. Collectively, these
documents are referred herein as the “Approved Project Record.” This analysis supplements the
information contained within the Approved Project Record. This SEIS addresses only modifications to
the Project, and information and analysis provided in the Approved Project Record that will not change
as a result of project modifications will not be provided herein as set forth in SEQRA.
This SEIS discusses the SEQRA process and history as background to the Approved Project; evaluates the
environmental, economic and other essential considerations of the Project modifications; and provides
a conclusion regarding whether or not the proposed Project modifications would have any potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts. For clarification, the Project as previously proposed and
approved is referred to as the “Approved Project,” whereas the Project currently proposed is referred to
as the “Modified Project.”
1.1 SUMMARY OF THE MODIFIED PROJECT
The Town of Enfield Town Board’s issuance of a Wind Energy Permit to Black Oak Wind Farm LLC
pursuant to the Town of Enfield’s Wind Energy Facilities Local Law (Local Law No. 1 of 2009) and the
Town of Newfield’s Wind Energy Facilities Local Law (Local Law No. 2 of 2009) constitutes an action that
is subject to SEQRA with the Town of Enfield Town Board (the “Town Board”) acting as Lead Agency for
the purposes of conducting a coordinated SEQRA with the involved agencies.
The Approved Project would generate 11.9 megawatts (MW) of electricity and consisted of seven GE
1.7 ‐ 100 model wind turbines, a system of gravel access roads, buried and above ground electrical
collection lines, a substation next to the existing NYSEG 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line, and one
temporary construction staging area. The Approved Project was addressed in the SEQRA Findings
Statement issued by the Town Board on January 14, 2015 pursuant to Section 617.11 of the SEQRA
regulations. Subsequent to the issuance of the SEQRA Findings Statement, the Town Board passed a
resolution on July 8, 2015 adopting additional SEQRA findings for a previous modification to the
Approved Project changing the wind turbine model from a GE 1.7 ‐ 100 to a GE 2.3 – 107. The GE 2.3 –
107 has a nameplate capacity of 2.3 MW, a hub height of 94 meters, a rotor diameter of 107 meters,
and a total height of 147.5 meters. This change resulted in an increase in electrical generation capacity
from 11.9 MW to 16.1 MW.
Following the approval of the Approved Project, the Project Sponsor has decided to explore alternative
locations for two turbines and the substation location. While the Project Sponsor continues to assess its
rights under the existing contracts with the landowners and potentially develop the Approved Project,
2
an assessment of potential alternatives has become necessary and as a result the Project Sponsor has
prepared this SEIS for the Modified Project. The previous approvals remain valid to the extent that the
Project Sponsor is able to proceed, but in the meantime, the Project Sponsor is assessing the potential
significant adverse environmental impacts of these alternative locations for two turbines and substation.
As mentioned above, the Modified Project will generate 16.1 MW of electricity and consist of seven (7)
GE 2.3 – 107 model wind turbines. The Modified Project will have the same ancillary facilities as the
Approved Project including access roads, electrical collection lines, a substation, and a construction
staging area. Routing design parameters and construction methods for the Modified Project remain
unchanged, as described in the DEIS. However, the Project Sponsor proposes modifications to the
locations of some Project components. The specific changes are illustrated in Figure 1, and include:
1. Relocation of two turbines (Turbine 2 and Turbine 7) to three possible locations (designated
A, B and C) with associated access roads and collection lines. Location A is in the Town of
Newfield. Locations B and C are in the Town of Enfield. Alternative 1 consists of Turbines A
and B; Alternative 2 consists of Turbines B and C; and Alternative 3 consists of Turbines A
and C.
2. Shift of Turbine 5 approximately 160 feet to the south‐southeast to comply with GE
recommended setback for ice throw.
3. Relocation of substation to new location with associated access road in Town of Enfield.
4. Addition of a new permanent wind measurement tower just south of Turbine 4. This tower
will consist of a 94 meter lattice structure, which will be self‐supported, bolted to a
foundation embedded in a concrete base. A visual representation of the meteorological
tower is presented in Figure 2. The meteorological tower will collect data such as wind
speed, wind direction, and temperature.
5. Relocation of approximately 2,200 linear feet of buried collection line, which was previously
located between the Staging Area and Turbine 5. This section now runs north along Black
Oak Road before running due east and connecting to the Approved Project layout.
6. Relocation of approximately 6,200 linear feet of buried collection line, which previously ran
from a point between Turbines 5 and 6 southwest to a former turbine site and the former
substation location. This section now runs west of Turbine 5 for a short distance before
turning south, crossing Griffin Road, and then running east‐southeast just north of the
NYSEG right‐of‐way to the modified substation location.
This SEIS addresses modifications to the Black Oak Wind Farm and describes the potential
environmental impacts of those modifications in direct comparison to the Approved Project that was
reviewed pursuant to SEQRA. Where applicable, conclusions drawn in the Approved Project Record are
directly compared to the Modified Project.
This SEIS provides a review of all resource topic areas addressed for the Approved Project. The Findings
Statement for the Approved Project reflects an analysis of potentially significant adverse environmental
impacts and measures intended to appropriately mitigate for those impacts. In this SEIS, the
quantitative and qualitative changes to resource‐based impacts are discussed in comparison to the
conclusions drawn in the Findings Statement and other documents in the Approved Project Record.
3
1.2 MODIFIED PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The Modified Project is planned to be located on approximately 900 acres of leased land in the Town of
Enfield and, depending on whether a new proposed turbine location is found acceptable, the Town of
Newfield, Tompkins County, New York (“Modified Project Site”). The Modified Project Site includes all
parcels where components of the Modified Project will be located (see Figure 3). Three potential
turbine locations are currently being evaluated for the relocation of two turbines that were part of the
Approved Project layout. The three possible locations under consideration are designated A, B and C.
Location A is within the Town of Newfield and is located on the edge of a large, fallow agricultural field
with forested areas to the west. Slopes are gentle in this area becoming steeper to the west. Locations
B and C are within the Town of Enfield. Location B is located in a large hay field with gentle slopes that
become steeper in forested areas to the south. Location C is located on a forested hilltop. Alternative 1
includes the construction of Turbines A and B; Alternative 2 includes the construction of Turbines B and
C; and Alternative 3 includes the construction of Turbines A and C. The permanent meteorological
tower will be located on top of a forested hill with moderate to steep slopes.
The Modified Project Site is located on rolling, elevated plateaus that are dissected by tributaries 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 Modified Project Site the
majority of the upland area primarily consists of northern deciduous forest and open crop fields and
pastures. Existing built features include single family homes, seasonal homes, communication towers,
barns, silos, commercial scrap yard, and other agricultural buildings.
1.3 HISTORY OF SEQRA PROCESS
The Town of Enfield Town Board, as the Lead Agency pursuant to SEQRA, issued a Positive Declaration
on June 9, 2010, requiring the preparation of a DEIS for the initial Approved Project. The DEIS was
accepted as complete on June 12, 2013, and copies of the DEIS were subsequently delivered to
involved/interested agencies and individuals, and posted to a website managed by Black Oak Wind Farm
(www.blackoakwindny.com). Opportunities for detailed agency and public review were provided during
the DEIS public comment period (June 12, 2013 through July 22, 2013), including a public hearing
conducted by the Lead Agency on July 10, 2013 at the Enfield Community Building (182 Enfield Main
Road, Ithaca, New York).
Comments received during the public comment periods for the DEIS were compiled into a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”). A Responsiveness Summary was subsequently prepared as
part of the FEIS (Section 4.0) to address all substantive oral and written comments received on the DEIS.
The FEIS was submitted to the Town of Enfield, and subsequently approved and released for public
review on November 12, 2014.
On January 14, 2014, the Town of Enfield issued a Findings Statement as required by SEQRA. The
Findings Statement concluded, among other things, that the Approved Project is consistent with social,
economic, and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available; the
respective Town approved actions avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts to the maximum
extent practicable; and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the
maximum extent practicable by incorporation as conditions to the permits or agreements. The Findings
Statement is included as Appendix A.
4
1.4 ISSUED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Following the conclusion of SEQRA Review, Black Oak Wind was issued various permits, approvals, and
authorizations for the Approved Project. Issued permits, approvals, and authorizations are described in
Table 1.
Table 1. Issued Permits, Approvals or Authorizations
Issued Permit, Approval or
Authorization Issuing Agency Issuing Date
LOCAL APPROVALS
Town of Enfield Host Community Agreement Enfield Town Board July 2015
COUNTY
PILOT Agreement Tompkins County IDA February 12,
2015
FEDERAL APPROVALS
No Hazard Determination1 Federal Aviation
Administration
July 7, 2015
1FAA No Hazard Determination was in regards to the Approved Project layout. A determination regarding relocated turbines has not been
issued. See Section 2.17.
1.5 MODIFIED PROJECT SCHEDULE
The Modified Project schedule is dependent on the duration for obtaining the final permit from the
Town. The order for the wind turbines cannot be placed until after the permit process has concluded
and the final permit is issued. The construction schedule will be dependent on the delivery timeframe
for the wind turbines and the completion date of the substation. The turbine manufacturer will need to
confirm the required delivery time. If the turbines can be delivered by mid‐November, the Modified
Project will likely be completed in January 2017. If delivery is delayed, the Modified Project will likely be
completed in summer 2017, based on a likely required winter shutdown, pending weather conditions.
The completion date of the substation will also play a factor. The Project Sponsor is currently in the
process of confirming a construction schedule with NYSEG.
Final designs and construction plans are in process and will be submitted along with the Pre‐
Construction Notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their review pursuant to Nationwide
#51 for Wind Energy Projects. Final design drawings will also submitted in conjunction with Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plans (“SWPPP”) submissions.
5
2. Assessment of Potential Impacts of the Modified Project and Proposed
Mitigation
The Approved Project Record described the existing environmental setting, evaluated potential
environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and presented proposed mitigation measures to
compensate for unavoidable adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Topic
areas reviewed in the Approved Project Record include:
Geology, Soils and Topography
Water Resources
Climate and Air Quality
Biological Resources
Traffic and Transportation
Land Use and Zoning
Energy
Community Facilities and Services
Growth and Community Character
Historic, Cultural and Archeological Resources
Agricultural Resources
Aesthetic and Visual Resources
Open Space and Recreation
Socioeconomics
Public Safety
Noise
Communication Facilities
Additionally, as required by SEQRA, the Approved Project Record provided an analysis of unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts, cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts, irretrievable
commitment of natural resources, effects on the use and conservation of energy and an alternatives
analysis.
The Findings Statement (see Appendix A), analyzed potentially significant adverse environmental
impacts from the Approved Project, and identified mitigation measures intended to mitigate those
impacts to the maximum extent practicable as required by SEQRA. This section discusses and compares,
any quantitative and qualitative changes, or lack of changes, to resource‐based impacts from the
Modified Project to the conclusions in the Findings Statement regarding impacts on these resources
from the Approved Project.
Although some component location changes are proposed, these modifications result in very small
overall changes when comparing the Approved Project footprint to the Modified Project footprint.
Table 2 outlines the anticipated changes to overall project impacts, particularly to the areas relating to
soils, vegetation and land use.
6
Table 2. Changes to Anticipated Impact Quantities
Resource
Total Disturbance
(Acres)
Converted to Built
Facilities (Acres)
Temporary
Disturbance (Acres)
Approved
Project
Modified
Project
(Worst
Case)
Approved
Project
Modified
Project
(Worst
Case)
Approved
Project
Modified
Project
(Worst
Case)
Soils
Disturbance to Soils 48.9 48.72 6.8 8.4 2 42.1 40.32
Vegetative Communities4
Forest 11.9 20.12 1.0 1.92,3 10.9 18.22
Successional Old Field 12.8 4.01,2,3 2.5 0 10.3 4.01,2,3
Successional Shrubland 1.0 1.41,2,3 0.0 0.11,2,3 1.0 1.31,2,3
Agricultural Land 23 31.51 2.1 5.32 20.9 26.41
Disturbed/Developed 8.0 3.51,2 1.0 1.01,2 7.0 2.51,2
Successional Northern
Hardwoods 1.2 1.41,3 0.1 0 1.1 1.41,3
Total Disturbance to Vegetation 57.9 60.12 6.8 8.3 2 51.1 51.82
Land Use5
Agriculture 26.0 23.02 2.0 2.72,3 24.0 20.32
Residential 9.5 7.61,2 2.5 0.91,2 7.0 6.71,2
Vacant Land 20.0 32.01,3 2.0 5.01,3 18.0 27.01,3
Forested 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Community Service 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0
Total Disturbance to Land Uses 57.5 59.62 6.5 8.42 51.0 51.22
1Alternative 1 (Turbines A and B constructed)
2Alternative 2 (Turbines B and C constructed)
3Alternative 3 (Turbines A and C constructed)
4Vegetative Communities determined using aerial photography and field verification.
5Land Use determined using Office of Real Property Tax Service Property Class Codes in county tax parcel shapefile.
2.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY
2.1.1 Existing Conditions
Information regarding the existing conditions of physiography, geology, and soils is as described in
Section 3.1 of the DEIS and 6.2 of the Findings Statement. This information was derived from existing
published sources such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey (2016), Tompkins
County Soil Survey (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). This information is generally regional in
nature and remains applicable to the Modified Project site. In addition, Tectonic Engineering &
Surveying Consultants (Tectonic) also conducted site investigations for the Approved Project, which
included soil resistivity testing and the performance of test borings. Their geotechnical report is
provided in Appendix D of the DEIS. Similar investigations will be performed for the Modified Project
prior to project approval (issuance of permit) and initiation of construction.
2.1.1.1 Topography
The Modified 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
7
rolling uplands and valley topography. Valleys in the vicinity of the Modified 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 with steeper slopes located in the southern and western portions of the Modified Project Site.
Elevations range from approximately 1,450 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northeast corner of
the Modified Project Site to approximately 2,000 feet amsl near Connecticut Hill.
2.1.1.2 Geology
Wisconsin period glacial geology dominates within the region. Underlying bedrock is flat‐lying to gently
dipping shale, siltstone, and sandstone together with lesser amounts of conglomerate and limestone
which were deeply eroded by preglacial drainage. Preglacial erosion was enhanced by glacial scour that
broadened and deepened the valleys and rounded off the hill tops. Till was deposited in thin layering on
the hill tops and valley walls during advances of the glacial ice. As glacial ice melted, the bedrock valleys
became the resting place for stagnating ice and were the natural drainage ways for meltwater that
deposited ice‐contact and outwash deposits, consisting of primarily sand and gravel during peak ice‐
melting periods, and glacial‐lake deposits, consisting primarily of clay, silt, and very fine to fine sand
during inactive periods. In general, the geology of the region is made up of sedimentary rocks and till
overlaying deeper and older aged Devonian bedrocks of shale and sandstone nature. The major bedrock
formation in the Modified Project Site is the Beer Hill Shale of the West Falls Group (NYS Museum/NYS
Geological Survey, 1999a). No rock outcrops, large boulders, or ledges have been 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 are composed of non‐sorted
or poorly sorted sediment deposited directly by a glacier. The character of the till depends heavily on
the nature of the adjacent bedrock. The unconsolidated deposits contain a wide range of particle sizes,
commonly from clay to cobble or boulder size, with a clayey, silty, or sandy matrix depending on the
parent material. Loamy till (silty clay loam or silt loam) are the most abundant types of glacial till
formed where the bedrock is chiefly fine‐grained sandstone and siltstone, as it is with the Devonian age
bedrock chiefly found within the Modified Project Site.
2.1.1.3 Soils
The USDA Web Soil Survey (2016) has mapped soil types within the Modified Project Site. The soil
survey indicates 12 major soil groups (series) occur within the Modified Project Site. Of these, the
Langford, Erie, Bath, and Mardin soil series are the dominant series. Table 3 summarizes the
characteristics of the dominant soil series found within the Modified Project Site.
8
Table 3. Dominant Soil Series
Soil Series Main Characteristics
Langford
Moderately well drained
Formed in low‐lime glacial till derived from
siltstone, sandstone, shale, and some limestone
Found mostly on hills, till plains, and drumlinoid
ridges
Undulating to moderately steep
Depth to seasonal high water table 6 to 30
inches
Fragipan reported at a depth of 15 to 28 inches
Depth to lithic bedrock is reported to be greater
than 78 inches below ground surface (bgs)
Erie
Somewhat poorly drained
Formed in low‐lime glacial till derived from
siltstone, sandstone, shale, and some limestone
Found mostly on hills, till plains, and drumlinoid
ridges
Gently sloping to moderately steep
Depth to seasonal high water table 9 to 15
inches
Fragipan reported at a depth of 12 to 18 inches
Depth to lithic bedrock is reported to be greater
than 78 inches bgs
Bath
Well drained
Formed in acid or very low‐lime glacial till
derived from mainly gray to brown siltstone,
sandstone, and shale.
Found mostly on hills and mountains
Reported depth to seasonal high water table
24‐36 inches bgs
Fragipan reported at a depth of 26 to 38 inches
Depth to lithic bedrock is reported to be greater
than 78 inches bgs
Mardin
Moderately well drained
Formed in very low‐lime or acid loamy till
Found mostly on hills and mountains
Gently sloping to moderately steep
Depth to seasonal high water table 13 to 24
inches
Fragipan reported at a depth of 14 to 26 inches
Depth to lithic bedrock is reported to be greater
than 78 inches bgs
9
Soils within the Modified Project Site are generally characterized as primarily channery silt loams with
lesser amounts of silt loams and gravelly loams also present. Erosion hazard ranges from slight to very
severe with approximately 83 percent of the Modified Project Site classified as having a slight erosion
hazard, 17 percent moderate, and 0.2 percent very severe. With respect to soil drainage, approximately
34 percent of the soils within the Modified Project Site are well drained, approximately 34 percent are
moderately well drained, 30 percent are somewhat poorly drained, and approximately 2 percent are
poorly drained. Approximately 32 percent of the soils within the Modified Project Site are listed as
hydric by the NRCS (2014), including Alluvial land; Erie channery silt loams; Chippewa and Alden soils;
Holly and Papakating Soils; Middlebury and Tioga silt loams; and Volusia channery silt loams.
According to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) the soils located within the
Modified Project Site are generally characterized as very limited in terms of ease of shallow excavations
due to a shallow depth to a cemented pan and or bedrock, areas of shallow depth to saturated zone,
dense layers, some dusty soils, steepness of slope, and some potential for unstable excavation walls.
Soils within the site are generally not reported to be subject to liquefaction. Plasticity indices of the soils
are reported to range from approximately 2 to 15 percent. This indicates Modified Project Site soils are
generally non‐expansive. The reported typical depth to a restrictive layer across the Modified Project
Site is 12 to greater than 78 inches bgs; the majority of the area falls within the 16 to 22 inches bgs for a
restrictive layer. Approximately 77% of soils within the Modified Project Site are classified as Farmland
of Statewide Importance, 0.6% of soils are classified as Prime Farmland, and approximately 22% are
classified as Not Prime Farmland. Soils classified as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide
Importance are discussed at greater length in Section 2.11.2.
2.1.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
As described in the Approved Project Record (see 6.2 of the Findings Statement), the Approved Project
infrastructure was sited to avoid or minimize either temporary or permanent impacts to physiography,
geology, and soils. The Modified Project will be sited consistent with the Approved Project, using the
same methods as the Approved Project. Therefore, the Modified Project will not result in greater
significant adverse impacts on area physiography than the Approved Project, and will be similar in
nature as the impacts on these resources that were anticipated in the Findings Statement. These
comparative potential short‐term, long‐term, and cumulative impacts to soils and geology are described
below.
The Approved or the Modified Project will result in the same temporary and permanent disturbance of
soils at each turbine footprint, access roads, staging and laydown areas, permanent meteorological
towers, and substation. The primary impact to physical features of the Modified Project Site will be the
disturbance of soils during installation of turbine foundations, substation, electrical collection lines, and
access roads. The construction of the underground collection line will result in only temporary soil
disturbance. Additionally, delivery of turbine components along proposed construction routes will
require some level of improvement to public road intersections and culverts. It is generally anticipated
that roadway improvements for the Modified Project will be nearly identical to the Approved Project.
Based on the Modified Project design, potential soil disturbance and impacts resulting from all
construction activities could total up to 48.7 acres (temporary and permanent impacts). This is 0.2 acre
less in comparison to up to 48.9 acres of total soil disturbance for the Approved Project. Overall, the
Modified Project will result in a permanent conversion of up to 8.4 acres of land into built facilities
10
(0.1‐acre crane pad and foundation at each tower site, maximum 15‐foot‐wide permanent access roads,
a 1.4‐acre substation, and 0.1‐acre at the permanent meteorological tower location) compared to 6.8
acres of permanent disturbance described in Section 6.2 of the Findings Statement for the Approved
Project. For the Modified Project, as with the Approved Project, beyond occasional soil disturbance
associated with maintenance and repair activities, operational impacts on physiology, geography, and
soils are expected to be minimal.
2.1.3 Mitigation
Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to physiography, soils, and topography are
as described in the Approved Project Record (see Section 6.2.2 of the Findings Statement). Based upon
previous analysis (see DEIS Appendix D), the use of blasting is not anticipated. However, if blasting is
required, a Blasting Plan will be developed (see Section 3.1 of the DEIS for additional detail) to ensure
compliance with all applicable laws to avoid impacts to sensitive receptors. Because overall temporary
and permanent impacts as a result of the Modified Project are approximately the same as the Approved
Project, no additional mitigation is required or proposed.
2.2 WATER RESOURCES
2.2.1 Existing Conditions
Section 3.2 of the DEIS and Section 2.3.6 of the FEIS contain general descriptions of floodplains,
groundwater, and regional hydrology that are also applicable to the Modified Project Site. Wetland
community types found within the Approved Project area are the same as those found within the
Modified Project area. Wetland and stream delineations specific to the Modified Project area discussed
below.
Wetland and stream delineations were performed on November 18, 2015 and December 30, 2015 in
areas of the Modified Project Site that had not been delineated for the FEIS (Study Area). The Study
Area encompassed approximately 59 acres and includes areas within a 200‐foot radius of three potential
turbine locations; a 50‐foot wide corridor of potential access routes (approximately 1.6 miles) and
electrical collection routes (approximately 2.4 miles); and a 3‐acre potential substation location. The
delineations were performed in accordance with criteria set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(“USACE”) Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and the 2012 Regional Supplement to
the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0).
Delineated wetlands and streams are shown in Appendix B and summarized in Table 4 below. A memo
summarizing the delineation is included in Appendix B, which includes site photos, mapping and data
sheets. Wetlands/streams A, B, C, D, E, F, I, and J were delineated for the FEIS in June 2013 and remain
within the Modified Project Site. A total of 2.71 acres of wetlands and streams were delineated within
the Study Area. Including wetlands and streams in areas where no changes from the FEIS are proposed,
there were 7.22 acres of wetlands and streams delineated in the Modified Project Site. In comparison,
5.03 acres were delineated for the Approved Project Site (FEIS Section 2.3.6).
11
Table 4. Delineated Wetlands and Streams within the Study Area
Wetland/
Stream ID
Date of
Delineation Type Area (sf) Area
(acres)
JMA 11/18/2015 Forested/Scrub Shrub Wetland 27,964 0.64
JMA 11/18/2015 Intermittent Stream 280 0.01
JMB 11/18/2015 Scrub Shrub Wetland 3,590 0.08
JMC 11/18/2015 Intermittent Stream 1,154 0.03
JMD 11/18/2015 Intermittent Stream 1,112 0.03
JME 11/18/2015 Intermittent Stream 416 0.01
JME 11/18/2015 Forested Wetland 8,146 0.19
JMF 11/18/2015 Perennial Stream 4,138 0.10
JMG 11/18/2015 Intermittent Stream 322 0.01
JMH 11/18/2015 Intermittent Stream 211 0.00
JMI 11/18/2015 Forested Wetland 3,924 0.09
JMJ 11/18/2015 Intermittent Stream 299 0.01
JR1 12/30/2015 Intermittent Stream 292 0.01
JR2 12/30/2015 Intermittent Stream 1,107 0.03
JRA 12/30/2015 Emergent Wetland 4,588 0.11
JRB 12/30/2015 Emergent Wetland 1,869 0.04
JRC 12/30/2015 Emergent Wetland 5,144 0.12
JRD 12/30/2015 Emergent Wetland 3,977 0.09
JRE 12/30/2015 Emergent Wetland 14,301 0.33
JRF 12/30/2015 Emergent Wetland 33,832 0.78
Total 116,666 2.71
2.2.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
As discussed in the Section 6.3 of the Findings Statement, the Approved Project was designed to avoid
or minimize overall permanent impact on surface water bodies/streams and wetland areas. This is also
true for the Modified Project.
Impacts to water resources for the Modified Project will be similar in nature to those described for the
Approved Project in DEIS Section 3.2.1 and 6.3.1 of the Findings Statement.
Overall, under the worst‐case alternative, the Modified Project will result in up to 0.008‐acre of
permanent wetland/stream impacts from the construction of permanent access roads compared to
0.02‐acre of permanent wetland/stream impacts described in Section 6.3.1 of the Findings Statement
for the Approved Project. The worst‐case alternative under consideration in the Modified Project would
result in up to 0.07‐acre of temporary wetland impacts resulting from the construction of access roads
and the installation of buried electrical collection lines compared to 0.07‐acre of temporary wetland
impacts described in Section 6.3.1 of the Findings Statement for the Approved Project.
2.2.2.1 Impact Calculations
Wetland impacts were calculated for the proposed substation location and separately for each of the
three turbine locations under consideration. Assumptions for calculating impacts are listed in Table 5
below.
12
Table 5. 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
Substation 3 acres 3 acres 1.75 acres
Substation Impacts
No wetland or stream impacts are anticipated to result from construction of the substation or the access
road from Cayutaville Road. However, placement of buried electrical collection lines from Griffin Road
to the substation will result in approximately 181 square feet of temporary impacts to intermittent
streams (Streams JMC, JMD, JME). Placement of buried collection lines from Turbine 5 to the substation
will result in approximately 113 square feet of temporary impacts to Wetland I.
Collection Line Reroute
Rerouting the collection line between Turbine 4 and Turbines 3 and 5 as well as between Turbine 5 and
the substation will result in approximately 1,510 square feet of temporary impacts as summarized in
Table 6.
Table 6. Temporary Impacts from Collection Line Reroute
Wetland/Stream ID Project
Component(s)
Impact Area
(square feet)
Impact Area
(acres)
Wetland I Collection Line 113 0.003
Stream JMC Collection Line 62 0.002
Stream JMD Collection Line 63 0.001
Stream JME Collection Line 56 0.001
Wetland JRA Collection Line 867 0.020
Wetland JRB Collection Line 349 0.008
Total 1,510 0.035
Alternative 1(Turbines A and B)
Construction of a turbine at location A would not result in any wetland impacts from either the turbine
itself or the required turbine workspace. While Wetland JMA is located within the 200 foot radius of the
turbine site, additional space in the immediate vicinity exists so that the turbine workspace may be
situated to avoid impacts to this wetland.
Construction of a turbine at location B would not result in any wetland impacts from either the turbine
itself or the required turbine workspace. Placement of a buried electrical collection line from this
13
location to Turbine 1 would result in 200 square feet of temporary impacts to Stream JMF and 165
square feet of temporary impacts to Stream B. Impacts anticipated as a result of Alternative 1 are
summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Temporary Impacts from Alternative 1
Wetland/Stream ID Project
Component(s)
Impact Area
(square feet)
Impact Area
(acres)
Stream B Collection Line 165 0.004
Stream JMF (east) Collection Line 200 0.005
Total 365 0.009
Alternative 2 (Turbines B and C)
As described above, construction of a turbine at location B would not result in any wetland impacts from
either the turbine itself or the required turbine workspace. Placement of a buried electrical collection
line from this location to Turbine 1 would result in 200 square feet of temporary impacts to Stream JMF.
Buried electrical collection lines will be co‐located with the access road to location C at the crossing of
Stream B.
Construction of a turbine at location C would not result in any wetland impacts from either the turbine
itself or the required turbine workspace. Construction of an access road and placement of buried
collection line from Turbine 1 would result in approximately 862 square feet of temporary impacts and
323 square feet of permanent impacts to intermittent streams (Streams B and JMF). Impacts
anticipated as a result of Alternative 2 are summarized in Tables 8 and 9.
Table 8. Temporary Impacts from Alternative 2
Wetland/Stream ID Project
Component(s)
Impact Area
(square feet)
Impact Area
(acres)
Stream B Access Road,
Collection Line 431 0.010
Stream JMF (east) Collection Line 200 0.005
Stream JMF (west) Access Road,
Collection Line 431 0.010
Total 1,062 0.025
Table 9. Permanent Impacts from Alternative 2
Wetland/Stream ID Project
Component(s)
Impact Area
(square feet)
Impact Area
(acres)
Stream B Access Road (7C) 165 0.004
Stream JMF Access Road 158 0.004
Total 323 0.008
Alternative 3 (Turbines A and C)
As described above, construction of a turbine at location A would not result in any wetland impacts from
either the turbine itself or the required turbine workspace. While Wetland JMA is located within the 200
foot radius of the turbine site, additional space in the immediate vicinity exists so that the turbine
workspace may be situated to avoid impacts to this wetland.
14
Construction of a turbine at location C would not result in any wetland impacts from either the turbine
itself or the required turbine workspace. Construction of an access road and placement of buried
collection line from Turbine 1 would result in approximately 862 square feet of temporary impacts and
323 square feet of permanent impacts to intermittent streams (Streams B and JMF). Additionally,
construction of an access road from Turbine 1 to site C would result in approximately 165 square feet of
permanent impacts to Stream B and 158 square feet of permanent impacts to Stream JMF. Impacts
anticipated as a result of Alternative 3 are summarized in Tables 10 and 11.
Table 10. Temporary Impacts from Alternative 3
Wetland/Stream ID Project
Component(s)
Impact Area
(square feet)
Impact Area
(acres)
Stream B Access Road,
Collection Line 165 0.004
Stream JMF (west) Access Road,
Collection Line 431 0.010
Total 596 0.014
Table 11. Permanent Impacts from Alternative 3
Wetland/Stream ID Project
Component(s)
Impact Area
(square feet)
Impact Area
(acres)
Stream B Access Road (7C) 165 0.004
Stream JMF Access Road 158 0.004
Total 323 0.008
2.2.3 Mitigation
Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to surface and groundwater resources are
as described in DEIS Section 3.2.3 and Section 6.3.2 of the Findings Statement. In addition the Project
Sponsor will submit a Pre‐Construction Notification for a Nationwide Permit #51 pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. No New York State Article 15 Protection of Waters or Article 24 Freshwater
Wetlands permits will be necessary. Because the preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), presented in the DEIS as Appendix F, was not location specific, it remains applicable to the
Modified Project and a final SWPPP will be developed during final engineering efforts prior to
construction.
2.3 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY
2.3.1 Existing Conditions
The existing condition of climate and air quality are as described in Section 3.3 of the DEIS and Section
6.4 of the Findings Statement for the Approved Project.
2.3.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
The Modified Project does not present a potential significant adverse impact to the climate or air
resources.
15
As described in Section 3.3 of the DEIS, short‐term impacts to localized air quality during construction
were identified for the Approved Project. 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 access roads. These impacts
are anticipated to be short‐term and localized and, as described for the Approved Project, are the same
as the impacts for the Modified Project.
As described in Section 3.3 of the DEIS, it was anticipated for the Approved Project that operation will
have positive long‐term impacts on air quality based on off‐set emissions from fossil fuel‐fired power
plants in the region. Likewise, the Modified Project will have a beneficial impact on air quality by
producing up to 16.1 MW of electricity without any atmospheric emissions.
2.3.3 Mitigation
Mitigation measures for climate and air quality are as described in the DEIS and Section 6.4.2 of the
Findings Statement (see Appendix A). Because the impacts to climate and air quality are similar as a
result of the Modified Project, no additional mitigation is required or proposed.
2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2.4.1 Existing Conditions
2.4.1.1 Vegetation
Vegetative communities, common and rare plant species, and significant natural communities found
within the Approved Project Site are as described in the DEIS (Section 3.4), and the Findings Statement
(Section 6.5) for the Approved Project. This description is also true for the Modified Project, which is
located in the same area. Vegetative communities in the Modified Project Site were mapped based on
field visits and aerial photography interpretation (see Figure 4). Agricultural land constitutes the largest
vegetative community type comprising approximately 365 acres, or 41 percent, of the Modified Project
Site. Forested areas account for approximately 361 acres, or 40 percent, of the Modified Project Site.
Successional northern hardwood forests (85 acres, or 9 percent, of the Modified Project Site),
successional shrub land (48 acres, or 5 percent, of the Modified Project Site) and successional old field
(17 acres, or 2 percent, of the Modified Project Site) account for the remainder of vegetative
communities found.
2.4.1.2 Fish and Wildlife Resources
Fish and wildlife resources, including threatened and endangered species, within the Modified Project
area are the same as for the Approved Project, and are also as described in Section 3.4 of the DEIS, and
Section 6.5 of the Findings Statement.
2.4.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
The status of threatened and endangered species within the Modified Project area is expected to remain
the same as for the Approved Project. A revised letter will be submitted to the New York Natural
16
Heritage Program (NYNHP) requesting information on threatened and endangered species in the
Modified Project Site and in its vicinity. It is anticipated that the relatively minor shifts to the project
footprint will not result in any changes to the species present. The resulting correspondence with
NYNHP will be included in the FEIS.
2.4.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
Potential impacts to biological resources resulting from the Modified Project will be avoided, minimized
and/or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable with implementation of the requirements set forth
in Section 6.5.2 of the Findings Statement for the Approved Project.
2.4.2.1 Vegetation
The nature of impacts to vegetation and vegetative communities (including invasive species) for the
Modified Project are essentially the same as the Approved Project and are described in Section 6.5.1 of
the Findings Statement. Construction and operation will result in temporary and permanent impacts to
vegetation within the Modified Project Site. However, as with the Approved Project, no plant species
occurring in the Modified Project Site will be extirpated or significantly reduced in abundance as a result
of construction activities.
For the Approved Project, the anticipated types or nature of impacts to vegetation are as described in
the DEIS (Section 3.4). For the Modified Project, vegetation impacts have increased modestly under the
worst case scenarios. See Table 12 below. Under the worst case scenario, the Modified Project will
result in disturbance of up to approximately 31.5 acres of agricultural land, 4.0 acres of successional old‐
field, 1.4 acres of successional shrub land, 20.1 acres of forest, and 1.4 acres of successional northern
hardwood forest. This compares to disturbance estimates of 23.0 acres of agricultural land, 12.8 acres
of successional old‐field, 1.0 acres of successional shrub land, 11.9 acres of forest, and 1.2 acres of
successional northern hardwood forest for construction of the Approved Project. These changes are
summarized in Table 12 below.
Table 12. Impacts to Vegetative Communities
Community Total Disturbance
(Acres)
Temporary Disturbance
(Acres) Permanent Loss (Acres)
Modified
Project
Approved
Project
Modified
Project
Approved
Project
Modified
Project
Approved
Project
Agricultural
Land 31.51 23 26.41 20.9 5.32 2.1
Successional
Old‐Field 4.01,2,3 12.8 4.01,2,3 10.3 0.0 2.5
Successional
Shrubland 1.41,2,3 1.0 1.31,2,3 1.0 0.11,2,3 0.0
Forest 20.12 11.9 18.22 10.9 1.92,3 1.0
17
Community Total Disturbance
(Acres)
Temporary Disturbance
(Acres) Permanent Loss (Acres)
Modified
Project
Approved
Project
Modified
Project
Approved
Project
Modified
Project
Approved
Project
Successional
Northern
Hardwoods
1.41,3 1.2 1.41,3 1.1 0.01,3 0.1
Total 56.62 49.9 49.32 44.1 7.32 6.2
1Alternative 1 (Turbines A and B constructed)
2Alternative 2 (Turbines B and C constructed)
3Alternative 3 (Turbines A and C constructed)
As shown in this Table, the Modified Project as compared to the Approved Project will increase total
disturbance within forestlands. This increase is primarily a result of increased temporary disturbances.
As previously described in the DEIS of the Approved Project, impacts to forest vegetation will occur
through conversion of one vegetative community to another (i.e., forest to successional shrub land or
old field). This conversion will occur within the turbine workspaces, along access roads, along collection
line routes, and within the wind measurement tower workspaces. A total of no more than 18.2 acres of
forestland will be converted to successional communities for the duration of the Modified Project
operation, as compared to 10.9 acres for the Approved Project. The proposed location of Turbine 5 is in
a small clearing along the forest edge. Turbine C would be located within a forested area with no
alternatives to locate outside of the forested area without violations of the setbacks discussed in Section
2.6.1.1. Additionally, the installation of buried collection lines to the substation will result in forest
disturbance. However, no alternative routes for avoiding these impacts are feasible. To the extent
practicable, the Modified 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.
As described in Section 6.5 of the Findings Statement, 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, these activities will result in
disturbance of up to 56.6 acres of vegetative communities within the Modified Project Site.
2.4.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Resources
As mentioned in the FEIS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documented the occurrence of a bald eagle
next on Cayuta Lake (3+ miles from the Modified Project Site. Because the proposed changes all result
in slight shifts away from this nest, no increased adverse impacts are expected. Potential construction
18
and operation‐related impacts to other wildlife resources for the Approved Project are described in
Section 3.4.2 of the DEIS and Section 6.5.1 of the Findings Statement. Because the Modified Project Site
is located in the same general area and impacts similar habitats as the Approved Project, these findings
remain applicable to the Modified Project.
2.4.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
Potential construction and operation‐related impacts to threatened and endangered species for the
Approved Project are described in Section 3.4.2 of the DEIS and Section 6.5.1 of the Findings Statement.
As described in these sections, because limited use of the Approved Project Site by endangered,
threatened, and special concern species is anticipated, no significant adverse impact on these species
was expected during operation. These findings remain applicable to the Modified Project. No federally‐
listed threatened or endangered species have been observed in either the Modified Project Site or the
Approved Project Site. An updated query of the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation
(IPaC) system was performed for the Modified Project (see Appendix C). One federally‐listed species
was listed as occurring within the Modified Project Site or could potentially be affected by the Modified
Project, the northern long‐eared bat, a threatened species. Historical records of the bog turtle,
federally‐listed as threatened, were returned in the county wide search performed for the DEIS.
However, bog turtle was not listed in the results of the most recent search.
In April 2015 the USFWS listed the northern long‐eared bat as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act and established an interim 4(d) rule to protect this species following drastic population declines
caused by white‐nose syndrome in the eastern and mid‐Western United States. A final 4(d) has since
been announced and will take effect on February 16, 2016. The rule is designed to protect the bat while
minimizing regulatory requirements for landowners, land managers, government agencies and others
within the species’ range. Under this rule the likely presence of the species is determined by distance
from known hibernacula and occupied maternity roost trees. Incidental take of northern long‐eared
bats is prohibited if it occurs as a result of removing a known occupied maternity roost tree or removing
trees within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree during the pup season from June 1
through July 31 or as a result of removing trees from within 0.25 mile of a hibernaculum at any time of
year. Based on privileged information provided by the USFWS, the Modified Project Site is located
approximately 50 miles from the nearest known hibernacula in the Town of Dewitt, New York and
approximately 5 miles from the nearest roost tree located in the Town of Hector, New York. As such,
the Project Sponsor is assuming absence pending further review. The Project Sponsor will consult with
the USACE, as lead federal agency, for a Section 404 wetland permit in which a coordinated review with
USFWS will be conducted to evaluate potential impacts to this species. As mentioned in Section 2.4.1,
the FEIS will also be updated with a response from the NYNHP, which will provide further evidence of
presence or absence.
None of the state‐listed species observed on‐site and discussed in Section 3.4.2 of the DEIS appear likely
to engage in behaviors 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. The Modified Project Site will not be significantly larger than the
Approved Project and does not include habitats that are far‐removed from, or significantly different
than, the Approved Project Site. Therefore, no additional adverse impacts are anticipated.
19
2.4.3 Mitigation
Mitigation for impacts to biological resources are as described in the 6.5.2 of the Findings Statement and
includes environmental monitoring during construction. The Findings Statement concludes that
potential impacts to biological resources will be avoided, minimized and/or mitigated to the maximum
extent practicable with implementation of the measures set forth in Section 6.5.2 of the Findings
Statement. The Modified Project has essentially the same impacts to vegetative communities as
compared to the Approved Project. The Modified Project layout has avoided or minimized vegetation
impacts to the maximum extent possible through careful site planning. Access roads will be sited on
existing farm lanes and forest roads wherever possible; areas of disturbance will be confined to the
smallest area possible; and components will be co‐located wherever possible. As described in the DEIS,
an Invasive Species Control Plan will be developed, which covers: construction materials inspection;
target species treatment and removal; construction equipment sanitation; and restoration. No
increases in impacts to wildlife or threatened and endangered species are expected as a result of the
proposed modifications. Therefore, no change in mitigation is proposed.
2.5 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
2.5.1 Existing Conditions
Both the Approved Project Site and the Modified Project Site are served by a network of state, county
and local highways and roads that range from two‐lane highways to gravel roads and dirt access roads
and logging roads. Existing traffic and transportation conditions were presented in Section 3.9.1 of the
DEIS for the Approved Project. This includes a description of the transportation routes outside of the
Approved Project Site, oversized/overweight truck routes, transportation routes within the Approved
Project Site, and school bus routes. The Modified Project will utilize Cayutaville Road, which is an
unpaved road in the Town of Newfield. Cayutaville Road would be used to access the substation and
Turbine location A if that turbine location is selected for construction. This access route includes
approximately 1,200 feet of existing gravel access road that begins at Cayutaville Road and is expected
to be sufficient for the purposes of the Modified Project with relatively minor improvements. The
Modified Project will also utilize Harvey Hill Road, a paved road in the Town of Enfield, to access Turbine
B if that turbine location is selected for construction.
2.5.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
Impacts to traffic and transportation are described in the DEIS Section 3.9.2 and 6.6.1 of the Finding
Statement. As stated in the DEIS, the roads within the Approved Project Site vary in surface type, width
and condition. The DEIS presented an assessment of roads that will require upgrades to allow them to
be used for turbine component and construction material delivery. These upgrades consist primarily of
turn radius improvements at intersections. The DEIS provides a description of anticipated road
improvement areas, delivery routes, and construction trips generated by the Approved Project.
It is anticipated that the traffic and transportation‐related impacts of the Modified Project will be
essentially the same as described in Section 6.6.1 of the Findings Statement, and the same general
delivery routes, local highways, and roads will be used for turbine component delivery and construction
material delivery. Preliminary analysis indicates that any additional roads required for component
delivery (such as Cayutaville Road and Harvey Hill Road) are sufficient for these purposes. Harvey Hill
Road appears similar in condition and width to the roads analyzed and selected for the Approved
20
Project. While Cayutaville Road is an unpaved surface, its width and condition are consistent with and
comparable to the type of roads typically used to deliver wind project components. A final
transportation analysis will be provided in the Supplemental FEIS (SFEIS) along with any proposed
improvements.
2.5.3 Mitigation
As described in the Section 3.9.3 of the DEIS and 6.6.2 of the Findings Statement, delivery routes have
been selected to minimize impacts to local roads and communities. Delivery routes have been selected
based upon extensive field surveys and in coordination with the manufacturer of the originally proposed
turbine model (Repower). Black Oak Wind will obtain all required Town, County and State permits. A
Road Use Agreement with Tompkins County will be implemented that include necessary improvements
and repairs to be completed. Anticipated improvements are as described in the DEIS Section 3.9.3.
Since the Modified Project will not use new primary construction delivery routes, and no additional
impacts to traffic or transportation are anticipated as a result of the Modified Project, no additional
mitigation measures beyond those described for the Approved Project are required or proposed.
2.6 LAND USE AND ZONING
Land use and zoning in the Modified Project Site was determined through review of local Town codes,
tax parcel maps, aerial photographs, and field reviews conducted in 2013 and 2015.
2.6.1 Existing Conditions
2.6.1.1 Project Site Land Use and Zoning
Regional and local land use patterns remain as described in Section 3.17 of the DEIS. The Modified
Project area is rural and low‐density in character, with active farms, forestland, and single‐family rural
residences as the dominant land uses.
Both the Town of Enfield and the Town of Newfield have local wind laws (Town of Enfield Local Law No.
1 of 2009, Town of Newfield Local Law Number 2 of 2009). The Town of Enfield law remains as
described in Section 3.17.1 of the DEIS. The Town of Newfield law is identical to the Town of Enfield’s
with the exception of a more restrictive noise limit and increased setback distances. Summaries of the
setbacks outlined in these town laws are provided in Table 13 below. A map of applicable setback
distances as applied to the Modified Project is shown on Figure 5.
21
Table 13. Local Law Summary
Local Law
Requirement Town of Newfield Town of Enfield Modified Project
Setback
Sound Levels
Shall not exceed 55
decibels at nearest off‐
site residence.
Shall not exceed 60
decibels at nearest off‐
site residence.
N/A
Non‐Participating
Residences
750 feet or 1.5 times the
total turbine height (726
feet in the case of the
Modified Project),
whichever is greater.
450 feet or 1.1 times
the total turbine height
(532 feet in the case of
the Modified Project),
whichever is greater.
Approximately 1015
feet to the nearest
residence.
Non‐Participating Land
Parcels
750 feet or 1.5 times the
blade radius (263 feet in
the case of the Modified
Project), whichever is
greater.
100 feet or 1.1 times
the blade radius (193
feet in the case of the
Modified Project),
whichever is greater.
Approximately 225 feet
to the nearest non‐
participating parcel in
the Town of Enfield.
Approximately 1,600
feet to the nearest non‐
participating parcel in
the Town of Newfield.
Wind Turbine
750 feet or 1.5 times the
total height (726 feet in
the case of the Modified
Project), whichever is
greater.
450 feet or 1.1 times
the total height (532
feet in the case of the
Modified Project),
whichever is greater.
Approximately 1,300
feet between the
closest turbines.
Wetlands 100 feet from mapped or
jurisdictional wetlands.1
100 feet from mapped
or jurisdictional
wetlands.1
120 feet from the
nearest wetland.
1Except where wetlands fill or construction permits have been issued by the NYSDEC or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as applicable.
In addition to the setbacks above, turbine siting also complies with a New York State Electric and Gas
Corporation (NYSEG) 725‐foot setback from electrical transmission lines and a GE‐recommended 994‐
foot ice throw setback from residences.
2.6.1.2 Future Land Use
As stated in Section 3.17.1.3 of the DEIS for the Approved Project, future land use patterns in Tompkins
County are anticipated to remain largely unchanged for the foreseeable future. Construction and
operation of the Modified Project, as with the Approved Project, is not anticipated to impact future land
use, with the exception of minor land conversion to build wind farm facilities on each parcel.
The Town of Enfield Wind Law establishes a turbine setback from property lines of 1.1 times the blade
radius or 193 feet. The setback to occupied residences specified in the Town of Enfield Wind Law is 1.1
times the total turbine height, or 532 feet.
As such, there will be portions of non‐participating land beyond the 193 foot property line setback that
fall within the larger setback of 532 feet. While occupied structures do not exist on the affected
portions of these non‐participating properties at the present time, landowners may have plans for
future development in these areas. However, future development on this affected land will be curtailed
22
or affected by the presence of the wind turbine (with respect to setting, noise, visual impacts, shadow
flicker, etc.). Non‐participating land affected by this setback situation includes the following properties:
3.9 acres of parcel 18.‐1‐2 located south of Turbine 4.
2.8 acres of parcel 18.‐2‐4.3 located southeast of Turbine 6.
0.3 acres of parcel 12.‐2‐1.1 located northwest of Turbine C.
A total of 7.0 acres on three properties owned by non‐participating landowners will be affected. This
compares to 10.6 acres that would have been affected as described in the FEIS. This is an unavoidable
impact. There is no mitigation proposed regarding these effects on the future ability to develop these
lands.
2.6.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
The Modified Project will be in conformance with local laws in the Towns of Enfield and Newfield, as
applicable. Additionally, similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project will have localized
impacts on land use. These impacts include temporary, construction‐related impacts, as well as
permanent impacts (related to operational facilities and infrastructure). These impacts are summarized
below.
As compared with the Approved Project, only minor changes to land use within the Modified Project Site
are anticipated as a result of operation for the Modified Project. The turbine sites, substation, and other
ancillary facilities represent the cumulative conversion of up to 8.4 acres of land from agricultural,
residential, or vacant land use. This is an increase of, at most, 1.9 acres from the Approved Project,
which consisted of 6.5 acres of permanent disturbance to mapped land uses.
2.6.3 Mitigation
Mitigation for impact to land use and zoning is as described in the DEIS Section 3.17.3 and 6.7.2 of the
Findings Statement. Good neighbor agreements will be offered to landowners near the Modified
Project Site if they were not offered as part of the Approved Project. Because only minor differences in
impacts to land use are anticipated as a result of the Modified Project, no additional mitigation is
required or proposed.
2.7 ENERGY
2.7.1 Existing Condition
Existing energy conditions for the Modified Project remain as described in DEIS Section 3.10.1.
2.7.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
As with the Approved Project and described in DEIS Section 3.10.2 and 6.8.1 of the Findings Statement,
the Modified Project is not expected to result in significant adverse energy impacts. All impacts to
energy are expected to be positive and will not result in the need for mitigation.
23
2.7.3 Mitigation
As described in Section 6.8.2 of the Findings Statement, 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.
2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
2.8.1 Existing Conditions
The Towns of Enfield, Newfield, and surrounding areas are served by a range of community facilities and
services, including public utilities and infrastructure, police and fire protection and emergency response,
educational facilities, and parks and recreation. These services are described in Section 3.15.1 of the
DEIS and Section 6.9 of the Findings Statement, and are generally considered adequate for the area’s
population. The siting of Modified Project components within the Town of Newfield would place part of
the Modified Project within the Newfield Fire Department’s service area. All other facilities and services
are the same when considering the Approved Project in relation to the Modified Project.
2.8.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
As with the Approved Project and described in DEIS Section 3.15.2 and 6.9.1 of the Findings Statement,
the Modified Project is not expected to result in significant adverse effects on community facilities or
services in and around Modified Project Site, including utilities, provision of emergency services,
libraries, park and recreational areas, and health care and public education facilities. In fact, the
additional municipal and county revenue generated by the Modified Project will help maintain and
possibility expand these services and facilities. Consultation with the Enfield Fire Company indicates
they are confident in their ability to control fires in open fields, but concerned regarding the ability to
control fires if they spread to forests.
As mentioned in the DEIS, Enterprise Products of Houston, Texas operates a petroleum pipeline that
runs through the Approved Project Site. This pipeline is also within the Modified Project Site. The
Project Sponsor has received a Letter of No Objection from Enterprise Products regarding the Modified
Project (see Appendix D).
2.8.3 Mitigation
Mitigation to community facilities and services is as described in Section 3.15.3 of the DEIS and 6.9.2 of
the Findings Statement. Mitigation measures for the Approved Project and the Modified Project are the
same. This will include the offer of training in all the same topics for local first responders in the Town
of Newfield as stated for the Town of Enfield in the DEIS. This will also include additional tax revenue,
which will help support community facilities and services within the Modified Project area, including
utilities, provision of emergency services, libraries, park and recreational areas, and health care and
public education facilities and services without significantly drawing upon them. The Town of Newfield
will be added to an updated Fire Prevention and Emergency Response Plan. Because the Modified
Project does not result in additional adverse impacts to community facilities and services, no additional
mitigation measures are required or proposed.
24
2.9 GROWTH AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER
2.9.1 Existing Condition
The existing condition of the community is described in Section 3.13.1 of the DEIS for the Approved
Project. This description is consistent for the Modified Project.
2.9.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
Potential adverse impacts to growth and community character are described in Section 3.12.2 of the
DEIS and 6.10.1 of the Findings Statement for the Approved Project, which are consistent with the
Modified Project. Potential impacts include both temporary impacts during construction as well as
operational impacts. Potential adverse impacts during construction may include visual impacts from the
additional construction vehicles, equipment, and materials in the area as well as site disturbances such
as tree clearing, earth moving, soil stockpiling, and road building. Operation of the Modified Project will
also result in some visual impacts from the presence of the turbines and meteorological tower in the
landscape. The presence of these structures may also be considered a change in community character,
though wind power is now increasingly considered an integral (if not essential) part of the modern
agrarian landscape. The changes proposed for the Modified Project are not anticipated to result in any
additional adverse impacts to growth and community character.
2.9.3 Mitigation
Minimization and mitigation measures to address potential adverse impacts to community character are
addressed in Section 6.10.2 of the Findings Statement for the Approved Project. The Findings conclude
that the Approved Project is compatible with the agricultural land use that dominates the Approved
Project Site. However, it was determined the Approved Project would impact agricultural activities (at
least temporarily) and result in a change to community character and perceived land use throughout
the area. Mitigation measures to reduce the impact of the Approved Project on community
character are described in Section 6.10.2 of the Findings Statement. Because the Modified Project does
not present additional potential impacts not addressed in the Approved Project Record, these mitigation
measures should be sufficient and no additional mitigation measures for the Modified Project are
proposed. Furthermore, as described in Section 6.10.2, the Project Sponsor will establish a
decommissioning fund in an amount sufficient to secure the cost of removing turbine site improvements
as required under the Enfield Town Wind Law. This fund will assure that the proposed wind power
facility will be dismantled and removed in accordance with the Decommissioning Plan in the event that
it reaches the end of its operational life span or its operation is otherwise abandoned. A preliminary
Decommissioning Plan is included as Appendix E of the DEIS.
2.10 HISTORIC, CULTURAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2.10.1 Existing Conditions
Cultural resources (including archeological sites located within the Approved Project area and
historically significant properties or structures and archeological sites located within the five‐mile radius
survey area for the Approved Project) are identified in the DEIS (Section 3.7), and FEIS (Sections 2.3.3) of
the Approved Project Record. The cultural resources studies prepared for the Approved Project were
conducted in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Office Guidelines for Wind Farm
25
Development Cultural Resources Survey Work (the “SHPO Wind Guidelines”) issued by the New York
State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (“OPRHP”) in 2006. These studies were
submitted to OPRHP for review and comment in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act; Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law;
and SEQRA. A review of the previously conducted cultural resources surveys and associated regulatory
agency correspondence relative to the Modified Project design is included in Appendix E.
2.10.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
A Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey, a Phase 1B Archaeological Survey, a Historic Architectural
Resources Survey, and a Visual Effects Analysis were all completed for the Approved Project layout with
a finding of No Effect issued for archaeological resources and a finding of No Adverse Effect issued for
historic architectural resources. The Approved Project layout consisted of seven proposed turbine
locations, 2.7 miles of access roads, 4.1 miles of interconnect, two staging areas, and one substation;
and the Modified Project Layout consists of a total of 7 proposed turbine locations, no more than 3.2
miles of access roads (depending on which alternate turbines are developed), no more than 4.7 miles of
interconnect (depending on which alternate turbines are developed), one meteorological tower, one
staging area, and one substation. Additionally, the areas of potential impact for the Modified Project
layout are not significantly different, in terms of archaeological sensitivity, than the Approved Project
layout (both contain areas of moderate and high archaeological sensitivity, per PAF [2013]). The
Modified Project expands the area of potential effect (APE) approximately 0.4 mile northeast and
approximately 0.7 mile southwest as compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, it is anticipated
that the results of the previous archaeological survey are applicable to the layout changes proposed in
the Modified Project.
Thus far, cultural resources studies have been conducted with adherence to the SHPO Wind Guidelines.
Environmental Design and Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Services,
D.P.C. (“EDR”), the Project Sponsor’s cultural resources consultant indicates the SHPO Wind Guidelines
are based on the assumption that additional archaeological survey work is not necessary if minor
changes to the layout occur during the development process, as long as the total area of ground
disturbance for the does not significantly increase. No archaeological resources were identified as a
result of the Phase 1B archaeological survey previously conducted for the Approved Project, and the
results of a visual effects analysis determined that the Approved Project would not have an adverse
impact on historic properties. EDR indicates the minor layout changes proposed in the Modified Project
will not change these findings.
EDR has reviewed the Modified Project layout and concluded that the previous cultural resources
studies conducted for the Approved Project are sufficient for the purposes of evaluating the Modified
Project’s potential effect on archaeological and historic resources (See Appendix E). The Project Sponsor
will submit the Modified Project to SHPO for review and a final determination of whether additional
cultural resources studies or analyses are recommended. This correspondence will be included in the
SFEIS.
2.10.3 Mitigation
Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to cultural resources are as described in
DEIS Section 3.7.3 and Sections 6.11.2 and 6.13.2 of the Findings Statement for the Approved Project.
26
Since there is no significant change in anticipated impacts or number of potentially affected historic
properties as a result of the Modified Project layout, no additional mitigation is required or proposed.
2.11 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
2.11.1 Existing Condition
Both the Modified Project and the Approved Project are located in Tompkins County Agricultural District
2. The Approved Project Site included approximately 546 acres of agricultural land while the Modified
Project area includes approximately 365 acres of agricultural land. Approximately 5 acres (0.6%) of soils
within the Modified Project Site are classified as Prime Farmland and 697 acres (77%) are classified as
Farmland of Statewide Importance. Agricultural conditions otherwise are as described in Section 3.5.1
of the DEIS.
2.11.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
Construction‐related disturbance to agricultural land for the Approved Project was anticipated to impact
approximately 23 acres (of which 20.9 acres would be restored to agricultural use). The Modified
Project will result in a minor increase in impacts to agricultural land use. The Modified Project is
anticipated to impact no more than 31.5 acres of agricultural land, of which 26.4 acres will be restored
to agricultural use. Agricultural impacts from new component locations in the Modified Project are
primarily associated with the substation and turbine locations A and B. As a result Alternative 1 (26.4
acres of temporary impacts and 5.1 acres of permanent impacts) and Alternative 2 (24.8 acres of
temporary impacts and 5.3 acres of permanent impacts) result in higher acreages of agricultural impacts
that Alternative 3 (22.8 acres of temporary impacts and 5.0 acres of permanent impacts). The turbine A
and the substation site are proposed in fields that are currently fallow. The proposed location of turbine
B is a hay field.
The Modified Project would disturb up to 38 acres of soils classified as Farmland of Statewide
Importance and up to 0.04 acres of soils classified as Prime Farmland. This compares to 38.4 acres of
disturbance to soils classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance and no disturbance to Prime
Farmland in the DEIS. The Modified Project would result in the conversion of up to 6.1 acres of soils
classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance to build facilities and no permanent conversion of Prime
Farmland. The DEIS indicated the permanent conversion of 3.9 acres of Farmland of Statewide
Importance and no permanent conversion of Prime Farmland.
As previously described in Section 3.5.2 of the DEIS, 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.
Wind turbines and associated facilities for the Modified Project have been located so as to minimize loss
of active agricultural land and interference with agricultural operations. Additionally, measures to
27
minimize construction related impacts to agricultural land are detailed in Appendix G of the DEIS
(Agricultural Protection Guidelines).
2.11.3 Mitigation
Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to agricultural resources are as described
in DEIS Section 3.5.3 and Sections 6.12.2 of the Findings Statement for the Approved Project. This
includes adherence to the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDA&M) Guidelines for
Agricultural Mitigation for Wind Power Projects. The Siting Goals presented in the NYSDA&M guidelines
were used to the maximum extent possible in the design of the Modified Project layout. The NYSDA&M
guidelines will also be adhered to during the construction, restoration, monitoring, and remediation of
the Modified Project. Since there is no significant change in anticipated agricultural impacts as a result
of the Modified Project layout, no additional mitigation is required or proposed.
2.12 AESTHETIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES
On February 1, 2016, Harris, Miller, Miller, & Hanson, Inc. (“HMMH”) prepared an updated evaluation of
the potential visual impacts from the operation of the Modified Project (see Appendix F). The Revised
Visual Impact Assessment for Black Oak Wind Farm Project accounts for the new turbine specifications
and layout alternatives of the Modified Project. Both visual impact assessments (“VIA”) were conducted
using industry standard methods consistent with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) existing visual policy Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts (NYSDEC 2000).
2.12.1 Existing Conditions
Existing visual and aesthetic resources within the visual study area were identified as part of a previous
VIA prepared by HMMH on March 31, 2014 (see DEIS Appendix Q). The proposed GE 2.3 ‐ 107 turbines
are similar in design and size to the previous GE 1.7 ‐ 100 turbine design. Therefore, existing visual
resources remain as described in Section 3.6.1 of the DEIS for the Approved Project. The Modified
Project visual study area and the Approved Project study area are essentially the same.
2.12.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
Visual impacts during construction of the Approved Project were described in Section 3.6.2 of the DEIS,
and 6.13.1 of the Findings Statement, and will be similar for the Modified Project.
2.12.2.1 Viewshed Analysis
An updated viewshed analysis was prepared for the Modified Project layout consistent with the
methods outlined in the Approved Project VIA (DEIS Appendix Q). Both analyses incorporated National
Land cover Dataset (NLCD) information to determine locations where unobstructed views are likely. The
NLCD was used to estimate line‐of‐sight calculations assuming a canopy cover, or “leaf on” conditions.
The viewshed analysis was revised to assess the visual impact of the GE 2.3 ‐ 107 wind turbines by
identifying locations where portions of one or more turbines could be visible during the daytime and
where the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) lights could be visible during nighttime conditions.
Viewshed maps were created using industry standard methodologies and software with descriptive
information specific to the turbines proposed for the Modified Project, digital elevation model (DEM),
28
and land cover data. The analysis was updated for the GE 2.3 ‐ 107 turbine assuming a hub height of 94
meters above ground level (agl).
Daytime Visibility
Line‐of‐sight calculations were revised from each point in the geographic area assuming turbine
specifications of 94 meter hub height and a 107 meter rotor diameter. Consistent with the original
analysis, the turbine blade was conservatively assumed to be stopped in the straight‐up position, giving
an effective height of the turbine to the blade tip of 147.5 meters agl compared to the previous
assessment of 146 meters agl for the GE 1.7 ‐ 100 turbines. The analysis was based on Alternative 1
(construction of Turbines A and B), which is a conservative assumption and shows the widest span of
turbines.
Figure 6 presents the results of the revised daytime viewshed analysis. The revised viewshed map
shows the areas where one or more of the turbines could be visible during daytime conditions. The map
denotes different colors for the number of turbines that might be visible from any given location from
one turbine up to seven turbines. Some of the turbines may still be visible beyond five miles from the
site; however, distance and natural conditions will significantly mitigate the visual impact at these
locations as one moves further away from the turbines. There are no other changes from Section 5.1.1
of the previous Visual Impact Assessment.
The revised viewshed results (see Figure 6) show the locations within the five‐mile radius where each of
the seven GE turbines could be visible during daytime conditions. Table 14 summarizes the viewshed
coverage acres and percentage of study area by number of turbines visible for both the GE 2.3 ‐ 107 and
GE 1.7 ‐ 100 turbines. The revised results show that the turbines will likely not be visible from
approximately 83.3% (compared to 84% with the Approved Project) of the area due to existing
topography and vegetation. The remaining 16.7% of the area could theoretically see any combination of
the 7 turbines, with one turbine visible for approximately 3.5% of the area, two to six turbines
potentially visible from 8% of the area and seven turbines potentially visible from approximately 5.2% of
the area. In summary, the daytime viewshed coverage with the Modified Project is similar to the
Approved Project with some turbines slightly more or less visible within the five mile viewshed.
Table 14. Revised Daytime Viewshed Coverage Summary within Five Miles of the Modified Project
compared to the Approved Project
Number of
Turbines Visible
Acres (Modified
Project)
Acres (Approved
Project)
Percentage of
Study Area
(Modified Project)
Percentage of
Study Area
(Approved
Project)
0 (No Turbines) 51,344 51,772 83.3% 84.0%
1 Turbine 2,149 1,170 3.5% 1.9%
2 Turbines 937 1,001 1.5% 1.6%
3 Turbines 964 864 1.6% 1.4%
4 Turbines 770 1,040 1.2% 1.7%
5 Turbines 837 917 1.4% 1.5%
6 Turbines 1,417 910 2.3% 1.5%
7 Turbines 3,239 3,979 5.2% 6.5%
29
Nighttime Visibility
The viewshed analysis was revised to assess potential visibility of the FAA turbine lights during nighttime
conditions. The viewshed analysis was conducted using the same methodology as described in Section
5.1.1 of the previous Visual Impact Assessment and a hub height of 94 meters was used for the
nighttime visibility which is the approximate height of the FAA lighting on the GE nacelle. Figure 7
presents the results of the revised nighttime viewshed analysis.
Similar to the daytime analysis, the nighttime viewshed map shows the areas where one or more of the
turbine lights could be visible during nighttime conditions assuming the same turbine combinations.
The map denotes different colors for the number of turbine lights that might be visible from any given
location from one turbine up to seven turbines.
The revised viewshed results (see Figure 7) show the locations within the five‐mile radius where each of
the seven turbine FAA lights could be visible during nighttime conditions. Table 15 presents the revised
viewshed coverage summary in acres and percentage of study area by number of turbines where the
lighting is visible for both the Approved Project and the Modified Project. The revised results show that
the turbine lights will likely not be visible from approximately 86.3% (compared to 86.6% with the
Approved Project) of the area due to existing topography and vegetation. The remaining 13.7% of the
area could theoretically still see any combination of the seven turbine lights, with one turbine light
visible for 3.9% of the area, two to six turbine lights potentially visible from 7.3% of the area and seven
turbine lights potentially visible from 2.5% of the area. Similar to the daytime VIA results, the nighttime
viewshed coverage of the Modified Project is similar to the Approved Project with some turbine lights
slightly more or less visible within the five mile viewshed.
Table 15. Revised Nighttime FAA Lighting Viewshed Coverage Summary within Five Miles for the
Modified Project compared to the Approved Project
Number of
Turbines Visible
Acres (Modified
Project)
Acres (Approved
Project)
Percentage of
Study Area
(Modified Project)
Percentage of
Study Area
(Approved
Project)
0 (No Turbines) 53,188 53,362 86.3% 86.6%
1 Turbine 2,379 1,435 3.9% 2.3%
2 Turbines 951 1,003 1.5% 1.6%
3 Turbines 943 946 1.5% 1.5%
4 Turbines 688 1,003 1.1% 1.6%
5 Turbines 729 745 1.2% 1.2%
6 Turbines 1,211 809 2.0% 1.3%
7 Turbines 1,567 2,348 2.5% 3.8%
Aesthetic Resources of Statewide and Local Significance
Of the six identified aesthetic resources of statewide significance within the five‐mile study area (Texas
Hollow State Forest, Robert Treman State Park, Connecticut Hill Wildlife Management Area, the Finger
Lakes Trail, Newfield Covered Bridge, Enfield Falls Mill & Miller’s House), the VIA indicates that five will
have no views of the Modified Project because of topographical and vegetative screening. These are
identical results to those reported in the DEIS. Based on the updated viewshed and line‐of‐sight analysis
provided in the VIA (Appendix F), the Finger Lakes Trail is the only aesthetic resource of statewide
30
significance expected to have partial views of the Modified Project. In addition, there will be no turbines
visible from the majority of identified resources of local significance (e.g. campgrounds, parks, churches,
cemeteries, State Forests), nor from the population centers of Newfield Hamlet and Enfield Center. It
should be noted there may be partial views of the turbine blades from locations just north of Enfield
Center. Local resources expected to have partial or full views of the turbines include Csiko Sawyer,
Enfield Elementary, Enfield Community Christian School, Hillendale Golf Course, Laurel Hill Cemetery,
Rolfe Cemetery, the Noble House Farm Bed & 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, Harvey Hill, Chapman Road,
Swamp Road, Cox Road, Rothermich Road, County Line Road, Fish Road, and Kelsey Road.
2.12.2.2 Visual Simulations
HMMH re‐evaluated the eight observer locations chosen for photo simulations in the previous VIA. A
review of each observer location relative to turbine locations A, B, and C confirmed the turbine would
either not be visible from any of the nearby locations due to trees, structures and terrain blocking the
views; or the turbines would be just outside the photo field of view. Therefore, four additional observer
locations from nearby roadways were identified to represent a range of views of the Modified Project
layout incorporating the three alternative locations.
Table 16 lists the four new observer locations (80‐83) identified for photo simulations in the revised VIA
along with an additional observer location for the meteorological tower (84). These locations are also
presented in Figure 9 of Appendix F.
Table 16. Additional Observer Locations Selected for Photo Simulation
Observer
Location
Observer
Location Name
Resource
Type
View
Direction
Observer
User
Groups
Landscape
Type
Distance
Zone
Closest
Distance
to
Turbines
(miles)
80 Cayutaville
Road
Local
Interest
Southeast
looking
Northwest
Local
Residents
Rural
Agricultural Foreground 0.52
81 Black Oak Road Local
Interest
Southwest
looking
Northeast
Local
Residents
Rural
Agricultural Foreground 0.29
82
Corner of Black
Oak Road and
Harvey Hill
Road
Local
Interest
Northwest
looking
Southeast
Local
Residents
Rural
Agricultural Foreground 0.36
83 Harvey Hill
Road
Local
Interest
North
looking
South
Local
Residents
Rural
Agricultural Foreground 0.25
84
Black Oak Road
(Meteorological
Tower Only)
Local
Interest
East
looking
West
Local
Residents
Rural
Agricultural Foreground 0.54
31
Appendix F contains the existing and proposed conditions photo simulations for the four new observer
locations (80‐83) to account for the alternative turbine locations under consideration for the Modified
Project. An additional observer location (84) was also included to show the potential visual impact for
the proposed meteorological tower. It should be noted that “worst case” photo simulations were
previously prepared under clear sky conditions; however, the new photo simulations were prepared
under cloudy to mostly cloudy skies typical of wintertime conditions in the western part of Tompkins
County.
The VIA (Appendix F) indicates that overall visual impact for the Modified Project is essentially the same
compared to DEIS; therefore, the conclusions remain the same as the March 2014 assessment for the
eight previous observer locations. Similar conclusions can be drawn for the four new observer locations.
Consistent with the NYSDEC Visual Policy, simple visibility of the Modified Project from any of the
existing or new viewing locations does not imply detrimental effect to the beauty or structure.
Specifically the policy 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 viewing locations chosen for the photosimulations show the views of potential wind turbine sites
before and after construction; however, the VIA indicates the anticipated visual impacts do not meet the
NYSDEC significance criteria. Therefore, the Project’s visual impact on the selected viewing locations is
not significant. In addition, similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project will not have a
detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a place and will not cause a diminishment of the public
enjoyment of a statewide significant resource including the Finger Lakes Trail.
The revised VIA also includes a rendering of the proposed meteorological tower located just south of
Turbine 4. The observer location is along Black Oak Road approximately a half mile to the east of the
meteorological tower looking west. The photo simulation shows the meteorological tower including
Turbine 4 just to the north (i.e. on the right hand side of the picture) of the tower. The tower is located
on a hill and will be self‐supported. It should be noted that the VIA assumed a worst‐case scenario for
the meteorological tower, which included the use of guy‐wires for support. The Project Sponsor has
subsequently determined that guy‐wires will not be necessary and the meteorological tower will be self‐
supported on a concrete foundation. The meteorological tower is comparable in scale (i.e. height) with
Turbine 4 where the lower half of the tower will be obstructed by trees surrounding the tower location
and only the upper portion will be visible at this location.
2.12.2.3 Assessment of Shadow Flicker
The shadow flicker assessment conducted for the Modified Project (see Appendix G) used updated
turbine specifications and additional receptor locations. Because the proposed new turbine locations
(i.e., turbine locations A, B, and C) are located in areas closer to residential areas that were not affected
by the Approved Project layout, additional receptor locations were selected and used in the analysis of
the Modified Project. Up to 20 additional receptor locations were analyzed along Black Oak Road,
32
Harvey Hill Road, and Cayutaville Road. These locations are shown and summarized in the Revised
Shadow Flicker Study (Appendix G). There were no other changes to the original shadow flicker analysis.
See Section 3 of DEIS Appendix S for details.
The revised shadow flicker study results indicate relatively low shadow flicker effects are still expected
for a majority of receptor locations in and around the Modified Project Site (see Figures 9, 10, and 11).
There are some locations where expected flicker duration could increase or decrease with the Modified
Project as compared to the Approved Project; however, there are no locations where the total hours per
year are estimated to be greater than 30 hours, a common standard for assessing significance of
impacts.
The maximum worst case shadow flicker hours are predicted to increase from 19:51 to 27:41 hours for
Alternative 2 (construction of Turbines B & C), 22:15 hours for Alternative 1 (construction of Turbines A
& B), and 26:37 hours for Alternative 3 (construction of Turbines A & C). The worst case combination of
27:41 hours is predicted at a receptor location along Black Oak Road. These changes are due to shifting
the layout, changes in turbine specifications including a net increase in overall structure height of 1.5
meters (from 146 meters to 147.5 meters) and increase in rotor diameter (from 100 meters to 107
meters), which affects the intersection of the sun, turbine and receptor.
Additional information about the anticipated shadow flicker at receptors expected to receive more
than 10 hours of flicker per year is provided in Tables 17, 18, and 19.
Table 17. Receptors Expected to Receive >10 Hours/Year of Shadow Flicker Under Alternative 1.
Receptor Description
GE 2.3‐107
Expected Hours
of Shadow Per
Year
GE 1.7‐100
Expected
Hours
of Shadow Per
Year
Net
Change
AS Connecticut Hill 2nd Furthest East 12:41 10:56 +1:45
AF Black Oak Rd. 6th from top 15:01 13:30 +1.31
BJ Black Oak Rd. 8th from top 16:55 14:48 +2:07
BL Black Oak 9th from north 18:39 16:21 +2:18
BI Black Oak Rd. 7th from north 22:15 19:51 +2:24
Table 18. Receptors Expected to Receive >10 Hours/Year of Shadow Flicker Under Alternative 2.
Receptor Description
GE 2.3‐107
Expected Hours
of Shadow Per
Year
GE 1.7‐100
Expected
Hours
of Shadow Per
Year
Net
Change
CJ Black Oak Road North 6 12:00 NA +12:00
AS Connecticut Hill 2nd Furthest East 12:41 10:56 +1:45
AF Black Oak Rd. 6th from top 15:01 13:30 +1:31
CI Black Oak Road North 5 16:46 NA +16:46
BJ Black Oak Rd. 8th from top 16:55 14:48 +2:07
BL Black Oak 9th from north 18:39 16:21 +2:18
33
Receptor Description
GE 2.3‐107
Expected Hours
of Shadow Per
Year
GE 1.7‐100
Expected
Hours
of Shadow Per
Year
Net
Change
CF Black Oak Road North 2 20:34 NA +20:34
CH Black Oak Road North 4 20:41 NA +20:41
BI Black Oak Rd. 7th from north 22:15 19:51 +2:24
CG Black Oak Road North 3 27:41 NA +27:41
Table 19. Receptors Expected to Receive >10 Hours/Year of Shadow Flicker Under Alternative 3.
Receptor Description
GE 2.3‐107
Expected Hours
of Shadow Per
Year
GE 1.7‐100
Expected
Hours
of Shadow Per
Year
Net
Change
AS Connecticut Hill 2nd Furthest East 12:41 10:56 +1:45
CI Black Oak Road North 5 13:35 NA +13:35
AF Black Oak Rd. 6th from top 15:01 13:30 +1:31
BJ Black Oak Rd. 8th from top 16:55 14:48 +2:07
CH Black Oak Road North 4 17:06 NA +17:06
BL Black Oak 9th from north 18:39 16:21 +2:18
CF Black Oak Road North 2 19:48 NA +19:48
BI Black Oak Rd. 7th from north 22:15 19:51 +2:24
CG Black Oak Road North 3 26:37 NA +26:37
2.12.3 Mitigation
Proposed mitigation measures for visual impacts are as described in Section 3.8.3 of the DEIS. The
mitigation measures for the Approved Project and Modified Project are the same. Although there is an
increase in turbine height, the visible viewshed for the Modified Project is essentially the same as the
Approved Project. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required or proposed.
As indicated in DEIS Section 3.6.3 and 6.13.2 of the Findings Statement, 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. In addition, the Project Sponsor will implement a Community Outreach and
Communications Plan (see DEIS Appendix U). This plan sets forth an open communication link between
the Town and the Project Sponsor, and also establishes a Complaint Resolution Procedure that could be
used if complaints regarding shadow flicker arise. An 800 number will be set up by the Project Sponsor
prior to construction, which allows local residents to voice concerns related to issues such as shadow
flicker. However, shadow flicker from the Modified Project will not exceed the 30 hour/year threshold at
34
any residential structures. Therefore, no mitigation for shadow flicker effects is warranted and none is
proposed.
2.13 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
2.13.1 Existing Condition
Information regarding the existing condition of open space and recreation areas for the Modified Project
remain as described in Section 3.14.1 of the DEIS for the Approved Project.
2.13.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
Potential impacts resulting from the Modified Project will be similar in nature and magnitude to those
described for the Approved Project in DEIS Section 3.8.2 and 6.14.1 of the Findings Statement.
Temporary construction‐related impacts may include minor noise impacts and displacement of wildlife.
The Modified Project may directly impact a short, 550 foot stretch of the Finger Lakes Trail that runs
south from Griffin Road. This part of the trail would be used for buried collection lines resulting in
temporary inaccessibility while the lines are installed. Consultations with the Finger Lakes Trail
Conference, Inc. have indicated that the Finger Lakes Trail Conference has no legal claim that would
prevent this use of the property. The Project Sponsor intends to allow the trail to remain in the current
location and would consider granting a permanent trail easement once the property is purchased and
construction is complete. Operational impacts may include intermittent visibility of components and
low levels of noise along the Finger Lakes Trail.
2.13.3 Mitigation
Proposed mitigation measures for open space and recreational impacts are as described in Section 3.8.3
of the DEIS and 6.14.2 of the Findings Statement. The mitigation measures for the Approved Project and
Modified Project are the same. The Modified 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 Modified
Project footprint outside of the small portion of the Finger Lakes Trail mentioned above. Construction
and operation of the Modified Project is expected to result in minor, temporary, and intermittent visual
and noise impacts to recreational users in the immediate vicinity of the Modified Project.
While the impacts to recreational resources resulting from the Modified Project are not of the type or
magnitude to require mitigation, the Community Outreach and Communications Plan (DEIS Appendix U)
will provide area residents with a forum to log and resolve complaints if necessary.
2.14 SOCIOECONOMICS
2.14.1 Existing Condition
Information regarding the existing socioeconomic conditions for the Modified Project remain as
described in Section 3.14.1 of the DEIS for the Approved Project.
35
2.14.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
The socioeconomic impacts of the Modified Project are similar in nature to those described for the
Approved Project in DEIS Section 3.14.2 and 6.15.1. Operation of the Approved Project was anticipated
to require between four and five full‐time jobs or their equivalent, with total salaries in the first year of
operation at approximately $240,000. The Project Sponsor estimates the Modified Project will result in
2‐3 full‐time jobs, or their equivalent, with first year total salaries of approximately $150,000.
Section 6.15.1 of the Findings Statement indicates “good neighbor” payments were expected in the
amount of $5,000 per year. This amount is a miscalculation of the next statement, which describes the
source of “good neighbor” payments as “annual payment equal to 1% of the project gross revenue
(approximately $35,000) distributed among 80 landowners.” The correct result of this calculation is
approximately $438. Subsequent to the issuance of the Findings Statement, these agreements have
been formalized in the amount of $500 per household per year.
Furthermore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project is expected to distribute annual cash
dividends to its investors, which include local residents. To date, approximately $3,000,000 worth of
local capital has been invested in the project.
The Findings Statement indicates that a PILOT agreement would be reached between the Project
Sponsor and the Town of Enfield, Ithaca City School District, Odessa School District, and Tompkins
County. The estimated PILOT amount was $100,000 per year. A PILOT agreement is now in place that
specifies annual payments of $133,630 shared among jurisdictions. If Turbine location A is used for the
Modified Project, the Town of Newfield will be added to the PILOT agreement and receive a pro rata
share of PILOT payments.
2.14.3 Mitigation
As stated regarding the Approved Project in Section 6.15.2 of the Findings Statement, the Modified
Project is also expected to create positive impacts to the socioeconomic status of the community and no
mitigation measures are proposed.
2.15 PUBLIC SAFETY
Public safety concerns associated with the construction of the Approved Project are fairly standard
construction‐related concerns. These include the potential for injuries to workers and the general public
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
generally recognized within the industry.
Public safety concerns associated with the operation of the Approved Project are somewhat more
unique, as compared to general construction. In many ways, wind energy facilities are safer than other
forms of energy production since 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 these facilities. Examples of such safety concerns
include ice shedding, tower collapse, blade throw, stray voltage, fire, lighting strikes, electrocution and
electromagnetic fields.
36
Each of these concerns is discussed in detail in Section 3.12 of the DEIS for the Approved Project.
Although a different turbine model is now proposed, this and other modifications do not present new or
previously undescribed public health and safety issues.
2.15.1 Comparison of Potential Impacts
Potential impacts from construction of the Approved Project are as described in DEIS Section 3.13.2.1
and 6.16.1 of the Findings Statement. It is anticipated that these potential impacts are the nearly
identical for the Modified Project. Construction personnel who will be working in close proximity to
construction equipment and materials may be exposed to construction related hazards on a daily basis.
However, risk of construction related injury 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. 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 occur primarily on private land and well removed from
adjacent roads and residences, exposure of the general public to construction‐related risks/hazard is
expected to be very limited.
There is no overall increase in potential risk to the public or construction personnel as a result of the
construction of Modified Project, as compared to the Approved Project.
Potential impacts from operation of the Approved Project are as described in the DEIS Section 3.13.2.1
and 6.16.1 of the Findings Statement. Operational safety concerns identified in the DEIS include ice
shedding, tower collapse, blade throw, stray voltage, fire, lighting strikes, electrocution and
electromagnetic fields. The nature of these impacts for the Modified Project is similar to those
described in the Approved Project Record.
2.15.2 Mitigation
Mitigation measures to assure public safety during construction and operation remain as described in
DEIS Section 3.13.3 and 6.16.2 of the Findings Statement. To minimize risk to public safety during
construction, contractors will comply with all 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 Modified Project. Additionally, all workers will be required to
adhere to a safety compliance program protocol. Compliance with required set‐backs and measures to
control public access (gates, warning signs, etc.) will minimize any public safety risk associated with
operational related impacts such as ice throw/ice fall and tower collapse. Furthermore, the Project
Sponsor has shifted Turbine T5 approximately 160 feet south‐southeast in order to comply with the
turbine manufacturer’s more stringent recommended setback (994 feet) for avoiding any impacts from
ice shedding. No additional risk is presented as a result of the Modified Project, and therefore no
additional mitigation is required or proposed.
37
2.16 NOISE
On January 14, 2016, Tech Environmental, Inc. prepared an updated evaluation of the potential sound
effects from the operation of the Modified Project (see Appendix H). The Acoustic Study Update
re‐evaluates the impact thresholds and analyzes the anticipated noise emissions from the Modified
Project of seven GE 2.3 ‐ 107 (2.3‐MW) wind turbines equipped with Low Noise Trailing Edge (“LNTE”)
technology at a 94‐meter hub height. The LNTE technology provides a 2 dBA decrease in sound levels
when compared to a traditional blade design. The trailing edges of the blades are serrated, which
translates into less turbulence as they pass through the air. This effect is what lowers the overall sound
level.
2.16.1 Existing Conditions
Existing conditions for the Approved Project are described in DEIS Section 3.11.1 and Appendix T of the
DEIS. The existing ambient sound levels for the Approved Project area were used as a baseline to assess
potential impacts for the Modified Project area. As noted in the DEIS, three long‐term monitoring
stations were used to assess existing background noise levels. The overall ambient sound level across
the three sites and all hours was 39.8 dBA. The description of existing conditions in DEIS Section 3.11.1
includes a discussion of the sound level survey method, site description and sound level measurements,
and background measurement results.
2.16.2 Comparison of Potential Impacts
For both the Approved and Modified Project, the sources of potential noise impacts during construction
are as described in Section 3.11.2.1 of the DEIS and Section 6.17.1 of the Findings Statement.
Construction noise is produced primarily by the diesel engines that power the construction equipment
and by impact noise from rock drills, jackhammers, and compactors. Noise from the construction‐
related phases, including clearing, foundations, structure erection and collector cable installation, are
expected to be temporary, and therefore; the effect on potential receptors is not anticipated to be
significant. The temporary noise will constitute an unavoidable impact at some, but not all, of the
homes in the Modified Project study area. This impact would be similar to that experienced by road
repair or paving that might typically occur on town roads. The work is envisioned as being sequenced;
such that, access roads and collector cables will be constructed then followed by foundations. It is
anticipated that work will be undertaken at several locations across the Modified Project Site
simultaneously. Consequently, individual receptors will be exposed to construction noise for relatively
short periods of time.
Although a different wind turbine model is proposed, operational turbine noise levels are very similar to
those previously described in Section 3.11.2.2 of the DEIS and Section 6.17.1. The criteria against which
to compare the predicted noise from the Modified Project to determine if any significant adverse
environmental impacts might result include the local regulatory noise limits and the noise assessment
guidelines found in the NYSDEC’s Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (2000). The same assessment
criteria described in the DEIS for the Approved Project were applied to the Modified Project, with the
addition of the 55 dBA threshold established in the Town of Newfield’s Wind Energy Facilities Local Law
Number 2 of 2009. THE NYSDEC’s noise guideline for non‐participating residences is a sound level no
higher than 45.8 dBA (the guidelines specify adding 6dBA to the measured ambient level of 39.8),
rounded down to 45 dBA. This is not an enforceable regulatory limit. Similarly, the same noise
modeling methods were applied and are as described in DEIS Section 3.11.2.2.
38
For both the Approved and Modified Projects, predicted maximum sound levels at all residences are
well below 55 dBA and thus the Modified Project, designed with GE 2.3 ‐ 107 with LNTE turbines, will
fully comply with the sound limit in the local wind laws. For the Modified Project, the highest maximum
sound level at a Non‐Participating residence is 46.2 dBA as modelled in Alternative 1 (construction of
Turbine A and C) and Alternative 2 (construction of Turbines B and C). The maximum sound level
discussed in Section 6.17.1 of the Findings Statement was slightly lower at 45.9 dBA. The noise study
completed for the Modified Project predicted that each alternative under consideration would result in
4 non‐participating residences exceeding the 45 dBA NYSDEC Guideline. This compares to 3 non‐
participating residences that were predicted to exceed the NYSDEC Guideline in Section 6.17.1 of the
Findings Statement. In summary, no significant increases in sound impacts are anticipated as a result of
the Modified Project.
2.16.3 Mitigation
Mitigation measures for noise are as described in DEIS Section 3.11.3, Appendix U of the DEIS
(Community Outreach and Communication Plan), and Section 6.17.2 of the Findings Statement. As
discussed in Section 6.17.2 of the Findings Statement with regard to non‐participating residences
predicted to exceed the NYSDEC noise guideline, the owners of these residences will be offered Good
Neighbor Agreements to become project participants. The Findings Statement also indicates further
mitigation or curtailment may be necessary if complaints arise. The Community Outreach and
Communications Plan will provide area residents with a forum to log and resolve complaints if
necessary. As stated in the Findings Statement, it should be noted that these predictions are based on a
worst case scenario with conservative assumptions required by ISO‐9613‐2 propagation standards.
Because no additional adverse noise impacts are anticipated, no additional mitigation is required or
proposed the Modified Project.
2.17 COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
The existing conditions for the Modified Project are as described for the Approved Project, as indicated
in Section 3.16 of the DEIS and 6.18 of the Findings Statement.
To evaluate the potential for the Modified Project to impact airspace and operations of nearby airports,
Notices of Proposed Construction or Alteration have been filed with the FAA, which initiated the FAA to
conduct aeronautical studies of the Modified Project. The results of the FAA evaluation have not been
received but because of the relatively small changes represented in the Modified Project, it is expected
all locations will receive a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.
2.17.1 Comparison of Potential Impacts
Communication facilities are addressed in Section 3.15 of the Approved Project DEIS, as well as 6.18 of
the Findings Statement. To evaluate the potential for the Approved 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 Approved Project Site (see DEIS Appendix Y). In addition, Comsearch provided written
notification to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Because there
is no significant increase in the number of structures within the same general area, impacts to off‐air
39
television, AM and FM radio, cellular/PCS telephone, or governmental radar will remain as described
below and in section 3.16.2 of the DEIS and Section 6.18.1 of the Findings Statement. Relocation of
turbines does have the potential to disrupt the clear line‐of‐sight paths used by microwave
communication systems. Accordingly, Comsearch prepared an updated Microwave Study was prepared
on January 18, 2016 (see Appendix I). This study found that five microwave paths intersect the Modified
Project Site. However, none of the turbine locations were found to have potential obstruction with the
microwave systems in the area.
Temporary construction related impacts, as well as operational impacts to communication facilities as a
result of the Approved Project are as described in Section 3.16.2.1 of the DEIS and 6.18.1 of the Findings
Statement. It is anticipated that the impacts of the Modified Project will be similar to those discussed in
the DEIS and the Findings Statement for the Approved Project.
Temporary communication interference may occur as a result of project construction. 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 Modified 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.
Temporary construction related impacts with the Modified Project will be similar to the Approved
Project.
Operational impacts of the Approved Project are described in Section 3.16.2.2 of the DEIS and 6.18.1 of
the Findings Statement. Operational impacts to communication facilities identified in the DEIS include
potential impacts to microwave links; impacts to broadcast television; impacts to AM/FM radio stations;
and impacts to first responder, industrial/business land mobile sites, area‐wide public safety, and
commercial E911 communications. The nature of these impacts for the Modified Project is similar to
those described in the Approved Project Record.
2.17.2 Mitigation
Proposed mitigation to communication facilities as a result of construction or operation of the Approved
Project is as described in Section 3.16.3 of the DEIS and 6.18.2 of the Findings Statement for the
Approved Project. These mitigation measures will be followed for the Modified Project; therefore, no
additional mitigation measures are required or proposed. In the event there are individual complaints
relating to the Modified Project, the resolution procedure can be found in the Community Outreach and
Communication Plan can be found in Appendix U of the DEIS.
40
3. Alternatives Analysis
The following alternatives to the proposed action are described and evaluated: no action, alternative
project design/layout, and alternatives that avoid significant impacts. These alternatives offer a
potential range and scope of development for comparative analysis and consideration. The discussions
of alternative project sites, alternative project sizes, and alternative technologies contained in the DEIS
remain applicable to the Modified Project.
3.1 NO ACTION
The no action alternative assumes that the Modified 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. Consequently, none of the environmental impacts
associated with 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(s), school district,
and County. A PILOT agreement is now in place that specifies annual payments of $133,630 shared
among jurisdictions. If turbine location A is used for the Modified Project, the Town of Newfield will be
added to the PILOT agreement and receive a pro rata share of PILOT payments. Under the no action
alternative, multiplier effects from these economic benefits would also not be realized. Furthermore,
the benefits of adding up to 16.1 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 operation, as compared to the
significant economic benefits that the Modified Project would generate, the no‐action alternative is not
considered a preferred alternative.
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:
41
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 Modified Project Site was evaluated for initial siting criteria, the Project Sponsor used
site‐specific wind measurement/meteorological tower data to develop three alternative turbine array
designs. During the array development, the Project Sponsor secured 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.
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 preliminary turbine layouts were identified through the constraint analysis and optimization
process, access roads and electrical collection lines were 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 the initial access road and electrical line layout, modifications were 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 were 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 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 Modified Project Site’s zoning constraints, three alternative layouts were developed
by the Project sponsor. The three alternative layouts presented in this SEIS are satisfactory to the
participating landowners and result in a carefully achieved balance of energy production and
environmental protection. These three alternatives are discussed below. The primary differences
among these alternatives are with regard to the direct impacts related to the footprint of each
alternative. Impacts related to climate and air quality; traffic and transportation; energy; community
facilities and services; growth and community character; historic, cultural and archeological resources;
42
aesthetic and visual resources; open space and recreation; socioeconomics; public safety; noise; and
communication facilities are expected to be the same or to vary only slightly amongst the three
alternatives under consideration. These minor differences, in any, are discussed in their respective
sections of this SEIS.
3.2.1 Alternative 1 (Construction of Turbines A and B)
Temporary and permanent impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Modified Project under
Alternative 1 (construction of turbines A and B) are summarized in Table 20. Amongst the alternatives under
consideration, Alternative 1 would result in the least amount of:
total permanent impacts to soils (equal to Alternative 3);
temporary and permanent forest vegetation impacts;
total permanent impacts to vegetative communities (equal to Alternative 3);
temporary and permanent impacts to agricultural land uses; and
temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and streams.
Alternative 1 would result in the greatest amount of:
temporary impacts to agricultural vegetation;
temporary and permanent impacts to disturbed/developed vegetative communities (equal to
Alternative 2);
temporary and permanent impacts to residential land uses; and
temporary and permanent impacts to vacant land uses (equal to Alternative 3).
43
Table 20. Alternative 1 Impact Acreages
Resource
Total
Disturbance
(Acres)
Converted
to Built
Facilities
(Acres)
Temporary
Disturbance
(Acres)
Soils
Disturbance to Soils 48.0 7.9 40.1
Vegetative
Communities
Forest 16.7 1.7 15.0
Successional Old
Field 4.0 0.0 4.0
Successional
Shrubland 1.4 0.1 1.3
Agricultural Land 31.5 5.1 26.4
Disturbed/Developed 3.5 1.0 2.5
Successional
Northern Hardwoods 1.4 0.0 1.4
Disturbance to
Vegetation 58.5 7.9 50.6
Land Use
Agriculture 18.4 2.0 16.4
Residential 7.6 0.9 6.7
Vacant Land 32.0 5.0 27.0
Forested 0.0 0.0 0.0
Community Service 0.0 0.0 0.0
Disturbance to Land
Uses 58.0 7.9 50.1
Water Resources
Disturbance to
Wetlands and
Streams
0.06 0.002 0.058
3.2.2 Alternative 2 (Construction of Turbines B and C)
Temporary and permanent impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Modified Project under
Alternative 2 (construction of turbines B and C) are summarized in Table 21. Amongst the alternatives under
consideration, Alternative 2 would result in the least amount of:
temporary impacts to successional northern hardwood vegetative communities; and
temporary and permanent impacts to vacant land uses.
Alternative 2 would result in the greatest amount of:
total temporary and permanent impacts to soils;
temporary and permanent (equal to Alternative 3) impacts to forest vegetation;
permanent impacts to agricultural vegetation;
44
temporary and permanent impacts to disturbed/developed vegetative communities (equal to
Alternative 1);
total temporary and permanent impacts to vegetation;
temporary and permanent (equal to Alternative 3) impacts to agricultural land uses;
temporary and permanent impacts to residential land uses (equal to Alternative 1);
total temporary and permanent impacts to land uses; and
total temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and streams (equal to Alternative 3).
Table 21. Alternative 2 Impact Acreages
Resource
Total
Disturbance
(Acres)
Converted
to Built
Facilities
(Acres)
Temporary
Disturbance
(Acres)
Soils
Disturbance to Soils 48.7 8.4 40.3
Vegetative
Communities
Forest 20.1 1.9 18.2
Successional Old
Field 4.0 0.0 4.0
Successional Shrub
Land 1.4 0.1 1.3
Agricultural Land 30.1 5.3 24.8
Disturbed/Developed 3.5 1.0 2.5
Successional
Northern Hardwoods 1.0 0.0 1.0
Disturbance to
Vegetation 60.1 8.3 51.8
Land Use
Agriculture 23.0 2.7 20.3
Residential 7.6 0.9 6.7
Vacant Land 29.0 4.8 24.2
Forested 0.0 0.0 0.0
Community Service 0.0 0.0 0.0
Disturbance to Land
Uses 59.6 8.4 51.2
Water Resources
Disturbance to
Wetlands and
Streams
0.08 0.009 0.071
3.2.3 Alternative 3 (Construction of Turbines A and C)
Temporary and permanent impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Modified Project under
Alternative 3 (construction of turbines A and C) are summarized in Table 22. Amongst the alternatives under
consideration, Alternative 3 would result in the least amount of:
45
total temporary and permanent (equal to Alternative 1) impacts to soils;
temporary and permanent impacts to agricultural vegetation;
temporary and permanent impacts to disturbed/developed vegetative communities;
total temporary and permanent (equal to Alternative 1) impacts to vegetative communities;
temporary and permanent impacts to residential land uses; and
total temporary and permanent impacts to land uses.
Alternative 2 would result in the greatest amount of:
permanent impacts to permanent impact to forest vegetation;
permanent impacts to agricultural land uses;
temporary and permanent impacts to vacant land (equal to Alternative 1); and
temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and streams (equal to Alternative 2).
Table 22. Alternative 3 Impact Acreages
Resource
Total
Disturbance
(Acres)
Converted
to Built
Facilities
(Acres)
Temporary
Disturbance
(Acres)
Soils
Disturbance to Soils 46.8 7.9 38.9
Vegetative
Communities
Forest 19.5 1.9 17.6
Successional Old
Field 4.0 0.0 4.0
Successional
Shrubland 1.4 0.1 1.3
Agricultural Land 27.8 5.0 22.8
Disturbed/Developed 2.9 0.9 2.0
Successional
Northern Hardwoods 1.4 0.0 1.4
Disturbance to
Vegetation 57.0 7.9 49.1
Land Use
Agriculture 22.7 2.7 20.0
Residential 1.9 0.2 1.7
Vacant Land 32.0 5.0 27.0
Forested 0.0 0.0 0.0
Community Service 0.0 0.0 0.0
Disturbance to Land
Uses 56.6 7.9 48.7
Water Resources
Disturbance to
Wetlands and
Streams
0.08 0.009 0.071
46
4. 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.
This section addresses the potential cumulative impacts that may arise from interactions between the
impacts of the Modified Project 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 Modified Project.
4.1 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 Modified Project. As described in the DEIS, the nearest existing project is the Howard Wind
Power Project located in Steuben County approximately 30 miles east of the Modified Project Site.
Because of the distance between this existing wind energy facility and the Modified Project Site, there
will be no cumulative construction or operational impacts.
4.2 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 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.
The NYISO queue was researched for any proposed projects in Tompkins County and other nearby
counties. There are no additional projects proposed in Tompkins County. Based on the NYISO queue
(updated 2/11/2016), there are no wind projects proposed in the nearby counties of Schuyler,
47
Chemung, Tioga, or Seneca. The Watkins Glen Wind project discussed in the DEIS has since been
withdrawn. Therefore, based on available information, no additional projects are proposed in the
vicinity of the Modified Project and no cumulative impacts are anticipated.
48
References
1. New York State Museum/New York State Geological Survey. 1999a. Surficial Geology. Available
at: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/gis/#surf (Accessed March 4, 2016).
2. New York State Museum/New York State Geological Survey. 1999b. Statewide Bedrock Geology.
Available at: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/gis/#bedr (Accessed March 4, 2016).
3. Public Archaeology Facility (PAF). 2013. Phase 1B Methodology, Testing Proposal and Structure
Visibility Estimate, Black Oak Windfarm Project, Town of Enfield, Tompkins County, New York.
PAF, State University of New York, Binghamton.
4. United States Department of Agriculture. 2016. Web Soil Survey. Available at:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ (Accessed March 4, 2016).
5. United States Department of Agriculture. 1965. Soil Survey Tompkins County, New York. Soil
Conservation Service, Washington D.C. July 1965.
G:\40994 Black Oak Wind Farm\100 SEQRA Modification\2016‐03‐09_SEIS_BlackOakWind_Revised Narrative.docx
FIGURES
APPENDIX A
Findings Statement Issued by the Town of Enfield dated January 14, 2015
APPENDIX B
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Update
APPENDIX C
USFWS IPAC Report
APPENDIX D
Enterprise Products Letter of No Objection
APPENDIX E
Summary of Cultural Resources Studies Relative to Modified Project Layout
APPENDIX F
Revised Visual Impact Assessment
APPENDIX G
Revised Shadow Flicker Study for Black Oak Wind Farm Project
APPENDIX H
Acoustic Study Update
APPENDIX I
Microwave Study Update