incidental take permit application for the st. lawrence wind jefferson county, n y

8/3/2019 Incidental take permit application for the St. Lawrence wind Jefferson County, N Y

1/78

Article 11 Incidental Take Permit Application for the St Lawrence

Windpower Project, Jefferson County, New York

Permit Applicant:St. Lawrence Windpower LLC

Peter Duprey, Chief Executive OfficerAcciona Energy N.A. Corp.

333 West Wacker DriveChicago, IL 60606

Contact/Agent: Blayne Gunderman, Environmental Manager

Prepared by:David Tidhar and David P. Young

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.26 North Main St., Waterbury Vermont 05676

and 2003 Central Ave., Cheyenne Wyoming 82001

November 1, 2010


2/78

Article 11 St. Lawrence Wind

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. i November 1, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 12.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Construction .......................................................................................................................... 42.2 Transportation System .......................................................................................................... 62.3 Turbines ................................................................................................................................ 72.4 Underground Collector System ............................................................................................ 82.5 Substation and Interconnection ............................................................................................. 92.6 Overhead Transmission Line ................................................................................................ 92.7 Operations and Maintenance Facility ................................................................................... 92.8 Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................................. 92.9 Decommissioning ............................................................................................................... 102.10 Decommissioning Process ................................................................................................ 102.11 Site Restoration Process .................................................................................................... 112.12 Wetland Mitigation and Storm Water Management ......................................................... 12

3.0 SPECIES IMPACTED ........................................................................................................... 133.1 Species List ......................................................................................................................... 133.2 Nature and Extent of Taking ............................................................................................... 133.3 Grassland Birds Direct Impacts ....................................................................................... 14

3.3.1. Determination of Direct Impacts to Grassland Birds at SLW .................................... 173.4 Grassland Birds Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................... 26

3.4.1 Direct Habitat Loss ...................................................................................................... 263.4.2 Non-Raptor Bird Displacement ................................................................................... 293.4.3 Raptor Displacement .................................................................................................... 303.4.4 Determination of Indirect Impacts on Grassland Birds ............................................... 30

4.0 ANALYSIS OF ACTION ON CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF SPECIES .......................... 404.1 Henslows Sparrow ............................................................................................................. 404.2 Upland Sandpiper ............................................................................................................... 434.3 Short-Eared Owl ................................................................................................................. 454.4 Northern Harrier ................................................................................................................. 48

5.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS .................................................................................................. 505.1 No Action ............................................................................................................................ 505.2 Alternate Size of Project ..................................................................................................... 505.3 Avoidance Measures ........................................................................................................... 505.4 Minimization Measures ...................................................................................................... 525.5 Monitoring Compliance ...................................................................................................... 52

6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................. 536.1 Scientific Monitoring Studies ............................................................................................. 53

6.1.1 Bird Habituation and Avoidance Study ....................................................................... 54 6.1.2 Wintering Short-Eared Owl Study ............................................................................... 54

6.2 Construction Monitoring..................................................................................................... 54


3/78


Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. ii November 1, 2010

6.3 Long-Term On-Site Monitoring ......................................................................................... 556.4 Net Conservation Benefit .................................................................................................... 55

6.4.1 Conservation Easement ................................................................................................ 606.5 Adaptive Management ........................................................................................................ 616.6 Funding ............................................................................................................................... 62

7.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 62

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Species, and their legal status, included in the St. Lawrence Wind Project Article 11Incidental Take Permit. .................................................................................................................... 1

Table 2.1. St. Lawrence Wind Project Facility Impacts to Landover .......................................................... 4Table 3.1. Direct and indirect impacts from the St. Lawrence Windpower Project on species

included in this Article 11 Incidental Take Permit. ....................................................................... 14Table 3.2. Potential temporal direct and indirect impacts from the St. Lawrence Windpower Project

on Species included in this Article 11 Incidental Take Permit. ..................................................... 14Table 3.3. Bird fatalities reported from published post-construction monitoring studies conducted at

New York State wind energy facilities. ......................................................................................... 15Table 3.4. Publically available post-construction wind energy wildlife monitoring studies; literature

search conducted December 15, 2009. ......................................................................................... 17Table 3.5. Fatalities of short-eared owl, northern harrier and upland sandpiper from 41 published

post-construction monitoring studies conducted at US and Canadian wind energy facilities. ...... 18Table 3.6. Comparison of grassland bird pre-construction use estimates derived from Breeding Bird

Survey results from Maple Ridge (Flat Rock), Grassland Bird Survey results from the St.

Lawrence Windpower Project, and post-construction fatality data derived from all publishedstudies in New York State. ............................................................................................................. 23

Table 3.7. Take levels and projected seasonality of direct impacts at the St. Lawrence WindpowerProject. ........................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 3.8. Housing Characteristics, Cape Vincent Town, Jefferson County, New York. .......................... 27Table 3.9. Land cover/land use areas with the potential to provide habitat for target grassland

sensitive bird species at the St. Lawrence Windpower Project. ................................................... 31Table 3.10. Observations and proportion of use of Henslows sparrow, upland sandpiper, northern

harrier and short-eared owl by landcover type within the St. Lawrence Windpower Project;all survey data. ............................................................................................................................... 39

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Map of the St. Lawrence Windpower Project. ........................................................................... 3 Figure 2.1. Landcover map of the St. Lawrence Windpower Project. ......................................................... 5Figure 2.2. Acciona 1.5 MW turbine dimensions schematic. ....................................................................... 8


4/78


Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. iii November 1, 2010

Figure 3.1a. Distribution of documented fatalities of short-eared owls. ..................................................... 19Figure 3.1b. Distribution of documented fatalities of northern harriers. .................................................... 20Figure 3.1c. Distribution of documented fatalities of upland sandpipers. .................................................. 21Figure 3.3. Trends in land use and ownership for agricultural land in New York ...................................... 27Figure 3.4. Photographs of land use and landcover following development of modern wind energy

facilities and suburban housing development in grassland and mixed-agricultural settings. ........ 28Figure 3.5. Map of all recorded observations of short-eared owl, northern harrier, Henslows

sparrow and upland sandpiper from St. Lawrence Windpower Project pre-constructionsurveys as well as NYSDEC surveys, overlaid on NLCD landcover map .................................... 33

Figure 3.6. Number and percentage of observations of Henslows sparrow, upland sandpiper,northern harrier and short-eared owl by landcover type at the St. Lawrence WindpowerProject. ........................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 4.1. Range maps for Henslows sparrow ......................................................................................... 41Figure 4.2. New York state distribution of breeding Henslows sparrow from the New York

Breeding Bird Atlas ....................................................................................................................... 41Figure 4.3. Map of Breeding Bird Survey routes in the vicinity of the St. Lawrence Windpower

Project. ........................................................................................................................................... 42Figure 4.4. Range maps for upland sandpiper ............................................................................................ 44Figure 4.5. New York state distribution of breeding upland sandpiper from the New York Breeding

Bird Atlas ....................................................................................................................................... 44Figure 4.6. Range maps for short-eared owl ............................................................................................... 45Figure 4.7. New York state distribution of short-eared owl from the New York Breeding Bird Atlas ...... 46Figure 4.8. Abundance of wintering short-eared owls as determined through Christmas Bird Count

Results ............................................................................................................................................ 47

Figure 4.9. Wintering short-eared owl roost sites identified by the NYSDEC during 2006-2009surveys ........................................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 4.10. Range maps for short-eared owl ............................................................................................. 48Figure 4.11. New York state distribution of breeding northern harrier from the New York Breeding

Bird Atlas ....................................................................................................................................... 49Figure 6.1a. Map of proposed conservation easement for sensitive grassland birds at the St.

Lawrence Windpower Project. ....................................................................................................... 57Figure 6.1b. Map of proposed conservation easement for sensitive grassland birds at the St.

Lawrence Windpower Project. ....................................................................................................... 58Figure 6.2. Photographs taken March 22, 2010 of proposed conservation easement for sensitive

grassland birds at the St. Lawrence Windpower Project................................................................ 59Figure 6.3. Process for deciding between grassland and shrubland/early successional habitat projects ... 60


5/78


Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. iv November 1, 2010

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Information Request by the NYSDEC for the Article 11 ........................................................

Appendix B Indiana Bat Biological Assessment..Appendix C Wildlife Protection Plan ..........................................................................................................


6/78


Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 1 August 27, 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC (SLW) is proposing to develop a wind-powered electrical-generatingfacility with up to51 turbine locations and a total capacity of approximately 76.5 (MW). All 51 turbines,

temporary construction laydown area(s), access roads, underground interconnect lines, operations andmaintenance building, meteorological towers, electrical substation and other components would belocated in the Town of Cape Vincent; and most of the proposed overhead electrical transmission line andsubstation facility would be located in the Town of Lyme where there is an existing transmission gridsubstation. Given the extent of land area necessary to site a wind generation facility, and the extent ofopen land (farmland) in the Project Area1 (Figure 1.1), SLW proposes to obtain lease easements, andthereby maintain the current use of the farmland within the Project Area.

Article 11 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) prohibits take'' of a fish or wildlifespecies listed as endangered or threatened without a permit from the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (NYSDEC) issued pursuant to Article 11 Section 0535 of the ECL. Basedon the current Project layout, NYSDEC has determined that measures to avoid and minimize impact will

not prevent all take of endangered/threatened species and has therefore recommended that an Article 11permit be acquired.

Threatened and endangered species considered by the NYSDEC to be at risk of take by construction oroperation of the Project include four state-listed threatened and endangered grassland bird species(northern harrier [Circus cyaneus], short-eared owl, [Asio flammeus] Henslows sparrow [Ammodramushenslowii], upland sandpiper [ Bartramia longicauda]) and the state- and federally-listed endangeredIndiana bat (Myotis sodalis; Table 1.1). This Article 11 Incidental Take Permit Application will outlinethe commitments of avoidance, minimization of impacts and finally, mitigation in order to produce a netbenefit impact to NYS threatened and endangered bird species identified by the NYSDEC as being atrisk from construction or operation of the SLW Project. A Biological Assessment (BA) for the Indianabat was prepared by SLW for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Appendix B), which contains all

information requested by the NYSDEC for assessing a state incidental take permit for the species (seeAppendix A). The SLW Project has developed a long-term, project lifespan Wildlife Protection Plan(SLW 2010) which includes detailed study protocols and descriptions for monitoring potential impacts tospecies, including those in this Article 11 Permit Application ( see Appendix C).

Table 1.1. Species, and their legal status, included in the St. Lawrence Wind ProjectArticle 11 Incidental Take Permit.

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

short-eared owl Asio flammeus EndangeredHenslows sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Threatenedupland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Threatenednorthern harrier Cirus cyaneus Threatened

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered Endangered

This Application contains the following information requested by the NYSDEC (see Appendix A)including:

1The Project Area refers to infrastructure including but not limited to turbines, underground transmission lines,roads, substations and facility buildings, as well as the immediate vicinity of development which includes existingresidential developments, agricultural, natural and semi-natural habitats.


7/78



(1) Project description (Sections 1.0 and 2.0);(2) The nature and extent of the impact (Section 3.0);(3) Analyses of whether the impact threatens the continued existence of the species in question

(Section 4.0); and

(4) Descriptions of alternatives considered for the Project, including: avoidance and minimizationmeasures implemented by the Project (Section 5.0); and mitigation measures that will beemployed by the Project (Section 6.0).

The purpose of the proposed SLW Project is to develop a wind powered electrical-generating facility inan area pre-determined to be one of New Yorks suitable areas capable of sustained utility-scale windpower generation. This Project would be a significant source of renewable energy to the New York powergrid. The Project would facilitate compliance with New York State Public Service Commission (PSC)Order 03-E-0188, issued on September 24, 2004, which created the New York State Retail RenewablePortfolio Standard (RPS). The purpose of the RPS is to increase the proportion of electricity fromrenewable energy sources in New York State to 25 percent by the end of 2013. The Project also supports

several objectives identified in the 2002 State Energy Plan (New York State Energy Planning Board2002). These objectives include stimulating economic growth, increasing energy diversity, and promotinga cleaner and healthier environment. The benefits of the proposed Project also include significant positiveimpacts on socioeconomics and air quality. By eliminating pollutants and greenhouse gases during theproduction of electricity, the Project would benefit ecological and water resources, as well as humanhealth.

Project development took into consideration a number of factors in the design of the Project in order toreduce potential adverse impacts but maintain an economically viable project and meet stated objectives.Project development is an iterative process that initially involved a detailed assessment of the windresource to determine viability in developing a utility scale project in the proposed project area.Appropriate buffers from roads, property lines, and residences were accounted for in developing the first

conceptual layout. Additional considerations in the development process included turbine options andassociated spacing requirements, land use and land rights restrictions, engineering considerations, andenvironmental concerns. Extensive pre-construction surveys and studies were conducted to determinesite-specific data useful in designing the project for a number of resources including socioeconomics,visual, noise, wildlife, vegetation, water/wetlands, and cultural resources. Additional details regarding theproject development process can be found in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (TetraTech EC2007) and the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (TetraTech EC 2009).

Pre-construction wildlife studies completed at the Project were conducted in accordance withrecommendations included in the Draft New York State Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studiesat Commercial Wind Farms (NYSDEC 2007), as well as study recommendations made by NYSDECCentral Office and Region 6. Post-construction wildlife monitoring proposed by SLW for the Project

meets or exceeds study requests made in the Final New York State Guidelines for Conducting Bird andBat Studies at Commercial Wind Farms (NYSDEC 2009). The NYSDEC Guidelines for wind powerproject studies (NYSDEC 2009) are derived from the Environmental Conservation Law, which articulatesthe policies of the DEC (Article 1), the powers and duties of the Commissioner (Article 3), and therequirements for the protection of fish and wildlife and their habitats (Article 11). These Guidelines setforth DECs recommendations to commercial wind energy developers on how to characterize bird and batresources at on-shore wind energy sites, and how to estimate and document impacts resulting from theconstruction and operation of wind energy projects.


8/78


Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 3

Figure 1.1. Map of the St. Lawrence Windpower Project.


9/78



2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The final project design considered in this evaluation has undergone extensive scrutiny to avoid andminimize potential impacts from the Project (SLW 2010). For example, the initial project design

included 96 turbines. The locations of the current 51 turbines were determined through numerousiterations and evaluations of potential impacts to resources in the project area (SLW 2010). Landcovertypes within the Project area were evaluated using Land Use Landcover maps (LULC NAIP 2001) todetermine Project impacts to habitats available to potentially occurring sensitive species and for use inProject planning such that overall environmental impacts could be minimized (Figure 2.1). Permanentand temporary impacts of SLW Project infrastructure to landcover types are summarized in Table 2.1. Atotal of 42.55 acres will be permanently impacted and 216.05 acres temporarily impacted by the Project.

Table 2.1. St. Lawrence Wind Project Facility Impacts to Landover (LULC NAIP 2001).Temp. Temp. Collector Temp. Areas Subtotal Perm. Perm. Sub-stat./ Subtotal

Habitat Roads Turbs. Lines Construction Temp. Roads Turbs . O&M Perm.

Open Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Developed, Open Space 0.17 0.00 0.37 0.18 0.72 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06

Developed, Low Intensity 1.02 0.00 0.79 0.13 1.94 0.41 0.00 0.26 0.67Developed, Medium Intensity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Developed, High Intensity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barren 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Deciduous Forest 1.61 1.89 1.37 0.04 4.91 0.70 0.02 0.00 0.72

Evergreen Forest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mixed Forest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Scrub-Shrub 1.38 1.11 0.62 0.26 3.37 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.63

Grassland 2.18 2.30 1.22 0.00 5.70 0.93 0.02 0.00 0.95

Pasture/Hay 40.17 51.90 29.55 5.25 126.87 17.43 0.51 10.98 28.92

Crops 22.55 24.65 15.91 8.28 71.39 9.74 0.27 0.28 10.29

Woody Wetlands 0.42 0.68 0.05 0.00 1.15 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.31

Emergent Wetlands 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 69.49 82.52 49.89 14.14 216.05 30.10 0.82 11.52 42.55

2.1 Construction

The construction of the St. Lawrence Windpower Project would include a maximum of 51 turbinefoundations, Acciona 1.5 MW turbines, permanent roads, and underground transmission cable (collectionsystem). Construction will result in 14.7 miles of new permanent roads, 16.5 miles of temporary accessroads, and 36.0 miles of underground collection system of interconnection cables (Figure 1.1). Theproject would also include a co-located electrical substation and operations and maintenance building(O&M), and an approximate 9-mile long 115 kV overhead transmission line co-located with anabandoned railroad ballast and an existing municipal water line that terminates at the interconnection withthe existing transmission grid (Figure 1.1). A new Transmission Owners Substation Attachment Facilitywill be constructed at the point of interconnection to connect the Project electricity to the existing grid.


10/78



Figure 2.1. Landcover map of the St. Lawrence Windpower Project (LULC NAIP 2001).


11/78


Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. 6 November 1, 2010

Project construction will occur in several stages:

(1) Clearing and grading of the temporary field construction office, substation, access roads, cranepads, turnaround areas and turbine locations;

(2) Construction of access roads;(3) Construction of turbine tower foundations and transformer pads;(4) Installation of the underground interconnect line;(5) Construction of the approximately 9 miles of overhead transmission line;(6) Assembly and erection of the wind turbines;(7) Construction and installation of the substation;(8) Plant commissioning and energizing; and(9) Final grading, drainage, and site restoration.

Actual Project construction would occur over one construction season (approximately 7-9 monthstypically between mid-April through mid-December for the Cape Vincent region) and would requireapproximately 100 construction-related personnel depending on the stage of construction. Someadditional construction activities such as site preparation, road clearing and grading, and vegetationclearing along the overhead transmission line route would occur between October and March, prior to theprimary construction season.

Following turbine construction, site restoration activities would begin. The 150-foot temporaryconstruction area around turbines, access road corridors, any temporary crane paths, and other temporarily

disturbed areas will be restored according to the construction plan and any applicable state or federalpermits. In general, restoration activities would include subsoil de-compaction (as necessary), rock/gravelremoval, re-establishing pre-construction contours, spreading of stockpiled topsoil, and re-vegetation byseeding and mulching.

2.2 Transportation System

Most of the transportation infrastructure needed for the Project is already in place. The general Projectarea is served by a network of state, county and local highways and roads that vary from two-lanehighways to gravel roads. The New York State (NYS) Highway system in and adjacent to the Project areaincludes Interstate Route 81; NYS Routes l2E, 12, and 180; and several Jefferson County roads. Existingfarm roads throughout the Project area also facilitated the siting of turbines and the proposedinfrastructure corridors; however, since turbine sites must be located a distance from existing roads, a

total of 14.7 miles of new access roads will be constructed to reach project facilities. These roads willhave a permanent footprint approximately 17 feet wide and generally will parallel strings of turbines tominimize the impacts to agricultural land uses and environmental resources as well as the amount of newroad required. In addition, it is likely that some existing county and private roads will need to beimproved in order to accommodate construction traffic and heavy equipment.

Road construction typically involves a two stage process of clearing and grubbing of the right-of-way andtopsoil stripping in active agricultural areas, as necessary, followed by the road grading and construction.


12/78



Site clearing would be the initial phase of construction and would ideally occur immediately prior to roadand turbine construction. Given the relatively short construction season for the project area, site clearingand any tree cutting required would occur from October to March. Topsoil would be stripped, segregatedand stockpiled along the road corridor for use in site reclamation. Agricultural protection measuresrecommended by the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets would be observed so that topsoil isnot mixed with subsoils or gravel. Access road construction would be limited to a 39-foot wide right-of-

way. Cleared vegetation would be chipped and properly spread on-site or hauled to an off-site location fordisposal or reuse. Subsoil will be graded, compacted, and surfaced with gravel or crushed stone inaccordance with the requirements of the wind turbine manufacturer and geotechnical engineeringconsiderations. The finished width of permanent access roads will be 17 feet including side slopes. Cross-sections at turning radii and pull-offs to accommodate passing vehicles would be slightly wider, asnecessary for safety. Culverts needed for wetland/stream crossings will be constructed in accordance withstate and federal permit requirements. Appropriate sediment and erosion control measures will beimplemented in accordance with state and federal permit requirements.

2.3 Turbines

The wind turbines proposed for the project are Acciona 1.5 MW turbines. Each turbine will ultimatelyconsist of a tall steel tower; a rotor consisting of three composite blades; and a nacelle, which houses thegenerator, gearbox, and power train. A transformer will be located near the base of the tower to raise thevoltage of the electricity produced by the turbine generator to the voltage level of the undergroundcollection system. The towers will have a base diameter of approximately 4.25 m (~14 feet) and be 76.9m (~252 feet) tall to the nacelle, resulting in a hub height of 80 m (~262 feet) (Figure 2.2). Each towerwill have a locked access door and an internal safety ladder to access the nacelle, and will be painted off-white to make the structure less visually obtrusive. The rotor diameter will be 82 m (~269 feet) withblades approximately 41 m (~135 feet) long, except for one 77 m (~253 feet) rotor turbine, No. 28, whichwill have blades that are approximately 39 m (128 feet) long (Figure 2.2). The total rotor swept area willextend from approximately 39 m (~128 feet) to 121 m (~397 feet) above ground level (Figure 2.2).

Turbine components would be delivered to the Project site on uncovered transport trucks. Turbineerection is typically performed in stages: (1) foundation construction, (2) setting of the electricalcomponents in the foundation, (3) erection of the tower, (4) erection of the nacelle, (5) assembly anderection of the rotor, (6) connection and termination of the internal cables, and (7) inspection and testingof the electrical system. Turbine assembly and erection is performed with large track mounted cranes,smaller rough terrain cranes, boom trucks and rough terrain fork-lifts for loading and off-loadingmaterials. The erection crane(s) would move from one tower to another along a designated crane path.This path would generally follow existing public roads and Project access roads, but in a few places maytraverse open farm fields. In general, it will take approximately two weeks to erect a turbine once thefoundation and roads are in place.

A temporary construction work area consisting of a 150-foot radius around each turbine foundation isnecessary for wind turbine assembly and erection. A 100 x 50 foot driveway/crane pad adjacent to theaccess roads will be maintained for the life of the Project. Following completion of project construction,

the temporary work areas will be reclaimed to the existing land use. Farmland and crop fields will berestored up to the edge of the gravel pad.


13/78



Figure 2.2. Acciona 1.5 MW turbinedimensions schematic.

Turbine foundation construction would begin following completion of the access roads to turbinelocations. A spread-foot foundation will be used which includes drilling, hole excavation, outer form

setting, rebar and bolt cage assembly, casting and finishing of the concrete, removal of the forms,backfilling and compacting, if required, and foundation site area restoration. Typical wind turbinefoundations are approximately 7 to 10 feet deep and approximately 50 feet across. Foundations typicallyrequire approximately 320 cubic yards (cy) of concrete. After the concrete is cured, the surface isbackfilled with the excavated material. Permanent loss of usable land would be minimized to the towerdiameter and gravel driveway/crane pad to the tower.

2.4 Underground Collector System

Electricity from the wind turbines would be generated at a specific voltage and transported throughunderground cables that connect groups of turbines together electrically. Approximately 36 miles ofcollector system lines will feed to the Project substation located within the Project area (see Figure 1.1).The collector system will follow project roads as much as possible. In areas where the system will deviate

from roads, a corridor approximately 12 feet wide, centered on the interconnection route, will be clearedfor cable installation machinery. The construction corridor will increase an additional 6 feet in width inareas where multiple circuits run parallel. Direct burial methods, via cable plow, rock saw and/ortrencher, will be used during the installation of underground collector lines which disturb an areaapproximately 12 to 36 inches wide. A bundled cable would be placed at a minimum depth of 48 inches,except where bedrock is encountered in which the cable would be buried at least six inches belowbedrock depth. Restoration of the interconnection line, as needed, will follow immediately afterinstallation.


14/78



2.5 Substation and Interconnection

The Collection System Substation would step up the voltage of the electricity so that it can be reliablyinterconnected with the 115 kV transmission line of the existing grid. The substation structural elementswould be installed on concrete foundations. In addition, the substation would consist of a graveledfootprint area, a chain link perimeter fence, and an outdoor lighting system.

The Transmission Owners Substation attachment facility (interconnection) will be located at the existingsubstation in Lyme, owned by National Grid. At this location, electricity delivered would be metered anda protection system put into place to ensure reliability and integrity of the infrastructure. The design of theattachment facilities to the 115 kV line would be finalized based on a facility study conducted by thetransmission line owner and the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) in accordance withthe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Transmission Tariff.

2.6 Overhead Transmission Line

A 9-mile transmission line will connect the project to the existing electrical grid (Figure 1.1). Thetransmission line will follow an abandoned railroad right-of-way and be co-located with a municipalwaterline. The temporary construction right-of-way for the overhead transmission line will be up to 100

feet, and serve as access for construction vehicles and equipment. Additional access to the work areawould include use of existing farm roads and private drives; no new access roads are proposed for thetransmission line. The transmission line would be on treated wood utility poles and consist of twoconductors. Pole spacing will be approximately 90 m (300 feet) for the 9 mile corridor resulting inapproximately 160 poles. The transmission line would be designed according to Avian Power LineInteraction Committee (APLIC) standards (APLIC 2006) to minimize potential impacts to avian species.

2.7 Operations and Maintenance Facility

The primary O&M facility would be located on approximately 11.5 acres in the Town of Cape Vincent(Figure 1.1) and will be co-located with the Collection System Substation. The facility construction areawould be prepped (cleared, grubbed, and graded) and concrete foundations and gravel surfacing would becompleted prior to the installation of the infrastructure. The building would include offices, kitchen,bathroom, and a workshop and include a gravel parking area.

A temporary work yard would be located on a 12.25 acre parcel across from the co-located CollectionSystem Substation and O&M Building. This work area will be used for parts assembly, parking, short-term storage of parts and equipment, and other construction-related activities.

2.8 Operation and Maintenance

The Project would be operated and maintained by St. Lawrence Windpower LLC. Once operational, theProject would be almost completely automated. The project generation would be monitored andcontrolled from the O&M facility by a permanent staff of approximately four to sixadministrative/operations and maintenance personnel.

Wind turbines receive scheduled preventative maintenance and inspections. In general, routinemaintenance activity occurs on a few turbines on a daily basis. Under certain circumstances, heavymaintenance equipment such as a lifting crane might be required to effectively repair any exposed(external) turbine, nacelle, or rotor problems. In the event of turbine or plant facility outages, aSupervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system sends alarm messages to the on-calltechnician via pager or cell phone. The Project would always have an on-call local technician who canrespond quickly in the event of emergency notification or critical outage.


15/78



Because turbines are located in agricultural fields, the current vegetation and land use will be restored upto the turbine pad to minimize impacts to agriculture. Management of agricultural activities and the landand vegetation around each turbine will remain with the current land owner. Maintenance andmanagement of the actual infrastructure and right-of-way areas that are not agricultural fields will be theresponsibility of SLW. Other site management activities will include vegetation management aroundinfrastructure and facilities such as periodic mowing as necessary, building inspection and maintenance;

periodic maintenance of roads including grading, and contouring to restore the road surface. The turbinesand roads will not be lit except for required FAA lights on the nacelle of selected turbines. The O&Mfacility will have outside safety lights which may be either manually operated or set to operate via motiondetectors. There will be no use of herbicides or pesticides for operation and maintenance of the facility.

Maintenance of the transmission line will include annual inspections of the route for hazard vegetationthat may interfere with the conductors. For ground cover, the need for mowing will be evaluatedperiodically during the growing season and will likely occur on an annual basis. Side trimming of trees orremoval of hazard tress adjacent to the line will be scheduled to occur after October 1 and before March31 each year, unless an emergency situation (e.g., a downed tree) requires tree removal outside of thisperiod.

2.9 Decommissioning

The projected life of the Project is 20 years. After 20 years, wind turbines may be replaced or upgradedfor continued operation. Except for the underground collection systems, which is provided for under aperpetual easement, SLW lease agreements with the landowners provide that all wind project facilitieswould be removed to a depth of four feet below grade following the end of the Projects useful life. Thedecommissioning process is expected to be similar in scope and duration as the overall constructionprocess. Most components and materials would be recycled and those that could not would be disposed ofin an approved landfill or waste management facility.

2.10 Decommissioning Process

All decommissioning and restoration activities will adhere to the requirements of appropriate governing

authorities and will be in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local permits. Thedecommissioning and restoration process comprises removal of above-ground structures, below-groundstructures to a depth of four feet or greater, removal of access roads if required by the landowner,restoration of topsoil, re-vegetation and seeding, and a two year monitoring and remediation period.

Above-ground structures include the turbines, transformers, overhead collection lines, wind farm ownedportions of the substation, maintenance buildings, and access gates. Below-ground structures includeturbine foundations, collection system conduits, drainage structures, and access road sub-base material.The process of removing structures involves evaluating and categorizing all components and materialsinto categories of recondition and reuse, salvage, recycling, and disposal. In the interest of increasedefficiency and minimal transportation impacts, components and material may be stored on site in a pre-approved location until the bulk of similar components or materials are ready for transport. The

components and material will be transported to the appropriate facilities for reconditioning, salvage,recycling, or disposal.

Turbine removal. Access roads to turbines will be widened to sufficient width to accommodate movementof appropriate sized cranes or other machinery required for the disassembly and removal of the turbines.Following de-powering, control cabinets, electronic components, and internal cables will be removed.The blades, hub and nacelle will be lowered to grade for disassembly. The tower sections will be loweredto the ground where they will be further disassembled into transportable sections. The blades, hub,


16/78



nacelle, and tower sections will either be transported whole for reconditioning and reuse or dissembledinto salvageable, recyclable, or disposable components.

Turbine foundation removal. Topsoil will be removed from an area surrounding the foundation and storedfor later replacement. Turbine foundations will be excavated to a depth sufficient to remove all anchorbolts, rebar, conduits, cable, and concrete to a depth of four feet below grade. The remaining excavation

will be filled with clean sub-grade material of quality comparable to the immediate surrounding area. Thesub-grade material will be compacted to a density similar to surrounding sub-grade material. Allunexcavated areas compacted by equipment used in decommissioning shall be de-compacted in a mannerto adequately restore the topsoil and sub-grade material to the proper density consistent and compatiblewith the surrounding area.

Underground collection cables. The cables and conduits contain no materials known to be harmful to theenvironment and will be cut back to a depth greater than four feet. All cable and conduit buried greaterthan four feet deep will be left in place and abandoned.

Overhead collection lines. The conductors will be removed and stored in a pre-approved location. Thesupporting poles will be removed and the holes filled in with compatible sub-grade material. In areas

where environmental damage from complete removal may outweigh the benefits, the poles will be sawedflush with the surrounding grade (determined by appropriate governing authority). The poles will bestored in a pre-approved location. Stored conductors and poles will be later removed and transported toappropriate facilities for salvage or disposal.

Substation. Disassembly of the substation will include only the areas owned by the Applicant. AnySystem Upgrades made by the Applicant and conveyed to the New York Power Authority or anyimprovements made to the local National Grid distribution system will remain in place. Steel, conductors,switches, transformers, etc. will be reconditioned and reused, sold as scrap, recycled, or disposed ofappropriately depending upon market value. Foundations and underground components will be removedto a depth of four feet and the excavation filled, contoured, and re-vegetated.

Access roads and construction pads. After decommissioning activities of a turbine site are completed, theaccess road and construction pad will be removed. Gravel will be removed from access roads andconstruction pads and transported to a pre-approved disposal location. Drainage structures integrated withthe access road or construction pad will be removed and backfilled with sub-grade material, the topsoilreplaced, and the surface contoured and re-vegetated. Access gates shall remain operational untilcompletion of decommissioning at which time they will be removed unless requested by the landownerthat they remain. Ditch crossings connecting access roads to public roads will be removed unlessrequested that they remain by the landowner. Improvements to Town and County roads that were notremoved after construction at the request of the Town or County will likely remain in place.

2.11 Site Restoration Process

Topsoil will be removed prior to removal of structures from all work areas and stockpiled, clearly

designated, and separate from other excavated material. Prior to topsoil replacement, all rocks four inchesor greater will be removed from the surface of the subsoil. The topsoil will be de-compacted to match thedensity and consistency of the immediate surrounding area. The topsoil will be replaced to original depthand original surface contours reestablished where possible. Any topsoil deficiency and trench settlingshall be mitigated with imported topsoil consistent with the quality of the affected site.

In accordance with guidelines provided by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets(NYSDAM 2008), topsoil de-compaction and replacement will be avoided after October 1, unless


17/78



approved by the landowner in consultation with NYSDAM since areas restored after October 1 may notobtain sufficient growth to prevent erosion over the winter months. If areas are restored after October 1,provision will be made to restore any eroded areas in the springtime to establish proper growth.

Following decommissioning activities, the sub-grade material and topsoil from all affected agriculturalareas will be de-compacted and restored to a density and depth consistent with the surrounding fields or to

a depth of 18 inches. The affected areas will be inspected, thoroughly cleaned, and all debris removed.

All disturbed soil surfaces within agricultural fields will be seeded with a seed mix agreed upon with thelandowner in order to maintain consistency with the surrounding agricultural uses. All other disturbedareas will be restored to a condition and forage density reasonably similar to original condition. In allareas restoration shall include, as reasonably required, leveling, terracing, mulching, and other necessarysteps to prevent soil erosion, to ensure establishment of suitable vegetation cover, and to control noxiousweeds and pests.

In accordance with the guidelines of the NYSDAM (2008), a monitoring and remediation period of twoyears immediately following the completion of any decommissioning and restoration activities will beprovided. The two-year period allows for the effects of climatic cycles such as frost action, precipitation

and growing seasons to occur from which various monitoring determinations can be made. Anyremaining agriculture impacts can be identified during this period and follow-up restoration efforts will beimplemented.

2.12 Wetland Mitigation and Storm Water Management

The Applicant is seeking permit authorization from NYSDEC and the USACE for 0.31 acre ofunavoidable permanent impacts to wetlands under their jurisdiction. The Project has been designed toavoid and minimize wetland impacts to the greatest extent practicable. Project components were relocated(micro-sited) at several locations to specifically avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and/or waterbodies; however, the project will result in approximately 1.15 acres of temporary impacts andapproximately 0.31 acre of permanent impacts to wetlands or surface water bodies. Wetland areas andopen waters temporarily affected during the construction of the Project will be restored to pre-construction contours and re-vegetated with native (non-invasive) plant material or seeds immediatelyfollowing the completion of regulated activities at each site. For permanent impacts, the Applicant isdeveloping a Wetland Mitigation Plan to compensate for unavoidable impacts as part of the permittingprocess, in consultation with NYSDEC and USACE (Appendix A). SLW proposes to compensate for theunavoidable permanent fill of wetlands using a 2:1 mitigation ratio. Most of the proposed fill is located innarrow wetland drainage corridors consisting of emergent wetland herbaceous and scrub-shrub locatedcontiguous to agricultural fields. The functional value assessment for these wetlands indicates that theyprimarily function as runoff conveyances, and provide minor flood water attenuation and potentialsediment/toxicant retention. A few wetlands in the project corridors have well-developed vegetativestructure and diversity, providing wildlife habitat corridors between fields. Due to their small overall areaof these wetlands, their proximity to active agricultural fields, and their lack of diverse or densevegetation, they have limited wildlife habitat value.

In consideration of these limited functional values, the goal for compensatory mitigation is to replace andenhance the lost water quality function and wildlife habitat value provided by the impacted wetlands.SLW proposes to compensate for the loss of these functions by establishing new wetlands at a 2:1minimum replacement ratio, and to consolidate the replacement in one location contiguous to a morefunctionally valuable natural wetland, thus increasing the chances of successful re-establishment andaddition of wildlife habitat. This wetland replacement also affords practical construction of thereplacement and creates a suitable opportunity to enhance the wildlife habitat value of the compensatory


18/78



wetland by planting trees and dense emergent and herbaceous shrub cover. In addition, SLW willcompensate for forested wetland impacts by planting native species around the compensatory wetlandmitigation area.

3.0 SPECIES IMPACTED3.1 Species List

Species included in this Article 11 Incidental Take Permit include four state-listed threatened andendangered grassland bird species (northern harrier, short-eared owl, Henslows sparrow, uplandsandpiper) as well as the state- and federally-listed endangered Indiana bat (Table 1.1). All contentpertaining to the Indiana bat is included in the BA (Appendix A).

3.2 Nature and Extent of Taking

The target grassland birds (northern harrier, short-eared owl, Henslows sparrow, upland sandpiper) andIndiana bat are anticipated to be affected by direct and indirect impacts from the SLW Project. Direct

impacts of wind energy facilities refer to fatalities resulting from flying birds and bats being killeddirectly by collisions with wind turbine rotors or towers, project meteorological (met) towers or othermeans such as barotrauma, electrocution or vehicle collision. Indirect impacts of wind energydevelopment refer to disruptions of foraging behavior, breeding activities, and migratory patternsresulting from alterations in landscapes used by birds and bats. Direct and indirect impacts on birds andbats can contribute to increased mortality, alterations in the availability of food, roost and nest resources,increased risk of predation, and potentially altered demographics, genetic structure, and populationviability (NRC 2007). The most probable direct impact to birds from wind energy facilities is directmortality or injury due to collisions with turbines or guy wires of met towers. Collisions may occur withresidents foraging and flying within the project area or with migrants seasonally moving through theproject area.

Wind energy development has the potential to cause direct loss of habitat where infrastructure is locatedand indirect loss of habitat through behavioral avoidance and habitat fragmentation. Direct loss of habitatassociated with wind energy development is relatively minor for most species compared to most otherforms of energy development. Behavioral avoidance, however, may render much larger areas unsuitableor less suitable for some species of wildlife, depending on how far the species are displaced from windenergy facilities. Based on some studies in Europe, displacement effects associated with wind energywere thought to have a greater impact on birds than collision mortality (Gill et al. 1996). The greatestconcern with displacement impacts for wind energy facilities in North America has been where thesefacilities have been constructed in native habitats such as grasslands or shrublands (Leddy et al. 1999,Mabey and Paul 2007). Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding the potential for wind turbinesto cause displacement to migrating and wintering birds that may utilize cropland as feeding or stopoverhabitat.

Impacts to target grassland birds and Indiana bat are not anticipated to be uniform (Table 3.1) or occur atequal intensities during different phases of the Project (Table 3.2). Project construction could affect birdsthrough loss of habitat, potential fatalities from collisions with construction equipment, anddisturbance/displacement effects from construction activities. Potential mortality from constructionequipment is expected to be low. Equipment used in wind energy facility construction generally moves atslow rates or is stationary for long periods (e.g., cranes). The risk of direct mortality to birds fromconstruction is most likely potential destruction of a nest for ground- and shrub-nesting species during site


19/78



clearing. Impacts from the decommissioning of the facility are anticipated to be similar to construction interms of noise, disturbance, and equipment.

Table 3.1. Direct and indirect impacts from the St. Lawrence Windpower Project on speciesincluded in this Article 11 Incidental Take Permit.

Species Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts

short-eared owl Potential mortality Potential loss / degradation of over-wintering habitatHenslows sparrow Potential mortality Potential loss / degradation of breeding habitatupland sandpiper Potential mortality Potential loss / degradation of breeding habitatnorthern harrier Potential mortality Potential loss / degradation of breeding habitatIndiana bat Potential mortality Potential loss / degradation of breeding habitat

Table 3.2. Potential temporal direct and indirect impacts from the St. LawrenceWindpower Project on Species included in this Article 11 Incidental Take Permit.

Impact TypeImpact Duration Direct Indirect

Short-Term

(e.g., duringconstruction)

Mortality or injury from

construction or related activity.

Disturbance from construction

Temporary loss of habitat from construction

areas that will be reclaimed.

Prohibiting or altering (displacement) use of thearea due to construction activity.

Altering or disturbing species behavior patternsdue to construction activity.

Long-Term(e.g., during projectoperation andmaintenance)

Mortality or injury due to windplant operation.

Disturbance from maintenance.

Permanent loss of habitat to wind project.

Prohibiting or altering (displacement) use of thearea due to the wind project.

Altering or disturbing species behavior patterns

due to wind project operation.

Altering or changing species distribution patternsdue to the wind project.

3.3 Grassland Birds Direct Impacts

A detailed review of direct effects of wind energy on birds is included in the Project SDEIS (TetraTechEC 2009) and Kerns et al. 2007. It is estimated that direct impacts from the SLW Project will be similar

to other wind projects; therefore, total avian mortality is likely to range between 117 to 490 birds peryear (WEST 2010). Using results obtained from all published fatality studies conducted in New YorkState, raptor mortality (including turkey vultures and owls) represented only 0.05 percent of total fatalities

and waterfowl represented 0.03 percent (Table 3.3). Applying a more conservative estimate derived fromfirst year monitoring at Maple Ridge Wind Farm (Jain et al. 2007) of three percent, a total raptormortality between 5 and 15 raptors/year and a total waterfowl mortality of between 1 and 5waterfowl/year is expected. There is no information to suggest that winter raptor mortality would begreater at the proposed Project than at other wind projects studied with similar topography and associatedmigratory patterns. Furthermore, the Project landscape or topography does not have thermal-producingfeatures that might create added risk for migrating raptor or wintering bird populations.


20/78



Table 3.3. Bird fatalities reported from published post-construction monitoring studies conducted at NewYork State wind energy facilities.

Common Name Number Percentage

unidentified bird 61 19.6golden-crowned kinglet 56 18.0red-eyed vireo 28 9.0magnolia warbler 11 3.6cedar waxwing 10 3.3European starling 9 3.0red-tailed hawk 8 2.7ruffed grouse 8 2.7black-throated blue warbler 7 2.3tree swallow 7 2.3brown creeper 6 1.9wild turkey 5 1.6blue-headed vireo 4 1.5Canada goose 4 1.5American woodcock 3 1.0blackpoll warbler 3 1.0mallard 3 1.0ruby-crowned kinglet 3 1.0unidentified warbler 3 1.0yellow-bellied sapsucker 3 1.0American crow 2 0.6American goldfinch 2 0.6American redstart 2 0.6American robin 2 0.6black-billed cuckoo 2 0.6Blackburnian warbler 2 0.6bobolink 2 0.6broad-winged hawk 2 0.6cliff swallow 2 0.6common grackle 2 0.6chestnut-sided warbler 2 0.6eastern kingbird 2 0.6eastern phoebe 2 0.6hermit thrush 2 0.6indigo bunting 2 0.6killdeer 2 0.6ovenbird 2 0.6rock pigeon 2 0.6savannah sparrow 2 0.6scarlet tanager 2 0.6sharp-shinned hawk 2 0.6Swainson's thrush 2 0.6wood thrush 2 0.6alder flycatcher 1 0.3American kestrel 1 0.3


21/78



Table 3.3. Bird fatalities reported from published post-construction monitoring studies conducted at NewYork State wind energy facilities.

Common Name Number Percentage

black-and-white warbler 1 0.3bay-breasted warbler 1 0.3black-throated green warbler 1 0.3common merganser 1 0.3great horned owl 1 0.3least flycatcher 1 0.3northern flicker 1 0.3palm warbler 1 0.3Philadelphia vireo 1 0.3pine warbler 1 0.3prairie warbler 1 0.3purple finch 1 0.3rose-breasted grosbeak 1 0.3ruby-throated hummingbird 1 0.3red-winged blackbird 1 0.3song sparrow 1 0.3turkey vulture 1 0.3unidentified vireo 1 0.3veery 1 0.3winter wren 1 0.3yellow-rumped warbler 1 0.3yellow-throated vireo 1 0.3

TOTAL 312 100References:Project CitationMadison Kerlinger 2002

Maple Ridge 2006 Jain et al. 2007Maple Ridge 2007 Jain et al. 2008Noble Ellensburg Jain et al. 2009aNoble Clinton Jain et al. 2009bNoble Bliss Jain et al. 2009d

Post construction mortality studies conducted at 12 wind facilities throughout the nation indicate anational avian mortality rate of 2.3 birds per turbine per year (birds/turbine/year) (NWCC 2004). Twothirds of fatalities documented during post-construction mortality monitoring studies were assumed to bemigrants. Using this mortality rate, a total mortality of 117 birds per year is estimated. When consideringresults from only wind facilities located in the eastern U.S. region, the calculated average avian mortalityrate is 4.3 birds/turbine/year. This mortality rate would result in an estimate total mortality for the Projectof 219 birds per year. On a more local level, during three years of post-construction mortality monitoring

conducted at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm, a wind facility located approximately 40 miles southeast of theProject, avian mortality estimates ranged from 3.1 - 9.6 birds/turbine/season in 2006 (Jain et al. 2007), to5.67 6.31 birds/turbine/year in 2007 (Jain et al. 2008) to 3.42 3.76 birds/turbine/year in 2008 (Jain etal. 2009c). Using these mortality rates, a total mortality of between 158 and 490 birds/year is estimated.Based on the results of these studies, total avian mortality impacts at the St. Lawrence Windpower Projectfor 51 turbines are likely to range between 117 to 490 birds per year.


22/78



3.3.1. Determination of Direct Impacts to Grassland Birds at SLW

Assessments of potential avian and bat fatality rates at proposed wind energy facilities rely on pre-construction use or activity data collected at the proposed facility2 coupled with comparative analysisincorporating pre-and post-construction data collected at similar projects. While relatively few pre- andpost-construction wind-wildlife interaction studies have been completed nationally and within the

northeastern U.S. to date, data from additional studies are beginning to become publically available. Allpublically available reports from post-construction fatality monitoring studies at operating wind energyfacilities were reviewed and analyzed to determine national, regional and state annual and seasonalimpact rates for the target grassland birds. A total of 41 studies have been completed and published andwere reviewed, 10 of which have been conducted in the northeastern U.S. and Ontario, (Table 3.4). Atotal of six studies have been completed and published at five sites within New York State (Table 3.3).Nationally, among the target grassland birds, 10 short-eared owls, four northern harriers and one uplandsandpiper have been documented as turbine collision-induced fatalities, while no Henslows sparrowfatalities have been reported (Tables 3.4 and 3.5). No short-eared owl, northern harrier or uplandsandpiper fatalities have occurred in the northeast U.S., Ontario or in New York State (Figure 3.1a-c;Table 3.3.3). Fatalities of northern harrier and, in particular, short-eared owl, have been concentrated inthe northwestern U.S.; 40% (4) of short-eared owl fatalities have been documented at a single project(Big Horn) and 50% (2) of northern harrier fatalities have occurred at a single project (Hopkins Ridge) inWashington State (Table 3.5 and Figure 3.1).

Table 3.4. Publically available post-construction wind energy wildlifemonitoring studies; literature search conducted December 15, 2009.

Project Name Citation

Altamont Pass APWRA-MT 2008Big Horn Kronner et al. 2008Blue Canyon II Burba et al. 2008Buffalo Gap Tierney 2007Buffalo Mountain 2000-2003 Nicholson 2003, Nicholson et al. 2005Buffalo Mountain 2005 Fiedler et al. 2007

Buffalo Ridge phase I Johnson et al. 2002Buffalo Ridge phase II Johnson et al. 2002Buffalo Ridge phase III Johnson et al. 2002Combine Hills Young et al. 2005Crescent Ridge Kerlinger et al. 2007Diablo WEST 2006, 2008Erie Shores James 2008Foote Creek Rim Young et al. 2001High Winds Kerlinger et al. 2006Hopkins Ridge 2008 Young et al. 2009bJudith Gap TRC 2008Klondike Johnson et al. 2003

Klondike II NWC and WEST 2007Madison Kerlinger 2002Maple Ridge 2006 Jain et al. 2007Maple Ridge 2007 Jain et al. 2008Mars Hill 2007 Stantec 2008Mars Hill 2008 Stantec 2009

2Pre-construction survey results from SLW are described in detail in Kerns et al. 2007 and Tidhar et al. 2009.


23/78



Table 3.4. Publically available post-construction wind energy wildlifemonitoring studies; literature search conducted December 15, 2009.

Project Name Citation

Meyersdale Arnett 2005Mount Storm Young et al. 2009aMountaineer Kerns and Kerlinger 2004Nine Canyon Erickson et al. 2003Noble Bliss Jain et al. 2009dNoble Clinton Jain et al. 2009bNoble Ellensburg Jain et al. 2009aNortheastern Wisconsin Howe et al. 2002NPPD Ainsworth Derby et al. 2007Oklahoma Wind Energy Center Piorkowski 2006San Gorgonio Anderson et al. 2005SMUD Solano URS et al. 2005Stateline Erickson et al. 2004aTehachapi Erickson et al. 2004b, Anderson et al. 2004Top of Iowa Jain 2005Vansycle Erickson et al. 2000Wild Horse Erickson et al. 2008

Table 3.5. Fatalities of short-eared owl, northern harrier and upland sandpiper from 41published post-construction monitoring studies conducted at US and Canadian windenergy facilities.

Project State Reference # Casualties % Casualties Date

Short-Eared OwlBig Horn WA Kronner et al. 2008 4 2.2 1/2/2007

1/4/2007

1/23/20075/5/2007

Foote Creek Rim WY Young et al. 2003 1 0.6 9/28/2000Judith Gap MT TRC 2008 1 1.6 8/18/2006Klondike II OR NWC and WEST 2007 1 2 8/7/2006Leaning Juniper I OR Kronner et al. 2007 1 2.3 4/3/2007Nine Canyon WA Erickson et al. 2003 1 1.6 4/7/2003NPPD Ainsworth NE Derby et al. 2007 1 1.9 4/9/2006

Northern HarrierHopkins Ridge 2008 WA Young et al. 2009b 1 1.1 11/20/2008SMUD Solano CA URS et al. 2005 1 5.9 1/4/2005Altamont CA APWRA-MT 2008 1 0.1 4/5/2007

Hopkins Ridge 2006 WA Young et al. 2009b 1 1.7 1/19/2006Upland SandpiperNPPD Ainsworth NE Derby et al. 2007 1 1.9 6/12/2006


24/78



Figure 3.1a. Distribution of documented fatalities of short-eared owls.


25/78



Figure 3.1b. Distribution of documented fatalities of northern harriers.


26/78



Figure 3.1c. Distribution of documented fatalities of upland sandpipers.


27/78



Overall, grassland birds represent less than one percent of the published avian fatalities from operatingwind energy facilities in the northeast and in New York State (Table 3.3). Those grassland bird specieswhich been most directly impacted at New York facilities include common species such as easternkingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius) and savannah sparrow (Passerculussandwichensis). Avian mortality at New York wind energy projects has been primarily comprised ofpasserines, similar to national trends, with unidentified passerine (63; 19%), golden-crowned kinglet

(Regulus satrapa; 56; 18%) and red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus; 28; 9%) the most frequently recorded.

Relatively few northern harrier, short-eared owl, Henslows sparrow and upland sandpiper have beendocumented during pre-construction surveys conducted at the SLW Project. Pre-construction aviansurveys completed at the SLW Project (Kerns et al. 2007, Tidhar et al. 2009) were designed to determinethe relative abundance of target grassland birds within the study area. A specific survey was carried outfor grassland birds at the SLW Project (Tidhar et al. 2009) using the NYSDEC Region 6 Grassland BirdSurvey Protocol (Mazzocchi and Ross 2009). The objective of this survey was to maximize the detectionprobability for grassland species through selection of fixed point count sampling locations within the bestavailable habitat present within, and immediately adjacent to, the Project (Lazazzero et al. 2006).Previous point count surveys for breeding birds were also conducted in the project area during priorbaseline pre-construction studies (Kerns et al. 2007). The 2009 study provides data for describing the

temporal and spatial use by sensitive bird species primarily affiliated with grassland communities of theProject. Two-hundred and four surveys of 29 fixed-points were completed during four survey roundscompleted in June and July 2009. Sixty-seven unique species comprising a total of 1778 individuals weredetected during the four survey rounds. Relatively few Henslows sparrows (four), northern harriers(two), and upland sandpipers (two) were observed (Table 3.6 and Figure 3.5). In addition, 18 northernharriers, two upland sandpipers and one Henslows sparrow were observed incidentally while on-site butnot during 2009 point-count surveys. No short-eared owls were detected during the 2009 surveys, eventhough half of the surveys were completed immediately prior to sunset.

All locations of the target species were mapped (see Section 3.4.4) in order to analyze spatial patterns ofoccurrence and assist with Project planning (see Section 5.0). Locations included all observations fromall SLW pre-construction studies as well as data provided by the NYSDEC (August 2009). Over-

wintering concentrations of short-eared owls in central portions of the Project Area were determinedthrough sightings and radio-telemetry data (NYSDEC 2009). Changes to the Project layout wereimplemented as a result of these data (see Section 5.0; SLW 2010). No nests for any of the four specieswere documented during pre-construction surveys; however, formal searches for nests were not requestedby the NYSDEC during consultations or conducted as part of pre-construction surveys. No strong spatialpatterns of use or flight behavior were noted during pre-construction surveys which would have suggestedmicro-siting turbines to avoid impacts or other planning purposes (SDEIS; TetraTech EC 2009).

Results of grassland bird surveys were compared to results from pre-construction breeding bird surveys atthe Maple Ridge project3 (Table 3.6). Maple Ridge is the largest operating wind energy facility in thestate from which comparable (to SLW) pre-construction biological survey data is available in addition topost-construction fatality data. Results of this analysis indicate that for almost all grassland obligate

birds, the number observed and the standardized use estimate (number observed per 5-minuteobservation/point/ survey) was higher at Maple Ridge compared with SLW. Overall grassland birdmortality has been less than one percent at Maple Ridge and other New York State projects (Table 3.3).Therefore, pre-construction use estimates from SLW and Maple Ridge were compared with all New YorkState monitoring results in order to increase the scope of the comparative analysis. Most grasslandobligate bird species recorded during pre-construction studies have not been recorded as fatalities. It does

3Pre-construction breeding bird surveys were completed at Maple Ridge (aka Flat Rock) in summer 2003 (Kerlingerand Dowdell 2003).


28/78



not appear that SLW supports dramatically higher species richness or larger populations of grasslandbirds compared with Maple Ridge; however, see Section 4.0 for site-specific information on habitatavailability and/or population status.

Table 3.6. Comparison of grassland bird pre-construction use estimates derived from BreedingBird Survey results from Maple Ridge (Flat Rock), Grassland Bird Survey results from the

St. Lawrence Windpower Project, and post-construction fatality data derived from allpublished studies in New York State.

SLW Project+Maple Ridge(Flat Rock)*

New YorkMonitoring Studies^

Species#

Observed+Use

Estimate$#

ObservedUse

Estimate$Fatalitiesrecorded

%Fatalities

northern harrier 2 0.03 18 0.12 0 0short-eared owl 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0Henslow's sparrow 4 0.07 0 0.00 0 0upland sandpiper 2 0.03 0 0.00 0 0vesper sparrow 2 0.03 8 0.05 0 0savannah sparrow 70 1.21 392 2.67 2 0.6horned lark 0 0.00 8 0.05 0 0eastern kingbird 27 0.47 38 0.26 0 0eastern meadowlark 52 0.90 314 2.14 2 0.6killdeer 8 0.14 31 0.21 2 0.6+ Tidhar et al. 2009* Kerlinger and Dowdell 2003$ Use estimate standardized to bird/5-minute observation/point^ For references see Table 3.3

The evidence from monitoring studies strongly suggests that none of the grassland bird species includedin this Article 11 Incidental Take Permit are at risk of direct effects which would lead to population-leveleffects. Population level effects have not been detected for any bird species as a result of wind energy

development in the U.S. and wind turbine collision mortality results in


29/78



levels have been determined which exceed the likely levels of fatalities observed for these species basedon data from post-construction studies (Table 3.7). Projected raptor fatality levels for the SLW Projectrange from 1-5 raptors/year (SDEIS; TetraTech EC 2009). The proportion of raptor use comprised ofnorthern harriers was highest during winter 2006-2007 surveys (20%). This proportional use estimateequals one northern harrier fatality per year4 based on the highest level of pre-construction use observedfor the species coupled with the highest predicted fatality rate for raptors under the assumption that risk is

equal across all raptor species. For upland sandpiper, short-eared owl and Henslows sparrow, pre-construction use estimates were


30/78



Table 3.7. Take levels and projected seasonality of direct impacts at the St. Lawrence WindpowerProject.

Species Take1 Seasonality Rationale for Take Level

Henslows sparrow 1Summerbreedingseason

Henslows sparrow has not been documented during otherfatality studies and relative abundance estimates from otherprojects are not available for comparative analysis. Useestimate at SLW


31/78



Upland sandpiper has been documented during one fatality study in Nebraska (Table 3.5) and relativeabundance estimates from other projects are not available for comparative analysis. However, given thewide geographic range of the species (see Section 4.0) and the low anticipated take level, impacts are notanticipated to result in population level effects to the species. Individual fatalities may occur and are mostlikely to occur during the breeding season when the species is present in the area.

3.4 Grassland Birds Indirect Impacts

3.4.1 Direct Habitat Loss

Grassland birds have been declining faster than any other habitat-species group in the northeastern UnitedStates (Lazazzero et al. 2006). The primary cause of these declines is abandonment of agricultural landsand development of residential housing, resulting in habitat loss due to reversion to later successionalstages or development. Remaining potential habitat is also being lost or severely degraded byintensification of agricultural practices, such as conversion to row crops or early and frequent mowing ofhayfields (Lazazzero et al. 2006).

Grasslands are important to the target grassland birds due to their nesting requirements. These speciestypically build nests on the ground and require a certain amount of cover and minimum disturbance for

nesting success. Additionally, the height of the vegetation and size of the area is important to supportterritorial displays or feeding requirements. Henslows sparrow, short-eared owl and upland sandpiperbreeding/nesting habitat is typified by older (>10yrs) hay fields or livestock pastures greater than 30ha insize with 50% (Dechant et al. 2003c). Habitat characteristics for target grassland birds are reviewed in Sections4.1 through 4.4.

The proposed SLW Project, if constructed, will likely preclude or greatly minimize additional landdevelopment within the project area. In New York, grassland bird population declines are linked strongly

to the loss of agricultural grasslands, primarily hayfields and pastures (Morgan and Burger 2008; Figure3.3). Stabilizing the loss of agricultural and grassland habitats from residential development andconversion of farmland has been identified as a high priority for grassland bird conservation by AudubonNew York (Morgan and Burger 2008). Wind projects typically allow landowners to maintain the historicland use of an area (e.g., farming, ranching) by providing supplemental income from leases. In addition,constraints on wind turbine locations such as set-backs from property boundaries, residences, business,schools, and roads, limit the ability of additional developments such as housing subdivisions. The CapeVincent area has developed into a recreational and second home area for non-local residents. Accordingto U.S. Census Bureau data there was an increase in housing development in Cape Vincent Township byapproximately 31% in the 1990s (USCB 2000). Housing structures built in Cape Vincent Township haveincreased since the 1940s; however, the greatest increase has been since 2000 (Table 3.8). Property in thearea is under pressure for sale and development leading to increased human use and alteration of land use

in areas currently in natural states or managed for agriculture. The SLW Project will essentially protectthe areas within the project boundary in the current state with limited additional change due todevelopment, with the indirect outcome of maintenance of grassland and agricultural habitats. Thismosaic provides breeding, overwintering and foraging habitat for grassland birds that will be maintainedfor the life of the project with less risk of loss to future housing development or encroachment byincreased number of humans and their associated impacts (e.g., pets). Essentially, the project willmaintain the rural nature of the area over future conditions which would likely be increased housing anddevelopment and decreased open space and natural habitats, unless the current trend in development isreversed.


32/78



Table 3.8. Housing Characteristics, Cape Vincent Town,Jefferson County, New York.

Year Structure Built Number Percent

2001-2008 658 231990-2000 627 221980-1989 479 181970-1979 489 171960-1969 256 91950-1959 ~180 61940-1949 ~170 6

Total 2201 100

Figure 3.3. Trends in land use and ownership for agricultural land in NewYork (from Stanton and Bills 1996).

Construction of a wind energy facility will result in direct loss of habitat along the actual project footprint.Direct loss of habitat associated with wind energy development is relatively minor compared to mostother forms of energy development. Although wind energy facilities can cover substantial areas, thepermanent footprint of facilities such as the turbines, access roads, maintenance buildings, substations andoverhead transmission lines, generally occupies only 5 to 10% of the entire development area (BLM2005; Figure 3.4). Habitat loss resulting from construction and operation of SLW infrastructure has the

potential to cause direct loss of potential breeding habitat for grassland birds in the case of uplandsandpiper, Henslows sparrow and northern harrier and potential loss of overwintering habitat for short-eared owls.


33/78



Maple Ridge Wind Project, New York. Pre-existing

land-use intact following project development withagricultural, woodland and grassland habitats presentwithin Project Area.

Modern suburban housing development.

Footprint largely removes pre-existingnative and non-native habitats and land use.

Altamont Wind Far

almost exclusively to the landscape or construction or ope

Figure 3.4. Photographs of land use and landcover following development of modern wind energy fadevelopment in grassland and mixed-agricultural settings.


34/78



3.4.2 Non-Raptor Bird Displacement

The presence of wind turbines may alter the landscape so that wildlife use patterns or behavior areaffected, displacing wildlife away from the project facilities and suitable habitat. Some studies from windenergy facilities in Europe consider displacement effects to have a greater impact on birds than collisionmortality (Gill et al. 1996). The greatest concern with displacement impacts for wind energy facilities inthe U.S. has been where these facilities have been constructed in grassland or other native habitats wheretall structures such as turbines do not normally occur (Leddy et al. 1999, Mabey and Paul 2007). Resultsfrom studies at the Stateline wind energy facility in Washington and Oregon (Erickson et al. 2004a) andthe Buffalo Ridge wind energy facility in Minnesota (Johnson et al. 2000a) suggest that breeding birdsmay be affected by wind facility operations. Studies concerning displacement of non-raptor species havelargely concentrated on grassland passerines and waterfowl/waterbirds (Larsen and Madsen 2000, Mabeyand Paul 2007, Winkelman 1990). Wind energy facility construction appears to cause small scale localdisplacement of grassland passerines and is likely due to the birds avoiding habitat disturbed byconstruction, turbine noise, and/or maintenance activities. It is not anticipated that the SLW Project willresult in higher levels of displacement compared with observed effects from other studies.

Most studies of displacement of non-raptor species have concentrated on grassland passerines and

waterfowl. Wind energy facility construction appears to cause small-scale local displacement of somegrassland passerines; however, displacement at larger scales has not been reported. Leddy et al. (1999)surveyed bird densities in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands at the Buffalo Ridge windenergy facility in Minnesota, and found that mean densities of 10 grassland bird species were four timeshigher in areas located 180 m (591 ft) from turbines than they were in grasslands nearer turbines;however, the study did not account for differences in habitat type at varying distances from turbines.Johnson et al. (2000a) found reduced use of habitat within 100 m of turbines by seven of 22 grassland-breeding birds following construction of the Buffalo Ridge facility. At the Stateline wind-energy facilityin Oregon and Washington, use of areas 50 m from turbines(Erickson et al. 2004a). At the Combine Hills facility in Oregon, use of areas within 150 m of turbines bywestern meadowlark was reduced by 86%, compared to a 12.6% reduction in use of reference areas over

the same time period (Young et al. 2005). Hornedlarks, however, showed significant increases in use ofareas near turbines at both of these facilities, likely because this species prefers areas of bare ground suchas those created by turbine pads and access roads (Beason 1995).

At the Buffalo Ridge facility in Minnesota, the abundance of several bird types, including shorebirds andwaterfowl, was found to be significantly lower at survey plots with turbines than at reference plotswithout turbines (Johnson et al. 2000a).

incidental take permit application for the st. lawrence wind jefferson county, n y

Documents