BPSDEIS Feb 2011 Part 2 of 3 Cape Vincent

8/7/2019 BPSDEIS Feb 2011 Part 2 of 3 Cape Vincent

1/69

(Bartramia longicauda), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), andvesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus).80 Point Peninsula hosts the most significant concentration of wintering raptors

documented in New York State. The approximately 2,000-acre area is locatedsouth of the Cape Vincent Project Area and is a mosaic of habitats includingactive farmland, old fields, some woodlots and conifer plantations. The area isused by a variety of wintering raptor species including northern harrier, short-eared owl, long-eared owl (Asio otus), rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and snowy owl (Bubo scandiacus). Several otherraptor species, including bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), have beenobserved at Point Peninsula, but the extent to which these species use the area is

not well known.81 In addition, the NYSDEC has conducted over-winter surveys for raptors withinand adjacent to the study area and has documented short-eared owls, northernharriers, red-tailed hawks and other species within the Project. Information fromthese surveys has been incorporated into project planning as part of the Article11 Incidental Take Permit application.

2.10 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY: IMPACTSThe Project is designed to reduce permanent impacts on undisturbed(unmanaged) vegetation communities and avoid impacts to threatened andendangered species or significant ecological habitats. All permanent facilities(wind turbines, the electrical substation, and operations and maintenancefacilities) and temporary construction facilities (construction staging areas andthe batch concrete plant) will be located in upland habitats and attempts have

been made to site these facilities in disturbed habitats such as agricultural areasthat provide limited wildlife habitat.

2.10.1 General Impacts to Local Habitats2.10.1.1 Temporary Impacts

Temporary impacts to natural habitats and wildlife will occur during

construction of access roads and the transmission lines. Temporary impacts thatwould result from the construction of the Project potentially include:

temporary disturbance of natural habitats;

elevated noise levels in the vicinity of construction activities;

wildlife mortality due to interactions between animals and machinery during


2/69

To the extent possible, access roads at the site are located within uplands andagricultural areas and avoid forests, wetlands, and other natural habitats.However, there are some turbine locations that require access that will

necessitate impacts on natural habitats. Impacts to these areas will be followedby restoration of the affected area, as recommended by NYSDEC and USACE(for Waters of U.S.). As discussed in previous sections, the Project Area is amosaic of vegetation and habitats that include agricultural fields, pasture andhay meadows, deciduous woodlands, forested wetlands, rural homes, farms, anddeveloped areas. Construction of the Project will inevitably result in some levelof habitat fragmentation, though the project has been designed in a way thattakes avoidance and minimization measures into account, resulting in the least

amount of fragmented habitat possible. For example, turbines were clusteredtogether when feasible to decrease the amount of unconnected access roadsserving turbine locations. Access roads were also, when feasible, sited alongexisting fence lines and hedge rows to avoid fragmenting large open field areasthat are potentially suitable breeding habitat for grassland birds and other avianspecies.In order to minimize habitat disturbance, most of the 34.5 kV electrical

interconnects between the turbines and the Project substation will be buriedalong access road ROWs. Some interconnects may be either routed abovegroundor directionally drilled in order to span a sensitive or protected wetland feature.The significance of the temporary impacts would vary by habitat type. Inhayfields and other herbaceous habitats, the impact of construction would berelatively minor and short-term because the herbaceous vegetation wouldregenerate quickly. In forested and shrub habitats, the impact would be of

longer duration due to the longer regeneration period of these vegetative types.All efforts will be taken to avoid impacts to forested habitats.Project facilities would not be sited in, or require permanent modification toaquatic habitats, including the portions of Kents Creek, Three Mile Creek, or theChaumont River within the Project Area. As there would be no disruption to theaquatic habitats within the Project boundary, the Project is not likely to adverselyaffect fish communities within, or downstream of, the Project Area. Standard

sediment and erosion control procedures would be used during construction toprevent sedimentation in the streambeds.For the 115 kV transmission line, which will connect the Project substation withthe Lyme substation, there were four alternate transmission line routingsevaluated. For this study, an evaluation of potential impacts was performed for


3/69

sited within the streambeds avoiding temporary or permanent impacts to theseresources.Traffic and other human activities associated with the Project may result in

localized and short-duration temporal behavioral disturbance to some wildlifespecies. Traffic volumes associated with construction of the Project areanticipated to be 75 vehicles per turbine per day. Many of the common wildlifespecies that occur in these areas are accustomed to disturbance (mowing,grazing, etc.). These species will move away from the disturbed area duringconstruction, but would likely return following completion of the constructionactivities and restoration of the habitat. It is commonplace to find such generalistspecies cohabitating with anthropogenic sources of disturbance. In some cases,

anthropogenic disturbance can even assist generalist species: cleared fields, forexample, can provide more foraging areas for raccoons, possums, and deer. Thisimpact is not expected to significantly affect the viability of any wildlife species.

2.10.1.2 Permanent ImpactsPermanent impacts on wildlife habitat types and associated species that wouldresult from the operation and maintenance of the Project potentially include:

permanent land use changes;

elevated noise levels due to wind turbines and the electrical substation;

permanent displacement of disturbance-sensitive wildlife species from theimmediate vicinities of Project facilities; and

wildlife mortality due to interactions between animals and machinery duringoperations and maintenance activities.

Projected traffic volume for operation of the Project is low relative to existingtraffic associated with roads and residential use in the area, and is notanticipated to have any discernable effect on local wildlife species.Project development will result in alteration of discrete portions of varioushabitats for wildlife species due to permanent conversion of disturbed andnatural habitats to developed land or utility ROW. In particular, facility

components such as roads and turbines may lead to some wildlife habitatfragmentation locally. This is not considered a significant impact at CapeVincent, however, as the landscape within and surrounding the Project iscurrently heavily fragmented with numerous roads, low and medium densityhousing developments, farms, transmission lines, and other sources present.

l f f h b d h ld l h d


4/69

There is no information that supports the assumption that remaining intactperching, foraging, travel, or reproductive habitats or resources would not beavailable after the project is constructed and operating.

Jefferson County is currently experiencing substantial growth in humanpopulation and housing developments, as evidenced by population and housinggrowth estimates in Fort Drum, where the number of soldiers, spouses, andother personnel moving to the Fort Drum area is projected to increase by nearly18,000 people between 2004 and 2013. To accommodate this population growth,the Department of Defense estimated in 2005 that an additional 2,000 homeswould need to be built off of the Fort Drum base over the coming years.82 Due tothese and other development pressures, in the event that the Project is not

constructed, the current population and development growth trends willprobably result in the loss of current and traditional land uses for the area. Thiswould result in fewer undeveloped open spaces and lower human densityconditions. The Project, once constructed, will likely preclude additionalhousing developments and will result in less fragmented conditions whencompared to future scenarios without the development of the Project.For a discussion of the potential impact of the Project on avian and bat resources,

refer to Section 2.11.

2.10.2 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species and Significant Ecological Habitats

Plant Species and Significant Ecological CommunitiesFive state-listed plant species (Table 2.9-1) and four significant ecologicalcommunities are located at, or in the vicinity of, the Project Area. Projectfacilities would not be sited in, or require permanent modification to, these plant

populations or ecological communities. Thus, the Project is not expected to affectthese resources during the construction period or operation of the wind facility.

Lake SturgeonIn the Project Area, lake sturgeon are known to occur in Lake Ontario, and riversand streams in the vicinity of Lyme.83 Project facilities would not be sited in, orrequire permanent modification to aquatic habitats that could potentiallysupport Lake Sturgeon within the Project Area, including the portions of Kents

Creek, Three Mile Creek, or the Chaumont River. Due to the relative lack ofhabitat, range, or distribution within the Project Area, it is not anticipated thatthe Project will have adverse impact on Lake Sturgeon. Additionally,development-related impacts resulting from the Projects construction andoperations will be limited primarily to terrestrial ecosystems, with some impactsto wetlands. Standard sediment and erosion control procedures would be used


5/69

Blandings TurtleThe October 2007 and June 2010 Riveredge Associates reconnaissance surveysdetermined that potentially suitable Blandings turtle habitat in and around theProject Area is present in four wetlands, however no Blandings turtles were

observed or caught during 2007 or 2010 surveys and no disturbance-relatedimpacts are anticipated for any of the four identified potential habitat areas. Thewetland at Site 4 is dominated by willow shrubs with some channels, smallshallow pools, basking sites, and hummocks. However, its relatively small size,relatively shallow depth and distance from other identified Blandings habitatreduce its suitability. Since turbine placement will not occur directly onwetlands, the greatest potential impact on Blandings turtle populations in theProject Area is likely to be during the construction phase when roads and

equipment staging areas are in heavy use. Specifically, increased vehiculartraffic on roads in or near upland areas that may be used by Blandings fornesting or dispersal could pose impacts to Blandings turtles. Impacts from theconstruction of access roads or turbine pads could cause interruption ofmovement corridors or impacts to nesting areas. Construction related impactscould also include destruction of actual nests or direct turtle fatalities, if nests arebuilt in construction zones. Fatalities as a result of automobile or constructionequipment collision on roads during and after construction are also possible.

However, due to the limited amount of identified suitable Blandings habitatwithin the Project Area (four possible sites) and the absence of any observationsof Blandings during the June 2010 nesting activity/ trapping surveys, theconclusion that there is low potential for temporary or permanent impacts toBlandings as a result of construction or operations of the wind facility issupported. Furthermore, best management practices and disturbance avoidanceand minimization measures will be implemented during construction duringtimes of nesting activity in order to avoid the potential for nest disturbance or

road collision during turtle movements. Such measures are discussed in thefollowing section, 2.10.3.Significant Wildlife HabitatsThe majority of the significant fish and wildlife coastal habitats (except theAshland Flats WMA) occur outside the Project boundary; therefore, there are notemporary or permanent Project facilities proposed or associated impactsanticipated as a result in these areas. Similarly, Project facilities are not sited

within the Ashland Flats WMA, so no direct impacts will occur in this area.Operation of the Project, however, has the potential to impact the avian and batspecies that colonize these areas. For a further discussion of the potentialimpacts to avian and bat resources, refer to Section 2.11.


6/69

2.10.3 Mitigation MeasuresLake SturgeonAs noted above, it is not anticipated that the Project will have adverse impact on

Lake Sturgeon. Potential water quality impacts that could harm the LakeSturgeon habitat will be avoided by minimizing impacts to waterways andwetlands that contribute to the streams and to Lake Ontario where the LakeSturgeon may habitate. This will be accomplished through avoidance, orthrough the use of construction best management practices and engineeringsolutions to control runoff, sedimentation, spills, or any other potential adverseimpacts to aquatic ecosystems.

Blandings TurtleAs noted, access roads and electrical interconnects may all be re-routed tovarying degrees in order to avoid or minimize the impacts to sensitive orprotected natural resources. The results of the wetland and Blandings turtlereconnaissance studies reported in this SDEIS were used design an array planand ancillary project infrastructure that minimizes impacts to sensitive naturalresources. In addition, complete wetlands delineation and site-specificBlandings turtle assessments were conducted in all the corridors which would

be impacted by construction, to precisely identify the boundaries of thesefeatures. Four areas were identified within the Project Area that had suitableBlandings turtle habitat. Nesting activity studies were then conducted in theseareas in June 2010. No Blandings turtles were observed and no Blandings nestswere identified. The Project has been designed, based on these study results, toavoid any impacts to these four potential areas of suitable habitat.Based on the presence in the area of habitat which would support the Blandings

Turtle, BP Wind Energy is including the species in the State Incidental TakePermit application that is being prepared pursuant to NYSDEC Article 11. Thisapplication will include a detailed impact assessment, in addition to measuresdesigned to avoid and minimize impacts. Based on the results of surveys, it isnot anticipated that mitigation measures will be a necessary part of the Article 11permit application. BP Wind Energy is nonetheless exploring conservationefforts to protect and possibly expand existing Blandings Turtle habitat in theProject area.

To ensure that any potential impacts to Blandings turtles are minimized,avoided, and mitigated, all construction activities will incorporate standard bestmanagement practices during construction and additionally, construction staffwill be trained to recognize the characteristics of important habitats and specieslocations so they can effectively avoid activities in these areas and report


7/69

The following actions are recommended to minimize potential impacts toBlandings turtles and their habitats:

1. Roadways and staging areas, to the extent possible, have been sited awayfrom potential nesting areas and the travel corridors between nestingareas and identified potential Blandings turtle wetlands and suitablehabitat areas. If it is not possible to re-site roads and staging areas,barriers and culverts/underpasses should be considered to either preventmovement to or facilitate movement across these features. Site-specificrecommendations can be provided during later phases of the project.

2. Consider creating or enhancing potential nesting habitat in and aroundturbine placements and equipment staging areas. Site-specific guidelines

for nest site creation or enhancement can be provided. Enhancement,creation, or preservation of suitable Blandings Turtle habitat areas,including nesting areas, is being considered as part of the mitigationcomponent of the Article 11 permit process with NYSDEC.

3. Avoid using Swamp Road as an access route during construction andsubsequent maintenance, particularly during the period from April -September. Increases in traffic volume along this road will likelynegatively impact wetland-dependent wildlife by increasing mortality,particularly amphibians and reptiles, during key dispersal periods.

4. Construction clearance activities will be completed to the extent possibleoutside of the peak nesting season for Blandings turtles to avoid the riskof removal of active nest sites in potential habitat. The peak nestingseason is defined as June 1 July 1.

Significant Wildlife Habitats

The Project will fund and implement a pre- and post-construction study toestimate the direct and indirect effects of Project operation, which will measurethe extent to which grassland birds are displaced as a result of landscapealteration and/or operation of the turbines on density and species compositionof grassland birds.

2.11 AVIAN RESOURCES: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The New York chapter of the National Audubon Society has identified oneImportant Bird Area (IBA) near the Project Area, and one in the greater vicinityof the Project Area. Point Peninsula IBA includes the large peninsula into LakeOntario approximately four miles southeast of the Project Area, on which LongPoint State Park is located. The Audubon Society considers this area to be one ofthe most critical winter concentration areas for arctic breeding Rough-legged

k S O l d k d d Sh d O l dd


8/69

grassland habitat, declining regionally due to the sale and development offarmland.84The Perch River Complex IBA lies approximately ten miles east of the Project

Area and includes the Perch River WMA and surrounding areas. The PerchRiver WMA is also designated in its entirety as a BCA by the New York StateBird Conservation Area Program. This site includes three lakes and extensiveagricultural grasslands and is purported to support one of the largestconcentrations of breeding grassland birds in New York, as well as anexceptional wetland bird community85. Sensitive habitat types found in the areainclude high quality wetlands and open water bordered by deciduous forest,shrubland, and open agricultural fields, and exemplary ecological communities

include deep emergent marsh, shallow emergent marsh, shrub swamp, andforested wetlands.86 Several federally and State listed endangered andthreatened species are supported on the site, including the Bald Eagle, Black Rail,Black Tern, Least Bittern, Upland Sandpipers, Sedge Wrens, and breedingNorthern Harriers. The site is also one of the states most important nesting sitesfor Henslows Sparrows.87As noted in Section 2.9.2.3, there are two WMAs, two Wildlife Concentration

Areas, and two raptor winter concentration areas in the vicinity of the ProjectArea:

Ashland Flats WMA/BCA

French Creek WMA

Fox Island-Grenadier Island Shoals water fowl winter concentration area

Wilson Bay Marsh water fowl winter concentration area

Grenadier Island raptor winter concentration area

Point Peninsula raptor winter concentration areaThese are discussed in further detail in Section 2.9.2.3.Study Protocol and ConsultationIn June 2006, BP Wind Energy contacted USFWS and NYSDEC to introduce the

Project and determine biological resources of concern for the Project. In responseto the issues and concerns identified, the company requested that WesternEcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) develop study protocols to study avian andbat resources in the vicinity, which was reviewed and approved by NYSDEC andUSFWS. The studies were designed to provide baseline information on avianand bat resources and their use of the Project Area to evaluate potential impacts


9/69

and relative risk of the Project. In addition, the study results could providerecommendations to help minimize species exposure to risk of collisions withturbines.

The pre-construction avian and bat studies began during the spring of 2006 andincluded:

Fall and spring nocturnal marine radar surveys for migrants;

Fall and spring raptor migration surveys;

Summer breeding bird surveys;

Summer breeding bird surveys targeting grassland birds;

Winter surveys for raptors and waterfowl;

Nocturnal AnaBat surveys for migrant bats;

Bat mist netting surveys; and

Indiana bat telemetry.The objective of these baseline studies was to describe and quantify use by avian

and bat species in the Project Area, as well as identify the presence of protectedspecies and their habitat. Surveys were also designed to include estimates ofdensity and altitude of migratory birds through the Project Area. The results ofthese surveys are presented in several reports included in Appendix F.

2.11.1 Avian Surveys

2.11.1.1 Fall and Spring Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey

The nocturnal marine radar survey is designed to characterize migration over theProject Area and determine the relative magnitude of the migration incomparison to other sites. The factors considered, include: flight direction,passage rates, and flight altitude of avian migrants. The 2006 fall survey wasconducted between August 15 and October 15, while the 2007 spring survey wasconducted between April 15 and June 1. Both surveys utilized a single X-bandmarine radar unit, which was located in two distinct locations, approximately 1.5

kilometers (km) from the shoreline (a distance recommended by the USFWS andNYSDEC).Results from the nocturnal marine radar survey were similar to other radarstudies in New York and the eastern United States. The percentage of avian andbat migrants that flew through the zone of risk (the rotor swept area) was low,averaging eight percent in the fall and 14 percent in the spring While the results


10/69

and post-construction fatality monitoring studies were completed showed nocorrelation between pre-construction radar metrics (passage rate, percent oftargets within the zone of risk, target direction and altitude) and post-construction bird and bat fatality rates.88

2.11.1.2 Fall and Spring Raptor Migration Survey

The objective of the raptor migration survey is to observe raptors and other largebirds (e.g. waterfowl and corvids) in the sky during daylight hours to estimatetheir spatial and temporal use of the Project Area. The study is designedaccording to methods used by the Hawk Migration Association of NorthAmerica (HMANA). Three fixed-point survey locations were established for

2006 and 2007 surveys. During 2008 surveys, an additional two survey pointswere arrayed in reference areas further inland from Lake Ontario and outside theproposed development area. All surveys were completed using a standardizedprotocol which included recording all birds, flight height and behavior observedwithin an 800-m (approximately 0.5 mile) radius. Raptor use was calculated asthe number of observations/20-minute survey and exposure indices werecalculated for the proportion of raptors observed flying within the Zone of Risk.

The 2006 spring surveys were completed between April 14 May 12 and the 2006fall surveys were conducted from September 23 November 11. Spring surveyswere conducted in 2007 from March 21 through May 1, and in 2008 betweenMarch 22 and May 28. The timing of these surveys was coordinated withNYSDEC and was based on available information from migrant raptor watchstations in northern and western New York.89 The NYSDEC expressed specificconcern for migrant golden eagles potentially present within the Project Area.

A total of 21 surveys were conducted on seven days within the Project Area,during which 1,039 birds were recorded. Fourteen surveys were conducted at thereference points during which 5,273 birds were recorded (86.6% of which wereCanada geese). A total of 137 raptors were recorded within the project areacompared to 99 at reference points; when adjusted for number of surveys meanuse in the two areas was very similar (3.38 compared to 3.36 raptors/survey,respectively). Similar raptor species were recorded in the project and referenceareas, with the exception that a golden eagle and a peregrine falcon were

recorded in the project area and not at the reference points, and a bald eagle wasrecorded at the reference points and not within the project area.No unusual species were observed during the raptor migration surveys,therefore the species of raptors observed during studies are characterized astypical of central New York. Central New York could more accurately be


11/69

described as northern NY; however, the same species of raptors would beexpected in central or northern New York. No federally-listed species wereobserved; however, a single golden eagle (state endangered) was recordedduring spring 2008.

However, the golden eagle is considered extirpated within New York, defined asa species that is not extinct, but no longer occurring in a wild state within NewYork, or no longer exhibiting patterns of use traditional for that species in NewYork (e.g. historical breeders no longer breeding here; Four state-listed specieswere recorded: one golden eagle (state-endangered; 2008), one peregrine falcon(state-endangered; 2008), one common tern (state-threatened; 2007), and 64northern harriers (state-threatened; all years). The golden eagle is considered

extirpated within New York, defined as a species that is not extinct, but nolonger occurring in a wild state within New York, or no longer exhibitingpatterns of use traditional for that species in New York (e.g. historical breedersno longer breeding here; NYDEC 2010). Five state species of special concern wererecorded: two Coopers hawks (2007), four sharp-shinned hawks (2006 and2008), one northern goshawk (2007), two red-shouldered hawks (2008), and fiveosprey (all years). One bald eagle (state-threatened), one upland sandpiper(state-threatened), nine northern harriers, three sharp-shinned hawks, four red-

shouldered hawks, and two osprey were also recorded at reference pointsoutside of the project area in 2008.During 2008 spring raptor migration surveys, the number of raptor observationsper 20-minute survey per survey point, or raptor use, was similar for all raptorspecies overall when comparing the Project (3.38) and reference areas (3.36).These results suggest that the Project is not situated in an area with higher raptormigration activity relative to the surrounding area. Raptor use within the

Project Area varied between years, with 4.16 raptors/20-minute survey/pointobserved during 2006, 4.67 in 2007 and 3.38 observed during 2008.The Project Area has less migratory traffic than the known hawk watch sites inNew York, based on a standardization of raptors observed per survey hour. Ingeneral, raptors observed in the Project Area during migration studies did nothave elevated exposure indices, a common method for estimating risk toindividual species form wind turbines, due to either low numbers recorded or

flight heights outside of the zone of risk. Comparing spring raptor migrationdata from the proposed project with other nearby proposed wind-energyfacilities indicates that the Project Area is not located in an area with high springraptor migration relative to other proposed commercial wind-energy facilities.When data were adjusted for differences in number of survey hours, slightlymore raptors were observed at the Clayton Wind Resource Area (12.1


12/69

2.11.1.3 Breeding Bird SurveyTiming for the 2006 breeding bird surveys was based on the regional timingrecommendations made by the 2001 USGS Breeding Bird Survey in central New

York.90 The objective of this study is to characterize the spatial and temporal useof the general Project Area by breeding resident birds with survey points thatcover all of the various habitat types within the Project Area, resulting in theselection of 20 survey points. Surveys were conducted twice at each site on June29 and July 6, 2006, with a survey effort concentrated on a 400 m radius aroundeach observation point.The results of the breeding bird surveys were typical of agricultural settings in

central New York and do not appear to have any large or unusual populations ofbreeding resident birds. Frequently recorded species included bobolink, red-winged blackbird, and song sparrow. A few woodland species, such as woodthrush and ovenbird, were observed in small wooded areas and wetlandsscattered throughout the Project Area. Several species of gull and waterfowl arealso present in the area due to the proximity to the shoreline. Five species listedby the NYSDEC were observed: northern harrier, Henslows sparrow, hornedlark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow. Northern harrier and

Henslows sparrow are listed as state threatened species and the remaining threeare state-listed species of concern.

2.11.1.4 Winter Surveys for Raptors and WaterfowlDue to the coastal nature of the Project Area, potential impacts to waterfowl andraptors that frequent the area during migration and winter was raised as aconcern by the NYSDEC. As a result, winter and early spring surveys were

conducted to estimate spatial and temporal use of the Project Area by raptorsand waterfowl. These studies were conducted by driving transects andconducting 30-minute point count surveys on nine days between November 5,2006 and March 1, 2007. Two species of waterbird, two species of waterfowl, andsix species of raptors were recorded. The vast majority of the waterfowl use ofthe Site was of Canada goose. The most common raptor species recorded wererough-legged hawk and red-tailed hawk. These raptors have a relatively lowexposure index. Two short-eared owls, a state-endangered species, and 14

northern harriers, a state threatened species, were observed during surveys.These species are being addressed in the state Article 11 Incidental Take Permitapplication process.Overall, 123 bird species were observed during all surveys performed by WESTfrom 2006-2010. Table 2.11-1 below summarizes the rare, threatened,


13/69

TABLE 2.11-1: Summary of All Rare, Threatened, Endangered, or State Species of Concern BirdsSeen at Cape Vincent Project Area During All Avian Surveys, April 2006- July2010

Species No. of Groups Observed Individuals observedAmerican bittern 16 16

Bald eagle 3 3

Coopers Hawk 5 6Common loon 2 2Common tern 1 1Golden eagle 1 1

Grasshopper sparrow 89 95

Henslows sparrow 1 1Northern goshawk 1 1Northern harrier 181 208

Osprey 9 9Pied-billed grebe 1 1Peregrine falcon 3 3

Red-shouldered hawk 5 6Short-eared owl 1 2

Sedge wren 25 25Sharp-shinned hawk 9 9

Upland sandpiper 7 7Vesper sparrow 18 18

2.11.2 Bat Surveys

AnaBat II ultrasonic bat detectors were used to record the relative abundance ofecho-locating bats flying within the sampling area during the 2006 summerbreeding season and the spring and fall migration seasons, and during the 2008fall migration season. Spring sampling was conducted between April 13 andJune 2, 2006 with three AnaBat sampling locations established. Two of the threeunits remained during the summer sampling season (June 28 August 8, 2006).A mobile roaming AnaBat unit was deployed nine nights during the summeras well to assess resident/breeding bat species present within the Project Area athabitats likely to have high numbers of resident bats. The 2006 fall AnaBatsurveys were conducted between August 13 and October 9; this time, AnaBatdetectors were deployed at three different heights: ground level, 25 meters and50 meters. During the period August 4, 2008 to October 15, 2008, bat activity wasmonitored at four fixed ground sampling locations. The total number of callsand number of calls per night recorded varied by season.Activity at the ground based unit in fall 2006 was much higher than at the four


14/69

in some hibernacula counts within two years; has affected at least seven batspecies, including the federally-endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis); and hasthe potential to cause the regional extinction of the little brown bat (M. lucifugus;Frick et al. 2010).

A full discussion of the sampling methods and results is presented in. the Avianand Bat Studies for the Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Project, prepared by WEST(see Appendix F).At least four species of bats were positively identified. Due to similarity of callcharacteristics, two species (big brown and silver-haired bat) were lumped intoone species category. The other species identified are the Eastern red bat and

hoary bat. As is typical of AnaBat call analysis, the majority of calls were notidentifiable to the species level. The Myotis-like calls were further analyzed by aNYSDEC recommended biologist and identified by statistical analyses todetermine presence of a federally endangered Myotis species, Indiana bat, withinthe Project Area. The Project Area is within the recognized range of Indiana batin New York and suitable habitat is present. There is a known Indiana bat winterhibernaculum near Watertown. The results of the AnaBat surveys suggest thatIndiana bats may be present.

Assessing whether bat composition may have changed between 2006 and 2008based on acoustic data is confounded by the evolution in analysis methodsbetween study years. In 2006 bat calls were classified to species followingmethods developed by Britzke et al (2001, 2002 and 2003). In 2008, calls wereclassified using a more conservative method into frequency groups. Bat callsclassified to species in 2006 accounted for only 36 % of recorded bat calls duringthe fall (August 13 October 9, 2006) sampling period, whereas 100% of bat calls

were classified to a frequency group in fall 2008.Based on these results, mist-netting surveys were conducted during the summerof 2007 and 2008 to evaluate the presence of Indiana bats. These studiesconfirmed that Indiana bats are present within the Project Area, and telemetrydata were gathered from captured Indiana bats, which helped to identify travelcorridors within the Project site. Telemetry data also confirmed the presence andlocation of potential maternity colonies and roosting areas within the Project

Area.No additional mist netting was done in 2009 or 2010 due to the effects of WhiteNose Syndrome on the Indiana Bat population. It has been proposed that thedeclines in population due to White Nose Syndrome has significantly reducedthe meaningfulness of data collected from mist netting, and there are concerns of


15/69

2.11.3 Grassland Birds Northern Harrier, Short-eared Owl, Upland Sandpiper andHenslows SparrowState-listed threatened and endangered species considered by the NYSDEC to be

at risk of take by construction or operation of the Project include five state-listedthreatened and endangered grassland bird species (northern harrier, short-earedowl, Henslows sparrow, sedge wren and upland sandpiper). Observations ofseveral state-listed bird species were made during 2006-2008 field surveys (seeSection 2.11); however, 2006-2008 bird survey field protocols used were notdesigned to specifically survey for these five species. To address concerns overthe potential impact development of the Project may have on grassland birds, BPWind Energy contracted WEST to design and conduct a pre-construction study

targeting grassland bird species at the Project during the 2010 breeding birdseason. The objective of these surveys was to determine the extent of use of rare,threatened or endangered (RTE) bird species during the breeding season. Otheraims of the study included: (1) collection of data useful for Project planning; (2)collection of data useful for the NYSDEC and other natural resource agencies; (3)implementation of a study design which may be easily replicated both at theProject and at other proposed wind-energy facilities, and (4) implementation of astudy design which may be replicated as part of post-construction wildlife

surveys. WEST designed a study plan consistent with the aims of the NYSDECRegion 6 Grassland Bird Protocol but which used different methods reviewedand approved by NYSDEC prior to survey implementation.Field SurveysBetween May and July 2010, WEST completed a grassland bird study using acombination of a gradient analysis study design and the Before/After studydesign. Songbird density data and vegetation data were collected along a

continuum (transect) from the turbines out to 300 m, as well as at referencetransects that do not include turbines. The before and after periods areincorporated by conducting an analysis of the changes in relative abundance(densities) from the pre- to post-construction periods. Thirty-seven transectswere arrayed at proposed turbine locations in addition to 12 reference transects.Each transect was 300-m long and surveyors recorded all birds heard or seenwithin 50-m. Surveys were completed during four rounds that coincided withthe peak breeding season for the target grassland birds: May 20-21, June 9-10,

2010, June 25-26 and July 7-8, 2010. Surveys were conducted from sunrise to1000 hours (hrs). Rare, threatened, or endangered species observed incidentallywere also mapped and recorded by surveyors.No federal threatened or endangered species were observed during grasslandbreeding bird transect surveys.


16/69

recorded during 2010 surveys are summarized in Table 2.11-2. One Henslowssparrow, 11 northern harriers, 25 sedge wren and six upland sandpipers wereobserved in both reference areas and within the Project Area during 189 transectsurveys and incidentally.

TABLE 2.11-2: Summary of Sensitive Species Observed During the 2010 Breeding Grassland

Bird Transect Surveys (Trans.) and as Incidental Wildlife Observations (Inc.)Within Cape Vincent Wind Resource Area; May 20 July 9, 2010.

Trans. Inc. Total

Species Scientific Name Status# ofgrps

# ofobs

# ofgrps

# ofobs

# ofgrps

# ofobs

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus SSC 16 16 0 0 16 16Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii SSC 1 1 0 0 1 1

grasshopper sparrowAmmodramussavannarum SSC 85 90 1 1 86 91

Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii ST 1 1 0 0 1 1northern harrier Circus cyaneus ST 7 7 4 4 11 11Osprey Pandion haliaetus SSC 1 1 0 0 1 1pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps ST 1 1 0 0 1 1sedge wren Cistothorus platensis ST 23 23 2 2 25 25

upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda ST 2 2 4 4 6 6vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus SSC 18 18 0 0 18 18sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus SSC 0 0 1 1 1 1Total 11 species 155 160 12 12 167 172ST = state threatenedSSC = state special concern

2.11.4 Comparison to Other Wind Projects

Nocturnal Marine Radar SurveyResults from the nocturnal radar study conducted at the Project Area differ insome aspects from other sites studied in New York and the eastern U.S. Theresults of radar studies at other proposed and existing wind power project sitesin the U.S. have been documented by Young, et al. Mean passage rates for fall2006 were higher (346 t/km/hr) than the average for NY and the eastern U.S.(262 t/km/hr); however, these results are not the highest passage rates reported

at other New York sites. Similar passage rates were observed at a proposed sitein Jordanville, New York, located in central New York. Mean flight direction forthe Cape Vincent study was 209, slightly more southwesterly than other studiesconducted during fall migration. This prevailing direction may be related moreto the shape of the shoreline located within 1.5 km of the radar station than toflight direction over the entire Project Area. Mean flight height of targets was


17/69

Raptor Migration SurveysTypical raptor species for central New York were observed during the surveys.No federally-listed species were observed; however, two state-listed endangeredspecies (SE) species were observed (two peregrine falcons [fall 2006] and one

golden eagle [spring 2008], four state-listed threatened species (ST) were alsorecorded during spring raptor migration surveys (common tern [spring 2007],upland sandpiper [spring 2008], bald eagle [spring 2008], and northern harrier[spring 2006, 2007 and 2008], and six New York species of special concern (SC;Coopers hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, northern goshawk, red-shouldered hawk,osprey and common loon) were observed during surveys. Only two individualperegrine falcons were observed during the fall 2006 survey season; therefore,exposure index for this species is very low (0.07). Northern harriers are, in

general, low-level fliers and were often observed flying below the zone of risk(86% in spring 206, 64% in fall 2006). Despite their presence within the ProjectArea, exposure risk to this species is low (0.08 in spring, 0.67 in fall 2006).Based on a standardization of raptors observed per survey hour, the Project Areahas less traffic than the known hawk watch sites in New York. The nearestspring hawk watch site to the Project Area, Derby Hill Bird Observatory, wassomewhat variable over the same survey days; however, the overall mean

number of raptors observed per surveyor hour was far greater. Large numbersof broad-winged hawks were observed at Derby Hill on April 21, 2006; however,surveys within the Project Area failed to record high numbers of this speciespassing over the site. However, to capture earlier periods of the migrationseason in order to obtain a more complete picture of spring raptor migrationthrough the Project Area, additional years of spring raptor migration surveyswere conducted in 2007 and 2008. Both years included longer survey windowsto capture the early spring migration period. The spring 2008 survey also

included sampling within reference areas located further inland from LakeOntario. Derby Hill Bird Observatory recorded larger pulses of turkey vultures,red-tailed hawks, and red-shouldered hawks during March 2006, particularlyduring the last two weeks. Higher numbers of sharp-shinned hawks, Coopershawks, bald eagles, and golden eagles were also observed in the six weeks priorto April 14. Spring surveys at the Project Area did not record any bald eagles,golden eagles, or red-shouldered hawks.

There are no fall hawk watch sites along the lake shoreline in central New York.The nearest fall site, Kestrel Haven, located in south central New York, waslower than the Project Area in terms of raptors counted per surveyor hour;however, count data for this site are only available for 2005. Fall hawk watchsites further south and east, such as Franklin Mountain, record similar numbersof migrant raptors which are likely taking advantage of ridgelines of the western


18/69

Cape Vincent Project Area, putting it in the high end of the range for otherproposed wind projects in New York. Comparing the Project Area to high raptorconcentration areas provides the worst case scenario for potential impacts. Ingeneral, for sites where wind projects have been proposed (based on the

NYSDEC data), numbers of migrating raptors have been low compared to theworst case scenario.Comparing the Project Area to other wind sites where mortality studies havebeen conducted and raptor migration passage rates are available provides themost utility for estimating potential impacts. Unfortunately, no spring raptormigration surveys were conducted at the Maple Ridge wind project, which hasbeen monitored for two years and provides estimates of raptor mortality for a

New York site. Results of three years of spring migration raptor surveys confirmthe statement that there is little to concentrate raptor movement through thestudy area. The average number of raptors per observer hour for the project areahas varied from 2.9 to 9.8. When compared to Hawk watch sites (e.g. DerbyHills) which do have conditions for concentrating raptor movement there is noevidence to suggest a significant flight path for spring migrant raptors throughthe area. An analysis of the land form in the Project Area shows that northwardbound migrants would have to track in a westerly direction to cross the Cape

Vincent peninsula if they were following the shoreline. A more likely scenario isthat northward migrants continue in a northerly direction as they pass throughthe Watertown area and actually pass east of the Project Area. Based oninformation from the NYSDEC, the Clayton wind project, which is east of CapeVincent but still west of a northerly track from Derby Hill, had 12 raptors perobserver hour which generally supports this theory that more raptors migrateeast of Cape Vincent.

The number of raptors observed during the fall migration is slightly higher thanexpected for this predominantly agricultural peninsula. Relatively high numbersof northern harrier, a known summer resident, recorded during early fall mayinfluence overall fall passage rates. Numbers of actual migrants moving throughthe area may be lower than the average (5.5 raptors/surveyor hour) presentedhere. Overall, three years of spring migration surveys have been conducted todate. Variation in spring raptor migration patterns was evident between 2006,2007 and 2008 survey years, with raptor use (expressed as the number of raptor

observations per 20-minute survey per survey point) highest during 2007 (4.67)and lowest during 2008 (3.38). Survey results from 2008 indicated little variationin raptor use between reference areas and the Project, suggesting the Project isnot located in an area with higher raptor migration activity during the springcompared with the surrounding area.


19/69

present in the area due to the proximity to the shoreline. The closest breedingbird survey was performed by Sauer in Watertown in 2005 and reported similarspecies occurrences and abundances. Five species listed by the NYSDEC wereobserved within the Project Area: northern harrier, Henslows sparrow, horned

lark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow. Northern harrier andHenslows sparrow are listed as threatened. The remaining three species arelisted as Species of Special Concern for New York. Bobolink, Henslowssparrow, and wood thrush are included on the 2002 Birds of ConservationConcern list for Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region91 which includesthe area of the Project.

2.12 AVIAN RESOURCES: IMPACTS

In general, disruption to avian and bat species that may be caused duringconstruction related impacts to habitat are discussed in Section 2.10. Potentialimpacts anticipated to result from project operation are discussed below.Wind energy development has the potential to cause direct loss of habitat whereinfrastructure is located and indirect loss of habitat through behavioralavoidance and habitat fragmentation. Direct loss of habitat associated with wind

energy development is relatively minor for most species compared to most otherforms of energy development. Behavioral avoidance, however, may rendermuch larger areas unsuitable or less suitable for some species of wildlife,depending on how far the species are displaced from wind energy facilities. Thegreatest concern with displacement impacts for wind energy facilities in NorthAmerica has been where these facilities have been constructed in native habitatssuch as grasslands or shrublands92 93 . Additionally, concerns have been raisedregarding the potential for wind turbines to cause displacement to migrating and

wintering birds that may utilize cropland as feeding or stopover habitat.As noted in 2.10.1.2, removal of forest habitat and perch trees would eliminateperching and roosting habitat for several species of raptors that are common tothe region as well as wild turkey; however, displaced individuals would re-establish perches and roosts in the remaining large undisturbed habitats in theProject Area. The disturbance area footprint of wind projects is minor comparedto the overall area in which the project occurs. Most of the resources available to

birds in the Project Area remain unaffected and available for use after the Projectis constructed.There is no information that supports the assumption that remaining intactperching, foraging, travel, or reproductive habitats or resources would not be


20/69

available after the project is constructed and operating, either due to land usechanges or elevated noise levels. Therefore, no displacement is expected on thisbasis.

However, wildlife mortality due to avian and bat impacts and bat hyperbarictrauma are concerns that result from wind turbine operation. The followingsections address this issue.

2.12.1 Potential Impacts to Migratory BirdsGiven the nature of avian migration in New York and along the Great Lakesshorelines, passage rates are expected to be slightly higher at the Project Area in

spring. A radar study conducted near the Lake Erie shoreline in New York(Chautauqua) reported passage rates approximately 1.5 times higher in springthan in fall. Additionally, passage rates recorded at the Project Area may beinfluenced locally by the close proximity of the radar unit to the St. LawrenceRiver shoreline (


21/69

2.12.3 Potential Impacts to BatsThe number of bat calls per night as determined from AnaBat detectors shows arough correlation with bat mortality, but may be misleading because effort,

timing of sampling, and detector settings (equipment and locations) variedamong studies. In addition, risk to bats from turbines is unequal across speciesand seasons 97. The post-construction mortality data collected at existing regionalprojects appears to be the best available predictor of mortality levels and speciescomposition for proposed wind projects.Assessing the potential impacts of the Project on bats is complicated because theproximate and ultimate causes of bat mortality at turbines are poorly understood9899

100

and because monitoring elusive, night-flying animals is inherentlydifficult.101 Although installed capacity of wind development has increasedrapidly in recent years, the availability of well-designed studies from existingprojects lags development of proposed projects.102 However, to date, monitoringstudies at wind-energy facilities suggest that:

bat mortality shows a rough correlation with bat activity (Kunz et al.2007b);

the majority of fatalities appear to occur during the post-breeding or fallmigration season (roughly August and September);

long-distance migratory tree-roosting species (e.g. eastern red [Lasiurusborealis], hoary [L. cinereus], and silver-haired bats [Lasionycterisnoctivagans) comprise almost 75% of casualties; and

the highest reported fatalities occur at wind-energy facilities locatedalong forested ridge tops in the eastern U.S., though recent studies inagricultural regions of Iowa and Alberta, Canada, also report relatively

high fatalities.Based on these patterns, current guidance for estimating potential impacts ofproposed wind-energy facilities involves evaluating bat acoustic data todetermine seasonal variation in activity levels and species composition with acomparison with regional patterns 103.

97 Johnson, G. D. 2005. A review of bat mortality at wind-energy developments in the United

States. Bat Research News 46:454998 Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin. M.D. Strickland,R.W. Thresher, and M.D. Tuttle. 2007b. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats:questions, research needs and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(6): 315-324.99 Baerwald, E.F., J. Edworthy, M. Holder, and R.M.R. Barclay. 2009. A large-scale mitigationexperiment to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7):1077-1081


22/69

There are few instances where both bat activity and bat mortality have beenrecorded at wind-energy facilities and where results are comparable. For thisreason, a definitive relationship between pre-construction bat activity and post-

construction bat mortality has not been established empirically. From the dataavailable, there appears to be a positive correlation between the two variablesand there is the expectation amongst the scientific and resource managementcommunities that when more data become available this relationship will hold104.Datasets such as that provided by the current study will further contribute to ourunderstanding of this relationship. Table 4 summarizes the results of publicallyavailable activity and fatality data from wind-energy facilities in the eastern US.To the authors knowledge, activity data were collected using ground-based

Anabat detectors such as those used in the current study.Fatality estimates from post-construction monitoring studies at wind-energyfacilities in the eastern U.S. range from 1.40 to 39.7 bats/MW/year. Bat activity atground based units at the Project site was 9.90 bat passes per detector-night in2008 and 3.43 bat passes per detector-night in 2006 (mean: 6.67); values that arelower than at three of the four facilities where activity has been recorded.Activity at these three facilities ranged from 23.7 to 38.3 bat passes per detector-

night (activity at the fourth was 0.30). Fatality estimates at these four facilitiesranged from 1.40 to 31.7 bats/MW/study period. Based on the relationshipbetween activity and mortality at these sites, bat fatality rates for the Project arelikely to be higher than at Stetson Mountain (1.40 bats/MW/study period) butlower than at Mountaineer, WV, Buffalo Mountain, TN (2000-2002), and MountStorm, WV (2008; mean: 25.2 bats/MW/study period).The number of bats detected per night at the Cape Vincent met tower was

highest in summer (23.33 calls/night) and fall (10.13 calls/night). These resultsare similar to the results of mortality studies of bats at wind projects in the U.S.,which have shown a peak in mortality in August and September. While thesurvey efforts varied among the different studies, studies that included AnaBatsurveys and fatality surveys showed a general association between the timing ofbat calls and timing of mortality, with both peak call rates and peak mortalityoccurring during the fall. When compared to results from other wind projects(see Table 9 in WESTs Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed Cape Vincent

Wind Project, Appendix F), bat activity collected at the project met towersuggests lower mortality rates for bats, should the Project be developed.Bat activity recorded at the riparian location during spring migration andsummer breeding seasons is considerably higher than that recorded at the mettower. Activity at the riparian sampling location ranges from 172 calls/night in


23/69

due largely to habitat at the sampling locations. Very little habitat for roosting orforaging bats exists near the met tower, which is located in a large open pasture.Acoustic sampling at the met tower, a location recommended by federal andstate agencies, may underestimate bat activity by focusing sampling in habitats

not preferred by bats. A comparison of bat activity recorded at the riparian areawithin the Project Area with activity/mortality results from other wind projects(see Table 9 in WESTs Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed Cape VincentWind Project, Appendix F) predicts mortality rates similar to or higher thanthose experienced in West Virginia or Tennessee. Ultimately, predicted risk tomigratory and breeding bats using acoustic monitoring is limited in its utilityand results are conflicting.

2.12.4 Potential Impacts to Federal Threatened and Endangered SpeciesThe Indiana bat, a federally listed as an endangered species, is present in theProject Area. Indiana bats are known to winter in hibernacula near Watertownand movement of females dispersing from hibernacula to breeding areas wastracked by NYSDEC from 2002 2006. Individuals have been recorded travelingup to 40 miles from wintering areas and several dispersing females werereported in Clayton, New York; within 10 miles of the proposed Project Area.

Suitable roosting habitat, characterized by trees or snags >5 inches in diameterwith exfoliating bark and cracks/crevices, is present within the Project Area.Additionally, several riparian areas and wetlands, such as farm ponds andfloodplain forests, within the Project Area provide foraging habitat for thespecies.

2.12.5 Impacts to Grassland Birds

The target grassland birds (northern harrier, short-eared owl, Henslowssparrow, sedge wren and upland sandpiper) are anticipated to be affected bydirect and indirect impacts from the Project. With the exception of short-earedowl, impacts to the target grassland birds are anticipated to occur primarilyduring the breeding season. Impacts to short-eared owl are anticipated to occurprimarily during the over-wintering period. Direct impacts from wind energyfacilities refer to fatalities resulting from flying birds being killed directly bycollisions with wind turbine rotors or towers, project meteorological (met)

towers, or other means such as electrocution or vehicle collision. Indirect impactsof wind energy development refer to disruptions of foraging behavior, breedingactivities, and migratory patterns resulting from alterations in landscapes usedby birds. Direct and indirect impacts on birds can contribute to increasedmortality, alterations in the availability of food, roost and nest resources,increased risk of predation, and potentially altered demographics, genetic


24/69

Overall, grassland birds represent less than one percent of the published avianfatalities from operating wind energy facilities in the northeast and in New YorkState. Those grassland bird species which have been most directly impacted atNew York facilities include common species such as eastern kingbird (Tyrannus

tyrannus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius) and savannah sparrow (Passerculussandwichensis). Avian mortality at New York wind energy projects has beenprimarily comprised of passerines, similar to national trends, with unidentifiedpasserine (63; 19%), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa; 56; 18%) and red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus; 28; 9%) the most frequently recorded.

2.12.6 Mitigation

To date, the Altamont Pass wind-energy facility has the highest recorded overallraptor and vulture use and fatality rate of any wind-energy facility (Erickson etal. 2002). Current research has not determined if the high fatality rate atAltamont Pass is due to the older turbine type used in the wind-energy facility,the high raptor use of the area, topography, prey abundance, or the presence ofnative habitat. Kerlinger et al. (2005) reported a relatively high fatality rate forAmerican kestrels (Falco sparverius) at the High Winds Project in Californiawhich utilizes new generation turbines. American kestrel use at that wind-

energy facility was approximately twice as high as the rate reported for AltamontPass. Although the data set is limited, it indicates that, while several factorslikely influence raptor fatality rates, the level of raptor use may be one factor inestimating raptor mortality. Measuring raptor use prior to construction providesa tool for estimating impacts (fatalities) at proposed wind-energy facilities.Raptor use is generally considered a reasonable estimate of raptor exposure orrisk (e.g., likelihood of mortality) when comparing wind-energy facilities andwhen comparing different areas within a wind-energy facility.

Migratory BirdsRaptor migration surveys will be included in the post-construction monitoringplan. In the event that migrant raptors are found as fatalities in the Project Area,the spring raptor migration surveys will be continued for at least one additionalyear in an effort to the determine the overall magnitude of impacts to migratingraptors.

Breeding BirdsBP is developing a post construction monitoring study plan in cooperation withthe NYSDEC and USFWS. The draft study plan will be included in the FEIS andwill follow recommendations in the Draft Wind Power Guidelines. Themonitoring study will include ground surveys for bird and bat casualties;migrant raptor surveys, grassland bird surveys, and AnaBat acoustic surveys.


25/69

Guidelines. The study will include post-construction AnaBat acoustic surveysconducted in conjunction with fatality monitoring to help determine therelationship between use (defined as number of bat calls per detector night) andmortality.

BP Wind Energy is seeking an Incidental Take Permit for Indiana Bats throughan Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation. The USACE is the leadagency for the Section 7 consultation process with the US Fish and WildlifeService. As part of the consultation process, BP Wind Energy will developmitigation measures to offset any potential take of Indiana bats as a result ofconstruction or operation of the proposed Cape Vincent wind energy facility.Final agreed-upon mitigation measures for Indiana bats will be included in the

FEIS.Grassland BirdsBased on habitat availability and observations of target RTE species made duringpre-construction surveys, BP is preparing a State Incidental Take Permitapplication under Article 11 (see Section 2.10). This application will include adetailed impact assessment in addition to measures designed to avoid andminimize impacts. For unavoidable impacts, mitigation resulting in a net

conservation benefit for the species will be developed. Mitigation may includethe development of habitat management plans and conservation easements. Tofurther understand the temporary and long-term impacts of the wind facility onRTE birds, BP Wind Energy is developing a post construction monitoring studyplan in cooperation with the NYSDEC and USFWS. The draft study plan will beincluded in the FEIS and will follow recommendations in the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Draft Wind Power Guidelines and the 2009 NYSDEC Guidelines.The study will include fatality monitoring to help determine the relationship

between use and mortality as well as post-construction bird surveys as part ofthe Before/After study design incorporated into the grassland breeding birdstudy (see above).

2.13 VISUAL RESOURCES: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGThe project area is characterized by agricultural fields, wetland marshes andsmall forested wetlands. A large portion of the Study Area has historically been

cleared for agricultural use. Broad tracts of agricultural land include open cropand pasture land, and inactive successional oldfield/scrubland. Patches ofmature second growth deciduous woodland typically cover steep slopes, ravines,stream corridors, poorly drained soils and other areas historically unsuitable foragriculture. Dominant tree species are representative of the beech-maple climaxcommunity found throughout much of the Eastern Ontario Hills region. These


26/69

Within the Project Area, homes and agricultural support buildings are eitherclustered at crossroad hamlets (varying in size), such as Rosiere and SaintLawrence, or are very sparsely located on individual properties. Residences (amix of old and new) and accessory structures (barns, garages, etc.) are often

found in roadside locations; however, many are located on isolated lots out ofview from local roads. Rural homes range in quality from well maintainedsingle-family frame construction to older housing stock in need of repair. Mobilehomes, of varying vintage, located on isolated lots and within parks is also acommon housing type. The more densely populated villages of Chaumont andCape Vincent lie nearby, but outside the Project Area.The Study Area is within the Eastern Ontario Hills subdivision of the Erie

Ontario Lowland. The region is characterized by low-lying relief with shallowhills comprised of glacial till typical of the eastern shore of Lake Ontario. Thelandscape generally appears relatively flat or gently sloping with elevationsranging upward from the St. Lawrence River (approximately 250 ft above sealevel [ASL]) to over 450 feet ASL.Water features are an important and scenic component of the visual landscape.The Study Area is bordered by Lake Ontario to the west and the St. Lawrence

River to the north. The Thousand Islands region is well known for the sceniccharacter of its shoreline and many islands of varying size throughout a 50-milestretch of the St. Lawrence River between Lake Ontario and Ogdensburg, NY.Combined with a wide variety of active and passive recreational opportunities,the aesthetic quality of the waterfront landscape is central to the ThousandIsland regions appeal as a well-known and popular summer vacationdestination. The shore of Lake Ontario is irregular and is characterized by aseries of large bays, peninsulas and islands. The largest of these bays include

Chaumont Bay and Mud Bay. Numerous islands such as Fox Island, GrenadierIsland, Galloo Island, and Stony Island are clearly visible from the coastal area.Within the Study Area, the St. Lawrence River is approximately eight miles widebetween the south shore along the New York State coastline and its northernshore in Ontario, Canada. Numerous islands (such as Wolfe Island, Ontario andCarleton Island, NY) intersect views making the river appear much narrower.The 2,342-mile long St. Lawrence Seaway, the only commercial shipping route

between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean, follows the St. Lawrence Riverthrough the Thousand Islands. The locks of the Seaway accept vessels 740 feetlong, 78 feet wide and up to 116.5 feet in height above the waterline. TheMontreal to Lake Ontario segment of the seaway handled over 2,300 ship transitsand 23,000,000 tons of cargo during 2010.105 The navigational channel of theSeaway within the study area follows the American side of the St. Lawrence


27/69

A number of streams flow from inland towards the coastline. Kents Creek, ThreeMile Creek, Soper Creek, Fox Creek, Little Fox Creek, Shaver Creek and theirtributaries drain much of the agricultural lowlands westerly to Lake Ontario.Scotch Brook and Wheeler Creek drain the northern portion of the study area

northerly to the St. Lawrence River. Numerous private farm ponds, scatteredwetlands, and small streams are also found in the Study Area.The area attracts a considerable amount of tourism and numerous campgrounds,cabins and motels are located along the coast. Important tourist resources in thearea include the Tibbetts Point Lighthouse, the Seaway Trail (route 12E throughthe project area), three state parks and two state wildlife management areas(Section 2.23 provides a description of these resource areas). The Village of Cape

Vincents historic district and the ferry from Cape Vincent to Canada also attracttourists. All of the noted properties are located within five miles of the Projectboundaries. Approximately 5 miles of the 518-mile long Seaway Trail runsthrough the Project Area (see Figure 2.13-1). In addition to residential viewers and tourists, the area is dotted with propertieslisted in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 2.30 identifieslisted properties both within the Project boundary and in the vicinity. Within the

Study Area, 41 structures and two historic districts listed on the State andNational Registers of Historic Places were identified.

GIS File:Cape Vincent\GIS\projects\coastal_zone_boundary.mxd

Prepared by:M. Jones/S. King

Project No.0092352

oDate:1/17/2011
http://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.13-1.pdfhttp://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.13-1.pdfhttp://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.13-1.pdfhttp://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.13-1.pdfhttp://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.13-1.pdf


28/69

1 0 10.5

Miles

Figure 2.13-1

Seaway Trail & New York Coastal Zone BoundaryCape Vincent Wind ProjectBP Wind Energy

Chaumont Bay

CANADA

Lake Ontario

St Lawrence River

Chaum

ontR

iver

Georg

Lake

Legend Proposed Turbine Array

Seaway Trail

Proposed Project Boundary

Inland Extent of Coastal Management Boundary

Cape Vincent

o


29/69


30/69

2.14 VISUAL RESOURCES: IMPACTS

2.14.1 Visual Impacts Assessment Methodology

BP Wind Energy contracted Saratoga Associates to perform a viewshed analysisfor the Project Area. Saratoga Associates is a New York State registeredLandscape Architect experienced in the specialized discipline of visual andaesthetic impact assessment.Included as Appendix G, the Viewshed Analysis Report evaluates the potentialvisibility of the proposed Project and objectively evaluates the differencebetween the visual characteristics of the landscape setting with and without the

Project in place.There are no specific Federal rules, regulations, or policies governing theevaluation of visual resources. However, the methodology employed bySaratoga Associates is based on standards and procedures used by the U.S.Department of Agriculture, 106107 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement,108 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal HighwayAdministration,109 NYS Department of Transportation,110 and the NYS

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC, July 31, 2000). Inparticular, the process follows basic criteria set out in the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation Program Policy Assessing andMitigating Visual Impacts 111 (DEC Visual Policy). This process provides apractical guide so decision makers and the public can understand the potentialvisual impacts and make an informed judgment about their significance(aesthetic impact).

This evaluation includes both quantitative (how much is seen and from whatlocations; or visual impact) and qualitative (how it will be perceived; oraesthetic impact) aspects of visual assessment. The visual impact assessmentincludes the following steps:

106 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Forest Service. 1974. Forest Service LandscapeManagement: The Visual Management System, Handbook #462, Vol.2.

107 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Forest Service, 1995.LandscapeAesthetics A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agricultural Handbook No. 701.Washington, D.C.108 United States Department of the Interior (USDOI), Bureau of Land Management. 1980. VisualResource Management Program. U.S. Government Printing Office 1980 0-302-993. Washington,D.C.109 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration 1981


31/69

1. Define the existing landscape character/visual setting to establish thebaseline visual condition from which visual change is evaluated;

2. Conduct a visibility analysis (viewshed mapping and field investigations) todefine the geographic area surrounding the proposed facility from which

portions of the Project might be seen;3. Identify sensitive aesthetic resources to establish priority places from which

further analysis of potential visual impact is conducted;

4. Select key receptors from which detailed impact analysis is conducted;

5. Depict the appearance of the facility upon completion of construction;

6. Evaluate the aesthetic effects of the visual change (qualitative analysis)

resulting from Project construction, completion and operation; and,7. Identify opportunities for effective mitigation.

2.14.2 Visual Impacts Study AreaConsistent with the DEC Visual Policy, the visual study area for this VisualResource Assessment (VRA) generally extends to a 5-mile radius from theoutermost turbines (hereafter referred to as the five-mile radius study area).

Beyond this distance it is assumed that natural conditions of atmospheric andlinear perspective will significantly mitigate most visual impacts. However,considering the scale of the proposed Project and recognizing the proposed windturbines will, at times, be visible at distances greater than five miles, site-specificconsideration is given to resources of high cultural or scenic importance that arelocated beyond the typical 5-mile radius.The five-mile radius study area encompasses all of the Town and Village of Cape

Vincent as well as portions of the adjacent Towns of Lyme and Clayton. Aportion of the Village of Chaumont is also located within the five-mile radiusstudy area.

2.14.3 Visual MappingAlso known as defining the zone of visual influence, viewshed mappingidentifies the geographic area within which there is a relatively high probability

that some portion of the proposed Project would be visible. To calculate themaximum range of potential turbine visibility, one control point was establishedat the turbine high point (i.e., apex of blade rotation) for each of the 84 turbinesevaluated. The resulting composite viewshed identifies the geographic areawithin the 5-mile study area where some portion of the proposed wind energy

j t (th f t bi bl d ) i th ti ll i ibl


32/69

would expect to be substantially screened by intervening forest vegetation (SeeFigure 2.14-1).Identified viewshed areas were further quantified in order to illustrate thenumber of turbines that may be visible from any given area. By themselves, theviewshed maps do not determine how much of each turbine is visible aboveintervening landform or vegetation (e.g., 100%, 50%, 10% etc. of total turbineheight), but rather the geographic area within which there is a relatively highprobability (theoretical visibility) that some portion of one or more turbineswould be visible. Their primary purpose is to assist in determining the potentialvisibility of the proposed Project from a set of pre-identified visual resources.Another viewshed map (See Figure 2.14-2) was created to assist in evaluatingpotential nighttime visibility. The viewshed map was created using the samemethodology as described above; however, the map was created using theapproximate height (275 feet) of the strobe lights as the control point for a set of45 turbines to be illuminated per the FAA illumination plan (see 2.14.5).The visual mapping may be further refined based the distance that turbines willbe from the observer. Distance affects the apparent size and degree of contrastbetween an object and its surroundings.Distance can be discussed in terms of distance zones, e.g., foreground,middleground and background. The U.S. Forest Service established distancezones which have been incorporated into the NYSDEC Visual Policy:Foreground (0- mile) At a foreground distance, viewers typically have a veryhigh recognition of detail. Cognitively, in the foreground zone, human scale isan important factor in judging spatial relationships and the relative size ofobjects. From this distance, the sense of form, line, color and textural contrastwith the surrounding landscape is highest. The visual impact is likely to beconsidered the greatest at a foreground distance.Middleground ( mile to 3 miles) This is the distance where elements begin tovisually merge or join. Colors and textures become somewhat muted bydistance, but are still identifiable. Visual detail is reduced, although distinctpatterns may still be evident. Viewers from middleground distancescharacteristically recognize surface features such as tree stands, building clustersand small landforms. Scale is perceived in terms of identifiable features ofdevelopment patterns. From this distance, the contrast of color and texture areidentified more in terms of the regional context than by the immediatesurroundings.
http://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.14-1.pdfhttp://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.14-1.pdfhttp://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.14-1.pdfhttp://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.14-2.pdfhttp://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.14-2.pdfhttp://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.14-2.pdfhttp://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.14-2.pdfhttp://www.erm.com/PageFiles/4273/Figures/A4363_Fig_2.14-1.pdf


33/69

2.14.4 Overall Visual Impacts

Table 2.14-1 indicates the degree of theoretical visibility illustrated on theviewshed maps within the 5-mile radius study area. Table 2.14-1 and Figure2.14-1 indicate that one or more of the proposed turbines will be theoreticallyvisible from approximately 78 percent of the five-mile radius study area.Approximately 22 percent of the study area will likely have no visibility of anywind turbines due to intervening landform or vegetation. Generally, turbinevisibility is most common from inland agricultural areas where cleared landsprovide long vistas in the direction of turbine groupings. Project visibility willalso occur from unscreened coastal areas, Lake and River Islands, and from on-water vantage points throughout the five-mile radius study area.

TABLE 2.14-1: Viewshed Coverage Summary

Vegetation and Topography ViewshedAcres Percent Cover

No Turbines Visible 28,292 22.3%1 5 Turbine Visible 4,300 3.4%6 10 Turbines Visible 2,800 2.2%

11 15 Turbines Visible 2,972 2.3%16 20 Turbines Visible 2,762 2.2%21 30 Turbines Visible 4,713 3.7%31 50 Turbines Visible 9,469 7.5%51 70 Turbines Visible 13,821 10.9%71 84 Turbines Visible 57,952 45.6%

Total 127,081 100.0%

The areas most directly affected by views of the Project will be:

the central portion of the turbine area, where multiple turbines will bevisible up to 360-degrees around a vantage point;

south and east of the Village of Cape Vincent; and

in the general vicinity of Three Mile Bay.Viewers to the north of the Project site, along such roads as Favret Road, Mason

Road, and Hell Street will encounter views of a large number of turbines (71 ormore) at foreground and middleground distances (e.g., to 3 miles). Atmiddleground distances, the visual contrast of the turbines with the surroundinglandforms will be greatest.

Figure 2.14-1


34/69

L a k e

O n t a r i o

S t . L a w r e n c e

R i v e r

UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA

CANADA

5Miles

4Miles

3Miles

2Miles

1Mile

Mud Bay

Wilson Bay

Fuller Bay

Chaumont Bay

Three Mile

Bay

Duck Bay

Sawm

illBay

Chaumont9

8

7

6

5

4

1

2A

86

85

84

8382

81

80

78

77

76

75

74

73

7271

70

69

68

67

65

63

62

6160

59

58

57

5655

54

53

5251

50

49

4847

46

4544

4342

4140

39

38

3736

35

34

3332

3130

29

28

27

2625

24

2322

2120

19

18

171615

1413

12

1110

87

66

0 2.5 51.25 Miles

Cape Vincent Wind Energy

Project

Figure 2Vegetated Viewshed*Maximum Turbine Layout 85 WTGs

(Layout 10/28/2010)

This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associatesfrom various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planningand presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not beused to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provideany other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose

when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50M

Copyright 2010 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.

File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Viewshed_Veg101112_Bladetip.mxd

December 2010

Village OfCape Vincent

"

"

"

"

""

"

""

"

"

" ""

""

"

"

"

""

""69

"78 "77

"61

"71

"84"83

"81

"82"80

"67

"65"64

"63

"74

"73

"72

"70

"68

"66

"76"75

Broadw

ay

Joseph

St

RealSt

KelseyL

n

PointSt

Gouvell

oSt

EsseltyneSt

Murra

ySt

KanadySt

Ainsw

orthL

nVincentSt

KentLn

LakeS

t

Village Of Cape Vincent

0 1,000 2,000500Feet

*Assumes uniform tree height of 40' (12.192 m) in forested areas.

Key

No. of Turbines Visible

1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 15

16 - 2021 - 30

31 - 50

51 - 70

71 - 84

" Receptor

! Proposed Turbine Locations

Seaway Trail (Scenic Highway)

Snowmobile Trail

Municipal Boundary

River / Stream / Creek

State Park

Waterway Access

Wildlife Management Area

1

1

32


35/69

Figure 2.14-2


36/69

Key

No. of FAA Lights Visible

1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 15

16 - 2021 - 30

31 - 45

! Proposed Lit Turbine Locations

" Receptor

Seaway Trail (Scenic Highway)

Snowmobile Trail

Municipal Boundary

River / Stream / Creek

State Park

Waterway Access

Wildlife Management Area

L a k e

O n t a r i o

S t . L a w r e n c e

R i v e r

UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA

CANADA

5Miles

4Miles

3Miles

2Miles

1Mile

Mud Bay

Wilson Bay

Fuller Bay

Chaumont Bay

Three Mile

Bay

Duck Bay

Sawm

illBay

Chaumont

8

6

4

1

2A

86

85

84

80

78

76

75

73

72

70

69

68

67

65

63

61

58

54

51

49

47

46

43

4038

37

31

29

28

27

25

24

2120

19

1715

14

11

87

0 2.5 51.25 Miles

Cape Vincent Wind Energy

Project

Figure 3Vegetated ViewshedFAA Lighting Layout 45 WTGs

(Layout 10/28/2010)

This map is computer generated using data acquired by Saratoga Associatesfrom various sources and is intended only for reference, conceptual planningand presentation purposes. This map is not intended for and should not beused to establish boundaries, property lines, location of objects or to provideany other information typically needed for construction or any other purpose

when engineered plans or land surveys are required.

File Location: B:\2007\07083\Maps\Viewshed_Veg101130_FAA.mxd

December 2010

Village OfCape Vincent

"69

"78 "77

"61

"71

"84"83

"81

"82"80

"67

"65"64

"63

"74

"73

"72

"70

"68

"66

"76"75

Broadw

ay

Joseph

St

RealSt

KelseyL

n

PointSt

Gouvell

oSt

EsseltyneSt

Murra

ySt

KanadySt

Ainsw

orthL

nVincentSt

KentLn

LakeS

t

Village Of Cape Vincent

0 1,000 2,000500Feet

*Assumes uniform tree height of 40' (12.192 m) in forested areas.

32

PROJECT # 2007 - 083.50MCopyright 2010 Saratoga Associates. All Rights Reserved.

4

1


37/69


38/69

Similar views of the Project will be available from along many of the county andlocal roadways. Roadways with views of multiple turbines, include, but may notbe limited to, NYS Route 12E, Huff, Burnt Rock, Swamp, Merchant, Stoney Point,Deer Lick, McKeever, Branche, Hell, CR 4, and Ashland Roads. This high degreeof Project visibility is the result of broad agricultural clearing and the lack ofscreening hills. It is worth noting that some of these views may also be longdistance (background view) and fleeting as viewers pass in vehicles.While the viewshed map indicates theoretical visibility of multiple turbineswithin the Villages of Cape Vincent and Chaumont, and the hamlet of Three MileBay, field observation determined that the prevalence of mature street trees andsite landscaping combined with one- and two-story residential and commercialstructures (not included in the vegetation screening analysis) will commonlyblock views in the direction of the Project from downtown and waterfront areas.Filtered or framed views of proposed turbines are likely through foregroundvegetation and buildings from the perimeter of these communities. Direct viewsare more prevalent on the outskirts of the villages and hamlet where localizedresidential and commercial structures, street trees and site landscaping are lesslikely to provide a visual barrier.Similarly, viewshed mapping indicates a high degree of Project visibility frommany shoreline areas throughout the study area. Based on field observation,such visibility would likely be limited to some degree by existing clusters oflocalized (non-forest) vegetation that is not clearly distinguishable in the multi-spectral satellite imagery of the National Land Cover Data (NLCD) dataset.Nonetheless, views of some portion of numerous turbines will occur fromshoreline areas along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Direct views ofmultiple turbines will also occur from near shore and offshore vantage points onthe St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Views are also found on Lake andRiver islands from shoreline areas oriented toward the Project, as well as islandhillsides with down slope vistas in the direction of the Project. Water and islandviews are found on both sides of the international border within the five-milestudy area.

2.14.5 Turbines and LightingThe proposed wind turbines will each be up to 427 feet high, measured from theground to the tip of an extended turbine blade. The FAA allows a maximum gapbetween lit and unlit turbines of mile (2,640 feet). Based on these guidelinesand the evaluated

BPSDEIS Feb 2011 Part 2 of 3 Cape Vincent

Documents

Transcript of BPSDEIS Feb 2011 Part 2 of 3 Cape Vincent