You are on page 1of 140

Supplemental Draft

Environmental Impact Statement


BP Wind Energy
Cape Vincent Wind Power Project

February 2011

www.erm.com

Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world


This page left blank for printing purposes.
BP Wind Energy

Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact
Statement: Cape Vincent Wind
Power Project
February 2011

Project No. 0092352


Cape Vincent, New York

Todd H. Hall, P.E.


Partner-in-Charge

Phil Ponebshek
Project Manager

Environmental Resources Management


Southwest, Inc.
206 East 9th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
T: 512-459-4700
F: 512-459-4711
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ii BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ESI

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND DEFINITIONS 1


1.1.1 Proposed Action 7
1.1.2 Operation and Maintenance 10
1.1.3 Power Generation 14
1.1.4 Operational Safety 15
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PLAN 16
1.2.1 Construction Related Transportation 17
1.2.2 Site Preparation 18
1.2.3 Installation of Turbines 19
1.2.4 Installation of Collection and Transmission System
Components 20
1.2.5 Environmental Management Plan 22
1.2.6 Complaint Resolution Process 23
1.2.7 Decommissioning 23
1.3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 24
1.3.1 Project Site Selection 24
1.3.2 Project Alternatives Evaluated 26
1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE, NEEDS, AND BENEFITS 30
1.4.1 Project Purpose and Need 30
1.4.2 Project Benefits 32

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 35

2.1 GEOLOGY: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 35


2.1.1 Regional Geology and Topography 35
2.1.2 Project Area Geology and Topography 35
2.1.3 Seismic Activity 38
2.1.4 Soil Liquefaction 38
2.2 GEOLOGY: IMPACTS 39
2.2.1 Regional Geology and Topography 39
2.2.2 Project Area Geology and Topography 39
2.2.3 Seismic Activity 40
2.2.4 Design Considerations 40
2.3 SOILS: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 41
2.3.1 Soils 41
2.3.2 Agriculturally Sensitive Areas (Agricultural Districts) 42
2.3.3 Agricultural Activity 42
2.3.4 Steep Slopes 42
2.4 SOILS: IMPACTS 43
2.4.1 Impacts 43
2.4.2 Drainage Features 46
2.4.3 Mitigation 46

iii BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


2.4.4 Post-Construction Monitoring 50
2.4.5 Restoration 51
2.4.6 Complaint Resolution 51
2.5 WATER QUALITY: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 51
2.5.1 Ground Water 52
2.5.2 Surface Water 53
2.5.3 Storm Water Runoff 58
2.6 WATER QUALITY: IMPACTS 58
2.6.1 Ground Water 58
2.6.2 Surface Water Impacts 59
2.6.3 Stormwater 63
2.6.4 Mitigation Measures 64
2.6.5 Site Restoration 65
2.7 WETLANDS: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 66
2.7.1 Methodology 66
2.7.2 Results 67
2.8 WETLANDS: IMPACTS 75
2.8.1 Project Components 75
2.8.2 Permanent Wetland Impacts 77
2.8.3 Temporary Wetland Impacts 79
2.8.4 Mitigation Measures 87
2.9 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY: ENVIRONMENTAL
SETTING 96
2.9.1 Vegetation 96
2.9.2 Wildlife 105
2.10 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY: IMPACTS 114
2.10.1 General Impacts to Local Habitats 114
2.10.2 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species and Significant
Ecological Habitats 117
2.11 AVIAN RESOURCES: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 120
2.11.1 Avian Surveys 122
2.11.2 Bat Surveys 126
2.11.3 Grassland Birds – Northern Harrier, Short-eared Owl,
Upland Sandpiper and Henslow’s Sparrow 128
2.11.4 Comparison to Other Wind Projects 129
2.12 AVIAN RESOURCES: IMPACTS 132
2.12.1 Potential Impacts to Migratory Birds 133
2.12.2 Potential Impacts to Breeding Birds 133
2.12.3 Potential Impacts to Bats 134
2.12.4 Potential Impacts to Federal Threatened and Endangered
Species 136
2.12.5 Impacts to Grassland Birds 136
2.12.6 Mitigation 137
2.13 VISUAL RESOURCES: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 138
2.14 VISUAL RESOURCES: IMPACTS 143
2.14.1 Visual Impacts Assessment Methodology 143
2.14.2 Visual Impacts Study Area 144
2.14.3 Visual Mapping 144
2.14.4 Overall Visual Impacts 146
2.14.5 Turbines and Lighting 151

iv BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


2.14.6 Classification of Visual Impacts 152
2.14.7 Shadow Flicker Impacts 154
2.14.8 Regional Visual Impacts 158
2.14.9 Visual Impacts to Specific Resources 160
2.14.10 Affected Viewers 165
2.14.11 Permanent Visual Impacts 166
2.14.12 Mitigation Measures 166
2.15 SOUND: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 168
2.15.1 Fundamentals of Sound Analysis 168
2.15.2 Ambient Sound Levels in the Project Area 169
2.15.3 Regulatory Noise Limits 175
2.16 SOUND: IMPACTS 175
2.16.1 Project Construction Sound Impacts 175
2.16.2 Project Operations Sound Impacts 177
2.16.3 Pure Tones 193
2.16.4 Proposed Mitigation 193
2.17 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 194
2.17.1 Climate 194
2.17.2 Air Quality 195
2.17.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 196
2.18 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY: IMPACTS 196
2.18.1 Construction 196
2.18.2 Operations 196
2.18.3 Proposed Mitigation 199
2.19 COMMUNICATION SIGNAL FAA OBSTRUCTION STUDY:
METHODOLOGY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 200
2.20 COMMUNICATION SIGNAL STUDY: IMPACTS 203
2.20.1 Types of Potential Impacts 203
2.21 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION: ENVIRONMENTAL
SETTING 207
2.22 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION: IMPACTS 208
2.22.1 Design Criteria 208
2.22.2 Coordination with Transportation Officials 209
2.22.3 Regional Transportation Issues 210
2.22.4 Local Transportation Issues 215
2.22.5 Mitigation 219
2.23 LAND USE AND RECREATION: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 220
2.23.1 Land Use 220
2.23.2 Recreation 222
2.23.3 Zoning 227
2.23.4 Coastal Zone Management 228
2.24 LAND USE AND RECREATION: IMPACTS 228
2.24.1 Land Use 228
2.24.2 Recreation 233
2.24.3 Zoning 233
2.24.4 Coastal Zone Consistency 234
2.25 SOCIOECONOMICS: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 234
2.25.1 Population and Housing 234
2.25.2 Economy and Employment 235
2.25.3 Municipal Taxes 238

v BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


2.26 SOCIOECONOMICS: IMPACTS 239
2.26.1 Population and Housing 239
2.26.2 Local Economy and Employment 239
2.26.3 Municipal Budgets and Taxes 241
2.26.4 Impact of Project to Local Real Estate Prices 241
2.27 DECOMMISSIONING 243
2.28 HEALTH AND SAFETY 243
2.28.1 Emergency Services 244
2.28.2 Health and Safety Planning 245
2.28.3 Fire Safety Planning 246
2.28.4 Design Requirements 247
2.28.5 Ice Shed 247
2.28.6 Other Safety Considerations 248
2.29 CULTURAL RESOURCES: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 249
2.29.1 Setting 250
2.29.2 Documented Prehistoric and Historic Archeological Sites250
2.29.3 Documented Historic Structures/Properties 251
2.29.4 Archeological Survey 251
2.29.5 Historic Structures/Properties Survey 252
2.30 CULTURAL RESOURCES: IMPACTS 253
2.30.1 Impacts to Archaeological Resources 253
2.30.2 Impacts to Historical Resources 254
2.30.4 Mitigation Measures for Archaeological Resources 258
2.30.5 Mitigation Measures for Historic Structural Resources 260

3.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 263

4.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF MAN’S


ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 265

5.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 267

6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND BENEFITS 269

6.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 269


6.2 GEOLOGY 273
6.3 SOILS 273
6.4 WATER QUALITY 273
6.5 WETLANDS 274
6.6 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 274
6.7 AVIAN AND BAT RESOURCES 274
6.8 VISUAL IMPACTS 275
6.9 IMPACTS TO SOUND 278
6.10 IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY 281
6.11 IMPACTS TO COMMUNICATIONS AND AVIATION 281
6.12 IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 281

vi BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


6.13 LAND USE AND RECREATION IMPACTS 282
6.14 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS 283
6.15 HEALTH AND SAFETY 284
6.16 CULTURAL RESOURCES 284

7.0 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION


OF ENERGY 287

8.0 REFERENCES 289

vii BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)

APPENDICES

A AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
B CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS
C TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN – Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
November 30, 2010
D Complaint Resolution Plan
E PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT - Terracon
November 19, 2010
F WEST SURVEY REPORTS
Avian and Bat Studies – November 28, 2007
Acoustic Bat Surveys – December 23, 2010
Raptor Migration Surveys – December 15, 2010
Grassland Breeding Bird Transect Surveys – December 17, 2010
Report on Indiana Bat Sampling at Ten Sites – June 2008
G VISUAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – Saratoga Associates – January 17, 2010
H BACKGROUND SOUND LEVEL SURVEYS - Hessler – March 8, 2008
I LICENSED MICROWAVE REPORT – COMSEARCH – November 15, 2007
J AVIATION OBSTRUCTION DETERMINATION
K EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
L SITE SPECIFIC HEALTH, SAFETY, SECURITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
M PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY FACILITY REPORT – SUNY November 29, 2007

viii BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)

List of Tables

1.1-1 Required Permits and Approvals

2.1-1 Geotechnical Boring Study Results at Cape Vincent

2.3-1 Dominant Soil Types on the Project Area

2.5-1 Water Use for Jefferson County, 2000


2.5-2 Ground Water Contamination in the Project Area

2.7-1 Wetlands Types Within the Cape Vincent Project Boundary


2.7-2 Common Vegetation Species Found in Cape Vincent Project Boundary

2.8-1 Permanent Wetland Impacts of the Cape Vincent Project


2.8-2 Temporary Wetland Impacts of the Cape Vincent Project
2.8-3 Avoidance and Minimization Measures Taken for 2010 Access Road, Collection
Line, and Project Facility Layout
2.8-4 Summary Comparison of Wetland Impacts: 2008 Project Layout to 2010 Project
Layout

2.9-1 State-Listed Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plant Species and Significant
Ecological Communities in the Vicinity of the Project Area
2.9-2 New York State Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species in the
Vicinity of the Project Area

2.11-1 Summary of All Rare, Threatened, Endangered, or State Species of Concern Birds
Seen at Cape Vincent Project Area During All Avian Surveys, April 2006- July
2010

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.

2.14-1 Viewshed Coverage Summary


2.14-2 Nighttime Viewshed Coverage

2.15-1 Measured L90 Sound Levels at Integer Wind Speeds

2.16-1 Construction Equipment Sound Levels by Phase


2.16-2 Sound Power Levels at Integer Wind Speeds (80 meter hub height)
2.16-3 Turbine-Induced Sound Pressure Levels Predicted for Participating and Non-
Participating Residences During a 7 m/s or Greater Wind
2.16-4 Maximum Turbine-Induced Sound Pressure Levels Predicted for Participating
and Non-Participating Residences at Varying Wind Speeds
2.16-5 Predicted Attenuation from Residential Building Walls/Windows

ix BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


2.18-1 Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions That Would Result from the Proposed
Project

2.19-1 Broadcasting Towers in Vicinity of Cape Vincent Project

2.21-1 AADT Volumes for Study Area Highways (2004 Data)

2.22-1 Design Criteria to Accommodate Oversize/Overweight Load Vehicles


2.22-2 Description of Highways along Regional Haul Routes
2.22-3 Description of Roadways along Local Haul Routes
2.22-4 Required Roadway Modifications along Local Haul Routes

2.23-1 Land in Farms – Jefferson County


2.23-2 Land Use within the Project Area

2.25-1 Population in the Project Area


2.25-2 Housing in the Project Region in 2000
2.25-3 Project Area Employment by Industry and Class of Worker in 2000
2.25-4 Leading Agriculture Products in Jefferson County, 2002
2.25-5 Unemployment and Income in the Project Area
2.25-6 Municipal Tax Rate and Levy Data

2.30-1 Summary of Historic Structures Requiring Additional Evaluation


2.30-2 Historic Structure Impacts and Cumulative Impacts

6.1-1 Operating and Proposed Wind Power Projects in Cape Vincent Area

x BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


List of Figures

1.1-1 Project Location Map


1.1-2 Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Boundary
1.1-3 Turbine Lighting Plan

2.6 Streams and Waterbodies Map

2.7-1 Wetland Resource Boundary Area Assessment

2.8-1 Delineated Wetland Crossings of the 2010 Project Layout


2.8-2 Comparison of 2008 and 2010 Project Layouts
2.8-3 Potential Wetland Mitigation Areas

2.13-1 Seaway Trail & New York Coastal Zone Boundary

2.14-1 Vegetated Viewshed – Maximum Turbine Layout 85 WTGs


2.14-2 Vegetated Viewshed – FAA Lighting Layout 45 WTGs

2.15-1 10 Minute L90 Sound Levels at All Monitoring Positions-Summer 2007


Monitoring
2.15-2 10 Minute L90 sound Levels at All Monitoring Positions-Winter 2007/2008
Monitoring
2.15-3 Regression Analysis of Sound Levels vs. Wind Speed-Summer 2007 Monitoring
2.15-4 Regression Analysis of Sound Levels vs. Wind Speed-Winter 2007-2008
Monitoring

2.16-1 Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Noise Impact Modeling, 3 m/s Wind
2.16-2 Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Noise Impact Modeling, 4 m/s Wind
2.16-3 Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Noise Impact Modeling, 5 m/s Wind
2.16-4 Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Noise Impact Modeling, 7 m/s Wind

2.19-1 Microwave Pathways and Radio Transmission Towers in Vicinity of Cape


Vincent Wind Project

2.22-1 Proposed Regional Haul Route 1


2.22-2 Proposed Regional Haul Route 2
2.22-3 Proposed Regional Haul Route 3
2.22-4 Proposed Regional Haul Route 4

2.23-1 Agricultural Districts in Jefferson County


2.23-2 USDA NASS Landcover/Landuse
2.23-3 State Managed Lands Map
2.23-4 Zoning Designations

6.1-1 Active and Proposed Windfarms in Cape Vincent Area

6.9-1 Cumulative with Acciona Project Design Condition: 7 m/s Wind

xi BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


List of Acronyms

ºC degrees Celsius
ºF degrees Fahrenheit
AADT average annual daily traffic
APE Area of Potential Effect
AR Agricultural Residential
ASL above sea level
BCA Bird Conservation Area
BMP Best Management Practice
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CWA Clean Water Act
cy cubic yards
dB decibel
dB(A) A-weighted decibels
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DNL day-night-level
ECL Environmental Conservation Law
EIA Energy Information Administration
EMI electromagnetic interference
EPFPP Emergency Preparedness and Fire Prevention Plan
ERP Emergency Response Plan
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAC Federal Advisory Committee on Wind Energy (USFWS)
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FWA Freshwater Wetlands Act
g gravity
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GHSSER Getting HSSE Right
HMANA Hawk Migration Association of North America
HPI Historical Perspectives, Inc.
hrs hours
HSSE Health, Safety, Security and Environment
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
Hz hertz
IBA Important Bird Area
IH interstate highway
km kilometers
kV kilovolt
kWh kilowatt-hours
Leq average sound pressure level
m/s meters per second
met meteorological
MMT million metric tons
MSL Mean Sea Level
MW megawatts

xii BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


MWh megawatts per hour
NEC National Electric Code
NFPA National Fire Protection Agency
NLCD National Land Cover Data
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOx nitrous oxide
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWCC National Water and Climate Centers
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NYISO New York Independent System Operator
NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program
NYS New York State
NYASS New York Agricultural Statistics Service
NYSDAM New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOH New York State Department of Health
NYSDOS New York State Department of State
NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation
NYSDPS New York State Department of Public Service
NYSERDA New York State Energy and Research Development Authority
O&M operations and maintenance
OPRHP Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
OS/OW oversized/overweight
Pa pascal
PAF Public Archeological Facility
Pb lead
PILOTs payments-in-lieu-of-taxes
PM particulate matter
POI Point-of-Interconnection
PRHPL Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law
PSC Public Service Commission
PWL sound power level
ROW right-of-way
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RTE rare, threatened or endangered
SC State-listed Species of Special Concern
SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition
SDEIS Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
SE State-listed Endangered Species
SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act (New York)
SHPO State Historical Preservation Officer (Office)
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures
SPDES Stormwater Pollution Discharge Elimination System
SPL sound pressure level
SPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SRIS System Reliability Impact Study

xiii BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


ST State-listed Threatened Species
SUNY State University of New York
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDOE United States Department of Energy
USDOI United States Department of the Interior
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
VRA Visual Resource Assessment
W watt
WCFZ Worst Case Freznel Zones
WHO World Health Organization
WMA Wildlife Management Area

xiv BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Island School District, the Lyme School
District and Jefferson County.
BP Wind Energy North America, Inc. (BP
Wind Energy) proposes to install and Project Description
operate the 134 MW Cape Vincent Wind The Project will consist of 84 wind turbines
Power Project (the Project) in the Town of placed within a 13,400 acre area.
Cape Vincent in the western portion of The Project components which are
Jefferson County, NY. The proposed addressed in this assessment include:
Project will be developed entirely on private • 2-3 permanent meteorological towers to
land, and will aid the State of New York in be spaced across the project area;
meeting the renewable energy goals of the • Temporary ancillary construction
state Renewable Portfolio Standard as well facilities, including two concrete batch
as the “45 by 15” clean energy goals for the plants, and cleared areas for equipment
state. The Project will also reduce the need laydown, construction parking, and
for construction of new fossil-fueled construction management trailers;
generation within the state, and will result in • 84 GE 1.6 MW wind turbines;
reduced emissions of air pollutants and • A 3-acre permanent operations and
greenhouse gases. maintenance (O&M) center;
• 21 miles of access roads;
• 43 miles of primarily underground
electrical interconnections between
turbines and a project substation;
• A 3-acre substation;
• A ½-mile aboveground 115 kV
transmission line to carry power from
the project substation to the St.
Lawrence Wind Project transmission
line, and
• 115 kV transmission lines to be strung
alongside 7 miles of the St. Lawrence
Project transmission line to carry power
from the project to National Grid’s
proposed Rockledge Substation.

In addition, project development will also


involve upgrades to local infrastructure to
accommodate the expected weight and size
of vehicles hauling construction materials.
Lake Ontario Regional Map
This Supplemental Draft Environmental
Purpose and Need Impact Statement (SDEIS) replaces the
The purpose of the Cape Vincent Wind Draft EIS submitted December 7, 2007, and
Power Project is to add significant new describes existing conditions within the
capacity for generation of renewable energy anticipated Project Area and identifies
to the New York State power system, to potential impacts of Project construction
generate revenue for local landowners and and operation. Existing conditions and the
for residents of the greater Cape Vincent potential effects (beneficial and adverse)
community, and to generate money which are described in Section 2 along with
can be used for PILOT payments to the proposed techniques for impact mitigation.
Town of Cape Vincent, the Thousand Unavoidable significant adverse impacts

ERM-Southwest, Inc. ES-I 0092352\A4363


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
are addressed in Section 3 and cumulative • Plant commissioning.
impacts are detailed in Section 6.

At the time of the original DEIS filing, BP


had not yet completed the project layout,
and no studies of the proposed areas of
disturbance had been completed. Siting
and layout for the facility have now been
completed, and this SDEIS includes an
assessment of the impacts which result
from the following levels of land
disturbance:
• 60 acres for turbine construction sites
• 104 acres for onsite access road
construction and improvement
• 106 acres for public roadway
improvements Project Layout
• 57 acres for construction of electrical
interconnects Various health and safety, emergency
• 3 acres for a permanent Project response, public interaction, and
substation site environmental protection and control plans
• 8.4 acres for a central laydown area, have either been developed or are in the
including construction management and process of development. These plans will
parking be shared with the Town of Cape Vincent
• 13.2 acres for two concrete batch plant prior to construction. A workforce of 200 will
sites be required during construction and to the
extent possible workers will be hired from
• 3 acres for the permanent O&M facility
the local labor pool. During normal
• 4 acres for a ½- mile long overhead
operations, BP Wind Energy will maintain a
115kV transmission corridor
local workforce of 10 employees for
operations and maintenance purposes.
At the end of the project life cycle, project
equipment will be decommissioned and
The project will generate significant
removed, and the project site will be
economic benefits for the region, including
restored to its original condition.
not only the economic stimulus generated
by the construction and O&M workforce, but
Project construction is anticipated to begin
also through landowner payments, and
in the spring of 2012 and be completed by
PILOT payments to the Town of Cape
the end of the year, and will include the
Vincent, the Thousand Island and Lyme
following stages:
School Districts, and Jefferson County.
• Grading and preparation of ancillary
construction facilities; As noted above, the SDEIS evaluates
• Improvements to local road systems existing conditions and the potential
• Construction of access roads; impacts from project operation and
• Construction of turbine tower construction on specific resources. BP
foundations and turbine installation; Wind Energy commissioned a number of
• Installation of the underground electrical site specific studies, including:
collection system;
• Construction and installation of the
substation and operations and
maintenance facilities; and

ERM-Southwest, Inc. ES-II 0092352\A4363


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
• Spring and fall avian migration studies; will be mitigated by a number of practices
• Migratory raptor point count survey; recommended by the NY State Department
• Breeding bird point count survey; of Agriculture and Markets, including
• Migratory season AnaBat sampling; prevention of erosion through adherence to
• Summer resident bat AnaBat sampling; a site-specific Stormwater Pollution
• Summer bat mist netting studies; Prevention Plan, post-construction
restoration and revegetation, where
• Grassland bird survey;
necessary topsoil segregation, and location
• Leaf-on (summer) and Leaf-off (winter)
of construction footprint to minimize
ambient noise monitoring;
agricultural impacts. As a result, turbine
• Visual impacts analysis; locations are anticipated to cause a
• Flicker analysis; permanent disturbance only to 0.03 acres
• Wetlands reconnaissance study; of USDA Prime Farmland, and 0.45 acres
• Wetlands delineation study; of Farmlands of Statewide Importance.
• Ecological field survey;
• Blanding’s turtle habitat survey; Water Quality
• Archeological Resources Phase 1A and Surface water in the Cape Vincent area will
Phase 1B field studies; not be significantly impacted by the
• Historical/Architectural Resources “Area proposed Project. There will be a very small
of Potential Effect” analysis; increase in impervious cover, and thus the
• Microwave Pathway analysis; Project should have little impact on
• Geotechnical survey; groundwater recharge or surface water
• Karst feature survey; runoff rates. During construction, erosion
• Traffic impact analysis and road and sedimentation control measures would
improvement needs assessment; be used to reduce sediment runoff from
• FAA and DOD airspace obstruction construction sites, and detailed
analysis; and investigations will be conducted prior to
construction to determine site-specific
• FAA lighting study.
features (for example, karst sinkholes)
which should be avoided or protected
during turbine and infrastructure placement.
Geology and Soils
The surface geology in the Project Area
largely consists of limestones, shales,
sandstones, and dolostones covered by 0-
20 feet of silty clays. Much the site has
exposed bedrock, regularly fractured by
joints. No large structural folds or faults in
bedrock have been observed in the Project
Area. The site has a low probability for
seismic activity, soil liquefaction or
landslides. Construction, including if
necessary blasting, is not expected to
cause significant impacts to site geology.

A small amount of soil currently under


agricultural production will be occupied by
the placement of turbines and other long-
term infrastructure; however, land
immediately adjacent to the turbines will not
be taken out of cultivation. Impacts to soils Local Wetland Feature

ERM-Southwest, Inc. ES-III 0092352\A4363


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Wetlands mitigation. The Article 24 and Section 404
Prior to submittal of the DEIS, field processes must be completed prior to
reconnaissance studies were conducted construction taking place on the Project that
over the Project Area, and 12% of the area will impact waters of the US or the State of
was found to be covered by wetlands or New York.
waterbodies, primarily Palustrine Forested
wetlands dominated by trees 20 foot in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
height or taller, mainly consist of silver, red, Most of the land which will be disturbed
and sugar maples. during construction of the Project will be
open uplands, primarily in use as the
Utilizing these studies, a turbine array plan pasture land: hay fields and reverting hay
was developed in a way to largely avoid fields which constitute over 50% of the land
impacts to wetlands, particularly to forested in the Project Area. These lands have
wetlands which cannot be practically historically supported a high level of human
restored and whose boundaries were easily activity, diminishing the quality of the
identified via reconnaissance type surveys. habitat for sensitive species.
Wetlands impacts minimization continued
through multiple iterations involving BP There are no federally listed plant species
identifying workspace or corridors for occurring within or in the vicinity of the
turbine construction, access roads, and Project Area, but six state listed species
electrical transmission, followed by were observed during prior ecological
location-specific wetland delineation surveys in the area, or have been
activities in order to map out any other documented to be present in the area. The
wetland impacts – often to scrub-shrub or single terrestrial species of concern within
emergent wetlands – that could result from the site is the Blanding’s Turtle, a state-
the Project. As wetland boundaries were listed threatened species for which habitat
identified, BP to the extent feasible was found during ecological surveys at the
relocated workspaces and corridors outside site. The Lake Sturgeon is found in waters
the mapped boundaries, and additional immediately downstream of the Project.
surveys were performed. Project design and work practices are
expected to preclude any impacts to the
In total, BP contracted wetland delineation Blanding’s Turtle or Lake Sturgeon.
experts spent over 1500 hours during 2010
an effort to map and determine appropriate
avoidance measures for wetlands at Cape
Vincent. This resulted in temporary
construction-related wetland impacts being
reduced to a final total of 2.84 acres, while
permanent impacts were limited to 1.07
acres (0.01 acres of Palustrine forested
wetlands).

BP is submitting a complete Joint Permit


Application satisfying the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) Article 24 and US Army Corps Blanding’s Turtle
of Engineers (USACE) Section 404
processes. This application includes As with wetlands, the Project footprint has
proposed BP’s strategy for minimizing been modified throughout the siting process
impacts to wetlands and waterbodies, as in order to reduce or eliminate impacts to
well as proposals for compensatory sensitive species or habitat, including four

ERM-Southwest, Inc. ES-IV 0092352\A4363


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
state listed Significant Ecological
Communities - Silver Maple-Ash Swamp,
Calcareous Pavement Barrens, Limestone
Woodland, and Sinkhole Wetland – found
in the vicinity of the project. Additional
measures to further protect these species
may be implemented based on NYSDECs
response to the BP Article 11 Permit
application.

Construction activities will disturb the local


ecology of the site, but adherence to a Site
Specific Environmental Management Plan Indiana Bat
including restoration provisions will mitigate
those impacts. Multiple studies for bats have also been
conducted as well, and the federally-listed
Avian and Bat Species endangered Indiana Bat may be present
Cape Vincent is near to the Point Peninsula within the Project Area. Under Section 7 of
Important Bird Area which is considered to the federal Endangered Species Act,
be a critical winter concentration area for a Federal agencies that are proposing to
number of species, including the state authorize, fund, or conduct an activity
endangered Short-eared Owls, and its (considered a federal action), are required
shoals are considered an important pre- to consult with the USFWS to determine if
migratory staging area for species including the federal action is likely to adversely
the state-threatened Common Terns. The affect species listed under the ESA. The
Point Peninsula site and its offshore waters USACE issuance of a wetland permit is
host tens of thousands of waterfowl. considered a federal action requiring
Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area compliance with the ESA, and BP is
adjacent to the site is also designated as a preparing a Biological Assessment for
New York Bird Conservation Area, and USACE which will include a thorough
supports a number of state listed assessment of potential impacts from the
endangered avian species. project on the endangered Indiana bat and
a conservation plan outlining measures that
BP is working with the NYSDEC through will avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential
the Article 11 process in order to obtain an adverse impacts to Indiana bat from the
Incidental Take Permit Application for state- project.
listed species. This permit will specify
measures to avoid and minimize impacts to Visual Resources
state-listed threatened and endangered The project area is characterized by
species, including the threatened agricultural fields, wetland marshes and
Henslow’s sparrow, upland sandpiper, small forested wetlands, with some clusters
sedge wren and northern harrier, in addition of residences at crossroad hamlets such as
to the endangered short-eared owl. For Rosiere and Saint Lawrence, and other
unavoidable impacts, the Project will residences and farm support buildings
complete a mitigation plan which results in interspersed throughout the area.
a net-conservation benefit for the species Measured from the ground to the tip of an
included in the application. extended blade, each wind turbine will be
up to 426 feet high and visible from
numerous locations in the surrounding
area.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. ES-V 0092352\A4363


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
The height and density of the turbines will Decommissioning and removal of turbines
make them a focal point and will change at the end of their life cycle will ensure that
the visual character of the town. Since most the project will not be a permanent visual
visitors to the area are focused on the impact.
shore and the views to the water, the
turbines will generally not affect the views Sound
from state parks and other properties along Summer (“leaf-on”) and winter (“leaf-off”)
the coast. The exception to this will be at ambient sound monitoring program was
Long Point State Park where visitors will conducted at 7 sites across the project area
have a direct, unobstructed view of the in September and December, 2007. Over
Project. most of the site, wind speeds of 6-8
meters/second (m/s) correlated with
measured ambient noise levels (calculated
as L90’s) of 48-50 dB(A) during the summer
and 34-40 dB(A) during the winter. Above
6-8 m/s wind noise continues to increase,
but turbine noise does not, and therefore
this wind speed is considered to represent
a worst-case impact for turbine noise
versus ambient sound levels.

At the 80-meter hub height, the GE 1.6-100


turbines which will be used for the Project
are expected to produce between 100-105
Visual Simulation db(A) at wind speeds of 6-8 m/s. Site
specific modeling was completed to assess
A preliminary visualization study is included the impact to various local receptors,
in the SDEIS identifying sensitive receptors particularly residences, over a range of
which could be visually impacted and wind speed conditions. Presently, the Town
qualitatively assessing the impact of the of Cape Vincent has no local noise
Project on those receptors. These include regulations or guidelines for wind power
potentially historically valuable resources facilities. However, BP Wind Energy
identified by the NY Office of Parks, undertook an extensive process of
Recreation, and Historic Preservation evaluating various turbine array plans in
(OPRHP), and surveys have been conjunction with noise modeling exercises
completed to assess the impacts to in order to reduce the impacts to local
historical resources on a site by site basis. residents, a process which played a major
role in the reduction of the project size from
The reduction in the number of turbines at the originally proposed 140 turbines down
the site from the originally planned 140 to the current 84. The GE 1.6-100 turbines
down to 84 has reduced the potential visual were also selected because of their lower
impacts from the Project. Other mitigation sound pressure output versus other
measures which could be implemented may available turbines at the wind speeds
include use of colors and non-reflective typical for Cape Vincent.
turbine and tower coatings to reduce the
visual contrast with the background sky,
and screening turbines where there are
specific concerns over visual impacts to
specific resources.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. ES-VI 0092352\A4363


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
The current array plan was designed to through the project layout and the selection
meet the following predicted noise levels of turbines. BP Wind Energy will implement
thresholds: a complaint resolution procedure to assure
• ” 48 dB(A) at any property lines for non- that any complaints regarding operational
participating property owners noise will be adequately and efficiently
• ” 47 dB(A) at the current residential investigated and resolved.
structures of any non-participating
property owners Land Use
• ” 50 dB(A) at the current residential Land use within the Project Area is primarily
structures of any participating property agricultural, with some residential clusters.
owners There are a number of recreational
resources in the area of the project, and the
The maximum modeled turbine sound Village of Cape Vincent and the Seaway
levels noted above drop off as wind speeds Trail are popular tourist destinations.
decrease – for example, the maximum Through project design and setbacks the
predicted noise level at any non- project should have a minimal impact on
participating residence during a 5 mps wind these resources, although they may reduce
is 43 dB(A). the potential for future residential
development during the life of the project.
The proposed project will require a Site
Plan Review by the Cape Vincent Planning
Board and the combined St. Lawrence
Wind Farm/Cape Vincent Wind Power
Project transmission line will require review
by the Lyme Zoning Board. Because of
proximity to the NY Coastal Zone and the
state permit actions required for the Project,
BP has documented consistency with the
New York Coastal Zone Management
Policy.

Traffic and Transportation


BP undertook a significant study of
transportation alternatives for transport of
construction equipment and turbine
components to the site, both on a regional
level (evaluating regional haul routes from
Noise Modeling Output
major shipping terminals) as well as on a
local level (evaluating county and town
Construction noise is expected to be
roads within the project area). As a result,
disruptive, but comparable to other local
BP identified numerous local roadways
noise sources regularly encountered for
which will require improvements needed
short periods of time in Cape Vincent, and
such as pavement widening and
is not considered a significant impact.
intersection widening (in order to
accommodate oversized loads) as well as
Operational noise levels are not predicted
improving the structural integrity of certain
to result in any adverse health effects to
roadways through measures like upgrading
local residents, but may cause a nuisance
culverts and increasing pavement thickness
situation under certain conditions.
( to accommodate overweight loads). BP is
Mitigation measures, as noted above, have
coordinating all planned activities with
already been built into project design,
state, county, and local transportation

ERM-Southwest, Inc. ES-VII 0092352\A4363


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
officials, and has conducted environmental avoid any impacts to microwave telecom
surveys to assess any impacts that may pathways. An assessment of any impacts
result during these roadway improvements. to Mars Hill or other broadcasting signals
Much of the construction will take place will be performed post-construction, and
during the summer season, when tourism appropriate mitigation will be designed. BP
substantially increases traffic in the Cape has received clearances from the Federal
Vincent area, and BP will also work with Aviation Administration (FAA) certifying that
local officials to schedule deliveries and the array plan will not interfere with FAA
equipment movements in order to minimize airways, vectoring altitudes, or critical radar
nuisance effects to local residents or to the installations, and there will be no impact to
tourist population. Department of Defense operations. A
nighttime lighting plan has been approved
by the FAA.

Socioeconomics
The proposed Project will provide a number
of benefits to the local area. Anticipated
local economic benefits include:
• temporary and permanent employment
during construction and operation;
• increased local spending by Project
employees;
• increased revenue to the municipality
Route 12E through Chaumont through payments in lieu of taxes; and
increased economic diversification in
Air Quality the county.
Electric power consumption is expected to Many of the landowners directly affected by
continue to grow in New York in the coming Project development are farmers, who will
decades, creating a need for additional directly benefit from the additional income
power generation capacity. The project will that will be provided through lease
recognize significant benefits to air quality payments for the use of their property for
over its life cycle, as it will reduce the need wind turbine sites. The lease payments will
for additional fossil fired power generation. provide some relief from the cashflow
This includes annual reductions of fluctuations that are inherent in the
emissions of smog precursors nitrogen agricultural industry by providing the
oxides (280 tons/year) and sulfur oxides farmers with steady guaranteed income,
(360tons/year), the greenhouse gas carbon while at the same time ongoing current
dioxide (260,000 tons/year), as well as farming and grazing activities will be
hazardous air pollutants including volatile unaffected by wind farm operations.
organics and mercury. These benefits are
considered a form of partial mitigation for Cultural Resources
other environmental impacts caused by the BP has completed a Phase 1A survey of
project. the site, and Phase 1B surveys at the site
are approximately 70% complete at this
Communications and Aviation Safety time. BP is committed to working with the
Four non-Federal microwave telecom OPRHP in order to develop a schedule for
pathways cross the site, and the Mars Hill completion of surveys and commitments to
FM102.7 Broadcasting Station at Fox Creek protect cultural materials during site
Road and Route 12E may experience construction. In addition, BP has
signal attenuation due to turbines. BP Wind completed an assessment of historically
Energy has laid out their turbines in order to significant properties whose character

ERM-Southwest, Inc. ES-VIII 0092352\A4363


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
could be adversely affected due to the • Effects due to construction and
construction of turbines in their viewshed operation of a 115 kV transmission
and will work with the OPRHP to develop corridor; and
appropriate mitigation measures to reduce • Effects due to upgrading the National
or compensate for those impacts. Grid transmission system if multiple
projects being developed results in
Health and Safety overloading of current grid capacity.
Health and safety concerns during project
construction and normal operations are Cumulative impacts occur when the
addressed in the site specific health and individual impacts of one project interact
safety program, emergency response plan, with the impacts of another project in a
spill prevention control and countermeasure manner which compounds or increases the
plan and complaint resolution process, extent of an impact that either project would
which are included as either appendices to have on its own. Cumulative impacts of
the SDEIS or will be included in the FEIS. concern for the Cape Vincent Project along
Specific operational health and safety with the aforementioned projects include:
concerns, including the possibility of ice
shed, blade throw, and turbine collapse, are • avian and bat populations – there is a
addressed by BP Wind Energy’s concern that as more projects are
commitment to excellence in project design, constructed impacts to avian and bat
construction, and maintenance, and by populations may be more than additive,
maintaining adequate setbacks from local particularly if migrating birds lose the
residents and roadways to further reduce ability to migrate unimpeded from
the risk to human health and safety that potential risk of collision. While this is
could result from any catastrophic event. considered unlikely due to the flight
altitude of migrating birds, the additive
Cumulative Impacts impacts are still a concern for species of
The SDEIS addresses potential cumulative concern, particularly the Federally Listed
impacts which will result to the region from Indiana Bat. BP Wind Energy is working
the potential construction, within a 20 mile closely with the USFWS and NYSDEC to
long band, of five commercial wind power develop a minimization and mitigation
projects. Along with the Cape Vincent plan designed to reduce the likelihood of
Wind Power Project, wind farms in various adverse impacts and minimize the
stages of planning and permitting include Project’s potential contribution to
the adjacent St. Lawrence Wind Farm in significant cumulative impacts to these
Cape Vincent, the Horse Creek Wind Farm species.
in Clayton, and the Hounsfield Wind Farm • visual resources - should all five projects
on Galloo Island. Already constructed and discussed be constructed, the area in an
operational is the Wolfe Island Wind Project approximately 13-mile radius of the town
on Wolfe Island (Canada) in the St. of Cape Vincent would include over 350
Lawrence River, offshore of the Town of utility scale wind generating turbines each
Cape Vincent. exceeding 390 feet in height. Traveling
northward on Route 12E (the Seaway
The cumulative effects considered include: Trail) a driver would encounter a view of
• Effects to regional and local turbines while passing through virtually
transportation networks; the entire route from Brownsville to the
• Effects due to construction and Village of Clayton, with turbines in the
operation of multiple projects with immediate foreground as they pass
industrial scale wind turbines; through the Cape Vincent Project after
passing Three Mile Bay. The highest
value local views (of Lake Ontario and the

ERM-Southwest, Inc. ES-IX 0092352\A4363


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
St. Lawrence River) will only be impacted simultaneously, due to the doubling of the
by the offshore Wolfe Island and volume of construction traffic. Current
Hounsfield Wind Power Projects, and no schedules indicate that this will not occur,
cumulative impact will result from addition but if construction overlaps both projects
of the Cape Vincent Project to these will coordinate with local officials to
coastal views. Thus, while the villages of develop schedules that minimize impacts
Cape Vincent, Clayton, and Sackets to local traffic patterns.
Harbor all have Local Waterfront • socioeconomics - Construction of the
Revitalization Programs that include five projects will have cumulative benefits
substantial visual components, as those for the regional economy. Total
programs primarily focus on views of the construction cost for the four U.S. projects
waterfront the addition of the Cape is estimated to be greater than $1 billion.
Vincent Project will not contribute to any Approximately 15 to 18 percent of this
negative cumulative impacts. total is the expected to be spent locally,
• cultural resources - some historical providing short-term construction jobs, as
properties, particularly those in the vicinity well as a smaller number of long-term
of the boundary of the Cape Vincent and operations and maintenance jobs. The
St. Lawrence Projects, may encounter local share of annual operating and
some cumulative negative impact, maintenance costs is estimated to range
particularly if the radius of visual impact is between $1.8 million and $2.5 million,
greatly expanded due to the two projects. providing an ongoing economic benefit to
BP is working with the OPRHP to address the region. Local lease payments to
visual impacts to properties with historical participating landowners will enhance
significance. their ability to purchase additional goods
• noise - while wind turbine noise may be and services, providing another
perceptible at farther distances at levels secondary benefit to the local economy.
slightly over background, from a nuisance The projects will also have a cumulative
perspective, noise levels approach beneficial impact on municipal budgets
significant nuisance levels at distances and taxes, as the taxing jurisdictions will
within 1,000 feet of a turbine. Therefore, receive additional revenues from the
BP’s Cape Vincent Project is only projects in the form of PILOT revenues.
expected to cause potential cumulative This revenue could total over $5 million
impacts with the adjoining St. Lawrence per year if all four projects are built, based
Wind Farm in Cape Vincent, and only on the PILOT agreement entered into by
along the border between the two projects the Galloo Island project recently.
where some residences may be affected On a long term basis, the potential for a
by turbines from both projects. Modeling combined addition of almost 600 MW of
of the impacts from both projects capacity to generate electrical power
operating simultaneously indicates that in without the combustion of fossil fuels
no case is this expected to result in a between the four New York projects will
sound pressure level greater than 45 make a major contribution to the State of
dB(A) at any residential structure on a New York meeting their renewable power
property that is not part of either project; generation goals. Assuming a 30%
therefore, the cumulative impact to any annual capacity factor these projects will
individual receptor should not be generate enough power to meet the
significantly greater than the impact from electricity needs of almost 300,000
either project operating independently. average New York households.
• transportation - Cumulative impacts to
local transportation networks may result if
both the St. Lawrence Wind Farm and the
Cape Vincent Project are constructed

ERM-Southwest, Inc. ES-X 0092352\A4363


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND DEFINITIONS

BP Wind Energy North America, Inc. (BP Wind Energy) proposes to install and
operate the approximately 134-megawatt (MW) Cape Vincent Wind Power
Project (the Project or Wind Power Project) in the town of Cape Vincent, Jefferson
County, located in northern New York State (see Figure 1.1-1). The project will
be developed entirely on private land, although some use and expansion of the
public road system will be necessary to support Project development.

The Project will include:


• Four temporary meteorological monitoring towers (three 196 feet tall and one
164 feet tall), which have been constructed and are currently collecting data
within the site boundary. At the completion of project construction, 2-3
permanent meteorological towers will be spaced across the Project Area;
• Construction-related temporary facilities, including two concrete batch
plants, and cleared areas for construction parking, equipment laydown, and
construction management trailers;
• Eighty four GE 1.6-100 wind turbines within an approximately 11,000-acre
area in the town of Cape Vincent (see Figure 1.1-2);
• Approximately 21 miles of access roads that would connect each wind
turbine to a town or county highway to allow equipment and vehicle access
for construction and subsequent facility maintenance;
• Approximately 43 miles of electrical collection system to deliver electricity to
a newly constructed project substation in Cape Vincent. Approximately 14
miles of the electrical collection system will be installed underground along
the same right-of-way (ROW) corridor as the access roads;
• A three-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) center;
• A Project substation on a three -acre parcel; and
• A ½-mile 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line to carry power from the Cape
Vincent (Project) substation to the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Project
transmission line, which will connect the Cape Vincent substation with
National Grid’s proposed Rockledge substation, which connects to the New
York State Transmission System.

The following terms are used throughout this document to describe the proposed
action.

Project. In this document, “Project” refers to all activities associated with the
construction and operation of the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project, and all
components thereof, including but not limited to: wind turbines (e.g., blades,
towers, generators, pads, and foundations); electrical collection lines and poles;
trenches; access roads; related structures (e.g., substation); and ancillary
construction related units and areas. The terms Project and Wind Power Project
are used interchangeably in this document.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 1 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Project Area. The Project Area is denoted by the outer boundary of the
geographic area that includes all Project components, excluding the 115 kV
transmission line to be strung along the proposed St. Lawrence Wind
transmission structures.

Turbine Cluster. A “turbine cluster” consists of two or more wind turbines in


close geographic proximity that is served by a single system of access roads and
collection lines.

Turbine Site. A "turbine site” is the individual 100-foot radius location of a


proposed wind turbine and monopole structures, including a foundation for that
structure, a crane pad, and the surrounding area requiring clearing for laydown
and construction.

Area of Potential Effect. There are three uses of the term “Area of Potential
Effect” (APE) used in the DEIS. The first represents an area of about 222 total
acres within the 11,000-acre Project Area, or all areas that would be physically
affected during Project development and/or operation. The APE is divided into
turbine clusters that would be served by a series of access/service roads, the
circuited electrical collection system, laydown yards, batch concrete plant sites,
and the substation site. This is also referred to as the “historical APE.”
Additional grid related components “downstream” of the interconnect of the
Cape Vincent Project with the new transmission line being constructed for the St.
Lawrence Wind Project, as well as the Rockledge substation and any
transmission upgrades taking place downstream of the Rockledge substation are
assumed to be taking place within established corridors and stations and are not
included in the APE.

A second use of the term APE refers to those portions of the Project Area where
turbine noise may cause a nuisance (see Section 2.15 and 2.16). These portions
are all within the Project boundary.

For the cultural resource discussion (Sections 2.30.2 and 2.31.2) and visual impact
analysis (Sections 2.13 and 2.14), the term “visual APE” is used to include areas
both inside and outside of the project boundary that would be visually affected
by the turbines.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 2 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
m
GIS File: Prepared by: Date: Project No.
Cape Vincent\GIS\projects\Cape Vincent state loc.mxd S. King 1/18/2011 0057356.02B

Canada

@
?

Legend
@
? Proposed Project Area

Miles Figure 1.1-1


0 25 50 100
Project Location Map
Cape Vincent Wind Project
BP Wind Energy
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 4 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
o
GIS File: Prepared by: Date: Project No.
Cape Vincent\GIS\projects\Cape Vincent boundary map.mxd M. Jones/S. King 1/18/2011 0092352.03A


 
Canada  
 
 
 
 


 
 
    
  
   

   
     
    
   
 
 
 
 

 Legend

    Proposed Turbine Array
  
  US/Canada Boundary
 
 Proposed Batch Plant


 Proposed Operations & Maintenance Facility
Proposed Temporary Laydown Area
Proposed Substation
Proposed Project Boundary

Miles Figure 1.1-2


0 0.5 1 2
Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Boundary
Cape Vincent Wind Project
BP Wind Energy
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 6 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
1.1.1 Proposed Action

BP Wind Energy proposes to construct the Cape Vincent Project within an area of
approximately 11,000 acres in the town of Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, New York.
Land uses within the Project Area include a mixture of agricultural, residential and
forested land. The Project Area also contains wetlands and surface waters. Current
agricultural use is largely limited to hay production and pasture, although some row
crops (e.g., corn) are grown in the area. Forested land within the Project Area varies
from recently clear cut stands to late successional forests. Current and historical
silviculture is evident throughout the Project Area. The Project Area is shown on Figure
1.1-2. BP Wind Energy is in the process of obtaining property interests for all desired
parcels.

BP Wind Energy has selected the final Project components based on several
factors, including experience of the manufacturer, engineer, or vendor and
suitability of the specific component to the specific location and wind resource.
Figure 1.1-2 provides the array plan and location of ancillary facilities.

1.1.1.1 Turbines

BP Wind Energy proposes to construct and operate 84 wind turbines. The GE 1.6-
100 turbines were selected based on the projected efficiency in the wind resource
at this site, economy of scale, availability of service and replacement
components, and the manufacturer’s reputation. The turbines will be three
bladed, upwind, horizontal-axis wind units. The nacelle will be located at the top
each tower and will contain the electrical generating equipment. The turbine
rotor (blade) and the nacelle will be mounted on top of a tubular tower giving a
rotor hub height of approximately 263 feet (80 meters), and a rotor diameter of
328 feet (100 meters). The maximum height for the turbine would be up to 427
feet (130 meters) when a rotor blade is at the top of its rotation. Once installed,
each wind turbine will occupy a base approximately 14 feet in diameter.
Disturbed ground at the base of the turbine will be restored and re-vegetated,
except for a graveled fire break/construction area required around the base of
each tower. Each turbine will be constructed on a parcel of cleared land
occupying approximately one acre.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will include the drawings,
specifications, and power curves of the turbines. BP Wind Energy will base the
final design of each foundation on load information provided by the wind
turbine manufacturer and the load bearing soil characteristics measured by the
geotechnical test at each of the wind turbine sites. The typical foundation
anticipated for the wind turbines in this Project would consist of a reinforced
concrete spread foundation directly resting either on the soil at a depth of
approximately ten feet below ground, or placed on top of and anchored into
bedrock. The foundation would generally be an octagon, with a diameter of 50
feet and a concrete pier on the top of the mat extending to the ground level.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 7 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
The turbines will require lighting in accordance with Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) standards to mitigate hazards to aviation. Aviation
warning lights will be limited to those towers that are required to be lighted by
the FAA, which are identified in Figure 1.1-3.

There will be no lights during the day and there will be red strobes during the
night with the minimum intensity and duration of time illuminated allowed by
the FAA (see Sections 2.13 and 2.14).

1.1.1.2 Electrical System

Electrical power generated by the wind turbines will be transformed and


collected through a network of underground and overhead cables which will all
terminate at the Project substation to be located within the Project Area. Each
turbine will have an adjacent pad-mounted transformer, a short new
maintenance road, and underground or aboveground electrical collection cables
and communication lines.

Power from the turbines will be fed through a breaker panel located inside the
tower at the turbine base and interconnected to a pad-mounted step-up
transformer. The pad transformers would be interconnected to underground
cables, which would connect all of the turbines together electrically. The 34.5 kV
feeder collection systems will bring the combined power output to a new single
115 kV collection substation.

The collection cables will connect with larger feeder lines that would tie into the
main substation. In locations where two or more sets of lines converge, pad
mounted three-way junction terminals will be utilized to tie the lines together
into one or more sets of larger feeder conductors.

The Project will require approximately 42 miles of underground, and about one
mile of overhead, 34.5 kV electrical power lines to collect all of the power from
the turbines to the Project substation. The electrical power from the all 84 wind
turbines will be stepped up to a transmission level of 115 kV and fed to an
aboveground transmission line at the Project substation. The 115 kV/34.5
transformers will have a wye-wye-delta connection with both 115 kV and 34.5
kV sides wye-grounded.

The Project substation equipment and control house will be contained in a


graveled area of approximately 400 feet by 360 feet that is surrounded by a
secured chain link perimeter fence. The Project substation will be located near
the corner of Burnt Rock Road and Swamp Road (see Figure 1.1-2). All
substation equipment, including instrument transformers, surge arresters,
metering equipment, relay equipment, and communication equipment, will be
set on concrete pads.

An approximately ½-mile long aboveground transmission line will be


constructed to connect the Project substation to a new 115 kV line which will be

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 8 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
hung on the transmission towers being constructed to service the St. Lawrence
Wind Project in Cape Vincent. Via this transmission corridor the Project will
interconnect with the New York State Transmission System at National Grid’s
proposed Rockledge Substation. The substation and overall electrical system will
be designed and constructed in accordance with the Guidelines of the National
Electric Code (NEC), National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), and the host
utility (National Grid) requirements.

1.1.1.3 Transportation Components

There are two types of transportation components which will be constructed in


support of the Project – access roads constructed within the leased properties,
and road improvements within existing public ROWs.

Approximately 21 miles of access roads will be improved or constructed within


the leased properties, creating 104 acres of disturbance (including room for co-
located transmission lines and drainage ditches).

In addition, local public roads will be used for transportation of equipment, and
there are places where improvements will be required to accommodate the wider
turning radii of larger vehicles needed to haul larger turbine and tower
components. This will create an additional 106 acres of disturbance.

1.1.1.4 Other Project Components

In addition to the facilities noted above, BP Wind Energy will also construct the
following facilities to support site construction and operations.
• A new permanent O&M building will be constructed on an approximately 3-
acre parcel. The building would be used to house the permanent operating
staff for the facility as well as monitors and other necessary equipment. This
facility will be located on the south side of NY State Route 12E between
Bedford Corners Road and Fox Creek Road.
• Although the latest construction methods minimize the amount of concrete
necessary for the foundation, it will still be necessary to construct one or two
temporary 6.6 acre concrete batching plants within the Project area.
Proposed batch plant sites include along Rosiere Road, immediately north of
12E, and on the north side of 12E near the intersection with Fox Creek Road
(see Figure 1.1-2).
During construction, staging and temporary short-term storage of construction
equipment, cable, foundation parts, components, towers, blades, and nacelles
will occur on site. The 8.4 acre temporary use and lay down area will be utilized
for short-term staging and assembly of tower sections, nacelles, and rotors
during the erection. This facility will be located along Rosiere Road (County
Road 4), just north of the intersection with Favret Road.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 9 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
While these sites were selected partially in order to minimize the need for
clearing of wooded areas, some surface vegetation will need to be removed,
regrading of surface soils will be required, and soils are expected to be heavily
compacted as a result of batching plant activities, including associated truck
traffic. The batching plant and any excess concrete constituents are expected to
be removed at the end of the concrete-pouring phase, and the sites for the batch
plants and temporary use and laydown areas will be restored per landowner
specifications post-construction. The O&M facility will be maintained through
the life of the Project.

Table 1.1-1 lists the local, state, and federal approvals and permits required.

1.1.2 Operation and Maintenance

With the exception of downtime for preventative maintenance and/or


malfunctions, the turbines will operate 365 days a year and 24 hours a day.
Downtime for preventive maintenance and/or malfunctions may reduce the
operating hours. The turbines will generate electricity only during times of
sufficient wind.

BP Wind Energy plans to operate the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project with 10
full-time employees. A facility manager will be responsible for all operations and
maintenance of the site, including administration and direction of turbine
maintenance with technical oversight, as required, by the manufacturer and
operational coordination with the utility grid system and the local landowners.
During the first several years, maintenance and repair of the wind turbines will
be performed by GE staff under a warranty contract.

Thereafter, seven employees will perform routine and unplanned work on the
turbines and other facilities, while two administrative employees will manage
the operations and maintenance office and administration. Large repair tasks
will be accomplished using both Project employees and contractors.

Routine maintenance for the turbines will include testing of lubricants for
contaminants, changing of lubricants, calibrating and testing electronic systems,
and tightening of bolts and components. Routine maintenance is generally
completed on a scheduled basis by climbing the tower using the internal ladder
and doing the work with normal hand tools and electrical testing equipment.

Long-term maintenance may include replacement/rebuilding and cleaning of


larger components such as generators and gearboxes, testing of electrical
components, and refurbishing blades.

Emergency work also may be required as the result of a system or component


failure. Certain unplanned work such as blade repairs or repairs to other large
components may require the use of a crane to complete the work.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 10 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
m
GIS File: Prepared by: Date: Project No.
Cape Vincent\GIS\projects\turbine_lighting_plan.mxd M. Jones/S. King 1/10/2011 0057356.02B

CANADA

St Lawrence River


 
 
 
 
 
 
  Georg
Cape Vincent
  Lake
 

r
 

ve
   
   

Ri
 

t


on
 

um
     


a


Ch
   
   
 
  
 
 



  
  
 

 
Lake Ontario 
 Legend
Project Boundary
Lighting Type
 Simultaneous Flashing Red Light
Chaumont Bay
 Unlit

1 0.5 0 1 Figure 1.1-3


Miles
Turbine Lighting Plan
Cape Vincent Wind Project
BP Wind Energy
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 12 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Wind turbines do not require the use of water during operations. BP Wind
Energy does not propose to use herbicides or pesticides to control vegetation or
pests. The use of geotextile fabric and gravel construction, as well as the periodic
use of the access roads by vehicles, should be sufficient to prohibit growth of
unwanted vegetation.

TABLE 1.1-1: Required Permits and Approvals

Reviewing Entity Permit/Approval/Consultation Requirement


Local Agencies:
Town of Cape Vincent State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
Planning Board (Lead Agency) Review
Site Plan Approval
Town of Cape Zoning Zoning Permit
Enforcement Officer
Town of Cape Vincent Highway/Road Work Permits and Agreements
Highway Department Issuance of Building Permits/Certificates of Compliance
Town of Lyme Planning Approval for transmission line routing
Board
Jefferson County Planning Section 239-m Review and issuance of
Department recommendations
Jefferson County Highway Highway/Road Work Permits
Department Special Hauling Permit (oversize/overweight
components)
County Agriculture(al) Notice of Intent
Development Authority
Other Local Agencies Highway/road work permits
New York State Agencies:
Department of Environmental Article 17 SPDES General Permit – requiring
Conservation (NYSDEC) preparation of construction and operation phase
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), and a
Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures
(SPCC)/Oil Contingency Plan.
Clean Water Act §401 Water Quality Certificate
Natural Heritage Program Consultation
Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit if needed
Article 15 Use and Protection of Waters Permit
Incidental take of New York listed Threatened or
Endangered Species or their habitat under Article 11 of
the Environmental Conservation Law
Issuance of SEQRA Findings as an Involved Agency
Department of State Determination of Consistency with coastal policies
(NYSDOS) Division of
Coastal Resources
NY Department of Highway Work Permit
Transportation (NYSDOT) Special Hauling Permit (oversize/overweight
components)
Public Service Commission Interconnection Feasibility Study
(PSC) Public Service Law, Section 68, Review
Issuance of SEQRA Findings as an Involved Agency

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 13 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Reviewing Entity Permit/Approval/Consultation Requirement
NY Department of Notice of Intent
Agriculture and Markets Issuance of SEQRA Findings as an Involved Agency
(NYSDAM)
NY Department of Parks, Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, Cultural
Recreation & Historic Resources Consultation
Preservation Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law 14.09
Federal Agencies:
US Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act §404 Wetlands Permit
River & Harbors Act, §10 Nationwide Permit (aerial
transmission line crossing the Chaumont River)
US Fish & Wildlife Service Threatened & Endangered Species Consultation
Federal Aviation Obstruction to Aviation Review
Administration Lighting Review

1.1.3 Power Generation

As discussed in Section 1.1, the units to be installed at the BP Wind Energy Wind
Power Project will be GE 1.6 MW wind turbine generators. Drawings and
technical specifications for the selected GE 1.6-100 turbines are included as
Appendix B.

The annual production of energy by the Project is expected to be approximately


400 gigawatt hours per year.

Power will be transmitted via Project collection lines to the electrical substation,
which will be constructed by the Project and will serve to interface the Project’s
electrical collection system to the Project transmission line.

The Project will connect to the National Grid’s Rockledge Substation via a
dedicated 115 kV aboveground transmission line, which will be strung along a
6.5 mile combination of dedicated and shared transmission towers. The
transmission line will connect with the National Grid transmission system at the
proposed Rockledge substation, which is planned to be across County Route 179
from the existing Lyme substation.

Detailed studies to confirm these preliminary plans meet the grid requirements
have been completed, pursuant to New York Independent System Operator
(NYISO) procedures. On January 11, 2006, BP Wind Energy notified the NYISO
of its intent to interconnect with the New York State transmission grid, which
triggered the requirement to perform an Interconnection Feasibility Study, which
was completed in October 2006.

Following the Feasibility Study, the NYISO recommended the use of an outside
consultant to lead the development of the System Reliability Impact Study
(SRIS). BP Wind Energy retained Seimens PTI to perform the study and a draft
SRIS was delivered to the NYISO in March 2007. Following receipt of comments
from NYISO, Siemens PTI has performed additional analysis and submitted a
revised SRIS to NYISO in December 2007. BP Wind Energy participated in the

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 14 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
2008 Class Year Facilities Study, which was initiated in March 2008 and
completed in January 2010. BP Wind Energy is currently pursuing an
Interconnection Agreement with NYISO for this Project.

1.1.4 Operational Safety

Reported data on ice throws indicates that ice fragments have been found on the
ground from 50-330 feet from turbines and were in the range of 0.2 to 2 lb in
mass1. In order to prevent ice from causing any potential danger, turbines will be
located at least 1000 feet from any residences and 650 feet from any public roads.

BP Wind Energy has included fire protection in the Project’s design, as well as in
construction and operation procedures (see Section 2.29). Each turbine would be
located on a parcel of cleared land occupying approximately one acre. The
cleared land would be free of combustible materials, thus minimizing the
potential spread of a fire should one start. Fire protection features of the turbines
include components within the nacelle that monitor bearing, oil, and nacelle
temperatures. These components would be connected to the turbine supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, which would monitor
temperatures and automatically shut the turbine down and send an alarm to the
control room if predetermined set points were exceeded. In addition, each
nacelle and each service vehicle would be equipped with a fire extinguisher.

Beyond the physical fire protection components of the facility, the Cape Vincent
Project’s operations staff would be required to develop a site-specific Emergency
Preparedness and Fire Prevention Plan (EPFPP) that would specify the actions to
be taken by the site manager and staff should an emergency or fire occur. The
EPFPP would be coordinated with the local fire departments and emergency
response organizations and would identify the procedures and lines of
communication in the event of a fire or other emergency.

The substation will be secured within a locked and fenced area. The main
transformer would incorporate an oil spill containment area and a Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan will be maintained in
order to protect local waterbodies and soils uncontaminated from any
transformer oil spills. The SPCC will include procedures to address proper
reporting, cleanup, and documentation of spills.

In addition, the pad-mounted transformers located at each turbine site will be


situated to provide six feet of clearance between the transformer and any other
Project component. All transformers will be installed in accordance with industry
standards.

1 Morgan, C., Bossanyi, E., Seifert, H., Assessment Of Safety Risks Arising From Wind Turbine
Icing, 1998 Part of “Wind Energy in Cold Climates” developed under contract with UK
Department of Trade and Industry.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 15 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Project construction is anticipated to occur in a single phase. It is scheduled to


start in the spring of 2012 and be completed by December, 2012. Construction
will occur in several stages:
• Grading and preparation of ancillary construction facilities;
• Construction of access roads;
• Construction of turbine tower foundations and turbine installation;
• Installation of the underground electrical collection system;
• Construction and installation of the substation and O&M facilities; and
• Project commissioning.

BP Wind Energy anticipates that a maximum workforce of 200 will be required


for Project construction. To the extent possible, workers will be hired from the
local labor pool. All construction associated with the Project is expected to be
completed over a 9 month period.

Various environmental protection and control plans will be developed and


shared with the Town of Cape Vincent before construction. These will include a
construction routing plan, road improvement plan, dust control plan, public
safety plan, and complaint resolution procedures. These plans and procedures
are described further throughout the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (SDEIS). Actions included in these plans and procedures will be
reviewed, coordinated and approved by the Town prior to implementation, in
order to assure that the impacts of Project construction on local residents are
avoided, minimized, or mitigated to the extent practicable.

A site survey has been performed to stake out the location of the wind turbines,
access roads, electrical cables, substations, and areas for ancillary construction
facilities such as the batch plants, laydown, and parking. BP has also
commissioned a preliminary geotechnical investigation to identify subsurface
conditions and allow development of final design specifications for the access
roads, foundations, underground trenching, and electrical grounding systems.
The geotechnical investigation involved a drill rig obtaining 30-45 feet deep
borings to identify the subsurface soil and rock types and strength properties.
Testing was also performed to measure the soil’s electrical properties to ensure
proper grounding system design. A geotechnical investigation is generally
performed at each turbine location, at substation locations, along the access
roads, and at the O&M building site. Using all of the data gathered for the
Project (including geotechnical information, environmental conditions, site
topography, etc.), BP Wind Energy is developing a set of site-specific
construction specifications for the various components of the Project. The
specifications will comply with applicable codes and construction standards
established by various industry practice groups.

BP Wind Energy will also hire environmental monitors and conduct special
training for contractors to assure that they are aware of all environmental

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 16 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
protection commitments and permit conditions, and will be in compliance with
such commitments and conditions.

1.2.1 Construction Related Transportation

The heavy equipment and materials needed for site access, site preparation, and
foundation construction are typical of road construction and high rise building
projects and do not pose unique transportation considerations. The types of
heavy equipment and vehicles required would include cranes, pile drivers,
bulldozers, graders, excavators, front-end loaders, compactors, dump trucks,
electric line trucks, water trucks, and heavy equipment maintenance vehicles.
Typically, the equipment would be moved to the site by flatbed combination
truck and would remain on site through the duration of construction activities.
Typical construction materials hauled to the site would include gravel, sand,
water, steel, electrical cable and components, fencing, and lumber, which are
generally available locally. Ready-mix concrete might also be transported to the
site. The movement of equipment and materials to the site during construction
would cause a relatively short-term increase in the traffic levels on local
roadways during the 9 month long construction period.

Transportation logistics for the Project will require a substantial effort early in
the planning process. The selected GE 1.6-100 turbine has blades that are
approximately 164 feet in length, and transport of equipment this long will
require special permitting. The weight of the nacelle will approach 230,000
pounds, also requiring special permitting. It is estimated that with components,
and foundation and road materials, each wind turbine generator would require
approximately 75 truck shipments of components, some of which could be
oversized or overweight.

In addition, erecting the towers and assembly of the wind turbine generators
would require a main crane with a capacity likely to be between 300 and 750
tons, depending on the design. A 330-ton main crane would require 15 to 20
truckloads, including several overweight and/or oversized shipments2. A 750-
ton crane would require up to 50 truckloads. In addition, main crane assembly
would require a smaller assist crane, and several assist cranes would likely be
required for rotor/hub assembly. Cranes would remain on site for the duration
of construction activities. During construction, a peak of 150-200 workers will be
bussed to the site at any given time. Refer to Section 2.10 for a summary of traffic
related impacts.

2Wood, M., 2004, personal communication from Wood (Dawes Rigging and Crane Rental,
Milwaukee, Wisc.) to F. Monette (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.), May 4, cited in
Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the
Western United States, US Department of Interior, June 2005.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 17 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
1.2.2 Site Preparation

Prior to placing fill for crane pads, site access drives, and other site features, BP
will remove vegetation, topsoil, organic subsoils, and other unsuitable materials.
Unstable subgrades will be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill
or crushed stone as necessary; and the subgrade will be proofrolled with a roller-
compactor. Structural or common fill may be placed to reach the required grade;
structural fill will be imported to the site.

The construction/access roads for the Project will be 16-foot wide gravel roads
designed to meet the load-bearing requirements of truck traffic transporting
concrete, gravel, and turbine components to the wind turbine sites over the life of
the Project. During construction, an additional 10 feet will be compacted on each
side of the gravel roads to allow for the additional construction traffic and crane
movement. Following construction, these compacted areas will be de-compacted
and seeded, leaving permanent 16-foot wide access roads.

The required gravel road base section necessary to meet load-bearing


requirements will consist of a sub-base course 6” thick, a base course 6” thick,
and a surface course 6” thick. Sieve size and material properties for the courses
are specified in New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
Standard Specifications Table 667-1. Geotextile fabric will be used to separate the
native soil/fill from the base material to prevent fine soil particles from
migrating into the gravel base material and preserve road base integrity.

Roads will be constructed with culverts as needed to maintain a water table


elevation below the base material and to ensure roadbed stability. Roadside
ditches will be constructed as dictated by the terrain to convey storm-water
runoff away from the roadways. Roadway surfaces will be graded to promote
drainage to the side of the road. In addition, where necessary, to meet the
requirements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP), the ROW will
be widened an additional 4 feet to accommodate runoff control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) such as swales, hay bales, or silt fences. During
construction periodic maintenance will be conducted such as filling in and
grading eroded areas or low spots and clearing drainage ditches.

To prevent access by the general public, construction/access roads will be gated


where they intersect public roads and/or at such locations as required protecting
landowner interests (e.g., livestock areas, accessible property lines, etc.).

The tower and access roadway locations were developed based on data which
was collected during biological, ecological, geotechnical, and cultural resource
surveys. The area expected to be permanently disturbed by the Project is based
on using existing roads to the maximum extent possible, and reducing them to a
16-foot service road width after construction.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 18 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
At the same time, improvements to public roadways which will facilitate the
transport of turbine and construction equipment will take place as detailed in the
attached Traffic and Transportation Plan (Appendix C).

Clearing and grading of areas for turbine construction and ancillary construction
activities will be required. These will include the areas noted in Section 1.1.1
above:
• 84 turbine sites totaling 60 acres
• 104 acres for access road construction and improvement internal to the site
• 106 acres for public roadway improvements
• 57 acres for construction of interconnects
• 8.4-acre central laydown area, plus construction management and parking
• two 6.6-acre concrete batch plant sites
• 3-acre permanent O&M facility
• 4 acres for aboveground 115 kV transmission corridor
• 3-acre permanent substation site

The concrete batch plants will be constructed as soon as their sites are prepared,
so that they will be able to produce concrete to support the rest of the site
preparation process. The batch plant sites will receive batch plant equipment
brought to the site on skids and set in place, raw materials stockpiles, and
concrete trucks.

In addition to tower foundations, foundations for the O&M building and any
other on-site material storage buildings, as well as pads for each electrical
transformer, will be poured. It is expected that all on-site buildings would be of
modest proportion and require only slab-on-grade foundations, at the most
augmented by frost-resistant perimeter footings.

1.2.3 Installation of Turbines

Once the roads are complete on a portion of the site, turbine foundation
construction will commence on that completed access road section. Foundation
construction occurs in several stages including hole excavation, outer form
setting, rebar and bolt cage assembly, casting and finishing of the concrete,
removal of the forms, backfilling and compacting, and site restoration.
Excavation and foundation construction will be conducted in a manner that will
minimize the size and duration of excavated areas required to install
foundations. Extra care will be used to ensure that topsoil and subgrade
materials are kept separated and stockpiled where requested by the landowner
so that the land can be returned to its original use. Dewatering is not expected to
be required, but will be used where required to maintain the strength of the
subsurface load-bearing materials.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 19 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Initial activity at each tower site will involve stripping and stockpiling topsoil.
Following topsoil removal, backhoes will be used to excavate a foundation hole.
In agricultural areas, excavated subsoil and rock will be segregated from
stockpiled topsoil. If bedrock is encountered and it is anticipated to be able to be
ripped, it will be excavated with a backhoe. If the bedrock is not anticipated to be
able to be ripped, it will be excavated by pneumatic jacking, hydraulic fracturing,
or blasting. Blasting will be utilized only if the other potentially available
methods of excavation are not practicable. BP Wind Energy anticipates that few,
if any, turbine sites will require blasting. If blasting is required, it will be
conducted in compliance with a Blasting Plan, and in accordance with all
applicable laws and good engineering practices to avoid impacts to sensitive
receptors. If blasting is proposed at a tower site, the nearest wells will be
identified, and if necessary, pre- and post-blasting inspections of the wells will be
conducted.

Each foundation is anticipated to be approximately 10 feet deep, approximately


50-60 feet in diameter, requiring approximately 300 cubic yards (cy) of concrete.
Once the foundation concrete is sufficiently cured, the excavation area around
and over it will be backfilled with the excavated on-site material. The top of the
foundation pedestal measures approximately 14 feet in diameter, and typically
extends 6 to 8 inches above grade.

During the Project construction phase, the large turbine components (i.e., tower
sections, nacelle, and rotor blades) will be delivered to each specific turbine site,
which will serve as the staging area for the erection of that turbine

All turbine components will be delivered to the Project Site on flatbed or


specialized transport trucks, and the main components will be off-loaded at the
individual turbine sites. A large erection crane will set the tower segments on
the foundation, place the nacelle on top of the tower, and following ground
assembly, place the rotor onto the nacelle. The erection cranes will move from
one tower to another along a designated crane path. It is assumed that crane
movement will utilize existing public roads and Project access roads and will
only traverse open fields without any permanent roads if and where conditions
allow large equipment movement without significant soil disturbance. Exposed
soils at restored tower sites and along roads and crane paths will be stabilized by
seeding and/or mulching.

1.2.4 Installation of Collection and Transmission System Components

In general, electrical interconnects (collection lines) will follow access roads, but
will also follow field edges and cut directly across fields in places.
Approximately 95% of the interconnecting lines are expected to be buried.

Materials such as cable reels will be staged at the 8.4-acre central laydown area.

Direct burial methods via cable plow, rock saw and/or trencher will be used
during the installation of underground interconnect lines whenever possible. In

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 20 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
general, cable may be buried 36 to 48 inches deep depending on soil conditions,
depth to bedrock, and land use. A temporary footprint of vegetation and soil
disturbance of up to 15 feet will result due to machinery dimensions and
backfill/spoil pile placement. Agricultural topsoils within the work area will be
stripped and segregated from excavated subsoil. Subgrade soil will be replaced
around the cable, and topsoil will be replaced at the surface, immediately after
installation of the cable.

A cable plow can be used in areas of deep, usually tilled soils, installing bundled
cable directly into the ground via a “rip” created by the plow blade. This disturbs
an area approximately 24 inches wide and does not involve excavation of the
soil. Generally, no restoration of the rip is required, as it closes in on itself
following installation. Surface restoration can be achieved with a Bobcat or small
bulldozer, which will ride over the rip, smoothing the area.

Direct burial via a trencher involves the installation of the interconnect cable in a
similar fashion to cable plow installation. The trencher or rock saw uses a large
blade or “saw” to excavate an open trench that is approximately 24-inches wide
and has a sidecast area immediately adjacent. The site is returned to pre-
construction grades, as sidecast material is replaced via a Bobcat or small
bulldozer. Where three or more cables run parallel through active agricultural
fields, the topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled prior to cable installation, and
replaced, regraded, and stabilized by seeding and mulching.

Open trench installation may be required where there are unstable slopes,
excessive unconsolidated rock, or standing or flowing water. Open trench
installation is performed with a backhoe and will generally result in a disturbed
trench 36 inches wide. Similar to a trench cut by a trencher or rock cutter, a
Bobcat or small bulldozer will be used to replace soils and restore the grade.

In order to avoid or minimize impacts to specific environmental or


archaeological features, directional drilling may be used at specific locations
following discussions with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and the State Historical
Preservation Officer (SHPO).

At certain locations within the Project the 34.5kV interconnects may be routed
aboveground due to engineering or environmental constraints. In these cases the
collection cables will be strung along either wooden or steel pole structures.
Above ground line wooden poles will be delivered from the staging area and
installed in augured holes, backfilled with gravel, guyed where needed and
anchored.

The ½-mile long 115 kV transmission line connecting the Project substation to the
newly constructed St. Lawrence Wind 115 kV transmission line will also be
strung aboveground on wooden poles, which will be approximately 43 to 56.5
feet high. The ROW will generally be clear cut to a width of up to 100 feet, and
additional trees which could damage the line will be removed as appropriate. It

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 21 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
is assumed that no concrete foundations will be required, and that no permanent
access roads will be built on the ROW. However, during construction,
construction equipment will disturb up to a 20 foot wide corridor within the
ROW. Miscellaneous hardware (ground rods, line vibration dampers, etc.) will
be installed to complete the line construction.

1.2.5 Environmental Management Plan

An Environmental Management Plan will be prepared to identify key project


environmental information, instructions, and mitigation measures specific to the
Project. This Plan will ensure that permit obligations, environmental mitigation
and enhancement measures identified in this SDEIS and in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and requirements of any legal
agreements (including landowner agreements) are established and implemented
in the pre-construction, construction, and ongoing operation and maintenance
phase of the Project.

The Plan will include sections on:


• environmental protection measures during site preparation and construction;
• a post-construction restoration plan;
• environmental protection measures during turbine maintenance activities;
and
• post-construction environmental monitoring and inspection.

Environmental protection measures for use during site preparation and


construction will include a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,
which will also be included in the FEIS, as well dust suppression measures, solid
waste disposal, invasive species control, and hazardous materials handling
procedures. BP Wind Energy will appoint an Environmental Monitor to ensure
that all site permits and mitigation measures required by local, state, or Federal
Law or by contract are adhered to during the construction process.

The Restoration Plan will describe re-grading and stabilization of temporary


impacts to wetlands and streams, restoration of disturbed habitat, including re-
planting suitable species in wetlands, adjacent areas and streams, wetland
mitigation project construction, stabilization of disturbed areas subject to the
SPDES Stormwater General Permit, removal and proper disposal of temporary
road materials, and regrading of soil in agricultural and forested areas in
accordance with NYSDAM guidelines3 or other Best Management Practices, as
well as post-construction restoration practices aimed at preventing invasive
species.

BP Wind Energy will prepare an O&M Plan for the Project including an
environmental management component. The environmental management

3
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM), Guidelines for Agricultural
Mitigation for Wind Power Projects.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 22 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
component will include considerations necessary as part of the ongoing Project
maintenance. Measures applicable to turbine maintenance will include structure
maintenance and cleaning, access road maintenance, and snow removal. The
plan will also provide procedures to assess and minimize environmental impacts
during major repairs, emergencies, and decommissioning.

Post-construction environmental monitoring will include avian and bat


monitoring programs, as well any ongoing conservation efforts related to
wetland and species habitat restoration or creation included as commitments in
the FEIS.

1.2.6 Complaint Resolution Process

BP Wind Energy has prepared a Draft Complaint Resolution Process (see


Appendix D) which documents BPs commitment respond to community
concerns in a timely and effective manner via a structured process. Issue or
complaints will be classified as Level 1 or Level 2, depending on whether they
represent an emergency which poses an immediate and substantial risk to
human health and the environment. This classification system is intended to
enable responders to follow a set procedure appropriate to the risk posed by an
issue to environmental and human resources.

In addition, the process provides a method for addressing disputes, including


establishment of a local Complaint Resolution Committee to act as arbiter of
issues that are not resolved to the satisfaction of a complainant. Issues that may
go before the Complaint Resolution Committee may include but not be limited to
technical considerations, responsiveness on the part of BP, and standing on the
part of the complainant. Any issues not resolved by the committee may be
referred to the full Planning Board to determine if further measures are necessary
to resolve the issue, or may be resolved through the legal system. Nothing in this
process will preclude the Town of Cape Vincent from enforcing applicable local
regulations or preclude any party from seeking due process through the court
system.

1.2.7 Decommissioning

The life expectancy of the Project is at least 30 years. Prior to construction, BP


Wind Energy will establish a financial instrument which will ensure the
availability of sufficient funds for removal of all Project components upon the
end of the Project's operational life. While the current trend in the wind energy
industry is to replace or “re-power” older wind energy projects by upgrading
older equipment with turbines that are more efficient, it is BP Wind Energy’s
intent that the turbines will be decommissioned. This will require the following
steps.

All turbines, including the blades, nacelles and towers will be disassembled, and
transported off site for reclamation and sale. The transformers will also be
transported off site for reuse or reclamation. Oils and hazardous materials will be

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 23 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
properly disposed of or recycled. Unless otherwise requested by the Town of
Cape Vincent, the overhead transmission line will be removed and reclaimed,
and the poles will be cut off at grade. All underground infrastructure at depths
less than 36 inches below grade will be removed. All underground infrastructure
at depths greater than 36 inches below finished grade (including the subsurface
collection conductors, and foundations) will be abandoned in place.

Areas where reclamation takes place will be graded to match adjacent contours,
stabilized with an appropriate seed mix, and allowed to re-vegetate naturally. All
road materials will be allowed to remain in place, unless directed otherwise by
the individual landowners.

1.3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

This section discusses Project alternatives and describes the processes which
were used to select the Project site and the locations of turbines, roads, and
interconnect and transmission lines within the Project Area. Project alternatives
evaluated in this section include: alternative Project sizes; alternative turbine
technologies; alternative road and interconnect designs; alternative transmission
line routes and the no-action alternative.

BP Wind Energy selected a Project Site through a systematic process that


considered wind resources, existing roads and utility interconnections, willing
landowners, community support, environmental constraints, and zoning and
draft zoning land use constraints. BP utilized the selection process to evaluate
both different potential project sites and different turbine locations within the
chosen site as needed to develop an economically viable wind power project.

1.3.1 Project Site Selection

Preliminary Screening
A number of potential wind power sites in northern and western New York State
were identified and evaluated as discussed below.

Region of Interest. A region of interest for siting the Project was identified based
on the suitability of wind characteristics including adequate speed, frequency
and duration to make the project viable. Potential project sites were evaluated
using topographic maps and the New York State Wind Resource Map produced
by TrueWind in 2001 and updated in 2005. Generally, wind speeds averaging at
least 7 meters per second (m/s) are needed for project viability. Based on the
wind data, a region of interest along Lake Ontario in Jefferson County was
identified that contains adequate wind resources for viable operation. Potential
project sites were identified and investigated within this Project Area based on
the following factors:

Proximity to existing roads and transmission lines. A key consideration for


wind project siting is the accessibility of an existing utility system to deliver the
power generated into the energy grid. Use of existing transmission facilities
minimizes environmental impacts associated with construction of new power

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 24 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
transmission facilities, which would include clearing rights-of-way and other
construction impacts. The National Grid 115 kV transmission system includes the
nearby Lyme substation in Chaumont, which makes electrical transmission of
project output possible. In addition, the proposed adjoining St. Lawrence Wind
Project has a planned transmission corridor which passes through the Cape
Vincent Wind Project and can be utilized to conduct power from the Project with
no additional environmental disturbance.

Transportation in and through Jefferson County and the towns of Cape Vincent
and Lyme are supported by a well-developed system of local and county roads,
as well as Interstate 81. The roads are suitable for delivery of the equipment
needed to construct and maintain the Project. The Project Site also includes many
existing farm roads. Improving these existing roads for Project access will largely
avoid the need to disturb additional areas for new roads.

Availability of Privately Owned Lands. The proposed Project Area is comprised


of privately owned lands entirely in the Agricultural District of Cape Vincent.
Many of the properties are larger parcels that are used for farming activities and
have low population density making them attractive for wind energy
development. Larger, sparsely settled parcels require fewer easements and less
encroachment on residential uses. The project development manager met with
landowners and residents of the community to determine whether there would
be sufficient participation of landowners to develop a viable project. As a result
of these discussions and meetings, the developer determined that there was
sufficient support to proceed with initial site development for a wind project.
Because BP Wind Energy is a private developer, project site selection is limited to
those locations where it is able to enter into voluntary agreements with
landowners for development.

Presence of Environmental and Land Use Constraints. BP Wind Energy


conducted a preliminary analysis of the Project Area to determine the
environmental and land use constraints present at the potential project site
locations. This analysis revealed that there was a relatively low potential
disturbance to sensitive ecological resources, land and water resources, cultural
and visual resources, and landowners at the proposed Project Site.

Identification of Preferred Project Site and Turbine Locations. For those


potential project sites that satisfied the preliminary screening criteria, further
analysis was conducted to identify land use and environmental constraints that
could potentially be “fatal flaws” in the project development. The specific
resources addressed in the Fatal Flaw Analysis included:
• Wetlands;
• Geology and soils;
• Threatened and endangered species;
• Avian and bat issues;
• Population density and existing land use; and
• Traffic and transportation.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 25 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
When no fatal flaws were identified, the wind resources were further verified
through the installation of one initial meteorological tower and then three
subsequent towers on the project site to collect site-specific data. These data were
modeled to predict electrical production from each of the potential turbine
locations. BP Wind Energy obtained agreements with landowners within the
potential project sites that would allow for the construction of turbines, access
roads, and transmission lines on their property. The preferred project site was
not chosen until a sufficient number of landowners had expressed interest in the
project that all of the desired Project facilities could be sited.

Once most of the land leases were acquired, an area constraints map was
developed to determine where turbines, roads, and transmission system
components could be located within the Project site. To the greatest extent
possible, areas were eliminated from consideration if they were located on a field
verified NYSDEC or NWI mapped wetland or area that appeared to be “wet”
based on a review of soils mapping and/or a site walkover. Areas were
eliminated from consideration if they were located too close to a road, residence,
or existing structure to maintain required setbacks, or too close to property
boundaries. Following the selection of the GE 1.6-100 turbine, siting of
individual turbines, as well as the associated roads and electrical collection
system and other facilities, was completed and detailed maps are included in this
SDEIS.

To minimize impacts and the need for multiple roads and interconnection
systems, to the extent possible, turbines sites were located in close geographic
proximity to one another (i.e., a turbine cluster).

1.3.2 Project Alternatives Evaluated

Project Size
BP Wind Energy evaluated various project size alternatives but determined that
a significant reduction in the Project’s generating capacity would jeopardize its
financial viability. This is because wind generating projects have certain fixed
“infrastructure” costs that are incurred regardless of the size of the project. For
example, the cost of the utility interconnection and facility substation cost will
not vary directly with the size of the facility. Consequently, the financial viability
of a project depends on the ability to maximize electric generation to defray these
fixed costs.

Since wind is a fuel-free energy resource, the Project's main costs are fixed capital
costs. In order to be competitive with other wind projects and other sources of
electrical energy, the capital and other fixed costs per kilowatt-hour of output
must be reduced as much as possible by maximizing project output. Some
smaller wind energy projects that have been built have only been made possible
because of large financial grants.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 26 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Originally, BP had considered an array of up to 140 turbines. Due to various
concerns, many having to do with providing adequate spacing between turbines
to eliminate significant turbine noise impacts to residential structures within the
site, the array was reduced to 84 turbines for this SDEIS.

The 134 MW Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project is sized to defray its fixed costs,
maximize its environmental benefits through the production of clean energy, and
maximize local economic benefits through landowner easement payments,
payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT), and other local economic benefits, all while
reducing to the minimum extent practicable environmental and other impacts to
the Project Site.

Turbine Selection
The wind industry is generally moving toward the use of larger wind turbine
generators because they are more cost-effective than smaller machines (i.e., they
have a more favorable ratio of rotor “swept area” to generator size). Smaller
turbines are available; however, a larger number of smaller turbines would be
required to produce comparable amounts of power with higher installation costs
due to the greater number of foundations, roads, and associated facilities. This
would also increase temporary and permanent disturbance to soils, vegetation,
and water resources as the number of towers and the length of required access
road and interconnect increases. Potential operational impacts (e.g., noise and
avian mortality) would also likely increase with a larger number of smaller
machines. In terms of visibility and visual impact, while smaller turbines might
be marginally less visible, higher blade speed, higher density, and greater
numbers could actually increase the Project’s visual impact. Use of a shorter
tower would also reduce the efficiency of the turbines, as wind speed increases
with height above the ground. Based on these factors, the larger turbines were
determined to be optimal for the site.

BP Wind Energy selected the GE 1.6-100 turbines on the basis of their


performance in low wind conditions, and for their low noise output in range of
the wind speeds present at Cape Vincent. These turbines have 1.6 megawatt
generators and 100 meter diameter rotors mounted on 80 meter steel towers.

Alternative Project Design


The design and layout of the proposed Project components has been
continuously evaluated since the decision was made to pursue a project in the
Town of Cape Vincent. Various turbine models and layouts were evaluated in
an attempt to maximize energy efficiency while minimizing adverse
environmental impacts. The Project layout has been engineered to capture the
area’s high wind energy, while minimizing wake effects on downwind turbines.

Ultimately, the optimal siting plan for the turbines from a wind resource
perspective is constrained by landowner agreements and setbacks and
recognition of the need to protect sensitive resources such as wetlands, wildlife
habitat, and agricultural land, and to provide adequate buffer between turbines
and residential structures in order to eliminate significant noise impacts. The

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 27 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
final proposed location of turbines and associated facilities reflects input and
guidance received from landowners and project consultants focusing on cultural
resource, noise, and ecological impacts, resulting in a carefully achieved balance
of energy production and environmental protection.

Impacts on wetlands will result from some stream crossings and some
unavoidable wetland areas that are crossed by roads and/or collections lines. It
was impractical for the project layout to be able to eliminate all impacts to
wetlands, since complete avoidance would likely result in the need for of
increased impacts due to the additional lengths of roads and trenching for
electrical interconnects that would be required to avoid all wetlands. For every
foot of road increased, there would be an increase of up to 60 square feet of
disturbance to forest, farmland, and/or wildlife habitat. Each additional mile of
road would add approximately 7 acres of soil and vegetation disturbance. The
most efficient layout of roads between turbines will be from one turbine straight
to the next. In addition to the increased length of roads within the Project Area,
layout changes to further reduce wetlands impacts would require the
construction of additional road entrances at existing public roads to access some
of the turbines that would be inaccessible due to small wetlands or streams. This
would create additional visual impact to the rural character of the area due to the
numerous entrance roads cutting into forests and open spaces, and would create
additional traffic impacts and general inconveniences to the local residents.
Breaking the roads to totally avoid wetlands would increase the construction
activity that would be visible from public roads.

While it is anticipated that up to 95% of the electrical interconnect system will be


buried, overhead lines may be used in places to span wetlands and streams, and
to avoid installing multiple underground lines in certain locations. Not using
overhead lines where appropriate has the potential to increase impacts to
vegetation, soils, and wetlands. Adding some overhead line, as proposed, will
reduce impacts to soil and water resources but will also increase visual impact.
To minimize adverse visual impact, the majority of overhead lines will be carried
on single wooden poles, similar in appearance to distribution lines that currently
run along most of the roads within the Project Area. The overhead lines will be
routed to minimize the need for right-of-way clearing and to avoid impacting
agricultural land and farming operations.

Permanent access road widths will be the minimum necessary to maintain the
Project (anticipated to be 16 feet wide in most places) and were sited following
consultation with local landowners and referring to state guidance for
agricultural land conservation 4 in order to minimize loss of agricultural land and
impacts on farming operations. Consequently, alternative project designs likely
to pose equal or greater risk of adverse environmental impacts while yielding
equal or less electrical output were rejected.

4 NYSDAM Guidelines.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 28 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Transmission Line Alternatives
The Town of Cape Vincent has directed BP Wind Energy to work with the
adjacent proposed St. Lawrence Wind Power Project to develop a single 115 kV
transmission line corridor to carry power from both projects to the Rockledge
Substation. The original DEIS presented four alternative routings which were
studied as a means of transporting power. Currently it has been concluded that
utilization of the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Power transmission line [included
in their Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)] represents the lowest
impact alternative.

As an option to stringing an aboveground transmission line to carry power from


the project, BP Wind Energy studied the feasibility of using a buried
transmission line. For a project of this size, this would require the transmission
cable to not simply be buried, but to be encased in concrete. The resulting project
would remove the transmission line from view, but would require an order of
magnitude higher construction costs. In addition, underground placement
would require disturbance to a number of wetland features which have already
been identified. These wetlands would be crossed by spans under the proposed
action, greatly reducing both short-term and long-term impacts to the wetland
ecology. Finally, maintenance of an underground transmission line of this length
would be very likely to incur higher costs of repairs during the project life, as
well as requiring substantially greater impacts to the environment in the case of
any line maintenance, repairs, or upgrades.

No-Project Alternative
Under the no-project alternative, no construction of wind power turbines and
associated infrastructure will take place within this portion of the Town of Cape
Vincent. Because of surrounding wind power projects which are currently
planned, the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project being suspended would not
wholly eliminate the visual impacts of wind turbines from the entire Town or
region. In addition, an identical or very similar 115 kV electrical transmission
corridor from Cape Vincent into the Rockledge substation would still be
constructed to support the adjacent St. Lawrence Wind Power Project.

Failure to add the significant amount of power which will be produced to the NY
electrical transmission grid would result in additional consumption of fossil fuels
to achieve the same level of electrical generation at other locations in the state.
Over time, addition of a comparable amount of capacity will likely take place
through the construction of new power generating capacity either in Cape
Vincent or elsewhere in the state. In addition, State goals for increasing the
renewable energy portfolio and decreasing the State’s dependence on fossil fuels,
such as coal and natural gas, would not be met.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 29 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE, NEEDS, AND BENEFITS

1.4.1 Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project is to add significant new
capacity for generation of zero emission renewable energy to the New York State
power system, to generate revenue for local landowners and for residents of the
greater Cape Vincent community, and to generate money which can be used to
make PILOT payments to the Town of Cape Vincent, local School Districts and
Jefferson County in excess of $1 million per year.

The need for the project is real. While recent economic conditions have lead to a
temporary downturn in energy demand, the long-term demand for electricity in
the country as a whole is expected to continue to increase. According to the
Energy Information Administration (EIA) US energy use declined during the
recession in 2008-2009, due largely to declines in industrial consumption, but
they project an increase in energy use in 2011 as the economy recovers,
continuing to rise annually through 20355.

In addition, the growing percentage of the population over age 65 increases the
demand for healthcare and assisted living facilities and for electricity to power
medical and monitoring equipment in those facilities.

Although New York is the second most energy-efficient state in the continental
United States on a per-capita basis, it is the fourth largest energy user6. New
York currently obtains over 70 percent of its total energy supply from fossil fuels
(5.7% from coal; 38.2% from Petroleum; 30.2% from natural gas), which are
largely imported from abroad or out-of-state 7. In addition, when compared with
the country as a whole, New York uses more natural gas and petroleum as a
relative percentage of fuels used in electricity generation, 30 percent, compared
with 16 percent for the country.

In 2008 approximately 23% of New York electrical power was generated from
renewable energy sources, with the vast majority of that generation capacity
(18% of the total generation) resulting from hydroelectric power.

New York has been working on expanding their renewable energy portfolio for
years. The State Energy Plan in 2002 warned of the possible consequences of
New York’s heavy dependence on fossil fuels, noting that gas, coal, and oil are
largely imported from abroad or out-of-state, have significant long-term negative
environmental impacts, and face ultimate depletion. In February of 2003, the
PSC initiated a proceeding to explore the development of a Renewable Portfolio

5 US Department of Energy (USDOE):Energy Information Administration, AEO2011 Early Release

Overview.
6 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), 2006-2007 Annual

Report.
7 USDOE Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data System 2008, Released: June 30,

2010.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 30 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Standard (RPS). In 2004 the Commission issued an Order adopting an RPS, with
a goal of increasing the proportion of renewable energy used by New York
consumers from the then-current 19.3 percent to at least 25 percent by the end of
2013.

As part of the 2004 Order, the PSC designated New York State Energy and
Research Development Authority (NYSERDA) as the central procurement
administrator for the RPS Program. In early 2009 NYSERDA prepared and
submitted an Evaluation Report, and based on that report in early 2010 the PSC
expanded the RPS goal to increase the proportion of renewable electricity
consumed by New York customers from 25 percent to 30 percent and extended
the terminal year of the program from 2013 to 2015, thus formalizing a goal set
by Governor Paterson, and reaffirmed in the 2009 State Energy Plan.

These changes to the RPS program targets reflect the State’s continued
commitment to support the development of various renewable energy
technologies, and will help achieve New York’s ‘45 by 15’ clean energy goals.

NYSERDA estimates that the 30 renewable energy projects from the first three
Main Tier solicitations, supported under the RPS program, could generate more
than $2.0 billion of in-state economic benefits over their 20-year expected
economic life. These benefits are expected to come in the form of new trade and
professional jobs, new property tax revenues to local taxing jurisdictions, royalty
payments to landowners, purchases of construction materials and equipment
rentals, and various other economic benefits. This estimate of benefits excludes
consideration of economic spill-over affects associated with increased local
income and increased property tax revenues.

New York’s RPS program uses a central procurement model, with NYSERDA as
the central procurement administrator. In exchange for receiving the production
incentive, BP Wind Energy will transfer to NYSERDA all rights and/or claims to
the RPS Attributes associated with each megawatt-hour (MWh) of renewable
electricity generated, and will guarantee delivery of the associated electricity to
the New York State ratepayers.

One RPS Attribute is created by the production and delivery into New York’s
wholesale electricity market of one MWh of electricity by an eligible RPS
resource. RPS Attributes include any and all reductions in harmful pollutants
and emissions, such as carbon dioxide and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen. By
acquiring the RPS Attributes, rather than the associated electricity, the RPS
program ensures that increasing amounts of renewable electricity will be injected
into the State’s power system, while minimizing interference with the State’s
competitive wholesale power markets.

Furthermore, while wind is an intermittent resource, wind energy facilities do


not require backup generation from fossil fuel facilities to ensure reliability. A
study conducted by NYISO and NYSERDA concluded that at least 10% of New
York state’s peak demand levels could be met by wind power without adding

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 31 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
any special measures except additional forecasting, which is currently being
implemented.8 More recent studies by the state have noted that due to the
concentration of development of wind generation in the western and northern
regions of New York, accommodating additional sources of wind power will
require additional measures such as: 9
• Voltage regulation at the Point-of-Interconnection (POI)
• Low-voltage ride-through
• Power curtailment capability
• Ability to set power ramp rates
• Governor functions
• Reserve functions
• Zero-power voltage regulation.

1.4.2 Project Benefits

Construction and operation of the proposed Cape Vincent Project would result in
positive environmental, economic, and energy benefits.

New York has projected economic benefits as a result of development of


renewable energy. A study by NYSERDA determined direct economic benefits
to the state resulting from the “first tier” of renewable energy solicitations to
generate $2 trillion in direct economic benefits, from construction to the end of
facility life. The “second tier” of solicitations, up through 2013, is anticipated to
add another $2.6 trillion in direct economic benefits.10

Along with these expected economic benefits resulting from the RPS investments
New York will enjoy cleaner air from the operation of these new renewable
resources.

The New York State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS) has estimated that
achievement of the State’s renewable portfolio standards (RPS) goal will reduce
in-State emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by approximately 4.2 million tons per
year. 11 In addition, NYSDPS modeling indicates annual reductions of nitrous
oxide (NOx) emissions by 4000 tons and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 10,000
tons (5.9%). It is estimated that operation of the Cape Vincent Project will
contribute to these goals via the reduction of the need to generate 260,000 tons of
CO2, 280 tons of NOx, and 360 tons of SO2 per year (see Section 2.18).

8 GE Energy. The Effects of Integrating Wind Power on Transmission System Planning, Reliability,
and Operations; Report on Phase 2: System Performance Evaluation; March 4, 2005
9 New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) Integration of Wind Into System Dispatch;

October 2008.
10 New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA) Main Tier RPS

Economic Benefits Report, Prepared by: KEMA Inc. and Economic Development Research Group,
Inc., November 14, 2008
11 NYSDPS. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement In Case 03-E-0188 – Proceeding on

Motion Of the Commission Regarding a Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard; August 26, 2004.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 32 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
The vast majority of domestic power generation is heavily reliant on water
consumption for steam power generation or cooling, leaving energy production
at risk during times of prolonged drought and also threatening fish and other
aquatic species. Wind power generation does not require the consumption of
water as a part of the power generation process.

While tens of thousands of tons of pollutants avoided may seem abstract to


many, the impact is very real to many New York residents. For example, with 6
million acres, the Adirondack Park is larger than the state of Vermont and
includes hundreds of lakes, over 2,000 miles of hiking trails and New York’s
tallest mountains. While thousands of guests come to the Adirondacks for its
beauty and recreational opportunities, pollution has taken a serious toll on this
area.

Acid rain, caused by SO2 pollution from upwind coal plants in the Midwest and
other sources, has caused widespread loss of forests in the Park, including red
spruce and sugar maple, and 500 of the 2,800 lakes and ponds are too acidic to
support the wildlife that once existed in them.12

Furthermore, most of these lakes and ponds have mercury levels so high that it is
unsafe to eat fish caught there. This same story is playing out across the state
and the northeast region. In addition to the wildlife impacts, these pollutants
also cause significant human diseases each year, including bronchitis,
pneumonia and other lung diseases.13 By reducing dependence on fossil fuels,
wind energy also serves to reduce the negative impacts that fossil fuels have on
the natural resources and health of all New Yorkers.

Local economic benefits of the proposed project would include:


• Temporary and permanent employment due to construction and operation of
the wind facility;
• An increased flow of revenue to landowners through leasing agreements;
• Increased commerce in Jefferson County due to spending by project
employees, suppliers, participating landowners, and local merchants;
• An increased flow of revenue to the Town of Cape Vincent, the Thousand
Island and Lyme School Districts, and Jefferson County through PILOT
payments; and
• Local economic diversification via steady revenue stream provided to
landowners and taxing entities from project.

Construction of the proposed project would result in the direct employment of


up to 200 electrical workers, crane operators, equipment operators, carpenters,
and other construction workers (with a total estimated payroll and benefits of $3
million) and generate an additional $15 million in local contracts for trucking,

12 Adiorndack Council Website Page on Acid Rain found at

http://www.adirondackcouncil.org/acidraininfo3.html
13 Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 33 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
gravel, concrete and construction-related services and $8 million in indirect local
services. BP Wind Energy proposes to hire construction workers from within the
local community, to the extent that qualified workers are available. Personnel
specially trained in specific procedures for wind turbine construction would be
brought in and temporarily housed in the area during the construction phase of
the project.

During plant operations, the proposed project would employ 10 full time
employees, including skilled operators, management, and administrative
personnel (with a total estimated payroll and benefits of $800,000 per annum). To
the extent possible, BP Wind Energy would use and support providers of local
services, suppliers, and area manufacturers during both construction and
operation.

The Project will provide revenues to the Town of Cape Vincent, the Thousand
Island School District, the Lyme School District, and Jefferson County in the form
of substantial annual PILOT payments for the first 20 years of the project
operations. While a PILOT agreement has not been negotiated as of this date,
Jefferson County recently approved a similar PILOT agreement with Upstate NY
Power for the Galloo Island Wind project that provides base payments of $8500
per mega watt of installed capacity with an annual escalation and increased
payments if power prices rise above $60 per megawatt-hour. Under this PILOT,
the base payments alone for the 134.4 MW Cape Vincent Wind Project would
total $1.14 million in the first year of operations. After 20 years, property tax
revenues will continue to be recognized utilizing the full tax rates in effect at that
time.

These payments would result in a significant increase in local revenue for the
taxing authorities. Additional value to the local economy would result from
steady income through easement payments to farms and other landowners.
Economic diversification ensures greater stability of the economy by minimizing
financial high and low cycles associated with a specific industry. This effect is
particularly important in rural areas, where more goods and services are
imported and more dollars leave the region.

Finally, all of the foregoing benefits will be provided without any corresponding
increased burden on local school and other public services. For example, while
the construction phase of the project will impact the local public roads due to the
volume of heavy vehicle traffic, BP Wind Energy will enter into agreements with
the Town of Cape Vincent and Jefferson County to ensure all public roads used
are returned to the same or better condition than they were before construction,
at no expense to taxpayers.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 34 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 GEOLOGY: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

This section provides a general overview of the geology within the study area.

2.1.1 Regional Geology and Topography

Jefferson County and other areas surrounding Lake Ontario are part of the
Ontario Lowlands physiographic province. Elevations in the area range from
approximately 75 meters above mean sea level near Lake Ontario and St.
Lawrence River (i.e., the study area) to approximately 200 meters above mean
sea level near the southern boundary of the physiographic province (southern
terminus of former glacial Lake Iroquois).

The surficial geologic deposits in the Ontario Lowlands consist primarily of


glaciolacustrine lake silts, clays, and fine-grained sands, with major areas
overlain by glacial till or ground moraine.14

The surficial geology in the northwestern portion of Jefferson County is


composed predominantly of glaciolacustrine silt and clay with smaller amounts
of more recent deposits of alluvium, organic-rich swamp deposits, and
glaciofluvial sand deposits. Bedrock at the surface may be seen in some coastal
and inland areas and is composed predominantly of Ordovician period
limestones, shales, sandstones, and dolostones.

2.1.2 Project Area Geology and Topography

The Project Area is located in the Town of Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, New
York where Lake Ontario empties into the St. Lawrence River. Within the Project
Site, elevations range from a low of approximately 75 meters to a high of
approximately 111 meters above mean sea level. This results in a maximum
topographical expression of approximately 36 meters.

Depth to bedrock within the site boundaries varies from exposed at the surface
to an estimated maximum of approximately 7 meters below ground surface.
Depth to bedrock in much of the Study Area is generally less than two meters.
Near the shore of Lake Ontario southeast of Kents Creek and in the northeastern
portion of the study area, bedrock is either exposed or within one meter of the
surface. Recent alluvium in the study area is confined to active stream channels
and is generally less than one meter thick. Organic-rich swamp deposits in
wetland areas are generally less than 2 meters thick.

The study area is underlain by three lithostratigraphic units listed in descending


order (i.e., youngest to oldest):

14 New York State Office for Technology. 2004. Geologic Resources, Appendix A.

https://www.oft.state.ny.us/SWNdocs/docs/Geologic%20Resources.pdf

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 35 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
1. the Kirkfield Limestone (also called the Kings Falls Limestone);
2. the Rockland Limestone; and
3. the Chaumont Limestone.

The Chaumont Limestone is the uppermost formation within the Middle


Ordovician Black River Group. The Chaumont Limestone consists
predominantly of massive, gray, fine-textured limestone that commonly contains
silicified (i.e., “petrified”) fossils. It is a high-calcium limestone that weathers
light gray and is more susceptible to karst formation that other limestones in the
study area. The Chaumont Limestone is exposed at the surface only in the far
northeastern portion of the study area.

The younger Rockland and Kirkfield (Kings Falls) Limestones are the two
lowermost formations within the Middle Ordovician Trenton Group. The
majority of the study area is underlain at the surface by the Rockland Limestone.
The Rockland Limestone consists predominantly of thin-bedded, argillaceous,
medium- to dark-gray fine-textured limestone with calcareous shale interbeds.
The Kirkfield Limestone consists predominantly of medium- to thick-bedded,
medium- to coarse-textured limestone that is abundantly fossiliferous. Both the
Rockland and the Kirkfield Limestones can contain up to 25 percent by volume
of the mineral dolomite, which makes these bedrock formations less susceptible
to karst formation that the relatively pure Chaumont Limestone (contains 0 to
less than 5 percent dolomite).

The structure of the bedrock in the study area is relatively uniform. Bedrock
structure has a strike that is generally northwest-southeast with a regional dip of
1 to 2 degrees towards the southwest. All three bedrock formations exposed in
the study area are regularly fractured by joints. The predominant joint sets in
order of abundance are oriented approximately N70°E, N50°W, N30°E, and
N15°W. Joint spacing is variable and generally ranges from 2 to 10 meters.
Observed joint apertures generally range from 1 to 3 millimeters. Some solution
enlargement of joints has been observed in the far northeastern portion of the
study area in areas underlain at the surface by Chaumont Limestone. Solution
enlarged joints with apertures up to 30 centimeters have been observed in the
extreme northeastern part of the study area. Large structural folds or faults in
bedrock have not been observed in the study area.

A geotechnical investigation was conducted in the study area in which eight soil
borings were drilled throughout the Project area to depths up to 50 feet below
ground surface. Bedrock was encountered at depths of 8 feet below ground
surface or above in four of the eight borings. Soil and rock samples were
submitted for laboratory analysis of moisture content, Atterberg limits, grain size
distribution, and unconfined compressive strength of rock. Results of this
investigation are included in Appendix E.

In general, subsurface conditions at the Project area can be generalized as


described in Table 2.1-1.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 36 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
TABLE 2.1-1: Geotechnical Boring Study Results at Cape Vincent

Description Approximate Material Encountered Consistency /


Depth to Bottom Relative
of Stratum (feet) Density
Stratum 1 2 to 18.5 Lean clay, zones of high Stiff to very stiff,
plasticity, grey occasionally soft
(Glaciolacustrine Deposit) (1)
Stratum 2 19 Silty gravel, with sand, Medium dense to
grey-brown (Glacial Till) (2) very dense
Stratum 3 N/A (3) Limestone, fresh to slightly N/A
weathered, slightly to
moderately fractured,
medium hard, fine grained,
gray to dark gray
(Bedrock)
(1) Topsoil and/or subsoil were encountered at the surface in each boring.
(2) Glacial till encountered in JB-21 only. Occasionally, weathered bedrock was
encountered above the competent bedrock surface.
(3) Subsurface conditions were explored to a maximum depth of 50 feet below existing
grade.

In order to assess solution features in the Project area in more detail, ERM
geologists visited 49 of the proposed wind turbine locations to document any
karst features observed in the Chaumont and Trenton Limestone that underlie
the project area. The Chaumont Limestone underlies the 22 northeastern most
turbine locations and a large portion of the transmission line that runs from the
study area to the Town of Chaumont. The Chaumont Limestone was noted for
its karst features; therefore, an ERM geologist visited all proposed turbine
locations placed on Chaumont Limestone as mapped by Johnsen. 15 The majority
of exposures of the Chaumont Limestone observed did not reveal dissolution
fractures. However, at five observation points, dissolution fractures in the
Chaumont Limestone were measured to be several tens of feet long, with
apertures from 3-inches to 24-inches in width. Four of these points were located
approximately 0.1 mile to the east, southeast of proposed turbine 78, and one
was located approximately 0.25 mile to the southwest of turbine 83 and
approximately 0.25 mile to the southeast of turbine 82. Where the Chaumont
Limestone was covered by unconsolidated materials, there were no surface
expressions of karst features.

The remaining turbine locations are underlain by the Trenton Group limestone.
The limestone formations of the Trenton Group did not show a propensity for
karst features; therefore, ERM field geologists field-checked only 33% of the
proposed turbine locations overlying Trenton Group limestone. No dissolution
fractures were observed in the study area. Near one turbine location, a possible
sub-surface fracture zone was observed aligned along the predominant fracture

Johnsen, J.H., 1971. The limestones (Middle Ordovician) of Jefferson County, New York. New
15

York State Museum and Science Service Map and Chart Series Number 13, Albany.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 37 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
orientation, but the presence of a large scale fracture zone could not be verified
by the field team.

2.1.3 Seismic Activity

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), which maintains


records extending back to 1638, the most recent nearby earthquake occurred on
August 24, 1998 southeast of Watertown, approximately 30 miles southeast of the
Project area. This earthquake was measured at approximately 3.0 on the Richter
scale, centered. The nearest recorded earthquake of this magnitude occurred on
December 7, 1818, approximately 10 miles offshore in Lake Ontario, registering
3.3 on the Richter scale.16

Seismic Hazard Maps of the conterminous U.S. indicate that the study area has a
low probability for seismic activity and bedrock shift during seismic events
would be minimal. 17 The Seismic Hazard Map for New York State prepared by
USGS rates the seismic hazard near the study area as a 2% or less probability
over 50 years of peak acceleration exceeding 8-10% of the force of gravity (g).

Although the risk of seismic activity adversely affecting the study area is
relatively low, the potential for a significant seismic event should be accounted
for during the design of a facility. Proposed tower locations should be set back
from private residences, other structures, and non-project related overhead
power lines at a distance greater than the maximum height of the tower. This
would ensure that, in the unlikely event of structure failure due to significant
seismic or other unanticipated activity, damage to adjacent residences or other
structures would not occur. Similarly, the potential earthquake hazards for the
region should be accounted for when designing the anchoring system for the
towers.

2.1.4 Soil Liquefaction

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon often associated with seismic activity in which


saturated, cohesion-less soils temporarily lose their strength and liquefy (i.e.,
behave similar to a viscous liquid) when subjected to forces such as intense and
prolonged ground shaking. According to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), areas with the potential for soil liquefaction are “underlain
by Holocene deposits which are likely to be non-cohesive, such as alluvial,
lacustrine, and littoral deposits, and where the ground water table occurs within
10 feet or less of the ground surface, and where the USGS Open File Report 82-
1033 indicates the area has a 90% probability that horizontal ground
accelerations of 10% of gravity or greater would be exceeded in 50 years.” The
USGS Open File Report 82-1033 indicates that, for the entire Project area and

16 Russell L. Wheeler, Nathan K. Trevor, Arthur C. Tarr, and Anthony J. Crone. 2001.

Earthquakes of the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, 1638-1998, published by the
USGS.
17 USGS, Seismic-Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States, Map 2883, Sheet 1 of 6,

Version 1.0

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 38 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
surrounding region, there is a 90% probability that horizontal ground
accelerations of greater that 4%g would not be exceeded in 50 years 18. In
addition, according to the USGS (Map MF-2329, version 1.0, 1999), landslides are
not known to occur in Jefferson County. The Project area is composed mostly of
less than 10 percent slopes (often less than 5 percent) and the glaciolacustrine silt
and clay units tend to be very thin. These data suggest that it is unlikely that soil
liquefaction will occur in the study area.

2.2 GEOLOGY: IMPACTS

2.2.1 Regional Geology and Topography

The regional geology and topography are described in Section 2.1.1. Based on
the limited spatial scale of the Project, construction and operation of the Project is
not expected to result in negative impacts on geology and topography (on a
regional scale).

2.2.2 Project Area Geology and Topography

No significant impacts on geology are anticipated from construction and


operation of the Project. Minor alterations to the turbine sites for grading and
other construction activities will be required and it is anticipated that rock
anchoring or blasting may be required in areas of thin soil over bedrock.
However, these activities should not have a significant impact on Project area
geology.

Karst conditions exist in the Project area and their development may be
accelerated by significant infiltration of water. A stormwater pollution discharge
elimination system (SPDES) permit will be obtained prior to construction
initiation in which stormwater best management practices will be developed
specifically to protect the karst features at the site. Precautions will also be taken
to seal potential pathways for water with concrete over exposed bedrock
subgrades.

Construction and operation of the project could impact small portions of the
project topography where construction occurs in the following situations:
• Surface soil could be compacted during construction of the turbines, crane
pads, and support structures (i.e., access roads and underground power
lines).
• Local topography around the turbines sites and roads may be changed to
accommodate the requirements to construct and operate the turbines.
• Local drainage patterns may be impacted as a result of construction activities.
The Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) required as part of the

18Algermissen, S.T., D.M. Perkins, P.C. Thenhaus, S.L. Hanson, and B.L. Bender. 1982. Probabilistic
estimates of maximum acceleration and velocity in rock in the contiguous United States. U.S.
Geological Survey. Open-File Report 82-1033.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 39 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
SPDES permit will address these impacts. The SWPPP will take into
consideration karst features in relation to the drainage patterns to ensure that
karst development is not accelerated.

2.2.3 Seismic Activity

As described in Section 2.1.3, the USGS states that no significant earthquake


epicenter has been recorded within 50 miles of the Project Area and that the
Project Area is not located within an active seismic region. No significant
tectonic faults have been mapped in Jefferson County, and there are no known
active faults (i.e., younger than 1.6 million years) in this region19.

Although the risk of seismic activity adversely affecting the Project area is
extremely low, the minimum setback requirements prescribed by the Town of
Cape Vincent (at least 750 feet from any residential structures) provides a
significant safety factor for a 427 foot tall tower/blade structure, ensuring that in
the unlikely event of a turbine falling over, damage to residential structures
would not occur.

2.2.4 Design Considerations

As a result of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, the following


design/construction recommendations were made:
• shallow foundations (between 7-9 foot below finished grade) are feasible for
the site, given proper preparation of underlying native deposits or fill;
• where bedrock is encountered above 8 feet below grade, either excavate
through bedrock to 8 foot level, or anchor foundations to bedrock;
• if excavating through rock, the top 1 foot may be mechanically removed;
below this level, blasting is likely to be required;
• prior to placing fill for crane pads, access drives, and other Project area
features, the contractor should remove topsoil and organic subsoils;
• native glaciolacustrine deposit is not suitable for re-use as structural fill
because of high fines content, so imported fill should be used as needed; and
• blasting can be conducted with limited risk to structures and water wells, but
further evaluation of Project area specific bedrock conditions should take
place prior to blasting, particularly where turbines or trenches will be located
within 1,000 feet of structures or wells.

In addition, specific engineering factors are included for foundation design, road
base and drainage, and other construction considerations. These factors are
included in other portions of this assessment – for example, archaeological field

19 USGS. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program - New York Earthquake Information.
United States Geological Survey, 2002.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states.php?regionID=32&region=New%20York.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 40 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
surveys were conducted with the knowledge that construction roads would
require up to 18” of road base below grade.

Because of the nature of the surrounding limestone, additional recommendations


were made to mitigate the potential for the development of karst conditions (e.g.
cavitation) resulting from construction at the site. The development of karst
conditions can be accelerated by the infiltration of water below grade, so Project
design must control the infiltration of water around proposed structures. In
addition, the study recommends that utility trenches be sealed in the vicinity of
settlement sensitive structures in order to reduce the likelihood of infiltration
and migration of water that could promote karst feature development.

2.3 SOILS: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.3.1 Soils

The study area is comprised of 43 soil types; 35 of these soil types comprise less
than 5% of the study area individually. Over 50% of the Project area is
comprised of five soil types. These are primarily silty clays and rocky complexes
or outcrops. Table 2.3-1 displays these soils and the percent of the Project Site
that they comprise.

TABLE 2.3-1: Dominant Soil Types within the Project Area 20

Percent of Project
Soil Types Area (%)

Kingsbury silty clay 11.8


Chaumont silty clay 9.7
Benson-Galoo complex, very
rocky 13.3
Galoo-Rock outcrop complex 9.8
Covington silty clay 8.2

The Kingsbury silty clay soils are characterized as very deep and somewhat
poorly drained Alfisols. These soils are formed from lacustrine or marine
sediments, and are found on nearly level to gently sloping lake plains21. These
soil types have high shrink-swell potential and the erodibility factor for the fine-
earth component (Kf) of the top mineral layer is 0.49 on a scale from 0.02 to 0.69,
where higher values are more susceptible to erosion.

The Chaumont silty clay soils are moderately deep and somewhat poorly
drained Alfisols. These soils formed in slowly or very slowly permeable clayey
lacustrine sediments and are found on nearly level or gently sloping lake plains

20SSURGO. 2006. NRCS Soil Survey Geographic data.


21United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1989, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of
Jefferson County, NY.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 41 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
over limestone bedrock. These soil types have high shrink-swell potential and
the Kf of the top mineral layer is 0.49.

The Benson-Galoo complex soils are very rocky and are found on benches,
ridges, and till planes. The Benson soils are shallow and somewhat excessively
drained silt loam formed from loamy till underlain by limestone or calcareous
shale. They are moderately permeable and shallowly underlain by bedrock at a
depth of 10 to 20 inches. Shrink-swell potential in the Benson component is low,
with a Kf for the top mineral layer of 0.32.

The Galoo soils are excessively drained silt loams, with depth to parent material
of very shallow. They consist of a thin layer of loamy till overlying calcareous
sandstone bedrock. Bedrock is shallow at 2 to 10 inches. As with the Benson
component of this soil complex, the Galoo component has a low shrink-swell
potential, with a Kf for the top mineral layer of 0.32.

The Covington silty clay soils are very deep and poorly drained soils formed of
calcareous clayey glaciolacustrine or glaciomarine deposits. These soils are
found in depressions on glacial like plains. The Covington soils have high
shrink-swell potential and a Kf of 0.49.

2.3.2 Agriculturally Sensitive Areas (Agricultural Districts)

Article 25-AA of NYSDAM Law authorizes the creation of local agricultural


districts. These districts are established to protect and encourage the continued
use of existing farmland by providing legal protection to farmers using sound
agricultural practices. The Project area includes approximately 6,000 acres of
farmland, a portion of which (approximately 31%) is considered to be within
agricultural districts. Project construction activities will follow the guidelines of
NYSDAM with regards to work within agricultural districts.

2.3.3 Agricultural Activity

In general, approximately 58% of the Project area is classified by the 2005


Jefferson County Tax parcel data as agricultural. Of the total acreage in
agricultural production, 57% of this is used for field crops, 19% is used for
producing dairy products, 22% is vacant agricultural land, and 2% is under other
agriculture uses such as horse, goats, and sheep farms.

2.3.4 Steep Slopes

Areas with steep slope (usually defined as slopes >15 percent) in the study area
are of concern because, when they are cleared of vegetation during construction
activities, these areas may be subject to severe erosion during storm events. In
addition, steep slopes may affect project activities by limiting the delivery and
the use of heavy equipment. Furthermore, construction activities at these
locations may be more involved since topography may need to be altered.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 42 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
To the extent practicable, the proposed facilities will be sited in relatively flat
areas. A small amount of the study area has been identified as having slopes
exceeding 15%. These areas total 0.3% of the study area and are located at
various parcels across the Project area. Detailed maps depicting areas with
slopes exceeding 15% and the location of the turbine sites will be gathered
during the preparation of the FEIS.

2.4 SOILS: IMPACTS

Construction activities such as clearing and grubbing, grading, trenching,


excavation, movement of heavy equipment, and cleanup activities may affect
soil. Potential soil and agricultural productivity-related impacts in the portion of
the Project area on which construction will occur include:
• permanent removal from cultivation (as part of turbine site, O&M site,
substation, or permanent access roads);
• erosion;
• soil compaction and damage to soil structure resulting from construction
equipment traffic (mainly where wet soils and soils with poor drainage exist);
and
• introduction of stones or rocks from shallow bedrock areas into the topsoil as
a result of excavation and construction activities.

To estimate areas of potential impact from the construction of the Project


facilities, the Jefferson County soil survey and the USDA Soil Survey Geographic
Database (SSURGO) were analyzed within the project footprint.

The following sections describe soil constraints, potential impacts of project


components on soil resources and agricultural productivity, and the mitigation
measures that will be implemented during construction and operation to avoid
or minimize impacts on soil resources.

2.4.1 Impacts

Construction of the project may impact either on a temporary or permanent basis


the following soils’ attributes: soil with high erosion potential; soil with high
compaction potential; very poorly or poorly drained soils; shallow bedrock areas;
soil with slopes >15%; prime farmland; and statewide important soils.

Potential impacts from construction include:


• soil compaction and rutting;
• erosion and sediment runoff during precipitation events;
• introduction of rocks into the topsoil, impeding agricultural practices;
• contamination due to leaks and spills from construction vehicle operation
and maintenance;
• introduction of weeds or other invasive species; and

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 43 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
• loss of productive agricultural land.

Compaction and Rutting


Rutting and compaction of soils due to travel of heavy equipment may occur on
the proposed construction areas. These impacts are of particular concern in
cultivated fields and may be more likely to occur when soils are saturated, moist,
or poorly drained. In order to prevent this, grading and compacting will take
place prior to transporting larger pieces of equipment to the Project.

The Project construction contractor will minimize rutting and compaction by


maintaining construction equipment and materials on project access roads.
Heavier loads will be scheduled for delivery to the Project area when the ground
is predominantly dry.

Impacts during operation and maintenance of the Project are expected to be


minimal, because activities will generally be limited to areas where project roads
exist. In the case of necessary major turbine repairs, some work outside the
boundary of permanent access roads and turbine sites could cause damage to
soils; Section 2.7 describes mitigation measures to be implemented in order to
reduce soil compaction or rutting during maintenance activities.

Stony/Rocky Soils or Shallow-Depth-to-Bedrock Soils


Introduction of stones or rocks into surface soil layers may damage agricultural
equipment resulting in reduced productivity. Rock fragments and stones at the
surface and in the surface layer may be encountered during grading, trenching
and excavation, and backfilling. In addition, ripping of shallow bedrock during
construction could introduce rock fragments or stones into the topsoil.

Erosion and Sedimentation


Short-term increases in erosion can occur as a result of the removal of vegetation
during clearing and grading activities and the subsequent exposure of topsoil to
precipitation and high winds. In addition, in areas where vegetation is slow to
become reestablished, increased erosion can occur. Increased erosion of soils is
of special concern adjacent to water bodies, where it can result in increased
sedimentation.

The potential for erosion is influenced by the grain size, slope, and drainage
characteristics of the soils. Areas with level to nearly level slope and coarse-
grained, well-drained soils are less likely to be eroded than areas with steep
slopes or fine-grained, poorly drained soils.

Construction activity is expected to have minimal erosion and sedimentation


impacts on soil in the study area.

Standard erosion control measures will be specified in the SWPPP in order to


prevent the loss of soils through erosion, and the sedimentation of surrounding
drainages and waterways with runoff from the construction site.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 44 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Soil Contamination
There is also a potential for soil contamination to occur during construction and
operations as a result of spills or leaks of vehicle lubricants and fuels, as well as
the lubricating oils contained in the nacelle of each turbine. This potential impact
should be minor due to extensive requirements for spill prevention,
countermeasures, and control that will be required and the limited occurrence of
such situations.

Soils can be contaminated by improper disposal of construction related materials


as well. These may include pieces of wire, bolts, and other unused metal objects
from the packing of turbine components, as well as excess concrete. These
materials will be collected and removed from the project area.

Weeds and Invasive Species


Weeds and other invasive species may be introduced to croplands during
movement of heavy equipment across the Project. Generally, equipment staging
and operations will occur on cleared, graded, gravel construction roads free of
debris. However, the equipment used to originally clear, grade, and excavate at
the Project might collect various invasive plants and seeds and transport them to
other areas. Accordingly, an Invasive Species Plan will be developed specific to
the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project construction activities and included in the
FEIS. The Invasive Species Plan will detail procedures such as equipment
cleaning and vehicle tracking controls, which will help prevent the introduction
of invasive vegetation to agricultural lands.

Agricultural Productivity
Another impact on agricultural land during construction activities includes the
direct loss of any crops and pastureland grown at the time of construction.
Because of the timing (spring through fall) of construction, some yields of crops
grown within the Project area will be reduced due to the temporary disruptions
due to the workspaces and access roads needed to support the construction
activities.

A potentially significant long-term impact of the Project on agricultural lands


would include the loss, by conversion to nonagricultural uses, of prime farmland
soils or soils of statewide importance and the loss of land within agricultural
districts. Impacts to these soils are a major concern of the New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM).

As a result of the establishment of permanent turbine sites for the Project, the
following types and amounts of classified soils will be permanently removed
from cultivation:
• USDA Prime Farmland – 0.03 acres
• Farmlands of Statewide Importance – 0.45 acres

These totals represent a small fraction of the USDA prime farmland soils and
farmlands of statewide importance in Jefferson County, and therefore this impact
is not considered to be significant.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 45 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
As indicated previously, other soil impacts that can affect agricultural
productivity include the introduction of rocks and weeds into the soil, the latter
of which compete with the farmed crops for soil moisture and fertility, leading to
lower crop yields.
Soil fertility may decrease if mixing of soil layers occurs in areas graded or
excavated during construction activities.

2.4.2 Drainage Features

Surface drainage features that may be encountered during construction include


watercourses that may be located within the study area and solution-enlarged
joints in the far northeastern portion of the study area. Information on
watercourses and solution-enlarged joints that may represent conduits for
surface water flow are discussed in Sections 2.5 and 2.6. Other potential impacts
that may occur include changes to the natural drainage patterns of agricultural
lands.

No areas of sub-surface drainage tile have been identified within the Project
Area. If areas of potential subsurface drainage including drainage tile or
solution-enlarged joints are encountered during construction, they will be
avoided, protected, or completely restored. BP Wind Energy will mitigate these
potential impacts where necessary, including installation of culverts and water
bars to maintain natural drainage patterns. In addition, where project roads are
constructed or existing roads are improved, design of these roads will include
drainage systems that should actually improve many of the existing areas where
high erosion from run off currently exists.

2.4.3 Mitigation

Compaction and Rutting


Following construction, all disturbed agricultural areas that are outside the
finished roadway and turbine sites will be decompacted to a depth of 18 inches
with a deep ripper or heavy-duty chisel plow, in accordance with applicable
regulations and NYSDAM guidelines. In areas where the topsoil was stripped,
soil decompaction will be conducted prior to topsoil replacement. Following
decompaction, rocks 4 inches in diameter and larger will be removed from the
surface of the subsoil prior to replacement of the topsoil. The topsoil will be
replaced to original depth and the original contours will be reestablished to the
extent possible. Subsoil decompaction and topsoil replacement will be avoided
after the months of higher precipitation, unless the landowners specify otherwise
on a site-by-site basis.

In the event of maintenance activities which require moving equipment larger


than the permanent access roads to the turbine sites, measures will be
implemented to reduce soil compaction off of improved roads and turbine sites.
These may include the use of riprap or timber mats on saturated soils, organic
mulch or residue on the soil surface, and restrictions on traffic and load

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 46 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
placements within these areas. If activities are required off improved roads and
turbine sites during conditions of extreme wetness, access will be limited until
suitable soil conditions are restored.

Stony/Rocky Soils or Shallow-Depth-to-Bedrock Soils


To minimize or avoid this potential impact on the productivity of agricultural
lands (croplands and improved pasture), for areas where large stones are present
in the subsoil and not in the topsoil, the topsoil will be segregated and larger
stones otherwise brought to the surface will be screened from the soil prior to
backfilling activities. In areas where bedrock is present within excavated zones
and brought to the surface, rocks 4 inches in diameter or greater will be removed
from the surface of the topsoil in accordance with applicable regulations and
NYSDAM guidelines.

Erosion and Sedimentation


Erosion control, re-vegetation, and maintenance plans will be produced and
implemented by the Project Engineer to minimize these impacts. The details of
this plan will be developed in conjunction with applicable guidelines (i.e.,
NYSDAM Guidelines) and will be included in the SWPPP that will be developed
prior to construction, as required by the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges.

Temporary erosion controls, including interceptor diversions and sediment filter


devices (e.g., hay bales and silt fences), will be installed prior to initial ground
disturbance. As required, temporary trench breakers will be installed
immediately following trench excavation for cabling, and mulch or erosion
control fabrics (e.g., jute netting) may be used on critical slopes or areas to
control erosion. Temporary erosion control devices will be inspected on a
regular basis and after each rain event to ensure proper functioning.

During construction, the effectiveness of temporary erosion control devices will


be monitored. The effectiveness of re-vegetation and permanent erosion control
devices will be monitored in accordance with applicable guidelines. Temporary
erosion control structures will be maintained until the affected areas are
successfully re-vegetated. Following successful re-vegetation of construction
areas, temporary erosion control devices will be removed.

Seed Mixtures
Areas within the study area disturbed during construction activities and where
topsoil has been replaced will be seeded with appropriate seed mixtures to
provide faster establishment of cover for erosion control and to optimize the
success of restoration. All agricultural areas disturbed by the project will be
seeded with a seed mix selected for compatibility with disturbed area vegetation
types.

Agricultural Productivity
Soil impacts such as loss of organic matter, topsoil-subsoil mixing, deterioration
of soil structure, and soil settling or slumping should be minimized by the use of

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 47 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
special construction techniques. These impacts should be confined to the Project
area and restoration will be performed to preclude any long-term effects.

In particular, to minimize the impact of disruption of topsoil layers on long-term


cultivation, topsoil will be segregated to the depth of the plowed layer and
efforts will be made to maintain the topsoil layer in work areas.

Soil compaction and erosion also may affect long-term farmland productivity. If
this becomes apparent, machinery such as deep-shank, Paraplow, Paratill, or
other specified equipment will be brought in to break up soil down to the depth
of actual compaction.

Precautions will be taken to minimize impact on cropland soils. Protective


measures that will be employed include ensuring that topsoil-subsoil mixing
does not occur and that compaction and other construction related results are
avoided or mitigated. Topsoil will be removed first and stockpiled to ensure that
it is separated from construction activities. The subsoil layer also will be stored
separate from the topsoil and away from construction activities.

All topsoil will be stripped from agricultural areas used for vehicle and
equipment traffic and parking. All vehicle and equipment traffic and parking
will be limited to the access road and/or designated work areas such as tower
sites and laydown areas. No vehicles or equipment will be allowed outside the
work area without prior approval from the landowner and, when applicable, the
Environmental Monitor.

If the excavated materials lack backfill requirements, BP Wind Energy will


ensure that adjacent agricultural land is not used to replace the backfill. If
imported soils are needed for this process, they will be similar in texture to the
soils already present.

Soil Contamination
All pieces of wire, bolts, and other unused metal objects will be picked up and
properly disposed of as soon as practical after the unloading and packing of
turbine components so that these objects will not be mixed with any topsoil.
Also, care will be taken during unloading and unwrapping of turbine
components, to ensure that invasive species or insects are not introduced from
the turbine components into the topsoils.

Excess concrete will not be buried or left on the surface in active agricultural
areas. Concrete trucks will be washed outside of active agricultural areas.

BP Wind Energy will require contractors and subcontractors to use BMPs for
handling materials to help prevent spills from occurring. If spillage of fuels or
lubricating oils occurs, corrective action will be implemented immediately by
removing and properly disposing of any contaminated soil pursuant to
applicable regulatory requirements of NYSDEC’s Division of Environmental
Remediation.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 48 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Procedures for prevention and responding to spills during the construction
phase will be included in the SWPPP described above. Procedures for
responding during the operations phase will be covered by the site-specific SPCC
Plan which will be developed for the Project.

Other NYSDAM Guidelines


The NYSDAM Guidelines for Mitigation of Wind Power Projects specify many of
the measures described in detail above. In addition, the following mitigation
measures are called for:
• Minimize impacts to normal farming operations by locating structures along
field edges and in nonagricultural areas where possible.
• Avoid dividing larger fields into smaller fields, which are more difficult to
farm, by locating access roads along the edge of agricultural fields
(hedgerows and field boundaries) and in nonagricultural areas where
possible.
• Locate access roads, which cross agricultural fields, along ridge tops and
following field contours, where possible, to eliminate the need for cut and fill
and reduce the risk of creating drainage problems.

BP Wind Energy has followed these guidelines where practical, noting the desire
of local landowners to alter some, and the necessity of altering others in order to
minimize the potential for impacts to local wetland features.

BP Wind Energy has included the following guidelines into project design:
• The permanent width of access roads in agricultural fields should be no more
than 16 feet to minimize the loss of agricultural land.
• All existing drainage and erosion control structures such as diversions,
ditches, and tile lines should be avoided or appropriate measures taken to
maintain the design and effectiveness of the existing structures. Any
structures disturbed during construction will be repaired to as close to
original condition as possible, as soon as possible, unless such structures are
to be eliminated based on a new design.
• The surface of access roads constructed through agricultural fields should be
level with the adjacent field surface.
• Culverts and water bars will be installed to maintain natural drainage
patterns.
• Electric interconnect cables and transmission lines installed above ground
can create long term interference with agricultural land use. As a result,
interconnect cables will be buried in agricultural fields wherever practicable.
When interconnect cables and transmission lines are installed above ground,
BP Wind Energy will minimize agricultural impacts by using taller structures
that provide longer spanning distances and shall locate poles outside fields
or on field edges to the greatest extent practicable. The line location and pole
placements will be reviewed with the DEC and the Environmental Monitor
prior to final design.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 49 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
• In cropland, hayland and improved pasture at a minimum depth of four feet
of cover will be required for all buried electric cables. Where the depth of soil
over bedrock ranges from zero to forty-eight inches, the electric cables will be
buried entirely below the top of the bedrock or at the depth specified for the
particular land use whichever is less, with a minimum of two feet of cover.

2.4.4 Post-Construction Monitoring

BP Wind Energy will coordinate with NYSDAM to develop an appropriate post-


construction monitoring plan to ensure that the goals of NYSDAM guidelines are
met. Formal monitoring of areas temporarily or permanently disturbed by
construction will occur for two years immediately following the completion of
initial restoration. 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. The monitoring and
remediation phase will be used to identify any remaining agricultural impacts
associated with construction that are in need of mitigation and to implement the
follow-up restoration.

Maintenance of these areas will be an ongoing process throughout the life of the
Project to assure that it can be adequately maintained and that adjacent land is
not impacted. During the monitoring and remediation phase, any agricultural
impacts resulting from construction that need additional mitigation will be
identified and mitigated. General conditions to be monitored include topsoil
thickness, concentrations of rock and large stones, trench settling, condition and
function of drainage features, and repair of Project fences. Excessive amounts of
rock and oversized stone material will be determined by a visual inspection of
disturbed areas, as compared to portions of the same field located outside the
construction area.

If subsequent crop productivity is less than that of the adjacent unaffected


agricultural land, BP Wind Energy will determine appropriate rehabilitation
measures to be implemented.

Subsoil compaction will be tested using an appropriate soil penetrometer or


other soil compaction measuring device. Compaction tests will be made for each
soil type identified on the affected agricultural fields. The subsoil compaction
test results within the affected area will be compared with those of the adjacent
unaffected portion of the farm field/soil unit. Where representative subsoil
density of the affected area exceeds the representative subsoil density of the
unaffected areas, additional shattering of the soil profile will be performed using
the appropriate equipment. Deep shattering will be applied during periods of
relatively low soil moisture to ensure the desired mitigation results and to
prevent additional subsoil compaction. Oversized stone/rock material which is
uplifted to the surface as a result of the deep shattering will be removed.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 50 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
2.4.5 Restoration

Areas temporarily used during construction activities will be returned to their


pre-existing condition. Mitigation measures will be applied to disturbed areas
and maintained as necessary to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation during
the life of the project. Prior to construction, BP Wind Energy will document
areas within the study area that currently have erosion and sedimentation issues
so that the restoration efforts and site drainage design can be evaluated after
construction. It is believed that many of the secondary road improvements will
correct any current deficiencies. Adequate pre-construction documentation will
help determine whether soil erosion and sedimentation issues resulted from the
project.

In addition, to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation impacts, a project-


specific soil erosion and sedimentation control plan will be developed and
included in the SWPPP. Mitigation measures will include the use of silt fences,
straw bale barriers, check dams, or other accepted controls to control runoff and
off-site migration of soil during construction activities. These mitigation
measures will be presented and implemented through the preparation of the
SWPPP and associated review process.

2.4.6 Complaint Resolution

For the duration of the project, an on-site contact person will be identified to
address and resolve landowner complaints from project construction or
operation. BP Wind Energy will work with an agriculture/soil conservation
specialist, as required, to address and resolve problems.

2.5 WATER QUALITY: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

A large majority of the residential water use in the county comes from a public
supply – there are 50 different water supply systems in Jefferson County22,
including the following in the project area:
• Cape Vincent Village (serves 5,000 people);
• Danc Western Regional (serves 4,000 people);
• Chaumont Village (serves 625 people); and
• Lyme Town Wd 2 (serves 400 people).

Table 2.5-1 provides the details of annual water use by category for Jefferson
County.

22 NY Times. Series on Water Quality in the US, found on 12/16/2010 at

http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/ny/jefferson

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 51 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
TABLE 2.5-1: Water Use for Jefferson County, 2005

Annual Average Water Withdrawals By Use Category (mgd)


Withdrawals Public
by Source supply Domestic Industrial Mining Livestock Irrigation Total
Surface 8.2 0 1.8 0.43 0.5 0.47 11.32
water
Ground 1.7 0.97 0.5 0.11 0.9 0.17 4.30
water
Total 9.9 0.97 2.3 0.54 1.4 0.64 15.62
Source: USGS Water Use in the United States, County-Level Data for 2005
http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/

2.5.1 Ground Water

Ground water is principally used in the Project area for domestic water supply or
supply for farm animals. Some ground water is produced from dug wells that
supply water from unconsolidated geologic materials on top of bedrock.
However, most ground water produced in the Project area is produced from one
of the three bedrock formations discussed in Section 2.1.2:
1. the Kirkfield Limestone (also called the Kings Falls Limestone);
2. the Rockland Limestone; and
3. the Chaumont Limestone.

Ground water in bedrock is present both in fractures and joints that occur
naturally in the bedrock and in matrix porosity inside the rock (natural voids
present in the limestone bedrock). Most ground water that is produced in water
supply wells in the area is derived predominantly from the natural fractures or
joints that occur in the bedrock. A smaller amount is produced from the bedrock
matrix porosity.

There are no active USGS ground water monitoring wells in the immediate
vicinity of the project area. The closest USGS well is in Felts Mills, 13 miles to the
south and east of the Project Area. Ground water flow at the site is inferred to be
generally towards the southwest based on topographic gradient. Potable ground
water is anticipated to be present at depths ranging from 10 to 100 feet below
ground surface. Wells installed to depths greater than 100 feet in the study area
generally encounter water that is relatively high in dissolved solids or mineral
content, and is deemed by some as unsatisfactory for potable uses due to
aesthetic reasons.

In October 2010, BP Wind Energy contracted for 8 geotechnical test borings


within the Project boundaries, ranging from 13 to 50 feet in depth. Water was
encountered in three of those borings, at depths ranging from 2 to 21.5 feet below
existing grade. BP Wind Energy is continuing to monitor water depths in two of
these wells.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 52 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Fluctuations in ground water level may occur because of seasonal variations in
the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors. Additionally, grade
adjustments by local landowners or government, as well as surrounding
drainage improvements, may affect the water table.

The following information is based on information available from the USGS, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the New York
State Department of Health (NYSDOH) in relation to ground water produced
from wells in the vicinity of the study area.

Residential Wells
Sole-source aquifers are defined by USEPA as an aquifer that is needed to supply
50% or more of the drinking water for a given area and for which there are no
reasonably available alternative sources should the water become contaminated.
Given the important nature of these aquifers, they are given special
consideration and protection by USEPA and State Regulatory Agencies. No sole-
source aquifers are located within the Project Area.

Ground water is used as a secondary drinking water supply in Jefferson County


with 23 percent of freshwater use coming from ground water. 23

According to Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District, 5 out of 22


samples of ground water within the Project area revealed bacteriological
contamination in the form of total coliform and fecal coliform. Water quality
data obtained from the Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District are
summarized in Table 2.5-2.

2.5.2 Surface Water

Watershed
The proposed Project boundary contains the Kents Creek watershed between its
headwaters and Lake Ontario. Kents Creek lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit
Code (HUC) 04150102, the Chaumont-Perch watershed.

The Project area lies low in the watershed near its end point in Lake Ontario.
This is a topographically flat area with little elevation change. The high point of
Kents Creek is south of the Hamlet of St. Lawrence Corners at an elevation of 350
feet. The main branch of the creek meanders approximately 10 miles until it
drains into the Lake at Mud Bay with an elevation of 250 feet. Except during
annual spring thaws, this low-gradient nature produces a slow moving, poorly
aerated river that is not ideal for cold-water fisheries.

Regulatory Status
This watershed has been designated as a Category IV watershed by the New
York Unified Watershed Assessment Program. Category IV watersheds are
defined as those where the level of data is currently not sufficient to make an
assessment of the watershed’s condition. When additional information is

23 : USGS Water Use in the United States, County-Level Data for 2005

http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 53 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
collected and analyzed on the Category IV watersheds, they can then be
reassigned to the appropriate category. No waters within the immediate Project
area have been identified as Section 303(d) Impaired Waters, or as waters not
meeting state water quality standards24. Chaumont Bay is listed on the State’s
303(d) list as a Class A violation concerning fish consumption. It is considered to
have sediments contaminated with PCBs, Mirex, and Dioxin.25 This bay, in
addition to Lake Ontario, is outside the project boundary.

Named Watercourses
Three named watercourses, Kents Creek, Fox Creek and Little Fox Creek, as well
as several unnamed tributaries, are located within the Project Area. Kents Creek,
the largest of the three, flows from its origin northeast of the Project Area,
through the Project area and empties into eastern Lake Ontario at Mud Bay. Fox
Creek and Little Fox Creek are smaller tributaries to Lake Ontario located in the
southeast portion of the Project Area.

Two additional named water courses, Chaumont River and Three Mile Creek,
are located outside the Project Area, but inside the footprint of the joint utility
ROW to be constructed by the St. Lawrence Wind Farm. The Chaumont River
and Three Mile Creek, including all of their tributaries, are designated as Class C
streams.

All waters of the state are provided a class and standard designation based on
existing or expected best usage of each water or waterway segment:
• The classification AA or A is assigned to waters used as a source of drinking
water.
• Classification B indicates a best usage for swimming and other contact
recreation, but not for drinking water.
• Classification C is for waters supporting fisheries and suitable for non -
contact activities.
• The lowest classification and standard is D.

All of the watercourses within the Project Area, including the unnamed
tributaries of Kents Creek, are designated as Class C streams by the NYSDEC.

24NYSDEC, 2004. Waterbody Inventory for Eastern Lake Ontario (Chaumont-Perch) Watershed
25USEPA, Waterbody History Report for NY-0303-0011,
http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_wb_history.control?p_listed_water_id=NY-0303-
0011&p_cycle=2008

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 54 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
TABLE 2.5-2: Ground Water Contamination in the Project Area

T. Hard
.(CaCO3)
E.coli Bact. Nitrate (N) (Mg/L) Chlorides (Mg/L) pH (Mg/L) Turbity(NTU) Disinfect sys. Type of supply
POS ND < .05 20.5 7.45 483 43.8 dug well
POS 0.715 22.3 7.3 325 0.26 surface water
POS 0.738 3.61 7.86 133 11.73 UV light shore well
POS 1.81 53.6 7.21 407 0.13 drilled well
POS 0.493 22 7.69 125 1.52 shore well
NEG 3.08 130 7.35 597 1.68 drilled well
NEG ND < .05 10.5 7.5 247 0.21 spring
NEG ND < .05 31.4 7.5 227 0.5 drilled well
NEG ND < .05 9.86 7.2 364 0.2 drilled well
NEG ND < .05 29.6 7.2 375 0.25 UV light drilled well
NEG ND <.05 27.1 7.25 332 0.58 drilled well
NEG 0.25 1.1 8.1 91 0.47 drilled well
NEG 5.16 109 7.2 391 1.81 shore well
NEG 1.77 24.8 7.27 231 0.28 UV light shore well
NEG 0.342 23.1 8.36 114 0.37 cystern
NEG 0.297 20.3 7.61 129 0.56 chlorinator shore well
NEG 0.386 255 7.19 1.44 0.12 dug well
NEG 0.129 26.3 7.33 120 0.76 chlorinator shore well
NEG 0.293 150 7.02 422 1.07 drilled well
NEG ND<.05 107 6.96 297 0.17 Chlorinator Drilled
NEG 0.209 25.5 7.3 117 0.27 village water
0.056 9.77 7 325 0.18 UV,RO,Chlor Dug
Source: Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District, 2007

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 55 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 56 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Protected Streams
Being designated a Class C stream and considered a navigable water, Kents
Creek has been given special protection by New York Sate. Disturbance to the
bed or banks of this stream requires a permit under Article 15 of the New York
Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). Kents Creek is considered by the
NYSDEC to be navigable "inland beyond Route 12 to the first barrier”. This
includes the majority of the creek within the Project Area.

Two water body segments in the area are considered navigable by the USACE
and would require a Section 10 permit for any crossings or impacts:
• The Chaumont River is considered navigable from the Village of Depauville
to Chaumont Bay.
• Three Mile Creek is navigable between Route 12 and Lake Ontario near the
village of Three Mile Bay.

Both streams are also protected under Article 15, and disturbance to these
streams would require a NYSDEC permit as well.

Water Quality Trends


There are no active USGS surface water quality gauges in Jefferson County, but
NYSDEC has evaluated sites in the Chaumont-Perch watershed. Kents Creek is
considered too small a waterbody to be listed in the State’s report on “30 Year
Trends in Water Quality”, but the nearby Chaumont River was evaluated. There
is a marked variation in water quality across the area, ranging from non-
impacted to severely impacted. 26 The Chaumont River was sampled for benthic
macroinvertebrates in 1989, 1996, and 2002 and the river was found to be
moderately impacted, as follows:

“Water quality in the Chaumont River in 1989 was assessed as


slightly impacted from LaFargeville to Depauville. Sampling in
1996 and 2002 at the Depauville site yielded an assessment of
moderate impact, a decline from 1989. The habitat was less than
ideal, consisting of minor riffles draining a pooled area. The
invertebrate fauna was dominated by caddisflies and riffle beetles
and livestock waste was the primary stressor.”27

Surface Water Use


All of the streams within the Project area may be used to some extent by animals
and livestock as a source of drinking water. However, since many of these
streams are intermittent or in headwater areas, water is sporadically available
and may be present only during periods of continuous or heavy precipitation or
during the snowmelt period in the spring.

26 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 30 Year Trends In Water Quality


Of Rivers And Streams In New York State, Based On Macroinvertebrate Data 1972-2002, Stream
Biomonitoring Unit, Division of Water.
27 NYSDEC, 1972-2002.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 57
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
During the spring, immediately following ice out on Mud Bay, there is an annual
spawning run of walleye (Sander vitreus) in Kents Creek. This event occurs
outside of the state regulated open fishing season for this species and therefore
does not provide recreational use of this stream. Additionally, due to their small
size and/or intermittent nature, it is unlikely that any of the streams within the
Project area are used for recreation opportunities.

2.5.3 Storm Water Runoff

Local Permeability, Topography


The land use in the Project area comprises of a mix of undeveloped and
agricultural land. Topographic features or changes in local elevation tend to be
minor within the site; still, there is a direct influence of these features on runoff.
Slight changes in local elevation shape the landscape and steer stormwater down
gradient.

The soils within the Project area contain relatively high amounts of clays and
silts. Fine soil materials such as these inhibit permeation of storm waters.
Additionally, the depth to bedrock is very shallow in portions of the Project
Area. The low permeability of the soils and the shallow depth to bedrock within
the Project area also tends to contribute to overland flow. This is evident by the
numerous dendritic drainage channels arranged throughout the Project Area.
Currently, precipitation in the Project area is absorbed into the ground or is
transported via overland flow into the numerous naturally-occurring drainage
channels. These drainage channels typically connect to wetlands or small
intermittent streams in the Project Area.

Impermeable surfaces such as local and county roads also traverse the Project
Area. Along some roads, drainage ditches have been installed to collect storm
water runoff from the road surface and direct it to existing natural drainage
channels, streams, or wetlands. Some roads or road segments in the Project area
lack significant drainage ditches; in this case, stormwater runoff from the road
surface simply flows onto adjacent undeveloped areas next to the road edge.

2.6 WATER QUALITY: IMPACTS

2.6.1 Ground Water

Project operations are not expected to permanently impact shallow ground


water, because the Project will result in only small areas of impervious surface.
The effect on water infiltration and ground water recharge will, therefore, be
minimal.

Based on the ground water conditions encountered during BP Wind Energy’s


geotechnical survey, it is not expected that significant dewatering will be
required during construction of the foundations. However, control of surface
and perched water conditions from precipitation will likely be required to
prevent run-off from entering the site. Perched ground water is likely to be

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 58
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
encountered at the bedrock surface and within sand/silt seams in the native
glaciolacustrine deposit, and a stable subgrade will need to be maintained during
construction.

If encountered, actions will be taken to prevent ground water and surface water
runoff from collecting in the excavation. In this case, ground water entering the
excavation would be pumped out into a mobile container for subsequent
characterization and determination of an appropriate management methodology.

Ground water may be encountered either perched on top of bedrock surface or


while traveling through sand/silt seams during construction of drilled shaft
foundations, if they are utilized. To maintain the integrity of the shaft walls
during drilling, the use of drilling fluid and/or temporary casing may be
required.

The introduction of pollutants to ground water from spills of petroleum and/or


other chemicals during both construction and operation of the Project could
potentially impact water quality. This is discussed in Section 2.4.1, and the
implementation of both construction and operational phase SPCC plans will
minimize spill incidents and maximize control and cleanup of any of these
incidents (see Section 2.6.3). Erosion and sedimentation control measures
specifically proposed to facilitate the protection of ground water resources will
be incorporated into the SWPPP prior to construction. Section 2.6.4 below
outlines erosion control and mitigation measures as well as the BMPs that will be
addressed in the SWPPP.

Residential Wells
Construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning activities associated
with the Project are not expected to affect overburden or bedrock aquifers or
private water supply wells within or near the Project Area. If blasting is
required, a site specific geotechnical survey will be conducted which will help
indicate if any impacts to local ground water wells might result.

2.6.2 Surface Water Impacts

Stream Crossings
The turbine array, access road alignment and collection line alignments in the
proposed Project area were carefully selected and refined during multiple
iterations with the intent of avoiding as many stream crossings as possible. A
multi-year period of identification and assessment of streams within the Project
area was conducted, supporting the final selection of alignments and locations.

Figure 2.6-1 depicts the current Project Layout along with the locations of
NYSDEC mapped streams.

Due to the location of streams in the Project Area, as well as the linear nature of
Project facilities, it is necessary to cross several stream segments protected under
both federal and state regulations. Many of the streams crossed are existing

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 59
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
agricultural ditches that are conservatively assumed by BP Wind Energy to be
Waters of the U.S.

Roads will necessarily result in some impacts to the natural watercourses, due to
the installation of culverts and covering of the streambed with fill in order to
facilitate grade level vehicle crossings. 34.5 kV electrical interconnects may or
may not impact rivers, streams, or wetland segments, depending on the
technology used for achieving the crossing – either via trenching, directionally
drilling, or spanning the waterbody from pole to pole.

Crossings of named waterways within the Project boundaries include:


• Road and interconnect crossing of Fox Creek
• Interconnect only crossing of Fox Creek
• Two interconnect only crossing of Kents Creek

Only the Fox Creek road crossing would result in a permanent impact due to the
installation of a culvert and a permanent gravel access road leading to Turbine
15.

Several alternative construction techniques are under consideration for the three
electrical interconnects only crossings, including:
• conventional cut and cover trenching;
• aboveground poles and wires; and
• horizontal direction drilling.

The final construction method will be determined in concert with the regulatory
agencies with authority for protection of these streams. Factors that will
influence whether horizontal directional drilling will be the selected technique
include the availability of sufficient upland area on either side of the crossing for
insertion/retrieval points as well as the subsurface suitability. Where horizontal
directional drilling is employed, an emergency response plan will be
implemented which will identify specific materials to be on-site during
construction, and specific actions that will be taken in the event of an emergency
during the stream crossings. The primary factor influencing the use of
aboveground poles and wires is the length of the span across the stream, and the
availability of upland areas on either side of the stream to support installation of
permanent poles.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 60
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
³
GIS File: Prepared by: Date: Project No.
Cape Vincent\GIS\projects\streams_waterbodies.mxd M. Jones/S. King 2/8/2011 0092352

2E

Rd
ay1
hw

e
er
ig
eH

si
t

Ro
CANADA Sta 5
d
St Lawrence River
Rd oa
! t R
y
! 85 en nt

Hell St
! em ou
80 ttl C
! ! 87 Se
4 81 86 b
ad ! ! om
Ro ac

k
! 82 83

ee
!
ty M
un

Cr
! 76! 84
C o

ile
70 73 77 !

Fa
!

eM
! Laydown 78

ek

vr
74! Georg

re

et

re
d

sC

Th
75

R
tR ! Lake

d
re !

nt
Cape Vincent v 72
Fa 71
6

Ke
d

!
oa

!
R

68
y

! ! 46 48
nt

! ! 69
ou

! ! 40 41 ! !
45 47
C

28 38 ! 43 ! !
115 kV Transmission ROW
! ! Ro
42 44 Substation ! bin
25 ! 39
Co

St 26 ! Batchplant 65 ! so
n
un

ate ! d Rd

u
!
kR 66 !

Ashland Rd
! Hi 27 ! ! !

Co
ty

! 36
gh c 67
32 33 ! 37 Ro 62 !
Ro

20 21
! wa ! t !
! y1 rn 63
ad

18 !
2E 29 ! 34 ! u 59 !
B
! 22 23 30 ! 60 !
6

35 !

Mi
19 ! 31 55 ! 61

ll e
!
24 56 !

n
49 !

sB
50 ! 52 57!

r
56

ay
!

ive
51
ad

58

tR
Rd
O&M ! 53
Ro

on
! 54
ty

Cr ox
k

m
Batchplant
un

ee
F

au
!
Co

Ch
4 !
! d
7 ! R
5
! 15 ! ! ek
! 6 ! 16 17 C re Legend
1 ! 12 !
! ox
2 ! 13 14 F Proposed Project Boundary Proposed Collection System
8 !
Lake Ontario 9 ! Streams Proposed Access Road
10 !
11 Waterbodies Co-located Access Road and Collection System
k

Chaumont Bay !
ee

Proposed Turbine Permanent Facility


Fo ittle
Cr
x
L

Temporary Facility

115 kV Transmission ROW

1 0.5 0 1 Figure 2.6-1


Miles Streams and Waterbodies Map
Cape Vincent Wind Power Project
BP Wind Energy
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 62
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Where a crossing is accomplished by directional drilling or aboveground
transmission lines, no significant impacts to the water quality of navigable
streams is expected as a result of construction or operation of the Project. For the
many smaller, intermittent and non-navigable stream crossings across the Project
Area, primarily agricultural ditches in active agricultural fields, appropriately
sized culverts will be used to maintain sufficient flow at the locations where
access roads are proposed. For collection line installation crossing these streams,
the same construction technique evaluation will be performed to determine the
most appropriate technique to minimize impacts to these linear features. In most
locations, it is anticipated that conventional cut and cover trenching will be
employed within these active agricultural fields.

Road and electrical interconnect crossings of streams may also require selective
clearing of trees and tree limbs in the area adjacent to these streams. BP Wind
Energy is consulting with the USACE and the DEC to determine the appropriate
mitigation measures where clearing of riparian vegetation is required. These
mitigation measures will be described in detail in the Section 404 Permit
Application for the Project.

A detailed SWPPP will be developed and incorporated into Project documents to


identify BMPs to prevent sediment runoff from work sites. Potential indirect
impacts that may result from construction activities include increased
sedimentation and turbidity caused by increased surface runoff from work areas.
Appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., silt fences and/or straw bales) will be
used to reduce sediment runoff from work sites. These practices will be fully
developed and presented in the SWPPP.

Installation of the cables for the Project on the St. Lawrence towers will require
crossing the Chaumont River. No impacts to water quality are anticipated to
result from this aerial crossing due to the lack of ground disturbance required to
attach the wire to existing poles. This aerial crossing utilizing existing utility
poles would require a Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act permit to be issued by
the USACE.

2.6.3 Stormwater

Tower sites have been designed to avoid impacting surface water or drainage
channels and minimize impacts where avoidance was not practicable. Several
access roads and interconnects will cross drainage ditches within agricultural
fields. Crossing of these ditches would be accomplished with the installation of
an appropriately-sized culvert to maintain the intermittent flows carried by these
ditches. In addition, the access roads and turbine sites will be gravel-based,
which will allow stormwater to continue to percolate into the soil.

Impacts on stormwater within the Project area are anticipated to be minor in


nature and limited to the temporary construction phase of the Project.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 63
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Prior to construction, BP Wind Energy will submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to
NYSDEC for an SPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges for
Construction Activities and develop a SWPPP. The SWPPP will include several
components that will address erosion control measures, storm water pollution
prevention, chemical handling and spill prevention. Control measures will
include a description of the BMPs to be incorporated in the project construction
phase. During construction, appropriate erosion control measures and BMPs
(e.g., silt fences and/or straw bales) will be used to limit the area of impact and
to provide control of sediments carried in stormwater before discharging to any
surface water.

2.6.4 Mitigation Measures

All BMPs used on the Project to prevent adverse impacts to water quality will be
described in the SWPPP and will conform to the most current version of the
technical standard, New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and
Sediment Control. The structural BMPs (eg, silt fencing or hay bales) will be
installed and maintained during the construction of the entire Project in order to
prevent pollutants from reaching surface waters and wetlands.

Excavation and grading will be performed in such a manner that the site will be
effectively drained. Existing drainage patterns are not anticipated to be
significantly altered. Dewatering may be required in discrete locations and
appropriate measures to provide treatment to this water will be implemented as
necessary. They may include the use of sedimentation basins or other temporary
water treatment structures during construction.

Minimization of Impacts
Microadjustments were made to many access roads or collection lines, in order to
avoid streams and ponds altogether and to cross streams at a narrow point, in
order to minimize temporary and permanent impacts to Waters of the US which
will need to be covered in the USACE Section 404 permit for the site. These
adjustments are documented in Table 2.8-3.

Directional drilling or aboveground transmission lines will be used to conduct


34.5 kV lines across some Project area rivers and streams with no direct impact to
the waterbody.

Erosion and Drainage Control


The potential for erosion at a construction site is determined by the existing soil,
slope, rainfall, and planned construction methods. Erosion and sedimentation
can be controlled effectively if certain principles are followed in the use and
treatment of the construction area. Basic principles include leaving any trenched
or stockpiles material exposed for the shortest time possible; reducing runoff
velocity and directing runoff; detaining runoff and trapping sediment; and
releasing runoff safely to existing storm drains. These principles will be applied
to the Project construction areas.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 64
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Erosion control practices, which will be followed for the duration of the Project,
will also include construction practices designed to minimize the potential for
erosion and runoff, including:
• limiting the footprint for disturbance to the minimum amount needed,
• appropriate construction sequencing,
• minimizing the time period that excavated areas will be left exposed, and
• grading only immediately prior to construction.

During excavation of the turbine site, materials that are temporarily stockpiled
will be protected from erosion through the use of temporary measures, such as
straw bales and/or silt fencing. As needed, disturbed areas will be protected
with mulch, in order to reduce runoff and allow water to infiltrate into the soil.
This will also help to hold seed in place and reduce seedling damage from soil
heaving caused by freezing and thawing. Stockpiles left out in the open for
more than 7 days will be sprayed with water or covered and staked.

In areas where construction is immediately adjacent to trees, and there is a high


potential for damage to the vegetation, temporary fencing will be erected parallel
to the trenching operation so as to reduce the possibility of accidental damage to
trees due to construction equipment. Generally, the construction route was
designed to cross existing agricultural fields as much as possible to minimize
trimming and removal of tress and shrubs; however, some tree trimming may be
required. In those areas where vegetation clearing is necessary, the ROW will be
clearly flagged so that only those trees within the established corridor will be
cleared. Cleared vegetation will be disposed of by chipping and hauling off site
for disposal and disturbance of the soil will be minimized to prevent the
transport of sediments to nearby surface waters.

To the extent possible, construction activities will avoid damage to existing grass
and other ground cover. Construction and ancillary activities will be confined to
the smallest possible area required for Project construction. Stockpiling of debris
and construction materials or storing of equipment on unpaved areas will be
permitted only in predetermined areas.

Trench breakers or plugs will be installed in the electrical interconnect trenches


to prevent hydrologic alteration to streams and wetlands and to prevent
excessive water conductance by the trench on slopes.

Chemical Handling and Spill Prevention


Chemical handling and spill prevention practices detailed in Section 2.4.3 will
reduce the probability of contamination of ground water or surface water due to
leaks or spills during either construction or operation of the Project.

2.6.5 Site Restoration

Section 2.4.5 details topsoil preservation and restoration, as well as revegetation


practices, which will serve to stabilize disturbed areas at the site and reduce the

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 65
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
potential for contaminated runoff from impacting local surface water bodies or
ground water resources.

2.7 WETLANDS: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The USACE and the USEPA define wetlands as “those areas that are inundated
or saturated with ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions” (33 Code of
Federal Regulations [CFR] 28). Wetlands play an important role in maintaining
environmental quality because of the diverse biologic and hydrologic functions
they perform. These functions include, but are not limited to, water quality
improvement, ground water recharge, sediment and toxicant retention, nutrient
cycling, plant and animal habitat, and floodwater attenuation and storage.
Because of their importance, wetlands are protected from alteration or
destruction by federal and state regulations. Wetlands are protected at the
federal level as a subset of the “Waters of the United States” under Sections 401
and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Freshwater wetlands are protected at the
state level by the NYSDEC under Article 24 of the ECL, which establishes the
Freshwater Wetlands Act (FWA). The FWA protects those wetlands larger than
12.4 acres (5 hectares) in size, and certain smaller wetlands of unusual local
importance. Wetlands adjacent to state-defined navigable waters are also
protected under Article 15 of the ECL.

2.7.1 Methodology

Desktop Wetland Assessment


The desktop wetland assessment involved review of National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) maps, which show the approximate locations and boundaries
of federally-mapped Waters of the US, which includes wetlands, and NYSDEC
wetland maps, which show all state-regulated wetlands (i.e., wetlands over 12.4
acres in size and other wetlands of unusual importance, including those adjacent
to navigable waters). These maps do not indicate all wetlands within the Project
boundary or depict accurate wetland boundaries. Rather, they approximate the
likely location and extent of wetlands within the Project boundary.

In addition, wetland ecologists reviewed color infrared aerial photography, the


New York State Hydric Soils List, the National Soil Survey, and topographic
maps to identify other potential wetland areas that were not identified on the
NWI and NYSDEC maps.

Field Reconnaissance
During the preliminary planning of the project, wetland ecologists conducted a
field reconnaissance of mapped NWI and NYSDEC wetlands and other potential
wetland areas identified in the desktop assessment from 8 to 17 October 2007.
All mapped and potential wetland areas identified during the desktop
assessment and other areas encountered in the field that exhibited wetland
characteristics within site boundaries were evaluated to determine the presence

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 66
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
of the three regulatory wetland parameters: wetland vegetation, hydric soils, and
wetland hydrology. In accordance with state and federal wetland guidance, all
three parameters must be present under normal environmental circumstances for
an area to be characterized as a wetland. While in the field, ecologists recorded
the field observations and approximate wetland boundaries on aerial
photographs for later transfer to Geographic Information System format.

Wetland ecologists returned to the field in 2008 and identified additional


potential wetland areas where the array alignment was under development. As
the array was further refined and the alignment of access roads and collection
lines were identified, two final field events were conducted 14 through 20 July
2010, 04 through 21 October 2010, and 8 through 17 November 2010 to delineate
jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (which includes wetlands) and state-
jurisdictional resource areas, including freshwater wetlands and navigable
waters. Wetlands were flagged in the field and the points were located using
Global Positioning System units with either sub-meter accuracy or with sub-foot
accuracy, depending on the unit employed during a particular delineation event.

2.7.2 Results

Desktop Assessment
The Project boundary contains approximately 1,610 acres of lands and waters
that are mapped by NWI or NYSDEC as wetland (12.1 percent of total area
within the Project boundary) (Figure 2.7-1).

The NWI and NYSDEC use separate classification systems to categorize


wetlands. The major NWI categories mapped within the Project boundary
include Freshwater Emergent, Freshwater Forested/Shrub, and Freshwater
Ponds (Figure 2.7-1). The NYSDEC classifies wetlands into four classes (Class I,
II, III, IV), with Class I wetlands being the highest quality and each subsequent
wetland class, II through IV, decreasing in overall quality and ecological value.
No Class I wetlands occur within the Project boundary. Class II wetlands are the
dominant class of NYSDEC-mapped wetlands within the Project boundary and
occupy approximately 686.4 acres, or 5.2 percent of the total Project area. Class
III and IV wetlands occupy approximately 103.4 acres (0.8 percent) and 9.8 acres
(0.1 percent) of the total Project area, respectively (Figure 2.7-1).

Field Reconnaissance
The field reconnaissance confirmed that most of the areas identified in the
desktop assessment are wetlands, although the boundaries of the wetlands were
often different than that depicted on the NWI or NYSDEC maps. In addition, the
field reconnaissance identified several wetlands that are not depicted on the
NWI or NYSDEC maps, which are typically used for planning level purposes
only. The field reconnaissance confirmed the presence of approximately 1,610
acres of wetlands occurring within the Project boundary.

Wetlands and waters on the site cover four major categories: palustrine
emergent, palustrine scrub/shrub, palustrine forested, and open water (Table

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 67
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
2.7-1 and Figure 2.7-1). Federal- and state-jurisdictional streams identified in the
Project area are discussed further in Section 2.5.2. Table 2.7-2 lists the common
vegetation species found within wetlands in the Project area.

TABLE 2.7-1: Wetland Types Within the Cape Vincent Project Boundary

Percent of
Total Percent of Project
Wetland Type Area (acres) Wetlands Area (14,516.45 acres)
Palustrine Emergent 137.7 8.6% 1.0%
Palustrine Scrub/Shrub 192.8 12.0% 1.4%
Palustrine Forested 1,248.4 77.5% 9.4%
Open Water 31.2 1.9% 0.2%
Total 1,610.1 100% 12.1%

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 68
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
³
GIS File: Prepared by: Date: Project No.
G:\Graphics\Clients\BP\BP-Cape Vincent\MXD\EIS\WetlandResourceArea_SK_11x17.mxd M. Jones/S. King 2/8/2011 0092352
E
12

Rd
ay
hw

re
ig

sie
H 5

Ro
e
at 85 d
St ! oa

d
R

tR
80 y
nt

en
!
87 ou

m
Hell St
C

tle
!

et
81 86 S
! !
o mb
ac
82 83 M
! !
NYS: ST-11 76 84
Favret Rd ! !
73 77
! !
78
74 !
70 !
! Laydown
75
!

72
71 !
!
Co

4
d
oa
un t

yR

d
nt 68
y

dR
ou
Ro

46 !
! C

lan
ad

St
ate

h
40 41
6

As
H igh ! ! 47 69
6 28 38 43 ! 48 !
d wa ! !
oa y1 !
39 42 !
44
2E
R

25 !
! ! 45 115 kV Transmission ROW
y

! ! Ro
unt

26 65 bin
! ! s
Co

Substation 66 on
27 36 !
R d
! Batchplant !
21 32 33 37 62 67
NYS: V-2 20 ! !
!
! ! ! !
34 63
18 29 ! 59 !
! 23 ! !
22 ! 30 35 60
! NYS: V-3
! R! d !
19 31 61
ck 55

79
!
! !
Ro !

d1
24 t 56
! rn 49 !
Bu

oa
NYS: V-2 !
57

yR
50 !
!

nt
u
51

Co
Mil
! 52 58
!

len
!

s
O&M 53

Ba
!

yR
54
!

d
Batchplant
4
!
7

Ro ad 8
NYS: V-6 5 !
! 15
! d
NYS: V-6
56 16 R
6 d 17 k Co
oa ! ! ee

Coun ty
1
!
yR 12 Cr 5
nt x
!
ou
!
13 Fo 12
d
!
2 C !
!
14
R oa
8 57 ty
! d un
9 R oa C o
!
NYS: V-8
10 ty
! un St
11 Co ate
! Hi
gh
NYS: V-8 w ay
1 2E

Aerial Source: USDA NAIP 2006

5,000 2,500 0 5,000 Legend Figure 2.7-1


Feet
Proposed Project Boundary NWI Wetland Classification ! Proposed Turbine 115 kV Transmission ROW
Wetland Resource Area
Boundary Assessment
NYSDEC Wetland Classification Freshwater Emergent Wetland Proposed Collection System Field Verified Wetland Cape Vincent Wind Power Project
Class 2 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Proposed Access Road BP Wind Energy
Class 3 Freshwater Pond Co-located Access Road and Collection System
Other Permanent Facility

Temporary Facility
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 70
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
TABLE 2.7-2: Common Vegetation Species Found in Cape Vincent Project Boundary

Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Type*


Acalypha virginica Three-seeded Mercury PEM
Acer rubrum Red Maple PFO
Acer saccharinum Silver Maple PFO
Agrostis perennans Autumn Bent PSS
Alisma triviale Water-plantain PEM
Alnus incana Speckled Alder PSS
Anemone canadensis Canada Anemone PEM
Anemone virginiana Thimbleweed PFO
Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed PSS
Aster lanceolatus Tall white aster PSS, PEM
Aster lateriflorus Michaelman’s daisy aster PSS. PEM
Aster novae-angliae New England Aster PEM
Aster umbellatus Flat-topped Aster PEM
Betula populifolia Gray Birch PSS
Bidens connata Beggar-ticks PSS, PEM
Boehmeria cylindrica False-nettle PFO
Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint Grass PSS, PEM
Carex crinita Fringed Sedge PSS, PEM
Carex cristatella Small-crested Sedge PSS, PEM
Carex intumescens Bladder Sedge PFO
Carex lacustris Lake Sedge PFO
Carex lupulina Hop Sedge PFO
Carex lurida Shining Sedge PSS, PEM
Carex normalis Right-angled sedge PFO
Carex pellita Wooly Sedge PEM
Carex projecta Spreading Sedge PFO, PEM
Carex rostrata Beaked Sedge PEM
Carex scoparia Broom Sedge PEM
Carex tuckermanii Tuckerman's Sedge PSS, PEM
Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge PSS, PEM
Chrysosplenium americanum Golden Saxifrage PFO
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood PSS
Cornus racemosa Gray Dogwood PFO, PSS
Cornus sericea Red-Osier Dogwood PFO, PSS
Cuscuta sp. Dodder PEM
Cyperus esculentus Yellow Nut-grass PEM
Cyperus strigosus Umbrella sedge PEM
Dulichium arundinaceum Three-way Sedge PEM
Eleocharis obtusa Blunt Spikerush PEM
Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild-rye PEM
Epilobium coloratum Purple Leaved Willow Herb PEM
Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail PFO, PEM
Eupatorium maculatum Joe-pye Weed PSS. PEM
Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset PSS, PEM
Euthamia graminifolia Grass-leaved Goldenrod PSS, PEM
Galium palustre Ditch Bedstraw PEM

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 71
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Type*
Glyceria striata Fowl Mannagrass PFO, PSS, PEM
Ilex verticillata Winterberry Holly PFO, PSS
Juncus articulatus Jointed Rush PEM
Juncus dudleyi Dudley's Rush PEM
Juncus effusus Soft Rush PSS, PEM
Leersia oryzoides Rice Cutgrass PEM
Lemna minor Duckweed PEM
Ludwigia palustris Water Purslane PEM
Lycopus americanus Bugle-weed PEM
Lysimachia nummularia Moneywort PFO
Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife PEM
Mentha arvensis Field Mint PEM
Mimulus ringens Common Monkeyflower PEM
Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern PFO, PSS
Osmunda regalis Royal Fern PFO
Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass PSS, PEM
Poa palustris Fowl Bluegrass PSS, PEM
Polygonum sagittatum Arrow-leaved Tearthumb PEM
Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry PFO
Rorippa sylvestris Creeping Yellow-cress PEM
Rubus idaeus Red Raspberry PFO, PSS
Rubus pubescens Dwarf Raspberry PFO, PSS
Rumex verticillatus Swamp Dock PEM
Salix amygdaloides Peach-leaf Willow PSS
Salix bebbiana Bebb's Willow PSS
Salix discolor Pussy Willow PSS
Salix petiolaris Slender Willow PSS
Salix x rubens Willow PSS
Scirpus atrovirens Bulrush PEM
Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass PEM
Scirpus tabernaemontani Soft-stem Bulrush PEM
Sium suave Water Parsnip PEM
Solanum dulcamara Deadly Nightshade PSS
Solidago gigantea Tall Goldenrod PSS, PEM
Solidago rugosa Rough Goldenrod PSS, PEM
Spiraea alba Meadowsweet PFO
Typha angustifolia Narrow leaved Catttail PEM
Typha latifolia Common Cattail PEM
Ulmus americana American Elm PFO
Urtica dioica Stinging Nettle PSS
Verbena hastata Blue Vervain PEM
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood PSS
Viburnum lentago Nannyberry PSS
Vitis riparia Riverbank Grape PFO
* PEM = Palustrine Emergent
PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub
PFO = Palustrine Forested

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 72
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Palustrine Emergent Wetlands
Palustrine emergent wetlands are
dominated by erect, rooted,
herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding
mosses and lichens28. Palustrine
emergent wetlands account for
approximately 137.7 acres, or 8.6
percent, of the total wetlands
within the Project boundary. The
vegetative composition of these
wetlands is dominated by soft rush
(Juncus effusus), the sedges Carex
atherodes and C. lacustris, and wool
grass (Scirpus cyperinus). Many
emergent wetlands within the
Project area are associated with
drainage ditches that cross active Typical Emergent Wetland, Cape Vincent, NY
agricultural fields and also have a
predominance of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea).

The dominant soils were clay and silty loams with occasional areas of shallow
bedrock. Soils exhibited low chroma and hue and contained common distinct
mottling and occasional gley throughout the first 18 inches. Many of the
emergent wetlands in the footprint of the Project are existing drainage ditches
that carry intermittent flow during and following precipitation events and
during snow melt periods.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
28

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79-31. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC. 103 pp.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 73
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands
Palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands are
dominated by woody vegetation
(shrubs and small trees) less than
six meters (20 feet) tall. 29 The scrub-
shrub wetlands occupy
approximately 192.8 acres, or 12.0
percent, of the total wetlands within
the Project boundary. These
wetlands are located throughout the
Project area, with the larger areas in
the southwest quadrant of the
Project area (Figure 2.7-1). These
wetlands are dominated by broad-
leafed deciduous vegetation
including gray dogwood (Cornus
racemosa), slender willow (Salix
petiolaris), meadowsweet (Spirea alba),
Typical Scrub-Shrub Wetland, Cape Vincent, NY
and pussy willow (Salix discolor).

Many of the scrub-shrub wetlands delineated along the Project footprint are
linear drainage features across active agricultural fields. The drainage features
carry intermittent flow, but experience sufficient hydrology to prevent active
agricultural use, which has allowed the successful growth of woody species.

Palustrine Forested Wetlands


Palustrine forested wetlands are
dominated by trees that are six
meters (20 feet) tall or taller.30
Palustrine forested wetlands account
for approximately 1,248.4 acres, or
77.5 percent, of the wetlands within
the Project boundary. They occur
primarily along the northeastern edge
of the Project area with small pockets
interspersed throughout the
remainder of the Project area (Figure
2.7-1). The dominant canopy species
are silver maple (Acer saccharinum)
and red maple (A. rubrum).
Understory species include gray
dogwood (Cornus racemosa), the
sedges Carex lacustris and C.
tuckermanii and sensitive fern
Typical Forested Wetland (note watermark and
(Onoclea sensibilis). buttressed roots), Cape Vincent, NY

29 Cowardin et al., 1979.


30 Cowardin et al., 1979.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 74
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
There were signs of surface hydrology throughout the forested wetlands
including watermarks and buttressed tree roots (see above photograph).
Watermarks are listed as a primary indicator of wetland hydrology in the
USACE Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region 31 Some deciduous forested wetland
areas were lacking leaf litter, suggesting strong water flow through the wet
areas.

Open Water
The field reconnaissance identified
open water as approximately 31.2
acres, or 1.9 percent, of the total
wetlands within the Project area.
These areas were typically
associated with small ponds in
active farm fields, hayfields, and
reverting hayfields. Open water
wetlands also include sinkhole
wetlands, which are formed by
depressions or sinkholes in the
underlying karst topography
(limestone). A sinkhole wetland
occurs in the Alvar community
along the northeastern edge of the
Project boundary (See Section 2.9
for a description of the Alvar
Typical Open Water Wetland, Cape Vincent, NY
community).

2.8 WETLANDS: IMPACTS

2.8.1 Project Components

The configuration for the proposed wind turbine array has been substantially
influenced by the presence of wetlands within the Project boundary. In
particular, the planning-level field reconnaissance events in 2007 and 2008 were
conducted to identify the approximate location of wetlands within the Project
boundary with the intention of avoiding large wetland crossings for the
installation, operation, and maintenance of the Project components. Siting of the
following project components was based, in part, on the location of existing
wetland resource areas:

31

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (October, 2009), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W.
Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-09-19. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 75
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
• individual turbine locations;
• electrical substation;
• temporary construction staging areas;
• temporary batch concrete plant; and
• permanent operations and maintenance facilities.

All of these Project components have been located within upland areas based on
the multiple wetland field reconnaissance events. This avoidance exercise was
also applied to the temporary and permanent access roads and collection lines,
which have been routed to avoid wetland crossings to the maximum extent
practicable.

Access roads and collection lines to/from the turbines will result in temporary
and permanent impacts to wetlands. As a general rule, avoidance of forested
wetlands was prioritized, followed by avoidance of scrub-shrub wetlands and
lastly emergent wetlands. In most locations, the crossings are proposed within
the narrowest portion of the wetland to minimize impacts to the maximum
extent practicable. Although forested wetlands represent the largest type of
wetland (by acreage) in the Project area, crossings of this type of wetland were
reduced to a single permanent impact area of less than 500 square feet as detailed
in the sections below.

Where feasible, the access road and collection lines are co-located to result in a
single crossing of a particular wetland; however, there are collection line
crossings that are independent of the access roads. These independent collection
line crossings occur where the collection lines require a more direct route to the
substation or associated feeder line to avoid power losses within the system that
would reduce the overall efficiency of the project. The following alternatives for
the construction of these independent (not co-located with an access road)
collection lines were evaluated to provide flexibility in achieving the goal of the
project to convey power to the substation, while reducing the wetland impacts as
much as possible:
• traditional cut and cover trenching;
• aboveground poles and wires; and
• horizontal directional drilling.

A combination of these three techniques will be evaluated for the installation of


the collection lines across wetlands depending on the size of a particular
crossing. For a longer crossing of a scrub-shrub or forested wetland that has
upland access on either side with a crossing length that is commensurate with an
appropriate span between two aboveground poles, then the aboveground pole
and wire option may be a preferable option for this type of crossing. For long
wetland crossings, particularly those containing scrub-shrub or forested
wetlands, or those crossings that are in particularly sensitive areas, if available
staging and spoils areas are located in adjacent uplands, then an underground

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 76
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
crossing using horizontal directional drilling of the wetland may be considered a
viable alternative to traditional trenching or aboveground poles and wires.

The 115 kV transmission line will be co-located with St. Lawrence Wind Farm
Project utility ROW. This utility ROW co-location was a recommendation by
NYSDEC in an effort to minimize impacts to sensitive wetland and water
resource areas and BP Wind Energy is actively working to finalize an agreement
with the St. Lawrence Wind Farm Project proponent to achieve this goal. Co-
location of the transmission lines minimizes potential wetland crossings along
the transmission line ROW, and also reduces the crossings of the Chaumont
River from two to one. Under this agreement, both projects will cross this river
using the same aboveground poles to reduce the amount of disturbance along
the edge of this river and reduce the number of aerial crossings of transmission
wires. The impacts associated with the ground disturbance have been evaluated
and permitted under the St. Lawrence Wind Farm Project. Despite the co-
location with the St. Lawrence Wind project transmission lines, the aerial
crossing of the Chaumont River for the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project will be
subject to an individual permit under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

The route from the Project substation to the interconnect with the St. Lawrence
Wind project transmission line will follow an aboveground route along Burnt
Rock Road for a distance of 1,730 feet. No wetlands will be impacted by this
short section of aboveground transmission ROW.

Although the Project components will result in minor temporary and permanent
impacts to regulated wetland resource areas, the impacts have been minimized
to the maximum extent practicable. Large permanent wetland crossings, in
particular crossings of scrub-shrub and forested wetlands, have been avoided
across the Project area; however, several unavoidable wetland crossings are
anticipated. As discussed below, mitigation will be provided for all wetland
impacts resulting from the Project.

For all temporary and permanent wetland impacts, BP Wind Energy will obtain
the necessary permits from Jefferson County, NYSDEC, and the USACE and
comply with all applicable and appropriate wetland establishment, restoration,
and monitoring requirements.

2.8.2 Permanent Wetland Impacts

Permanent wetland impacts are anticipated to result from the installation of


several access roads leading to turbines located in upland areas. The current
alignment will result in a single permanent crossing of a state-jurisdictional
freshwater emergent/ scrub-shrub wetland (Class II U-6) and will result in a
single permanent crossing of a forested wetland (CJ-PFO). Most of the
remaining permanent access roads have been routed across existing agricultural
fields and the wetland crossings are primarily emergent wetlands that act as
drainage ditches within this agricultural setting.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 77
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
The minimum permanent access road required for long-term operation and
maintenance of the turbines is 16 feet wide to accommodate typical operation
and maintenance vehicles. Slightly larger widths may be required at locations
where the road turns and a specific radius is required to accommodate the long-
bed trailers needed for hauling turbine and tower components. An approximate
number of crossings anticipated to be required for the access roads is included in
Table 2.8-1.

Intersection improvements along roadways leading to and through the Project


area also have the potential to temporarily impact wetland resource areas. In all
locations, the wetlands are located within drainage swales along an existing
roadway and modified culverts will be required to maintain stormwater flow
during construction.

These numbers are preliminary and will be refined during the permitting phase
of the project. As noted above, many of the emergent wetlands within the
Project footprint are drainage ditches which traverse active agricultural fields.

TABLE 2.8-1: Permanent Wetland Impacts of the Cape Vincent Project

Wetland Type* Number of Area Impacted


Crossings (acres)
Access Roads
Palustrine 34 0.85
Emergent
Palustrine 3 0.04
Scrub-Shrub
Palustrine 1 0.01**
Forested
Subtotal 38 0.90
Transportation/Intersection Improvements
Palustrine 4 0.17
Emergent
Subtotal 4 0.17
Total 42 1.07

*Wetland types are based on the Cowardin classification system applied to field-delineated
wetlands.
**See Table 2.8-2 for additional temporary vegetation clearing in forested wetlands that will be
included as permanent conversion for the purposes of sizing the wetland mitigation area and
identifying the functions and services/values to be replaced.

The 115 kV transmission line is not anticipated to result in any permanent


impacts to vegetated wetlands; however, as discussed earlier in the Surface
Water section of this SDEIS but reiterated in this Wetlands section, the aerial
crossing of the 115 kV transmission line over the Chaumont River south of the
primary Project area will be accomplished by attaching the wire to existing utility
poles on either side of the river. The impacts for the installation of the poles will
be permitted under a Joint Application submitted for the St. Lawrence Wind
Farm Project. The exact location of the poles and the potential for any wetland

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 78
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
impacts due to pole installation were not available at the time of this document
preparation, but will be included in all wetland permit applications for this
Project. The permanent impact will be limited to the presence of the wire above
the Chaumont River and adjacent wetlands, with no additional ground
disturbance anticipated to be required for this Project.

2.8.3 Temporary Wetland Impacts

Temporary wetland impacts are anticipated to result from the installation of


temporary access roads, as well as the installation of several of the collection
lines and the 115 kV transmission line extending from the proposed substation to
the Lyme substation. Figure 2.8-1 depicts the delineated wetlands that will be
crossed both temporarily and permanently by the 2010 Project Layout.
Temporary access roads will be located along the same alignment as the
permanent access roads. The 16-foot wide permanent access roads will be
expanded during the construction phase to a width of 36 feet to accommodate
the large equipment and vehicles required for turbine construction. At
curves/turns in the roadway, this width will be extended to accommodate the
specific radius required for the longbed trailers needed to haul turbine and tower
components.

At locations where a culvert is required to maintain flow within mostly


agricultural drainage ditches, the culvert will extend 60 feet in length during the
construction phase.

The use of traditional cut and cover trenching for the installation of the collection
lines will result in an approximately 12-foot wide area of temporary vegetation
clearing. Where possible, woody species will be cut at the base, leaving the roots
intact to allow natural regeneration once construction is complete. For species
that typically do not exhibit the potential for re-sprouting after cutting,
additional native woody species will be planted. Only those individual plants
with an extensive root system within the direct footprint of the trench will be
stumped. Within this 12-foot wide corridor, an approximately 4-foot wide trench
will be cut and the spoils will be temporarily placed to the side of the trench.
Topsoil will be separated from subsoils to allow the proper order of soil
replacement following collection line installation, with topsoil placed at the
surface to facilitate revegetation of the area through the natural root and seed
stock present. In the locations where the collection lines will be co-located with
the access roads, there will be a potential for overlapping the collection line
corridor with the temporary road corridor, thus reducing the impact area. For
the purposes of preliminary estimates of wetland impacts presented in Table 2.8-
2, the two corridors were conservatively assumed to be adjacent and not
overlapping; however, these quantified impacts will be refined during the
permitting phase of the project.

Wetlands disturbed for trench excavation would be seeded with an appropriate


native seed mixture and mulched. Depending on the time of year of
construction, emergent areas would be expected to revegetate within several

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 79
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
months to one year. Similarly, ground cover would be expected to establish
within scrub-shrub and forested areas within one year with more substantial
woody growth continuing for several growing seasons following completion of
construction.

Additional potential for temporary impacts exists for pole and wire installation
of the collection line to span over wetlands where horizontal directional drilling
is not feasible and trenching is not preferred. If a wetland crossing is too long to
accomplish with an aboveground pole on either side of the wetland, then poles
may be required within the wetland to avoid exceeding the maximum spanning
capability of the wires. In these locations, a temporary swamp mat access road
will be required through the wetland to allow an auger truck to reach the pole
location. The use of swamp mats will avoid substantial disturbance of soil in the
wetland and will maintain the woody base and emergent vegetation seed stock.
The mats will be in place the minimum time required to accomplish the pole
installation.
TABLE 2.8-2: Temporary Wetland Impacts of the Cape Vincent Project

Wetland Number of Area Impacted


Type* Crossings (acre)
Access Road and Co-Located Collection Line
Palustrine 34 1.81
Emergent
Palustrine 3 0.08
Scrub-Shrub
Palustrine 1 0.02**
Forested
Subtotal 38 1.91
Independent Collection Line
Palustrine 14 0.28
Emergent
Palustrine 5 0.33
Scrub-Shrub
Palustrine 4 0.32**
Forested
Subtotal 27 0.93
Total 65 2.84
*Wetland types are based on the Cowardin classification system applied to field-delineated
wetlands.
**Impacts to forested wetlands for temporary vegetation clearing will be included in the permanent
impact calculation when determining the size of the wetland mitigation area and the functions and
value/services to be replaced.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 80
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
³
GIS File: Prepared by: Date: Project No.
G:\Graphics\Clients\BP\BP-Cape Vincent\MXD\EIS\ImpactedWetlands_8-5x11.mxd M. Jones/S. King 2/8/2011 0092352
EU 34 !

Ro
BX/BY 29
! 59
8 ! St 29 ! 28B !

nty
23 at e 28A
BW 22 ! 60

u
! Hig ! 35 CC-Access !

Co
h BM ! 30 BL
19 wa 31 61
! y 12 69 ! 55 !
BV E
k Rd !
56 CC-Coll
24
! oc 49 !
tR ! CP
TC-TRANS rn
Bu CC-Joint 57
!
!
50
Co

51
BQ !
u

EC ! 58
nty

52 !
Ro

ED
ad

O&M 53

5
!

ad
6

Ro
54
!

56

nty
BT Batchplant

ad

u
Co
Ro
4

ty
BS ! o un
7 BO C
5 !
! BR CG 15
CM ! CF
EE ! 16
17 Rd
CH ! k
6! ee
1 CJ-PEM Cr
x
! ! CJ-PFO Fo
2 CN 12 ! 13 14
! CK !
8
!
67 9
! BZ

! 10 18 57
ad
! 11 Ro
ty
un
Co Aerial Source: USDA NAIP 2006

Map
1 of 3
3
2

1
0.5 0.25 0 0.5 Legend Figure 2.8-1
Miles Proposed Project Boundary Proposed Collection System Temporary Facility Delineated Wetland Crossings
! Proposed Turbine Proposed Access Road 115 kV Transmission ROW
of the 2010 Project Layout
Cape Vincent Wind Power Project
Co-located Access Road Delineated Wetland BP Alternative Energy
and Collection System
BM
Permanent Facility
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 82
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
³
GIS File: Prepared by: Date: Project No.

lens
G:\Graphics\Clients\BP\BP-Cape Vincent\MXD\EIS\ImpactedWetlands_8-5x11.mxd M. Jones/S. King 2/8/2011 0092352

Ba
2E
a y1
hw
53
76

ig
H !
te 4
53CE
ta
S ad O 7
Ro 73 ! !
y
u nt M
Co N
J

Hell St
74
70 ! K 7

Fa
! BG

vr
RS

et
d !
tR Laydown EB

Rd
75
v re
Fa P
71
72 ! BC
!
BA/BB

68 BF
46 !
!
BD
CD BE
40 41
! ! 69
38 47 !
28 ! 43 ! 48
! ! ! BE-TRANS
42 44
39 !
25 ! ! 45 115 kV Transmission ROW
! ! CA
26
! d Substation ! CB
9 BK kR
TB-TRANS 27
36 R oc 65
! 66
Sta !
te
Batchplant 16 BJ ! rnt 67
21 Hig 32 14
BI Bu 43 !
20 !
! ! hw
ay
! 33 BH ! 62 !
12 EU 34 37 63
BX/BY E 29 !
! 59 Aerial Source: USDA NAIP 2006
18 ! 22
23 29 ! 28A 28B ! 60
BW ! CC-Access
! BM ! 30 ! 35 !
19 31
BL 61 Map
! 69 ! 55 !
! 2 of 3
BV
!
24
49
! CP
!
56 CC-Coll
3
TC-TRANS
Co

57
CC-Joint ! 2
u

!
nty

50
Ro

51
56

!
ad

BQ
EC ! 58
ad

52 !
1
6

Ro

ED
nty

O&M 53
u

!
Co

0.5 0.25 0 0.5 Legend Figure 2.8-1


Miles Proposed Project Boundary Proposed Collection System Temporary Facility Delineated Wetland Crossings
! Proposed Turbine Proposed Access Road 115 kV Transmission ROW
of the 2010 Project Layout
Cape Vincent Wind Power Project
Co-located Access Road Delineated Wetland BP Alternative Energy
and Collection System
BM
Permanent Facility
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 84
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
³
GIS File: Prepared by: Date: Project No.
G:\Graphics\Clients\BP\BP-Cape Vincent\MXD\EIS\ImpactedWetlands_8-5x11.mxd M. Jones/S. King 2/8/2011 0092352

E
12
ay

Rd
hw
Hig

e
ier
te
Sta

s
Ro

d
tR
Hell St

en
85

me
!

ttl
Se
b
TA-TRANS 80

om
!

ac
87

M
!
B
81 86 A
! !
C
G
! 82 ! 83
53 59
76
Favret Rd 53CE ! E F !
4
d
oa O 77 H 84
R 73 ! !
ty
un M
3738
Co N
J !
74
70 ! K 78
Fa

! BG
vr

RS
et

Laydown EB !
Rd

75
P
71
72 ! BC
!
BA/BB

5
Aerial Source: USDA NAIP 2006

ad
68 BF

Ro
Rd
46 ! Map

nty
nd
!
3 of 3

hl a

u
BD

Co
BE
3

Mil
As
41
d

len
47 c kR !
69

sB
43 ! 48 Ro
! !
urn
t BE-TRANS 2

ay
2 44 B Ro

Rd
! 45 b ins
CA 115 kV Transmission ROW on
! Rd

BK
Substation
65
! CB
1
36 ! 66
BJ ! BI 67
43
0.5 0.25 0 0.5 Legend Figure 2.8-1
Miles Proposed Project Boundary Proposed Collection System Temporary Facility Delineated Wetland Crossings
! Proposed Turbine Proposed Access Road 115 kV Transmission ROW
of the 2010 Project Layout
Cape Vincent Wind Power Project
Co-located Access Road Delineated Wetland BP Alternative Energy
and Collection System
BM
Permanent Facility
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 86
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
The loss of wetland functions and values/services due to the temporary
crossings during construction will vary by wetland type. In emergent wetlands,
the impact of construction will be relatively minor and short-term because the
herbaceous vegetation will regenerate quickly. In forested and scrub-shrub
wetlands, the impact will be of longer duration due to the longer regeneration
period of these vegetative types. All efforts will be taken to avoid temporary
impacts to forested and scrub-shrub wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. The impacts provided in Table 2.8-2 are conservative and will be
refined during the permitting phase with the intent to further minimize as
detailed information is generated regarding the potential for underground and
overhead crossings to minimize the number of traditional cut and cover
trenching crossings.

2.8.4 Mitigation Measures

From the initial off-site mapping investigation, to follow-up field reconnaissance


events, and culminating in the delineation of wetland boundaries in the field, an
extensive multi-year analysis of wetlands within the Project area has been
conducted. These substantial measures resulted in the avoidance and
minimization of wetland impacts due to careful siting of the turbines, access
roads, and collection lines.

Avoidance and Minimization


Early Project layouts included an array of up to 140 turbines in 2007 and 95
turbines in 2008. Figure 2.8-2 depicts the turbines, access roads, and collection
lines from both 2008 and 2010 to provide a visual comparison of the alternative
layouts that have evolved during the process of wetland avoidance. Since access
roads and collection lines were not yet mapped in 2007, the 2007 turbine
locations are not included for comparison.

Table 2.8-3 provides a detailed list of the design modifications implemented with
the specific intent of avoiding or minimizing wetland impacts. To do this
analysis, the 2010 Project Layout and current turbine numbering was used to
document the Project design choices that were based, at least in part, on the
wetland data collected between 2007 and 2010, inclusive. The current Project
Layout represents years of modifications and micro-siting based on many
factors, including the avoidance of wetlands. The list provided in Table 2.8-5 is
not an exhaustive list of modifications that have been made over the 2007-2010
period during the refinement of the Project Layout. Instead, this is a
representative list of samples of the adjustments that have been implemented on
the Project to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands. By providing this
detailed list, some of the larger picture avoidances can be overlooked, such as the
collection line layout which was been designed to limit the number of crossings
of Kents Creek to just two locations for 23 turbines and the fact that all access
roads were designed to avoid Kents Creek. However, this list demonstrates the
successful implementation of wetland avoidance and minimization techniques
employed in the proposed 2010 Project Layout.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 87
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 88
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
³
GIS File: Prepared by: Date: Project No.
G:\Graphics\Clients\BP\BP-Cape Vincent\MXD\EIS\Layouts2008_2010_11x17.mxd D.S. Nakata 2/8/2011 0092352

R d
re
si e

d
tR
Ro

en
m
(
! !

e
(
! (
! 5

ttl
85 d

Se
oa
!

b
(
! R

om
ty

Hell St
(
! 80 ! n

ac
!
( ou

M
!
( 87 C
! !
81 ! 86 !
(
(
(
!
! !
(
! 82 ( 83
!
! !
Favr et Rd NYS: ST-11 76 ( 84
!
(
! !!
( !
(
73 77
!!
(
(
! !!
( 78
! Laydown 74
70 !
!
(
(
! 75
!
!!
( 72!
(
Co 71
un (
!
ty (
!

d
Ro St a 4

R
ad (
! d !
!
(
te oa

nd
6 H ! 68
igh R

hl a
wa 46 ty (
!
y1 !
( (
! un
Co

As
! (
!
2E ( !
! !
(
! (
! 40 41 !
! !
(
! ! 47 ( !
!
38 (
!
28 ! 43 (
! 48 115 kV Transmission ROW
! !
! (
! (
!
(
! (
! 39 !
(
42 44 !!
( !
(
25 ! 45 Substation !
26(
! 65 !
(
Ro
! ! (
! bi n
!
( Batchplant (
! !!
(
!
( 66 so
27
NYS: V-2 !!
( ! ! 36 !
(
!
k Rd !
! nR
d
! (
! 33 oc 62 !
( 67

Mil
20 21 32 37 tR
(
! !
NYS: V-2 ! rn !
(

len
(
! !!
(
!
( ! (
! Bu ! 63!
(
34

sB
18 ! ! 29 59 !
0 ! !
23 !
( ( 60
!

ay
(
! 22 30 !
( 35 !
!!
( ! !

Rd
19 NYS: V-3 31 (
! 61
! 55 !
!
( ! 56
24 (
!
49 !
!
!
( 57
50
!
(
! !
51 !
! 58
(

56
52
O&M (
!

ad
!

Ro
53
(
! !
ty
un
(
!
Batchplant 54
Co

9
(
!

17
4
!

ad
NYS: V-6 y 12E
(
! ighwa

Ro
! 7
! (
! State H
5 !
(

Ro a d 8

ty
15 ! (
!

un
! !
(
!

Co
NYS: V-6 16 17
6
! !

County
(
!
1 (
! 12 ! !
(
!!
( !

5
13 !
(

12
2 14
! !
( 57

ad
d
NYS: V-8 oa

Ro
!
(
! R
(
! d
R ty

ty
9 ! k n

un
(
! e
NYS: V-8 re ou

Co
C ! C
x St
Fo 11 a te
Hi
(
! gh
wa
y1
2E
(
!
Aerial Source: USDA NAIP 2006

5,000 2,500 0 5,000 Figure 2.8-2


Feet Legend Comparison of 2008
Proposed Project Boundary ! Proposed Turbine 115 kV Transmission ROW And 2010 Project Layouts
NYSDEC Wetland Classification Proposed Collection System (
! Turbine, 2008
Cape Vincent Wind Power Project
BP Wind Energy
Class 2 Proposed Access Road Collection System, 2008
Class 3 Co-located Access Road and Collection System Access Road, 2008
Permanent Facility
Temporary Facility
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 90
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
TABLE 2.8-3: Avoidance and Minimization Measures Taken for 2010 Access Road, Collection
Line, and Project Facility Layout

Turbine Modifications
# Avoid Min. Description
Access road and collector line designed to avoid impacts to
1 X wetlands to the east and northeast.
Collector line routed around wetland to the northeast of
2 X turbine 2.
Turbine Removed due to neighboring landowner setback
3 concerns.
4 X Access road crosses wetlands at narrow location.
Turbine, access road and collector line locations avoid
5 X impacts to wetland to the south and west of turbine.
HDD under consideration to avoid collection line wetland
6 X crossing.
Access road and collection line routed to avoid Fox Creek
8 X X crossing and to minimize impacts to drainage.
Access road and collection line routed to avoid Fox Creek
9 X X crossing and to minimize impacts to drainage.
Access road and collection line routed to avoid Fox Creek
crossing and wetland to the northeast crossed at narrow
12 X X location.
13 X Collection line routed to minimize Fox Creek crossing.
Access road and collection line routed to minimize impacts
15 X X to wetlands to the north and south of turbine.
Turbine located to avoid impacts to wetlands to the
16 X east/northeast.
Turbine located to avoid impacts to wetlands to the
17 X northeast.
Turbine, access roads and collection lines located to
18 X X minimize impacts to wetlands to the south and east.
Turbine, access roads and collection lines avoid impacts to
20 X X wetlands to the south.
Access road and collection line routed to minimize impacts
21 X to wetland north of the turbine.
Access road routed to avoid an existing pond and turbine
22 X X location moved to avoid wetlands to the north and west.
Turbine, access road, and collection line routed to avoid
23 X X federal conservation easement to the east.
Collection line routed to minimize impacts to wetland
24 X northwest of turbine.
Turbine, access road and collection lines located to avoid
27 X impacts to the wetland east of the turbine.
Access road and collection lines located to minimize
28 X impacts to the wetland east of the turbine.
Access road and collection line routed to minimize impacts
29 X to the wetland north of the turbine.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 91
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Turbine Modifications
# Avoid Min. Description
Collection system redesigned and moved to avoid Kents
Creek Crossing; access roads routed to minimize impacts to
30 X the wetlands to the south and east.
Collection line routed to avoid wetland to the east of the
31 X turbine.
Turbine, access road, collection line relocated to avoid and
minimize impacts to wetlands to south and east. HDD
under consideration to avoid collection line wetland
33 X X crossing.
Turbine, access road and collection line relocated to avoid
37 X disturbance to wetland to the east/northeast.
HDD under consideration to avoid collection line wetland
crossing to the west; access road and collection line routed
38 X X to minimize impact on wetlands to west.
Collection line routed to avoid crossing Kents Creek to the
43 X west.
Turbine, road and collection line relocated to avoid wetland
45 X to the south.
Relocated turbine, access road and collection line to avoid
disturbance to wetland to the northeast and the drainage
48 X ditch to the west.
Collection line relocated to minimize impacts to the wetland
50 X to the north.
51 X Collection line routed to avoid wetland to the southeast.
Access road routed to minimize impacts to wetland to the
58 X north and east.
Access road relocated away from pond to narrower wetland
60 X crossing from turbine 59.
Turbine, access road and collection line relocated to avoid
and minimize impacts to wetland to the north of turbine.
62 X X HDD proposed to avoid collection line wetland crossing.
Turbine, access road and collection line removed as field
siting found wetlands to south had expanded, not allowing
64 X X needed setback from Swamp Road.
65 X Turbine relocated to avoid wetland to the south.
Turbine, access road and collection line relocated to avoid
69 X wetlands to the west.
Access road and collection system relocated in the field to
70 X minimize impacts to wetland to the south of the turbine.
Collection line relocated to avoid impacts to the wetland to
71 X X the south of the turbine.
Junction of multiple collection lines off Favret Road shifted
X northeast to reduce impacts to Wetland BD.
72 Access road curves around Wetland BA/BB (an agricultural
X ditch) to cross at narrowest point.
Access road curves to follow existing farm road through
75 X Wetlands P and Q.
Road and collection lines shifted to minimize impact on
76 X X wetland to the south of the turbine.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 92
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Turbine Modifications
# Avoid Min. Description
HDD under consideration to avoid collection line wetland
77 X crossing.
Access road routed to avoid wetland to the east of the
78 X turbine.
Turbine, access road and collection lines removed
(northwest of turbine 73) as field siting found it difficult to
79 X X minimize wetland impacts sufficiently.
Access road relocated to avoid wetlands to the south of the
81 X turbine.
Turbine, access road and collection line relocated to avoid
82 X X impacts to the wetland to the north and east of the turbine.
Access road and collection line shifted south to reduce
83 X impacts to Wetland G.
Turbine, access road and collection line relocated to avoid
84 X impacts to the wetland to the west of the turbine.
Turbine, access road and collection line relocated to
85 X minimize impact on wetland to the north.
Collection line shifted south to reduce impacts to Wetland
X G.
86 Turbine and access road shifted to minimize impact on
X Wetland A.
Turbine, access road and collection line relocated to avoid
87 X wetlands to the northwest of the turbine.

A wetland scientist was on-site during the final micro-siting of the Project Layout
in October 2010 to make field adjustments to avoid and minimize wetlands. The
combination of the final micro-siting, some of which is reflected in Table 2.8-3,
and the many years of analysis and fieldwork have resulted in a Project Layout
that has avoided many of the wetlands in this portion of Jefferson County. Table
2.8-4 provides a summary of the minimization of wetland impacts between the
2008 and 2010 Project Layouts.

TABLE 2.8-4: Summary Comparison of Wetland Impacts: 2008 Project Layout to 2010 Project
Layout

2008 Layout 2010 Layout Difference 2008 –


Project Component (acres) (acres) 2010 (acres)
Turbines
- Permanent/ Temporary
2.6 0 -2.6
Impact Combined
Access Roads
- Permanent Impact 2.7 0.9 -1.8
- Temporary Impact 4.4 1.5 -2.9
Collection Lines
- Temporary Impact 4.6 1.3 -3.3

Although many of the original turbines were eliminated due to factors other than
wetland impacts, several of the proposed turbine locations were eliminated

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 93
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
specifically due to wetland impact concerns and collection line and access roads
have been designed to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. In particular,
turbines were eliminated north of the intersection of Rosiere Road and Route
12E, as well as additional sites eliminated off other portions of Rosiere Road,
Merchant Road, and Swamp Road.

In addition to the variations that are identified above, there have been many
other micro-adjustments to the turbine locations, access roads, and collections to
reduce or avoid impacts to wetlands.

Where feasible, the avoidance process has also been extended to the selection of
construction techniques for specific wetland crossings required for the
installation of the collection lines. Both horizontal directional drilling and
overhead pole and wires have been and will continue to be evaluated for the
potential to further avoid and reduce wetland impacts during the permitting
phase. Co-locating the 115 kV transmission line along a shared corridor also
avoids additional wetland impacts between the substation for this Project and
the connection point into the Lyme substation.

Wetland Restoration
The temporary impact areas within wetlands will be restored in place. In
locations where soils have been removed for trenching, side-cast material
adjacent to trenches in wetlands will be separated from the existing wetland soils
with the use of a barrier, such as a geotextile fabric. Soils removed from the
trenches will be further segregated into topsoil and subsoil to facilitate
replacement with subsoils in the bottom of the trench and topsoil replaced at the
ground surface level. Each wetland area will be seeded with an appropriate
native wetland seed mix and mulched. In areas where woody species were
removed from a wetland, native woody plantings will be installed with
appropriate spacing to provide coverage that mimics the adjacent undisturbed
wetland areas. Details of these mitigation measures will be developed and
provided in a conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan included in the Joint
Application submitted to the NYSDEC, NYSDOS, and USACE.

Wetland Establishment
Mitigation for permanent impacts to wetlands will include the establishment of a
wetland area within the Project area at an approximate ratio of 2:1, pending
approval of this ratio by regulatory authorities. Permanent impacts will include
both permanent access road locations as well as forested areas that will be
cleared temporarily for the installation of a temporary access road or a collection
line. Due to the multiple locations of small impact areas/wetland crossings,
wetland establishment at the point of each impact would not be the most
desirable mitigation plan. Therefore, the location of the proposed wetland area
will be adjacent to an existing wetland and will be either a single wetland
establishment or a combination of two or three areas to reach the proposed
mitigation ratio of 2:1. Given the large amount of existing upland agricultural
fields in this region and within the Project area specifically, the wetland
establishment will likely involve the conversion of an existing upland

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 94
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
agricultural field to wetland; however, additional areas are also under
consideration. Figure 2.8-3 depicts the location of several areas that are under
investigation as potential wetland creation/establishment areas; however, final
site selection will be further developed and discussed in the FEIS and
determined during the permitting phase of the project.

The goal of any created wetland will be to restore the function and
services/values that will be permanently lost due to the Project, through the
restoration of hydrology, wetland vegetation, and, ultimately, hydric soils within
the watershed.

Wetland Mitigation Plan


A Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan will be included in the Joint Application
submitted to the NYSDEC, NYSDOS, and USACE. This Wetland Mitigation Plan
will include the proposed location and size of the proposed wetland
establishment areas as well as a proposed monitoring program. Invasive species
management will be an important part of both the construction phase, as well as
the long-term monitoring phase of both restored wetlands and wetlands created
as part of the wetland mitigation plan.

The Project area has many locations where the invasive species dominate the
landscape, including reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), a species included
on the New York Interim Invasive Species Plant List but also a species that is
planted as part of agricultural activities across Cape Vincent. The prevalence of
this species will present challenges during wetland restoration and
establishment, which will have a goal of providing a diverse wetland plant
community consisting of native species. Several other invasive species were
observed and documented within the Project area during the multi-year wetland
evaluation. An Invasive Species Management Plan will be prepared and
included in the Joint Application and will address all species noted on the
NYSDEC Interim Invasive Species Plant List. Once the details of the mitigation
plan have been further developed, including final location, it is anticipated that a
Final Wetland Mitigation Plan will be required by the regulatory authorities
prior to issuance of, or as a condition of, any final permits for the Project. A Final
Wetland Mitigation Plan will include detailed construction, grading, planting,
and monitoring plans.

Best Management Practices


In addition to avoiding direct impacts to regulated wetland resources due to
temporary construction activity, measures will be included in the Project design
to reduce the potential for indirect wetland impacts resulting from proposed
activities within the areas adjacent to wetlands. In particular, erosion and
sedimentation controls consisting of straw bales and/or silt fence will be
installed along the limit of work in upland areas where stormwater has the
potential to flow towards wetlands from the Project area. This will reduce the
potential for the introduction of pollutants into sensitive wetland areas during
the construction phase. Similarly, where unavoidable wetland crossings are
proposed for access road installation, erosion and sedimentation controls will be

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 95
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
installed along the limit of work within the wetlands to prevent the dispersion of
sediments into the adjoining undisturbed wetland areas.
In designing the stormwater management and spill prevention plans for the
operation of the Project, special care will be taken to ensure that sensitive
wetland areas receive the maximum amount of protection possible through the
application of industry standard BMPs. BP Wind Energy will also maintain
contracts with local emergency response teams to respond to any spills in a way
to minimize impacts to wetland features.

2.9 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Biological resources are defined as native or naturalized plants and animals and
the habitats in which they exist. The following sections describe the biological
resources within the Project Footprint, including vegetation communities,
wildlife, and threatened and endangered species.

2.9.1 Vegetation

The Project Area lies within the Great Lakes Plain ecozone in northern New
York. The dominant vegetation type was historically northern hardwood forest;
however, agricultural clearing has left the region approximately 20 percent
wooded. The overall Project Area is characterized by hayfields interspersed with
emergent wetlands, forested and scrub-shrub wetlands, hedgerows, immature
forests, and alvar ecosystems. This section focuses on upland vegetation
communities and rare habitats, as wetland communities are described in Section
2.7.

2.9.1.1 Upland Vegetative Communities

Over 90 percent of the Project Area consists of upland vegetation, which includes
pasture and agricultural land interspersed with scattered parcels of upland
forests, shrubland, and developed land.

Pasture and Agricultural Land


Open uplands, including pasture, hay fields, and reverting hayfields occur
commonly throughout the Project and comprise approximately 6,700 acres, or
50.4 percent, of the Project Footprint. Hayfields in the Project Area are typified
by a poor blend of grass species. The dominant grass species were not evident
due to frequent mowing; however, common species likely include redtop
(Agrostis gigantea), meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa
pratensis), and timothy (Phleum pratense). Other common species include wild
strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) and cinquefoil (Potentilla simplex). The dominant
species in the hedgerows bordering the hayfields is generally oak species
(Quercus spp.).

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 96
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
³
GIS File: Prepared by: Date: Project No.
G:\Graphics\Clients\BP\BP-Cape Vincent\MXD\EIS\PotentialWetlandMitigationAreas_11x17.mxd D.S. Nakata 2/8/2011 0092352

E
12

d
R
ay

tR
re
w

en
si e
h 5
ig

m
! d

Hell St
oa

Ro
H

e
ttl
e
at 85 R

Se
St n ty
!

b
ou

om
80 ! C

ac
M
87
! !
81 86
! !
82 83
NYS: ST-11 4 ! !
a d 76 84
Ro ! !
ty
«
¬
2 Co
un 73
!
77
!
78
! 74
70 !
d
e tR 75
vr Laydown
Fa !
!
72
71

Fa

d
v
Co

re

R
!
un

tR

nd
!

«
¬
ty

hl a
46 3
6
Ro

As
d ! !
oa
ad

!
¬
« !
R !
40 41
y 1 ! ! !
6

69
nt 38 47
ou 28
!
! 43 !
48
C ! 42 !
115 kV Transmission ROW
39 44

Mil
25 ! 45 Substation !

len
26 65 Ro
! ! bi n

sB
Batchplant ! 66 so
! nR

ay
! ! ! 36 ! !
NYS: V-2 ! 67 d

Rd
21 32 33 37 62
20
! !

¬4
«
NYS: V-2 ! ! ! 63
34
18 ! ! 29 !
Rd 59 !
! c k
23 NYS: V-3
!
22 30 ! t Ro 60 !
rn !
61
19
!
31 Bu 55 !
! 56
24
49 !
!
57
50
!
!
51 !
58

56
52
O&M

ad
!

Ro
53
!
ty
un Batchplant 54
Co

9
St at

County Road 8

17
4 e High
! wa y

ad
NYS: V-6! 12E

Ro
7
5 !

ty
15 !

un
NYS: V-6 ! !

Co
16 17
6
! !

57
1 12 !

d
! !

oa
13

R
2 !
14

n ty
8

ou
NYS: V-8 !

C
d
R

County Road 125


9 ! k
e
re
C !
x
Fo 11 St
a
NYS: V-8 te
Hi
gh
wa
y1
2E
USGS Topographic Map, © 2009 National Geographic Society

5,000 2,500 0 5,000 Figure 2.8-3


Feet Legend Potential Wetland Mitigation Areas
Proposed Project Boundary ! Proposed Turbine 115 kV Transmission ROW Cape Vincent Wind Power Project
BP Wind Energy
NYSDEC Wetland Classification Proposed Collection System Potential Wetland Mitigation Site
Class 2 Proposed Access Road
Class 3 Co-located Access Road and Collection System
Permanent Facility
Temporary Facility
This page left blank for printing purposes.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 98
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Reverting hayfields are early successional uplands, including current and former
pasture, that are no longer active hayfields. This habitat type contains a
dominant herbaceous layer of Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), grass-
leaved goldenrod (Euthamia graminifolia), New England aster (Aster novae-
angliae), and tall white aster (A. lanceolatus) interspersed with grey dogwood
(Cornus racemosa) thickets. Less common shrub species include nannyberry
(Viburnum lentago) and prickly ash (Zanthoxylum americanum). Immature red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana) saplings also occur throughout this habitat.

Shrublands
Portions of the reverting hayfield habitat with greater than 50 percent shrub
cover were considered shrublands. In some areas, shrublands formed a nearly
impenetrable thicket generally dominated by grey dogwood and infrequent
meadowsweet (Spiraea alba) with young white ash (Fraxinus americana), sugar
maple (Acer saccharum), bur oak, and American elm (Ulmus americana)
encroaching along the edges.

Deciduous Forest
Upland forest communities represent approximately 2,443 acres or 18.3 percent
of the Project Area. Deciduous forests are the dominant forest type in the Project
Area and cover approximately 2,164 acres, or 16.3 percent, of the Project Area.
These woodlots are dominated by northern hardwood species, the historic
dominant forest type in the region, such as oaks (Quercus ssp.), sugar maple (Acer
sacchanum), and white ash (Fraxinus americana).

Upland Forest
Second growth upland forest is interspersed throughout the Project Area and is
comprised of a mixture of plantation species including Scotch pine (Pinus
sylvestris), red pine (Pinus resinosa), and sparse concentrations of white spruce
(Picea glauca). Pockets of hardwood trees including white ash, trembling aspen
(Populus tremuloides), grey birch (Betula populifolia), and American elm also occur.

Developed Land
Developed areas represent approximately 502 acres, or 3.7 percent, of Project
lands and include features such as quarries, gravel pits, roads, bridges, and
residential use. Residential uses are characterized by maintained lawns with
various species of ornamental trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species interspersed
throughout.

2.9.1.2 Rare Plant Species and Vegetation Communities of Ecological Significance

The Project boundary has been revised from the boundary described in the initial
consultation letters provided to NYSDEC, the NYNHP, and the USFWS
regarding threatened and endangered species and communities of ecological
significance in May 2006; some of the Project boundaries included in the 2006
letter have been eliminated by shrinking the Project Area; others have been
expanded. The discussions presented below represent the results of those
consultation letters and subsequent conversations with NYSDEC, as recently as

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 99
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
December 2010. BP Wind Energy will continue formal Article 11 consultation
with NYSDEC, the NYNHP, and Endangered Species Act consultation with the
USFWS to address potential threatened and endangered species and rare
community issues within the Project Area.

In a letter dated 20 June 2006 (Appendix A), the USFWS responded to a written
request to identify all federally-listed rare, threatened, and endangered species in
the vicinity of the Project Area. The USFWS did not identify any federally-listed
plant species as occurring within, or in the vicinity of, the Project Area.

The rare, threatened, and endangered plant list is maintained by the NYNHP. In
a letter dated January 18, 2007 (Appendix A), the NYNHP identified six state-
listed plant species (Table 2.9-1) and four significant ecological communities
located at, or in the vicinity of, the Project Area.32

TABLE 2.9-1: State-Listed Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plant Species and Significant
Ecological Communities in the Vicinity of the Project Area

Federal Listing State Listing


Common Name Scientific Name Status Status2
Plant Species
Awned Sedge Carex atherodes -- E
Back’s Sedge Carex backii -- T
Troublesome Sedge Carex molesta -- T
Ram’s-head Cypripedium
-- T
Ladyslipper arietinum
Geranium
Carolina Cranesbill carolinianum var. -- T
sphaerospermum
Michigan Lily Lilium michiganense -- E
Significant Ecological Communities
Silver Maple-Ash Swamp N/A N/A
Limestone Woodland N/A N/A
Calcareous Pavement Barrens N/A N/A
Sinkhole Wetland N/A N/A
Source: NY Natural Heritage Program; Riveredge Associates, 2007
1 T – Threatened; E – Endangered

RARE PLANT SPECIES

Awned Sedge
The awned sedge (Carex atherodes) is listed by the NYNHP as endangered. The
awned sedge is a loosely tufted, grass-like wetland perennial that occurs in
marshes, shrub swamps, successionally mature fields, and pond and stream
edges. There are currently at least fifteen known populations found in Jefferson,

32 NYNHP. 2007. Consultation Response Letter, New York Natural Heritage Program. January 18,

2007.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 100


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
St. Lawrence, and Oswego Counties.33 Within the Project boundary, three
populations of this species are known to occur: 1) several hundred individuals
are located in the two-acre Mud Bay Headwaters Wetland;34 2) approximately
200 individuals occur in a drainage swale in a wet hayfield; and 3) approximately
100 individuals occur as a small monotypic stand in a wet hayfield.

Back’s Sedge
Back’s Sedge (Carex backii) is listed as threatened by the NYNHP. This species is
a densely tufted, grass-like plant that occurs primarily in deciduous, mixed
forest, or evergreen wooded sites with shallow limestone bedrock. There are
currently twelve known occurrences of this species in New York (NYNHP,
2006b). Within the Project boundary, Back’s Sedge is listed by NYNHP as
occurring in a limestone wooded lot along the Burnt Rock Barrens (NYNHP,
2007); however, no individuals were identified within the Project Area during
the October 2007 wetland reconnaissance.

Troublesome Sedge
Troublesome Sedge (Carex molesta) is listed as threatened by the NYNHP. It is a
tufted grass-like perennial with strap-like leaves. Troublesome sedge has some
stems with flower/fruit clusters (reproductive stems) and some stems without
these structures (vegetative stems). It is easiest to identify Troublesome Sedge
when it has almost matured to mature fruit clusters.

The plant most commonly occurs in fields, wet fields, and native grasslands such
as alvar grasslands and oak openings and occurs less frequently on open edges
of rivers, woodlands, talus slopes, and in waste areas. It prefers strongly
calcareous soils that are dry to wet, and has been found in somewhat weedy
fields, roadsides, bottomlands, open woods, and borders of woods, as well as dry
woodlands. No individuals were identified within the Project Area during the
October 2007 wetland reconnaissance although the limestone of Cape Vincent
should support the plant.

Ram’s-head Ladyslipper
The Ram’s-head ladyslipper (Cypripedium arietinum) is listed as threatened by the
NYNHP. This species is a small, single-flowering orchid that prefers cool, moist
woodlands and coniferous forests with a preference for moist, mossy bogs.35
This species was identified within the Project boundary in the Burnt Rock
Barrens Alvar woodlands during the October 2007 wetland reconnaissance.

33 NYNHP. 2006a. New York Natural Heritage Program Conservation Guidance: Awned Sedge.

June 6, 2006. http://www.nynhp.org/.


34 NYNHP, 2007.
35 USDA, 2007. USDA Forest Service Celebrating Wildflowers: Cypripedium arietinum.

http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/beauty/cypripedium/cypripedium_arietinum.shtml. January
12, 2007

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 101


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Carolina Cranesbill
The Carolina Cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum) is listed as threatened by the
NYNHP. This species is a short plant with tight-clustering flowers and prefers
dry, open woodlands, limestone glades, and pastures and abandoned fields.36
Within the Project boundary, this species is associated with the calcareous
pavement barrens and limestone woodlands surrounding the Burnt Rock
Barrens 37; however, no individuals were identified within the Project Area
during the October 2007 wetland reconnaissance.

Michigan Lily
The Michigan Lily (Lilium michiganense) is listed as endangered by the NYNHP.
This species prefers tallgrass prairies, streamsides, swamps and bottoms, moist
woodland edges, lakeshores, and ditches along roads and railways.38 There are
two known occurrences of this species in the vicinity of Cape Vincent; however,
their specific location was not identified39 and no individuals were identified
within the Project Area during the October 2007 Wetland Reconnaissance.

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES OF ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The NYNHP identified four vegetation communities of ecological significance.


These communities are either a community type rare in the state or a high
quality example of a more common community type.40

Silver Maple-Ash Swamp


Silver maple-ash swamps are hardwood basin swamps that occur in poorly-
drained depressions or on poorly-drained soils along the borders of large lakes
or, less frequently, rivers. The sites are characterized by uniformly wet
conditions, with minimal seasonal fluctuation in water levels. The tree canopy is
dominated by silver maple and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), but typically
includes a variety of other hardwood species such as American elm, red maple,
swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). This
community has a well-developed understory of tall shrub, short shrub, and
herbaceous species. Silver maple-ash swamps often occur over calcareous
bedrock, and the plant species composition may reflect this influence with the
presence of calciphiles such as northern white cedar and alder-leaf buckthorn
(Rhamnus alnifolia).41

36 Illinois Wildflowers. 2007. Carolina Cranesbill Geranium carlinianum.

http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/weeds/plants/carolina_cranebill.htm. Accessed January 23,


2007.
37 NYNHP, 2007.
38 Flora of North America. 2007. Flora of North America: Lilium michiganense.

http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242101738. Accessed January 24,


2007.
39 NYNHP, 2007.
40 NYNHP, 2007.
41 NYNHP. 2006c. New York Natural Heritage Program Conservation Guidance: Silver Maple-Ash

Swamp. August 10, 2006. http://www.nynhp.org/.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 102


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
This community is primarily limited to the lowlands of central and western New
York. It is concentrated in the Great Lakes and High Allegheny Plateau
Ecoregions, including the Saint Lawrence Lowlands. Silver maple-ash swamps
are located within the Ashland Road Wetland along the northeastern edge of the
Project boundary. There are four patches within 1.5 miles of each other;
however, three of these patches have been disturbed (logged) in the past.

The fourth patch, approximately 23 acres in size, remains in good condition.42


This community was identified within the Project Area during the 2007 wetland
reconnaissance.

Limestone Woodland
Alvar woodlands occur on shallow soils over limestone bedrock, and usually
include numerous rock outcrops. There are usually several co-dominant tree
species. Characteristic canopy trees in some stands are primarily conifers such as
northern white cedar, white pine (Pinus strobus), white spruce (Picea glauca), and
balsam fir (Abies balsamea). In other stands the characteristic canopy trees are
primarily hardwoods such as hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), sugar maple,
shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), white oak, bur oak (Q. macrocarpa), Chiquapin
oak (Q. muehlenbergii), red oak (Q. rubera), and basswood (Tilia americana). There
are also stands that include mixtures of these conifers and hardwoods.43

This community is currently known from the central Hudson Limestone Valley,
the Lake Champlain Valley, the alvar region of the St. Lawrence Valley, and
across the Ontario Lake Plain.44 Alvar woodlands are a community of global
concern and a community of state concern. Several state-listed rare plants are
known to occur in alvar woodlands including ram’s head ladies-slipper
(Cypripedium arietinum) and fringed blue aster (Aster ciliolatus). At least two alvar
woodlands occur within the Project boundary associated with the Sam Adams
Road Woods and Burnt Rock Barrens in the northeastern corner of the Project
Area. The Sam Adams Road site is moderately sized, with a fairly diverse
canopy of mixed evergreen and deciduous forest on a limestone outcrop. The
majority of the Burnt Rock Barrens site has evidence of past disturbance;
however, there is a 5-10 acre plot in pristine condition.45 This community was
observed during the 2007 wetland reconnaissance. The Burnt Rock area is a
mixture of red cedar, northern white cedar, and bur oak with a sparse understory
of pasture juniper (Juniperus communis). In many places open limestone occurs,
traversed by crevices lined with maidenhair spleenwort (Asplenium trichomanes),
and areas of lichen and moss. The limestone loving sedge (Carex eburnean) and
poverty oat grass (Danthonia spicata) are common, along with early saxifrage
(Saxifraga virginiensis), pale bluets (Houstonia longifolia), and in moist spots
slender spikerush (Eleocharis elliptica) occurs. During the fall, many rare species
are not easily identifiable; however, two state watch list species were observed

42 NYNHP, 2007.
43 NYNHP. 2006d. New York Natural Heritage Program Conservation Guidance: Limestone
Woodland. August 10, 2006. http://www.nynhp.org/.
44 NYNHP, 2006d.
45 NYNHP,2007

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 103


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
during the October 2007 wetland reconnaissance: wiry panic grass (Panicum
flexile) and false pennyroyal (Trichostema brachiatum).

Calcareous Pavement Barrens


Calcareous pavement barrens are a savanna community that occurs on nearly
level outcrops of calcareous bedrock (limestone and dolomite). The community
consists of a mosaic of shrub-savanna, grass-savanna, and rock outcrop
vegetation. The trees are either widely spaced or in small clusters, but are
typically rooted in rock crevices. Some characteristic canopy species include
eastern red cedar, northern white cedar, bur oak, white ash, paper birch (Betula
papyrifera), white pine, and shagbark hickory. Many of the shrubs occur in dense
thickets, but are typically rooted in rock crevices or shallow soil over bedrock.
Species typical of the shrub layer include gray dogwood, fragrant sumac (Rhus
aromatica), common juniper (Juniperus communis), and meadow rose (Rosa blanda).
The ground layer in the grass-savanna areas is quite diverse including poverty
grass (Danthonia spicata), slender spikerush (Eleocharis elliptica var. elliptica),
upland white aster, and aster (Aster ciliolatus).46

There are two occurrences of this community within the Project boundary
associated with the Sam Adams Road Woods and Burnt Rock Barrens. The Sam
Adams Road site is small and disturbed and bordered by hay fields and
pasture.47 These communities were identified within the Project Area associated
with the Burnt Rock Barrens Alvar community. Refer to the discussion of
Limestone (Alvar) Woodlands for a further description of these communities.

Sinkhole Wetland
Sinkhole wetlands form in depressions in karst topography that are made from
the dissolution of underlying limestone. These wetlands are often isolated and
not connected to surface water or ground water. The vegetation of sinkhole
wetlands varies geographically and in response to local hydrology and other
factors.48

This community is known to occur on limestone throughout the country. There


is one sinkhole wetland within the Project boundary, known as the Johnny Cake
Road sinkhole wetland. This wetland lies within the Burnt Rock Barren Alvar
Community and is a linear series of sinkholes in the limestone bedrock adjacent
to cow pastures and old field areas. Some of the sinkholes are in excellent
conditions, while others have been grazed.49

46 Reischke, Carol. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage

Program. March 1990.


47 NYNHP, 2007.
48 Tiner, R.W., H. C. Bergquist, G. P. DeAlessio, and M. J. Starr. 2002. Geographically Isolated

Wetlands: A Preliminary Assessment of their Characteristics and Status in Selected Areas of the
United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region,
Hadley, MA.
http://www.fws.gov/nwi/Pubs_Reports/isolated/report_files/2_section/overview.htm.
Accessed January 24, 2007.
49 NYNHP, 2007.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 104


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Future Vegetative Studies
The Project Area is close to known populations of New York State listed rare
plants and to significant natural communities. At least 15 State-listed Threatened
or Endangered plant species are known to occur in the vicinity of the project
and/or in similar habitats nearby. These species flower at different times but all
flower between May and September.

All wind turbine sites, access roads, and lay-down areas will be surveyed by a
qualified field botanist for rare plant species and their habitats during the period
most suitable for locating and identifying these species. The first survey will be
conducted in June to document June flowering species and to identify potentially
suitable habitats for later flowering species. Subsequent surveys will examine
these potentially suitable habitats in July and August.

2.9.2 Wildlife

Prior to 1900, much of the lands within the Project boundary were converted
from forest to agricultural uses. The developed and active agricultural portions
of the Project provide habitat for wildlife species tolerant of habitat
fragmentation and human disturbance. In contrast, the less disturbed,
undeveloped areas provide an array of high quality habitats that support
relatively diverse wildlife communities.

The Project Area supports a variety of aquatic and terrestrial species, including
some rare, threatened, and endangered species. The following sections focus on
the mammalian (excluding bats), reptilian, and aquatic resources within the
Project Area. Birds and bats are discussed as part of the Avian and Bat
Resources Section (Section 2.11). Please refer to this section for a discussion of all
avian species, including any federal or state-listed rare, threatened, and
endangered species.

2.9.2.1 Common Wildlife Species

The Project Area is located in the Atlantic Flyway migratory bird route and the
habitats within the Project site provide important stop-over points for migratory
species as well as breeding habitat for large numbers of species.

Pasture and Agricultural Land


The major use of the Project site is active agriculture and therefore, generally
precludes the use of the site by large mammals and big game species other than
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), which is common in the area. Small
and medium-sized mammals common to the area include eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), whitetail deer, snowshoe hare (Lepus
americanus), European hare (L. europaeus), grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and
numerous species of bats, moles, mice, rats, and shrews.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 105


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Deciduous, Coniferous, and Mixed Forest
Mature upland forest found on Project lands provides highly valuable breeding
and wintering habitat for wildlife species dependent on mature forest
communities such as the pileated woodpecker. The deciduous forests provide
habitat for most major groups of animals including large mammals such as
white-tailed deer. The eastern turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) is found in
hardwood and mixed forests and agricultural lands throughout the Project Area.

Several common reptile and amphibian species occur throughout the Project
footprint, although these species are most prevalent in wetlands and forested
riparian habitats along Kents Creek. Such species include snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentine), map turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi), midland painted turtle
(Chrysemys picta marginata), and the northern water snake (Nirodia sipodon).

Aquatic Communities
No comprehensive fish community data are available for any of the streams
within the Project boundary, but the NYSDEC has documented walleye
spawning activity over gravel beds in Kents Creek upstream of Route 12E. It is
unclear whether Kents Creek supports a substantial resident population of
walleye, but the NYSDEC considers most of the spawning individuals in Kents
Creek to be upstream migrants from Lake Ontario and/or the St. Lawrence
River.50

2.9.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Animal Species and Communities of Ecological Significance

The Project boundary has been revised from the boundary described in the initial
consultation letters provided to NYSDEC, the NYNHP, and the USFWS in May
2006 regarding threatened and endangered animal species and communities of
ecological significance. The discussions presented below represent the results of
those consultation letters and subsequent informal and formal consultations with
NYSDEC, NYNHP, and USFWS. BP Wind Energy will continue formal
consultation with NYSDEC, the NYNHP, and the USFWS as part of these
agencies’ respective permitting processes to address any concerns regarding
threatened and endangered species and rare wildlife communities within the
Project boundary.

The USFWS maintains the database of federally-protected rare, threatened, and


endangered species. The USFWS, in a letter dated 20 June 2006 (Appendix A),
identified two federally-protected species that could potentially occur in the
vicinity of the Project Area: Bald Eagle (Halliaeetus leucocephallus) and Indiana
Bat (Myotis sodalis). For a further discussion of these species, refer to Section 2.11,
Avian and Bat Resources.

The state rare, threatened, and endangered animal database is maintained by the
NYNHP. In a letter dated January 18, 2007 (Appendix A), the NYNHP identified
12 bird, two bat, one fish, one reptile species, one wildlife management area, and

50 McCullough, R. NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources-Region 6. Personal

communication with Jason Willey (ERM) January 29, 2007.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 106


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
two significant wildlife concentration areas located at, or in the vicinity of, the
Project Area (Table 2.9-2).51 These significant wildlife concentration areas
incorporate all, or portions of, significant fish and wildlife coastal habitat
protected by the NYSDOS.

BP Wind Energy conducted in-person meetings with the NYSDEC on state-listed


species on June 11 and November 4, 2010. Based on the June 11, 2010 meeting,
BP Wind Energy initiated additional field surveys for grassland birds and
Blanding’s Turtle. Based on survey findings and in-person discussions with
NYSDEC, BP Wind Energy has initiated an application for the Article 11
Incidental Take Permit process. Species included in the Article 11 Incidental
Take Permit Application include grassland bird species (northern harrier [Circus
cyaneus], short-eared owl, [Asio flammeus] Henslow’s sparrow [Ammodramus
henslowii], sedge wren [Cistothorus platensis]and upland sandpiper [Bartramia
longicauda]). This Application is currently under preparation. State-listed birds
included in the Article 11 application are noted below, with additional discussion
on these and other state-listed birds included in Section 2.11.

TABLE 2.9-2: New York State Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species in the
Vicinity of the Project Area

Common Name Scientific Name State Listing Status1


Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens Threatened
Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Threatened
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Endangered
Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Threatened
Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Threatened
Northern Harrier Cirus cyaneus Threatened
Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Threatened
Wildlife Management and Concentration Areas
French Creek Wildlife Management Area N/A
Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area N/A
Raptor Winter Concentration Areas N/A
Waterfowl Winter Concentration Areas N/A
Source: NY Natural Heritage Program, 2007

Lake Sturgeon
Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) is state-listed as threatened by the NYNHP.
This species is one of New York’s largest freshwater fish and has a torpedo-
shaped body covered with five rows of bony plates, and a sharp con-shaped
snout with four barbells on its underside. Lake Sturgeon spawn in early spring,
between May and June, and reach maturity at 8-19 years old. Lake Sturgeon are
bottom feeders with leeches, snail, clams, and small fish making up the bulk of
their diet.52

51NYNHP, 2007.
52NYSDEC. 2007b. Lake Sturgeon Fact Sheet.
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/wetbsite/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/lakestur.html. Accessed January
24, 2007.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 107


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
Lake Sturgeon are found primarily in freshwater lakes and large rivers in
northeastern North America, but also occur in the brackish waters of the Hudson
Bay and the St. Lawrence River. In New York, this species have been collected in
the St. Lawrence River, Grasse River, and Lake Ontario. In the Project Area, lake
sturgeon are known to occur in Lake Ontario, and rivers and streams in the
vicinity of Lyme.53

Blanding’s Turtle
Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) is state-listed as threatened by the
NYNHP and is a medium to large turtle with an elongated, domed shell
speckled with numerous yellow or light-colored flecks or streaks.

Riveredge Associates’, Dr. Glenn Johnson, Professor of Biology at State


University of New York ( SUNY) Potsdam and Riveredge Senior Ecologist,
visited the Project Area on October 10, 11, and 15 2007, and again on June 3, 4,
and 17 2010, to identify and evaluate wetlands within Cape Vincent Project’s
zone of potential impact for potentially suitable Blanding’s turtle habitat. Dr.
Johnson also visited an Alternate Transmission Line alignment on June 17, 2010
to complete a habitat assessment along this route.

Nesting activity surveys designed by Dr. Johnson and the staff at Region 6 of the
NYSDEC were conducted from 6 PM to midnight each day from 7 June through
27 June 2010 by Riveredge Associates. Surveys focused on locating: 1) nesting
female turtles, 2) evidence of digging, 3) turtle tracks, and 4) nests destroyed by
predators. The primary purposes of the 2007 and 2010 investigations were to: 1)
evaluate wetlands to determine whether the vegetative structure, vegetative
species composition, and other habitat parameters represent suitable habitat for
Blanding’s turtle for foraging, nesting, or overwintering; 2) perform daily
surveys for nesting Blanding’s turtles in areas identified above; and 3) provide
recommendations to avoid or mitigate potential impacts from the proposed
project on Blanding’s turtles and their habitat. The following discussion on
Blanding’s turtles is based on field reports for the 2007 and 2010 surveys
performed by Riveredge Associates for BP.

Distribution and Habitat Preferences


Blanding’s turtle is documented to occur in the region of the Project Area 54, 55
but detailed survey information within the immediate vicinity is limited. A large
shrub/scrub, emergent wetland complex above the causeway at Wilson Bay is
known to support a breeding population of Blanding’s turtles56. This wetland is
adjacent to the southwest corner of the Project Area (at County Route 6).
Additionally, two Blanding’s turtles have been observed on County Route 9
where it crosses Kerns Creek in 2006 and 2007. This site is approximately 4.0 km

53 NYNHP, 2007.
54 Petokas, P.J. and M.M. Alexander. 1980. Geographic distribution: Emydoidea blandingii.
Herpetol.Rev.11:14.
55 Gibbs, James P, et al; 2007, The Amphibians and Reptiles of New York, Oxford University Press
56 A. Breisch, NYSDEC, personal communication; G. Johnson, unpublished data

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 108


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
north of the northwestern corner of the Project Area (County Route 8 and Rosiere
Road). These records are held in the database of the NYNHP.

Primary wetland habitats occupied by Blanding’s turtle usually include


productive, eutrophic inland and deep freshwater wetlands57 especially shrub
swamps with alder, willow, cattail, and sedges, as well as emergent wetlands
with shallow water composed of reeds, grasses, and cattail, 58 with a soft but firm
organic bottom and abundant aquatic vegetation.59 Specifically, Blanding’s
turtles use areas with the following characteristics:60
• both shallow (30 cm) and deep (120 cm) pools connected by channels;
• open or absent tree canopy;
• tree species often along the wetland perimeter;
• a dense cover of shrubs, particularly willow (Salix spp.) and buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis), with components of forbs and graminoids
dispersed as hummocks and tussocks throughout the wetland; and
• coarse and fine organic debris.

In addition, high quality Blanding’s turtle habitat consists of a “habitat complex”


that provides all of the habitat types used during springtime, breeding, nesting,
summer, and hibernation activities in close proximity to one another. Springtime
foraging and basking habitat consisting of deep, fluctuating pools represents
crucial habitat for Blanding’s turtles. 61

Blanding’s turtles are known to utilize human-disturbed areas such as plowed


fields, road side berms, active agricultural lands, and sand and gravel pits for
nesting 62. Natural nesting sites have been observed in grasslands characterized
by sandy loam or sandy soils (Ross and Anderson 1990) and areas with sparse
herbaceous vegetation interspersed with bare mineral soil.63 The distance of
potential nest sites from water varies from 2.0 m to greater than 1.0 km64, and
nest observations in areas adjacent to wetlands where they are not considered

57 Ernst, C. H., R. W. Barbour, and J. E. Lovich. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada.

Smithsonian Institution Press Washington, D.C.


58 Piepgras, S. A., and J. W. Lang. 2000. Spatial ecology of Blanding's Turtle in central Minnesota.

Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(4):589-601.


59 Kofron, C.P. and A.A. Schreiber. 1985. Ecology of two endangered aquatic turtles in Missouri:

Kinosternon flavescens and Emydoidea blandingii. J. Herpetol. 19(1):27-40


60 Kiviat, E. 1997. Blanding’s turtle habitat requirements and implications for conservation in

Dutchess County, New York. P. 377-382 in J. Van Abbema, ed. Proceedings: Conservation,
Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles, an International Conference. New York
Turtle and Tortoise Society.
61 Kiviat, E. 1993. A tale of two turtles; Conservation of the Blanding’s turtle and bog turtle. News

from Hudsonia 9(3):1-6


62 Linck, M.H., J.A. DePari, B.O. Butler, and T.E. Graham. 1989. Nesting behavior of the turtle,

Emydoidea blandingi, in Massachusetts. Journal of Herpetology 23:442-444


63 Kiviat, E., G. Stevens, R. Brauman, S. Hoeger, P.J. Petokas & G.G. Hollands. 2000. Restoration of

wetland and upland habitat for Blanding’s turtle. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(4):650-657
64 Congdon, J.D. and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Relationships of reproductive traits and body size

with attainment of sexual maturity in Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii). J. Evol. Biol.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 109


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
residents have been recorded.65 66 The nesting season in northern New York
occurs primarily during the month of June. Both sexes of Blanding’s turtles
occasionally make significant overland movements outside of the nesting season,
often staying in retreats in forested uplands or vernal pools 67 68.

Field Reconnaissance Results


Wetlands were characterized as potentially supporting Blanding’s turtles if
criteria outlined above were noted. In addition, a search was made for suitable
nesting areas near potential Blanding’s turtle habitat, including those identified
outside of but within 0.5 km of the Project Area boundary.

No Blanding’s turtles were observed in the Project Area during habitat surveys
conducted in October 2007 and during habitat surveys and nesting activity
surveys conducted in 2010. Four areas were identified as potentially supporting
Blanding’s turtles in or adjacent to the Project Area and are referred to as Habitat
Sites 1-4.

Site 1 consisted of: 1) the road shoulder and berms associated with Wilson Road,
2) a field planted in corn bounded by an abandoned railroad grade, Wilson Road
and a wooded swamp bordering Kent’s Creek, 3) a portion of a cornfield
adjacent to Wilson Road north of the abandoned railroad grade, and 4) the
roadway and bare substrate around the Cape Vincent Transfer Station.

Site 2 consisted of the shoulder and roadside berms of Hell Street, and portions
of a cornfield adjacent to Hell Street. Potential Blanding’s turtle habitat
associated with both Site 1 and Site 2 is a large forested wetland complex located
southwest of Wilson Road. This wetland is primarily a seasonally-saturated
palustrine forested wetland composed mostly of deciduous trees dominated by
American elm (Ulmus americana), ash (Fraxinus spp.), and maples (Acer rubrum
and A. saccharinum). It drains eastward into Kent’s Creek near Hell Street.
Within this wetland, an extensive emergent marsh and shrub/scrub swamp is
found near the intersection of Wilson Road and the Study Area boundary. This
area has some marginal potential to support Blanding’s turtles, although little
surface water was observed at the time of the survey. Additional potential
Blanding’s turtle habitat is located along the riparian margins of Kent’s Creek
and a small (less than 0.25 acre) shrub/scrub wetland dominated by buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis) located along the railroad grade just west of Kent’s
Creek. At the time of the survey, no surface water was present; however, it likely
floods each spring from overflow from the adjacent Kent’s Creek. Buttonbush is

65 Congdon, J.D., D.W. Tinkle, G.L. Breitenbach, and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1983. Nesting ecology

and hatching success in the turtle Emydoidea blandingi. Herpetolgica 39:417-429


66 Ross, D. A., and R. K. Anderson. 1990. Habitat use, movements, and nesting of Emydoidea

blandingi in central Wisconsin. Journal of Herpetology 24:6-12.


67 Johnson, G. and T. Crockett. 2006. Distribution, population structure, habitat relationships and

nesting ecology of Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) populations in northern New York:
Final Report to Biodiversity Research Institute.
68 Joyal, L.A., M. McCollough, and M.L. Hunter. 2001. Landscape ecology approaches to wetland

conservation: a case study of two turtle species in southern Maine. Conservation Biology 15:1755-
1762

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 110


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
an indicator species for Blanding’s turtle in some parts of its range. This wetland
is likely too small to support a population of Blanding’s turtles; however, Kent’s
Creek may serve as a movement corridor for this species and it may be
occasionally occupied. Other open habitat areas within the Study Area that are
adjacent to or near these wetlands were judged unsuitable as Blanding’s turtle
nesting habitat primarily because they were largely agricultural fields in active
hay production and the substrate was not exposed to the sun.

Site 3 consisted of the linear corridor of an abandoned railroad grade between


Burnt Rock Road and County Route 4, an adjacent horse pasture consisting of a
mix of exposed substrate and a raised earthen berm, and open areas along the
intersection of the abandoned railroad grade and Burnt Rock Road. Potential
Blanding’s turtle habitat associated with Site 3 is located to the southwest of the
abandoned railroad grade approximately 0.75 km northwest of Burnt Rock Road
and consists of seasonally-saturated shrub/scrub and emergent marsh. Water
flows northeast through a small (45 cm diameter) culvert under the railroad
grade. This wetland has been impacted by beaver activity creating numerous
channels; however, water levels were low (greatest pool depth approximately 30
cm) at the time of the survey. Shrubs consisted of 90% willow (Salix spp.) species.
This wetland has potential to support Blanding’s turtles, showing essential
habitat features such as shallow and deep pools and channels, shrub hummocks
for overwintering, numerous elevated basking areas, a soft organic substrate and
potential nesting areas nearby. Limitations to Blanding’s turtle occupancy
include its relatively small size linked to its distance from a known colonizing
source, limited submerged and floating aquatic vegetation, and low water levels.

Site 4 consisted of open areas and dirt tracks associated with a residence on the
southwest side of Cemetery Road and a large open field with some wetland
features interspersed with drier areas and exposed substrates west of the
residence. Approximately 250 m on the opposite (northeast) side of Cemetery
Road from Site 4 is a shrub/scrub wetland known to support a population of
Blanding’s turtles. The access road to a turbine location has been re-routed
around this potential Blanding’s habitat to avoid impacts.

2.9.2.3 Wildlife Communities of Ecological Significance

Two Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) and two Wildlife Concentration Areas
occur within or adjacent to the Project Area.69 These significant wildlife
concentration areas incorporate all, or portions of, two significant fish and
wildlife coastal habitats protected by the NYSDOS.

Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area


Ashland Flats is a 2,037 acre State WMA located adjacent to the Project Area and
containing both upland and wetland habitats. A small portion of the
northwestern edge of the WMA is within the Project Area. Common activities
allowed in the WMA include birdwatching, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing,

69 NYNHP, 2007.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 111


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
hunting and trapping.70 The Ashland Flats WMA is also designated in its
entirety as Ashland Bird Conservation Area (BCA). This area is characterized by
relatively large areas of early succession habitats, as well as forested areas and
limestone barrens. Endangered and threatened species supported by this area
include Short-eared Owl, Henslow’s Sparrow, Sedge Wren, Northern Harrier,
and Upland Sandpiper. Ashland Flats WMA’s importance lies primarily in the
expanses of contiguous grassland and shrub land it hosts.71

French Creek Wildlife Management Area


French Creek WMA is a 2,265-acre parcel located northeast of the Project Area
containing both upland and wetland habitat types. The WMA is not contained
within the project boundary and common activities include boat access, bird
watching, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, fishing, and trapping.72

Waterfowl Winter Concentration Areas


There are two waterfowl winter concentration areas in the vicinity of the Project
Area that were identified by the NYNHP: the Fox Island-Grenadier Island Shoals
and the Wilson Bay Marsh.73

The Fox Island-Grenadier Island Shoals were listed as significant fish and
wildlife habitat by the NYSDOS on August 15, 1993 and include Fox Island and
all the shoals around it from Grenadier Island on the west to the mainland, Little
Fox Creek Marsh, and Fox Creek Marsh. The shoals are “hardscrabble” and a
shallow water area containing beds of submerged aquatic vegetation with wild
celery (Vallisneria americana), water star grass (Heteranthera dubia) and muskgrass
(Chara vulgaris) dominating, and patches of emergent wetland vegetation around
the shoreline. Several large marsh areas occur on Fox Island and at the lower
ends of Fox Creek and Little Fox Creek.74

There are no federal or state-listed rare, threatened or endangered species that


occur in the Fox Island-Grenadier Island Shoals; however, the shoals are an
important fish spawning and nursery for smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu),
yellow perch (Perca flavescens), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), and white
perch (Morone americana).75 All of these species are typical of warmwater
lacustrine habitats in west-central New York and could be found in at least the
lower reaches of any of the streams located within the Project boundary.
Considering the availability of gravel beds that are suitable for spawning in
Kents Creek upstream of Route 12E, the portion of Kents Creek within the
Project boundary should be considered potential spawning habitat for
smallmouth bass, yellow perch, brown bullhead, and white perch, as well as
walleye. The vegetated shallows along any of the streams within the Project
Area may provide nursery habitat for these or other common species of fish, and

70 NYSDEC. 2007c.
71 BCA 2007.
72 NYSDEC, 2007c.
73 NYNHP, 2007.
74 NYNHP, 2007
75 NYSDOS. 2007d.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 112


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
may provide additional spawning habitat for yellow perch, which commonly
attach their eggs to aquatic vegetation. The Fox Island-Grenadier Island Shoals
are outside of the Study Area and are thus outside the scope of site-specific
ecological surveys for federal or state-listed rare, threatened or endangered
species.

The second waterfowl winter concentration area, and NYSDOS significant fish
and wildlife habitat, in the Project Area is the Wilson Bay Marsh. The marsh is
located north of Kents Creek and the Fox Island-Grenadier Island Shoals
bordering the northwest corner of the Project Area. The area is approximately
305 acres of open water (up to 30 feet deep) with flat rock, clean sand, or clean
gravel on the bottom. A gravel barrier beach has formed at the head of the bay
separating it from the marsh behind which consists of 98 acres of brushy swamp
(mostly alder) and 70 acres of mixed hardwood swamp, which occurs along a
small stream that flows into the bay. Submerged, emergent and floating leaved
vegetation is interspersed with the shrubs in some areas.76 Black terns, a New
York state endangered species, are known to occur in Wilson Bay Marsh. No
black terns, however, were observed during site specific surveys within the
study area. Additionally, little suitable habitat for black terns exists in the Study
Area and black terns are not expected to utilize the Study Area. Black terns are
generally associated with aquatic ecosystems occurring in shallow freshwater
marshes with open water, where the species forages and nests. The species is not
expected to occupy upland areas similar to those found within the Project Area.
Specifically, black terns feed on aquatic insects and small fish found in the
aquatic ecosystems where they typically occur 77 . Wilson Bay Marsh is outside
the current proposed project area and no direct construction or operation-related
impacts are anticipated. The absence of project related impacts to Wilson Bay
Marsh, coupled with no black tern observations within the project area and
incompatibility of habitat types within the Project Area required by the species,
mean that black terns are unlikely to occur on the site or be impacted by the
Project.

Raptor Winter Concentration Areas


There are two raptor winter concentration areas in the vicinity of the Project
Area: Grenadier Island78 and Point Peninsula.79 Both areas are also listed as
significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat by NYSDOS. Grenadier Island is part
of the Fox Island-Grenadier Island Shoals and the large meadow vole
populations and lack of human disturbance make the island favorable wintering
and breeding habitat for a variety of raptor species including northern harrier
(Circus cyaneus) and short-eared owls (Asio flammeus). The island also provides
suitable habitat for a variety of passerines including upland sandpiper

76 NYNHP, 2007.
77 Dunn, E.H. and D.J. Agro. 1995. Black Tern (Chlidonias Niger). In A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.) The
Birds of North America, 147. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. and Amer. Ornith. Union, Washington D.C.
78 NYSDOS. 2007c. Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Rating Form: Grenadier Island. New York

State Department of State. http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/waterfront_natural_narratives.asp.


Accessed January 29, 2007.
79 NYNHP, 2007.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 113


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
(Bartramia longicauda), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), and
vesper 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 located
south of the Cape Vincent Project Area and is a mosaic of habitats including
active farmland, old fields, some woodlots and conifer plantations. The area is
used 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 other
raptor species, including bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), have been
observed 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 within
and adjacent to the study area and has documented short-eared owls, northern
harriers, red-tailed hawks and other species within the Project. Information from
these surveys has been incorporated into project planning as part of the Article
11 Incidental Take Permit application.

2.10 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY: IMPACTS

The Project is designed to reduce permanent impacts on undisturbed


(unmanaged) vegetation communities and avoid impacts to threatened and
endangered species or significant ecological habitats. All permanent facilities
(wind turbines, the electrical substation, and operations and maintenance
facilities) and temporary construction facilities (construction staging areas and
the batch concrete plant) will be located in upland habitats and attempts have
been made to site these facilities in disturbed habitats such as agricultural areas
that provide limited wildlife habitat.

2.10.1 General Impacts to Local Habitats

2.10.1.1 Temporary Impacts

Temporary impacts to natural habitats and wildlife will occur during


construction of access roads and the transmission lines. Temporary impacts that
would 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
construction; and
• temporary displacement of disturbance-tolerant species from habitats
adjacent to Project facilities during construction.

80 NYSDOS, 2007c.
81 NYSDOC, 2007d.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 114


Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393

You might also like