Professional Documents
Culture Documents
February 2011
www.erm.com
Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact
Statement: Cape Vincent Wind
Power Project
February 2011
Phil Ponebshek
Project Manager
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
List of Tables
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.
6.1-1 Operating and Proposed Wind Power Projects in Cape Vincent Area
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
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
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
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 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.
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.
Canada
@
?
Legend
@
? Proposed Project Area
Canada
Legend
Proposed Turbine Array
US/Canada Boundary
Proposed Batch Plant
Proposed Operations & Maintenance Facility
Proposed Temporary Laydown Area
Proposed Substation
Proposed Project Boundary
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Table 1.1-1 lists the local, state, and federal approvals and permits required.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
1.2.7 Decommissioning
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Construction and operation of the proposed Cape Vincent Project would result in
positive environmental, economic, and energy benefits.
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.
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.
http://www.adirondackcouncil.org/acidraininfo3.html
13 Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/
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.
This section provides a general overview of the geology within the study area.
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 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.
14 New York State Office for Technology. 2004. Geologic Resources, Appendix A.
https://www.oft.state.ny.us/SWNdocs/docs/Geologic%20Resources.pdf
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 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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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®ion=New%20York.
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.
Percent of Project
Soil Types Area (%)
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
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.
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.
2.4.1 Impacts
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/ny/jefferson
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.
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.
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/
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Temporary Facility
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ERM-Southwest, Inc. 65
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
potential for contaminated runoff from impacting local surface water bodies or
ground water resources.
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
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/beauty/cypripedium/cypripedium_arietinum.shtml. January
12, 2007
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.
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
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
46 Reischke, Carol. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage
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.
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.
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.
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 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
TABLE 2.9-2: New York State Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife Species in the
Vicinity of the Project Area
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.
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.
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.
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
57 Ernst, C. H., R. W. Barbour, and J. E. Lovich. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
69 NYNHP, 2007.
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
70 NYSDEC. 2007c.
71 BCA 2007.
72 NYSDEC, 2007c.
73 NYNHP, 2007.
74 NYNHP, 2007
75 NYSDOS. 2007d.
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.
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
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.
80 NYSDOS, 2007c.
81 NYSDOC, 2007d.