GALLOO ISLAND KILL PERMITApplication

8/9/2019 GALLOO ISLAND KILL PERMITApplication

1/20

Hounsfield Wind Farm NYSDEC Endangered/Threatened Species Permit Application

February 10, 2010

Hounsfield Wind FarmEndangered/Threatened Species Permit Application

Supplemental Material

1.0 Introduction

The NYSDEC has determined that the Hounsfield Wind Project (“Project”) will require an Endangered/Threatened Species Permit pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0535 and 6 NYCRR Part 182. This supplement will complete the application for an incidental take permit for grassland birds (various species) and Bald Eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ). The Bald Eagle, Northern Harrier ( Circus cyaneus ), and Upland Sandpiper ( Bartramia longicauda ) have been identified as State Listed Threatened Species. The Short-eared Owl ( Asio flammeus ) has been identified as State Listed Endangered Species. This permit is required because the NYSDEC has determined that the Project may result in the “take” or “taking” through the direct killing, harassment, destruction of birds’ nests or destruction or adverse modification of breeding, roosting, and/or foraging habitats during construction, operation and maintenance of the Project. According to the NYSDEC, a Grassland Bird location taking could be considered an individual bird and could also be considered a nest of grassland birds. The incidental take permit that the Project Sponsor is requesting would allow the taking of habitat and up to 5 (five) threatened/endangered avian species including Grassland Bird/Bird locations or Bald Eagle/Bald Eagle locations. The mitigation measures and conditions set forth by the Project Sponsor below will avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts to the endangered and threatened species identified herein.

The information in this application is drawn from and based on the following studies and reports, as well as comments from the NYSDEC, which are incorporated herein:

● Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Hounsfield Wind Farm, dated January 2009;

● Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Hounsfield Wind Farm, dated December 2009;

● 2007-2008 Wintering Bird Surveys Big Galloo Island, NY dated July 2008;● Spring 2008 Radar Survey Report for the Hounsfield Wind Project on Galloo

Island, New York dated October 2008;● 2008 Breeding Bird Study of Big Galloo Island, Jefferson County, NY dated

October 2008;● 2008 Diurnal Bird Movement Study on Big Galloo Island, Jefferson County, NY

dated December 2008;● Fall 2008 Radar Survey Report for the Hounsfield Wind Project on Galloo Island,

New York dated December 2008;● 2008 Acoustic Study of Avian Night Migration on Big Galloo Island dated

December 2008;

1


2/20


February 10, 2010● Ecological Resources Report for the Hounsfield Wind Farm on Galloo Island dated

January 2009;

2


3/20


February 10, 2010● Avian Risk Assessment for the Hounsfield Wind Energy Project on Galloo Island,

Jefferson County, NY dated February 2009;● 2008-2009 Wintering Bird Surveys Galloo Island, NY dated May 1, 2009;● 2009 Breeding Bird Study of Galloo Island, Jefferson County, NY dated October

2009; and● 2009 Diurnal Bird Movement Study on Galloo Island, Jefferson County, NY dated

October 2009.

2.0 Project Description

The Hounsfield Wind Farm (“Project”) includes the construction and operation of the island-portion of the wind powered electric generation facility on Galloo Island, in the Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, New York which was described in the DEIS/FEIS as consisting of 84 wind turbine generators (“WTG”), with a nameplate 1

generating capacity of 252 megawatts (“MW”), and related support facilities.

As a wind farm located on an remote island several miles from the mainland, the Project is in a unique position to assist the State in meeting the policy objectives (including the State Energy Plan, Renewable Portfolio Standard targets and other Executive Orders) discussed below while minimizing potential environmental impacts and impacts of local concern typically associated with wind-powered electric generating facility siting, including visual and noise impacts, and development in New York State.

As stated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Hounsfield Wind Farm, the NYSDEC has determined that the Project is required to obtain a permit under Article 11 of the Environmental Conservation Law (“ECL”) to address potential impacts of the

Project to state-listed threatened and endangered species. As a result of this determination and additional discussions with NYSDEC, the Project Sponsor has revised the proposed Project layout to remove two WTGs (WTG 2 and WTG 3) in the southern

portion of the island. (See Map, Figure 1).

The removal of these two WTGs and the “No-Build” area restriction poses significant challenges to the Project Sponsor to meet the project objectives to maximize the unique wind resource at this island location. However, the removal of these two turbines in combination with the delineation of approximately 58 acres as a “No-Build” area demonstrates the Project Sponsor has achieved NYSDEC’s initial mandate of endangered and threatened species “avoidance”. In addition to the extent potential impacts cannot be

avoided, the Project Sponsor has proposed various impact minimization measures and a mitigation plan that includes securing off-site grasslands set-asides. The result is that the Project Sponsor has minimized potential impacts to endangered and threatened species to

1 The Project Sponsor has agreed to remove two turbines in the vicinity of the Southern Grasslands from project layout, which would reduce the maximum output to 246 MW. However, the DEIS and FEIS analyzedthe larger layout.

3


4/20


February 10, 2010

the maximum extent practicable and results in a net conservation benefit to the species included within this application.

As explained in more detail in NYSDEC’s DEIS/FEIS, all practicable measures have

been incorporated into the design of the Project to avoid and minimize other environmental impacts. There are many “best practices” that will be implemented to help reduce potential environmental impacts as detailed in the DEIS/FEIS.

3.0 Purpose and Need

The Project Sponsor’s goals and objectives for the Project are to:

● Create an economically viable wind-powered electric-generating facility;● Provide renewable energy to the New York market at a competitive, low cost

price;● Take maximum advantage of the unique wind resource within the Project Area

and one of the only viable locations in New York with a Class 4 wind resourceand the ability to construct a facility with a nameplate capacity of 252 MWs ofwind powered renewable energy;

● Assist New York State in meeting its proposed Renewable Portfolio Standardgoals for the generation of renewable energy in the State;

● Assist New York State in meeting the goals of the State Energy Plan andcombating Climate Change;

● Promote the long-term economic viability of the host communities located in ruralareas of Upstate New York;

● Reduce the use and price volatility of fossil-fuel electricity generation in the

region;● Increase the amount of “in-state” generation of electricity to lower New York’sdependence on imported energy from other states and foreign nations;

● Satisfy regional energy needs in an efficient and environmentally sound manner;● Develop a wind powered electric-generation project consistent with

environmental and cultural requirements and community goals; and● Create jobs and create revenue through PILOT payments to local taxing

jurisdictions.

The need for the Project is well established in both State and Federal policy promoting wind powered electric generating facilities and is consistent with many statements,

policies and guidance issued by the NYSDEC. As explained in detail in the DEIS/FEIS (Section 1.0 of both) the Project is fully consistent with the goals of promoting renewable energy development and specifically wind farms in the New York State Energy Plan, the State Renewable Portfolio standard and Executive Order No. 24. As also explained in the DEIS/FEIS (Section 1.0 of both), in addition to meeting specific goals of the state and federal government, the benefits of the Project include positive impacts on socioeconomics (e.g., increased revenues to local municipalities, short-term and long-term employment, and purchase of local goods and services), air quality (by

4


5/20


February 10, 2010

off-setting generation from fossil-fuel-burning power plants), and climate (reduction of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming). By eliminating pollutants and greenhouse gases, the Project will benefit ecological and water resources, including avian species, as well as human health, providing a net positive impact on the environment.

In fact, the NYSDEC has underscored the salience that government should give to advancing policies addressing renewable energy’s role in combating climate change and incorporating that policy in agency decision-making by stating : 2

● “Wind energy is a key component of a clean energy future for New York.” (pg. 4).

● Fighting climate change is without question the most substantial environmental challenge facing this State, this nation and the world today.

●

“Commissioner Grannis ha[s] made the fight against climate change a top priority. . . . development of wind energy is vital to the reduction of greenhouse gases.”

● “For each 100 MW of electricity generated from fossil fuels that is displaced by wind power, approximately 500,000 to one million tons of carbon dioxide are avoided annually, depending on whether that power would otherwise be generated

by natural gas or coal.” (pg. 4-5).

● The expansion of wind power has multiple environmental and public health benefits (pg. 5)

Excerpts from April 11, 2008 NYSDEC Brief:

● Fighting climate change is the substantial environmental challenge facing NewYork State. (pg. 2).

● “Wind energy is vital to the reduction of greenhouse gases.” (pg. 2).● A dramatic increase in wind energy capacity is a necessary component of a

strategy to reduce dependency on, and the use of fossil fuels. (pg. 2).● The expansion of wind power has multiple environmental and public health

benefits by reducing the amount of pollutants that lead to levels of illness anddeath from respiratory and heart disease, and hopefully, reducing in the long term,

displacing electric generation that relies on fossil fuels. (pg. 2).As the NYSDEC has observed, decisions on wind projects cannot proceed in a vacuum. Rather Agency decision-makers must take into account the many policies that have been

put in place that favor wind development and will heavily depend on wind energy

2 The references are from testimony by the NYSDEC before the New York Department of Public Service(NYDPS) on January 11, 2008 (Jared Snyder, Assistant Commissioner Air Resources, Climate Change andEnergy) and in Briefs filed before NYDPS on April 11, 2008.

5


6/20


7/20


February 10, 2010

reduce dependence upon fossil fuels, which are known to contribute to acid rain, green house gases (carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), or nitrogen oxides (NO x )), smog, and other environmental harms. Specifically, if the “No Action” alternative were selected, this amount of power (252 MW) would have to be produced from other sources, which, given the New York fuel mix, would also produce environmentally damaging

byproducts including: approximately 13.8 billion pounds of CO 2 , 49.9 million pounds of SO 2 , and 18.5 million pounds of NO x over a period of 20 years.

Although the “No Action” alternative would eliminate the collision risk associated with the Project, it may not protect the habitat, because if there is no significant intervention

pale swallow-wort is likely to choke out the grassland thus potentially eliminating habitat, potential breeding grounds and grassland species from the island.

Fewer Turbines Alternative

A Fewer Turbine Layout, considered by NYSDEC in the DEIS/FEIS was designed to maximize the benefit derived from the renewable resource available on the island, while minimizing the impacts to wetlands and other sensitive habitat, specifically impacts to deciduous and mixed forest habitat while retaining the Project benefits.

The fewer turbine layout that could be constructed would install 51 3.0 MW wind turbines, with a total installed capacity of 153 MW. This layout would still require the construction of the other facilities on the island. With respect to this alternative the DEIS (Section 3.4) noted the following:

Impacts to visual resources would likely be the same as the 252MW Project. Fewer

towers would not increase or decrease the visibility of the project. Impacts to surface waters would stay the same as the docking facility and the water intake structure would still be constructed. Avian and bat impacts may decrease due to the fewer towers which may pose a collision risk. Impacts from habitat fragmentation may also be somewhat reduced.

Operational requirements such as septic services, sewer, lighting and solid waste would all be provided by the project sponsor. The numbers of employees that would be required during construction and operational phases would be approximately 200 workers and 12-18 individuals respectively. There would be no impacts to tourism, boating, fishing, navigation/shipping lanes or commercial businesses.

This layout would allow for energy to be generated from a clean renewable source. However, this alternative would displace 5.45 billion fewer pounds of CO 2 , 19.64 million

pounds less of SO 2 and 7.28 billion pounds less than NO x over the 20 year life-cycle of the project. This Alternative would provide 12.4% of the state’s 2008 RPS target.

7


8/20


February 10, 2010

Determination

The DEIS/FEIS observed that this was not an optimal alternative when balancing benefits against impacts. Assuming that this smaller project was viable, the DEIS/FEIS noted that fewer turbines will generate less in PILOT revenues than the Preferred Alternative. Additionally, it would result in a decrease of 99 MW of installed capacity (39%), while the permanent impacts to wetlands and forest land would also decrease 48% and 41% respectively. However, in the terms of a comparison of MW of installed capacity vs.

permanent impact to land, the Fewer Turbine layout would increase the actual acreage of disturbed land per MW produced (25.9% increase over the Preferred Alternative), due to the project elements that will not change including the dock and the residential and operational area.

Pertinent to this application, this alternative is no more protective of the habitat for threatened and endangered species than the Preferred Alternative (as modified in this

application) since each option can ensure that turbines will not be constructed in the critical grassland habitat area. With regard to potential collision risk, there are many variables involved with assessing potential collision risk which varies depending on species. Generally speaking, the difference between 51 turbines and 82 turbines is negligible in terms of the risk posed to avian species.

Consequently, even assuming that a project this small could be profitably constructed and operated, it does not favorably compare to the Preferred Alternative when benefits and impacts are balanced. Moreover it does not provide any better protection for threatened/endangered species than does the Preferred Alternative.

Shorter Turbine AlternativeThe wind industry has moved toward using larger scale wind turbine generators to improve efficiency in harnessing the wind resource. The Preferred Alternative for the Project proposes the use of the Vesta 3.0 MW turbine. As an alternative, the NYSDEC DEIS/FEIS evaluated, the shorter GE 1.5 MW SLE turbines, using the same 84-turbine layout as the proposed project. This layout using the GE 1.5 MW was then evaluated to assess the impacts to ground, visual, and socioeconomics versus the total power

production.

Impacts

Although the GE 1.5 MW SLE is one of the shortest commercially viable wind turbines available on the market it will require the same infrastructure as the 3.0 Vestas for the 84-wind turbine proposed layout. The NYDEC DEIS (Section 3.6) noted the following:

Visual Disturbance

Visually, a lower turbine height would not significantly change the visual impacts. The Preferred Alternative proposed maximum tip height of 125 m (410 feet), while the

8


9/20


February 10, 2010

smallest GE 1.5 MW wind turbine has a maximum tip height of 103.5 m (339.5 feet). While the view shed would be slightly altered, because of the clear line of site from water

based or shoreline views the shorter turbine would not have a significant effect to visual impacts. The reduction of 21.5 m (approximately 70.5 feet) in the tip height (a change of 17.2%) would not significantly alter the views that would be most impacted (within 5 miles of the island). Additionally, due to the distance from land the turbines as proposed are minimally visible and therefore the impact is low. Therefore using a turbine with a lower height would not significantly change the visual impacts.

Other impacts would remain the same or similar including impacts to surface water because the dock and water intake and outflow will still be constructed. Although the GE turbine is shorter than the Preferred Alternative impacts to birds and bats would likely be the same because the number of turbines and any habitat fragmentation would remain the same.

Because this alternative uses the same layout as the Preferred Alternative, the use of a shorter turbine would result in the same amount of habitats disturbed, total permanent land impacts (161.88 acres) and total temporary land impacts (154.10 acres) as the larger 3.0 MW turbine. Because the number of turbines remains the same in this evaluation, a lower turbine height would not change the land impacts from the project.

In the terms of a comparison of installed MW produced, with a lower turbine height, vs. permanent impact to land there would be an increase the actual acreage of disturbed land per MW produced (100% increase over the Preferred Alternative).

Benefits

As noted above the use of the 1.5 MW turbines would have similar impacts as the Preferred Alternative, 3.0 MW turbines. For example there would be no reduction in the services required with the use of shorter turbines. Operational requirements such as septic services, sewer, lighting and solid waste would be the same. It would also provide some of the same benefits as the Preferred Alternative. The same number of employees would be required during construction (approximately 200 workers) and operational

phases (approximately 24 people) of the proposed Project. There would be no change in impacts to tourism, boating, fishing, navigation/shipping lanes or commercial businesses.

Based on current negotiations with the Town, PILOT payment is anticipated to be $8,500

per installed MW capacity. The proposed project with 84 1.5 MW turbines would generate a yearly payment of $1,071,000. This is half of what would be expected if the Preferred Alternative was constructed.

A reduction in the turbine height would result in a significant loss in power output. The total installed capacity of the proposed 84 3.0 MW turbines is 262 MW. If a 1.5 MW turbine is used, the efficiency of the project in producing energy would be halved to 126 MW of installed capacity. This would be an inefficient use of the site’s unique wind

9


10/20


February 10, 2010

resource while not significantly reducing impacts. In comparison to the Preferred Alternative, there would be a 100% in increase the actual acreage of disturbed land per MW.

Halving the production of energy from a renewable source would reduce the Projects contribution towards meeting the state’s RPS goal and would also halve the displacement of air emissions.

Pertinent to this application, this alternative would have essentially the same potential for impacts on threatened/endangered species as the Preferred Alternative.

Determination

The DEIS/FEIS observed that this was not an optimal alternative when balancing benefits against impacts. Using a lower turbine height is not a viable alternative as the amount of disturbance per MW generated will increase, while the PILOT payment versus the acreage of disturbance would decrease. This alternative does not maximize the benefit of the wind resource when compared to the resulting impacts. Although the GE turbine is marginally shorter than the Preferred Alternative impacts to threatened and endangered species would likely be the same. This alternative would be no more protective of habitat than the Preferred Alternative.

5.0 Nature and Extent of Potential Impacts on Endangered/Threatened Species

A. Characterization of Potential Impacts

As part of the DEIS/FEIS, the Project Sponsor undertook two years of pre-construction study to identify rare, threatened and endangered species on Galloo Island and to characterize the potential impacts to these species. In addition to the studies listed in Section 1.0 above for avian species, acoustic monitoring and mist netting for bats were done. This study did not identify any threatened or endangered bat species. Also turtle studies, including an intensive 28-day nest search focusing on Blanding’s turtles, did not identify turtles that were rare, threatened or endangered. Therefore, the Project Sponsor is confident that the pre-construction monitoring studies fully identified the threatened and endangered species that utilize Galloo Island.

Upland Sandpiper

The Upland Sandpiper is listed as threatened in New York with a state rank of SB3, which indicates 21-100 breeding occurrences. The 2000-2005 NY Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA) data supports this rank with about 100 “confirmed” or “probable” breeding bird

blocks reports for Upland Sandpipers (including Galloo Island). However, not every grassland area in New York is surveyed in the BBA and some only receive brief surveys. Given the incomplete coverage of the BBA surveys, and considering a substantial number of “possible” breeding sites noted from the BBA work, there may be several hundred Upland Sandpiper pairs currently breeding in NY. The “probable” breeding site

10


11/20


February 10, 2010

on Galloo represents about 1% of NY’s known breeding blocks based on the 2000-2005 BBA data.

The overall statewide distribution (based on BBA data) has decreased 65% since 1985,

and abundance (based on BBS data) has declined by about 16% per year. The primary threats to the species in NY are agricultural conversion, fragmentation, and intensification (e.g., hay field turned to corn or soy production). In other words, the

breeding status of Upland Sandpiper has been in steep decline in NY and if such declines continue the species would likely be elevated to “endangered” status within the next 20 years. Construction of the Project would not threaten species viability in New York State

because Galloo Island represents only 1% of NY’s known breeding sites and the Project Sponsor has proposed a mitigation program that will promote the preservation of this species.

Northern Harrier

The Northern Harrier is listed as threatened in New York with a state rank of S3B;S3N, which indicates 21-100 breeding occurrences. The 2000-2005 NY BBA had 355 3

“confirmed” or “probable” breeding Harriers. However, due to the large home range of this species, especially males, nesting individuals were likely detected in more than one

block. Therefore, this is a much lower estimate of the actual number of breeding Northern Harriers in NY. However, not every grassland area in New York is surveyed in the BBA and some only receive brief surveys. Given the incomplete coverage of the BBA surveys, and considering a substantial number of “possible” breeding sites noted from the BBA work, there may be several hundred Northern Harrier pairs currently breeding in

NY. The “probable” breeding detected on Galloo represents


12/20


February 10, 2010

“confirmed” or “probable” breeding in only 13 blocks. The breeding population is in danger of extirpation from NY.

While no breeding Short-eared Owls were found on Galloo during the 2008 and 2009

breeding seasons, the island does have suitable breeding habitat for at least a pair of this species. Construction of 82 WTGs on Galloo would potentially indirectly impact the quality of this habitat for potential Short-eared Owl breeding. The species is a migrant on the island in small numbers and in some years and it is possible that it may overwinter. Construction and Operation of the Project would not threaten species viability in New York State because this species is currently not breeding on Galloo Island. The species would likely benefit from the mitigation program the Project Sponsor has proposed for the Upland Sandpiper and Northern Harrier.

Bald Eagle

The Bald Eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed as threatened in New York. The NY breeding, wintering and migratory populations have been steadily increasing in recent years. As of 2008, NYSDEC estimated there are about 150 active nests in NY and over 500 wintering birds. Annual estimates are variable but trend numbers in recent years have increased by 15-20% per year, reflecting the continuing population recovery after the

banning of the agricultural use of DDT in North America in 1972.

Bald Eagles are not currently breeding on Galloo Island and the closest known nest is over 20 km away, east of Sackett’s Harbor, NY. Based on the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 winter bird studies on Galloo, the Bald Eagle appears to be a regular winter visitant with the numbers accruing depending on ice conditions and waterfowl activity around the

island. A high of 12 winter birds was noted in March 2008 when open areas of water amidst ice and high waterfowl numbers were present. A few nonbreeding subadult Bald Eagles were seen around the perimeter of the island in summers 2008 and 2009. These latter birds were not seen flying over the interior of the island but were occasionally seen

perched in trees along the shoreline. The wintering eagles were often noted perched atop trees in the interior of the island and in a few cases young Bald Eagles were seen feeding on a dead deer carcass. Night roosting of Bald Eagles was not documented though weather hampered such surveys during the winter months when it might be more noticeable. Winter roosting certainly seems a possibility in years when there is abundant food supply (wintering waterfowl, dead deer) around the island.

Therefore, due of the number of Bald Eagles wintering in New York State, the lack of breeding on Galloo Island and the increasing population of Bald Eagles the construction and operation of the Project will not threaten species viability.

B. Project Impacts

The construction of turbines on Galloo Island could potentially reduce the use of the Southern Grassland habitat by threatened/endangered grassland avian species. The 2009

12


13/20


February 10, 2010

Breeding Bird Study produced strong evidence that a pair Upland Sandpipers were breeding on Galloo Island. There was territorial behavior of one adult in the south end of the island. Upland Sandpipers require a minimum of approximately 25 to 30 acres of suitable habitat to nest. On June 5, 12, 13, 24 -26 th , the Upland Sandpiper range was 5

identified by Old Bird, Inc., a firm experienced with avian biology. Three adult Upland Sandpipers were identified as using this area identified on Figure 2 as Upland Sandpiper Range. This is a subset of the area shown on Figure 2 and identified as “Southern Grassland” (the 58 acre area described in more detail below). The Southern Grassland area was identified by Old Bird, Inc, during site visits and was expanded following input from NYSDEC.

The Southern Grassland on Galloo Island is an open area in the extreme southeastern portion of the island that is the least disturbed grassland on the island. The current owner has not mowed this grassland or used it for agriculture. There are also no old stumps evident from early logging operations, suggesting that this area may have been one of the few naturally-occurring grasslands in New York.

Within the Southern Grassland there are slight altitude variations that cause a wide diversity of grassland species and grassland communities. Some areas have no topsoil at all and the limestone bedrock is exposed with scant vegetation. Other areas in the southern reaches of this grassland have more topsoil, are wetter and host taller grass. Unlike many other grassland areas on the island, pale swallow-wort and Canadian thistle have not yet dominated the Southern Grassland area. These species do encroach into the northern portion of the Southern Grassland.

This grassland has a native feel and is ideal breeding habitat for Upland Sandpiper and good foraging and perhaps nesting habitat (southern section) for Northern Harrier. It is likely that if the island were left undisturbed, pale swallow-wort and Canadian thistle would eventually dominate most of the grassland areas on the island. Such incursion would likely make these grasslands unsuitable for Upland Sandpiper and other native grassland birds to breed.

The Southern Grassland area is bound on the southeast and south by the shoreline terrain of Lake Ontario; to the west it graduates into forest; to the north it abuts an old tree blow down; to the northeast it transitions into grassland infested with swallow-wort and thistle; and on the east it becomes open woodland. For the purpose of maximizing the utility of this Southern Grassland area for listed NY grassland birds, a "No-Build" area is defined (Figure 2) in the southern grassland that is 10 meters from the shoreline terrain. The distance from the various treelines or open woodland to the "No-Build" area varies on

point to point measurements but generally ranges from 50 m to 130m. Existing studies

5 http://ny.audubon.org/PDFs/HRVC_UPLANDSANDPIPER2.pdf and Conservation Assessment for UplandSandpiper (Bartramia longicauda). 2003. US Forest Service, Eastern Region.http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/ca-overview/docs/birds/UplandSandpiper2003.pdf

13

http://ny.audubon.org/PDFs/HRVC_UPLANDSANDPIPER2.pdf


14/20


February 10, 2010

suggest this buffer from the treeline to the grassland proper would not likely have been utilized for nesting by grassland nesting birds. 6

Northern Harriers were also documented as likely breeders on Galloo Island. Three

young harriers were identified hunting with an adult female in the Southern Grassland. The location of the nest was not identified in the surveys.

The Project Sponsor has agreed to remove the two turbines that were situated in the area identified as Upland Sandpiper Range in Figure 2. Therefore, the direct habitat take associated with locating WTG #2 and #3 at this location has been avoided by the removal of these two WTGs by the Project Sponsor.

There may be an indirect take of a portion of the Southern Grassland by virtue of turbines (#1, 4, 7, 8) placed adjacent to but not within the Southern Grassland (shown on Figure 2) or construction of the Project itself. It is unknown if the construction or operation of these

turbines or the project as a whole would preclude breeding and to what extent it may impact foraging or other essential behavior. It is unknown how having turbines adjacent to this habitat would impact these grassland species. Therefore, for purposes of this

permit application, the Project Sponsor presumes the potential reduction in use of the habitat constitutes an indirect take of habitat consisting of 58 acres (or the entire “no-build” area).

As identified in NYSDEC’s DEIS/FEIS, the operation of wind turbines on Galloo Island introduces a collision risk to the listed species identified above. There are no applicable models that predict the risk to specific species from wind turbines. The construction of even one turbine introduces risk to threatened/endangered species. It is possible that

Upland Sandpiper and Northern Harrier may avoid nesting in this area (which could hypothetically take one site for each species) and migrant individuals of these species may sustain collision fatalities. The impacts to Short-eared Owl and Bald Eagle from WTGs on Galloo Island are hypothetical, however collision fatalities for both species may occur. There are no studies on the latter probability to make any forecast. These impacts will be evaluated during the post-construction fatality study.

Upland Sandpiper

No detailed studies of the impact on Upland Sandpiper from large commercial wind projects exist. Upland Sandpiper has been killed by a wind project in Nebraska

(Ainsworth, NE wind energy facility) but no details (e.g., during migration or breeding season) are available. Other studies indicate that several other grassland species do not nest in close proximity to wind turbines . One of the reasons suggested is that many 7

grassland birds apparently do not like to nest near a potential perch site for raptor species

6 E.g., Kerlinger, P. & J. Dowdell 2008. Effects of Wind Turbines on Grassland/Hayfield Nesting Songbirds at theMaple Ridge Wind Power Project Lewis County, New York. Report prepared for PPM Energy & Horizon Energy. 7 Leddy, K., K. Higgins & D. Naugle. 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds inconservation reserve program grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111:100-104.

14


15/20


February 10, 2010

that might hunt them. It is unknown how close an Upland Sandpiper might nest to a WTG. The impact of the 82 WTG project on Galloo with one or more WTGs on the western or northern border of the southern grassland area would likely result in an indirect take of some of the adjacent portions of the southern grassland region for

potential breeding of Upland Sandpiper. This is not a direct take because no occupation of the Upland Sandpiper Range or the Southern Grassland is being occupied by project components. It is an indirect take because the construction of project components

proximate to this location may discourage use of this area for breeding or foraging. However, this layout (versus previously proposed WTG layouts) would theoretically

provide room for one or two pairs of Upland Sandpipers to continue breeding. More than 40 acres of the primary southern grassland habitat would be beyond 150 m from proposed WTG locations or existing tree lines. Furthermore, no WTGs would border most of the eastern and southern reaches of the grassland. WTG #1 and 4 are to the west of this area.

Even with no WTGs within their breeding area, there is a possibility of Upland Sandpiper WTG collision fatalities. It is unknown to what extent Upland Sandpipers might continue

breeding in the southern grassland area would be impacted by other WTGs on Galloo (e.g., adults or juveniles flying around the island a night).

Northern Harrier

No detailed studies of the impact on Northern Harrier from large commercial wind projects exist. Northern Harrier has been documented as a collision fatality at a few wind projects in western US. No Northern Harrier collision fatalities at large wind projects in eastern North America have been identified. Northern Harriers have been seen foraging within the Maple Ridge Wind Project since its construction . It is possible that the 8

Northern Harrier’s low-altitude foraging behavior and tendency not to soar as much of other raptors (e.g., Red-tailed Hawk) may make it less susceptible to WTG collisions . 9

Existing studies indicate that several other grassland species do not nest in close proximity to wind turbines. There are no studies in this regard for Northern Harrier. The impact of the 82 WTG project on Galloo with numerous WTGs adjacent to grassland areas would likely result in an indirect take of some of the adjacent portions of the grassland regions for potential Northern Harrier nesting sites. This is not a direct take

because no occupation of the Southern Grassland is being occupied by project components. It is an indirect take because the construction of project components

proximate to this location may discourage use of this area for breeding or foraging. It is unknown whether Northern Harrier would continue to nest on Galloo Island after the construction of 82 WTGs.

8 Kerlinger, P. & J. Dowdell 2008. Effects of Wind Turbines on Grassland/Hayfield Nesting Songbirds at the MapleRidge Wind Power Project Lewis County, New York. Report prepared for PPM Energy & Horizon Energy. and W.Evans, personal observations in spring and fall 2007 and 2008 during NYSERDA study.9 See discussion on page 7: Old Bird Inc. 2008. Avian Risk Assessment for the Hounsfield Wind Energy Project.Report prepared for Upstate NY Power Corp.

15


16/20


February 10, 2010

Home ranges for the Northern Harrier vary greatly between sexes, during different stages of nesting development, and between regions (likely due to varying food supply). Small grassland fragments (~20 acres) have been used for nesting if larger grassland areas are nearby. Males have larger ranges and have been documented foraging more than 10 km from nest sites. Females have smaller foraging ranges.

Short Eared Owl

Like Northern Harrier this species has a low-altitude foraging behavior. The primary occasions for collision risk would likely be when the species is in migration to (and over) the island or during aerial courtship flight displays that may occur late in the winter. Aggressive interactions with other raptor species could also lead to higher altitude chase flights that may increase the risk of collision with WTGs. Short-eared Owl collision fatalities have been documented at several wind energy projects in the western US .. 10

Bald Eagle

There is very little existing data in North America on Bald Eagle collisions with WTGs. The first documented Bald Eagle collision fatality with a wind turbine was confirmed in southern Ontario, Canada (Erie Shores Wind Project) in 2008. It was a subadult bird killed sometime likely in April or May 2008. It is presumed from data reported in

Norway that breeding Bald Eagles (especially juveniles) would be very susceptible to WTG collision impact . On Galloo Island, the Project Sponsor documented nonbreeding 11

Bald Eagles during the bird studies. The 2008 and 2009 field studies indicate that a few nonbreeding Bald Eagles may be present at any time of year in the vicinity of Galloo with the majority of their activity around the perimeter of Galloo along the shore (including

roosting in trees along the shoreline). The quantity of wintering Bald Eagles on Galloo appears tied to specific ice conditions when relatively small sections of open water are occupied by large numbers of waterfowl. It is unlikely that concentrations of Bald Eagles would occur in periods when the water is open around the island or when it is totally iced in. Such conditions would likely persist most of the year.

Currently there are substantial unknowns about the collision impacts to Bald Eagle from WTGs associated with the Hounsfield wind energy project. Based on current Bald Eagle usage of Galloo and the species’ increasing population trends in NY, it seems that Bald Eagle collision with WTGs proposed for Galloo Island is a possibility. But we also don’t know the extent that Bald Eagles may exhibit avoidance behavior to WTGs on Galloo

10 TRC Environmental Corp. 2008. Post-construction avian and bat fatality monitoring and bird displacement studies atthe Judith Gap Wind Energy Project, Wheatland County, Montanahttp://www.newwest.net/pdfs/AvianBatFatalityMonitoring.pdf . and Erickson, W.P., B. Gritski, and K. Kronner, 2003.

Nine Canyon Wind Power Project Avian and Bat Monitoring Report, September 2002 – August 2003. Technical reportsubmitted to Energy Northwest and the Nine Canyon Technical Advisory Committee.http://www.west-inc.com/reports/nine_canyon_monitoring_final.pdf11 Old Bird Inc. 2008. Avian Risk Assessment for the Hounsfield Wind Energy Project. Report prepared forUpstate NY Power Corp

16

http://www.newwest.net/pdfs/AvianBatFatalityMonitoring.pdf


17/20


February 10, 2010

once the wind project is constructed. The extent to which Bald Eagles are impacted by WTG collision will be assessed during the postconstruction studies for the project.

6.0 Actions to Avoid Adverse Effects

The project sponsor had originally planned to construct two WTG and associated roads and infrastructure in the Southern Grassland area. This would have led to the direct take of 1.03 acres of the area identified as Upland Sandpiper Range. This was the layout 12

submitted and analyzed by NYSDEC in the FEIS. Further discussion with NYSDEC indicated that construction in this 30 acre grassland area used by the Upland Sandpiper might preclude breeding in this area. The Upland Sandpiper is a threatened species in

NY and the taking of this potential breeding habitat was not likely to be permitted by NYSDEC. Therefore, the project sponsor agreed to remove all project components and avoid all project improvements in the area detailed on Figure 2 as Upland Sandpiper Range. The Project Sponsor also agreed to remove all project components and avoid

project improvements in the area detailed on Figure 2 as the Southern Grasslands.As explained by the Project Sponsor, it has agreed to this modification without fully evaluating the effect this modification will have on Project viability. The two turbines that will be eliminated would have been among the most productive turbines in the Project, because of their location on the island, which is best positioned to intercept the unimpeded prevailing winds from the South. Consequently, it may be necessary for the Project Sponsor, at sometime in the future, to further modify the Project (e.g. additional turbines in other locations or larger turbines) in order to ensure Project viability.

Accordingly, as part of this permit application the Project Sponsor has asked the

NYSDEC to define the limit of the Southern Grassland “No-Build” area defined as that area where no project components are allowed to be placed, either in the current proposed project layout, or any future modifications to this layout.

7.0 Actions to Minimize and Mitigate Adverse Effects

In order to protect the viability of the NYS listed species identified on Galloo Island, the Project Sponsor is proposing the following Best Management Practices and Mitigation Proposals.

Construction Best Management Practices● To minimize chances of disturbing breeding Upland Sandpipers, construction

activities associated with WTGs 1, 4, 7, and 8 will be conducted prior to May or after the month of August in any given construction season.

12 With regard to habitat, the direct take is defined as actual destruction of habitat. The indirect take is the potential to make habitat less useful.

17


18/20


February 10, 2010

● Elimination of agricultural operations at the north end of Galloo Island to reduce or eliminate foraging areas for Canada Geese and migratory shorebirds, which could reduce the attraction of the island for Bald Eagles.

● Manage the human controlled and artificially high deer population on Galloo Island via culling. This will lead to fewer dead deer and reduced flight activity of Bald Eagles in the island’s interior for feeding on carcasses.

● Minimize permanent lighting on Galloo Island to only that necessary, especially at housing facilities, maintenance buildings and the substation. Unnecessary lighting will be turned off after evening activity hours of people residing on the island. Any required lighting will be shielded and pointed in the downward direction to minimize the attraction of passerines in nocturnal migration.

Habitat Management, Enhancement and Restoration● A mowing protocol will be undertaken every three years at current grassland

areas especially the southern grasslands, if warranted, to ensure they do not transition to forested areas, thereby preserving habitat for species that use these areas.

● Participation in control programs to curtail pale swallow-wort that eliminate native plant species diversity. This could increase the amount of grassland habitat available for bird use.

Compensatory Off Site Mitigation

The compensatory off-site mitigation plan will attempt to off-set the impacts generated

by the Project by providing sufficient creation, enhancement and/or preservation of suitable grassland bird habitat to benefit the species of concern in the future. The Project Sponsor will purchase conservation easements in consultation with NYSDEC for 250 acres of land that will be managed as grassland in areas in Jefferson County, in close

proximity to where Upland Sandpipers have been identified as possibly breeding by the 2000-2005 Breeding Bird Atlas. The goal is to identify 250 acres of contiguous land appropriate for conservation easements. However, if 250 contiguous acres are not identified, smaller tracts will be purchased, totaling 250 acres. No individual tract shall

be smaller than 30 acres. The Project Sponsors’ preference is to purchase conservation easements, if however this is not possible due to lack of landowner interest, the applicant will purchase in fee. Prior to construction the Project Sponsor will secure a bond or

similar financial instrument to ensure performance of the off-site mitigation measures described herein.

Potential sites have been identified in both the Cape Vincent Area and the Point Peninsula area. The Project Sponsor would work with one of local conservation organizations, Ontario Bays Initiative, Indian River Lakes Conservancy or the Thousand Islands Land Trust, and the NYSDEC to identify suitable habitat. The Project Sponsor has agreed to purchase conservation easements, or if unavailable purchase in fee, and

18


19/20


February 10, 2010

provide funding to restore the land to grassland. The easement would likely be for land that is currently a field with early successional habitat or an abandoned agricultural field, where restoration would allow these lands to grassland. The Project Sponsor will also develop, in consultation with NYSDEC a Management Plan to ensure that the land is maintained as grassland for at minimum 30 years.

Adaptive Management

The Project Sponsor has already agreed to undertake a Post-Construction Monitoring Plan for Birds and Bats. This plan meets the standards proposed by the NYSDEC in “Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects, January 2009”. This plan was included as Appendix I of the FEIS. A fatality study is included in the study protocol.

During the fatality searches, if a mortality of any NY State listed species is identified NYSDEC will be immediately notified. The Project Sponsor will then work with NYSDEC to determine if additional study and/or mitigation is required. Such measures may include:

● Research to identify the factors contributing to the mortality (e.g. weather conditions, time of year) and if this was an isolated incident or a pattern of risk.

● Increase survey frequency.

● Increase reporting frequency.

● Additional behavior or movement studies, above what was detailed in the Post Construction Monitoring Plan, depending on the species involved.

● Additional offsite mitigation for grassland bird species or bald eagle.

● Consultation with NYSDEC to determine if the some of the following operational controls such as, early alert, repellant techniques, blade feathering or turbine shutdown would be required. These operational controls would be considered after exhausting reasonable efforts to determine the cause of mortality and the establishment of a pattern of risk, as determined through discussion with the

NYSDEC, and determining that other mitigations could not mitigate the pattern of risk. In such circumstances, the Project Sponsor could implement technically and economically feasible operational mitigation. If required these operational mitigations could manage operations at certain times of day, certain meteorological conditions or short periods identified as high risk. The WTG that were identified as high risk would be those targeted for operational management.

19


20/20


February 10, 2010

8.0 Net Conservation Analysis

To ameliorate indirect take of habitat and any collision risk from the Project, the Project Sponsor has agreed to facilitate the creation, enhancement and/or preservation of 250 acres of suitable habitat for Upland Sandpiper near existing populations of the species on the mainland adjacent to Galloo Island in Jefferson County. Such a tract of land could conceivably support five or more breeding pairs of this species. This action would create the conditions for a net conservation gain for the threatened species in particular the Upland Sandpiper population in New York and would assist with long term conservation

plans for the species.

The 250 acres created for the Upland Sandpiper would also provide room for at least one potential Northern Harrier breeding territory and at least one potential Short-eared Owl territory. In addition, such a tract of land would certainly be used as foraging land by migrant and wintering Northern Harriers and Short-eared Owls.

In addition to the benefits provided these species that are potentially impacted by WTGs on Galloo Island, the 250 acres of created grassland would also likely provide habitat for other listed grassland bird species in New York (e.g., Henslow’s and Grasshopper Sparrow).

20

GALLOO ISLAND KILL PERMITApplication

Documents

Transcript of GALLOO ISLAND KILL PERMITApplication