500 LEE STREET EAST SUITE 1600 PO BOX 553 CHARLESTON. WEST VIRGINIA 25322 0 TELEPHONE 304-340-1000 TELECOPIER 304-340-1 130 w.locksonkcl/y.com DIRECT TELEPHONE: (304) 340- 12 14 DIRECT TELECOPIER: (304) 340-1080 E-Mail: snchambersO,iacksonkellv.com State Bar No. 694
December 28,201 I
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Sandra Squire Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301
Re: AES New Creek, LLC (Closed Entry) PSC Case No. 08-2 105-E-CS
Dear Ms. Squire:
On September 30, 2009, the Public Service Commission (“Commission”) entered an Order (“Order”) granting AES New Creek, LLC (“AES New Creek”) a Siting Certificate for the construction of a wind power project as described therein (the “Project”). The Order requires that prior to commencing construction of the Project, AES New Creek must file a verified statement indicating that all pre-construction conditions and requirements of the Siting Certificate have been met. In fulfillment of this requirement, AES New Creek submits the enclosed original and twelve (1 2) copies of the Verified Statement of Charles B. Falter, including fourteen (14) attachments (the “Verified Statement”).
One of the attachments to the Verified Statement, Attachment 4, is being filed under seal. This attachment is a copy of correspondence dated June 23, 2008, from Barbara Sargent, Environmental Resources Specialist, Natural Heritage Program, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, to Samantha Hard of TRC Solutions, an environmental consultant for AES New Creek. This correspondence contains highly sensitive information regarding the locations of unique habitat for various rare, threatened and endangered species. This information was provided by Ms. Sargent to AES New Creek on the express condition that it be used “for in-house planning purposes only and cannot be released to the public in any form.”
Please accept this letter and the enclosed Verified Statement for filing as a closed entry in this matter and circulate the additional copies to the appropriate parties at the Commission. We also
Charleston, WV Clarksburg, W Mamnsburg, WV Morgantown, WV *Wheeling, WV Denver, CO Lexington, KY Pittsburgh, PA Washington, Dc Ms. Sandra Squire Page 2 December 28,201 I ask that you date stamp the extra copy of the letter we have provided and return it with our messenger. Copies of this Verified Statement and attachments have been provided to the parties to this proceeding, As always, we appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Enclosures c: Charles B. Falter (w/ encl.) Barry E. Sweizter (w/ encl.) Leslie Anderson, Esq. (w/ encl.) Vincent Trivelli, Esq. (w/ encl.) Bradley W. Stephens, Esq. (w/ encl.)
{ C222 108 1.11 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON “‘c“’ Lq CASE NO. 08-21 05-E-CS 22:46 kp4\ DEC 28 2Q’f’f PSC; c ,,,ll>~~
AES NEW CREEK, LLC Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of a Wholesale Electric Generating Facility in Grant County, West Virginia.
VERIFIED STATEMENT OF CHARLES B. FALTER
I, Charles B. Falter, after first having been duly sworn, state as follows:
1. I am an authorized representative of AES New Creek, LLC (“AES New Creek” or “New Creek”), and I am authorized to execute this Verified Statement on behalf of New Creek,
2. I am familiar with:
a. New Creek’s efforts to construct a wholesale electric generating wind turbine facility and related interconnection facilities in Grant County (the “Project”) for which the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (“Commission”) granted a siting certificate subject to specified conditions in AES New Creek. LLC, Case No. 08-2105-E-CS (Commission Order dated September 30, 2009, as corrected by Commission Order dated November 4, 2009) (“Certificate Order”); and
b. New Creek’s efforts to comply with the pre-construction conditions set forth in Section V (1)-( 10) of the Certificate Order (“Pre-Construction Conditions”).
3. New Creek has complied with each of the Pre-Construction Conditions with respect to Section V (1)-( 10) of the Certificate Order:
Section V (1) Prior to commencing construction, AES New Creek must file a verified statement indicating that all pre-construction conditions and requirements of the certificate have been met. (Certificate Order at 48).
New Creek Response: This Verified Statement of Charles B. Falter fulfills the requirements of Section V (1) of the Compliance Order.
Section V (2) AES New Creek must not dispose of excavated rock and/or any bedding material during or following construction of the facility by spreading the material on agricultural land. (Certificate Order at 48).
{ C2215676.2) New Creek Resuonse: New Creek will not dispose of excavated rock and/or any bedding material during or following construction of the facility by spreading the material on agricultural land. As evidence of this fact, the NPDES permit application filed by New Creek has not indicated any plans to do so and has not sought permission from the Corps or WVDEP to do so.
Section V (3) AES New Creek must dispose of all contaminated soil and construction debris in approved landfills in accordance with appropriate environmental regulations. (Certificate Order at 48).
New Creek Resuonse: New Creek will dispose of all contaminated soil and construction debris in approved landfills in accordance with appropriate environmental regulations.
Section V (4) AES New Creek must design and install any needed fire protection systems in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association or other accepted standards. (Certificate Order at 48).
New Creek Resuonse: New Creek will design and install any needed fire protection systems in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association.
Section V (5) AES New Creek must coordinate with appropriate fire, safety and emergency personnel during the pre-construction stage of the Project to promote efficient and timely emergency preparedness and response. (Certificate Order at 48).
New Creek Resuonse: New Creek has been coordinating and will continue to coordinate with appropriate fire, safety and emergency personnel during the pre-construction stage of the Project to promote efficient and timely emergency preparedness and response. Attachment 1 hereto is a letter dated December 13, 201 1, from the Grant County Office of Emergency Services to the Commission confirming such coordination with Grant County personnel.
Section V (6) The siting certificate shall become invalid if AES New Creek has not commenced a continuous course of construction within five years of the date the final certificate is granted without petitioning the Commission for approval to expand this time frame. (Certificate Order at 48).
New Creek Resuonse: New Creek will commence a continuous course of construction within five years of the date the final certificate is granted without petitioning the Commission for approval to expand this time frame.
(C2215676.2) 2 Section V (7) AES New Creek must file evidence that it has obtained any necessary environmental permits and/or certifications prior to commencing construction (including letters from United States Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, West Virginia Division of Cultural and History and West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office) indicating that either AES New Creek does not need to take further action or outlining what action AES New Creek needs to take to be in compliance with that agency’s rule or laws prior to any grading, soil excavation, and/or habitat removal or causing a similar action by others. (Certificate Order at 48-49).
New Creek Response: New Creek has received all environmental permits and/or . certifications that are required for the Project. The responsive materials are as follows:
a. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) letter dated June 5, 2008, from Thomas R. Chapman, Field Supervisor for USFWS, attached as Attachment 2 hereto.
b. USFWS letter dated September 30, 2009, from Deborah Carter, Field Supervisor for USFWS, attached as Attachment 3 hereto.
c, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (“WVDNR”) letter dated June 23,2008, from Barbara Sargent, Environmental Resources Specialist, designated as Attachment 4 hereto. NOTE: Attachment 4 is the response of WVDNR to a request on behalf of New Creek for information regarding unique habitats and rare, threatened and endangered species in the vicinity of the Project site. WVDNR states in Attachment 4 that cc[t]he location information provided with this response is highly sensitive and is to be used for in-house planning purposes only and cannot be released to the public in any form,” Consistent with WVDNR’s restriction on public disclosure, Attachment 4 is being filed as a confidential document under seal.
d. Correspondence to Tony Colman dated August 11, 2010 from Scott G. Mandirola, Director, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (“WVDEP”), Division of Water & Waste Management, authorizing Project construction activity under WV/NPDES Permit No. WVO115924, issued on November 5, 2007, pursuant to General Permit Registration No. WVRlO4804. The aforementioned correspondence and WVMPDES Permit are attached as Attachment 5 hereto.
e. West Virginia State Historical Preservation Office (“WVSHPO”) Letter dated December 2, 2008, from Susan M. Pierce, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, attached as Attachment 6 hereto.
(C2215676.2) 3 f. WVSHPO Letter dated July 30,2009, from Susan M. Pierce, Deputy State Historic Preservation Oficer, attached as Attachment 7 hereto.
g. WVSHPO Letter dated June 5,2008, from Susan M. Pierce, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, attached as Attachment 8 hereto.
h. WVSHPO Letter dated January 27, 2009, from Susan M. Pierce, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, attached as Attachment 9 hereto.
Section V (8) AES New Creek must file a copy of the wetlands survey and delineation, final endangered species study with any required mitigation plans, and historicaYarcheologica1 significance study with any required mitigation plans prior to commencing construction. If AES New Creek is required to obtain approval and/or acceptance of the wetlands survey and delineation, it shall provide that approval and/or acceptance to the Commission prior to commencing construction. (Certificate Order at 49).
New Creek Resvonse: New Creek has received all approvals and prepared all studies required for Section V (8) of the Certificate Order. The responsive materials are as follows:
a. The Wetland Delineation Report for the Project is attached as Attachment 10 hereto.
b. The following reports concerning federally listed, threatened and endangered species were filed with the Commission as Appendix “0” of New Creek’s application for a siting certificate for the Project:
(i) Fall 2007 Bird and Bat Migration Survey Report, including Visual, Radar, and Acoustic Bat Surveys;
(ii) Spring, Summer, and Fall 2008 Bird and Bat Migration Survey Report, including Visual, Radar, and Acoustic Bat Surveys; and
(iii) New Creek Mountain Bird and Bat Risk Assessment: A Weight-of-Evidence Approach to Assessing Risk to Birds and Bats.
Attachment 3 hereto reflects the comments of USFWS concerning the reports listed above and contained in Appendix “0” of New Creek’s application for a siting certificate for the Project.
(C2215676.2j 4 C. A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Project was filed with the Commission as Appendix “S” of New Creek’s application for a siting certificate for the Project. See Attachment 9 hereto for confirmation that the Phase I Archaeological Survey is satisfactory to WVSHPO and that no further archaeological work is necessary within the proposed Project area.
d. A Phase 1/11 Architectural Survey of the Project was filed with the Commission as Appendix “T” of New Creek’s application for a siting certificate for the Project. Attachment 6 hereto reflects the comments of WVSHPO regarding the Phase VI1 Architectural Survey of the Project,
e. An Assessment of Effects to Historic Resources for the Project is attached as Attachment 11 hereto. NOTE: due to their size, USGS Quadrangle Maps have been omitted from Appendix C of Attachment 11. See Attachment 7 hereto for confirmation that the Project will have no adverse effect on any architectural resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and that no further consultation with WVSHPO is required.
f. A Noise Study for the Project was filed with the Commission as Appendix “Q” of New Creek’s application for a siting certificate for the Project,
Section V (9) AES New Creek must comply with the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 0 1531 et seq.) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. $701 et seq.), and, if applicable, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. $4321 et seq.) in both the construction and operation of the Project. If any authorized governmental agency or court with competent jurisdiction finds that AES New Creek is not complying with any one of the above three acts in either the construction or the operation of the Project, then AES New Creek must notify the Commission in writing in this case of any such finding within ten days of any such finding being made. Furthermore, the Commission may seek any legal remedies it has jurisdiction to seek, including injunctive relief, to address any such findings. (Certificate Order at 49).
New Creek Response: New Creek will comply with the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. $ 1531 et seq.),the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. $701 et seq.), and, if applicable, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. $4321 et seq.) in both the construction and operation of the Project. If any authorized governmental agency or court with competent jurisdiction finds that New Creek is not complying with any one of the above three acts in either the construction or the operation of the Project, then New Creek will notify the Commission in writing in this case of any such finding within ten (1 0) days of any such finding being made.
{ C2215676.2) 5 Section V (10) Prior to commencing construction, AES New Creek shall have obtained a report from a qualified independent third party regarding a decommissioning fund to cover the dismantling of the turbines and towers and land reclamation. The report of the qualified independent third party will provide the analysis to set the fund amount. The report shall be updated thereafter as mutually agreed between AES New Creek and the Grant County Commission, but no less frequently than every five years thereafter. The fund amount will vary over time depending on changes in the estimated market or salvage value of the Project, the estimated cost of dismantling and removing the turbines, and the expected ongoing life of the Project. AES New Creek shall obtain the approval of the Grant County Commission of the evaluative expert and each of the periodic reports. The decommissioning fund shall not be a part of AES New Creek’s assets. Within 90 days of any report that requires a contribution to the decommissioning fund, AES New Creek shall make that contribution into an escrow account held by an agent pursuant to an escrow agreement between AES New Creek and the Grant County Commission. The methods for deposits to and disbursements from the fund shall be established within and governed by the escrow agreement. Furthermore, the escrow agreement must clearly reflect the role of the Grant County Commission and state that the obligations set forth in the escrow agreement apply to AES New Creek, its successors and assigns. The escrow agreement and each report of the qualified independent third party shall also be filed with the Commission as a closed entry in this matter. The Commission retains the right to hire its own evaluative expert to review any of the periodic reports and to take such further action within its jurisdiction as the Commission determines is necessary to protect the public interest. (Certificate Order at 49-50).
New Creek Response: By letter dated October 27, 2010 from James E. Wilson, Jr., President of the County Commission of Grant County, attached hereto as Attachment 12, the County Commission of Grant County confirmed its approval of GL Garrad Hassan as a qualified and acceptable consultant to prepare a decommissioning report. New Creek subsequently obtained a report from GL Garrad Hassan regarding the projected net cost of dismantling the Project turbines and towers and land reclamation. The report, entitled “Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Project in Grant County West Virginia”, dated November 2, 201 1 (“Decommissioning Report”) is attached as Attachment 13 hereto, The Decommissioning Report concluded that the net decommissioning value of the Project at year 20 would be approximately $2,719,825. In other words, the revenues generated from the resale/salvage value of the turbines and towers, would exceed the costs of disassembling, removing and disposing of the turbines and towers and reclaiming the property by
(C2215676.2) 6 approximately $2.7 million. Decommissioning the project at any time prior to 20 years would generate a larger net decommissioning value. Consequently, no decommissioning fund contribution is currently required. The Decommissioning Report was approved by the Grant County Commission by Resolution adopted on November 8,201 1, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment 14.
New Creek shall update the Decommissioning Report at such times as may be mutually agreed between New Creek and the Grant County Commission, but no less frequently than every five years from and after the date of the Decommissioning Report. Within 90 days of any report update that requires a contribution to the decommissioning fimd, New Creek shall make that contribution into an escrow account held by an agent pursuant to an escrow agreement between New Creek and the Grant County Commission, and shall meet all other requirements of this condition.
Charles B. Falter
(C2215676.2) 7 STATE OF MARYLAND,
COUNTY OF ALLEGANY, to wit:
This day personally appeared before me Charles B. Falter, who being by me first duly sworn, did depose and say that he is an authorized representative of AES New Creek, LLC, that as such he is familiar with the matters alleged in the foregoing Verified Statement of Charles B.
Falter, that the matters and allegations contained therein are true and correct, except insofar as they are stated to be upon information and belief, and insofar as they are so alleged, he believes them to be true.
Taken, subscribed, and sworn to before me this 27thday of December, 201 1,
My commission expires January 2gth2012.
KRISTEN MABEE Notary PubllC Notary Public Allegany County Maryland
(C2215676.2) 8 Attachment 1 Grant County Office of Emergency Services and E91 1 4 North Main Street, Suite 1 Petersburg, WV 26847 Peggy Bobo Alt, Director Phone: 304-257-545115442121 40 Fax: 304-257-9028 Email:
December 13,2011
D m c3 West Virginia Public Service Coniniissiora Attn: Sandra Squire 201 Brooks Street PO Box 81 2 Ch'arlestott, WV 25323
Dear Sir:
We are working with Barry Sweitzer on the AES New Creek Wind Power project. We will be coordinating with hint to ensure we can provide the best emergency service response to the project. We will provide all necessary docunientation. I ani the 91 1 and Emergency Management Director for Grant County West Virginia#
Sincerely,
Peggy Bobo Alt, Director Attachment 2 United States Department of the Interior
FISH ANT) WILDLIFE SERVICE
West Virginia i:ielcl Office 004 13ctvcrly I'ike l~lkiixi.West Virginici 2624 I
Re: ('omments on the I'roposcd Ncw C'reck Mauntain Wind Eiicryy l'ro.jcct. Grant and Mineral Czlnntics, West Virginia Ms. Samantha I lad 2 June 5,2008 maintains ;UI oftkid "specics of concern" list (64 I'edernl liegisicr 64481) other than candidate species, we rccommend that you contact the Wcst Virginia Division of Naluml Resourccs (DN R) far a list of species considered by the UNR to be sensitive, rarc, or declining in Wcst Virginia.
ENDANGERED AND 'l2IREATENED SPECIES lJnder section 9 ofthe Endangered Species Act, a prqject proponent is rcsponsiblc for ensuring that its actions do not result in urtauthorized take ofa fiderally-listed species'. The Service is available to assist your clicnt in rcgard lo avoiding and minimizing take of listed species, or in securing authorizations if take of listed species G~Ilist he avoided. If a federally-listcd threttencd or endangered species tnay bc taken as a result of the construction or operation of the project, a project proponent myapply to the Scrvicc. Lo obtain an incidental Ciikc penxiit pursuant to section (lO)(a)( I)@) of the Endangered Spcics Act, The Servicc may issue such a permit upon caniplctiom. of a sittisfxtory habitat conservation plan for the listed spccics that would be taken by the projcct.
'Two federally-iistcd bat species could occur in the project ;frw tkc endangcrcd Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared hai. [luring the winter (Novembe.r 16 to March 31 1, tl-rc lndiann hat hibemttcs in cavcs or mine shafts in West Virginia. There is one known Indiana bat hibentilculum (Smoke klole Cavc) located within approximately 25 miles of the proposed witid power facility. Surveys of Smoke Hole Cave during 1998 to 1009 indicate tbnr a transient population of Indiana bats may use the cave in the winter,
During the spring, Indiana bats ctnerge tiurn winter hibernacula mind move 10 traditional breeding and roosting arcas. Migration distance betwccn winter and simmer habitat ranges horn less than 30 miles to ovcr 300 miles. Feriiales dispersing from B Kentucky hibernaculum in the spring maved 4 to10 miles within 10 days af emergcncc, evcntustlly trsfveliiiy:more Khan 300 miles frorn the hibernaculum to the rnatcrnity mea ((hrciner et ai. 1096; Chrdner and Cook 2002). However, rnatcrnity colonics dsu have been lecated within 10 to 25 rnilcs of the hibernaculum (Butctikoski and Hmsiriger 2002; Rritzkc ct al. 20049. Data collected during 8 twa-yectr study trtcking spring emerging females to their sitinmer roost sites in the rake Champlain valley ol'New York. md in a separate Varrnoni study. sttggesi that females do not remain in the area surrounding the hibernncula a12er cmcrging from hibernation. but ICEIV~. for summer habitat soan after mergence from kikrnntinn (Hritj.cke ct al. 2004).
'I"&erneuns to hamg hnrin, piirsuc. hunt, shoot, wound, kill. trap, capiurt?or collect, (Ir to attempt to engage in such conduct @SA #3( 19). Hrtrrn is funtior defined by Service rcgtilatian tci inctude sipriificarit habitat rnodilication or degradation that result&in death or injury to listed species by sigtiiticantiy impairing beliavioral patterns such tis breeding, tceding, or sheltering (50 CEK 5 17.3). I-larss is delirtcd by Service regulation as actions that Create the likelihood of injury ro listed species lo such an L?X~L'II~as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include. but arc not liniited Lo, breeding, feedittg, or shulteritig (50 CPR 9 17.3). Ms. Samantha Hard 3 June S, 2008 Affer arriving at their summer rangc. reproductive fciiiale Indiana bats form maternity colonies in trees with appropriate microhabitat. 1’Ex closest known Indiruia bat maternity colony is 320 miles from the project site.
During summer. lion-reproductive female Indiana bats also roost in trees, Less is known about the male migatian pattern, but nimy males summer near the liibernacula (Whitaker and hack 2002). Some males disperse throughout the rangc slnd roast individually or in small tiumbers in the same types of trees and in the same areas as females,
The Indiana bat may use the prcljcct area for foraging and roosting between April 1 and November IS. lndiana bats feed exclusively on Flying insects, and forage in riparian, bottomland, or upland forests (including ridge-tops), preferring a mosaic of‘ open and forested areas (CISFWS 1999). Such habitat conditions arc likely to rcsiilt from forest clearing associated with construction of the proposed New Creek Mountain wind power project. While clearings may appear to benefit bats. they may also attract bats after the turbines have been constructed, increasing the potential for bat mortality (Verboorn and Spoelstrtl 1999, DQR*and Bad1 2004). lndiana bat roostindniaternity habitat consists primarily of live or dead hardwood tree species 5- inches in diameter, or greater, which liavc exfoliating bark that provides spacc far bars to roost between khe bark and he bole ofthe trcc (USFWS 1999). Tree cavities, crevices, splits, or hotlow portitions of trcc bola and limbs also provide roost sites. ’The Indiana bat could be impnctcd by project construction activities that involve removing potential foraging habitat, roost trees, or maternity habilat.
It has been suggested that bats orient in response to landscape features during migration (Humphrey 1976). ’I’hc niountain ridges or West Virginia may scwtl ifs corridors for bats niigratiny bctween their stinirner and winter habitats.. Severzil bat species, including Indiana bats we known to follow linwr fcatures in the landscape when traveling between roosting and foraging sites (Verboorn & I~luitcina1997: Verbooni & Spoelstra 1999: Murray & Kurta2004). However, Indiana bats are also known to cross high Appalachian ridges as demonstrated in tu1 electronic tracking study (Chenycr 2003). ‘Ilius Incfiaxx~bats may be at risk ofcollision with the prapased projcct.
The federally-listed endangered Virginia big-eared bat 1ivc.s in cclvcs yea round, and moves between winter liibernation sites and siinimer matemi ty sites. ’I‘hcsemovements may be within the same cave, but are more comnionly between caves. Migration distances arc usually less than 40 rnilcs. There arc two known Virginin hig-cared bat caves approximately 18.6 miles and 24.2 miles, respectively, f’roni rhc pmject site (Pcacock Cave and Mill Run Clave). Both caves scnx izs summer habitat for the Virginia big-eared bot. During thc 20% to 2007 survey conducted by the State. t.”acock Cave had 985 individtials and Mill Run Cnve trad 178 individuals.
Virginia big-eared bats may use the area thr foraging between April 1 and November IS. *Ilicy feed excrtusively oii jlying insects, with the majority oftheir diet consisting of moths. Foraging habitat ineludcs uoodlmds. old Gelds and hay liclcis (I!SFWS 10955. in siimfner, Virginia big- Ms. Samantha Hnrd 4 June 5,2008 cared bats may forage more than six rnilcs from thcir caw, and will cross ridges to retch foraging areus. Preferred foraging arcas for Virginia big-cared bats consist of a mosaic of open and forested habirat. Such habitat conditions arc likely to result froin the construction ot'the proposed Laurel Mountain project.
Recommendatians. To better euduilte thc risk of' take of Indiana and Virginia big-eared bats. the Service recommends II hahikt 'analysis oftlie project area: spring, summer, and fall mist-net surveys: surveys for caves and abandoned mine portals; and radar and acoustic surveys to determine bat activity in thc prqject area (for liirther details, sce section on siirveys and measures to reduce mortality of bars and birds).
OTHER SPECIES l3ald Eagle
'I'hc bsrld caglc is afforded special protection undcr the federal Haid and Golden EztgJc Protection Act (16 IISL $rj. 668-66Xd, June 8, 1940.8s amended 1959, 1962. 1972, and 1978). 'T'his Act prohibits the take of bald and golden eaglcs unless pursuant to regulations. The definition of take includes actions that kill, woimd, or disturb eagles. In the case ofthe bald eagle, take can only be authorized undcr a permit.
Nesting bald eagles art: known to be present within 4.7 miles of the proposed New Creek Mountain wind power frtcility. hascd on yearly stirveys pcrlbmied by the West Virginia Division dNatural Resources. It is currently unkncTun wlicther bald eagles forage within, or fly over, the footprint ofrhe project mea. However. given the close proximity of the project to ii known nest, it is possible that these eagles may fly across the location af'the proposed turbine strings to react? their primary foraying arm. Crossing the strings on it regular basis would incrcasse the risk of collision, arid thus mortzrlity, of foraging bald eagles. Immature eagles may also havc an increased risk ofcollisicrn due to their lack of llying experience.
Recomrncndtatinns. We rccommend additional observations of bald eaylc iisc in the area. We also recommend the use of the Service's National Bald Eagle Msu.lagernent Ouidclines (2007) tt) assess the risk of construction and opemiion activities on bald eagles. The Management Ciuidelincs include recommendations (such as nest buffers) designed to itvaid and minimize disturbancc of bald eagles, particularly ncsiing eagles. 'I'he Senkc may provide additional managemoni recotiitncndations if it is found that the eagles must cross the turbine string to access their foraging area or ifanother caylr nest is cstahlished closer to, or within, the projcct site.
Golden Eagle
Sirnil.fr to the ktld qle,the golden eagle also is afforded special prokctian under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Prokeclion Act. Tlic cnstcrn poptililtion of the gotdcn eagle migrates long distances between nortlicrn Quebec and a few states in the Allegheny Muuntaiii mngc such as West Virginia. The golden cagfe is a species of concerti, genemlly, because it is one oi'the raptors mast Frequently killed by wind turbines in tiic western Ilnitcd States, spaeificatly at Ms. Samantha 1 lard 5 June 5.20013 Altamont Pass. Gulden eagles are known to Ily at lower altitudes during migration, potentially increasing their 1 ikelikood of encountering a rotating turbine bltuie. l"hc National Aviary has been tracking golden eagles during thcir wiiitcr stay in West Virginia, and throughout their migration cycle. Maps available on the internet identify their rautes in Quebec, Cutiadtd, funnelcd along rhc Allegheny Mountains of 1'cnnsylvan.h and the Allegheny Front of West Virginia, During 2007-2008. Golden eagle U.4 f wintered in the general vicinity of of the Ncw Creek Mountain project sire. 'The widely disperscd movements of this immature bird can be trackcd as an mimiltion at: www.aviarv,ar~~srvltPflckmaa.nho?tel.=Li 1 &seiisorr-wji~&v~7.
Recommendatiuns, 'The Service recoinincnds that At3 support the continued tracking of golden cagle use in the project vicinity by thc National Aviary. 'rhe Service may provide additional rccommendntions should new infomiation indicatc that golden englcs arc using the project tuert.
Migratory Birds and Unlisted iMigratory Bats
The Allegheny Front is a known major migration route for birds and bats, including raptors, Tliere are over 50 years of migration records fbrn the Alleghcny Front Bird observatory station at Bear Racks, located on the next ridge to the east within rriughly 12 miles of die propoml project. Obse'rvations have been nude at Bear Rocks noarly every fall since 1948 by members of' rile Broaks Bird Club and rcportcd in tlzcir quarterly joulal, the Redsturt. Recent observations by the Allegheny Front Migration Observtitory (t3cll and Pattison 2007), as well as a study conducted by IJ.S. Geological Survey, The Nature Conservancy. and the Service (Mizrahi et ai. in preparation), further confirm hat the Aileyhcny Front acts us H migratory route for thousands of birds and bats.
Migratory bats that may inove along the hlicglieny Front during migration may include bats found in Peacock Cave and Mill Run Cave. In addition to Virginia bigcared bats, other bat species I'nund at Peacock Cave include little brown bat (Myolts luc[fi~gia)(8 individuals), small- foored bat (,b&olis kihii) ( 1 individual), cslslcn pipistrelle @rinzy~i,v.~u/~#luvzcs) (22 I individuals), iuid big brown bar (Eplr?sictrsjimus) (84 individuals), Mill Run Cave also supports little brown bats (1 1 I individuals), northern long-cared bat (2 individurtls), md eastern pipistrelle (495).
Recommendations. 'Illis existing information should bc nnaiyzed in a bat risk rtssessrnent and an avian risk assessment. We reconuiiend a rigoroils risk asscssinenr using the best available scientific techniques. 'I'he advantages and disadwatitages of various techniques are described in Kuru et al. (2007) and thc Aincricm Wind Fnergy Association's siting hniidbtrak (2008). Ms. Sainsuiiha I Iard June 5,2008
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH WIND POWER FACILITIES
Bats
It is now well known that large numbers of bats arc being killed by wind turbines (Arnett et ai. 2008; Jain et al. 2007; Kunz et ai. 2007; Fieicier ct ill. 2007; Arnett 2005a, b; Kerns and Kerlinger 2004; Johnson et al. 2003), Assuming dint these trends hold tnie, and using the regional range uf reporred inortality in the literature (Kiinz et al. 2007, Fiedler et. at. 3007), we estimate that the New Crcck Mountain wind power facility could result in roughly 3.1 30 tu 4,485 bardyear killed at the 120 MW level, or using these numbers to calculate the nurnbcr of potential bat fatalities over the anticipated averayc life of the project (25 years), 78.250 to I 12.125 bats killed cumuiativcly for this project. If lei1 unchecked, such mortulily could cumulatively lead to populntian-love1 impicts, especially whcn considering that bats generally hdve Low reproductive rates (Bwclay aid flarder 2003, Kunz et nl. 2007).
1:Icven ofthe 45 species of bats krtown to occiir north of Mexico Iiavc been found kilted by turbines (Johnson 2005, Kunr, et al. 2007). Arnett et d. (2007) reported that bat fatalities hwe been recorded cither anecdotally or qtrantitacively st evcry wind facility wlicre post-construction surveys liave been conducted, worldwide, across a wide range of habitats. Fourteen of the seventeen studics reporting bat fatality were conducted in open prairie, grassland, or cropland where &ita suggest the lowest fatality (Amet-t et al. 2007). However, large numbers afrtiigratnry tree-roosting buts liavil hecn killed ut cornmcrcial wind power facilities. aspocialty at facilities along forcsted ridge tops in the castern United States (Kunz 2006, Kunz et al. 2007).
An cstiniatcd 2,092 bats, rcpresenriny ut least six species, were. reportcd killed between August 1 8'h and November gthof 2003 at thc Mountaineer Wind Energy Ccnter, located on Backbone Mountain in 'l'ucker County, West Virginia (Kcms and Kerlinger 2004>, A field study conducted during 2004 by the Bats and Wind Knergy Cooperstivcz (BWEC') (Rat Conservation International, Inc. 2004) at tlic Mcruntiiinecr. West Virginia and Meycrsdale. EJennsylvc?niawind energy centers found similar results (Arnctf 9005). Both projects are located along ridges of the Appalachian plateau. Thesc studies are relevant to the proposed Yew Creek Mountain project due tu ycographic proximity, location on forested ridges with compwible forest composition, bat species, aid perhaps other factors. Relevant infbrination from thcsc sfudics includcs:
Most bat activity was observed within 2-hours after sunset. Six species were fiwnd killed at Mountaincer arid 7 at Meycrsdalc: Iwary bats, eastern red bats, eastern pipistrelles, little brown bats. silver-haired bats, big brown bats, and narthern long-eared bats (only &xmiilt Meyersdale) (from higlzr.st to lowest number fixmd), r) Bat fatalitius were highly variable und periodic throughout the study. a Fatdity was distributed across ail turbines, although highcr than nveraye numbers of bats generally were found at turbines located near an end or center of the string on both sites, s At. both locations, the niajoritp 01' hats were killad on low wind nights when power prrrduction appoared iiisubstanlial, but turbine blades were still spiming mid oilen at or C~OSC to full operations1 spced ( 17 r-pm). Ms. Saiiantlia tlid 7 June 5,2008
0 OF the 64 turbines studied, one turbine was tion-crperational throughout the study period and this was the only turbine where 110 fatalities werc found. Timing of bat kalities at Mauntainuer mid MeyersdaIe was highly correlated, providing evidence that broader lriridscape patterns, perhaps regional in scape, dictated by weather and prey abundancclavailahility or other factors inllircnczd mortality cvcnts.
Recent research has focuscd on describing the patterns and causes of' bat fatalities, IXesults of a pilot study dcsigncd to invcstigatc hat mortality associatcd with wind turbines in Sweden indicated that migratory and non-migratory aerially-hunting bats will farage an insects that concentrate near wind turbines (Ahl&n2003). 'l'liis behavior was observed tit facilities sited within flight corridors of migrating bats and/or foraging habitat of non-migrating bats, The New Creek Mountain projcct site may be within thc migration path or scrvc as a foraging area for several bat species, incliiding Indiana bats. Ahlh (2003) also reportcd finding dead migratory and non-migratory specics or bats ticar the turbine structures. lJsing thermal imaging cameras at the Moiiritaineer wind facility in West Virginia. Arnett (2005a) dociimcnted bats foraging near iriid in the rutor-swept zone ofthe turbine blades and bcing struck by the bladcs. pCtlcrmalimages kken bctwcen August 2 and 27,2004, indicated that bats appeared to be attracted to and investigating both moving and nan-moving blades. 'The majority of bats were killed when wind speeds were at or below six meters pcr second (Amen 20058).
Bat activity at turbines is likely influenced by broad landscape or perhaps regional patterns dictatcd by wcathcr, prey abunciai~ccandlor wailability, and/or other factors. For example, Carton and Veldkamp (20011 rcporied that insects prefer to fly in cunditictus of low wind and teniperatures above about 50°F Q 10" C), I'liis mcaiis that bars may be out fhraging during low wind speed nights lutd increase their risk of collision. More recently, Arnett et al. (ZOOS) noted that bat Fatalities appear to follow ccrtain patterns, such as: turbine collision faulirics seem to peak in mid-siiirimcr through fall; fatalities are not concentrated at any particular turbine; habitat varitlblcs mynot influence fatalities; and bat Pitalities are highest during periods of law wind speed and related to cvcnther cvcnts. iriformatiun from other operating wind power facilities indicates that bats may be attracted to wind turbines. and/or the cleared right-or-ways, increasing the risk ot'a bat colliding with a ntaving blndc or being caught in the turbulence (Vcrbnorn and Spoelstra t999; Dun and Bach 2004).
Conclusion. As previously noted, Arnett et al, (2007) reported that large hat fatalities have been recorded either ariecdotailly or quantitatively a1 every wind thcility where post-construction surveys haw bccn canducted. and that rcparted fatalities arc highest at wind facilitks located on ridges in eastcrn dcciriuaus forcsts in the llnitcd States. 'I'hus, the Service is concerned that. wind power Facilities. such as New Crcek Mountain, will have direct impacts on individual migrating bars. as wcll as cumulative impacts on unlistcd bat popuialions.
Migratory 13irds
Two types of local ililpiicts to birds have been tlernonstratcd 3% existing wind facilities: 1 } direct mortality frorii collisions. and 2) indirect impacts fi.om habitat disruption and displacement. Ms. Samantha Hard 8 June 5,3008 Both migrating birds and resident birds collide with wind turbines. Thc majority of bird fatalitics reported at wind farms itre songbirds (Ilrickson et al. 3,001).
Raptors also are susceptible to collisions with wind turbincs 'The raptor problem wits first noted at Almnant Pass in Califbrnia in he late 1980deurly I 1J90s when an estimated several hundred raptors wcre killed each year due to turbine collisions, guy wire strikes, and electrocutions (Manvillc ZOOS). As part of a re-powering effort, the original. smaller, fhster-moving lattice- supported towers at Altarnorit Pass are being replaced with slower moving tubular-supported turbines.
These larger and slower moving turbines still kill raptors. passerines. waterbirds, and othcr birds (Manville 2005). Low wind speed turbine technology requires milch lager rotors, with blade rips often extending rnorc than 420 fect abovc ground, and blade tips can reach in exccss of200 mph under windy conditions. When birds approach spinning blades, "motion smear" - the inability of tlic bird's retina to process liigti speed motion slimulation--occurs primarily at the rip of the blades, making the blades deceptively transparent ;it high velocities. This increases the likelihood that B bird will fly through thc arc, be struck by B bladc, and be killed (Mmvillc 2005). Birds also mrty become disoriented in poor weather, md may be forced to fly at lower altitudes during migration due to overcast weather, increasing the number of birds potentially flying through wind turbine fields.
Howell and Noone (I 992) estimtited US. wian itiortaiities BE 0 to 0.1 I7 bird~/ttirbixze/year, whereas in Europe, Winkelmiin (1992) cstiinated mortnlity at 0.1 10 37 birdu/turbinc/year. Erkkson et al. (2001) rensscssed U.S. twbinc impact. based on tnot~than 15.000 turhincs. and estimated mortality in the range of 10,000 la 40,00(1 (mcnn = 33,000). with an average oF2.19 avian falalilieslrurbine/~~~r~which may bc a considerable underestimate given the difficulty of extmpolating the number of fatalitics with estimates corrcctcd for observer detection. scavenging, and other sampling biases. 'I'he cumulative impact of wind turbine collisions on bird pupulations may result aver time in ppulation deciincs when taken into account with mortality associatcd with collisions from buildings, movitig vehicles, powcr lines. ecll towers, or bird kills associated with contaminant exposure.
In addition, wind famis can idso disturb and frngment habitats. Habitat Gagmentation in particular is an issue for birds that use deep forest interiors. Habitat fragmentation can result as B conseyuencc of clearing forests for roads or corridors to acconimodste vehicular access and transmission lines aid site clearing to accomrnsdate wind turbines. These could iriclude direct loss of deep forest habitat; an increase in edge habitat; incrtascd ncst parasitism and predation; a decrease in ahiindance and diversity of area-sensitive specks with B concurrent increase in habitat siiitilbility for edge iind generalis1 species; and interruption or travel corridors. displacement, tmd cither behavioral cffccts.
Conclusion. The Service eonritiues to he concerned about potcntid impacts of wind power facilitics on migratory birds. a Fccicml trust resource thc Service is mandated to protect. Birds have heen kiiled by rcmting turbine blades mmJ/or by striking turbines strwures at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center (Arnctt 2OOSab) aid othcr pro-jccts, Wind cncrgy generation facilities may also at'fccr bird movements, hrecdiiig, anti hahittzt use ( IJSF W S 2003). Ms. Samantha Hard 9 June 5.2008
The Migratory Bird 'Treaty Act (1 6 U.S.C. $9 703-7 12) (MBTA) prohibits the taking or killing of migratory birds cxcept when specifically autharized by tlic Department of the Interior, While the MBTA has no provisions for allowing unauthorized take, wc recognize that some birds may be killed at structures such as wind turbines even if all remanable mcasures to avoid take are iitiplemcnted. The Servicc's Oficc of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect migratory birds not only through investigations and enforcement, but also through fostering relationships with individuals wd industries that proactively scek to eliminate thcir impacts an migratory birds. Alttiougk it is not possible under the MW'TA to absolve individuals, companies, or agencies froni liability (even if thcy implement avian mortality uvoidance or similar conservation measures), the Office of Law Enlbrccnierit Focuscs on those individuals. companies, or agencies that take miyriwry birds with disregwtrd for their actions and the law. especially when coriservatioti nieasurcs have been dcvelopd but are not properly implemented.
SURVEYS AND 1~~~~~~~~ TO REDUCE MORTALITY OF Bxrs AND IHRDS Tu avoid and minimize impacts to birds md bars from the New Creek Mountain wind power project, we encourage you to determine the temporal spatial CISC of the project arca by bats and birds so that such use can be reported to us and others prior to construction, as well as during operation. We understand that hird and bcit surveys for the project were initiated during fait 2007 and will continue through spring 2008; however, study pluns were not submitted to our officc for review, Study plms and results for pre-construction studies, avoidancc $and minimization mcasurcs, and post-construction studies should be provided to the Service kind the West Virginia Division of Natural Kcsources for review and cornment.
The Service recommends conducting full season (April-November) niuiti-year prc- and post- construction studies to ~wsessspecies composition, spccies abundancc, local population variability, and tempcmd and spatial patterns of bat and bird activity during all wcsrthcr conditions and tirnes of day mci night. The spatial areas of greatest concern include the ridgciines, side slopes, and valley sections. Wc are interested in the seasonal and annual variability of bat and bird use aftiiese areas. which occurs far B variety of reasons. including weethcr. ?'he Scrvicc is available to discuss spccific cielails associated with the surveys once additional infomiation about the site atid operdng conditions is pmvidcd. iticluding habitat cover, current land use, transniission line location, iuid turbine opcrationttl features.
Tlic Service recornnicnds thttl pre-construction siirviys for wind power projccts generally include: spring, summer. and Fill mist-netting of' bats; spring and fall avlm migration surveys; breeding bird arid raptor surveys; survcys fhr caves cmtffor abandoned mine portals; acoustic survcys to provide an index of' bat and hird activity in the project area; arid radar surveys to determine dirwfim of bird and bat flight and activity times.
We also strongly recumincnd that avoidance and minimization nieasures be incorporated into the operation ofthe New Crcck Mountain wind power facility. Measures that have been ramnmcnded recently include:
* Placing turbines to avoid raptor nesting and/or foraging areas; Feathering bladcs or shutting the turbines down during spring aid fBll bat niigrdiion periods for a rninirnuni 01.2 hours after sunset; * Fcathcring blades or shutting the turbines down during weather cvents such as cold fronts or foggy conditions; Allowing thc turbine blirdes to begin rotar.ion at a higher cut-in speed (Le. 6 ds); 0 Implemenlation of an adaptive nianagemeni plan to alter operation based on information from post-construction studies.
We recommend that post-construction mortality assessments bo developed in conejunction with an adaptive manlngcnicni plan to further ntinirniLe nionalify. Post-construction mortality assessments should include: carcass searches, scavcngcr activity, and scitrclier cfficicncy studics. Carcass searches should include nut only identitication of species harmed or killed by collisions with turbines, but also location of thc carcass in relation tu thc turbine, titnc of'day fbund. and weather conditions, Carcass sctchcs should he pcrlbrmcd over the Iifu of thc project with m emphasis on the first 3 years after canstruclion, Searches should be performed every day from spring to fall at 30Y0 of the: turbines atid oiice a week tit the reiiiaininy turbines. Scavenger activity cannot hc assumed to hc the smc from one filcility ta the next. Also, scavenger activity is not consmt, so mcthods used io extrapolate actual activity should bc different front the multipliers used initially and for calcirlsting impacts (Arnett et al, 2008). Searcher eiYiciency can hc? cnh'znced by planting low growing grass spccics around turbines. I'fficicncy trials should irtclude the use of bats instead of birds whenever possible, All ctfthcsc studies shoiiici be combined wid1 weathcr data. topographical inf'orrniltion, positjon of turbines on tlx landscape; and othcr factors to pcrforrii an asscssriicnt of tvhy collisions are: occurring and suggestions for reduci ng coil isions.
Extensive research is ticeded to answcr key questions about where, wlicn, how, tmd why bats and birds arc killed at wind turbines. and ultimately to ricvelop effective motiiocis for avoiding and iriininiizing iinpztcts to populations (see enclosure). in view ofthat, therr: [nay be opportunity to address specific questions unci conccrns through inclusion of applicable rccommetdatiuns from enclosure 1 in the New Crcek Mountain project. Also, to iwwer questions specific to the Central Appalacltians. this research should be cnnducted coupemlivcly and in B coordinatcd fashion miong wind power cornpanics. and among a variety of researchers, agencies, aid other intcrestcd organizations. Resources arid tcchnical expertise should be shared its IIU one group can do it alone, This type of effort ritay best be coordinatcd tlisough existing coalitions such as die National Wind Coordinating Collaborative md its technical subcommittees.
In summary, the Service is supportive of electricity generation from renewable sources and cncuumgcs cfiicicnt wind cnerpy projects rhat are sited and opemted to be bird-and-bat friendly, With that in mind. we arc eonccrncd about the potential risk that construction and operation of the proposcd New Creek Mounltin wind power fkeility map pose to bat arid bird species residing arid migrating Ihrcugh the arcif. utid the rcsultizrit cumulative impacts of wind power facilities on ridge tops throughout the eastern United States. W tf encourage you to perform the recommended pm-construction studies and assessments for the proposeti pro.jcct in order to identi@ risks to r1zreatenc.d und endangered species. and migratory birds and bats. 'I'his information \vi11 bc Ms. Samantha I Tard 11 lune 5,2008 critical in messing possible impacts to these species as well os dcsigning nieans to avoid and minimize any impacts. 'Iliis information also will be l~clpfulin dosigning the scope of posr- construction monitoring efforts. which the Service believes should bc phased over the life ofthe project.
If a federally-listed threatened or endaiigcreci species may he taken as a result of tile construction tx operation of the project, a project proponent may apply to the Service to obtain an incidental take permit pursuant to scciian (1 O)(a)( 1 )(B) of the Endangered Species Act. Wc are available to assist your client in further analysis or the risk of' take of listed species, and in preparation of a habitat conservation, should your client. opt to pursuc an incidental take permit.
We appreciate the opportiinity to provide inlbrmatian rcltztive to wildlifc issues, and thank you for your intcrcst ic1 rhesc resources. If you havc any questions, please contact Ms. Christy Jnlinson-Hughcs of my office at (304) 636-6586.
Sincerely.
as R. Chapititin fkld Supervisor
Enclosure Ms. Samaittia liard 12 .lune 5,2008
References:
Alden, 1. 2003. Wind turbines and bats - a pilot study. Final regon submitted to Swedish National Energy Administration, 1 I Duccniber 2003. 'I'ranslated from Swedish 5 Mxch 2004,
American Wind Encrgy Association. 2008. AWEA Siting handbook. Prepared for AWEA of Washington, D.C.by 1'etruTc.cl.i EC, Inc., and Nixon Pesbody I,I ,P, with contributions fiom Comscxch and Avialion Systems, Inc. 183 pp.
Arnett, E.B., techiiical cdi tar. 2005. IbAationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: ai assessment of bat Fntality scstrch protocots, patterns of' fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. A final report. submitted to the Bats and Wind finergy Cuoperativc. 13irt C'onscrvatiun International. Austin, Texas, LJSA. 187 pp. &ww.batcon.org) hrnett, E.B. 2005b. Summary of findings from Ihe Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative's 2004 Field Season, Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. 6 pp. (Available for downloading at: \NWW.bZltcon.orerlu.ind/n WEC2004Reportsuinni~~.pdf~
Arnc'ti, 13. D.13. Inkley, Tl.11. Johnson, R.P. I-arkin, S,Mancs, A.M. Maiville. J.K. Mason, M.1,. Morrison. M.1). Strickland, arid R. Thresher. 2007. Impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife and wildlife habitnt. Wildlife: Society 'I'echnical Iicvicw 07-2. The WildliTe Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Arnett, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erieksan, J. Ficdler, W.L. I-ktmiIto.an.T.I1. lknry, A. Jain, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns. K.R. Koford. C.P. Nicholson, 'r. O'Conncll. M. Pinrkowski, and R. Tmkcrslcy. 2008. Putters of fatality of bats at wind energy facilities in North America. Jouriial of' Wildlife Management 72: in press.
Barclty, R.M,R, atid L.U. iiixrdcr. 2003. 1,ife histories of bats: life in the slow lane. Pp. 209-253 iii T.H. Knnz and M.B.Fmton (cds).. L3al ecology. lhivcrsity crf Chicago Press; Chicago, 11 '.
Bat Convervalion International, lnc. 2004. Bars arid W hd Enurgy Cooperative.
(\N ww .hat con Ior g)
Bell, R.K. and 5.13. Pattison. 2007. Allt.ght.ny Front Migration Observatory. Fall 2007 Repart. hoksBird Club. Wtiecling, WV. 5 pp t3ritzkc. E.R., A.C.1licks. S.L. voii Oerr'rtigen, and S.R. Drirling. 2004. Description of' spring roosting ecology ot' femnle Indimtl hats in the IAc Champlain Valley of Verniont and New Yark. hi review. Ms. Samantha Jfard 13 June 5, 2008
Butchkoski, C. M. and J.D.Ilcrssingor. 2002. iicology of it maternity colony roosting in a building. In Kurta h.,and J. Kesnedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management af an endangered species. Rat Conservation Intcrnational, Austin. Texas.
Chengcr, J. 2003. Onc sodalis from the f-1artrna.n mine: summary resuits ufai electronic tracking study of a single Indiana bat, Unpublished report preparcd by Rat Conservation Management, Mectianicsburg. Pennsylvania.
Goncn, (3.1'. and k4.t:. Veldkainp, 2001. Insects can halve wind-turbine power. Nature 41 2:42-33.
Wrr T. and L. Bacti. 2004. Bat dcaths and wind turbines - A revicw of cunent knowledge, and of inforniation availablc in thc. database for Germany. Rremer Ijeitrage fur Naturkurtde and Naturschutz 7253-264,
Erikson W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.11. Strickland, K.J. Szrnka, rind K.E. Good. 2001. Avian collisions with wind turbines: tt summary of cxislitig studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collisioii inartaliry in lhe lJnited States, Ntihid wind Coordinating Coinmiltee Kesuurce Documcnt, Aiigust, (Itheyenne. W Y: Wesrcm Ecosystems Teclmulogy, tnc. 62 pp.
Erickson. W., G. JOhJiSOn, D. Young, D. Sirickiand, It. Goad. M, Bourilssa, K. I3ay, and K. Sernka. 2002. Synrhcsis and camparison of bascline avim and but use, mptur nesting and mortality inforniation f'rom proposed and existing wind devclapments. West, Inc., Cheyenne. WY. 173 pp.
Ficdler, J.K., 'r.1-i Henry. R.D. Tankersky, and C.P. Nicolson. 2007. Results of bat and bird niortaliiy monitoring at the expanded But'thla Mountain W indfann, 7,005. Prepstred for rite '1'ennessee Valley Aiithority. 35 pp.
Ciardner, J.K., and E.A. C.'rmk. 2002. SeasonaI and geographic distribution arid quantification of potential s~i~inicrhahitat. In Kurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana hat: biology and niitlugemcnt of 311 endangered species. Bat Cotiscrvattion tntemation&l,Austin. Texcts. 253p.
Gardner, J.E., J.E. Hofmimn, aid J.D. Gmncr. 1996. Sunnier distribution ofthe federally endangered Indicvla bat (Myatis sodrtlis) in Illinois. 'I'mnsactions of the Iltinuis State Acadcmy of Sciencc. 89: 187- 196.
Ifowcll, J.D. itiid J, Noone. 1992. Examination of avian use and mortality at il U.S. windpower, wind cnergy dt.velapmcnt site, Montrzuma I rills. Solano County, CA.
I3uniplircy, S.R and J.B. Cape. 1976. Populcition ccology of tho little brown bat, Mycrtis lucifugus, in Indiana and North-Central Kentucky, Special Publication No. 4. 'rhe American Society or Mammalogists. 8 1 pp. Ms. Sunmthn. Ihrd 14 June 5,2008 lain, A., I), Kerlingcr, K, Curry, iand I., Slobocinik, 2007. Annual report for the Mople Ridgc wind power project post-constniction bird cmd bat fatality study-2006. Report prepared fbr PPM Energy and I iorizon Center, Cape May Point, NJ.
Johnson. 0.D. 2003. What is known and not known about httt collision inortality at windpiants? In R.L. Calton, editor. Avian interactions with wind power struchires. Proceedings of st workshop heid in Jackson f-lale.Wyoming, USA, October 16-17,2002. Electric Power Kcscarch Institiit@*Palo Alto, California. In Press.
Johnson, G.D. 2005. A review of bat mortality at wind-energy dcveloprnents in the US. Bat fteswch News 46:45-49.
Kerns, J. md I). Kcrlingcr. 2004, A stiidy of bird and bat collision fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, 'l'uckcr County, West Virginia: annual repon for 2003. Curry and Kerlinger, UC2- 14-04, 30 pp.
Kunz, T.H. 2006. Bats at risk: why should we ctire. Toward Wildlife Friendly Wilid Pocvcr Conference, June 27-29, 'l'ctledo. 01I. (www.ftva.a,av/Pnodwesv'~rc.atl~tlies/w indpcrworcun~ei*rence, htm. V icwed 1 / 1 Slog)
Kunz. T.11.. E.13. Arnett. W.P. Erickson, R.R. Hoar, G.19. Johnson, R.P. I.arkin, M.D. Strickland, R.W. Thresher, M.D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on hats: qticstions, research nceds, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the IIrzvironinent 5(6):315-324.
Manville, A.M. 2005. Bird strikes and elcctraeutions at powcr fincs, communication towers. and wind turbines: state of the art and state ofthe science-next stcps toward mitigation. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech, Rep. I'SW-G'l'Jt-I 91 : 105 1-1 066,
Mimahi, I)., 11. Dnwson, and '1'. Jones. In Preparation. Assessing Bird and Bat Migration Over Appalachian Rid~cs.(www.sratc.scf,uslpucfI;iierg~/w~ncf%2(~fa~t~2~~h~et.~~~.
Murray, S.W.and A. KWtd, 3,004. NocLurnal activity of the cndangcrcd lrrdiana bat (,%f'ynti~. sodalis). Jalirnul of%oology. 262: 197-206.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency druft. tndi'ma bat (Myotis sodalis) revised recovery plan.U,S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Smiling, Minnesota. 53 pp.
I1.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3003. Scrvicc interim guidance on avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts from wind turbines, Washitigtctn, D.C. 55 pp.
l1.S. Fish and Wildlifc Sewicc. 2007. National Bald Ilaglu Mansrgcrnent Guidelines. Washington, I>.C. 23 pp.
Verboom, R. and tJ. f luitema. 1 997. Thc impoifancc of' linear landscape elenients l'or the pipistrclle Pipistretius pipistreilus md serotinc bat Eptesicus scrotinus. Landscape Ec~logy.12(2):117-125. Ms. Saniuitha I-lard 15 June 5,2008
Verboom. B. and K. Spoelstra. 1999, Effects of' food abuiidance and wind on the usc of trce lines by insectivorous bat. Pipistrcllus pipistrellus. GsmaJiaii Jountal of Zoology. 7:1393-1401.
Whitakcr. J.O., Jr., sitd V. Nrack, Jr. 2002. Distribution and sunimer ecology in Indiana. fn Kurta A., md ,1. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology md managernmi of an endaigercd species. Hat Conservation lntenrttional, Austin, 'fcxas.
Winkclmm, J.R. 1992. 'S?leimpact of the SEP wind park near Oosterbiertim (Fr.)3the Netherlmds, on birds, 2: nocturnal collision risks (Dutch, English summary). R1N-reporr 92/3, Artihem, Nctheriands: X)LC)-lnstitute far Forestry arid Nature Rcscarch.
Ms. Samantha i. ford 17 June 5,2008 Enclosure 1 to Comments of the US. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wildlife Studies for the New Creek Mountain Wind Energy Project, Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia
Summary of Next Steps for the Central Appalachian Region
Extensive resewch is needed to answer key questions about i%lierc, when. how, ~lndwhy bats ,md birds are killed at wind turbines, and ultimately ta cfcvelop effective methods for avoiding and minimizing impacts to populations. To advance these studies, the Service recommends that an existing coalition (such as the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative aid its technical subcornmiltecs) provide a forurn for the wind industry in the Central Appulacfiians to cooperatively work with state and federal resource agencies, rescnrchcrs, mmd other orgaslimtiutls to answer the Following key research questions and concerns.
Hird and Bat Mortality Assessnicnt
Key questions and concerns for assessing mortality of birds wid bats:
I. Assessment of' bird (and but mortality will require rnore than caw&as - Lounts.- 2. A succ~.ssfulassessment ofmortality will not only document. the search for dead birds and bats on the ground, but will also investigate the circumstsinces that may have influenced thc cvent, and provide insights ad.direction for next stcps. 3. Desired outcomes of assessnients include identification d a) factors that effect or cai~se mortality, b) p~denrnicans arid rnemures to avoid take of' birds and hats. 4. With regard 10 tlic spatial patterns ul'nocturnal migrating birds, it is important to determine what proportion is flying low enough to collide with wind turbines, Perhaps Iow cciliiig or other atmospheric conditions cause birds tcr fly low to the ground. Perhaps prevailing winds cause birds channeling through valleys to rise up and merge with birds already ai elevation to pass over the ridge. This would temporarily increase the number of birds in the rotor swept zone. Do thcsv phenomerta happen at a project site and lruw oh?What avoidance behavior, if any, do birds exhibit under lhcse circumstances'? 5. With regard to bat mortality. there is mounting evidence that bat activity and mortality occurs primwily at wind speeds up to 6'5 meters per second. Clperatirmlzl mitigation measures show promise in minimizing bat mortality arid greatly reducing cuinulsltivc impacts to bats due to turbine mortality. So this inay advtznce, it is critical to determine the level ofbat activity at rator height and mortality at wind speeds from zero to at least 6.5 meters per second and highcr, aid the percent of power value generuled at key low wind speeds.
Rccom mendations :
I, Investigate the circumstances that could causc a large proportion of noctumd migrating birds (rindor bats) to ily ricar or through the rotor swcpt zone, the frequency of wcurrencc of thmc circurnstanccs. and behavior of migrants to avoid turbines. I Ise radar and other monitoring techniques to assess the niiinbers 01' birds and bats that are actually flying low enough to be exposed to risk of collidirig with wind turbines. and dcterniine what proportion arc successful in passing through the turbine's rotors or change their Ms. Samantha I-lard 18 June 5,2008 tligh t trajectory to completely stvoid the wind turbines, 'fhesc studies should bc conducted during all local climatic conditions and all pertinent daily periods. Changes in behavior. mortality. and how to predict this situation should be reported. 2. In an effort to develop means and nieamres that show promise of eliminating a significant mount of bat inortality, replicate Dr. Oliver I3ehr's acoustic monitoring studies and curt&lmcnb experiments conducted in Gcmany and reported in 2008 ai the Bat and Wixid Energy Cooperativc meeting in Austin, Texas (Uehr 20082). In this relatively simple S~LJ~Ydesign, bat activity in the rotor swept zone wits mcasiired using cxcowtical detectors placed magncticdxlty c)n the nacelle, wind speed was recorded in sniall blocks of time using standard equipment. Bat mortuliry was determined using standard search methods. Percent valiio of generation up io 5.5 and 6.5 mcters per second was determined by the owner of thc wind prqjcct and reported. 3. Include in any bat mortality study. il statistically significant sample of turbines that are not spinning in order to evaluate bat mortality utidcr thrit condition. This will coniplerneiit rcplication of t3chr 2008. 4. investigate if there arc additional CBVCS within a several miles distance of the project and if those caves we used by hats.
Key questions and concerns for assessing prclj ject impacts on raptors:
t. What species and number nf raptors have bccn found dead or injured near wind turbines, tritnsmission lincs, substation, or other facilities'? What was the cause of death or injury: Le., clwtrocution, physical strike. ititernat insjury? What behavior was involved; Le.% perching, hunting. and migrating'? I-low could these be avoided in the future? Arc there particular turbines that cause more problems than others? -.7 Are project transmission lines constructed to protect raptors from electrocution in accordaice with Avian Protection Plan Guidelines? Are wind industry companies members of the Avian Protection Plan lntcraction Committee? 3. To what exkiit do raptors alter their heof flight to avoid individual turbines and/or the entire turbine field during the fall migration - and during March of spring migration for golden eagles? 3. 110 any raptors ('suchas golden eagles, red-tail hawks, harriers, and kestrels) hunt in open { non-ftirested) habitats of the projeci ares during migration. winter, or other se&sons? What is thc frequency with which each open habitat is hunted? What is the prey? 5. What are the spatial and temporal patterns of use? of migrating raptors over the turbine fieldsniid escarpments of the Central Appalachians, panicularl y when the prevtuling winds are from the east, southeast, itrid south, crcding updralts along the rnauntains? 6. Elow does the timing and mitgnitudc of obsewaticms of migrating raptors correlate with observations at hawk watch stations nearest tu the pro.jrct? 7. Wiai is the frequency distribution of elevations of migrating raptors, by spccfes?
' l3chr. Q. 2008. Acaiistic m<>niturirtgstudies and ciirtailment experlmsrlts in Cicrrnnny. Bats auld Wind Energy Ccroperativc [BEWC) Workshop, Austin, Texas. Jttiiuary 8- 10. Available via clickable link at: w.ww.2ner~~~iss.coriiiRWEC WorkshopL?OOX/skcnda.lttml- viewed 3 / 2 5 / 0 8 Ms. Samantha Ilwd 19 June 5, 2008 8, For raptor species known to migrate along the fronts in the Ccntral Appalachians generally, what is the vuiation in timing and inagnitude of their fall migration over the last several decades? Examination of raptor migration data from fully-mmed hawk watch locations is advised, such as thc Allcghany IIawk Wutch3 in Somerset County, Petinsylvania (7039 and 12,866 raptors observed in 2003 and 2004, respectively); I Ianging Rock Raptor Migration Observatory‘ in Monroe County, West Virginia (31 SS md 2687 raptors observud in 2003 and 2007, respectively); and Eiwcy’s Kiiab5 in Virginia (783 1 and 12039 raptors observed in 2003 and 2007, rcspectivcly). 9. Since raptor migration is episodic. what environrnentd conditions best predict spikes in raptor migration along the Ccnlsul Appalachian fionts and adjacent: ridges? ‘tAe thing, duration. and magnitude of these events are of intercst.
Reconuncndations:
1. Contract with cxperls in raptor migration in the Central hppalacliian Mountains to address and rcpurt 011 these questions, such as thc ititerdisciplinary Golden Eagle research group led by ilie National Aviary. 2. Contract ibr niodeiing raptor migration pathways along the major routes such as the Allcghany Front and riearby ridges, using Rig/ztPath - a cerrain-based niodel for simulating raptor migration pathways, and field test in the project areas. 3. PerForrn a simultmeous radar md rnortality study designed to measure the proportion of targets flying over the escarpriieni and plateau in zones of height above the ground including thc rotor swept ZOKICJ,risk cxpsuro, avoidance index, aid mortality. 3. Cause afdeath or injury should be dctermincd by ti wildlife veterinarian based on autopsy and exam i iiat ion, 5. LJsc cxpericxiced obsewcrs during radar study to riionilor and verify raptor (light and behavior. 6. During the radarlniortality study dmin wind (speed and direction at least every 1S to 30 minutes), tcmpemture, weather, and ceiling information on sile. 7, Monitor daily using radar from 6-8 hours per day starting at 9:OQ AM, except on rainy days. Monitor in M,zrch and during migratory peaks of each species in thc fall, including goldcn eagles. The schedrtle for mvriaiity searches sltould iiicliide, but nat be limited to, all towers immediatcly fdhwing spikes in migratory flights. Monitor fir three years in order to measure and assess natwal variations between md among years. Correlate observations to the north with events on site. 8. Enter into an agreement among tho wind industry. the National Aviary, Service, and state wildlife agencies to: a) Provide hndiny ovcr a tcn year period to the National Aviary fbr ts.wAing thc aniiunl inigratory cyclc ofthe golden eagles that itre known to winter in thc Central Appallacliim, b) post on the wch site the /light paths and current Icications of all golden eagles, arid other raptors, tracked by thc Niltional Aviary, and e) post current
’ httn://oeanle.del nhi forums,camfMC.’CON AU Ci H Yfbi rdindal frontial front.litrn wwcv.Eriuleinnrocktuwer.orlZ hrtn:/hiizamemu : on the I3otctourt-13cdford County line near Romokc, Virginia between mile markers 95 arid 96 on thc Blue Ridge Parkway, Ms. Sunantha I Inrd 20 June 5,2008 information for public use on the web site about uvian migration tilong the Central Appalachians iti gencral . 9. If iwt alreildy, encourage wind industry compmiies to becanit: active menibers in good standing of the Avian I’rotection Phn Interaction Committee.
Total Hawks By Year 1 So00 12000 11000 t OW0 goo0
77 7879 EO $1 €9 E3 84 88 868788 88 90 91 %? 93 94 95 9ci97 $899 00 01 02 W 04 05 0607 Year Data showing wuiation of number of hawks counted by year at I-ianging Rock Raptor Migration Observatory in Mtlor~roeClounty. West Virginia. Iw.ivw.hangin~:n)cktower,org) Attachment 3 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
West Virginia Field Office 694 Beverly Pike Elkins, West Virginia 26241
September 30,2009
Mr. Trevor Peterson Stantec Consulting 30 Park Drive Topsham, Maine 04086
Re: Proposed New Creek Mountain Wind Energy Project (PSC Case # 08-2105-E-CS), 2007 and 2008 Bird and Bat Migration Reports and Risk Assessment, Grant County, WV
Dear Mr. Peterson:
‘The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Fall 2007 Bird and Bat Migration Survey Report (Stantec Consulting 2008a), the Spring, Summer, and Fall 2008 Bird and Bat Migration Survey Report (Stantec Consulting 2008b), and the New Creek Mountain Bird and Bat Risk Assessment (Stanicc Consulting 2008c) for the proposed New Creek wind power facility in Grant County, West Virginia. The proposed facility would consist of approximately 66 turbines. with a maximum height of 130 meters (430 feet), along an 1 1.3-kilometer (7-mile) corridor on the ridgeline ofNew Creek Mountain. These comments are provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C.1531 et sey.), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 I1.S.C. 703- 712).
On March 12,2009, representatives of AES New Creek, LLC (AES) met with the Service and West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) to discuss results of the spring and fall bird and bat surveys and documentation provided in the New Creek Mountain Bird and Bat Risk Assessment. As a follow-up to the March 12,2009, meeting, we summarize below the results of the surveys and Risk Assessment, and provide comments on the adequacy of these studies as well as our recommendations for future phases of the project during construction and operation.
Migration Surveys and Reports
The 2007 and 2008 bird and bat migration reports detail the surveys conducted to determine the direction, height of passage, and species composition of migrating birds and bats. Survey efforts were conducted between September 2007 and October 2008, and included: nocturnal radar surveys (spring and fall), diurnal raptor counts (spring and fall), an aerial eagle nest survey (spring), breeding bird surveys and area searches (spring), acoustic bat surveys (spring, summer Mr. Trevor Peterson 2 September 30,2009 and fall), bat mist-netting surveys (spring, summer and fall), and a small-footed bat telemetry study. The survey methods used were consistent with the array of survey techniques used to determine species presencdcomposition and flight direction for other wind power projects.
Nocturnal radar surveys were conducted during 20 nights each in the fall of 2007 and spring of 2008, sampled from sunset to sunrise, recording both horizontal and vertical hourly radar video files. These surveys documented nocturnal migration patterns similar to those seen at other recently surveyed sites, including highly variable passage rates between nights, with a flight direction roughly parallel to the ridgeline of New Creek Mountain and migration activity generally greatest 2-3 hours after sunset. The mean flight height of targets was 360 meters (1,188 feet) in the fall and 442 meters (1,459 feet) in spring, with 5 17 percent of targets flying below the proposed maximum height of 130 meters (430 feet) for proposed turbines with blades. The mean flight direction and altitude of targets passing over the project area, and qualitative analysis of the surrounding topography and landscape, indicates a broad front type of landscape movement (north-northeasterly in the spring and southwesterly in the fall).
Raptors
Raptor migration surveys were conducted during fall 2007 (mid-September through December 1) 2007) and spring 2008 (March 2 1 through May 14) froin a meteorological tower clearing near the middle of New Creek Mountain. The surveys were consistent with standard methodologies and covered the peak of raptor migration. Thirteen species were documented, with turkey vultures the most common species observed. Five of the raptor species observed are considered sensitive by the State of West Virginia; these include the northern harrier, osprey, black vulture, peregrine falcon, and bald eagle. No Federal1y-listed threatened or endangered species were observed during the fall 2007 and spring 2008 survey periods. Eight bald eagles and eight golden eagles were observed throughout the two survey periods. Most of the raptors in the survey area were observed flying within 200 meters (660 feet) of the summit, at or below the proposed blade-swept zone. Migrating raptors were generally observed moving parallel to the ridgeline or directly above the ridge, while resident birds were generally observed circling, perching, or foraging over the ridgeline or adjacent valleys. Most of the raptors (68 percent) within the l-kilometer (0.6-mile) observation radius were flying below 130 meters (430 feet) (the maximum tower height) during both surveys. Flight paths of raptors varied between survey dates and were influenced by varying wind direction and weather, among other factors. The greater occurrence of migrants at low altitudes increases the potential for migrating raptors to come into the vicinity of the proposed wind turbines.
An aerial survey for bald eagle nests was conducted on April 30,2008, from a single-engine aircraft flying at an altitude low enough to permit observation of nests (1 50-2 10 meters or 495- 693 feet above ground). The surveyor observed a known eagle nest approximately 10 miles from New Creek during the survey to help refine their nest search image. No active or inactive nests were observed on New Creek Mountain or the surrounding eight kilometers (five miles) during the survey. Mr. Trevor Peterson 3 September 30,2009
Breeding Birds
The spring breeding bird survey followed standard survey methodologies using 25 point counts and eight area searches, documenting a total of 64 bird species in and adjacent to the pro-ject area. In general, the species observed were common to the region and typical of thc habitats in which they were observed. No Fcderally-listed species were observed during the breeding bird survey. However, 11 bobolinks, a species considered rare in the state, were detected during area search surveys in an open field outside the project area.
Passive acoustic monitoring was conducted for bats during the fall of 2007 and the spring, summer, and fall of 2008. Four acoustic detectors were deployed in 2007 and six in 2008, at and above ground level, to document activity near the proposed rotor zones and in various habitat types. Detection rates were slightly higher than that documented in other similar surveys. Most calls were detected by the talus detector, with more typical activity levels at the tree line and meteorological tower detectors. Viewed seasonally across 2008, detection rates at meteorological tower detectors were generally higher during the fall, followed by the summer, and spring periods, while the highest rates at ground-level detectors were seen during the summer. Bat calls were grouped into four guilds based on similarity in call characteristics and the uncertainty in the ability of frequency division detectors to adequately provide information for this differentiation. In both 2007 and 2008, the big browdsilver-haired/hoary bat guild was the most prevalent, followed by the red badeastern pipistrelle guild, and the Myotis guild. This trcnd in spccics composition is similar to that of othcr acoustic studies in the region, but does not reflect relative abundance of species in those guilds. Quantitative comparisons of detection rates among detectors, seasons, or habitats are not possible with this data, nor are direct correlation with weather variables, or linking detection rates to bat abundance. However, typical high mid- summer activity (compared to spring and fall) and heavy bat migration in the fdl were evident from these surveys.
Bat mist net surveys were conducted in the spring, summer and fall of 2008. Survey efforts followed the procedures accepted by the Service. Eight bat species (408 individuals) werc captured, most during the summer sampling period (62 percent. The northern myotis was the most frequently captured species, followed by the eastern small-footed myotis, a species considered to be “extremely rare or imperiled” in West Virginia. Other species encountered included the big brown bat, little brown myotis, eastern red bat, hoary bat, silver-haired bat, and eastern pipistrelle. No Federally-listed threatened or endangered species were documented during mist net surveys. A radio-telemetry study of eastern small-footed myotis was developed in response to the unusually high summer capture rate of this species. Ten individuals were tracked to day-roosts located along talus slopes and cliff faces down slope of proposed turbines in the north end of the project area and south of the southern-most proposed turbines. These individuals frequently changed the location of day roosts and moved short distances between roosts. Mr. Trevor Peterson 4 September 30,2009
Summarv and Recommendations
In general, the survey methodologies described above were designed to determine whether any outstanding, unique or unusual natural resource was present within the project area. Data collected during surveys and radio-telemetry work indicated that the project area provides important habitat for the small-footed bat (a state-listed sensitive species), as well as foraging habitat for other bat species, including the hoary bat, the red bat, and state-listed sensitive silver- haired bat. In addition, these rocky slopes and cliff faces are known to support a variety of other sensitive wildlife species in the region (e.g., Allegheny woodrat). To protect these sensitive resources, the Service recommends avoiding impacts to talus and rocky outcrop areas that may be used as roost sites by small-footed bats and other sensitive species.
We believe that the survey techniques used were appropriate and sufficient to reveal as much information about the resources surveyed as possible during one year. However, because of variability in populations and detection rates due to a variety of local and regional factors, one year of data does not necessarily reflect overall species composition or abundance at a site. Thus, the Service recommends multiple years of pre-construction surveys in order to establish a more complete data set (Service 2003). Multiple years of pre-construction data can account for natural variations in population numbers and composition caused by varying weather conditions and other influences.
New Creek Mountain Bird and Bat Risk Assessment
The Service identified several species and groups that may be impacted by the construction and operation of the New Creek wind power facility in a letter to Ms. Samantha Hand, dated May 15, 2007. Indiana bats, Virginia big-eared bats, nesting bald eagles, migratory birds (including bald and golden eagles) and migratory bats may be affected, either directly or indirectly by activities associated with the construction and operation of the facility, including: behavioral effects, habitat removal and fragmentation, increased human activity, maintenance of rights-of-way and roads, and collisions with turbine blades, among others. The New Creek Mountain Bird and Bat Risk Assessment (Risk Assessment) describes the potential for impacts to these identified species using the survey information, data from other wind power facilities, and literature reviews. The Risk Assessment is based on a weight-of-evidence approach using relative measures (low, medium, and high) to determine the level of impact a particular stressor (i.e., construction activities, collision) will have on a species or group. This is an acceptable approach that has been used by the Service and other Federal agencies to describe risk.
Breedin9 Birds
The authors of the Risk Assessment concluded that potential risk to breeding birds is low/medium to medium at New Creek Mountain based on bird surveys documenting typical avian species composition and abundance (relatively low as compared to more diverse valley habitats nearby), and literature indicating lower rates of collision for breeding birds as opposed to migrants. Further, the Risk Assessment indicates that proposed clearing/forest fragmentation associated with the wind facility is expected to cause only minor impacts to the distribution of Mr. Trevor Peterson 5 September 30,2009 species in the pro-ject area, as many of the bird species documented in the project area are described as edge-associated species, in a habitat characterized by the authors as relatively disturbed and fragmented. While one West Virginia state species of concern, the bobolink, was documented during the breeding bird surveys, those birds were observed in an open field located outside the project area.
‘fie authors also concluded there was a low/medium to medium collision risk to migratory birds based on a low documented rate of collision at most wind facilities, and the fact that most migrating birds were flying above proposed turbine heights. However, data from the 2007-08 marine radar surveys indicated a higher level of passage at New Creek Mountain than in most other documented radar surveys, and a higher than average rate of targets (i.e. birds) flying below the proposed rotor zone (approximately 1 3- 17 percent). This survey data indicates a somewhat elevated risk for mortality to migratory birds in the project area compared to other documented radar surveys. As explained in more detail below, we believe the risk may be higher than the survey data indicate.
RaDtors
Thirteen of the 16 raptor species expected to occur in West Virginia were observed during on- site raptor migration surveys conducted in the fall of 2007 and spring of 2008, indicating high raptor species diversity. This included eight golden eagles (all observed during the fall survey) and eight bald eagles (seven in the fall and one during the spring survey), as well as several unidentified eagles. The majority of raptors within the l-kilometer (0.6-mile) survey area were observed flying within the blade-swept zone of proposed turbines (< 130 meters or < 430 Feet) during both survey periods. Despite this low elevation flight pattern, the authors determined that the collision risk to raptors was low/medium to medium due to survey results showing relatively low rates of raptor migration at the New Creek Mountain site, and low documented rates of raptor collision mortality at wind power facilities in the eastern United States. As further explained below, the Service believes the risk to raptors, especially bald and golden eagles, merits further monitoring given discrepancies in raptor abundance in the study area for the New Creek wind power project compared to much higher concentrations of raptors observed during similar time frames in the study area for the proposed Pinnacle wind power project located approximately eight kilometers (five miles) away. Bald and golden eagles, in particular, may become increasingly at risk over the life of the New Creek wind power pro-ject, as their population numbers appear to be increasing in West Virginia.
Results of spring and fall raptor migration studies confirm that the proposed Pinnacle wind project study area lies in a major migratory pathway for the relatively small eastern population of golden eagles, with the authors noting that “Fall Golden Eagle migration at Pinnacle is significant and comparable in volume to that registered at some of the hawk watch sites that are considered the most important inland in eastern North America” (Kerlinger 2009). The fall 2007 observation period at the proposed Pinnacle study area was conducted between September 1 and December 15 and totaled 87 observation days. During this period, 99 golden eagles and 57 bald eagles were observed passing through the project area. The spring 2008 observation period occurred between March 2 and April 29 and totaled 45 observation days. During this period, 102 Mr, Trevor Peterson 6 September 30,2009
golden eagles and 37 bald eagles were observed passing the project area. The authors noted that a high percentage of these birds flew dong the ridge where the turbines are proposed for construction and at heights corresponding to the rotor-, or blade-, swept area.
Raptor studies for both New Creek and Pinnacle covered the peak of migration yet resulted in widely different estimates of raptor abundance. The reasons are unclear but could be related to differences in thermals between ridgelines, seasonal variation among sites, observer differences, or other factors. These differences highlight the need for multi-year pre-construction surveys and raise concerns that the New Creek project may pose as high a risk to raptors as documented in the Pinnacle study area.
The authors of the New Creek Mountain Risk Assessment also evaluated potential habitat loss from construction of the proposed project. They concluded that the relative degree of habitat loss was low/medium to medium risk because no eagle nests were observed during an aerial nest survey over an eight-kilometer (five-mile) radius centered on lhe project area, and habitat impacts are expected to be similar to existing conditions in the area. However, a bald eagle nest was documented within eight kilometers (five miles) of the project area in 2007, and many more nests have been documented within 32 kilometers (20 miles) of the area, particularly to the east where new observations of nesting bald eagles are being recorded on a regular basis. If bald eagle nests are found in the vicinity of the proposed project site at any time during the construction or operation of the project, AES should coordinate with the Service to minimize disturbance and the risk of collision by following the Service’s Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (Service 2007, see Enclosure 1).
Bald eagles can be particularly sensitive to human activity during courtship, nest building, egg laying, incubation, the early nestling phase, and later (nestlings 8 weeks through fledging). Bald eagles display varying degrees of sensitivity to humans, depending on several factors, including: visibility, duration, noise levels, extent of the area affected by the activity, prior experiences with -hurnan-nd tolerance of the individual nesting pair (Service 2007).
Grant and Pendfeton counties may also provide important wintering areas for golden eagles, and may be regularly used by immature eagles during the summer (Katmer et. al. 2008). In addition, the general area within which the proposed project area is located is known to be used by both bald and golden eagles during migration. Lower altitude flights during migration, such as those documented in the raptor surveys for the New Creek and Pinnacle wind power study areas, may increase the probability of an eagle encountering a rotating turbine blade during fall or spring migration across the area.
An eagle migration survey has been initiated by the National Aviary, Powdermill Avian Research Center, and several other institutions. During 2007-08, this prqject tracked several golden eagles (#s40,41, and 69) and a bald eagle (tc65) in the vicinity of New Creek Mountain. Available data from the National Aviary suggest that golden eagles migrate through a fairly narrow corridor through Pennsylvania that likely extends into West Virginia; as such, they Mr. Trevor Peterson 7 September 30,2009 consider the Allegheny Front and five adjacent ridges to the east to be a zone of high risk for potential impacts to golden eagles from wind turbines (Katzner et. al. 2008). Peregrine falcons also are known to nest just south ofNew Creek Mountain.
While the single year of survey data indicated that there were no large concentrations of raptors, recent analyses of raptor abundance data and collision mortality events indicate that abundance is not necessarily a good predictor of collision fatalities (de Lucas et. a]. 2008). Other factors, such as species-specificflight behavior and morphology, weather, and topography in the vicinity of wind power facilities may be equally or more likely related to differences in mortality rates. Additional pre- and post-construction surveys would help to assess the risk to bald and golden eagles, and clarify whether raptor numbers and flight corridors vary according to season and weather patterns, potentially increasing the risk under certain conditions.
Bird Concerns
For a number of reasons, we believe the risk to migratory birds (including raptors) is higher than indicated in the Risk Assessment. The proposed project is located along ridgelines considered to be part of the Allegheny Front, a known major migration corridor for birds and bats. There are over 50 years of bird migration records from the Allegheny Front Migration Observatory station at Bear Rocks, located approximately 201 kilometers (I 25 miles) south of the proposed New Creek wind power project in the same chain of ridgelines used by birds for broad-front long- distance migration. Observations have been made at Bear Rocks every fall since 1948 by members of the Brooks Bird Club and reported in their quarterly journal, the Redsfurr. Over 200,000 migrating birds have been banded at this station.
In addition, few mortality studies have been conducted at wind power facilities on forested ridgelines in the Appalachians, similar to those conditions at the New Creek site. Of these studies, including ongoing studies at the Mount Storm wind power facility in West Virginia (Young et al. 2009 a, b), mortality rates tend be higher than at projects in dissimilar habitat types such as agricultural fields and grasslands. The mortality rates at wind power facilities on forested ridgelines are four to six birds per tower per year compared with the zero to four birds per tower per year mortality rate in agricultural fields and grasslands (see Risk Assessment, Appendix A, 'Table 3).
Furthermore, we are concerned about the cumulative impact of wind power projects in the Allegheny Front. There are two projects currently in operation (Mountaineer and NedPower Mount Storm), located within 48 kilometers (30 miles) of the proposed New Creek project. These projects have documented mortality of birds and bats. In addition, we are aware of a number of other proposed projects in the Allegheny Front. We therefore believe the risk to migrating birds from the proposed New Creek project is higher than indicated in the Risk Assessment because: 1) the proposed project is located in a major migration pathway, 2) mortality rates at wind power sites tend to be higher along forested ridgelines, and 3) a number of projects are planned or operating in the Allegheny Front, Even if the post-construction mortality of birds at the New Creek site were as relatively low as estimated in the Risk Assessment, the cumulative impact of these wind power facilities, when added to other bird Mr. Trevor Peterson 8 September 30,2009 mortality factors (collisions with buildings, moving vehicles, and power lines; or bird kills associated with contaminant exposure and other hurnan-caused factors) may result in bird population declines.
Among other things, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the taking, killing, injuring or capture of listed migratory birds. The unauthorized taking of even one bird is legally considered a “take” under the MBTA and is a violation of the law. Bald and golden eagles are afforded additional legal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act, 16 U.S.C. 668). Neither the MBTA nor its implementing regulations found in 50 CFR Part 21 provide for permitting of “incidental take” of migratory birds that may be killed or injured by the wind turbines.
The Service carries out its mission to protect migratory birds not only through habitat and species management, regulatory programs, investigations and enforcement, but also through fostering relationships with individuals and industries that proactively seek to eliminate their impacts on migratory birds. It is not possible under the MBTA to absolve individuals, companies, or agencies from liabiiity if unauthorized take occurs. However, depending on the circumstances, the Office of Law Enforcement may exercise enforcement discretion. The Service focuses its attention on those individuals, companies, or agencies that take migratory birds with disregard for their actions and the law, especially when conservation measures or specific recommendations regarding pre-construction surveys and post-construction monitoring are either ignored or not properly implemented. In this regard, the Service offers recommendations at the end of this letter and we reiterate our willingness to work with you to develop measures to avoid and minimize impacts to migratory birds, including eagles,
The Eagle Act prohibits the take of bald and golden eagles unless pursuant to regulations. In the case of bald eagles, take can only be authorized under a permit. The Eagle Act defines the take of an eagle to include a broad range of actions: pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, or molest or disturb. Disturb is defined in regulations found at 50 CFR 22.3 as: to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.
While the Service’s goal is to avoid take of eagles, we recognize that take may occur despite efforts to avoid it. Toward that end, the Service published new regulations for eagle permits on September 1 1,2009 (74 Federal Register 46836-46879). These new regulations become effective on November 10,2009, Because the regulations are new, it will take some time for the Service and others to fully interpret their ramifications and applications. ‘These new regulations allow for applications for permits for the type of take anticipated at wind power facilities. We are available to work with you to develop a full suite of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation options, including but not limited to consideration of alternative project locations, and feathering of blades at some turbines during peak migration and/or periods of inclement weather. Under these new regulations, individual permits may be avaiiable to individual wind power companies. In addition, programmatic permits may be available to the wind power industry as a whole. Mr. Trevor Peterson 9 September 30,2009
-Bats The authors of the Risk Assessment determined that the risk to bats at New Creek Mountain ranged from low/rnediurn based on a literature review to mediumihigh based on weather analysis, an on-site habitat assessment, and both mist-net and acoustic bat surveys. No threatened or endangered bat species were documented in the project area during surveys, though acoustic surveys would not necessarily have been able to detect those species individually. While acoustic surveys have documented moderate to high levels of bat activity relative to other wind turbine sites, the authors concluded that indirect impacts to bats would be minor at New Creek Mountain, given the currently disturbed nature of many habitats within the project area and the relatively small area of anticipated clearing associated with the proposed project. While the small-footed bat was detected in unusually high numbers, individuals tend to forage relatively close to the ground, below the proposed blade-swept zone of wind turbines. Hence this species is not known to be particularly vulnerable to mortality caused by collision with the turbine blades or lung injury caused by sudden drops in air pressure near the blades. The authors of the Risk Assessment stated that indirect impacts to roosting sites are also expected to be minimal because the rocky talus slopes that the small-footed bats in this area were found to favor as roosting habitat (on the western side of New Creek Mountain and in Greenland Gap, south of the project area) will not be directly impacted by project construction.
‘he Service coiicurs with the conclusions in the Risk Assessment that there is a low/medium to medium risk to threatened and endangered bat species resulting from implementation of this proposed project. We consider there to be a medium or higher risk of mortality to other bats during operation of the turbines.
With respect to listed bat species, the mist net surveys did not result in the capture of a Federally- listed bat. There is not suitable roost habitat for the endangered Indiana bat (Myotissodulis) on the ridgeline as the habitat is very dry and vegetated with spindly trees. However, endangered Indiana bats and Virginia big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) may be present in the pro-ject mea during foraging and/or migration. The nearest known Indiana bat hibernaculum (Smoke Hole Cave) is located within approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles) of the proposed wind power facility, Surveys of Smoke Hole Cave during 1998 to 1999 indicated that a transient population of Indiana bat may use the cave in the winter, Bat monitoring efforts on the nearby Monongahela National Forest also have resulted in the capture of lactating or post- lactating female Indiana bats, indicating the presence of maternity colonies at two locations within about 48 kilometers (30 miles) south and southwest of the proposed New Creek Mountain wind facility. Hellhole Cave, the state’s most important bat cave and an Indiana bat hibernaculum with 12,858 individuals counted in the 2006-07 winter survey (WVDNR 2007), is located approximately 48 kilometers (30 miles) south of the project area. However, Indiana bats are capable of long distance flights (up to 300 miles) during migration (Service 1999). Because this endangered species uses forested habitat to travel to foraging areas (Butchkoski 2007), clearing of large areas through forested habitat could disrupt travel corridors for this species.
An historical Virginia big-eared bat (VBEB) cave, Kline Gap Cave, is located approximately 14.5 kilometers (nine miles) southwest of the project area. In addition, Peacock Cave is located Mr. Trevor Peterson 10 September 30,2009 approximately 29 kilometers (I 8 miles) from the prqject area; this cave supports a very large VREB maternity colony, with 1,013 individuals counted in June of 2008 (WVDNR 2008). Virginia big-eared bats tend not to travel long distances like Indiana bats, but they do move between caves and for foraging (Service 1995).
Bat mortality has been documented at all eastern wind power facilities to date. The major cause of death is thought to be a sudden drop in air pressure near the turbine blades, which causes injury to the bat’s lungs known as barotrauma (Baerwald et al. 2009). ‘Althoughthe respiratory systems of birds can withstand such drops, the physiology of bat lungs does not allow for the sudden change of pressure. In addition, some bats may die from collisions with turbine blades, In particular, long distance migrants such as red bats, hoary bats, and silver-haired bats arc: often found during post-construction mortality searches. However, using the information provided in the Risk Assessment, which documented relatively high bat detection rates at acoustic monitoring sites, it is evident that there is a clear risk to migratory bats due to operation of the wind power facility. In particular, acoustic surveys in the project area indicated high levels of activity in the upper air space above the proposed wind turbines for the long-distance migratory bats, the species group killed most frequently in the eastern United States, as well as eastern pipistrelles, which have suffered relatively severe mortality effects in the northeast in association with white-nose syndrome. Thus these species are at a higher risk of mortality caused by wind turbines. It is unknown whether the anticipated mortality of these bats will affect their population numbers, though there is the potential that the cumulative effect of multiple eastern wind power facilities will reduce the overall bat populations during the duration of these facility operations (typically 25 to 30 years). As stated in the Risk Assessment, “cumulative impacts of mortalities have been postulated to lead to substantial population dcclines given the relatively slow rates of reproduction and long life span of bats (Kunz et al. 2007% Kunz et al. 2007b; Kuvelsky et al. 2007).” In addition, other factors, such as the spread of white-nose syndrome, could significantly increase the risk for cumulative impacts to bat species populations in the east,
While the risk to Federally-listed bats through habitat modification, fragmentation, collision with turbine blades, and barotrauma is not considered high for this project individually, the cumulative impacts of such development in conjunction with the rapid spread of white-nose syndrome and other threats could result in local or regional population declines. White-nose syndrome has recently been confirmed in caves in Pendleton County, south of the proposed New Creek wind power facility, including at least one Indiana bat hibernaculum. This species, along with other Myofis species, has been shown to be severely affected in hibernacula in other states where hibernating bats have been infected with white-nose syndrome. In addition, while no infected Virginia big-eared bats have been found to date, several West Virginia caves provide critical habitat for the species. Depending on the spread of white-nose syndrome in coming years and the susceptibility of these endangered bats to the disease, assessments of cumulative impacts to both these species and the status of many other bat species, could change dramatically, including possible listing of new species under the Endangered Species Act.
The Risk Assessment authors considered potential impacts to bats to have the greatest potential adverse cumulative effects of the four groups of species considered (raptors, nocturnally migrating passerines, breeding birds, and bats). We agree. Bats tend to reproduce slowly and Mr. Trevor Peterson 11 September 30,2009 have longer life spans than birds; rates of collision mortality at existing wind farms tend to be higher for bats than for raptors, nocturnally migrating passerines, or breeding birds; and other risks to populations (e.g., white-nose syndrome) are currently high for this group.
Higher bat activity and fatalities have been consistently related to periods of low wind speed and weather conditions typical of tlie passage of storm fronts (Amett et al. 2008, Horn et. al. 2008, Reynolds 2006). Arnett et. al. (2009) found that bat fatalities were significantly reduced by changing wind turbine cut-in speed and reducing operational hours during low wind periods. Their results were said to be similar to those of another recent study of operational curtailment (Baenvald et ai. 2009), with data from both indicating a potential reduction in bat fatalities of 50 percent. Arnett et al. (2009) found reductions in average nightly bat fatality ranging from 56 to 92 percent with minimal total annual power output loss (5 1 percent). Data from the New Creek acoustic bat survey work supports this approach in operational curtailment as well. The Risk Assessment notes that a qualitative comparison of wind speed, temperature and bat activity at this and other sites with similar surveys suggests that bat activity levels were generally higher on nights with wind speeds 6 nieters/second (20 feethecond) and temperatures > 14 "Centigrade (~57OFahrenheit). While additional studies are needed to further test the effects of changes in turbine cut-in speed among different sizes and types of turbines, wind regimes, and other weather and habitat conditions on bat fatalities, these studies provide a good initial step in assessing the effectiveness and practicality of using modifications of turbine cut-in speed based on wind regimes as a mitigative strategy.
Summarv and Recommendations
'The Service believes that the weight-of-evidence approach used in the Risk Assessment is an acceptable approach to determine the relative level of impact a particular stressor (Le., constructionactivities, collision) will have on a species or group. However, we believe the risk to some groups is higher than determined in the Risk Assessment. In particular we are most concerned about the mortality risk to eagles and unlisted bats from the proposed New Creek wind power project, as well as the cumulative effects of multiple wind power projects and other stressors on populations of eagles, other birds, and bats.
It is important for the Service, AES, and others to work together to gather the information needed to determine feasible and effective methods to reduce mortality risk to birds and bats from wind power projects, Based upon the above analysis, we offer the following recommendations to avoid and reduce anticipated impacts to birds and bats and to document any mortality events or changes to the species populations and diversity due to construction and operation of the proposed New Creek wind power facility. These recommendations are based on currently available best scientific information. As new information becomes available, we reserve tlie riglit to modify these recommendations.
Pre-Construction Recommendations 1) Reduce the amount of forest removal as much as possible to reduce impacts to forest species, including bats and birds. Mr. Trevor Pejerson 12 September 30,2009 2) Avoid impacts to talus and rocky outcrop areas that may be used as roost sites by small- footed bats and other sensitive species, 3) Should overhead powerlines be constructed, follow the guidelines in the Avian Pro.tection Plan (APLIC and Service 2005) to avoid and reduce bird collisions with overhead lines or guy wires.
Post-Construction Recommendations 1 ) Post-construction mortality monitoring and adaptive management should occur over the operational life of the project. There should be at least three years of intensive monitoring at the beginning of operation. A longer period of intensive monitoring may be needed. Reduced frequency and/or intensity of monitoring may be possible at later stages if early studies document effective operational parameters that significantly reduce bird and bat mortality. Once effective measures are identified, periodic monitoring should continue throughout the operational life of the project to continue to document that the measures are working as planned. Monitoring of bird and bat mortality should occur during spring, summer, and fall seasons. In addition, winter searches should focus on eagle mortality. 2) AES should coordinate with the Service and WVDNR on study plans and monitoring prior to initiation of the monitoring. 3) Post-construction assessments should move beyond counts of dead bats and birds in order to identify effective operational parameters that avoid and minimize bird and bat mortality. Studies should investigate if birds and bats are attracted to turbines, and how bird and bat activity and mortality varies with wind speed, direction, persistent weather events, and perhaps other factors. 4) We recommend the use of radar and other monitoring techniques to assess the numbers of birds and bats that are actually flying low enough to be exposed to risk of mortality from the wind turbines. We also recommend that the proportion of birds and bats that are successful in passing through the turbine's blade-swept area or that change their flight trajectory to completely avoid the wind turbines be determined. These studies should be conducted during all local climatic conditions and all pertinent daily periods. Changes in behavior and mortality, as well as methods for predicting mortality events should be reported to the Service's West Virginia Field Office. 5) The monitoring plan should include a robust adaptive management component that describes the studies to be conducted, anticipated outcomes (hypotheses to be tested), and a subsequent series of responses addressing those outcomes. Monitoring should be conducted to determine if the selected responses actually result in a reduction of fatalities. Adaptive management trials should begin on some of the turbines in Year 1 of operation. 6) The operation of the facility should be conducted in order to reduce anticipated bird and bat mortality. In particular, there is mounting evidence that bat activity and mortality occur primarily at low wind speeds. Studies should be conducted on the effectiveness of modifying project operations to reduce anticipated bird and bat mortality (such as modifying cut-in speeds, and feathering or stopping blades during peak migration or during high-risk weather events). To facilitate data collection in a consistent manner at multiple wind power sites, we recommend that AES participate in studies similar to the ongoing curtailment study at the Casselman wind power project in Somerset County, Pennsylvania (Amett et al. 2009). Mr. Trevor Peterson 13 September 30,2009
Mortality searches should use dogs to improve detection rates in medium and low- visibility habitats (Arnett 2006); Fatality estimates should include complex estimators to account for project site variations, particularly for scavenger activity (Huso 2008); daily searches at some tower sites, as well as weekly searches at other towers (Huso 2008, Kerns et ai. 2005); large sample sizes of appropriate carcasses (Arnett et al. 2008, Huso 2008);and corrections for habitat variation (Arnett et al. 2008). Due diligence must be practiced in identifying carcasses. Photographs of all bird and bat carcasses should be taScen. Except for bat species of the genus Myolis, other carcasses may be used for determination of scavenging rates and searcher efficiency; however, small tissue samples (such as a feather, toe clip, or small wing punch) should be taken if there are questions about identification. All Myotis bat carcasses should be sent to the WVDNR with the researcher’s determination of genus and species, date of collection, and turbine number where the carcass was collected. Unidentified bat carcasses should be specially marked with a request for identification from WVDNR bat experts. Should WVDNR staff be unable to conclusively identify these carcasses, and/or conclusively determine through process of elimination that the unidentified carcasses are not Federal1 y-listed endangered or threatened bat species, then AES should provide funds to the WVDNR for genetic testing at a lab selected by WVDNR and the Service. 10) Survey reports should be submitted to the Service’s West Virginia Field Office and WVDNR after each study season and annually by December 3 1. 1 1) To help predict raptor impacts, we recommend that AES fund research on raptor migration patterns in the area, including bald and golden eagles. This could include modeling raptor migration pathways along the Allegheny Front or contributing to ongoing radio telemetry studies by the National Aviary. 12) If nesting bald eagles are found within the prqject area at any time during the operational life of the project, then the Service’s Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (Service 2007) should be followed to avoid disturbance during critical nesting times. We have excerpted pertinent portions of the’guidelines for your reference (Enclosure 1). Due to the risk of bald eagle strikes once a nest has been established, the Service may recommend that wind turbine operation cease if a nest is found within 400 meters (1,320) of a turbine. Additional management considerations may be recommended if it appears that the breeding bald eagles are foraging along or adjacent to the turbine string. 13) If a bald or golden eagle, or a Federally-listed threatened or endangered species is found during a mortality search, then AES will notify the Service’s West Virginia Field Office and the WVDNR within 24 hours and discuss how to modify operations to avoid impacts in the future. 14) If it is not possible to avoid impacts to Federally-listed species or to bald and golden eagles, then AES may pursue incidental take permits under the Endangered Species Act and Eagle Act, respectively. AES may also apply for such permits prior to construction. Mr. Trevor Peterson 14 September 30,2009
We look forward to working with AES to implement the recommendations made above. We appreciate the opportunity to provide information relative to wildlife issues, and thank you for your interest in these resources. If you have any questions, please contact Laura Hill at 304-636- 6586, Ext. 18 or Laura hill(ri),fws.rrov. SincereI y ,
Deborah Carter Field Supervisor Enclosure Mr. Trevor Peterson 15 September 30,2009 cc: FWS RO - Diane Lynch SOL - Dave Rothstein PSC - Sandra Squire WVDNR - Roger Anderson AES - Tony Colman Reader File Project File ES: WVFO: LHil I :skd:9/30/2009 Filename: P: Wind Power\New CreekWewCreek-Letter-092909 Mr. Trevor Peterson 16 September 30,2009 References
Arnett, E.B. 2006. A preliminary evaluation on the use of dogs to recover bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 1440-1446.
Arnett, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J.K. Fiedler, B.L. Hamilton, T.M. Henry, A. Jain, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R. Koford, C.P. Nicholson, T.J. O'Connell, M.D. Piorkowski, and R.D. Takersley, Jr. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:61-78.
Arnett, E. B., M. Schirmacher, M. M. P. Huso, and J. P. Hayes. 2009. Effectiveness of changing wind turbine cut-in speed to reduce bat fatalities at wind facilities, An annual report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas. 45 pp.
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) and U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Avian Protection Plan (APP) Guidelines. Edison Electric Institute APLIC and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service joint document. 84 pp.
Baerwald, E. F., J. Edworthy, M. Holder, and R.M.R. Barclay. 2009. A large-scale mitigation experiment to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. Journal of Wildlife Management 73 : 1077- 108 1.
Butchkoski, C. M. 2007. lndiana bat foraging habitat study. Pennsylvania Game Commission. [Jnpublished report.
de Lucas, M., G.F.E. Janss, D.P. Whitfield, and M. Ferrer. 2008. Collision fatality of raptors in wind farms does not depend on raptor abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1695- 1703.
Horn, J.W., E.B. Arnett, and T.H. Kunz. 2008. Behavioral responses of bats to operating wind turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 123-132.
Huso, M. 2008. A comparison of estimators of bat (and bird0 mortality at wind power generation facilities. Bats and wind Energy Cooperative Workship, Austin, 'Texas. January 8-10. Available at www.energetics,com/BWECWorkshop2008/agenda.html.
Katmer, T.D. Brandes, M. Lanzone, T. Miller, and D. Ombalski. 2008. Raptors and wind energy development in the Central Appalachians: where we stand on the issue. National Aviary Policy Statement - Wind Power.
Kerns, J., W.P. Erickson, and E.B. Arnett. 2005. Chapter 3. Bat and bird fatality at wind energy facilities in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Pages 24-95 in Amett, E.B. (ed.), Relationship between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an assessment of fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and behavioral interactions with wind turbines. Mr, Trevor Peterson 17
ment site on bats in
Virginia. Prepared for: AES New Creek, LLC, Arlington, VA. 103 pp.
ain bird and bat risk as birds US, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency draft. Indiana bat (Myofissodulis) revised recovery plan. US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Sneiling, Minnesota. 53 pp. US.Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Service interim guidance on avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts from wind turbines. US.Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 55 PP. US. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 25 pp. Mr. Trevor Peterson 18 September 30,2009 West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 2007. Federal Assistance Performance Report, . Endangered Species (Animals) Project E- 1, Segment 24 (1 October 2006 - 30 September 2007). West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division, Elkins, WV. 89 pp. plus appendices. West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 2008. Federal Assistance Performance Report, Endangered Species (Animals) Project E-1, Segment 25 (1 October 2007 - 30 September 2008). West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division, El kins, WV. 87 pp. plus appendices. Young, D.P. Jr., W.P. Erickson, K. Bay, S. Nomani, and W. Tidhar. 2009a. Mount Storm wind energy facility, Phase 1 post-construction avian and bat monitoring, July-October 2008. Prepared by WEST, Inc. for NedPower, Mount Storm, LLC, Houston, TX. 46 pp + appendices. Young, D.P.Ir., K. Bay, S. Nomani, and W. Tidhar. 2009b. NedPower Mount Storm wind energy facility, post-construction avian and bat monitoring, March-June 2009. Prepared by WEST, Inc. for NedPower, Mount Storm, LLC, Houston, TX. SI pp. Mr. Trevor Peterson 19 September 30,2009 Enclosure 1. Bald eagle status and distribution in West Virginia, responses to disturbances, and guidelines for projects near active nests. The bald eagle wsls recently delisted and removed from the List of Federally-threatenedand Endangered Species, However, the bald eagle is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Known Distribution of Bald Eagles in West Virginia Winter Habitat: 'firoughout the entire state. Active nest sites: Grant, Hampshire, Hancock, Hardy, Jefferson, Mineral, Morgan, Pendleton, Pocahontas, and Taylor counties. This information is adapted from the Service's National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007). The Guidelines provide additional information about bald eagles and management recommendations. -'able I. iesting Balc Eagle Sensitiviq o Human Activities Sensitivity to Human Phase Activity Activity Comments Most sensitive Most critical time period. Disturbance is manifested Courtship period; likely to in nest abandonment. Bald eagles in newly and Nest 1 respond established territories are more prone to abandon Building negatively nest sites. activity of even limited duration may cause Very sensitive Human Egg nest desertion abandonment of territory for the I1 period and laying breeding season. Incubation Adults are less likely to abandon the nest near and and early after hatching. However, flushed adults leave eggs nestling Very sensi tive 11 I and young unattended; eggs are susceptible to period (up period cooling, loss of moisture, overheating, and to 4 predation; young are vulnerable to elements. weeks) ~- Likelihood of nest abandonment and vulnerability of Nestling Moderately the nestlings to elements somewhat decreases. IV period, 4 sensitive period However, nestlings may miss feeding, affecting to 8 weeks their survival. ' Nestlings Gaining flight capability, nestlings 8 weeks and 8 weeks Very sensitive V older may flush from the nest prematurely due to through period disruption and die. fledging Mr. Trevor Peterson 20 September 30,2009 If agitated by human activities, eagles may inadequately construct or repair their nest, may expend energy defending the nest rather than tending to their young, or may abandon the nest altogether. Activities that cause prolonged absences of adults from their nests can jeopardize eggs or young. Depending on weather conditions, eggs may overheat or cool too much and fail to hatch. Unattended eggs and nestlings are subject to predation. Young nestlings are particularly vulnerable because they rely on their parents to provide warmth or shade, without which they may die as a result of hypothermia or heat stress. If food delivery schedules are interrupted, the young may not develop healthy plumage, which can affect their survival. In addition, adults startled while incubating or brooding young may damage eggs or injure their young as they abruptly leave the nest. Older nestlings no longer require constant attention From the adults, but they may be startled by loud or intrusive human activities and prematurely jump from the nest before they are able to fly or care for themselves. Once fledged, juveniles range up to % mile from the nest site, often to a site with minimal human activity. During this period, until about six weeks after departure from the nest, the juveniles still depend on the adults to feed them. Disruption, destruction, or obstruction of roosting and foraging areas can also negatively affect bald eagles. Disruptive activities in or near eagle foraging areas can interfere with feeding, reducing chances of survival, Interference with feeding can also result in reduced productivity (number of young successfully fledged). Migrating and wintering bald eagles often congregate at specific sites for purposes of feeding and sheltering. Bald eagles rely on established roost sites because of their proximity to sufficient food sources. Roost sites are usually in mature trees where the eagles are somewhat sheltered from the wind and weather. Human activities near or within communal roost sites may prevent eagles from feeding or taking shelter, especially if there are not other undisturbed and productive feeding and roosting sites available. Activities that permanently alter communal roost sites and important foraging areas can altogether eliminate the elements that are essential for feeding and sheltering eagles. The numerical distances for buffers shown in Table 2 are the closest the activity should be conducted relative to the nest. Table 2: Buffer requirements for activities that entail permanent landscape alterations that may result in bald eagle disturbance. These requirements apply to active bald eagle nests. If there is no similar activity If th ere is similar activity closer within I mile of the nest than 1 mile from tlte nest 660 feet (200 km), or as close as If the activity will 660 feet (200 Landscape km). existing tolerated activity of similar be visible from the buffers are recommended. nest scope. Landscape buffers are recommended. I Mr. Trevor Peterson 21 September 30,2009 If there is no similar activity If there is similar activi$y closer within I mile of the nest than I mile from the nest 330 feet (100 km). Clearing, external construction, and 330 feet (1 00 km), or as close as landscaping between 330 feet existing tolerated activity of similar If the activity will scope. Clearing, external (1 00 h)and 660 feet (200 km) not be visible from construction and landscaping within the nest should be done outside breeding season. 660 feet (200 km) should be done outside breeding season. Attachment 4 (Confidential - Filed under Seal) Attachment 5 rage I or I From: Hard, Samantha (Lowel1,MA-US) [SHard@trcsolutions,com] Sent: Monday, June 13,201 1 2:27 PM To: Tony Colman Cc: Bart Rossi Subject: FW: Approval for WVR104804, AES New Creek Mountain Project, Grant Co., 233 Acres Attachments: Responsive Summary WVRl04804.pdf; EP 1415 1~2007~Construction~Storm~Water~General~Permit[1].pdf; NOT 144003W-Cons-Termination-notice.doc Tony - see email authorization below and attachments for the New Creek NPDES approval. Let me know if you need anything else. From: DEP NPDESEP [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 7:35 AM To: tony.colman@aes,com; DEP NPDESEP Cc: Hard, Samantha (Lowell,MA-US); Sanders, Mary 3; Alt, Matthew 3; Dolly, Robin C; Noll, Jeanne Subject: Approval for WVR104804, AES New Creek Mountain Project, Grant Co., 233 Acres Tony Colman AES New Creek, LLC 4300 Wilson Blvd Arlington, VA 22203 703-682-6328 Physical Site Location: Rt. 93, Elk Garden, Keyser Please be advised that this e-mail constitutes approval for your construction activity and your registration no. is WVRlO4804. You are now authorized to operate under WV/NPDES General Water Pollution Control Permit No. WV0115924, issued on November 5,2007, copy attached. You should carefully read the contents of this General Permit and become familiar with all requirements needed to remain in compliance with your permit. We’ve also attached a “Notice of Termination’’ form to be completed and submitted when all disturbed areas are stabilized. You can find the permit and Notice of Termination form via the Internet by visiting Permitting, Division of Water and Waste Management at www.wvdeD.g;ov . Your annual permit fee has been assessed as $1500.00. You will be invoiced by this agency upon the anniversary date of this approval date. Failure to submit the annual fee within ninety (90) days of the due date will render your permit void upon the date you are mailed a certified written notice to that effect. Please be advised that a pro-rated annual permit fee may be assessed upon the completion date and proper stabilization. Scott G. Mandirola, Director WV DEP-Division of Water & Waste Mgt. 601 57th St SE Charleston, WV 25304-2345 Phone: (304) 926-0495 Fax: (304) 926-0496 mhtml:file://I:\Worldox\DOCS\CLIENTS\021648\0030 1\C22 19526.MHT 12/22/20 1 1 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF WATER AND WASTE NIANAGEMENT 60 1 57"' STREET SE CHARLESTON, WV 25304-2315 GENERAL NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PERMIT Permit No. WVOI 15924 Issue Date: November 5,2007 EffMtive Date: December 5,2007 Expiration Datc: December 4,20 12 Subject: Stormwatcr Associated With Construction Activities To Whom It May Concern: Tliis is to certifL that any establishment with discharges composed entirely of stonnwater associated with construction activities disturbing one acre or greater of land area (construction activitics are land disturbing operations such as grubbing, grading, filling and excavation operations during site development for residential, commercial or industrial purposes) and agreeing to be rcplated under the terms of this general permit, except for; 1, Operations that result in the disturbance of less than one acre of total land area, which are not pan of a larger common plan of development or sale. 2. Storniwater discharges associated with land disturbing activities that may reasonably be expected to be causing or contributing to a violation of a water quality standard as determined by the Director. 3, Land disturbing activities already governed by other Department of Environmental Protection NPDES permits. This includes Division of Mining and Reclamation permits for coal inining and non-metallic quarries. 3. Landfills, except in the preparation of a new landfill and/or clay borrow areas, 5. Othcr activities exempt from NPDES permitting rcquiremonts as set forth in 30CFR 122,3(e) and 47CSR 10-3.2.b.4 (NPDES Program). 6. Land disturbing activities related to oil and gas activities as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These activities include but are not limited to construction of drilling sites, waste management pits, and access roads, as Page 2 of 22 Permit No. WVOl15924 well as construction of the transportation and treatment infrastnrctum such as pipelines, natural gas treatment plants, natural gas pipeline compressor stations, and crude oil pumping stations. Construction activities that remlt in a discharge of a reportable quantity release or that contribute pollutants (other than non-contaminated sediments) to 8 violation of a water quality standard are still subject to permit coverage. is hereby granted coverage under this Oeneral WVINPDES Water Pollution Contml Permit to allow stonnwater discharges into the surfw waters of the State. This General Permit is subject to the following terms and conditions: The infomation submitted on and with the site registration application form will hereby be made terms and conditions of the General Permit with like effect as if all such infirmation were set forth herein, and other pertinent conditions set forth in Sections A, B, C, D, E, F, G,H, I and J. Consaction of single family residences by the homeowner or homeowner's contractor requiring land disturbances less than three acres in size are provided coverage under the General WV/NPDES Water Pollution Control Pdtand do not require application for registration. However, all other terms and conditions of the Oeneral WVMPDES Water Pollution Control Permit still apply except for the Notice of Tennination requirement. Sites approved hrnJanuary 1,2006, thnr November 4,2007, are hereby granted coverage under General WVMPDES Water Pollution Control Permit WVOl15924. Sites approved prior to January 1,2006, will have until June 30,2008, to have final stabilization completed. Final stabilization means disturbed areas shall be covered by the appropriate pemanent protection, Final stabilization includes, pavement, buildings, stable waterways (riprap, concrete, grass or pipe), a healthy, vigorous stand of prennial grass that uniformly covers at least 70 percent of the ground, stable outlet channels with velocity dissipation which directs site runoff to a natural watercourse, and any other approved structure or material. If thesites are not stabilized by June 30,2008, an application to receive permit coverage will be required to be submitted to the Division of Water and Waste Management on or before, July 1,2008. SECTION A. TERMS OF PERMIT Discharges hmsites covered under the General Permit shall not cause or contribute to a violation of 47CSR2 (Requirements Governing Water Quality Standards) and 46CSR12, (Requimnarts Goveming Groundwater Standards) of the West Virginia Legislative Rules pmwtto Chapter 22, Article 1 1 and Article 12. Discharges that are not in compliance with thee standards are not authorized. SECTION 8. SCHEDULE OF COMPJ JAN Cg Compliance with this General Pennit and the approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is required upon the beginning of the construction project. Page 3 of 22 Permit No. WVOl15924 SECTION C. MA NAGEMENT CONDIT IONS C. 1. Duty to Comply C.1 .a. The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and State Act (Chapter 22, Article 1 1 and Article 12) and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit modification, revocation and reissuance, suspension or revocation; or denial of a permit renewal application. C. 1 .b. The permittee shall comply with all effluent standards or prohibitions established under Section 307(a) of the CWA for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement. c.2. Duty to Reapply If the pennittee seeks to continue an activity regulated by this pennit after the expiration date of this pennit, the permittee must apply for a new permit or general permit registration as detailed in pennit reissuance. c.3. Duty to Mitigate The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in violation of this pennit, which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. c.4. Permit Actions This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, suspendad, or revoked for cause. The filing of a request by the permittee for permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or revocation, or a notification of a planned change or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any pedt condition. C.S. Property Rights This permit does not convey any propetty rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege. C.6. Signatory Requirements All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Director shall be signed and certified as required in 47CSR104.6.(NPDES Program). If an authorization becomes inaccurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the ovdl operation of the project, a new authorization must be submitted to the Director prior Page 4 of 22 Permit No,WVOl15924 to, or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative. c.7. Transferability This permit is not transfmble to any person, except after notice to the Director. The Director may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the pennit to change the name of the permittee and incorporate such other requirements as may ba necessary. C.8. Duty to Provide Information The permittee shall Mshto the Director, within a reasonable specified time, any information which the Director may request to detamine whether causa exists for modifjin& revoking and reissuing, suspcnding, or revoking this permit, or to determine compliance with this pennit. This information may include water quality information as specified by the Director. The permittee shall also fivnish to the Director, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit. c.9. Other Information Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a pennit application, or submitted inwrrect infonilation in a permit application or in any report to the Director, it shall immediately submit such facts or information. C, 10. Inspections and Entry The permittee shall allow the Director or an authorized representative upon the presentation of credentials and such other documents as may be required by law C.1O.a To enter upon the pennittee’s premises in which an effIuent source or activity is located, or whae records must k kept under the conditions of this pmit; C. 10.b. To have access to and copy at reasonable times any records that must be kept under the conditions of this permit; C.1O.c. To inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and conti01 equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this pennit; C.1O.d. To sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as othenvise authorized by the State Act, any substances or parameters at any location. Page 5 of22 Permit No. WVOl15924 c.11. Permit Modification This pumit may be modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part during its term in accordance with the provisions ofChapter 22, Article 11 of the Code of West Virginia Any permittee wishing to modify his coverage under this permit shall submit such request at least 45 days pdor to the commencement of the proposed action for modification if no public notice period is required. A modification that will have a public notice period must be submitted at least 90 days prior to construction to allow for the public notice procedure. c. 12. Water Quality The effluent or effluents covered by this pennit are to be of such quality so as to not cause violations of applicable water quality standards. C.13. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability Nothing in this pennit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject under Section 3 11 of the CWA. C.14. Liabilities C.14.a Any person who violates a pennit condition implementing Sections 301,302,306, 307,308,3 18 or 405 of the CWA is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day of such violation. Any person who will€blly or negligently violates permit conditions implementing Section 301,302,306,307, or 308 of the CWA is subject to a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. C.14.b. Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more that $1 0,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, or by both. C.14.c. Nothing in C.14.a and C.14.b. shall be construed to limit or prohibit any other authority the Director may have under the State Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 22, Article 11 and State Groundwater Protection Act, Chapter 22, Article 12. C.15 Outlet Markem An outlet marker shall be posted during the term of General Pennit coverage in accurdance with Title 47, Series 1 1, Section 9 (Special Rules) of the West Virginia Legislative Rules. Page 6 of 22 Permit No. WVOllS924 SEm ION D. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE D.1. Pmpat Operation and Maintenance The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the pennittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit. D,2. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not B Defense It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit. D.3. D.3.a Definitions D.3.a 1. “Bypass” means the intentional diversion of waste streams hmany portion of a treatment facility; and D.3.a.2, “Severe propedy damage” means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facility which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resoucces that can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. D.3.b. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The pennittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause eflluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of D.3.c. and D,3.d, of rhis permit. D.3.c. Notification of bypass D.3.c. 1. if the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if possible at least 10 days before the date of the bypass. D.3.c.2. If the pennittee does not know in advance.of the need for bypass; notice shall be submitted as requires in F.2.a. of this pennit. D.3.d. Prohibition of bypass D.3.d. 1. Bypass is permitted only under the following conditions, and the Director may take enforcement action against a permittee for bypass, unless; Page 7 of 22 Permit No, WVOl15924 D.3.d.l.A. Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe propetty damage, D.?l.d.l,B, There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated sediment, or maintenance during nonnal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineeringjudgment to prevent a bypass that occurred during nonnal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance, This condition is not satisfied if the sediment and erosion control struchves were not installed in the proper sequence; and D.3.d,1.C. The pennittee submitted notices as required under D.3.c. of this permit. I- D.3.d.2. The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if the Director determines that it will meet the three conditions listed in D.3.d.l. of this permit. D.4. Upset D.4.a. “Upset” means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with the tmsand conditions of the parnit and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational mor, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. 0.4.b. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an afihative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology-based pennit effluent limitations if the requirements of b.4.c. are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrativeaction subject to judicial review. D.4.c. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset. A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contempotaneous operating lop, or other relevant evidence that: D.4.c.l. An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset. D.4.c.2. The pemitted project was at the time being properly operated. D.4.c.3. The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in F.2.a. of this permit, D.4.c.4. The pennittee complied with any remedial measures required under (2.3. of this permit. Page 8 of 22 Pennit No. WV0115924 D.4.6 Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceedings the pennittm seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. D.5. Removed Substances Where removed substances are not otherwise covered by the terms and conditions of this pmitor other existing permits by the Director, any solids, sludge, filter backwash or other pollutants (removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewater) and which are intended for disposal within the State, shall be disposed of only in a manner and at a site subject to the approval by the Director, If such substances are intended for disposal outside the State or for reuse, i.e., as a material used hr making another product, which in turn has another use, the permittee shall notie the Director in writing of the proposed disposal or use of such substances, the identi9 of the prospective disposer or users, and the intended place of disposal or use, as appropriate, SECTION E. MONITORING AND REPORTING Monitoring of discharges is not required for construction activities unless directed by the Dircctor, E.1. Definitions “As-built drawing” means a certified drawing of conditions as they were actually constructed. “Best management practices” (BMPs)means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, other management practices and various structural practices such as but not limited to silt fmce, sediment ttaps, seeding and mulching, and rip-rap used to prevent or reduce erosion and sediment runoff and the pollution of surface waters of the State. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage fiom raw material storage. “Buffer zone” means the region near the border of a protected area; a transition zone between areas managed for different objectives. “Clearing” means cutting and removing vegetation with chain saws, brush axes, brush hogs and other mechanical means where there is little or no soil disturbance. ! “Clean Watex Act” (CWA)(formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Law 95-217, Public Law 97-1 17 snd Public Law 95-576; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et stq. “Common plan of development” is a contiguous constmction project where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules but under one plan. The “plan” is broadly defined as any announcement or piece of documentation or physical demarcation indicating construction activities may occur on a specific plot; included in this definition are mast subdivisions. Page 9 of 22 Permit No. WVOl15924 “Control” is a best management practice such as erosion control or sediment control that will reduce sedimentation on a construction project. “Construction Activity“ means land disturbance operations such as grubbing, grading, filling, and excavating during site development for residential, commercial or industrial puposes. This includes, but is not limited to, access roads, borrow and spoil areas. “Directof’ means the Director of the Division of Water and Waste Management, Department of Environmental Protection, or her designated representative. “Disturbed area” is the total area of land disturbing activity that will take place during all phases of a construction project, including, but not limited to, all waste and borrow sites, utility installation, mad building, mass grading, and site development. “Diversion” means a berm or excavated channel or combination berm and channel constnactcd across sioping land on a predetermined grads. This includes but is not limited to protecting work areas from upslope runoff and reducing the size of the drainage going to sediment trapping stnrctures (clean water diversion), transporting runoff across a project to miaimize erosion and diverting sediment-laden water to an appropriate sediment-trapping structure. “Erosion” means the displacement of solids (soil, mud, rock, and other particles) by the agents of wind, water, and ice: in response to gravity. “Establishment” means an industrid establishment, mill, factory, tannery, paper and pulp mill, mine, colliery, breaker or mineral processing operation, quarry, refinery, well and each and every industry or plant or works in the operation or process of which industrial wastes, sewage or other wastes am produced. ‘‘Estimate” meam to be based on a technical evaluation of the sources contributing to the discharge. “Excavating” means large scale grading accomplished usually with heavy machinery. “Final stabilization” means disturbed areas shall be covered permanent protection. Final stabilization includes pavement, buildings, stable waterways (riprap, concrete, grass or pipe), a healthy, vigorous stand of perennial grass that Uniformly covers at least 70 percent of the ground, stable outlet channels with velocity dissipation that directs site runoff to a natural watetcourse, and any other approved structure or material. “Grading” meaas changing surface contours by removing soil and stone hmone place and building it up in another. “Groundwater” means the water occurring in the zone of saturation beneath the seasonal high water table or any perched water zones. Page 10 of 22 Permit No. WVOl15924 ‘*GroundwaterProtection Plan” (GPP)means groundwater protection practices developed and impIemented in accordanm with WV Legislative Rules, 47CSR58 (Groundwater Protection Rule). ‘*Grubbin$” means physically removing vegetative stumps and roots from the ground and disturbing the earth, usually by heavy machinery. “lntumittent stream” means a stream that has no flow during sustained periods of no precipitation and does not support aquatic life whose life history requires residence in flowing waters for a colltifluous period of at least six months. “Karst” means a type of topography formed over limestone, dolomite, or gypsum resulting in dissolving or solution of the underlying calcareous rock. “Minor consbudion activity” means an activity which disturbs one acre or more, but less than thm acres. ‘National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System” (NPDES) means the national program for issuing, denying, modifying, revoking and reissuing, suspending, revoking, monitoring and enforcing permits and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements under Section 307, 3 18,402, and 405 of CWA, including any approved state program. “Notice of Intent” (NOI) is the form to be submitted by the applicant to register a small construction project (one that disturbs one to less than three acres) under the Construction Stormwater General Permit. A project that disturbs one to less than three acres but will have construction activities one year or longer must file a Site Registration Application Form, “Notice of Termination” (NOT)is the form to be submitted by the pennittee to terminate coverage under the Construction General Stormwater Permit, after final stabilization has been completed. See Fii Stabilization. "Permanent detentiodretention facility” means: Detention- The process of reducing omte stormwater discharge rates by temporarily holding the water in a storage basin and then releasing it slowly over a period of time. The objective of a detention facility is to regulate the runoff from a given rainfall event and to control discharge rates to reduce the impact on downstream stormwater systems. PeteThe prevention of stomwater runofffrom being discharged into receiving waters by storing it in a storage area. Water is retained and stored until it is lost through pacolation, removed by evapotranspirationby plants, or through evaporation from the tiee water surface. Retention systems are designed to not have my ofiite discharges. “Point source’’ is any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, and container fiom which pollutants are or may be discharged to surface waters of the state. “Pollutantnmeans industrid waste, sewage or other wastes. Page 11 of 22 Pennit No. WVOl15924 “Postdevelopment*’means the anticipated final conditions of the project, including rooftops, parking lots, streets, drainage systems, vegetation, and any other structure planned. For subdivisions and speculative developments, it wili be assumed that all lots are developed. 64Predevelopment’*means the condition of the land, the amount and health of the ground cover and vegetation prior to development. “Runoff coefficient” means the fi.action of total rainfall that is not infiltrated into the ground that will appear at the point of discharge as runoff. “Runoff cwenumber” is the numeric value reflecting the runoff coefficient and is based on soils, slopes, and type and health ofthe ground cover. “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection, or her designated representative. “Sediment” means any particulate matter that can be transported by fluid flow and which eventually is deposited as a layer of solid particles on the bed or bottom of a body of water or other liquid. “Sedimentation” means the deposition by settling of a suspended material. “Sediment trap’’ means a temporary ponding area formed by constructing an embankment or excavation and embankment that will trap the flow of sediment-laden runoff, Sediment trap have a properly stabilized outlet/weir or riser and pipe to detain sediment-ladenrunoff From small disturbed anas of five acres or less. Outlets must be designed to extend the detention time and allow the majority of the sediment to settle out. “Sediment basin” means a temporary structure consisting of an earthen embankment, or embankment and excavated area, located in a suitable area to capture sediment-laden runoff from a construction Site. A sediment basin reduces the energy of the water through extended detention (48 to 72 hours) to settle out the majority of the suspended solids and sediment and prevent sedimentation in waterways, culverts, streams and rivers. Sediment basins have both wet and dry storage space to enhance the trapping efficiency and are appropriate in drainage areas of five 8ms and greater. “Sinkhole” means a depression in the land surface formed by solution or collapse that directs surface runoff into subsurface or to an underground drainage flow. “Site Registration Application forms’’ means the forms designed by the Director for the purpose of registering for coverage under a general pennit. Under the General Pennit there will be two separate forms, one for one to less than three acres (Notice of Intent) and the Site Registration Application form for projects that disturb three acres and greater. A project that disturbs one to less than three acres but will have construction activities one year or longer must file a Site Registration Application form. Page 12 of 22 Permit No,WV0115924 “Stormwater” means stormwater runoff, snowmelt runoffl and surface runoff and drainage. “Stormwater management facilities” means structures such as ponds, basins, outlets, ditches, velocity dissipaters, infiltration trenches and basins, extended detention basins and ponds, and any other structure used to control the quality and quantity of stormwater from a development project. I “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan” (SWPPP)means the erosion and sediment conrrol plan and the post development plan submitted as part of the Site Registration Application fom ‘Tier 23 Waters” means Waters of Special Concern as identified in 6OCSRS (Antidegradation Implanatation Procedures) and 47CSR2-4.1 .c. (Requirements Governing Water Quality Standards). “Tier 3 Waters” means waters as otherwise identified in 47CSR2-4.1 .d. (Requirements Governing Water Quality Standards). “Trout Streams” means any waters which meet the definition of 47CSR2-2.18. (Requirements Goveming Water Quality Standards). “1 -year, 24-hour precipitation event” means the maximum 24-hourprecipitation event with a probable recurrence interval of once in one year. ‘“tS-year, 24-hour precipitation” means the maximum 24-hour precipitation event with a probable recurrence interval of once in 25 years. SECTION F. OTHER REPORTING F.l. Reporting Spill and Accidental Discharges Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the pennittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to 47CSR11-2. (Special Rules) of the West Virginia Le6islative Rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 22, Article 1 1. F.2. Immediate Reporting F.2.a. The pennittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment immediately after becoming aware of the circumstances by using the Department’s designated spill alert telephone number ((800) 642-3074). A written submission shall be provided within five days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncampliance, including exact dates and time, and if, the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is Page 13 of 22 Permit No. WV0115924 expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. S UIREMENTS G.1. Requiring an Individual Permit or an Alternative General Permit. G.1 .a. The Director may require any person authorized by this permit to appiy for and obtain either an individual NPDES permit or an alternative NPDES General Permit. Any interested pason may petition the Director to take action under this paragraph. The Director may require any owner or operator authorized by this permit to apply for an individual NPDES permit only if the omror operator has been notified in writing that such a permit application is required Prohibition of Non-Stormwater Discharges All discharges authorized by this permit shall be composed entirely of stormwater. Discharges of material other than stormwater are not authorized by this permit except as follows. The following non-stormwater discharges are authorized by this permit: discharges from firefightingactivities, fire hydrant flushins waters used to wash vehicles or control dust; potable water sources, including waterline flushing; irrigation drainage; lawn watering; routine external building washdown which does not use detergentq pavement washwater where spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have not occurred (unless all spilled matwial has been removed) and where detergents arc not used; air conditioning condensate; springs; uncontaminated groundwater, and foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with process materials such as solvents that are combined with stonnwater discharges associated with industrial activity. This permit does not authorize the conveyance, diversion, channeiing, directing or otherwise allowing the discharge of stormwater into a sinkhole without m Underground Injection Control Pennit. Releases in Excess of Reportable Quantities This permit doas not relieve the permittee of the reporting requirements of 4OCFR 1 17 and 40CFR302. The discharge of hazardous substances in the stomwater discharge@) fiom a project is not authorized by this General Permit, and in no case shall the dischargqs) contain a hazardous substance equal to or in excess of reporting quantities. Page 14 of22 Permit No. WVOl I5924 G.4. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans and Groundwater Protection Plans (SWPPP/GPP) A Stormwater Pollution Plan and a Groundwater Protection Plan shall be developed for each project covered by this permit. These two plans may be combined into one plan if all of the requirements for both plans ace met. Alternatively, they may be developed and maintained as separate stand-alone documents. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans shall be prepared in accordance with good engineering practices. The plan shall identie potential so- of pollution that may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of stormwater discharges assOciated with construction activity. In addition, the plan shall describe and ensure the implementation of practices that are to be used to reduce the pollutants in stomwater discharges associated with construction activity and to assure compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. Groundwater Protection Plans (GPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of 47CSR584.1 f . et seq (Groundwater Protection Regulations). The GPP shall identify all operations that may reasonably be expected to contaminate the groundwater resources with an indication of the potential for soil and groundwater amtaminadon fiom those operations. In addition the GPP shall provide a thorough and detailed description of procedures designed to protect groundwater &om the identified potential contamination sources. The GPP is not required to be submitted to the Division of Water and Waste Managemat for review. Guidance in @ecompletion of a GPP is available hmthe Division of Water and Waste Management. G.4.a. The SWPPP and the GPP shall be signed in accordance with Section C.6. and retain4 onsite. G.4.b. The application and SWPPP shali be submitted to the Division of Water and Waste Management at least 45 days before constnrction is to begin, except as noted in G.4.b.3. and 0.4.b.4. Prospective permittees should submit applications for review prior to accepting construction bids on the project. As the plans are evaluated by the Director or authorized representative, the Director or authorized representative may notie the permittee during the 45day review period that the plan does not meet one or more of the minimum requirements of this section. After such notification fiom the Director or authorized representative, the permittee shall make changes to the plan in accordance with the time frames established below, and shall submit to the Director a written certification that the requested changes have been made. G.4.b.l. Except as provided in 0.4.b.2.. the pennittee shall have 30 days after such notification to make the changes necessary. 0.4.b.2. The permittee shall have 24 hours after such notification to make changes relating to sediment and erosion controls to prevent loss of sediment fiam an active construction site, unless additional time is provided by the Director or an authorized representative. Page 15 of 22 Permit No. WVOl15924 G.4.b.3. Projects disturbing less than three acres and that do not discharge to or upstream of Tier 2.5 or Tier 3 waters &all submit only the Notice of Intent Fonn (NOI) 10 days prior to initiating construction. A project that disturbs one to less than three acres but will have construction activities one year or longer must file a Site Registration Application form. G.4.b.4. Projects that will discharge to or upstream of Tier 2.5 or Tier 3 waters and disturb three acra or more, or that will disturb 100 or more acres, M that the grading phase of construction will last for more than one year, shall submit the application and SWPPP at least 90 days prior to construction to allow for the public notice procedure. 0.4.b.5. Within 24 hours of filing an NO1 (one to itss than three acres) or a Site Registration Applkation (thne acres OT more) With PWWM, all projects shall display a sign for the duration of the construction project near the entrance of the project or, for hear projects, at a location near an active part of the project that is accessible by the public, which contains the following information using the template found in the instructions: I) the registrant's name or the name of a mntact person along with a telephone number; 2) A brief description of the project; 3) a statement indicating that the NOI or SWPPP, as applicable, has been filed with the DWWM; 4) the address and teleqhone number of the agency where the NO1 or SWPPP is maintained; and 5) That any person may obtain a copy of the NO1 or SWPPP by contacting the DWWM at (800) 654-5227. The sign shall be a minimum of two feet by two feet and at least three feet above ground level, clearly visible and legible hma public roadway or right-of-way. If it is not feasible to display a sign at or near the project, the registran4 with prior approval fiom the DWWM,may post a notice containkg the foregoing inforination at a local public building, including, but not limited to, a town hall or public library. G.4.c. The permittee shall modify,using forms provided by DWWM, the SWPPP whenever there is a change in design, construction, scope of operation, or maintenance, which has tho potential to adversely impact the surface waters of the State, or if the SWPPP proves to be ineffective in achieving the general objectives of controlling pollutants in stormwatea discharges associated with construction activities. Should conditions warrant, the Director, or the Director's representative, may request changes to the SWPPP during a field inspection. The Director may review changes or modifications to the SWPPP in the same mannw as above. ThC pmiWshall amend the GPP whenever there is a change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance which could reasonably be expected to have an impact on the potential contamination of groundwater. G.4.d. In addition to the requirements of G.44 the SWPPP shall also include, at I minimum, the following items: G.4.d. I. General management controls I Page 16 of22 Pennit No,W0115924 G.4.d. 1.A. Preventive maintenance - A preventive maintenance program shall involve inspection and maintenance of sediment and erosion control best management practices to identify and address conditions that could cause breakdowns or failures resulting in discharges of pollutants to surface waters. 0.4.d. 1,B. Good housekeeping - Good housekeeping requires the maintenance of a clean and orderly project. 1,C. G.4.d. Spill prevention and response procedures - Areas where potential spills may occur, ' and their accompanying drainag6 points, shall be identified clearly in the SWPPP/GPP. Where appropriate, specify material handling procedures and storage requirements in the SWPPP/GPP.Procedures for cleaning up spills shall be identified in the plan and made available to the appropriate personnel. The necessary equipment to implement a cleanup shall be available to personnel, including spill kits. G.4.d.2. Consistency with other plans Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans may reflect requirements for Spill Prevention Control and CountermeasurG (SPCC)plans under section 3 1 1 of the CWA or any Best Management Practices (BW)and Groundwater Protection Plans (GPP) pursuant to 47CSR58 (Groundwater Protection Rub) or otherwise required by an NPDES pertnit and may incorporate any part of such plans into the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan by reference. G.4.e. Requirements for construction activities - Operations that discharge stormwater associated with construction activity disturbing one or more acres are not only subject to the requirements of Section G.4.d. of this pennit, but are also subject to the following requirements. The SWPPP shall include, as a minimum, the following items. G.4.e. 1. Site description - Each plan shall, at a minimum, provide a description of the following: G.4.e. 1 ,AA description of the nature of the construction activity, including a proposed timetable for major activities; G.4.e.l .B. Estimates of the total area of the site and the part of the site that is expected to undergo excavation or grading and the total amount of excavation by cut and fili; G.4.e.l.C. For each discharge design point, the pre-construction peak discharge from a one year, 24-hour storm in cubic feet per second and an the postdevelopment peak discharge from a one year, 24-hour stom in cubic feet per second shall be calculated. The design procedures shall follow professionally accepted engineering and hydrologic methodologies. 0.4.e. 1.D. Site maps indicating, with a minimum of five-foot contours, drainage patterns and slope prior to construction and anticipated conditions after gading activities, topsoil stockpiles, waste areas, borrow sites, locations of sediment control structures identified I i i I t Pagel7of22 i Permit No. WVOl15924 i in tha narrative, the location of impervious areas affer construction is complete, final i stomwater routing including all ditches and pipe systems, property boundaries and i easements, nearest receiving stream, access roads, legend and springs, surface waters and any other infomation necessary to describe the projeot in detail. i G.4.e. LE. A description and detail of the proposed construction entrance(s). Each site shall I have stone access entrance and exit drives and parking areas to reduce the tracking of i sediment onto public or private mads. Except for haul roads, all unpaved roads on the site carrying more than 25 vehicles per day shall be graveled I G.4.e.2, Controls .. Each construction operation covaed by this permit shall develop a desctiption of controls appropriate for the project and implement such controls. The description ofthese controls shall address the following components, i minimum (. including a schedule for implementing such controls. I I G.4.e.2.A. Erosion and sediment controls G.4.e.2.A.i. Vegetative practices - A description of interim and pemranent stabilization practices, including site specific implementation schedules of the practices shall be provided, Site plans should ensure that existing vegetation is preserved where attainable and that disturbed portions of the site are stabilized as rapidly as possible. Stabilization practices may include: temporary seeding, permanent seeding, mulching, geotextiles, sod stabilization, vegetative buffer sbips, protection oftrees, preservation of mature I vegetation, and other appropriate measures. Also include in the plan seedbed preparation requirements and the type and amount of soil amendments necessary to establish a healthy stand of vegetation. A record of the dates when major pding I activities will occur, and when construction activities temporarily or permanently cease on a portion of the site, and when stabilizationmeasures will be initiated shall be included in the plan. Except as noted below, stabilization measures shall be initiated as soon as practicable in portions of the site where construction activities have temporarily or permanently ceased, but in M case more than seven days after the construction activity in that portion of the site has permanently ceased. G.4.e.2Ai.a. Where the initiation of stabilizationmeasures by the seventh day after construction activity temporarily or permanently ceases is precluded by snow cover, stabilization measures shall be initiated as soon as conditions allow, G.4.e.2.A.i.b. Where construction activity will resume on a portion of the site within 21 days ftom when activities ceased, (e.g., the total time period that construction activity is temporarily halted is less that 21 days) then stabilization measures do not have to be initiated on that portion of the site by the seventh day after construction activities have temporarily ceased. G.4.e.2.A.i.c. Areas where the seed has failed to germinate adequately (Uniform perennial vegetative cover with a density of 70%) within 30 days afier seeding and I Page 18 of 22 Permit No. WVOl15924 mulching must be reseeded immediately, or as soon as weather conditions dlow. G.4.e.2,A.i.d. Diversions must be stabilized prior to becoming functional. G.4.e.2.A.ii. Structural practices - A description of the structural practices to be used to divert flows around exposed soils, stom flows or otherwise limit mnoff from exposed areas and eliminate sediment-laden runoff from the site. Such practices may include but are not limited to silt fences, earth dikes and berms land grading, diversions, drainage swales, check dams subsurface drains, pipe slope drdns, storm drain inlet protection, rock outlet pmtcotion, reinforced soil retention systems and geotextiles, gabions and riprap, and permanenl and temporary sediment trapstbasins. GA.e.2.A.ii.a. For locations on a site that have a drainage area of five acres or less, a sediment trap which provides a storage volume equal to 3,600 cubic feet per acre of drainage area shall be installed. Half of the volume of the trap will be in a permanent pool and half will be dry storage. 0.4.e.2.A.ii.b. For drainage arm of greater than five acres, a sediment basin providing 3,600 cubic feet per drainage acre shall be installed. Half of the volume of the basin shall be in a $mnanent pool and half shall be dry storage. Sediment bashs must be able to dewater the dry storage volume in 48 to 72 hours. A sediment basin must be able to pass &ugh the spillway(s) a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, and still maintain at least one foot of fheboard. G.4.e.2.A.ii.c. The inlet@)and outlet(s) for a sediment trapping structure must be protected against erosion by appropriate material such as riprap or other similar media 0.4.e.2A.ii.d. If necessary, diversions will be used to direct runoff to the trapping structure. Diversions must be stabilized prior to becoming hctional. G.4.e.2.A.ii.e. For locations served by a wmmon drainage where a detention basin providing 3,600 cubic feet of storage is not attainable, additional sediment and erasion controls within the project area are required in lieu of the required sized sediment basin, Justification and a narrative description of the additional measures proposed must be provided for use of any practice(s) othw than sediment basins or traps. G.4.e.2.A.ii.f. Fill slopes must be protected by measures used to divert runoff away from fill slopes to conveyance measures such as pipe slope drains or stable channels. 0.4.e.Z.A.ii.g. Sediment trapping structures will be eliminated and the area properly reclaimed and stabilized when the contriiuting draiiage area is stabilized and the structures are no longer needed, unless the shucture is converted into a permanent stormwater detentiodretention structure. Page 19 of 22 Permit No. WVOl15924 Gd.a2.AA.ii.h.All trapped sediments will be disposed on an upland area where there is no chance of entering nearby streams, G.4.e.Z.Aii.i. Breaching the embankment to dewater the structure is not permitted Dewatering and structure removal shall not cause a violation of water quality standards. Provide 8 description of the procedures that will be used in removing these structures and the time he. G.4.e.2.A.ii.j. No sediment-laden water will be allowed to leave the site without going through an appropriate best management practice. GA.e.2.A.ii.k. Hay or straw bales are not acceptable BMPs. G.4.e.2,A.iii. Presumptive conditions for discharges to Tier 2.5 and Tier 3 waters Construction activities discharging to Tier 2.5 or Tier 3 waters will go through the Tier 2.5 or Tier 3.0 antidegradation review process. G.4.e.2.B. Stormwater management plan A description of measures that will be installed during construction to control pollutants in stormwater discharges after the project is completed shall be included in the SWPPP. The completed project shall convey stormwater runoff in a manner that will protect both the site and the receiving stream from postanstruction erosion. All surface waters and other runoff conveyance structures shall be permanently stabilized as appropriate for expected flows. In developing structural practices fbr stormwater control, the permittee shall consider the use of, but not liited to: infiltrationof runoff onsite; flow attenuation by use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions; stormwater retention structures and stonnwater detention structures. A combination of practices may be utilized. The permittee should consider low impact development (LID) in the design of the site and the best management practices. This will allow the site to retain its natural hydrology and infiltrate stonnwater within the boundary ofthe site. The use of impervious surI3c.e~fbr stabilization should be avoided. Velocity dissipation devices shall be placed at the outlet of all detention or retention structures and along the length of any outlet channel as necessary to provide a non-erosive velocity flow from the structure to a water course. Projects located in areas that have local government requirements andtor criteria for post development stormwater management must meet those requirements and/or criteria. Compliance with this general permit does not assure compliance with local codes regulations, or ordinances. The permittee shall submit all calculations, watershed mapping, design drawings, and any other information necessary to explain the technical basis for the stormwater management plan. Since development site conditions vary widely, plan preparers will have significant latitude in designing practices to comply with this provision of the Page 20 of 22 Pennit No. WVOI 15924 pennit. However, design pmcedures shall follow prof&onally accepted engineering and hydrologic methodologies. Permanent stormwater management stmctures that will impound wata (detentiodretentionbasins or similar structurw) shall be designed and certified by a mgistered profesgional engineer. These structures shall also have a certified as-built drawing submitted with the Notice of Termination at the completion of the project. 0.4.0.2.C Other controls G.4.e.Z.C.i.Waste disposal -All solid waste and constructioddenrolition material must be disposed of in ~ccordancewith the Code of West Virginia and Legislative Rule Title 33 Series 1, (Solid Waste Management Rule). G.4.e.2.C.ii. Provisions must be made to control hgitive dust. G.4.a.Z.C.iii. Groundwater Protection Plan (GPP) - The applicant shall prepare a OPP that will satis@ the 47CSR58-4.11. et seq. Groundwater must be protected in accordance with the Code of West Virginia and Legislative Rule Title 47 Series 58 (Groundwater Protection Rule). G.4.e.2.C.i~. Employee training - Employee training programs shdinform personnel at all levels of responsibility of the components and goals of the SWPPP. Training should address topics sucb as spill response, good housekeeping and routine inspection. TdngshaU be on a quarterly basis and records of the training shall be maintained on site for redew by the Director or the Director‘s representative. G.4.e.2.C.v. Visual iaspection - Company personnel shall be identified to inspect as set forth under G.4.e.2.D. A tracking procedure shall be used to ensure that adequate corrective actions have been taken in response to deficiencies identified during M inspection, Records of inspections shall be maintained onsite for mview by the Direotor or the Director’s representative. G.4.e,2.C.vi. Recordkeeping and internal reporting procedures - Incidents such as spills, leaks and improper dumping, along with other information descrjbing the quality and qwtity of stomwater discharges should be included in the records. Inspection and maintenance records must be kept onsite far review by the Director or the Director’s representative, G.4.e2.D Maintenance A description of procedures to maintain in goad and ef€bctive condition and promptly repair or restore all grade surfaces, walls, dams and structures, vegetation, erosion and sediment control measures and other protective devices identified in the site plan. At a minimum, procedures in a plan shall provide that all erosion controls on the site are inspected at least once way seven calendar days and within 24 hours afker any storm event of greater than 0.5 inches of rain per 24-hour period. Page 21 of 22 Pennit No. WVOl15924 0.4.e.2.D.i. All publio aad private roads adjacent to a construction entrance must be inspectea and cleaned of debris originating from the construction site as necessary, G.4.f. All Stomwater Pollution Prevention Plans and Groundwater Protection Plans required under this pdtaxe considered reports that shall be available to the public under Section 3080) of the CWA. The owner or operator of a project with stomwater discharges covered by this pennit shall mako plans available to members of the public upon request. However, the pennittee may claim any portion of a Stomwater Pollution Plan or Groundwater Protection Plan BS wnfidential in accordance with 47 CSRlO-12.7. CNPDEs program). 0.4.g. Compliance with other laws and statutes Nothing in this gmed permit shall be construed as excusing th6 permittee ftom compliance with any applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations. G.S. Discharges to Impaired Waters This pennit does not authorize new sources or new discharge8 of constitumts of coamto impaired waters unless consistent with the approved total maximum daily load (TMDL) and applicable state law, Impaired waters are those that do not meet applicable water quality standards and are listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. Pollutants of concetn are those mstituents fbr which the water body is listed as impaired. Discharges of pollutants of ConcBIII to impaired waterbodies for which there is an approved TMDL are not eligible for coverage under this permit unless they are consistent with the approved TMDL. Within six months of the TMDL approval, permittees must incorporate any limitations, conditions or requirements applicable to their discharges necessary for compliance with the TMDL, including any monitoring or reporting required by DWWM rules, into their SWPPP in order to be eligible for coverage under this generat permit. Sites that discharge into a receiving water that has been listed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired waters, and with discharges that contain the pollutant(s) for which the water body is impaired, must document in the SWPPP how the BMPs will control the discharge of the pollutant(s) of concern. G.6. Endangered and Threatened Species If a site discharges to a stream where a federally endangered or threatened species or its habitats are present, the applicant shall contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to insure that requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act are met. H. Reopener Clause *, *, c * .d Page 22 of 22 Permit No. WVOl1592 If there is evidence indicating potential or realized impacts on water quality due to any stormwater discharge authorized by this general permit, the owner or operator of such discharge may be required to obtain an individual pennit or alternative general pennit in accordance with Section G.l, of this permit, or the permit may be modified to include different limitations andor requirements. I. The conditions, standards, and limitations of this General Permit will be reviewed at the time of reissuance for possible revisions that may lead to more or less stringent conditions, standards, and limitations. J, Permit coverage for construction activities encompassed by this pennit expires upon satisfactory stabilization of the site, Satisfactory stabilization means ALL disturbed areas shall be covered by some permanent protection. Stabilize includes pavement, buildings, waterways (riprap, concrete, grass, or pipe), a healthy, vigorous stand of grass that uniformly covers more than 70 percent of the ground, stable outlet channels with velocity dissipation which directs site runoffto a natural watercourse, and any other approved structure or material. The permittee will request a final inspection by sending in the Noticc: of Termination. The Notice of Termination shall also include as-built drawings, certified by a registered professional engineer, for any permanent ponds or basins. Sites not stabilized will continue to have coverage under this permit and will be assessed an annual permit fee as promulgated by the West Virginia Legislature. Sites will be assessed a prorated annual fee based upon the completion date and proper stabilization. The Notice of Termination must be submitted within 30 days after final stabilizationis achieved. ***********1***********~~~*********~************~***********$********** The herein-described activity is to be constructed or installed and operated, used and maintained strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit with any plans, specifications, and information submitted with the individual site registration application form, with any plan of maintenance and method of operation thereof submiaed and with any applicable rules and regulations promulgated by thc Environmental Quality Board and the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit, with any plans, specifications and information submitted, and with any plan of maintenance and method of operation thereof submitted shall constitute grounds for the revocation or suspension of this permit to any individual establishment or other person and for the invocation of all the enforcement procedures set forth in Chapter 22, Articles 1 1 and 12 of the Code of West Virginia. This permit is issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 22, Article I 1 of the Code of West Virginia. Division of Water and Wasto Management Joe Manchin III, OovernW ' 601 57"' Street SE Randy C. Huffman, Cabin& Secretary Charleaton, West Virginia 25304-2345 www.dep.wv. goy PhW: (304)926-0495 Pax: (3M)!Z?60463 RESPONSIVE SUMMARY August 11,2010 The Division of Water and Waste Management has received and reviewed pubtic comments concerning the registration of ABS New Creek Mountain LLC Wind Power Project under the WV/NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. A public notice on March 30,2010 announced a 30-day comment period. A second public notice was published on May 11,2010 to announce an additional comment period and a public hearing, A public hearing was held on June 14,2010 in Charleston, WV to take additional comments. Only comments relevant to this application were consid6rd. Many comments expressed the same concerns. A summary of comments received and the Division of Water and Waste Management's responses follows. Comment: The disturbed area required for the project is greater than the 163 acres that is stated in the application narrative and the applicant underestimated the total mount of ddorested am, Response: The agency has determined that the application has sufficiently address$ the erosion and sedikent control issues for the 233 acrw of disturbance to be covered under this registration, This includes the 163 acm for the turbines, access road, underground collections system, collection/interconcdon substation, an operations and maintenance building, and a meteorologid tower, as well as, 70 acres for temporary storage yards. Comment: AES did not delineate dl the sub-watershed areas on New Creek Mountain, Response: AES properly identified the watershed and included the correct drainage areas within the project area as required by the General Permit. Comment: AES did not identify all wetlands or jurisdictional waters. Rwponse: The submitted site plans identifled the delineated wetlands and streams in the project area. Most of the project runs along a flat ridge top where there are no receiving streams within the project boundary. However, the applicant provided a list of the nearest receiving streams to the project boundary that are likely to receive stormwater discharges from the project site. After review of the application, the agency is satisfied that the permit requirements have been met. However, if additional streams or springs are identified ddngthe project, the applicant will be required to provide their location and the associated erosion and sediment controls to this office for review. Promoting a healthy environment. .--. .-._..... I...... I , ,...,..~.,...... _...... I. . I . I , ... , , . .. Responsive SwayWVR104804 August 11,2010 Page 2 Comment: The proposed permanent stormwater management plan will not adequately control erosion !tom increased stormwater discharges hmthe site. * Response: The @nerd Permit requires that the completd project convey stormwater runoff in a manner that will protect both the site and4he receiving strea&(s) hmpost- construction erosion. All permanent stomwater channels were sized and lined in accordance with accepted engineering prakices and all outlets will be pmtmted by riprap aprbns also designed with accepted engineering practices. Comment: AFS did not legally publish information regarding the project for review by the downstream communities, Response: The General Permit requires applications that disturb over 100 acres to have public notice. A publicnotice for this application was published on March 30,2010, that announced a 3Oday comment period A second public notice was published on May 1I, 20 10, to announce an additional comment period and a public hearing. Both notices stated that tho application could be made available to the public for review during the comment period upon request, Comment: Construction of this project will cause/exacerbate flooding. Response: The construction stormwater general permit is not intended to address flooding issues, but rather erosion and sediment control during earth disturbing aotivities. Comment: Construction of this project will include blasting which may contwinate ground water, reduce pund water recharge and change the flow of ground water in this ma. The application did not address the potential impacts on ground water quality or quantity from this project'including the impaot to nearby wells, springs and a down-gradient cave. Response: The Construction Stormwater General Permit regulates surface discharges composed entirely of stormwater associated with construction activities. It does not regulate groundwater quantity or qdity associated with blasting. Comment: Construction of this project will kill wildlifb including endangered species of bats and eagles and it will destroy or fiagment wildlife habitat. Response: The subject permit only regulates stormwater discharges fkom construction activities. Concerns for impacts on endangered species and wildlife habitat should be directed to the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Comment: The project may impact historically significant sites such as the birth place of Nancy Hanks, mother of Abraham Lincoln. Response: Concenrs regarding historical or culturally significant artifacts should be directed to the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), Responsive Summary WRI04804 August 11,2010 Page 3 The a8ency believes the responsive summary addresses all comments concerning erosion and sedi,ment controls andor the approved Stormwafer Pollution Prevention Plan. The Division of Water and Waste Management issued Registration No. WVRl04804 on August 11,2010. Thank you for your interest in this application. .. kmSincerely, : Scott G. Mandirola' Director cc: Environmental Enforcement Supervisor Environmental Enforcement Inspector Attached Address List RIGHT OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given of your right to appeal the terms and conditions of this permit of which you are aggrieved to the Environmental Quality Board by filing a NOTICE OF APPEAL, on the form prescribed by such Bodrd for this purpose, in accordance with the provisions of Seotion 21, Article 11, Chapter 22 of the Code of West Virginia within thirty (30)days after the date of receipt of this permit. Attachment 6 One of the four resources d Nmcy Hanks home is a reconstructed log house. Nso, the different places in Virginia and West Virginia that claim to Nancy Hanks Lincoln. Therefore, it is our opinion that the and Memorial are not eligible fox listing in the National Re Places. We look forward to the opportunity to review the Assessment of Effects for the Claysvilte United Methodist Church and the Medley Historic District which are Mr. Henry FR#:05-679-Multi- I December 2,2005 Page 2 considered eligible for listing in the National Reghter of Historic Places. Contact Resources: Please include in the Assessment of Effects the results of any comments received as a result of public informational meetings, public notification in the loco1 media, as well as any contact with the local historical societies in both Mineral and Grant County. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. /fj)ouhave uny guesrions regurdhg oiir comments OP the Section 106 process, pleuso contact Ginger Will$mi, Sfrtrctuvui Historian, at (304) 558-0240. Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer S MP/G W Attachment 7 July 30, 2009 RE: AES Ncw Creek Mountain Wind Fsrtn J'rc)jcci FRk: 08-679-M~lIi-5 Dear hir. FIenry: 'l'lie following c.omments are otyered wder West Virginia Code $29-1-8. As indic:ited in our April 0: 2009 Icttcr, we requested that you cont:\ct the public .Tor iJ1eir comments. Based upon infunnation received by our office on June 29, 2009, yoit colmcted r\k 1-lnrriet Hnrtmnn, the hiIiilera1 County I-Iislorical Society and thc Grant County IL.listorical Society. Nio comments were received. 'I"herefore, it is our opinion that the C:i-iicria of Adverse Effect has bcca adcquately applieci and documented regarding thesc resources. We coiiciir at this time with the recolnlnendatiolis presented in rhc report under Section 4.0 Su~nma~yand Coiiclusions. 'T'here wil I he 110 adverse effect to aiiy a.rchitectura1 resources eligible for listing jn the National Registex of I-Iistoric Places. Nu further consultation is required. j*'~yihM. Pierce Deput). State Historic Preservation Officer Attachment 8 June 5.2008 Dr. Robert D. Wall. Ph.1). Progmii Maoager TRC Enkironmcntal, lnc. 0056 Chevrolet Drive Ellicott City, MD 21 042 RE: AES New Creek Mountain Wind Fanti Project FR#: 08-679-Multi Dear Dr. Wall: CUCfURE & HISTORY According to the submitted infnrmation, AES \Nilid LLC (AES), is iritintiiig The Culttrml Center consultntion for the New Creek lv1c)uiitoiti Wind Farin Project. The Prqject is 1000 Konowho Blw , E proposed Chorles;ton, W lomted io norllieastern West Virginia within Grant atid Miiieral Cotrnties. 25305-0300 Approximately 48 wind turbines riz proposed along an &mile stretch ot'a dctined i*iclge Phone 304 558 0220 called Ncw Creek Mountain. The following coinmcnts are otfcred under West Virgiiiia F~~ 304 sa.2779 Chide $29-14. i DD 304 558 3562 www wciilture.org Archaeolorrical Resources: bb0A.l b,.,,q'r According lo our records, there are no previously recorded archaeological sit.es along !he crest of New Creek Mountain. Ilowever, nu~neroiisarchaeological sites Iiave becn recorded along Walker Ridpe,just to tlie west oCNew Creek Mountain. In trdditian, sires have bean identified in the Greenland Gap arid Falls Gap areas. As A result. we are concerned that unrecorded sjtcs niay exist 011 New Creek Mountain within thc proposed project area. We ask that A Phase J Archaeological Suivey bc conchicled within the proposed project area, including the proposed locations of access roads and olher itssodated facilities. We will provide fiirther comment upcm receipt of the rcsulting technical report and look fonvard to continuing the consultation process. Architectural Resources; A search of ow records indicates that several previously surveyed properties eligible for listing in the National Register of I-listoric Places and structures lifty years or older arc within the Aiai of Potential Effects (APE). Our officc requests a visual APE ol'fve rniles. 'I'hc review shall include a reconnaissance level review of liie project to determine the extent of historic resources kil'ty years or older within the visual APE. This shall inchide previously surveyed resotirces that are ten years old or older. Photographs of each of thesc resoiirces bhall be provided and keyed to a USGS map to show the direction the photograph was taken and the location of the resource. Following that effort and our review of these resoiirces and photographs a West Virginia Historic Property Iiwentoy form shall be provided for all resources within the visual APE. Cotninunities, historic districts, iridividual and multiple property eligibility sliall be considered. There shall be a sufficient historic background context developed for use in the evaluation of etigibility as well as appiication of significance according to all of the Contact with local historical societies in both Mineral and Cmnt County droll be made. l'hair contact infonn:ition foi lows. hlincral County Historical Sociecy, Inc. Fresiilent: Edward McDonald P.O. Box 1325 Kcyscr, WV 26726 Grant Cotiiity i-ktorical Society Presidciit: Jcff L3arger c/o 'The Sociep 1 IC 72 Box 7006 Schen, WV26726-960s 8"' $sailti M. Pierce Deputy Statu Historic Preseivatioii Oftiiccr SMPILAL,!G W Attachment 9 January 27,2009 Mr, Robert D. Wall, Ph,D, Senior Archaeologist TRC Environmental, Inc. 9056 Chevrolet Drive Ellicott City, MD 2 1042 RE: AES New Creek Mountain Wind Farm Project FR#: 08-679-Multi-2 WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CULTURE & HISTORY Dear Mr. Henry: The Cultural Center 1900 Kanawho Blvd., E. We have reviewed the draft report titled Phase I Archaeological Survey of New Charleston, WV Creek Mountain Project Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia, which was 25305-0300 submitted for the above referenced project, The following comments are offered Phone 304.558.0220 under West Virginia Code 929-1-8, Fax 304.558.2779 TDD 304.558.3562 www.wvculture.org Archaeological Resources: EEOlA4 Ernpbpr The report satisfactorily addresses our concerns regarding the presence of intact archaeological resources within the area proposed for development of the New Creek Mountain Wind Farm, According to the report, systematic pedestrian survey and shovel pit excavation was conducted across the project area. Shallow, deflated soils and exposed, decomposing bedrock were observed. It is our understanding that one chert flake was recovered. This isolated find has been assigned number 46Gt343. No new archaeological sites were identified. In our opinion, the isolated find lacks research potential and is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. We concur that no further archaeological work is necessary within the proposed project area. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. rfrou have any questions regarding our comments or the Section 106process, please contact Lora A. at (304) 558-0240. \ Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer SMPLAL Attachment 10 WETLAND DELINATION REPORT NEW CREEK MOUNTAIN PROJECT IN GRANT COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA Submitted to: AES New Creek, LLC 4300 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22203 AES Alternative Energy Prepared by: TRC 650 Suffolk Street Lowell, Massachusetts 01 854 TRC July 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ...... 1 1.1 Existing Conditions ...... 1 1.1.1 Vegetation ...... 1 1.1.2 Hydrology ...... 3 1.1.3 Soils ...... 3 1.2 Wetland Delineation Methodology ...... 4 1.3 Wetland Delineation Results ...... 4 FIGURES Figure.1: NWI Map of Project Area ...... 5 Figure 2: Wetland Delineation Map ...... 6 APPEM)IX A Wetland Photographs New Creek Mountain Project ii Wetland Delineation Report 1.0 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES This report identifies and describes the Waters of the United States, including wetlands, rivers, and streams that were identified within the New Creek Mountain Project (Project) area. 1.1 Existing Conditions The Project is located in northeastern West Virginia along a 7-mile stretch ofNew Creek Mountain ridgeline from a point approximately one mile north of Greenland Gap near Greenland to the county line with Mineral County. Keyser, 12 miles north ofthe Project site, is the largest city in the Project vicinity. The topography of the ridge top is relatively flat or gently sloping with elevations of the proposed turbines ranging from 2,600 to 3,074 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The Project area primarily consists of undeveloped mountainous woodlands. Below is a description of the general hydrology, soils, and vegetation observed during the wetland survey. 1.1.1 Vegetation Observed vegetative communities are well defined by their topographic position, with oakheath and hickory communities along the New Creek upland ridgetop, mixed hardwoods on the lower slopes and valleys, and scattered disturbedhoadside areas and pastures throughout. Tree, shrub and herbaceous species observed within each of these communities are listed in Table 1, Table 1. Vegetation Observed in the Project Area I Common name Latin name I Stratum I Occurrence Scrub oak Quercus ilicifolia Tree Dominant White oak Quercus alba Tree Occasional Red oak Ouercus rubrum Tree Occasional - Tupelo (Black gum) Nyssa sylvatica Tree Common Pitch pine Pinus rigida Tree Common Red made Acer rubrum Tree Occasional Chestnut oak Quercus montana Tree Common Chestnut Castanea dentata Tree Occasional Sassafras Sassaeas albidum Tree Common Pignut hickory Carya glabra Tree Common Shagbark hickory Carya ovata Tree Occasional Choke chew Prunus virpiniana Tree Occasional Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Tree Occasional Mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia Shrub Dominant Lowbush bluebem Vaccinium vacillans Shrub Dominant ~ Black huckleberry Gaylussacia baccata Shrub Common Greenbriar Smilax hispida Vine Occasional Juneberry Amelanchier canadensis Shrub (tall) Occasional Winterberry Gaultheria procumbens Herbaceous Common Hayscented fern Dennstadtia punctilobula Herbaceous Occasional Mountain ash Sorbus americana Tree Occasional New Creek Mountain Project 1 Wetland Delineation Repolt Table 1. Vegetation Observed in the Project Area 1 Along the ridgetop, scrub oak (Quercus sp.) was the dominant tree, with tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), chestnut oak (Quercusprinus)and pitch pine (Pinus rigida) as common trees. The shrub community is typically densely vegetated with mountain laurel (Kalmia lutifolia) and black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), with lowbush blueberry ( Vaccinium ungustifolium) occurring commonly throughout. The southernmost part of the ridgetop is dominated by pignut and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) in the overstory, with mountain laurel, black huckleberry and lowbush blueberry occurring consistently as the dominant understory species. In the dense forested areas, herbaceous vegetation is thin to non-existent, consisting mainly of hayscented fern (Dennstaedtiapunctilobula) and low-growing wintergreen, with grasses occurring in more open (thinned), moderately sloping eastern slopes. Most of the upper, western slopes of the ridgeline are very steep and stony, dominated by scrub oak and pitch pine. The lower slopes and valley contain a mix of primarily hardwoods as listed in Table 1. Small intermittent groundwater seeps occasionally break out along the mid and lower slopes, typically forming intermittent channels perpendicular to the slope. When these channels reach the flatter, lower slopes and valley, flow tends to branch and spread out, forming small slope wetlands, and then re-join over a broader area. One such wetland seep occurs near the base of the proposed access road in the area of Corridor H. This area is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) and tupelo, and also contains oaks and hickory in the overstory. The herbaceous community contains woodfem (Dryopteris sp.), dewberry (Rubus hispidus) and tussock sedge (Carex strictu) among seeps, channels and areas of saturated soils. New Creek Mountain Project 2 Wetland Delineation Report The Project site is located within several sub-watersheds associated with New Creek Mountain, all of which eventually flow into the North Branch Potomac River, located approximately 7.5 miles northwest of the Project. The area within the Project site contains no surface water resources except for those identified at the base of the mountain. According to USGS mapping, there are no perennial streams located on the New Creek Mountain ridgeline. As stated previously, based on field surveys and USGS mapping, the headwaters of several unnamed intermittent streams are present within the vicinity of the Project, on the mountain sides, typically several hundred feet downgradient from the proposed turbine locations. One such intermittent stream flows through the wetland community identified near the base of New Creek Mountain. 1.1.3 Soils Soil identification is relevant to delineating federaktate wetlands as the presence of hydric soil conditions represents one of the three necessary parameters in identifying wetlands. Based on soil mapping, there are no hydric soils occurring within the Project site. A list of the soil map units crossed by the Project are provided in Table 2. The following are the abbreviated descriptions of the soil units mapped within the Project site. DEKALB SERIES The Dekalb series consists of moderately deep, excessively drained soils formed in material weathered from gray and brown acid sandstone in places interbedded with shale and graywacke. Slope ranges from 0 to 80 percent. Permeability is rapid. Mean annual precipitation is about 48 inches and mean annual air temperature is about 53 degrees F. LAIDIG SERIES The Laidig series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in colluvium from sandstone, siltstone, and some shale. They are gently sloping to very steep soils on benches and foot slopes, Permeability is moderate or moderately rapid above the fragipan and moderately slow or slow in the fragipan. Slope ranges from 0 to 55 percent. New Creek Mountain Project 3 Wetland Delineation Report The wetland identified near the Project site occurs within an area mapped as Laidig stony loam, which is well drained. However, due to the small area of the wetland, this area likely contains an inclusion of Andover soils, which are poorly drained and occur in the same geographic setting as Laidig soils, 1.2 Wetland Delineation Methodology In July 2008, a field wetland delineation was conducted to identify and define wetland areas within the Project site. This effort included the area along the ridgeline and the proposed access route to the ridgeline with a focus on the turbine footprint and access road. TRC surveyed the proposed alignment corridors using the Federal Routine Determination Method presented in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987). Specifically, wetland scientists utilized a multi-phased approach consisting of a review of existing USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Geological Information System (GIS) Data layers (see Figure 1) and Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey mapping, followed by an on-site determination of the wetland boundary based on technical criteria established for hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology. After a wetland was initially identified in the field, transects were established generally perpendicular to the wetlandhpland boundary in order to document conditions within each community and firmly establish the wetland boundary. The wetland boundary was then marked with sequentially numbered (alpha-numeric) flags on pink survey tape labeled “Wetland Delineation.” After wetland flags were placed, the location of each flag was identified using a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. These data were downloaded into a global information system and plotted on a Project base map (a geo-referenced aerial photographic map), which is shown in Figure 2. Photographs of the wetland and associated stream identified and delineated are provided in Appendix A. The results of the wetland delineation are summarized below. 1.3 Wetland Delineation Results One wetland and potentially jurisdictional watercourse was identified within the Project site. This wetland, ARI, occurs in the vicinity of Corridor H, northwest of the proposed Project access road. Due to the limited width and shape the of the study corridor, the northern limits of this wetland were not determined in the field as shown in Figure 2. This forested wetland occurs on the lower western slope of New Creek Mountain, along a narrow stream that flows down from adjacent steeper slopes. The stream flows west from the mountain side and enters the Corridor H construction area just north of the Project access route. As the stream reaches the toe of the lower slope, the wetland area broadens out to a width of at least 100 to 200 feet. As described above, the dominant wetland vegetation in ARl includes red maple and black gum in the overstory, along with white oak and black oak (Quercus velutina) in the upland fringes. Very few shrubs occur in the understory, consisting mostly of tree seedlings and saplings and occasional greenbriar (Smilax rotundfolia) vines. The herbaceous community includes dewberry, cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), soft rush (Juncus effusus), wood fern, tussock sedge, and other sedges (Carex spp.). Based on the Preliminary Transportation Study and as shown in Figure 2, this wetland will not be impacted by the proposed access route. New Creek Mountain Project 4 Wetland Delineation Report Appendix A Wetland Photographs New Creek Mountain Project Wetland Delineation Repod Append& A - Wetland Photographs AES New Creek Moitntain Project Grant County, WV Intermittent stream within Wetland AR-1, view to east (upslope) Attachment 11 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS TO HISTORIC RESOURCES AES NEW CREEK MOUNTAIN PROJECT GRANT COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA Submitted to: West Virginia Division of Culture and History The Cultural Center 1900 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0300 Submitted by: AES New Creek LLC 4300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203 Prepared by: TRC 650 Suffolk Street Lowell, Massachusetts 01 854 and 9056 Chevrolet Drive Ellicott City, Maryland 21042 WV SHPO Review Number: FR: OS-679-Multi January 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AES New Creek, L.L.C. (AES) has proposed construction of the New Creek Mountain Project (the Project), consisting of up to 66 wind turbines and associated facilities on leased land on New Creek Mountain in Grant County, West Virginia. As a result of an architectural survey conducted by TRC for AES between June and August 2008, six architectural resources (five individual resources and one historic district) 50 years or older were identified within the Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). Of the six identified resources, the Claysville United Methodist Church (MI-00 1 I) previously has been determined NRHP-eligible by the West Virginia Division of Culture and History (WVSHPO), By letter of December 2, 2008, the WVSHPO determined the Medley Historic District (TRC-2) in Grant County NRHP-eligible, and the other four resources ineligible for NRHP listing. TRC applied the Criteria of Adverse Effects to assess direct and indirect (noise and visual) effects from the Project to the two NRHP-eligible resources. There are no direct effects to these historic resources from the Project. The assessment of visual effects was based on a viewshed analysis followed by verification in the field. The view of the Project from the Claysville United Methodist Church is obscured by a row of tall evergreen trees, except from the far southwest corner of the property; thus the Project will have No Adverse Effect to this historic resource. Due to its nearly 5-mile distance from the Project and the fact that the Project can be viewed from only a few points within the Medley Historic District, the Project will have No Adverse Effect on this historic resource. A noise analysis was also performed to determine any possible audible effects on these historic resources. Based on this analysis, Project noise is anticipated to be inaudible at both historic resources. ES-1 Executive Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 1-1 2.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 2-1 2.1 Definition of Effect ...... 2-1 2.2 Viewshed Analysis ...... 2-1 2.3 Noise Analysis ...... 2-2 3.0 RESULTS OF EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 3-1 3.1 Noise Analysis Results ...... 3-2 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 4-1 4 .1 Summary and Conclusions ...... 4-1 4.2 Recommendations...... 4. 1 TABLE Table 1: Assessment of Effects ...... 3-1 APPENDICES Appendix A Agency Correspondence Appendix B Photographs of Historic Architectural Resources and Views of the Project Appendix C Revised USGS Quadrangle Maps with Locations of Historic Architectural Resources Appendix D Noise Contour Map Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND AES New Creek, L.L.C. (AES) has proposed construction of the New Creek Mountain Project (the Project), consisting of up to 66 wind turbines and associated facilities on leased land on New Creek Mountain in Grant County, West Virginia. As part of the environmental and cultural resource studies for this Project, TRC conducted a Phase 1/11 survey for AES between June and August 2008 of standing structures 50 years or older within the Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). The results of this survey are presented in Phase Z/ZZ Architectural Survey AES New Creek Mountain Project, Grant County, West Virginia (November 2008). As a result of this survey, six architectural resources (five individual resources and one historic district) 50 years or older were identified within the Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE), Of the six identified resources, the Claysville United Methodist Church (MI-00 1 1) previously has been determined NRHP-eligible by the West Virginia Division of Culture and History (WVSHPO). By letter of December 2,2008, the WVSHPO determined the Medley Historic District (TRC-2) in Grant County NRHP-eligible, and the other four resources ineligible for NRHP listing. (Appendix A). 1-1 Introduction and Project Description 2.0 METHODOLOGY This section describes the methodology employed for the assessment of effects to historic resources within the Project APE. 2.1 Definition of Effect This Assessment of Effects Report was written in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which requires an analysis of the proposed Project to assess its effects to NRHP-listed and -eligible historic resources. Guidelines for this evaluation are set forth in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)’s regulations at 36 CFR, Part 800. According to 36 CFR 800 .5 (a)(l) an Adverse Effect occurs when an undertaking may directly or indirectly alter characteristics of a historic property that qualify it for inclusion in the NRHP. Reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative also need to be considered. Examples of adverse effects include, but are not limited to, physical destruction or damage; alteration not consistent with the Secretary ofthe Interior’s Standards; relocation of a property; change of use or physical features of a property’s setting; visual, atmospheric, or audible intrusions; neglect resulting in deterioration; or transfer, lease, or sale of a property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate protections. A finding of No Adverse Effect occurs when the undertaking’s effects do not meet the criteria listed above. Where the effect is nonexistent or negligible, a No Effect finding occurs. 2.2 Viewshed Analysis A viewshed analysis encompassing a 5-mile area (established by WVSHPO as the Area of Potential Effects) was performed to identify those areas where the proposed GE and Clipper wind turbines may potentially be seen. This evaluation utilized a standard 10-m resolution United States Geological Survey (USGS) digital elevation model (DEM) in order to establish baseline elevations within the Project area. To fbrther enhance the accuracy of the viewshed model, the most recent digital National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) of 2001 was used. The NLCD is a USGS spatial dataset derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite data. It is a comprehensive land cover database available for the entire United States that includes 21 classes of land cover, percent tree canopy, and percent imperviousness. Deciduous and coniferous tree data greater than 5 meters (16.4 feet) was extracted from this dataset and processed as a visual impediment layer to be included with the base DEM. This NLCD vegetation layer was additionally cross-checked against more recent leaf-on aerial photography of the study area dated August 2007. In some cases, there were differences in tree cover observed on the aerial photograph that were not present within the NLCD data, and the vegetation layer was subsequently adjusted. Following the cross-check of data, the vegetated tree layer was then assigned a height of 65 feet, as an average height recorded by biologists in the field. The x, y, and z data of the facility components was then incorporated into the model. These data were controlled within the model to ensure that the surface elevation and the vertical offset of the turbine were embedded properly against the vegetation layer. The viewshed model was krther developed with the assumption 2- 1 Methodology that a turbine is not visible if standing amongst trees in a forested area. The final resulting output grid identified those areas from which viewers would potentially see all or some part of the facility and in some cases only the upper portion of a turbine. The model was run for both Clipper and GE type turbines with a blade set at the most vertical position, 129.5 and 118.5 meters, respectively. This type of viewshed analysis is a standard acceptable methodology in the GIS industry as well as reviewing agencies. However, care should be taken when interpreting the results of the viewshed map, especially at greater distances since the model reflects a clear line-of-sight. Additionally, not all small groups of trees, particularly those that might be along tree-lined streets in suburbanhrban areas, or the numerous buildings that are present within a 20-mile radius could be accounted for in this analysis. Therefore, there may be more visual impediments occurring in the landscape than is represented in the model and that some areas may show highly conservative results. TRC also conducted a field investigation to verify the nature of visual effects from the Project. The field review was important in evaluating the degree of any visual impacts to the resource and its setting, the existence of tree cover and intervening buildings that might mitigate these impacts, and establishing sight lines from the historic resources to the Project. TRC took photographs of views from the NRHP-eligible historic resources toward the project. 2.3 Noise Analysis A noise assessment was performed for the Project and was included as part of the AES Application to the West Virginia Public Service Commission. The noise assessment includes a characterization of the existing ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the Project through an ambient noise monitoring program and an analysis of potential noise levels due to Project operation. The commercially available CadnaA model (DataKustik, 2006) was used for this analysis. The software takes into account spreading losses, ground and atmospheric effects, shielding from terrain, barriers and buildings, and reflections from surfaces. The sound power levels used in the model were provided by Clipper, one of the potential turbine vendors AES is considering for the Project. The model was used to calculate noise levels in order to produce noise contour maps that show expected Project related noise levels over the entire area, This noise assessment was evaluated with respect to the two NRHP-eligible historic resources identified by TRC. No noise impacts are anticipated at any of the historic resources evaluated herein with the Project operating at full load conditions. 2-2 Methodology 3.0 RESULTS OF EFFECTS ASSESSMENT Based on the visual analysis and field verification, TRC determined that the Project would have No Adverse Effect on the two NRHP-eligible resources in the APE, the Claysville United Methodist Church and the Medley Historic District. A row of tall evergreen trees located along the eastern edge of the church property screens the Project from view of the church building and nearby headstones. The Project is visible from only the far southwest corner of the church property. Because the Project will not be visible from the Claysville United Methodist Church, a finding of No Adverse Effect would occur. Photo I-B shows the row of evergreen trees on the left and the view of the Project on the right. The picture is taken from the far southwest corner of the property. The Project will have No Adverse Effect on the Medley Historic District, a group of nine contributing buildings located on the west and east sides of Patterson Creek Road (CR-5) located nearly 5 miles away from the Project. (Photos 2-A through 2-D) The Project is not visible from the three contributing resources located on the east side of CR-5, due to intervening buildings, and from the two contributing resources located on the south end of the district due to intervening topography. A clear view of the Project can only be had from a small undeveloped lot on the west side of CR-5. (Photo 2-E) The results of the assessment of effects to historic resources are presented in Table 1 below. The table lists each resource and address, its distance from the Project, and the anticipated effect, along with an explanation of the effect findings. Photographs of the historic resources and their view toward the Project are located in Appendix B. The revised USGS maps showing the locations of historic resources within the Project viewshed are in Appendix C. II Table 1: Assessment of Effects mr UWLA llWI./ ANTICIPATED EXPLANATION NUMBER ADDRESS FROM EFFECT AND NAME PROJECT There is no direct effect to this II I I I I I historic resource and associated MI-00 1 1 headstones. The Project is US 50 at SR-93, Claysville screened view by a row of Claysville No Adverse from United 2 (Mineral 3.8 miles Effect evergreen trees along Rt. 92, Methodist with the Project being visible County) Church from only the far southwest 3- 1 Results of Effects Assessment Table 1: Assessment of Effects ID DISTANCE MAP LOCATION/ ANTICIPATED NUMBER FROM EXPLANATION # ADDRESS EFFECT AND NAME PROJECT There is no direct effect to the historic district. The Project is not visible from the three contributing resources located on the east side of CR-5, due to intervening buildings, and from TRC-2 Patterson Creek the two contributing resources Medley Road (CR-5), No Adverse located on the south end of the 10 miles Historic Medley (Grant 4.85-4.9 Effect district due to intervening District County) topography. A clear view of the Project can only be had from a small undeveloped lot on the west side of CR-5, located nearly 5 miles away from the Project. There will be no noise - effects to this resource. 3.1 Noise Analysis Results The output from the model, in the form of a noise contour map of the Project area, is presented in Appendix D. Clipper turbines operating at full load would occur at high wind speeds and is considered the worst case scenario because turbine noise levels decrease with decreasing wind speed. As shown in this figure, both historic resources are located beyond the extent of the modeled noise contours. Accordingly, Project noise is not expected to be audible at the historic resources and, thus, no noise impacts are anticipated due to Project operation. 3-2 Results of Effects Assessment 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Summary and Conclusions TRC applied the Criteria of Adverse Effects to the New Creek Wind Project to assess direct and indirect effects to the two NRHP-eligible resources, the Claysville United Methodist Church and the Medley Historic District within the APE. There are no anticipated direct effects to historic resources from the Project. Based on a noise analysis and a viewshed analysis followed by verification in the field, TRC determined that the Project will have No Adverse Effect on these two historic resources. 4.2 Recommendations AES is submitting this report for review and concurrence by the WVSHPO with TRC’s recommendations on No Adverse Effects to historic resources from the Project. 4- 1 Summary and Conclusions APPENDIX A AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Appendix A 9056 Chmlet Drive Elllcott City, MD 21042 April 21,2008 Ms. Susan Pierce Deputy State Historic Preservation Oficer West Virginia Division of Culture and History The Cultural Center, Capitol Complex I900 Kanawha Boulcvard East Charleston, WV 25305-0300 Subject: Request for Consultation Regarding Proposed AES New Creek Mountain Wind Farms Project, Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia TRC Environmental, Inc. (TRC), on behalf of its client AES Wind LLC (AB), is initiating consultation with the West Virginia State Historic Preservation OfFice (WVSHPO) concerning cultural resowneeds for the study areas for the proposed New Creek Mountain Wind Farm Project (Project) shown on the attached mads). It is understood that this correspondence is for the purpose of compliancc with Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The Project is located in northeastern West Virginia within Grant and Mineral Counties. Approximately 48 wind turbines are proposed along an 8-mile stretch of a defined ridge called New Cnek Mountain for a combined output of appmxlmately 120 megawatts (MW). The Project anticipates delivery of its power to the Allegheny Power 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line that crosses near the southern edge of the Project site approximately 3,000 feet south of the nearest turbine. The Project site location is depicted on the attached United Stares Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map. USOS 7.5-minute quadrangles that comprise the limits of the Project site include Antioch, Greenland Gap, Mount Storm, and Medley. USGS 30 x 60-minute quadrangles that comprise the limits of the Project site include Kingwood. If you require additional information to assist with your review, please contact me ar the address, telephone number, or email address below. Robert D. Wall, PhD hgram Manager-Archaeology TRC Environmental, Inc. 9056 Chevrolet Drive Ellicott City MD 2 1042 410-465-7927 (office) 410-465-7535 (fa) solutionscpm June 5.2008 Dr. Robert D. Wall, Ph.D. Program Manager TRC Environmental, Inc. 9056 Chevrolet Drive Bllioott City, MD 21042 RE: AES New Creek Mountain Wind Farm Project FR#: 08-679-Multi Dear Dr. Wall: DIVISION OF CULNRE & HISTORY According to the submitted information, AES Wind LLC (AES), is initiating The Cultuml Center consultation for the proposed New Creek Mountain Wind Farm Project. The Project is 1900 Komwha BM., E. Charleston, WV located in northeastern West Virginia within Grant and Mineral Counties. are 25305-0300____ Approximately 48 wind turbines proposed along an &mile stretch of a defined ridge Phone 304.558.0220 called New Creek Mountain. The following comments are offered under West Virginia Fox 304.550.2779 Code 529- 1-8. TDD 304.558.3562 www.wvculture.org Archaeoloeical Resources: LEOiAA EuJw According to our records, there are no previously recorded archaeological sites along the crest of New Creek Mountain. However, numerous archaeological sites have been recorded along Walker Ridge, just to the west of New Creek Mountain. In addition, sites have been identified in the Greenland Gap and Falls Gap areas. As a result, we are concerned that unrecorded sites may exist on New Creek Mountain within the proposed project area. We ask that a Phase I Archaeological Survey be conducted within the proposed project area, including the proposed locations of access roads and other associated facilities. We will provide hrther comment upon receipt of the resulting technical report and look forward to continuing the consultation process. Architectural Resources: A search of our records indicates that several previously surveyed properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and structures fifty years or older are within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Our office requests a visual APE of five miles. The review shall include a reconnaissance level review of the project to determine the extent of historic resources fifty years or older within the visual APE. This shall include previously surveyed resources that are len years old or older. Photographs of each of thesc resources shall be provided and keyed to a USGS map to show the direction the photograph was taken and the location of the resource. Following that effort and our review ofthese resources and photographs a West Virginia Historic Property Inventory form shall be provided for all resources within the visual APE. Communities, historic districts, individual and multiple property eligibility sliall be considered. There shall be a sufficient historic background context doveloped for use in the evaluation of eligibility as well as application of significance according to all of the Dr. Wall, Ph.D. FR#08-679-Multi June 5,1008 Pqe2 Contact with local historical societies io both Mineral nnd Grant County shall be made. Their contact information follows, Mineral County Historical Society, Inc. President: Edward McDonald P.O. Box 1325 Keyser, WV 26726 Grant County Historical Society President: Jeff Barger do The Society HC 72 Box 7006 Scherr, WV 26726-9605 We would suggest that our office be provided a draft scope of work prior to starting the cultural resource investigations for the New Creek Mountain project. Wc look Forward to working with you on this project and would be glad to meet with you to discuss the project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Ifyou hove my questions regarding OUT commenls.or the Sectiori IO6process, please contact Lora A. hmmre, Senior isl, or Ginger Willifor4 Structural Hisiorian, ai (304) 558-0240. ArchaeT/ .(#, &an M. Pierce Deputy State Historic Preservation Ofker SWILAWGW December 2,2008 Mr. Geofiey B. Henry Pn)ymm Manager, Architectural History TRC Environmental, Inc. 9056 Chevrolei Drive Ellicott City, MD 2 1042 RE: AES New Creek Mountain Wind Farm Projecl FR#: 08-679-Multi- 1 DMSION OF CULTURE 8 HISTORY Mr* Hew: The Cuttucat Center 1900 kmwha BM., E. We have reviewed the Phaw 1/11 Architectural Sarrvey AES New Creek Mountaim Projeci Grunl and Mineral Counties, West Yirginiu for the above referenced 25305-0300 project. The following comments are offered under West Virginia Code $29-1 -8. Phone 304.558.0220 Fax 304.558 2779 3W.558.3~62 Architectural Reso urces: -.wulkre.org According to the submitted information 74 wind turbines and associated facilities rrnM tlli,~un, are proposed along approximately eight miles of a defined ridge called New Cnek Mountain. A viewshed analysis encompassing a Smile area of potential effect (ME) was performed to identifj. preos where the proposed wind turbines may potentially be seen by historic resources eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places o\IW). According to the submitted information six historic resources were identified within the viewshed of the APE. Of the six identified resources, onc resource, the CIaysviIle United Methodist Church (MI-001 I), was previously determined NRHP-eligible by the WV SHPO, We conw with the recommendalion by TRC that the Medley Historic District (TRC-2) is eligible for listing as a Historic District under Criteria A and C. We also concur with TRC that the other four resources are not eligible for listing in Ihe National Register of Historic Places. One of the four resources dctenainad not eligible for listing in the NRHP is the resource identified as the Nancy Hanks Home and Memorial (MI-OOO2). The Nancy Hanks home is a reconstructed log house. Also, there arc at least seven different places in Virginia adWest Virginia that claim to be the birthplace of Nancy Hanks Lincoln. Therefore, it is our opinion that the Nancy Hanks Home and Memorial are not eligibie for listing in the National Register of Historic PI aces. We look forward to the opportunity to review the Assessment of Effects for the Claysville United Methodist Church and the Medley Histotic District which are Mr. Henry FR#:08-679-Multi- I December 2,2008 Page 2 considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Contact Resources; Please include in the Assessment of Eft'icts the results of any comments received as a result ofpublic informational meetings, public notification in the local media, as well as any contact with the local historical societies in both Mineral and Grant County. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. ILi~ouhave my qstesiionx regarding oiir cornmetits or the Section IO6 process, pleuse confacfGiiiger Williford SfrircturuiHistorian, at (304) 558-0240. ,/ Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer SMP/GW APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES AND VIEWS OF THE PROJECT Appendix B Photographs 1-A and 1-B 1-A. (Top) MI-0011, Claysville United Methodist Church 1-B. (Bottom) View Towards the Project, Looking Southeast Photographs 2-A and 2-B 2-A. (Top) TRC-2, Medley Historic District (Former Church) 2-B. (Bottom) TRC-2, Medley Historic District (House) Photographs 2-C and 2-D 2-C. (Top) TRC-2, Medley Historic District (Former Store) 2-D. (Bottom) TRC-2 Medley Historic District (Houses) Photograph 2-E 2-E.(Top) TRC-2, View Towards the Project, Looking West APPENDIX C REVISED USGS QUADRANGLE MAPS WITH LOCATIONS OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES Appendix C APPENDIX D NOISE CONTOUR MAP Appendix D Attachment 12 COUNTY COMMISSION OF GRANT COUNTY 5 Highland Avenue COMMISSIONERS: P&ntmg,WV 26847 JAMES E. WILSON, JR phone: (304)257422 PRESIDENT Fw (304)257-9645 P- West Virginia Email: [email protected] JAMES C. COLE PeteIsbuq&west virginii DOUG SWICK Petembutg, West Virginia ADMLNlST‘RATOR: ED FlSCHER October 27,201 0 Bob Muir AES New Creek LLC. 86 Baltimore Street # 300 Cumberland, MD 2 1502 Dear Bob, The Grant County Commission is pleased to confirm Garrad Hassan as the consultant acceptable to the Commission for the Wind Turbine Decommissioning Report. We support your efforts to bring economic development and business to Grant County. We see this project as central to our efforts to be a leader in the “Green and Renewable Energy Development” and welcome your business development efforts in Grant County. The Commission unanimously approved Garrad Hassan and look forward to the completion of this important impact study. Best regards, /g,z&/ J es E. ikon, Jr., Pr ident Attachment 13 GL Garrad Hassan DECOMMISSIONING STUDY FOR THE NEW CREEK WIND PROJECT IN GRANT COUNTY WEST VIRGINIA Client AES New Creek, LLC Contact Barry Sweitzer Doctiment No 70 1252-USSD-R-02 Issue B Status Final Classification Client’s Discretion Date 2 November 20 1 1 Author Checked by S. Hendricks Approved by Grumd Hassltn Aiiierica, Inc. 9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 435, Snn Diego, Califomin lJSA Phone: (858) 936-3370I Fax: (858) 836-4069 ~~~~~.gl-garmdhassaii.coiii IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER I. Acceptance of this document by the Client is on the basis that Garrad Hassan America, Inc. is not in any way to be held responsible for the application or use made of the findings or results of the analysis and that such responsibility remains with the Client. This report shall be for the sole use of the Client for whom the Report is prepared. The document is subject to the terms of the Agreement between the Client and Garrad Hassan America, Inc. and should not be relied on by third parties for any use whatsoever without the express written authority of Garrad Hassan America, Inc. The Report may only be reproduced and circulated in accordance with the Document Classification and associated conditions stipulated in the Agreement, and may not be disclosed in any offering memorandum without the express written consent of Garrad Hassan America, Inc. Garrad Hassan America, Inc. does not provide legal, regulatory, tax and/or accounting advice. The recipient must make its own arrangements for consulting in these areas. This document has been produced from information at the date of this document and, where applicable, information relating to dates and periods referred to in this document. The Report is subject to change without notice and for any reason including, but not limited to, changes in information, conclusion and directions from the Client. 2. This report has been produced from information relating to dates and periods referred to in this report. The report does not imply that any information is not subject to change. KEY TO DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION Strictly Confidential For disclosure only to named individuals within the Client’s organization Private and Confidential For disclosure only to individuals directly concerned with the subject matter of the Report within the Client’s organization Commercial in Confidence Not to be disclosed outside the Client’s organization GL GH only Not to be disclosed to non-GL GH staff Client’s Discretion Distribution for information only at the discretion of the Client (subject to the above Important Notice and Disclaimer) Published Available for information only to the general public (subject to the above Important Notice and Disclaimer) 0201 1 Garrad Hassan & Partners Ltd Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia REVISION HISTORY Issue Date Summary 2 1 October 20 1 1 First drafi issue to client 2 November 20 I I Final issue to client Garrad Hassan America, Inc. i GL Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 7 2 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS AND PRELIMINARIES 2.1 Study Assumptions 2.2 Mobilization and Soft Costs 2.2.1 Schedule 3 DISASSEMBLY 10 3.1 Turbines 10 3.2 Collection System 11 3.3 High Voltage Substations 11 3.4 Transmission Line 11 3.5 Site Access Roads and Crane Pads 11 3.6 Meteorological Masts 12 3.7 Disassembly Conclusion 12 4 REMOVAL 13 4.1 Turbines 13 4.2 Collection System 14 4.3 High Voltage Substations 14 4.4 Transmission Line 14 4.5 Site Access Roads and Crane Pads 4 4.6 Meteorological Masts 4 4.7 Project Removal Conclusions 4 5 SALVAGE -DISPOSAL 6 5.1 Pricing Assumptions 6 5.2 Turbines 17 5.2.1 Partial Resale of Major Components 18 5.3 Collection System 19 5.4 High Voltage Substation 20 5.5 Transmission Line 20 5.6 Site Access Roads and Crane Pads 20 5.7 Meteorological Mast 20 5.8 Salvage - Disposal Conclusions 20 6 NET DECOMMISSIONING COST 21 6.1 Net Decommissioning Cost with Partial Resale of Selected Components 21 7 GOING CONCERN OPTION AND OTHER SCENARIOS 22 Garrad Hassan America, Inc. ii GL Earrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia 7.1 Going Concern Analysis at Year 20 22 7.1.1 Step 1 22 7.1.2 Step 2 23 7.1 -3 Step 3 23 7.1.4 Step 4 23 7.2 New Creek Project Valuation in Year 20 23 8 REFERENCES 25 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 : Project Component Breakdown ...... 8 Table 2-2: Mobilization and Soft Costs Assumptions ...... I ...... 9 Table 3-1: Summary of GE Turbine Disassembly Costs ...... IO Table 3-2: Summary of Clipper Turbine Disassembly Costs ...... 11 Table 3-3: Summary of Project Disassembly Costs ...... 12 Table 4-1: GE WTG Removal Costs ...... #...... I..II...... 13 Table 4-2: Clipper WTG Removal Costs ...... 13 Table 4-3: Project Removal Conclusions ...... 14 Table 5- 1 : Turbine Salvage Values ...... ,...... ,...... ,...... , ...... ,.,.,...... 17 Table 5-2: GE WTG Component Resale Valuations for New Creek ...... 19 Table 5-3: Clipper WTG Component Resale Valuations for New Creek ...... 19 Table 5-4: Gross Salvage Value ofthe Project ...... 20 Table 6- 1 : Net Decommissioning Value with Partial Resale at Year 20...... 21 Table 7-1: Simplified Project Cash Flows (in $ millions) ...... 24 Garrad Hassan America, Inc. iii GL Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Meaning Role AC I American Concrete Institute BOP Balance of Plant Construction contract COD Commercial Ooeration Date CPI Consumer Price Index EPC Engineering, Procurement, and Construction FOS Factor of Safety GL GH GL Garrad Hassan America Independent Engineer HH Hub Height Height of center of rotor I EC International Electrotechnical Commission Design and testing standards IESO Independent Electricity System Operator LDs Liquidated Damages LC Letter of Credit MOU Memorandum of Understanding O&M ODerations and Maintenance OSA Operations Support Agreement PFR Power Factor Regulation POD Point of Delivery POI Point of Interconnection PPA Power Purchase Agreement Contract for power purchase RAS Remedial Action Scheme I SPT I Standard Penetration Test I -I TO Transmission Owner TSA Turbine Supply Agreement TSP Transmission Service Provider WTG Wind Turbine Generator Used interchangeably with “turbine” Garrad Hassan America, Inc. iv GL Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the request of AES New Creek, LLC (the “Sponsor”), Garrad Hassan America, lnc., a GL group member, (hereafter “GL GH”), has performed a Decommissioning review of the New Creek wind project (the “Project”). The study includes costs associated with the dismantling, removal, and salvage or disposal of the equipment, and it is assumed that this will take place 20 years after the start of commercial operations, although the costs in this study are given in 201 1 dollars. The Project is located in Grant County, West Virginia, and comprises 32 GE 1.6xle and 25 Clipper 2.4 MW (derated 2.5 MW units) turbines for a total Project rated output of 114 MW, and associated infrastructure. GL GH assumes that there are strong parallels between wind farm construction and decommissioning programs and consequently bases the estimates for decommissioning costs on its broad experience of wind farm construction programs and the associated costs of labor, plant and materials. The gross decommissioning cost is calculated as the sum of the cost of disassembly plus the cost of removal (transport). It is noted that crane hire is the most dominant cost item in disassembly while transportation of the large turbine components dominate the costs of removal. Assessments of salvage opportunities are based on the bill of quantities identified in this Report. The average material weights and ratios for turbine components are derived from previous GL GH studies, Sponsor documentation, and/or turbine supplier technical specification sheets. The Report assumes certain commodity prices and disposal service rates based on present day estimates, but GL GH does not forecast such future values. The reader is free to make those adjustments. The net salvage value is calculated as the difference between the sum of parts resale and scrap revenue, less the landfill cost of the remaining material. It is assumed that some of the turbine components will be sold for parts. It is noted that the value of tower steel is the most dominant revenue item. The net decommissioning value in Project year twenty (20) is determined from the difference of 1) the sum of the disassembly and removal and 2) the sum of the salvage value and resale. The net decommissioning value of the Project in this year is a positive return and estimated to be approximately $2,719,825 (or $47,716 per WTG). GL GH notes that the decommissioning value of the Project in any previous year would be higher. A break-down summary is shown below (negative numbers are positive returns to the Project): I PROJECTTOTALS I $3,351,195 I $3,173,280 I ($6,553,575) I ($2,690,725) I ($2,719,825) I Garrad Hassan America, Inc. V __ GL Garrad Hassan Document No,: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia TOTAL PROJECT NET ($2,7 19,825) (($47,716) per WTG} DECOMMISSIONING COST Hence, it was found that executing a Project decommissioning in year twenty (20) would yield positive returns to the owners, GL GH notes that the contracts for disassembly and removal would need to be addressed prior to any revenues from the salvage and resale. This Report is based on broad assumptions regarding the Project, the approach to the decommissioning, the market conditions for contracting costs, scrap value and resale options. The net costs of decommissioning could be reviewed closer to the end of the operating period (Le. at 15 years of operation for 20-year design life). At that time it would also be prudent to take into consideration: I) a going concern scenario in which Project profitability and turbine conditions justify operation beyond the design life; and 2) a ‘re-powering’ scenario, in which case the existing turbines would be removed in the interest of constructing a more valuable project with larger, more efficient turbines. In the first scenario, decommissioning costs could be paid for by allocations of Project revenues in future Project years, while in the latter scenario, any decommissioning costs could be transferred to the capital budget of the new project. GL GH considers that if the engineering and financial conditions are satisfied for Project operation beyond the design life of twenty years, the Project owners would at minimum elect this option. GL GH carried out a simple Project valuation for operations at New Creek through year thirty (30). The purpose of the exercise was to show the approximate valuation of the Project in year twenty (20) by discounting the modeled cash flows for an additional 10 years. The financial valuation of the Project in year twenty (20) was found to be in the range of $25 - $38 MM, which is clearly higher than the Net Decommissioning Value. Project valuations before Year 20 will yield higher valuations due to the longer useful life remaining. Garrad Hassan America, Inc. vi Gl Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Prqject in Grant County West Virginia 1 INTRODUCTION At the request of AES New Creek, LLC (the “Sponsor”), Garrad Hassan America, Inc., a GL group member, (hereafter “GL GH”), has performed a Decommissioning review of the wind project known as New Creek (the “Project”). The Project is located in Grant County, West Virginia, and comprises 32 GE 1.6xIe turbines and 25 Clipper 2.5 MW turbines along with associated infrastructure, for a total Project rated output of 1 14 MW. This Decommissioning report (the “Report”) will be used in the Sponsor’s permitting approval and financing of the Project, specifically to fulfill the West Virginia Public Service Commission pre construction condition that a decommissioning report be prepared and provided to the Grant County Commission. The Sponsor has advised GL GH that the required decommissioning includes the removal of all towers and wind turbine generators. Only a small portion of the foundation pedestal will be removed to comply with the “3ft below grade” requirement. All roads will be left in place. All collector cables will be left in place as they are below the grade clearance requirement. The substation and interconnection switchyard will not require decommissioning. This Report will use metric units and GL GH has calculated removal to a depth of approximately 1 meter below grade as a substitute for three feet. This Report does not consider the time value of money; the results should therefore be adjusted to represent the inflated costs at the time of decommissioning (e.g. annual escalation). It should also be noted that commodity values are volatile and difficult to predict over a 20-year horizon. This Decommissioning Study does not consider the assessed scenarios from legal, regulatory or commercial perspectives; these will need to be assessed by the Sponsor. Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 7 GL Gatrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia 2 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS AND P R E L I M IN AR I E S Strong parallels between wind farm construction and decommissioning programs are assumed; consequently, the following estimates are based on GL GH’s broad experience with wind farm construction programs and the associated costs of labor, plant and materials. GL GH used an internal decommissioning model it developed from its experience in the wind industry to formulate this study. All costs are quoted in 2011 dollars, and it should be noted that no specific quotes were obtained in relation to this study. The study is broken down into three sections: disassembly, removal, and salvage/disposal. 2.1 Study Assumptions The Project spans a single ridgeline in Grant County and is divided into a contiguous line of GE turbines to the south and another contiguous line of Clipper turbines to the north. The study assumes that the Project would be decommissioned as a whole. Two transmission lines run east-west on the southern end of the site, but before the string of turbines begins. GL GH has assumed that crane mobilization can occur after this crossing and north of the transmission lines and that no intermediate crane tear-downs will be required. GL GH understands the following breakdown describes the necessary equipment to be removed. Table 2-1: Project Component Breakdown 1. Collection substation and interconnection switchyard not decommissioned. 2. Underground collection system assumed left in place. This study assumes a constant wind turbine dismantling rate of one turbine per day performed per topping crane and base crane. The number of cranes used determines the approximate time to complete the job. See Section 2.2.1 for more detail. 2.2 Mobilization and Soft Costs Before executing any decommissioning work, it is necessary to plan the work carefully, secure the appropriate permits and insurance, and manage the program of work and associated health and safety risk control methods in order to ensure a successful project. It is assumed that mobilization and soft costs are Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 8 GL Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia overhead and will be evenly divided between the two turbine portions for the sake of presenting New Creek decommissioning cost results. This study assumed an additional 5% of the totals from the hard costs contemplated herein for soft costs. Soft costs, for the purposes of this study, include costs not specifically accounted for in the derivations presented later in this Report. They include many of the necessary items needed for such construction projects, such as environmental studies, obtaining permits, environmental and hazmat protection plans, onsite administrative infrastructure and staff, utilities, off-site project management and insurance. The study also assumed that an additional 1% of the total hard costs contemplated herein would be needed for contractor mobilization to the site. GL GH separately accounted for a laydown yard of 20,000 m2 to house the office trailers and staff parking and facilities. Crane mobilizations were also added to this category. It was assumed that the two (2) topping cranes and two (2) base cranes would not need additional tear-downs since the site is relatively flat and easily accessible throughout. Total mobilization plus other soft costs were calculated to be $354,785. Table 2-2: Mobilization and Soft Costs Assumptions -Item Proiect Total Number of Hi cranes needed 2 Number of Hi crane tear-downs needed 0 Number of Lo cranes needed 2 Number of Lo crane tear-downs needed 0 Decommissioning contractor's laydown yard size (m2) 20,000' Additional mobilization as percent of total hard costs 1%' Decommissioning soft costs as percent of total hard costs 5Yo2 2.2.1 Schedule It is assumed that the decommissioning program will be approximately 10 weeks. This time line is based on a deconstruction rate of two turbines per work day, since 2 topping cranes are assumed. Also, 7 to 10 work days of mobilization and 10 to 15 days of demobilization are assumed before and after turbine deconstruction. During construction of wind farms, it is typical that the time for erection across the entire project schedule averages about one per day per topping crane. Although a topping crane can outfit two turbines in one day (top tower section, nacelle and rotor), due to crane mobilizations, crane walking, weather and wind delays, weekends and holidays, etc., a better estimate is the normal erection project average of one per day. GL GH feels it appropriate and conservative to use the erection average for dismantling because safety, construction familiarity, and equipment will dictate the speed of disassembly, While disassembly could, in theory, be done with slightly less care than during assembly (damage to turbines not as high a priority), it will likely be accomplished in much the same fashion as erection, although in reverse order. GL Carrad Hasan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grint County West Virginia 3 DISASSEMBLY The disassembly of the Project pertains to all those actions done at the site. These include all work just prior to physical transportation of the infrastructure from the site. In the case of the wind turbines, it includes the dismantling and loading of the tower sections onto trucks for transport. In the case of concrete foundations, it pertains to the tear down, excavation and backfilling, and all reclaiming as necessary. 3.1 Turbines Once the site is mobilized, it is assumed that the decommissioning of turbines would start immediately and sequentially. This typically entails the individual removal of all three (3) blades, followed by the removal of the hub and nacelle, the latter of which contains a substantial cast iron bedplate designed to absorb axial loading. The towers are stripped of lifts, ladders, cables, cabinets, lighting and other miscellanea and are then dismantled, section by section, down to the foundation surface. In the case of the Project, 32 GE 1.6xle turbines are to be removed, consisting of 1.6 MW nacelles, with 80 m steel towers in four (3) sections as well as 40.3 m blades. 25 Clipper 2.4 MW turbines are to be removed, consisting of 2.5 MW nacelles (derated), with 80 m steel towers in four (4) sections along with 46.7 m blades. Features of note include pad-mounted transformers near the base of the turbine. It is assumed that the scope of the disassembly works includes the cost of labor, machinery and tools required to perform the tasks and the loading of the dismantled material onto transport vehicles for removal from site. The cranes would only be required on site for approximately two months during the turbine dismantlement activities. A low crane may be required a slightly longer period in order to assist with the transport loading activities. It is also assumed that aside from the possible removal of the drivetrain to aid lifting, the nacelle and its contents will remain hlly intact for purposes of transport. Except for a small number of blades which are to be resold (see Section 5 herein), most of the blades will be cut into sections for easier transport to a recycling or incineration plant. The per turbine costs presented below include the cost of a topping crane to handle the hubhotor, nacelle and top tower section (or top two sections, depending on base crane hired). They also include the cost of a lower crane for the middle and base tower sections as well as aid in loading the components onto transport trucks. The costs take into consideration the rental of special tools needed from the manufacturer as well as the fact that the GE and Clipper turbines have an external pad mounted transformer. The foundation is to be cut and crushed down to about 1 m (-3 ft) below grade. It is assumed that about 25 m3 of crushed concrete and steel rubble will result. Table 3- 1 summarizes the disassembly costs for each of the Project’s 32 GE I .6xIe wind turbines, Table 3-2 summarizes the disassembly costs for each of the Project’s 25 Clipper 2.4 M W wind turbines. Table 3-1: Summary of GE Turbine Disassembly Costs Cost Item -Total Dismantle hub and blades (3 blades per turbine) $12.910 Garrad Hassan America, Inc. IO GL Garrad Wassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-K- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia ~~~~ ~~ ~ bismantle nacelle (drive train and generator included) I $1 3.270 I Dismantle tower sections, 3/WTG (internals included) $1 3,7 10 Dismantle pad-mount transformer $2,4 10 - Dismantle turbine foundation to 1 m (-3ft) below grade $6,080 Total per WTG $48,380 The cost for dismantling all of the New Creek’s 32 GE turbines is $1,548,160. Table 3-2: Summary of Clipper Turbine Disassembly Costs Cost Item -Total Dismantle hub and blades (3 blades per turbine) $1 2,910 I Dismantle nacelle (drive train and generator included) I $13.270 I 1 Dismantle tower sections, 4/WTG (intemals included) I $17,560 I ~~ 1 Dismantle Dad-mount transformer I $2.410 I I Dismantle turbine foundation to 1 m (-3ft) below grade I $6,080 1 The cost for dismantling all of the New Creek’s 25 Clipper turbines is $1,305,750. The cost for dismantling all of the New Creek’s 57 turbines is therefore $2,853,910. 3.2 Collection System The collection system will be left in place. 3.3 High Voltage Substations The high voltage substation will be left in place. 3.4 Transmission Line This item is not applicable. 3.5 Site Access Roads and Crane Pads While the roads will be left in place, the turbine foundation and crane pad area will need to be reclaimed after being subjected to intense traffic associate with the work. The laydown yard reclamation is accounted for in the mobilizatioddemobilization costs. For conservatism, these costs include reseeding with native grass. Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 11 GL Garrad Hassan Document No,: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia The cost of reclamation is estimated to be $142,500. 3.6 Meteorological Masts Meteorological masts were not considered in this analysis. If required, it is not anticipated that their removal would constitute a significant expense. 3.7 Disassembly Conclusion The cost of the disassembly of the Project wind farm is summarized in Table 3-3. Table 3-3: Summary of Project Disassembly Costs Cost Item -Total WTG $2,853,9 IO COLLECTION SYSTEM $0 HV SUBSTATION $0 TRANSMISSION LINE $0 RECLAMATION OF PEDESTAL AREA $142,500 MET MASTS $0 MOBILIZATION & SOFT COSTS $354,785 TOTAL PROJECT DISASSEMBLY COST $3,351,195 Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 12 GL Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia 4 REMOVAL Removal of the Project in this study refers strictly to the transporting of the equipment from the site to the appropriate landfill, aggregate rework facility, or scrap yard. Various distances and truck sizes are used in the GL GH decommissioning model, depending on which Project component is being considered. Removal costs also include the costs of unloading the material once it reaches its destination. 4.1 Turbines It is assumed that the scope of the removal of the wind turbines includes the cost of labor and vehicles required to transport the dismantled material to an appropriate disposal, salvage or rework facility. It is assumed that the transport distances for general waste would be within a radius of 100 km whereas the more complex and valuable material is assumed to be transported within a radius of 500 to 1,000 km-500 km for the tower internals, and 1,000 km for the main turbine components. Most of the main turbine components are assumed to be removed much as they were initially transported to the site. It is assumed that turbine blades will be sectioned to allow for more blades per truck than the usual one or two blades per original delivery vehicle. Table 4-1 summarizes the costs for the removal of each of the GE turbine components from the site. Table 4-2 summarizes the costs for the removal of each of the Clipper turbine components from the site. Turbine Comeonent -Total Blades (cut up prior to loading) $4,990 Hub (two on one truck) $4,995 Nacelle $9,990 Tower (3 sections) $29,970 Internals $623 Transformer $623 Crushed foundation (25m3) $100 Total Wind Turbine Removal Cost (per WTG) $51,290 For the Project’s 32 GE turbines, the total removal costs are $1,641,280. Table 4-2: Clipper WTG Removal Costs Turbine ComDonent -Total Blades (cut up prior to loading) $4,990 Hub (two on one truck) $4,995 Nacelle $9.990 Tower (4 sections) $39,960 Internals $623 Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 13 GL Garrad Wasran Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia Crushed foundation (25m3) $100 Total Wind Turbine Removal Cost (per WTG) $61,280 For the Project’s 25 Clipper turbines, the total removal costs are $1,532,000. For the Project’s total 57 turbines, the total removal costs add up to $3,173,280. 4.2 Collection System This item is not applicable. 4.3 High Voltage Substations This item is not applicable. 4.4 Transmission Line This item is not applicable. 4.5 Site Access Roads and Crane Pads This item is not applicable. 4.6 Meteorological Masts This item is not applicable. 4.7 Project Removal Conclusions Table 4-3 summarizes the total anticipated costs for removing the turbines from the Project. Table 4-3: Project Removal Conclusions Cost Item -Total WTG $3.1 73.280 I COLLECTION SYSTEM I $0 I HV SUBSTATION $0 TRANSMISSION LINE $0 Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia MET MASTS $0 TOTAL PROJECT DISASSEMBLY COST $3,173,280 Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 15 GL Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-K- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia 5 SALVAGE -DISPOSAL While it is difficult to predict the evolution of an industry 20 years into the future, it is not unreasonable to assume there may exist by that time consolidated centers that will fully recycle a wind turbine given that many project decommissionings or “repowerings” will have begun prior to that time. For example, GL GH notes that significant attention is being placed by industry and academia on finding possible uses or methods for recycling the wind turbine blades. While it may become easier to recycle wind turbines in the future, GL GH performed this study assuming only the application of present day means. Following the disassembly and removal of all materials from the Project site, four potential destinations for the reclaimed material are typically envisaged by GL GH when performing decommissioning studies. These scenarios may add extra cost to the decommissioning budget or offer an opportunity to reclaim some value from the wind farm components to offset against the cost of decommissioning. Low-grade material such as contaminated aggregate, concrete rubble, wood, non-recyclable materials and other mixed general waste will in all likelihood be sent to landfill or incineration at cost to the Project. GL GH notes that there is a tremendous amount of volume waste associated with the Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) which composes most turbine blades today. It is possible that in 20 years recycling blade GRP into cement fill, roofing shingles or other useful industrial raw materials may be a net positive for the Project, or at least an offset to the cost, Medium-grade materials, such as small- and medium-gauge cabling, small motors, cabinets of mixed electronics, and lighting, may be sent to salvage centers to be stripped for parts and sold for re-use or re-processing. This may be done at a nominal, neutral, or negative cost to the Project. However, this material may also be sent to landfill if an appropriate third-party cannot be found. GL GH notes that it is difficult to predict future returns of salvage due to the unpredictability of commodity prices. High grade materials such as large steel components (tower sections, bedplates, hub castings, gearboxes, steel cable), large-gauge copper and aluminum cabling, aluminum flooring and ladders will be sent to reprocessing centers at a net neutral cost or return to the Project. GL GH notes that it is difficult to predict future returns of reprocessing due to the unpredictability of commodity prices. Reusable components that are deemed to be undamaged, functional and have not fulfilled their design life could be sold back to the manufacturer or its supply chain for a modest second-hand price for refurbishment. Some electrical infrastructure equipment as well as recently replaced turbine components could fall into this category. Applying a conservative approach, GL GH only considered scenarios (i), (iii), and (iv). No resale gains were assumed for scenario (ii)-only scrap/disposal value. Scenario (iv) was limited only to certain main components within a conservative age range. 5.1 Pricing Assumptions The following assessment is based on GL GH’s decommissioning model which estimates bill of quantities, typical material weights, and ratios for turbine components acquired from the manufacturer’s technical specifications or from GL GH experience when such is not available. The model uses inputted commodity_. prices and disuosal service rates. Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 16 CL Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-K- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia For the New Creek decommissioning, the following scrap commodity prices are assumed (Ref. httD:l/scrapmetalsai~~~lastics.coin,www .metalDrices.com): 0 Steel & cast Iron: $350/tonne; 0 Aluminum: $1,80O/tonne; and Copper: $5,50O/tonne. Weights are in metric tonnes. GL GH realizes there are various types of steeliiron, aluminum, and copper alloys, and as an example, the steel in the gearbox and drive train can easily garner several times the price of the lower grade tower steel. For simplification, GL GH applied conservative assumptions using only the three general categories above. It should be noted that the commodity price of metals is volatile and 20-year values are impossible to predict with any degree of certainty. Because landfill costs are expected to rise, GL GH used a different cost variable for the incineration, recycling or disposal of GRP. Although it is possible that in 20 years methods will be available to extract the fibers from the epoxy laminate for high-grade industrial reuse at a net benefit, GL GH assumed a net cost to incinerate or low-grade recycle the GRP as a separate cost to Class 2 landfill. The foliowing landfill costs are assumed: 0 GRP disposal (incineration or recycling): $1 OO/m3; 0 Class 2 Industrial waste: $50/m3; and 0 Class 3 General waste: $25/m3 5.2 Turbines There should be considerable opportunity to reclaim scrap value from the turbines from the copper in the LV cabling, transformer and generator; steel from the tower, hub, drive train and bedplate; and aluminum from the tower internals. The blades and nacelle housing are made from GRP and would have to be disposed (or recycled) at a cost. The following table summarizes the salvage and disposal costs per each turbine. It is noted that no distinction is made between the components and weights of the GE and Clipper turbines. Class CI. 3 Net Component cu Value Fe Value value cost fill Cost ti11 Cost Scrap (T) (TI (TI (m3) (m3) (m3) Value Blades $0 $0 $0 39 -$3,900 $0 $0 43,900 Hub steel $0 20 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000 Nacellehub GRP $0 $0 $0 12 -$1,200 $0 $0 41,200 Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 17 GL Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-lJSSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia Tower steel sections $0 122 $42,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,700 Intemals 1 5 $8,250 $0 15 $27,000 $0 2 -$I00 $0 $35,150 Transformer I 2 $6,600 2 $700 05 $900 $0 I -$50 $0 $8,150 Crushed fndtn (25m3) , $0 I $0 , $0 , $0 , , $0 , 25 , -$625 -$625 TotalrWTG $1 14,975 For the Project’s 57 turbines, the total adds up to $6,553,575 in net scrap value. 5.2.1 Partial Resale of Major Components GL GH considers that at the end of the Project’s 20-year design life many of the components of the Project’s wind turbines will still be serviceable and have positive value in the secondary parts market. GL GH considers that the towers and nacelle shells would still be sold as scrap as well as the rest of the major components that were not resold. While wind turbines are designed to meet a fatigue life of twenty years plus some margin, GL GH expects a significant number of the major components such as the blades, gearboxes, and generators-will fail and be replaced or refurbished before the 20-year mark. GL GH continuously tracks and models the various failure rates for each of the main components across all major wind turbine model types, and has modeled failure rate assumptions for the New Creek project’s two turbine types. It is assumed that other wind farms with GE 1.6xle and Clipper 2.5 MW wind turbines will be arriving at their 20-year design life, and some may choose to operate beyond it. Therefore, a secondary parts market may be assumed to exist that would demand some of the major components being decommissioned from New Creek. Using a conservative approach and with the exception of the transformer, only the major components that are five (5) years or younger (Le. replaced or refurbished during Project years 16 through 20) are considered candidates for resale. Only the gearbox, generator, blades, pitch drives, yaw drives, hydraulics, power converters, main bearing, and transformer are considered. Parts failing in the last year which cannot recuperate their cost from a generation basis have been subtracted. The transformer is assumed to have a higher design life and so half these are considered candidates for resale. Table 5-2 summarizes the GE turbine’s partial resale valuations performed by GL GH for the New Creek decommissioning scenario. Table 5-3 does the same for the Clipper turbines. Since the Clipper turbine does not share nearly the same market penetration in capacity installed or wind farms constructed, its secondary parts market is assumed to be weaker. The calculations account for the scrap opportunities that will be subtracted fiom Table 5-1 and presented in Section 6. Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 18 GL Earrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia Table 5-2: GE WTG Component Resale Valuations for New Creek Hydraulics $10,000 1 1 $2,500 Power Converter $40,000 13 13 $130,000 Main Bearing $30,000 1 I $7,500 Transformer $35,000 0 16 $140,000 $1 30,400 Gross Resale Total $1,597,500 Minus Loss of 4282,150 Scrap Net Resale Total $1,315,350 Table 5-3: Clipper WTG Component Resale Valuations for New Creek ~ New Part OW. Aped OW. to ComDonent Value at Scrar, ~oss cost 5 Years Resale 10% of New Gearbox $5 55,000 16 15 $832,500 $35,250 Generator $159,000 8 32' $508,800 $96,400 Blades $I 74,000 7 7 $121,800 -$27,300 Pitch $15,000 1 1 $1,500 Yaw $15,000 1 I $1,500 Hydraulics $7,500 9 9 $6,750 Power Converter $65,000 10 10 $65,000 Main Bearing $0 0 0 $0 Transformer $3 5,000 0 12.5 $43,750 $1 01,875 Gross Resale Total $1,58 1,600 Minus Loss of Scrap 4206,225 Net Resale Total $1,375,375 1. The generator count was multiplied by four (4) to account for the unique Clipper design of four generators in each nacelle. Adding the values from Table 5-2 and Table 5-3, the total resale value for the Project is calculated to be $2,690,725. 5.3 Collection System This item is not applicable. Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 19 GL Earrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia 5.4 High Voltage Substation This item is not applicable. 5.5 Transmission Line This item is not applicable. 5.6 Site Access Roads and Crane Pads This item is not applicable. 5.7 Meteorological Mast This item is not applicable. 5.8 Salvage - Disposal Conclusions The following table summarizes the opportunities from the salvage / disposal analysis. Please note that this table also incorporates the resale scenarios of Table 5-2 and Table 5-3. Table 5-4: Gross Salvage Value of the Project Item Total WTG $9,244,300' COLLECTION SYSTEM $0 HV SUBSTATION $0 I TRANSMISSION LINE I $0 I I ACCESS ROADS & CRANE PADS I $0 I I MET MASTS I $0 TOTAL PROJECT SALVAGE RETURN $9,244,300 Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 20 GL Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia 6 NET DECOMMISSIONING COST The net decommissioning cost for the Project is calculated by subtracting the salvage value from the total of the disassembly and removal costs. The resale values added to the salvage values presented in Section 5 are highly dependent on the decommissioning date. This report analyzes the likely scenarios at Project year twenty (20). Decommissioning fbrther and further into the future would result in an increasingly lower parts resale value. 6.1 Net Decommissioning Cost with Partial Resale of Selected Components Table 6- 1 summarizes the Project’s net decommissioning costs after including some plausible and conservative resale assumptions. Note that negative values in parenthesis are positive returns to the Project. Table 6-1: Net Decommissioning Value with Partial Resale at Year 20 Disposal/ Net Net Disassembly Removal Salvage Resale Totals WTG $2,853,910 $3,173,280 ($6,553,575) ($2,690,725) ($3,217,110) COLLECTION $0 $0 $0 $0 SYSTEM HV SUBSTATION $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TRANSMISSION LINE $0 $0 $0 $0 ACCESS ROADS & $142,500 $0 $0 $142,500 CRANE PADS MET MASTS $0 $0 $0 $0 MOBILIZATION/SOFT $354,785 $354,785 COSTS $3,35 1,195 PROJECT TOTALS $3,173,280 ($6,553,575) ($2,690,725) ($2,719,825) I TOTALPROJECT I I NET (($47,716) per WTG} DECOMMISSIONING ($2,7 19,825) COST This report is based on broad assumptions regarding the Project, the approach to the decommissioning, the market conditions for contracting costs, and scrap value and resale options. If the net costs of decommissioning are reviewed closer to the end of the operating period (Le. at 15 years of operation) then better visibility on these factors would be possible. The values presented in this Section 6 serve as a starting point in the evaluation of the decision that will need to be made once the Project reaches its design life in Project year twenty (20). The next section contemplates going concern scenarios that will need to be evaluated before a Project decommissioning is to be executed. Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 21 GL Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: I3 Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia 7 GOING CONCERN OPTION AND OTHER SCENARIOS This report is based on broad assumptions regarding the Project, the approach to the decommissioning, the market conditions for contracting costs, and scrap value and resale options, If the net costs of decommissioning were to be reviewed closer to the end of the operating period (Le. at 15 years of operation), better visibility on these factors will be possible. The value of decommissioning after 20 years of operation could be reviewed at this time as well as the value of decommissioning at another point in the future, taking into consideration potential extended operational revenue as well as Project operations beyond the design life. The going concern scenario would be easier to evaluate then, and if, design and safety conditions warrant, it would be a viable alternative as long as future revenues outpace future expenditures. An analysis in Year 15 (at a time in the Project pro forma of low debt leverage and largely robust cash flows) could also yield a better time-value-of-money option. Instead of tying present-day Project monies in the form of escrow, bonds, or letters of credit to cover the dismantling and removal costs, such monies could be set aside then. It is possible that the rise in commodity prices continues into the future significantly affecting the returns from scrap values. A credit against the value of the metal could be taken to cover the costs of the dismantling and removal. Since interconnection agreements, real estate leases, and local community interdependence would already be in motion, it would be prudent also to take into consideration a ‘re-powering’ scenario, in which case the existing turbines would be removed in the interest of constructing a more valuable project with larger, more efficient turbines. Any cost to remove the old turbines would be incurred as construction costs (capital expenditures) of the new wind farm. 7.1 Going Concern Analysis at Year 20 Implicit in the analysis and conclusions below, GL GH determines that no going concern analysis is needed before Project year twenty (20), as viable operations at least up to the design life of the turbines are assumed. 7.1.1 Step 1 If a project is to operate beyond the wind turbine generators’ design life (beyond year 20 in this case), it must first determine if it is physically possible to continue operations. The structural integrity of the non- replaceable portions of the plant must be determined. For practical and safety purposes, such structures as the foundations, tower sections, hub castings, main shafts, and nacelle bedplates are assumed non- replaceable. Germanischer Lloyd recommends either an analytical or a practical method for analyzing the potential for extended operations [3]. Utilizing both would be help to ensure continued operations don’t affect the safety of the plant. Analytical methods include design loads analysis (site specific) to ensure fatigue loading is still within the margins of safety. Practical methods include thorough inspections of the equipment, with particular attention to those portions identified by the analytical methods as having lower factors of safety or being critical failure modes. This step must be performed by qualified, independent experts for wind turbines. If Step 1 reveals that continued operation is not safe, a full or partial decommissioning will need to be executed. Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 22 GL Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia 7.1.2 Step 2 A periodic monitoring program for continued operations must be formulated which implements recommendations of the certifying expert which performed Step 1. This monitoring program will constitute a slight upward step change in the O&M expenditures per turbine. Also, any remedial O&M actions the monitoring program will dictate may also constitute an increase in O&M expenditures per turbine. 7.1.3 Step 3 It must be determined if continued operation is financial feasible. While the wind resource may be familiar at this point, revenues will be impacted by future power pricing as well as an expected lowering of turbine availabilities. On the expense side, an increase in operational costs for extended life operations can be expected. The periodic monitoring program as well as increases in scheduled and unscheduled maintenance should be modeled. Fortunately, project debt should have already been paid off, so an increase of some O&M costs should be able to be absorbed. The Project will be viable as long as future revenues outpace hture expenditures. 7.1.4 Step 4 If re-powering the site with new technology is an option, this option should be financially weighed against the continued operations with the existing plant. Consideration should be given to existing leases, land- owner relationships, interconnection agreements, and the decommissioning costs given in Section 6 to make an informed financial decision. 7.2 New Creek Project Valuation in Year 20 It is expected that the minimum the Project would be worth in Year 20 is the net decommissioning value given in Table 6-1. It is more likely, however, that after the above going concern analysis is accomplished, the Project will continue to operate. Given this likely scenario, GL GH performed a simplified analysis of the expected magnitude of the Project’s valuation in Year 20 (expressed in 201 1 dollars). The analysis considers an initial baseline cashflow case for Year 21 and then decreases these revenues while increasing the operating costs. The decrease in revenue accounts for the likely decrease in availability as the turbines age, as well as the likely turbine-specific decommissionings and cannibalizations. The increase in operating cost accounts for the monitoring plan and subsequent remedial actions necessitated by operations above design life. It also accounts for an expected increase in component failures as the Project ages. The following simplified assumptions have been made. Project Capacity 114 MW Net Capacity Factor 33% Annual P50 Generation (MWh) 329,551 Average Price of Energy I MWh $50 % YOY Increase O&M Expenses 3% Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia % YOY Decrease in Revenues 5.0% Internal Rate of Return 10% Based on these assumptions, a simplified cash flow stream is projected in Table 7-1 until expenditures outstrip revenues. Table 7-1: Simplified Project Cash Flows (in $ millions) Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 AnnualRevenue %16.64 %15.81 $15.02 $14.27 $13,56 $12.88 %12.23 $11.62 %11.04 $10.49 O&M Expenses’ %6.00 %6.18 %6.36 %6.96 %7.16 %7.60 ’ Property Tax, Land %1,66%1.66%1.66&@%1.66%1.66&6!5%1.66%1.66 - Lease, Insurance’ %1.66 Total EBITDA %9.15M$7.18%6.24%5.34$4.46tF3.61%2.79$2.00%1.22 The value of such a project to an investor demanding 10% internal rates of return would be approximately $32 MM. Applying a 20% error bound, this value would be between $25 MM and $38 MM. While the above analysis is a very rough estimate of the Project earnings, GL GH nevertheless considers that the value of the Project as a going concern in year 20 exceeds the net decommissioning value of the Project as described in Section 6 and derived in the previous sections herein. Therefore, it is likely that the Project owners would attempt to operate New Creek beyond its 20-year design life given a carefbl and successful consideration to the issues presented in Section 7.1 above. Using this logic, going concern valuations before Year 20 will yield higher valuations due to the longer useful life remaining. Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 24 GL Garrad Hassan Document No.: 701252-USSD-R- Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Issue: B Final 02 Project in Grant County West Virginia 8 REFERENCES [I] West Virginia Public Service Commission pre-construction conditions. [2] 2.5 MW “Clipper Wind Turbine” Product Specifications and Codes, DC-013559-01 Rev C, 14 March 2008. [3] Guideline for the Continued Operation of Wind Turbines, Germanischer Lloyd Rules and Guidelines, IV Industrial Services, Part 1, 2009 Edition. Garrad Hassan America, Inc. 25 GL Garrad HasMn Attachment 14 COUNTY COMMISSION OF GRANT COUNTY 5 Highland Avenue COMMISSIONERS: PetersmWV 26847 DOUGLAS E. SWICK phone:(304)257-4422 PRESlDENT Fa(304)257-9645 P&rsbwg West Virginia Email:gccommomountainnet JAMES E ~SON,JR P&&ul& west vm JAMES C.COCE PemWest Virgnia RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL OF GARRAD HASSAN FOR EVALUATION OF DECOMMISSIONING OF THE AES NEW CREEK,LLC WIND POWER PROJECT Resolution # November 8,2011 WEREAS,the West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) on September 30,2009 entered an order in Case 08-2105-E-CSgranting to AES New Creek, LIX: the right to construct up to 66 wind turbines on New Creek Mountain, located in Grant County, West Virginia. WEREAS, the above referenced order sets forth as a preconstmctiod condition (Section V, Preconstruction Condition #lo, at page 49) a requirement that AES New Creek, LLC obtain a report from a qualified independent third party to determine the amount, if any, necessary to provide for decommissioning of the facilityI WHEREAS, a further requirement of the above referenced condition is that the Grant County Commission approve the report submitted by the independent thud party expert WHEREAS, AES New Creek, LLC has provided the Grant County Commission with a report issued by Garrad Hassan and titled “Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Project in Grant County, West Virginia”, dated November 4,20 1 1, and the Grant County Commission has reviewed and approved the Ganad Hassan report. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Grant County Commission after due consideration approves the report issued by Garrad Hassan titled “Decommissioning Study for the New Creek Wind Project in Grant County, West Virginia”, dated November 4,20 11. ADOPTED this 8” day of November 201 1. GRANT COUNTY COMMISSION n 1