Black Rock Wind Farm Meeting with USFWS and WVDNR

Appendix P

Correspondence with WV DNR and USFWS

From: Allred, Chase To: Roy, Bob Cc: Sargent, Barbara D; Joshi, Aarty; Peterson, Trevor Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Black Rock Wind framework for pre-construction surveys Date: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 7:42:32 AM

Bob,

Following the Service's review of Black Rock's proposed work plan, the Service has the following comments.

The Service has no objections to the proposed plan in the "bat survey " section. However, the Service recommends a study plan be submitted to the Service for concurrence prior to conducting any surveys.

Given the typical variability in eagle use across years, we recommend a second year of monitoring and points should be randomly assigned:

(D) Sampling design must be spatially representative of the project footprint, and spatial coverage of sample plots must include at least 30 percent of the project footprint. Sample plot locations must be determined randomly, unless the conditions in paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(F) of this section apply.

(F) Stratified-random sampling (a sample design that accounts for variation in eagle abundance by, for example, habitat, time of day, season) will often provide more robust, efficient sampling. Random sampling with respect to time of day, month, or project footprint can be waived if stratification is determined to be a preferable sampling strategy after consultation and approval in advance with the Service. (50 CFR 22.26).

The Service also recommends that Black Rock design their eagle survey to account for boundary revisions should these be likely to occur over the next two years.

Let me know if there are any questions.

Regards,

Chase Allred U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service West Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 90 Vance Drive Elkins, WV 26241 304-636-6586, ext. 21 [email protected]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Roy, Bob wrote:

Hi Barb and Chase,

Just following up on my email from a couple weeks ago (please see below). We are looking forward to hearing from you about our efforts and proposed work plan and setting up a time to talk or meet to discuss the project further.

Appendix P - 001

As before, please feel free to contact Trevor Peterson or me about this.

Thank you,

Bob

Robert D. Roy

Certified Wildlife Biologist

Senior Project Manager

Direct: 207.406.5516 Mobile: 207.373.8372 [email protected]

Stantec 30 Park Drive Topsham ME 04086-1737 US

The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.

From: Roy, Bob Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 7:40 AM To: 'Sargent, Barbara D' ; '[email protected]'

Appendix P - 002 Cc: Peterson, Trevor Subject: FW: Black Rock Wind framework for pre-construction surveys

Hi Barb and Chase,

I just wanted to follow up on the email and document I sent to you on June 7th regarding a framework of pre-construction wildlife surveys at the Black Rock Wind Project. Based on the stage of lease of agreements for the Project we have suggested that many of the field surveys be initiated in the latter half of this year and in the spring and early summer of 2019.

Two efforts that could be, and have been, implemented this year include monthly eagle point count surveys and general bat acoustic detector surveys. We have initiated the eagle surveys late last month and will be deploying a detector in the one on-site MET tower next week. Beyond this, we’d like to discuss the proposed field surveys with each of you prior to implementing any additional effort.

Please feel free to contact Trevor Peterson or me at your convenience to verify that you have received the work plan and to let us know when would be a good time to plan a call to discuss the proposed field surveys and any questions, concerns, or considerations you may have.

Thank you,

Bob

Robert D. Roy

Certified Wildlife Biologist

Senior Project Manager

Direct: 207.406.5516 Mobile: 207.373.8372 [email protected]

Stantec 30 Park Drive Topsham ME 04086-1737 US

Appendix P - 003

From: Roy, Bob Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 7:29 PM To: Sargent, Barbara D ; [email protected] Cc: Peterson, Trevor Subject: Black Rock Wind framework for pre-construction surveys

Barb and Chase,

Stantec is assisting NRG in the development of the Black Rock Wind Project in Grant and Mineral Counties. The Project would be located on private property and is still in its pre-permit stage. Stantec conducted a desktop and field characterization of the site for biological resources and prepared the attached framework that outlines pre-construction wildlife surveys for the Project. We have prepared the attached framework based on a meeting held with WVDNR, USFWS, and NRG on June 8, 2017, more recent correspondence with your agencies, and recent experience of our staff (particularly Trevor Peterson) on other wind projects in the vicinity of this Project.

The framework outlines the avian, bat, and rare species studies to complete at the site in 2018 and 2019. Given the time of year, eagle point count surveys and bat acoustic surveys at met tower locations will be initiated this year, with most other surveys completed at seasonably appropriate times in 2019. We believe that this suite of surveys is consistent with investigations performed at other nearby wind facilities and that this project will also benefit from the availability of similar information from those sites.

Appendix P - 004 understand that some agency survey protocols, such as rare bat mist-netting, could evolve but we anticipate that survey efforts such as those would be developed further in close consultation with USFWS and WVDNR. Additionally, considering that those surveys would be completed in 2019 we have time for this type of collaborative work plan development.

Please feel free to contact me or Trevor with any questions about these surveys or if you would like to set up a time to more formally discuss the proposed studies.

We look forward to hearing from you,

Bob Roy

Robert D. Roy

Certified Wildlife Biologist

Senior Project Manager

Direct: 207.406.5516 Mobile: 207.373.8372 [email protected]

Stantec 30 Park Drive Topsham ME 04086-1737 US

Appendix P - 005 From: Sargent, Barbara D To: Roy, Bob Cc: Joshi, Aarty; Peterson, Trevor; Chase Allred ([email protected]) Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Black Rock Wind framework for pre-construction surveys Date: Thursday, August 02, 2018 8:14:09 AM

All,

We are in agreement with the proposed work and plan, and with the Service’s comments. The WVDNR recommends that aerial eagle surveys should also be conducted in February and March, and should extend to 5mi outside the project buffer. Since our last review, a new eagle nest has been documented above the Linton Creek Reservoir (39.273672 -79.13973). This nest was visited on April 3, 2018, and adults were present at the nest.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Barb

Barbara Sargent WVDNR – Wildlife Resources Section Operations Unit Environmental Coordination PO Box 67 738 Ward Road Elkins, WV 26241 304/637-0245 (voice) 304/637-0250 (fax) www.wvdnr.gov

“It is always the same with mountains. Once you have lived with them for any length of time, you belong to them. There is no escape.” ― Ruskin Bond

From: Allred, Chase [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 10:42 AM To: Roy, Bob Cc: Sargent, Barbara D; Joshi, Aarty; Peterson, Trevor Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Black Rock Wind framework for pre-construction surveys

Bob,

Following the Service's review of Black Rock's proposed work plan, the Service has the following comments.

Appendix P - 006 Given the typical variability in eagle use across years, we recommend a second year of monitoring and points should be randomly assigned:

The Service also recommends that Black Rock design their eagle survey to account for boundary revisions should these be likely to occur over the next two years.

Let me know if there are any questions.

Regards,

Chase Allred U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service West Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 90 Vance Drive Elkins, WV 26241 304-636-6586, ext. 21 [email protected]

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Roy, Bob wrote: Hi Barb and Chase,

As before, please feel free to contact Trevor Peterson or me about this.

Thank you,

Bob

Robert D. Roy Certified Wildlife Biologist Senior Project Manager

Direct: 207.406.5516 Mobile: 207.373.8372 [email protected]

Stantec 30 Park Drive Topsham ME 04086-1737 US

Appendix P - 007

From: Roy, Bob Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 7:40 AM To: 'Sargent, Barbara D' ; '[email protected]' Cc: Peterson, Trevor Subject: FW: Black Rock Wind framework for pre-construction surveys

Hi Barb and Chase,

Thank you,

Bob

Robert D. Roy Certified Wildlife Biologist Senior Project Manager

Direct: 207.406.5516 Mobile: 207.373.8372 [email protected]

Stantec 30 Park Drive Topsham ME 04086-1737 US

From: Roy, Bob Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 7:29 PM To: Sargent, Barbara D ; [email protected] Cc: Peterson, Trevor Subject: Black Rock Wind framework for pre-construction surveys

Appendix P - 008 Barb and Chase,

We would very much appreciate your review of this plan, as we want to make sure that the surveys proposed would support a decision regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act, requirements for the state’s CPCN licensing process, and meet the practices typically suggested by state and federal guidelines (such as the USFWS Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines). We understand that some agency survey protocols, such as rare bat mist-netting, could evolve but we anticipate that survey efforts such as those would be developed further in close consultation with USFWS and WVDNR. Additionally, considering that those surveys would be completed in 2019 we have time for this type of collaborative work plan development.

Please feel free to contact me or Trevor with any questions about these surveys or if you would like to set up a time to more formally discuss the proposed studies.

We look forward to hearing from you,

Bob Roy

Robert D. Roy Certified Wildlife Biologist Senior Project Manager

Direct: 207.406.5516 Mobile: 207.373.8372 [email protected]

Stantec 30 Park Drive Topsham ME 04086-1737 US

Appendix P - 009 Meeting Summary: Black Rock Wind Farm Meeting with USFWS and WVDNR

Attendees: Chase Allred (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) Barbara Sargent (West Virginia Department of Natural Resources) Dave Friend (Laurel Renewable Partners) Nate Lapierre (Clearway Energy, on phone) Aarty Joshi (Clearway Energy, on phone) Bob Roy (Stantec Consulting) Trevor Peterson (Stantec Consulting, on phone) Date: October 31, 2018, 11 am EST Location: WV DNR Office, 690 Beverly Pike, Elkins WV 26241 Projects Discussed: Black Rock Wind Farm

The purpose of this meeting was for Clearway Energy Group, LLC (Clearway) to provide an update on the Black Rock Wind Farm Project (Project), a summary of the biological studies completed and planned for completion and to discuss USFWS issuance of a Technical Assistance Letter (TAL) in support of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) permit process with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia.

The meeting was initiated with a roundtable introduction by all meeting attendees. The following bullets summarize the meeting discussion.

Project Ownership History and Schedule

• LRP explained the project ownership history. The project was initially developed by US Wind Force and Edison Mission Energy. When EME went bankrupt, the project was purchased by LRP. NRG Renew subsequently bought Black Rock. The NRG renewables platform was subsequently sold and formed a new company called Clearway Energy Group. Clearway owns the Black Rock Project. • LRP described the proposed project and highlighted the project components, noting that the intent is to underground all collection system, however, it may need to be overhead particularly in valleys or sensitive areas where undergrounding may be more impactful. • LRP reviewed the schedule noting that the Production Tax Credit will be stepping down in 2020, and because of this project needs to submit application for CPCN in 2019 in order achieve COD by end of 2020. • Stantec reviewed the reports done to date and the review conducted by USFWS and WVDNR on the Survey Work Plan.

Tier 2 Evaluation:

Page 1 of 4 Appendix P - 010 o Stantec noted that the original review area was much larger. The current project reflects Phase 1 in a much smaller area. Stantec noted that this is why they had recently requested an updated species list for the smaller area. o WVDNR noted that with smaller area, there is one record for VBEB and one record of NLEB hibernaculum (cave) within desktop species search list area. This was included in the recent WVDNR species list. WVDNR stated that they could provide additional information on the VBEB record. o WVDNR stated that there are 6 Bald Eagle nests within 10 miles. o The project is not located within a high priority area for rusty patched bumble bee. o Stantec noted that based on PCM data from other projects, nothing unique is jumping out for this project.

Biological Studies

• Stantec reviewed methods for avian point count surveys and that one bat detector was deployed on a MET tower. The point count locations were selected in accordance with ECPG. The bat detector is located on the ridgeline. • USFWS asked if any eagles had been seen? Stantec noted that they have seen eagles, but haven’t analyzed any of the data yet, so it would be premature to comment on flight patterns. • Stantec noted that the map showing red and green dots show the original point counts that were subsequently dropped (red dots) because of the revised project boundary and the ones that were kept (green). • Stantec stated that with leaves falling soon, that they will be initiating the bat hibernaculum field survey in the next month. They will be collecting data on spotted skunk, woodrat and rattlesnake habitat at the same time, as well as thinking about locations for rare bat mist-netting surveys in 2019. Eagle point counts will continue. • All of this information will be fed into the PSC application, and then supplemented with the final 2019 surveys (nighthawk survey, rare bat mist-netting). • Rusty patched bumble bee survey – Project is within dispersal area, but the project is outside the high priority zone. There is a new probable record in Mineral County and they know the bumblebee is in Mineral County. Based on this, USFWS suggests evaluating. Stantec suggests doing a habitat assessment for the bumblebee and if it exists, then do a protocol-level survey. Stantec doesn’t expect habitat to be abundant. • Stantec stated that in order to meet the project schedule, they will be using publicly-available data from adjacent existing wind projects in the area to support PSC filing.

Rare Bats:

• Stantec noted that public data from NedPower Mt Storm, Pinnacle and New Creek is being used to support pre-construction and long-term post-construction planning for bats. Stantec reviewed the data available for New Creek and Pinnacle.

Page 2 of 4 Appendix P - 011 • USFWS asked what the cut-in speed was for Pinnacle and Clearway confirmed it is 5 m/s. USFWS noted that bat mortality was high in first year for projects, and Stantec stated that is typical for first year of projects across the country but then mortality decreases in subsequent years. • USFWS is wondering why the first year of data would be high. Could it be because of methodology? • Project team is determining next steps. Avian impacts tend to be limited to migration, lighting issues, and raptor fatalities tend to be infrequent. Bat fatalities tend to be limited to long- distance migratory species, with infrequent Myotis fatalities. • A BBCS will be prepared based on pre-construction survey results, after the 2019 studies. • NLEB: can project comply with 4(d) rule? Stantec to confirm that project is not within 0.25 mile of hibernaculum/maternity roost, and if so, need to comply with tree clearing restrictions. • Stantec reviewed plan for Indiana Bat, and specifically Clearway proposal for curtailment in the event no Indiana Bats are detected during preconstruction surveys, and in the event that Indiana bats are detected. USFWS asked what the control would be for PCM studies. Stantec noted that these details have not been formalized yet, but that team wanted to hear USFWS and DNR feedback on this proposal. • Stantec noted that when you’re doing curtailment, the total number of fatalities is small so determining fatality rates is not accurate when you’re looking at one season of data from one project. The best way to determine which species is at risk is to assess multiple projects and compare them. Discussed utility of evaluating effectiveness of curtailment with other datasets from the region, looking at the site-specific data and other datasets. • USFWS thinks that an intensive monitoring on the ground is needed. Are bats being affected? Would like to see more details on the PCM plan. • Stantec asked if a research permit is needed to assess curtailment levels (5 m/s vs 6.9 m/s). USFWS has never issued research permit for any wind projects. • The TAL would be issued at 6.9 m/s. it will be hard for them to issue TAL on 5 m/s. Right now, the Region is looking at different cut-in speeds. LRP noted that Pinnacle project may have received a TAL for 5 m/s; USFWS noted that they will check into this. The Service indicated any TAL for the project would be based on project specific curtailment and PCM plan. • USFWS stated that there should be no argument to reduce to a lower cut-in speed, if you agree to a higher one and then do PCM. For the PCM plan, it was discussed that the project would use a suitable search frequency, would incorporate bias trials, and visibility class mapping, and one or more estimators would be used to estimate fatality rates. • Stantec will put together some details on the PCM and will put it together for USFWS/DNR review for discussion. USFWS sees no issues with issuing a TAL once a proposal has been finalized. • Follow-up meeting: USFWS gone Nov 11, 12 and Wed-Mon on Thanksgiving, and a few days off over Christmas. Barb will be at wind meeting in late Nov but otherwise around.

Page 3 of 4 Appendix P - 012

Page 4 of 4 Appendix P - 013 Meeting Summary: Black Rock Wind Farm Meeting with USFWS and WVDNR

Attendees: Chase Allred (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) Barbara Sargent (West Virginia Department of Natural Resources) Dave Friend (Laurel Renewable Partners) Nate Lapierre (Clearway Energy) Aarty Joshi (Clearway Energy) Bob Roy (Stantec Consulting) Joy Prescott (Stantec Consulting) Trevor Peterson (Stantec Consulting) Date: December 17, 2018, 11 am Pacific Location: Skype Meeting/Webinar Projects Discussed: Black Rock Wind Farm

This meeting was set up as a follow-up from the October 31, 2018 meeting to further discuss Clearway Energy Group’s (Clearway) planned approach to avoid impacts to bat species so that USFWS may issue a Technical Assistance Letter (TAL) in support of the Project’s Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) permit process with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia.

The meeting was initiated with a roundtable introduction by all meeting. The following bullets summarize the meeting discussion.

Construction Phase

• Biologist looked at potential hibernacula previous week based on desktop and field review. Results not available yet, but expect it very soon. A follow-up call may be scheduled with agencies to discuss results with agencies. • USFWS and DNR had no comments on planned avoidance strategy during construction.

Operation Phase

• USFWS – Why curtailment only during July 15- Sept 30? Stantec stated that its driven by the window of greatest risk for species. Most of the risk for bat species is in the late summer/fall period. This window assumes that Indiana Bats will not be found, and follows the precedent for other projects. USFWS recommends assuming July 1 – October 15, noting fatality of an Indiana bat in West Virginia outside the initially proposed window. • USFWS not opposed to this strategy – if we can find some data to support the temperature threshold for Indiana Bat, then USFWS can present this to manager for a TAL. Stantec stated that the temperature threshold (50 degree) is based on netting guidance. USFWS suggests removing the temperature threshold, so that project has the full data and then studying impact of temperature as part of alternative avoidance strategy. USFWS indicated that site-specific

Page 1 of 2 Appendix P - 014 data during operation could be used to justify inclusion of a temperature threshold for the long- term avoidance plan. • DNR is agreement with USFWS comments.

Monitoring

• USFWS asked if wildlife approach would be used to determine species composition – why would only one year of study be done, would that sample size be too small? Stantec stated that it wouldn’t be explicit estimation of Indiana Bat fatality, but rather total bat fatality. Stantec stated that fatalities, if any, are expected at 6.9 m/s. Because this project wouldn’t be operating in a vacuum and there would be data available from other sites, other data would be available to consider. • USFWS – when you say there is other data, what other data do you have that assumes similar monitoring assumptions? Stantec does not have data for other projects in WV, but they expect that additional state data will be available; they do have other data from other states. • Stantec stated that they do not expect to find Indiana Bat and assume that 6.9 m/s curtailment will result in very low levels of bat fatality, which is why only one year of data is proposed. If another year is needed, then that decision will be made then. Clearway would consult with agencies when the data is available after each year. • USFWS asked team to consider that you would only have a bat per turbine metric for Year 1 but not for Year 2 if no fatality monitoring occurs during Year 2.

Next Steps

• TAL possible for mid-Feb or early March at the earliest. The more detailed information we can give as part of formal proposal, the quicker it would allow for a TAL. USFWS suggests more specifics in what we are trying to accomplish in monitoring. • Bat plan to be incorporated into the BBCS, which would include approach to avoiding impacts to avian species. • One year of avian data will not be completed until May 2019; therefore, TAL to be issued for bats first, and then one later for eagles, if needed. • We can forego mist netting if Clearway adheres to tree clearing during winter months (November 15-March 31). If Clearway cannot (and want to clear between April 1-Nov 14), then mist-netting needs to be completed to confirm absence.

Page 2 of 2 Appendix P - 015

Appendix Q

Affidavit on Wildlife Permits & Stantec Certification

Appendix Q

Affidavit on Wildlife Permits PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON

Case No. ------

Black Rock Wind Force, LLC 100 California St, Suite 400 San Francisco CA 94111

Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of a Wholesale Electric Generating Facility in Mineral and Grant Counties, West Virginia

,,, AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICK SUUIVAN ·1,I,·,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO )

to wit:

I, Patrick Sullivan, after first having been duly sworn, state as follows:

1. I am the Vice President of Black Rock Wind Force, LLC, ("Black Rock"), and

I am responsible for the oversight of the complete development process for the Black Rock

Wind project under development in Grant and Mineral Counties (the "Project"), including,

among other things, oversight of the environmental permitting for the Project.

2. Through communications with experts working on the Project, I have

1 Appendix Q - 001 Appendix Q - 002 Appendix Q - 003 Appendix Q - 004 Appendix Q - 005

Appendix R

Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report

Habitat Assessment Report: Black Rock Wind Farm

Mineral and Grant Counties, West Virginia

April 15, 2019

Prepared for: Black Rock Wind Force, LLC 100 California Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 30 Park Drive Topsham, ME 04086

Project No.: 195601430

Appendix R - 001 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 METHODS ...... 1 2.1 DESKTOP ANALYSIS ...... 1 2.2 FIELD SURVEY ...... 1 2.2.1 Natural Community Reconnaissance ...... 1 2.2.2 Game Camera Surveys ...... 2

3.0 RESULTS ...... 2 3.1 DESKTOP ANALYSIS ...... 2 3.2 FIELD SURVEY ...... 2 3.2.1 Natural Community Descriptions by Project Area Location ...... 2 3.2.2 Preliminary Game Camera Results ...... 4

4.0 DISCUSSION ...... 4

5.0 REFERENCES ...... 5

LIST OF APPENDICES

FIGURES ...... A.1

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS ...... B.1

i Appendix R - 002 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Black Rock Wind Force, LLC (Black Rock), a subsidiary of Clearway Energy Group LLC (Clearway), is proposing the development of the Black Rock Wind Farm (Project) in Grant and Mineral counties, West Virginia. The Project will consist of up to 29 wind turbines, with a maximum nameplate capacity of 110 megawatts (MW), located on a ridge adjacent to other existing wind projects including the 132-turbine Mount Storm Wind Farm and Clearway’s 23-turbine Pinnacle Wind Farm. The Project would also include access roads, underground and/or aboveground collection lines, generation tie-line, substation, interconnection switch yard, operations and maintenance building, and construction staging areas.

As part of the Site Certificate Application for the Project, Black Rock contracted Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) to conduct a rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species habitat assessment. Surveys were designed to identify habitat resources including potential bat hibernacula, den sites/hibernacula for timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) (state vulnerable [WVDNR 2018b]), and den sites for Allegheny woodrats (Neotoma magister) (state concern [WVDNR 2018b]). Surveys were also intended to evaluate suitability of habitat for eastern spotted skunks (Spilogale putorius) (state imperiled [WVDNR 2018b]). The assessment included a desktop review of publicly available databases, and a field reconnaissance survey. This report summarizes the findings of those efforts. The habitat survey is part of a suite of wildlife surveys begun in summer 2018 and continuing in 2019 documenting eagle use, rare bat presence, spotted skunk presence, and seasonal patterns in bat activity.

2.0 METHODS

2.1 DESKTOP ANALYSIS

Before conducting the field reconnaissance, Stantec reviewed records in publicly available databases of abandoned mine features compiled by the Office of Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (Available at http://wvgis.wvu.edu/data/dataset.php?ID=150) and ArcGIS online viewer (available at https://arcg.is/11CWTj), focusing on any large openings or portals that could potentially serve as bat hibernacula. We also reviewed aerial imagery of the project area to identify any unusual habitat features and areas on which to focus field effort.

2.2 FIELD SURVEY

2.2.1 Natural Community Reconnaissance

During four days in December 2018, Stantec conducted a reconnaissance field survey on foot, walking along the proposed route of access roads and turbine locations. Stantec biologists walked approximately 12.7 kilometers (km) of proposed project roads (Appendix A Figure 1). Approximately 3.1 km of access roads, located on the southern portion of the western slope of the main ridge, could not be surveyed within the available time on site. Five proposed turbine locations in the south-central portion of the main turbine string could not be surveyed due to lack of property access. In these areas, we surveyed habitats along the accessible property boundaries nearest the proposed

1 Appendix R - 003 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

locations, which were on the opposite side of the ridge. Stantec recorded notes on habitat types, dominant tree and vegetation species, topography, and any features providing potential bat hibernacula or high value habitat for the other target species identified above. We photographed areas considered to provide potential habitat for any species of concern.

2.2.2 Game Camera Surveys

Stantec deployed 8 digital remotely triggered game cameras in the project area during the field visit (Appendix A Figure 1). We distributed cameras throughout the project area, with particular focus on those areas with potential use by eastern spotted skunks and Allegheny woodrats based on habitat conditions. We positioned cameras approximately 2 feet (ft) off the ground, facing an established bait station positioned 10 to 15 ft away. All bait stations (perforated cans containing sardines, with four locations also including canned cat food) were secured to a tree within view of their associated cameras.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 DESKTOP ANALYSIS

We found records of two potential portals and another area of historic mining activity within the project area, according to the abandoned mine database (Appendix A Figure 2). These locations include a mapped vertical opening just off Arnold Mine Road and near an existing residence, a “portal” near Glade Run, and a “clogged stream” in a field northwest of Arnold Mine Road.

Aerial imagery shows deciduous or mixed forest throughout most of the Project area, with areas of exposed talus and/or rock outcrops evident primarily in the northern half of the Project. Most exposed rocky habitats visible on aerial imagery are on the eastern slope of the ridge, although some occurred to the west of the northern end of the proposed access road. Existing woods roads/logging roads can be seen throughout many areas in the Project area.

3.2 FIELD SURVEY

3.2.1 Natural Community Descriptions by Project Area Location

Stantec conducted field surveys on December 10−13, 2018. The following characterizes the existing natural communities present within different locations of the project area. Representative photographs of the natural communities present are included in Appendix B.

The main ridgeline, where most of turbine locations are proposed (‘main turbine string’; Appendix A Figure 1), has characteristics typically associated with the Allegheny Front in this region. A steep eastern slope forms a stark ridgeline consisting of east-facing escarpments and short cliffs, in contrast with a more gradual western slope. The proposed access road and turbine locations on the northern portion of the main string are slightly west of the ridgeline, whereas the turbine string follows the ridgeline more closely as the access road moves southward toward the US-50/WV-42 road junction. The ridgeline in this area is a mixed deciduous forest community (Appendix B Photo 1). The dominant overstory species in this area include chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), red maple (Acer

2 Appendix R - 004 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

rubrum), red oak (Quercus rubra), and wild cherry (Prunus serotina). Wind shear has limited the heights of trees in this area to approximately 25 to 30 ft. The mid-story is moderately open and consists primarily of red oak, red maple, sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and wild cherry. Mountain-laurel (Kalmia latifolia) patches are interspersed, ranging from 20 to 75% groundcover, with increased densities in the northern portion of the main turbine string. Fields of densely-bunched, small boulders and rock shelves occur throughout most of the northern half of the Project. The amount of exposed rock increases and the ridgeline becomes flatter as the access road moves northward. Large sections of exposed talus rock are interspersed along the ridgeline in this area (Appendix B Photo 2), primarily east of the proposed access road, with no canopy cover and little or no vegetation within. The central and northern portions of this half of the main string have several large, fractured rock outcrops, forming east-facing shelves and cliffs (Appendix B Photo 3). West of the ridgeline, the forest floor is flatter and consists of fields of smaller rocks, interspersed by dense patches of mountain-laurel (Appendix B Photo 4). The amount of exposed rock decreases moving westward. Compared to elsewhere along the northern half of the ridge, the area near the existing meteorological tower has relatively little exposed rock, a moderately open understory, and a large number of snags (Appendix B Photo 5).

In the northern portion of the project area the landscape consists of a flat, uniform rock/talus field, with a powerline corridor forming the northern border. The forest habitat in this area is dominated by 8- to 16-ft sugar maple, red oak, white ash, and American elm (Ulmus americana), with a dense mid-story of wild cherry, sugar maple, and red maple (Appendix B Photo 6). There is a small stream flowing beneath the surface rock, with a couple areas of exposed water, which may flood seasonally. This area includes potential woodrat habitat but would support no other RTE species. There is also an overgrown field of grass and forbs on slanted hillside in the northern portion of the project. In this area, there is no exposed rock. The northeast side of this field runs alongside a deep, forested ravine. This location provides no suitable habitat for species of concern (Appendix B Photo 7).

A standalone string comprising three turbines west of the main ridge is located in the northern portion of the project area (‘northwest turbine string’; Appendix A Figure 1). This area consists of reclaimed strip-mine land and some wetland features were observed (Appendix B Photo 8). The eastern half of the proposed access road in this area is an open field consisting of grass and herbaceous groundcover (Appendix B Photo 9). There is an area of small rocks, comprising marginal small mammal habitat in the easternmost portion of this proposed road area. The western portion of the access road, on which all proposed turbines will be accessed, enters a tree line west of the first proposed turbine location. The trees in this area consist of young, dense stands of wild cherry, sugar maple, and red maple saplings, with occasional larger hardwood species. The area is mostly flat and has few exposed rocks or other indicators of RTE habitat.

The ridgeline of the main turbine string continues south of the US-50/WV-42 junction. The proposed access road area just south of this junction passes through an area with numerous car-sized boulders (Appendix B Photo 10). The overstory in this area is similar to that of the northern half of the main ridge, with fewer chestnut oak, and the inclusion of black oak (Quercus velutina), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), and generally larger sugar maple. The density of mountain-laurel is particularly high in this area, ranging from 50 to 75%. As the access road progresses southward, the mid-story becomes more open and the ridgeline becomes flatter. Areas with large boulders, forming loose piles and large shelves, characterize the northern half of the ridgeline south of US-50. Tree height in this portion of the ridge is limited to approximately 25 ft. Pitch pine (Pinus rigida) is occasionally interspersed within the overstory (Appendix B Photo 11). Large rock areas are not generally exposed to sunlight as they are in the northern portion of the project area. Moving southward, the main ridge becomes generally flatter, gradually sloped, and is more open

3 Appendix R - 005 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

with less mountain-laurel. The forest floor consists of dense fields of smaller rocks, interrupted by large shelves of fractured rock, 5 to 20 ft tall. While primarily west of the proposed access road, some large shelves are intersected by or run alongside it in this area.

Three proposed turbine locations form a standalone string in the southwest portion of the project area (‘southwest turbine string’; Appendix A Figure 1), west of the main ridgeline. This site is dominated by smaller chestnut oak, sugar maple, white ash (Fraxinus americana), and wild cherry, with some wetland features observed (Appendix B Photo 12). The mid-story is relatively open. The access road in the northern section of this southwest string is very closely paralleled by a sheer cliff on its east side, comprising rock shelves and wide fractures. There is a small amount of rocky habitat and mountain-laurel along the proposed road in this portion of the southwest string.

3.2.2 Preliminary Game Camera Results

Stantec checked the game cameras monthly from January to March1; there were images of 17 different mammal species and 3 bird species recorded; there were no recordings of RTE species. Species observed included American black bear (Ursus americanus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), fisher (Martes pennanti), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), American red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), mouse (family Dipodidae or Cricetidae), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), and a small woodpecker (Picoides or Leuconotopicus sp.).

Allegheny woodrat was documented at one of the 8 camera sites (camera 6). No other target mammal species were documented. Camera 6 is located at the crest of the main ridgeline of the project area, approximately 1.1 miles south of US-50/WV-42. It is an area of sloping, rocky forest that occurs commonly along the project area ridgeline.

4.0 DISCUSSION

The December 2018 field habitat reconnaissance survey was designed to identify habitat resources including potential bat hibernacula, den sites/hibernacula for timber rattlesnake and Allegheny woodrats, and the suitability of habitat for eastern spotted skunks. The majority of project access roads and turbine areas were surveyed with the exception of a small area on the southern portion of the western slope of the main ridge and five proposed turbine locations in the south-central portion of the main turbine string. In areas that could not be surveyed, we walked the habitats along the accessible property boundaries nearest the proposed locations. Therefore, the survey provides coverage of the habitats that occur throughout the project area.

Rocky talus is common in upper elevations of the Project area but does not occur at lower elevations. In some areas, talus was below a primarily deciduous forest canopy, and in other areas, talus was within open areas and exposed to sunlight. This habitat could provide day roosts and hibernacula for eastern small-footed bats (Myotis leibii) (state rare [WVDNR 2018b]) and could also provide non-traditional hibernacula for northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) (federally threatened [WVDNR 2018b]), although no particular features (e.g., cave or mine openings)

1 The game cameras will be removed in mid-April; therefore, the results from the last photo download were not available for this report.

4 Appendix R - 006 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

typically forming traditional hibernacula were observed in the survey area. There were two old mine features within the vicinity of the project area. The vertical opening off Arnold Mine Road could provide potential bat habitat despite its proximity to a residence, although we could not inspect the feature to determine whether it is still open and it was not obvious from the public road or on air photos. The clogged stream feature does not appear to be associated with any openings and does not provide potential bat hibernacula. We could not investigate the portal near Glade Run, which is located > 4,000 ft west of the nearest proposed turbine location. There are known hibernacula and maternity roost locations within 10 miles of the Project area boundary (WVDNR 2018a).

In West Virginia, timber rattlesnake habitat primarily includes deciduous forest habitats with relatively open canopy and rocky outcrops used for basking, gestation, and hibernation. Exposure to sunlight in these areas is necessary to meet gestation and shedding temperature requirements. Forest composition in much of the project area is suitable for foraging and home-range establishment of the timber rattlesnake. Portions of exposed talus rock along the northern half of the main ridge provide preferred habitat. There is moderate timber rattlesnake habitat throughout the central and southern portions of the main ridge, where there are fewer areas of exposed talus. The northern section of the stand-alone southwest turbine string contains a large cliff face and east-facing rock shelves, which may provide moderate habitat for timber rattlesnakes.

Fissures, caves, and talus slopes with southerly exposure and located in deciduous forest are preferred habitat of the Allegheny woodrat. Recent studies have found that in the Appalachian Mountains, woodrats select large, dry rock crevices with complex internal configurations and southern exposure over random crevices. Eastern spotted skunks prefer rocky areas and are found in young, dense forest stands (< 50 years old) and mature forest stands with extensive shrub cover. In West Virginia, spotted skunks are thought to occur primarily in higher elevation habitats along the Allegheny Front.

Most of the main project ridgeline and the upper portion of the western slope, where most of the access roads and turbines are proposed, consists of moderate-to-preferred habitat for both the eastern spotted skunk and Allegheny woodrat. Along the main turbine string, preferred habitat for both species is located in the northern section, the central, and south-central sections. Areas with lesser groundcover, such as exposed talus in the north-central portion of the ridgeline may provide only moderate habitat for spotted skunks, though may be of increased importance to woodrats, as these areas provide greater exposure. The southwest and northwest turbine strings both provide little preferable habitat for either species, with few areas of exposed rock and limited groundcover.

The desktop review and the field habitat reconnaissance indicate that, while suitable habitat for RTE species occurs in the project area, these habitats are representative of those that commonly occur in the region. Allegheny woodrat was detected by one of 7 cameras placed in suitable habitat along the main ridgeline of the Project area (the 8th camera was at a lower elevation).

5.0 REFERENCES

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR). 2018a Environmental Review for Natural Resources. Potential Wind Energy Facility Project: Black Rock Wind Project, Grant and Mineral Counties. Correspondence from Barbara Sargent, Environmental Coordination, dated October 29, 2018.

5 Appendix R - 007 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

WVDNR. 2018b. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species in West Virginia. . Accessed January 18, 2019.

6 Appendix R - 008 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

APPENDICES

Appendix R - 009 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

FIGURES

A.1 Appendix R - 010 ¯$$ ") ( )"

  !H northwest turbine string    V:\1956\active\195601430\03_data\gis_cad\gis\MXDs\HabitatReport\01430_01_LocationMap_11x17.mxd2019-01-22 Revised: rmack By:  !H !H  

!H  

!H  main turbine  string   !H southwest  turbine string       

!H  

Legend 0 2,500 5,000 Feet PA  Turbine Location 1:30,000 (At Original document size of 11x17) )" Substation OH !H Camera Location MD Habitat Reconnaissance Collector Access Road Project Location 195601430 WV Mineral and Grant Counties Prepared by REM on 2019-01-18 West Virginia Technical Review by GC on 2019-01-22 Independent Review by JC on 2019-01-22 Client/Project VA Clearway Energy Group, LLC KY Black Rock Wind Project

Figure No.

Notes 1 Title 1. Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 17N 2. Base map: ESRI World Topographic Map Study Area Location Map

Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.

Appendix R - 011 ¯$$ ") ( )"

     V:\1956\active\195601430\03_data\gis_cad\gis\MXDs\HabitatReport\01430_02_MineFeatures_11x17.mxd2019-01-22 Revised: rmack By:       

    (!           

(!  

Legend 0 2,500 5,000 Feet (! Abandoned Mine - Vertical Opening (WVDEP) PA 1:30,000 (At Original document size of 11x17) (! Abandoned Mine - Portal (WVDEP)

OH Abandoned Mine Lands (WVDEP AMLR) Clogged Stream (WVDEP) MD  Turbine Location )" Substation Project Location 195601430 WV Collector Mineral and Grant Counties Prepared by REM on 2019-01-18 Access Road West Virginia Technical Review by GC on 2019-01-22 Independent Review by JC on 2019-01-22 Client/Project VA Clearway Energy Group, LLC KY Black Rock Wind Project

Figure No. Notes 2 1. Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 17N 2. Vertical Opening, Portal, and Clogged Stream features were obtained from the West Title Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) Abandoned Mine Lands ArcGIS Online viewer (https://arcg.is/11CWTj). Abandoned Mine Lands features are part of the Abandoned Mine Features WVDEP Office of Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation (AMLR) dataset and were obtained from the West Virginia GIS Technical Center (WCGISTC) Data Clearinghouse. 3. Base map: ESRI World Topographic Map Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data.

Appendix R - 012 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS

B.1 Appendix R - 013 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

Photo 1. Main ridgeline, mixed deciduous forest community. Stantec. December 10−13, 2018.

Photo 2. Talus rock along the ridgeline. Stantec. December 10−13, 2018.

B.2 Appendix R - 014 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

Photo 3. Central and northern ridge, fractured rock outcrops forming east-facing shelves and cliffs. Stantec. December 10−13, 2018.

B.3 Appendix R - 015 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

Photo 4a and b. West of the ridgeline, fields of smaller rocks and dense patches of mountain- laurel. Stantec. December 10−13, 2018.

B.4 Appendix R - 016 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

Photo 5. Minimal exposed rock and snags near meteorological tower. Stantec. December 10−13, 2018.

Photo 6. WVDNR lands and Wildlife Management Area. Stantec. December 10−13, 2018.

B.5 Appendix R - 017 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

Photo 7. Northern portion of project. Stantec. December 10−13, 2018.

Photo 8. Reclaimed strip-mine land at northwest turbine string. Stantec. December 10−13, 2018.

B.6 Appendix R - 018 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

Photo 9. Eastern half of the proposed access road with grass and herbaceous groundcover. Stantec. December 10−13, 2018.

Photo 10. Large boulders south of the ridgeline. Stantec. December 10−13, 2018.

B.7 Appendix R - 019 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

Photo 11. Black oak, scarlet oak, sugar maple, pitch pine community. Stantec. December 10−13, 2018.

B.8 Appendix R - 020 HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT: BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

Photo 12a and b. Southwest turbine string with wetland and highwall area. Stantec. December 10−13, 2018.

B.9 Appendix R - 021

Appendix S

Wildlife Risk Assessment

Black Rock Wind Farm Wildlife Risk Assessment

Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia

April 10, 2019

Prepared for:

Black Rock Wind Force, LLC 100 California Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 30 Park Drive Topsham, ME 04086

Project No. 195601430

Appendix S - 001 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1 1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ...... 1

2.0 HABITAT AND POTENTIAL SPECIES OF CONCERN ...... 1 2.1.1 Desktop Review ...... 1 2.1.2 Agency Information Requests ...... 2 2.1.3 Field Reconnaissance and Ongoing Wildlife Surveys ...... 4

3.0 REGIONAL WILDLIFE SURVEY DATA SUMMARY ...... 7

4.0 AVIAN AND BAT COLLISION RISK ...... 12

5.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 20

6.0 REFERENCES ...... 21

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. National Land Cover Database Land Cover Types within the Black Rock Wind Project area, Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia...... 2 Table 2. National Wetland Inventory Wetland Types within the Black Rock Wind Project, Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia...... 2 Table 3. Species of Concern, Habitat Preference, and Likelihood of Occurrence at the Black Rock Wind Project, Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia...... 6 Table 4. Summary of available regional pre- and post-construction data...... 7 Table 5. Regional pre-construction nocturnal radar migration survey results...... 10 Table 6. Regional pre-construction diurnal raptor migration survey results...... 10 Table 7. Regional pre-construction bat acoustic survey results...... 11 Table 8. Bird and bat fatality rates observed at regional wind projects...... 13 Table 9. Proportion of bird carcasses by species type discovered during fatality searches at regional wind projects (unadjusted for searcher or carcass persistence biases)...... 15 Table 10. Proportion of bird carcasses by species found during fatality searches at regional wind projects (unadjusted for searcher or carcass persistence biases)...... 15 Table 11. Proportion of bat carcasses by species discovered during fatality searches at regional wind projects (unadjusted for searcher or carcass persistence biases)...... 16 Table 12. Proportion of bird carcasses per season found during fatality searches at regional wind projects (unadjusted for searcher or carcass persistence biases)...... 17 Table 13. Proportion of bat carcasses per season found during fatality searches at regional wind projects (unadjusted for searcher or carcass persistence biases)...... 17

CONFIDENTIAL i Appendix S - 002 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Table 14. Population estimates, and proportion of carcasses found for species of conservation concern potentially occurring in West Virginia...... 18

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Locations of Available Pre- and Post-Construction Regional Wildlife Survey Data...... 8

CONFIDENTIAL ii Appendix S - 003 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Black Rock Wind Force, LLC (Black Rock), a subsidiary of Clearway Energy Group LLC (Clearway), is proposing the development of the Black Rock Wind Farm (Project) in Grant and Mineral counties, West Virginia. The Project will consist of up to 29 wind turbines, with a maximum nameplate capacity of 110 megawatts (MW), predominantly on a ridge adjacent to other existing wind projects including the 132-turbine Mount Storm Wind Farm and Clearway’s 23- turbine Pinnacle Wind Farm. The Project would also include access roads, underground and/or aboveground collection lines, generation tie-line, substation, interconnection switch yard, operations and maintenance building, and construction staging areas.

1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

As part of the Site Certificate Application for the Project, Black Rock contracted Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) to develop a wildlife risk assessment to address potential impacts to avian, bat, and threatened and endangered wildlife species that are known or suspected to occur near the Project over the course of the year. This risk assessment considers the most relevant information to the Project from a local and regional landscape perspective.

This risk assessment summarizes notable site-specific observations made at the Project during field surveys in 2018, and publicly available information from the region including mapped habitat information, wildlife field survey results from nearby wind projects, and agency information requests. This assessment considers what is known about avian and bat collisions with turbines at nearby wind projects to evaluate potential impacts at the Project, particularly similarities or differences in proximity, landscape setting, and turbine operational parameters at those projects relative to those proposed for this Project.

2.0 HABITAT AND POTENTIAL SPECIES OF CONCERN

2.1.1 Desktop Review

Prior to on-site field investigations, Stantec reviewed the 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD; Homer et al. 2011) and the National Wetland Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2017a). For this review, we defined the Project area as a polygon encompassing the 29 proposed turbine locations and the substation location options; however, the actual Project footprint will represent a small portion of this area. The habitat or resources in this polygon are quantified in Tables 1 and 2 below.

CONFIDENTIAL 1 Appendix S - 004 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Table 1. National Land Cover Database Land Cover Types within the Black Rock Wind Project area, Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia.

Percent Project Cover Type Area (Acres)1 Area (%)1 Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 88.2 1.5% Deciduous Forest 4,442.0 73.7% Developed, Low Intensity 11.3 0.2% Developed, Medium Intensity 2.2 0.0% Developed, Open Space 294.9 4.9% Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 2.7 0.0% Evergreen Forest 77.9 1.3% Grassland/Herbaceous 14.1 0.2% Mixed Forest 48.7 0.8% Open Water 4.4 0.1% Pasture/Hay 1,022.8 17.0% Woody Wetlands 16.4 0.3% Total 6,025.7 100.0% 1Acreages account for area within Project area polygon only.

Table 2. National Wetland Inventory Wetland Types within the Black Rock Wind Project, Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia.

Percent of Project Wetland Class or System Area (Acres)1 Area (%)1 Palustrine emergent 35.4 0.6% Palustrine scrub-shrub 45.9 0.8% Palustrine unconsolidated bottom 14.4 0.2% Riverine 22.6 0.4% Total 118.3 2.0% 1Acreages account for area within Project area polygon only.

2.1.2 Agency Information Requests

2.1.2.1 WVDNR Natural Heritage Program

The West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR) maintains an ongoing inventory of rare, threatened, or endangered species occurrences in the state through their Natural Heritage Program. Stantec submitted a Natural Heritage Program data request for the Project area on October 17, 2018. Results were provided by WVDNR on

CONFIDENTIAL 2 Appendix S - 005 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

October 29, 2018 (WVDNR 2018a). Their response included records of rare or listed wildlife and plant species and significant natural communities within 10 miles of the Project area.

There are two bat hibernacula records within 10 miles of the Project area: the federally threatened northern long- eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is known to occur at the Ridgeville Cave, and there are hibernacula and maternity colony records of the federally endangered Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) from Kline Gap Cave (WVDNR 2018a).

There were six occurrences of bald eagle nests (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (no longer federally listed but protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) within 10 miles of the Project area. The closest is located approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the Project area and is associated with Linton Creek Reservoir. The next nearest is located approximately 3.3 miles northwest of the Project area, on Jennings Randolph Lake. The remaining nest occurrences are 7.25 to 10.0 miles from the Project area.

The rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis), a federally endangered species, has been documented within 3 miles of the Project area (WVDNR 2018a). A mapped high potential zone (i.e., historic occurrence) occurs north- northwest of the Project area and a primary dispersal/low potential zone surrounds the mapped high potential zone. This primary dispersal zone occurs within the approximately northern two-thirds of the Project area (USFWS 2018a, 2018c). Rusty patched bumble bees require areas that provide nectar and pollen from preferred flower species, nesting sites (underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses), and overwintering sites (undisturbed soil) for hibernating queens (USFWS 2017c).

The Allegheny woodrat (Neotoma magister), a species of concern in West Virginia, has been documented within 2 miles of the Project area (WVDNR 2018a). Suitable habitat for this species does exist in the Project area, particularly in the rocky woods located along the upper elevations of the Fore Knobs ridgeline.

There were two additional species of concern, that were not indicated by the Natural Heritage Program database as occurring in the vicinity of the Project area, but do occur in the region and both have habitat preferences that overlap with those that provided in the Project area. The timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) is listed as state vulnerable according to the West Virginia Wildlife Diversity Unit (WVDNR 2018b). Timber rattlesnakes are generally found in deciduous forests on rugged terrain. The eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) is listed as imperiled according to the West Virginia Wildlife Diversity Unit (WVDNR 2018b). Eastern spotted skunks prefer rocky areas in young, dense forest stands (< 50 years old) and mature forest stands with extensive shrub cover (NCWRC 2018).

2.1.2.2 USFWS IPaC

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) online environmental review website, Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system, was accessed to identify any federally listed species, critical habitat, migratory birds, wildlife refuges, or wetlands known or expected to occur in or near the Project area (USFWS 2018b). Stantec submitted informal and official IPaC information requests for the Project area on November 12, 2018.

According to the IPaC report, two species listed as federally endangered and one species listed as federally threatened have the potential to occur in the Project area. The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and Virginia big-eared bat are listed as federally endangered, and the northern long-eared bat is listed as federally threatened (USFWS 2018b). There is no designated USFWS critical habitat for these species or any other federally listed species in the Project area.

CONFIDENTIAL 3 Appendix S - 006 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

The IPaC report indicated six migratory bird species that may occur within the Project area and the probability that these birds may occur in the Project area (USFWS 2018b). These are birds of concern, either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or because they are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Of these species, four are considered BCC and potentially present during the breeding season: black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus practicus), bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Kentucky warbler (Geothlypis formosa), and wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina). Two species are considered non-BCC in the Project area: bald eagle, identified as potentially present year-round within the Project area, and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), identified as breeding elsewhere (USFWS 2018b).

2.1.2.3 Additional Species

Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) is a state rare species whose habitat includes caves, mines and rock crevices associated with forested mountain regions (BCI 2018b). This species has the potential to occur in the Project area according to our information review, the specie’s range and habitat preference, and the available habitat in the Project area.

WVDNR has also expressed interest in common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) in the region due to an overall lack of suitable breeding habitat in the state, which includes open forest and rocky outcroppings (June 4, 2017 meeting with WVDNR). The specie’s habitat potentially occurs in the Project area.

2.1.3 Field Reconnaissance and Ongoing Wildlife Surveys

During a late-May 2018 site visit, a Stantec biologist recorded bird species observed incidentally while traveling around the site. While the late-May site visit to the Project area was not intended to provide a complete inventory of the avian community, all but two of the bird species listed in Table 3 were seen or heard during the site visit. Bobolink were common to abundant in hayfields throughout the Project area and black-capped chickadees were commonly observed in the various habitats that this habitat generalist uses. Wood thrush were heard calling in deciduous forests in several areas and a single Kentucky warbler was heard calling near a riparian area just outside the northwestern end of the Project area. Two sub-adult bald eagles were observed over the southern portion of the Fore Knobs ridgeline. The golden eagle was the only IPaC-listed species not observed during the site visit, though this species would be unlikely to occur in the area in late-May, and it has not been observed during any of the monthly wildlife surveys currently underway in the Project area (as described below).

A habitat field reconnaissance survey was conducted in early December 2018 to identify potential habitat for state or federally listed species, or other species of concern in the Project area. Species or species’ habitats of interest included potential hibernation areas for rare bats, and habitat for Allegheny woodrat, eastern spotted skunk, timber rattlesnake, and common nighthawk. These species of interest each generally prefer rocky outcroppings or talus slopes for all or part of the year. The ridgeline is dominated by deciduous forest, with tree growth generally limited by wind shear to heights of approximately 25-30 feet. Tree species primarily include chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), red maple (Acer rubrum), red oak (Quercus rubra), wild black cherry (Prunus serotina), black oak (Quercus velutina), and scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), with pitch pine (Pinus rigida) interspersed. The shrub layer is dominated by mountain-laurel (Kalmia latifolia). Rocky talus is common in upper elevations of the Project area but does not occur at lower elevations. In some areas, talus was below a primarily deciduous forest canopy, and in other areas, talus was within open areas and exposed to sunlight. This habitat could provide day roosts and hibernacula for eastern small- footed bats and could also provide non-traditional hibernacula for northern long-eared bats, although no particular

CONFIDENTIAL 4 Appendix S - 007 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

features (e.g., cave or mine openings) typically forming traditional hibernacula were noted. This habitat could also be suitable for timber rattlesnake dens and/or Allegheny woodrat. Stantec documented suitable habitat for eastern spotted skunks throughout much of the Project area.

A series of additional surveys are currently underway or planned. Stantec began passive bat acoustic detector surveys from a central location in the Project area in summer through fall 2018; surveys will continue in spring 2019 and bat mist-net surveys targeting rare species will be conducted in late-spring and summer 2019. Stantec is conducting monthly eagle point count surveys following USFWS Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (ECPG; USFWS 2013); these surveys were initiated in summer 2018 and will continue into summer 2019. Stantec placed eight digital game cameras (baited) in locations with suitable habitat for species of concern including Allegheny woodrat, eastern spotted skunk, and timber rattlesnake; cameras will be checked regularly during winter 2018/2019. Rusty patched bumblebee surveys are planned at the Project between mid-June and mid-July 2019, following guidance in the USFWS Survey Protocols for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) Version 2.1 (USFWS Bee Protocols; USFWS 2018e).

Table 3 summarizes the species of concern for the Project, as indicated in agency responses to requests for information or other agency communications. Verification of occurrence or potential habitat was based on field visits in 2018. There are additional Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC; as designated by the USFWS) whose ranges include the Project area; however, they were not included in this summary due to an overall low likelihood of occurrence or occurrence only during brief periods (e.g., spring and fall migration).

CONFIDENTIAL 5 Appendix S - 008 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Table 3. Species of Concern, Habitat Preference, and Likelihood of Occurrence at the Black Rock Wind Project, Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia.

Likelihood of occurrence Season of potential Common Name Scientific Name Status1, 2 Habiat Preference in Project area occurrence in Project area Mammals caves, mines and rock crevices associated with eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii NL, SR likely year-round forested mountain regions beneath loose bark in dead or dying trees in forested Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E unlikely spring through fall areas beneath exfoliating bark and in tree cavities in dense northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis T possible spring through fall forest stands caves in karst regions dominated by oak-hickory or Virginia big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus E unlikely spring through fall beech-maple-hemlock forest extensive expanses of abundant, closely-spaced Allegheny woodrat Neotoma magister NL, SC surface rock surrounded by unfragmented forest with confirmed year-round outcrops, cliffs, ledges, boulder fields, or caves rocky areas and are found in young, dense forest eastern spotted skunk Spilogale putorius NL, SI stands (< 50 years old) and mature forest stands with possible year-round extensive shrub cover Birds bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Non-BCC, BGEPA large water bodies with fish confirmed year-round

deciduous and mixed forests, open woods, parks, black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus practicus BCC confirmed year-round willow thickets spring and fall migration, bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus BCC grasslands confirmed summer common nighthawk Chordeiles minor NL open forests, rock outcroppings likely summer golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Non-BCC, BGEPA grasslands, open country, large bogs unlikely spring and fall migration

summer, spring and fall Kentucky warbler Geothlypis formosa BCC dense shaded understory of mature deciduous forests confirmed migration summer, spring and fall wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina BCC deciduous and mixed forests with moderate understory confirmed migration Reptiles timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus NL, SV open, rocky ledges and forest habitats possible year-round Insects areas that provide nectar and pollen from preferred rusty patched bumble bee Bombus affinis FE flower species, nesting sites, and overwintering sites for possible year-round hibernating queens 1 Species listed as Federally Endangered (E), Threatened (T), not federally listed (NL), Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) or Non-BCC, (BGEPA) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 2 West Virginia does not currently have state threatened and endangered species legislation; rather species at risk are ranked as State Concern (SC), State Vulnerable (SV), State Rare (SR), or State Imperiled (SI). The only species listed as threatened or endangered in the state are those that are federally listed.

CONFIDENTIAL 6 Appendix S - 009 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

3.0 REGIONAL WILDLIFE SURVEY DATA SUMMARY

The results of nocturnal radar bird and bat migration, diurnal raptor migration, and bat acoustic surveys from other wind projects in the area were reviewed. These projects are proximal to the Project and generally occur within similar landscape settings and habitats (Table 4; Figure 1). Consequently, results from these locations provide additional information and context regarding the wildlife communities in the region and potential use of the Project area.

Table 4. Summary of available regional pre- and post-construction data.

Post- Distance Pre-Construction from Construction Project State Project Nighttime Raptor Bat Fatality Area (km) Radar Migration Acoustic Survey Data Mount Storm Wind 0 -- -- Power Project WV fall 2003 2008–2011 Dans Mountain fall 2004, spring -- -- Wind Project PA 32.5 2005 fall 2005 Liberty Gap Wind fall 2004, spring fall 2004, -- -- Project WV 94.5 2005 spring 2005 Preston Wind Development ------Project WV n/a fall 2005 Highland New Wind Development ------Project VA 103.6 fall 2005 Laurel Mountain spring 2007, fall spring 2007, fall spring 2007, Wind Energy Project WV 62.6 2007 2007 fall 2007 2011–2016 fall 2007, New Creek Wind fall 2007, spring fall 2007, spring spring–fall -- Project WV 4.5 2008 2008 2008 fall 2007, spring 2012, 2013, -- -- Pinnacle WV 6.1 2008 2015 2000–2003, ------Buffalo Mountain TN 573.4 2005 Criterion MD 14.6 ------2011–2013 Mountaineer WV 26.7 ------2003, 2004

CONFIDENTIAL 7 Appendix S - 010 Highland

Pennsylvania

Dan's Mountain (Proposed) Maryland

Criterion Pinnacle Black Rock Mount Storm Phase 2 Project Area (Permitted) New Mountaineer Creek

Mount Storm West Virginia Phase 1

Laurel Mountain

Virginia

Liberty Gap Buffalo Mountain (Proposed) Anderson County, TN  573.4 KM Southwest

0 20 Legend Miles $$ PA Black Rock Project Area (At original document size of 8.5x11) ¯ 1:1,267,200 ( OH NJ MD WV Project Location Prepared by GC on 2019-01-11 VA Mineral and Grant Counties Reviewed by BR on 2019-01-11 KY West Virginia Client/Project 195601430 Clearway Energy Group, LLC Notes Black Rock Wind Project 1. Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 17N Risk Assessment 2. Data Sources: USGS United States Wind Turbine Database. Figure No. 3. Background: ESRI World Toppgraphy Base Map 1 Title Project Locations of Available Pre- and Post-Construction Regional Wildlfe

V:\1956\active\195601430\03_data\gis_cad\gis\MXDs\RiskAssessment\01430_01_OtherStudySites.mxd Revised: 2019-04-11 By: gcarpentier By: V:\1956\active\195601430\03_data\gis_cad\gis\MXDs\RiskAssessment\01430_01_OtherStudySites.mxdRevised: 2019-04-11 Survey Data

Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifyingAppendix the accuracy andS -completeness 011 of the data. BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Pre-construction radar survey results were compiled from seven wind project sites in the region from fall 2003 through spring 2008. Average nightly passage rates ranged from 188 to 1,020 targets/kilometers/hour (t/km/hr), and the average passage rate for all projects per season combined was 433 t/km/hr. Average flight heights of targets ranged from 354 meters (m) to 583 m, and the average flight heights for all projects per season combined was 474 m. Percentages of targets below turbine height ranged from 3% to 17%, and the average percentage of targets below turbine height for all projects per season combined was 11% (Table 5). Due to the similar regional location, and habitat and landscape features that characterize these regional projects and Black Rock, and because nocturnal migrants travel in a broad-front fashion through the region, these results represent the level of nocturnal migration activity and flight heights that are expected over the Project area.

Pre-construction raptor migration survey results were compiled from three wind project sites in the region from spring 2007 through spring 2008. Seasonal average passage rates ranged from 3.12 to 8.60 raptors per hour (raptors/hr), and the average seasonal passage rate for all projects per season combined was 5.38 raptors/hr. Percentages of raptors observed below turbine height ranged from 55% to 86%, and the average percentage of raptors below turbine height for all projects per season combined was 71% (Table 6). Due to the similar regional location, and habitat and landscape features that characterize these regional projects and Black Rock, and because of the typical flight behaviors and topographical features raptors use while migrating, these results represent the level of raptor migration activity and flight heights that are expected over the Project area.

Pre-construction bat acoustic survey results were compiled from four wind project sites in the region from fall 2004 through fall 2008. The number of calls per site ranged from 2 to 19,073, and the average number of calls for all projects per season combined was 1,822. Call rates ranged from 0.1 calls/detector night to 131.5 calls/detector night, and the average call rates for all projects per season combined was 22.8 calls/detector night (Table 7). Due to the similar regional location, and habitat and landscape features that characterize these regional projects and Black Rock, these results represent the relative level of bat activity that is expected at the Project area.

CONFIDENTIAL 9 Appendix S - 012 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Table 5. Regional pre-construction nocturnal radar migration survey results.

Range in Average Average Flight Average (Turbine Height) Number of Number of Project Site Location Landscape Nightly Passage Rate Direction Flight Height % Targets Below Reference Survey Nights Survey Hours Passage Rates (t/km/hr) (Azimuth) (m) Turbine Height Fall 2003 Mount Storm Wind Power Project Grant County, WV Forested ridge 40 360 8–852 199 184 410 (125 m) 16% Young et al. 2004 Fall 2004 Dans Mountain Wind Project Allegany County, MD Forested ridge 34 318 2–633 188 193 542 (125 m) 11% Woodlot 2004 Liberty Gap Wind Project Pendleton County, WV Forested ridge 34 349 7–926 229 175 583 (125 m) 8% Woodlot 2005a Spring 2005 Dans Mountain Wind Project Allegany County, MD Forested ridge 23 189 63–1,388 493 38 541 (125 m) 15% Woodlot 2005b Liberty Gap Wind Project Pendleton County, WV Forested ridge 21 204 34–1,240 457 53 492 (125 m) 11% Woodlot 2005c Fall 2005 Preston Wind Development Project Preston County, WV Forested ridge 26 n/a n/a 379 n/a 420 (125 m) 10% Plissner et al. 2006a Highland New Wind Development Project Highland County, VA Forested ridge 58 n/a n/a 385 n/a 442 (125 m) 12% Plissner et al. 2006b Spring 2007 Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV Forested ridge 20 197 13–646 277 27 533 (130 m) 3% Stantec 2007a Fall 2007 Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV Forested ridge 20 212 76–513 321 209 533 (130 m) 6% Stantec 2007b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV Forested ridge 20 n/a 263–1,683 811 231 360 (130 m) 17% Stantec 2008a Spring 2008 New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV Forested ridge 20 n/a 289–2,610 1,020 30 354 (130 m) 13% Stantec 2008b Average 433 127 474 11% Median 379 175 492 11% Minimum 188 27 354 3% Maximum 1,020 231 583 17% Table 6. Regional pre-construction diurnal raptor migration survey results.

Seasonal Number of Number of Total Number of (Turbine Height) Average Project Site Location Landscape Survey Period Survey Survey Number Species % Raptors Below Reference Passage Rate Days Hours Observed Observed Turbine Height (raptors/hr) Spring 2007 Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV Forested ridge March 30–May 17 10 63.75 266 12 4.17 (125 m) 55% Stantec 2007b Fall 2007 Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV Forested ridge Sept 12–Dec 1 24 147 769 12 5.20 (125 m) 65% Stantec 2007c New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV Forested ridge Sept 12–Dec 1 27 145 858 13 5.90 (125 m) 67% Stantec 2008a Pinnacle Wind Farm Mineral County, WV Forested ridge Sept 1–Dec 15 87 699 5,980 16 8.60 (125 m) 83% Kerlinger 2009 Spring 2008 New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV Forested ridge March 21–May 14 10 68 212 9 3.12 (125 m) 68% Stantec 2008b Pinnacle Wind Farm Mineral County, WV Forested ridge March 2–Apr 29 45 406 2,172 14 5.30 (125 m) 86% Kerlinger 2009 Average 1,710 13 5.38 71% Median 769 12 5.20 67% Minimum 212 9 3.12 55% Maximum 5,980 16 8.60 86%

CONFIDENTIAL 10 Appendix S - 013 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Table 7. Regional pre-construction bat acoustic survey results.

Rate Detector Height Detector No. (calls/ Project Project Location Landscape Start End Reference Location (m) Nights Calls detector night) Fall 2004 Liberty Gap Wind Project Pendleton County, WV forest edge met tower 15 14 Sep Nov 168 12.0 Woodlot 2005a Liberty Gap Wind Project Pendleton County, WV forest edge met tower 30 14 Sep Nov 165 11.8 Woodlot 2005a Spring 2005 Liberty Gap Wind Project Pendleton County, WV forest edge met tower 30 21 4/17 6/7 2 0.1 Woodlot 2005c Liberty Gap Wind Project Pendleton County, WV forest edge met tower 15 21 4/17 6/7 19 0.9 Woodlot 2005c Fall 2005 Dans Mountain Wind Project Allegany County, MD forest edge met tower 11 53 8/1 9/22 574 10.8 Woodlot 2005d Dans Mountain Wind Project Allegany County, MD forest edge met tower 23 31 8/1 9/22 388 12.5 Woodlot 2005d Spring 2007 Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV forest edge met tower 45 42 4/6 5/31 397 9.5 Stantec 2007a Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV forest edge met tower 20 55 4/6 5/31 267 4.9 Stantec 2007a Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV forest edge tree 2 58 4/4 5/31 278 4.8 Stantec 2007a Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV forest edge met tower 45 17 5/15 5/31 384 22.6 Stantec 2007a Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV forest edge met tower 20 17 5/15 5/31 124 7.3 Stantec 2007a Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV forest edge tree 2 41 4/4 5/14 938 22.9 Stantec 2007a Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV forest edge tree 2 13 5/2 5/14 478 36.8 Stantec 2007a Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV stream stream 2 50 4/12 5/31 2,558 51.2 Stantec 2007a Fall 2007 Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV stream tree 2 100 7/11 10/25 1,813 18.1 Stantec 2007c Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV forest edge met tower 20 145 6/1 10/23 19,073 131.5 Stantec 2007c Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV forest edge met tower 45 140 6/1 10/23 8,267 59.1 Stantec 2007c Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV forest edge tree 2 94 7/11 10/24 5,054 53.8 Stantec 2007c Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV forest edge met tower 20 134 6/13 10/24 5,792 43.2 Stantec 2007c Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project Randolph and Barbour Counties, WV forest edge met tower 45 144 6/3 10/24 1,843 12.8 Stantec 2007c New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge tree 0 66 8/4 10/23 1,124 17.0 Stantec 2008a New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV talus slope talus slope 0 41 8/4 10/23 2,421 59.0 Stantec 2008a New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge met tower 50 49 8/4 10/23 197 4.0 Stantec 2008a New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge met tower 20 66 8/4 10/23 812 12.3 Stantec 2008a Spring 2008 New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge tree 1.5 27 4/11 5/14 256 9.5 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV talus slope talus slope 0 29 4/11 5/14 387 13.3 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge met tower 40 34 4/11 5/14 64 1.9 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge met tower 20 28 4/11 5/14 125 4.5 Stantec 2008b Summer 2008 New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge tree 1.5 82 5/15 8/14 3,039 37.1 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV talus slope talus slope 0 87 5/15 8/14 4,783 55 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge met tower 40 85 5/15 8/14 414 4.9 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge met tower 20 92 5/15 8/14 854 9.3 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge met tower 40 42 5/15 8/14 315 7.5 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge met tower 20 64 5/15 8/14 1,070 16.7 Stantec 2008b Fall 2008 New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge tree 1.5 64 8/15 10/17 2,449 38.3 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV talus slope talus slope 0 64 8/15 10/17 2,292 35.8 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge met tower 40 64 8/15 10/17 585 9.1 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge met tower 20 64 8/15 10/17 1,082 16.9 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge met tower 40 58 8/15 10/17 617 10.6 Stantec 2008b New Creek Wind Project Grant County, WV forest edge met tower 20 64 8/15 10/17 1,423 22.2 Stantec 2008b Average 1,822 22.8 Median 601 12.7 Minimum 2 0.1 Maximum 19,073 131.5

CONFIDENTIAL 11 Appendix S - 014 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

4.0 AVIAN AND BAT COLLISION RISK

The purpose of this collision risk assessment was to investigate the potential risk that the Project may pose to birds and bats based on observed fatality rates at operational wind projects in the region. For this analysis, fatality data from 6 wind projects in West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, and Tennessee from 2000 to 2016 were compiled Table 4; Figure 1). Bird fatality rates in the region ranged from 0.40 to 16.55 birds per turbine per study period (birds/turbine/period), and the average and median bird fatality rates were 5.51 and 4.90 birds/turbine/period, respectively (Table 8). Bat fatality rates in the region ranged from 1.40 to 119.21 bats per turbine per study period (bats/turbine/period), and the average and median bat fatality rates were 26.59 and 18.34 bats/turbine/period, respectively (Table 8). While the Pinnacle wind project in West Virginia observed the highest regional bat fatality rate in 2012, the project had not yet implemented curtailment. During consecutive years of monitoring at Pinnacle, when the project was testing the effectiveness of different curtailment regimes to reduce bat fatality, bat fatality was as low as 13.05 bats/turbine/period (below the average and median regional bat fatality rates) (Table 8).

CONFIDENTIAL 12 Appendix S - 015 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Table 8. Bird and bat fatality rates observed at regional wind projects.

Survey Bats/turbine/ Birds/turbine/ Estimator Site Year Search Interval Curtailment treatment Reference Timeframe study period study period Used October 1– 2000-2001 none 19.99 n/a Fiedler 2004 September 30 twice weekly between Apr 1 - October 1– Nov 1, weekly Fiedler 2004, 2001-2002 none 13.6 - 19.491 7.7 Johnson et al. Buffalo September 30 during Mar and Nicholson 2003 Mountain, Nov, bi-weekly Tennessee October 1– during Dec-Feb 2002-2003 none 22.99 n/a Fiedler 2004 September 30

April 5– 2005 weekly none 63.90 1.80 Johnson et al. Fiedler et al. 2007 December 20

April 5– 2011 daily none 39.03 16.01 Huso Young et al. 2012 November 15

April 1– 2012 weekly none 19.50 5.47 Huso Young et al. 2013 November 15 2012 Criterion, July 15– all turbines had 5.0 m/s cut-in curtailment weekly 10.97 n/a Huso Young et al. 2013 Maryland October 15 speed study April 2– 2013 weekly 13.3 8.74 Huso Young et al. 2014 November 15 none 2013 July 15– all turbines had 5.0 m/s cut-in curtailment weekly 12.3 n/a Huso Young et al. 2014 October 15 speed study approx. 1.5 April 4– Curry and Kerlinger 2003 searches per none 47.53 4.04 Shoenfeld November 11 2004 Mountaineer, week West Virginia July 31– daily and 2004 none 38.00 n/a unknown Arnett et al. 2005 September 13 weekly

daily none 24.21 3.81 July 18– 2008 Erickson et al. Young et al. 2009 October 15 weekly none 7.76 2.41

March–June; cited in Young et al. 2009 2 daily unknown 28.60 8.70 Erickson et al. July–October 2013 Mount Storm, West Virginia from July - October, 8 turbines had 4.0m/s cut-in speed for 1st 1/2 of cited in Young et al. 2010 2 April–October daily night, 8 turbines had 4.0m/s cut-in 32.40 6.70 Erickson et al. 2013, Young et al. speed for 2nd 1/2 of night, 8 2011a turbines without curtailment3 cited in Young et al. 2011 2 April–October daily unknown 14.90 8.00 Erickson et al. 2013, Young at al. 2011b March 1– Shoenfeld, 2012 weekly 96.47 - 119.214 9.58 - 16.554 Hein et al. 2013b November 30 none Huso 4 turbines had 5.0 m/s cut-in speed 2012 from sunset to sunrise, 4 turbines July 15–30 curtailment daily had 5.0m/s cut-in speed for 1st 4 not reported not reported n/a Hein et al. 2013a September study hrs past sunset, 4 turbines without curtailment. Treatment A: 4 turbines fully Treatment A: Treatment A: operational at 3.0 m/s cut-in speed 90.9, 2.19, July 15 - 30 (control); Treatment B: 4 turbines Treatment B: Treatment B: 2013 daily Huso Hein et al. 2014 Pinnacle, West September fully feathered at 5.0 m/s cut-in 38.4, 2.26, Virginia speed; Treatment C: 4 turbines fully Treatment C: Treatment C: feathered at 6.5 m/s cut-in speed. 23.0 0.88 Treatment A: 5 turbines fully feathered at 5.0 m/s based on 10- min average at met tower; Treatment A: Treatment B: 5 turbines fully 17.18, July 15 - 30 feathered at 5.0 m/s based on 20- Treatment B: 2015 daily not reported Huso Hein et al. 2016 September min average at met tower; 13.05, Treatment C: 5 turbines fully Treatment C: feathered at 5.0 m/s based on 20- 30.75 min average from anemometer at ind'l turbines. 2011 August 15– 1/3 of turbines had 3.5 m/s cut-in (curtailment 3-day 7.8 5.6 Shoenfeld Stantec 2013 October 31 speed group 1) 2011 August 15– 1/3 of turbines had 4.5 m/s cut-in (curtailment 3-day 3.3 5.0 Shoenfeld Stantec 2013 October 31 speed group 2) 2011 August 15– 1/3 of turbines operated without 3-day 12.0 8.1 Shoenfeld Stantec 2013 (control) October 32 curtailment Laurel 2012 1/2 of turbines had 4.5 m/s cut-in Mountain, West (curtailment April 1–July 31 3-day 3.3 0.4 Shoenfeld Stantec 2013 speed Virginia group) 2012 1/2 of turbines operated without April 1–July 31 3-day 11.4 0.9 Shoenfeld Stantec 2013 (control) curtailment

April 1– sliding scale: cut-in wind speeds 2013 3-day 1.4 3.4 Shoenfeld Stantec 2014 November 15 higher with temp increase

April 1– sliding scale: cut-in wind speeds 2014 3-day 1.9 4.9 Shoenfeld Stantec 2015 November 15 higher with temp increase

CONFIDENTIAL 13 Appendix S - 016 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Survey Bats/turbine/ Birds/turbine/ Estimator Site Year Search Interval Curtailment treatment Reference Timeframe study period study period Used April 1– sliding scale: cut-in wind speeds 2015 3-day 2.1 2.5 Shoenfeld Stantec 2016 November 15 higher with temp increase

May 1–October sliding scale: cut-in wind speeds 2016 3-day 3.3 2.2 Shoenfeld Stantec 2017 31 higher with temp increase

Average 26.59 5.51 Median 18.34 4.90 Minimum 1.40 0.40 Maximum 119.21 16.55 1 Studies reference 2 different estimates. 2 Estimates were derived from combining the results of separate spring and fall estimates. 3 Separate estimates were not given for different curtailment groups. 4 Two different estimators were used.

CONFIDENTIAL 14 Appendix S - 017 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Among birds found during fatality searches (with numbers unadjusted for searcher or carcass persistence biases), passerines (83.33%) followed by unknown birds (3.80%) represented the bird types most commonly found (Table 9).

Table 9. Proportion of bird carcasses by species type discovered during fatality searches at regional wind projects (unadjusted for searcher or carcass persistence biases).

Bird Type No. of Individuals Percentage Passerines 680 83.33 Unknown Bird 31 3.80 Vultures 27 3.31 Diurnal Raptors 26 3.19 Hummingbirds/Swifts 15 1.84 Waterfowl 11 1.35 Upland Game Birds 10 1.23 Woodpeckers 6 0.74 Doves/Pigeons 4 0.49 Waterbirds 2 0.25 Loons/Grebes 1 0.12 Shorebirds 1 0.12 Nightjars 1 0.12 Kingfishers 1 0.12

Among bird species found during fatality searches in the region, red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus; 19.49%), blackpoll warbler (Setophaga striata; 5.27%), and yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata; 4.66%) were the most commonly found (Table 10).

Table 10. Proportion of bird carcasses by species found during fatality searches at regional wind projects (unadjusted for searcher or carcass persistence biases).

Species¹ Scientific Name No. of Individuals² Percentage red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus 159 19.49 blackpoll warbler Setophaga striata 43 5.27 yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata 38 4.66 unidentified passerine Passerformes (fam, gen, sp) 36 4.41 golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa 33 4.04 magnolia warbler Setophaga magnolia 30 3.68 yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 28 3.43 turkey vulture Cathartes aura 27 3.31 wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina 20 2.45

CONFIDENTIAL 15 Appendix S - 018 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Species¹ Scientific Name No. of Individuals² Percentage red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 19 2.33 black-throated blue warbler Setophaga caerulescens 18 2.21 unidentified bird n/a 16 1.96 black-throated green warbler Setophaga virens 13 1.59 unidentified bird (small) n/a 13 1.59 Cape May warbler Setophaga tigrina 12 1.47 common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 12 1.47 Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus 12 1.47 rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 11 1.35 chestnut-sided warbler Setophaga pensylvanica 10 1.23 ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 10 1.23 1Only included species for which 10 or greater carcasses were discovered during regional fatality searches. 2Combined totals for 6 regional projects (not adjusted for observer or persistence biases).

Among bat species found during fatality searches in the region, eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis; 38.48%), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus; 28.67%), and tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus; 11.82%) were the most commonly found (Table 11).

Table 11. Proportion of bat carcasses by species discovered during fatality searches at regional wind projects (unadjusted for searcher or carcass persistence biases).

Species Scientific Name No. of Individuals¹ Percentage eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis 1,338 38.48 hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus 997 28.67 tricolored bat Perimyotis subflavus 411 11.82 silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 371 10.67 little brown bat Myotis lucifugus 163 4.69 big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus 150 4.31 unidentified bat n/a 29 0.83 northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis 7 0.20 Seminole bat Lasiurus seminolus 6 0.17 unidentified myotis Myotis sp. 2 0.06 unidentified bat (non-myotis) n/a 2 0.06 Indiana bat Myotis sodalis 1 0.03 ¹ Combined totals for 6 regional projects (not adjusted for observer or persistence biases).

CONFIDENTIAL 16 Appendix S - 019 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

There were 592 bird carcasses and 1,806 bat carcasses for which date of discovery was available from regional studies. The greatest number of bird carcasses were found in the fall (69.59% of bird carcasses), and the greatest number of bat carcasses were found in the summer (62.46% of bat carcasses) (Table 12, Table 13).

Table 12. Proportion of bird carcasses per season found during fatality searches at regional wind projects (unadjusted for searcher or carcass persistence biases).

Season No. of Individuals1, 2 Percentage Fall 412 69.59 Spring 95 16.05 Summer 85 14.36 1Number of individuals were limited to those data available from reports that included date of carcass discovery. 2Combined total for 16 regional projects (not adjusted for observer or persistence biases).

Table 13. Proportion of bat carcasses per season found during fatality searches at regional wind projects (unadjusted for searcher or carcass persistence biases).

Season No. of Individuals1, 2 Percentage Summer 1,128 62.46 Fall 563 31.17 Spring 115 6.37 1Number of individuals were limited to those data available from reports that included date of carcass discovery. 2Combined total for 16 regional projects (not adjusted for observer or persistence biases).

Seven bird species of conservation concern and four bat species of conservation concern potentially occur in West Virginia (USFWS 2008 and 2015a, WVDNR 2018b). Table 14 specifies the population estimates and proportion of carcasses found during regional fatality studies for these species of conservation concern. The proportion of these individual species among carcasses found during regional fatality studies ranges from 0.00% to less than 0.01% (Table 14).

CONFIDENTIAL 17 Appendix S - 020 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Table 14. Population estimates, and proportion of carcasses found for species of conservation concern potentially occurring in West Virginia.

on (%) among carcasses American Population during regional fatality Species of Conservation Concern Scientific Name Status1 estimate2 studies

bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BCC, BGEPA 300,000 0.00 black-capped chickadee (S. Appalachian pop.) Poecile atricapillus BCC 41,000,000 0.00 bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus BCC 8,000,000 <0.01 common nighthawk Chordeiles minor NL 15,000,000 <0.01 golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA 130,000 0.00 Kentucky warbler Geothlypis formosa BCC 2,800,000 <0.01 wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina BCC 11,000,000 <0.01 Bats Indiana bat Myotis sodalis FE 530,7053 <0.01 northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis FT 4,000,0004 <0.01 eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii SR not available 0.00 Corynorhinus townsendii Virginia big-eared bat FE virginianus 11,000-20,0005 0.00 1 FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; SR = State Rare; SSC = State Species of Concern; BCC = Bird of Conservation Concern for USFWS Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 28; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; NL=not listed 2 Partners in Flight Database available at http://pif.birdconservancy.org/PopEstimates/Database.aspx 3 2017 United States range-wide population estimate from (USFWS 2017) 4 Midwest population estimate, study conducted prior to onset of White-nose syndrome (USFWS 2015b) 5 Global population estimate (Center for Biological Diversity 2010)

CONFIDENTIAL 18 Appendix S - 021 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Erickson et al. (2014) noted that passerines are the most abundant bird group in North America and are also the most commonly found bird type during fatality studies at wind projects. Relatively abundant species appear to represent the species more commonly found during fatality surveys at wind facilities in the region of the Project; however, abundance alone is not the only factor influencing collision risk. The literature suggests that a combination of species’ abundance, species-specific behaviors, time of year, and habitat use influence collision risk at wind farms (Smallwood et al. 2009, Erickson et al. 2014, Marques et al. 2014). Collision risk of migratory passerines with manmade structures (especially illuminated structures) is greatest at night, particularly during periods of rain or fog (Evans Ogden 1996; Kerlinger 2000).

Erickson et al. (2014) found that passerine fatality peaked in fall, followed by spring, with the fewest fatalities found in early winter. Their results suggest that collision risk of songbirds is greatest during migratory periods but also coincides with the early spring period when some species are establishing territories and engaging in courtship rituals, which may increase their risk of collision (Erickson et al. 2014). While songbirds and other bird types that only occur near a wind farm during migration are most at risk during migratory periods, resident raptors appear to be at greater risk than migrant raptors due to more frequent use of wind facilities and/or specific flight behaviors when making local flights (Marques et al. 2014).

Erickson et al. (2014) generated fatality estimates for individual passerine species based on fatality data collected during 116 fatality studies in North America. Their results indicated that the cumulative mortality per year among these wind projects represented 0.043% to 0.008% of individual species’ North American populations. The authors noted that these rates are relatively low compared to other anthropogenic sources of bird mortality; collision mortality at communication towers represents as much as 9.0% of the North American population of the species most commonly found at communication towers (Erickson et al. 2014).

Collision risk at the Project is expected to be within range of fatality rates observed at other regional projects; however, mortality may vary annually based on a range of factors including annual species productivity and survivorship and variations in annual weather patterns. The Project is located between currently operating Mount Storm and Pinnacle Wind projects, which are also located on forested ridgelines. At Mount Storm, avian fatality rates ranged from 2.41 to 8.70 birds/turbine/period, and bat fatality rates ranged from 7.76 to 28.60 bats/turbine/period. At Pinnacle, avian fatality rates ranged from 9.58 to 16.55 birds/turbine/period, and bat fatality rates ranged from 96.47 to 119.21 bats/turbine/period (Table 8).

Fatality studies in the region that have implemented operational mitigation strategies indicate that curtailment is effective in reducing bat mortality. A 2012 study at the Pinnacle Wind Farm observed a 47% reduction in bat fatalities from a 5.0 meters per second (m/s) cut-in speed compared to the control group (Hein et al. 2016). A 2013 study at Pinnacle observed, on average, a 54% and 76% reduction in bat fatalities from 5.0 m/s and 6.5 m/s cut-in treatments, respectively, compared to fully operating turbines (Hein et al 2014). At the Laurel Mountain Wind Project in 2011 a 35% and 73% reduction in bat fatalities was observed from 3.5 m/s and 4.5 m/s cut-in treatments, respectively, compared to fully operating turbines (Stantec 2013), and in 2012 a 71% reduction in bat fatalities was observed from a 4.5 m/s cut-in speed relative to a control group (operating normally) (Stantec 2013). A sliding-scale curtailment system was implemented at Laurel Mountain for 4 consecutive years of monitoring since 2012 and has documented mortality rates 86–94% lower than that originally estimated for control turbines (based on a fall 2011 and spring/summer 2012 study) (Stantec 2017). A two-year study at the Criterion Wind Project observed an

CONFIDENTIAL 19 Appendix S - 022 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

approximately 62% and 57% reduction in bat mortality during 2012 and 2013, respectively, during a portion of the year when all turbines were curtailed at 5.0 m/s (Young et al. 2014).

In addition to the reduction in overall fatality rates of bats at curtailed turbines, there is some evidence that curtailment benefits some species disproportionately more than others. Gruver and Bishop-Boros (2015) summarized the results of 182 publicly-available post-construction fatality surveys from across the United States with an emphasis on fatalities of Myotis species. They noted that at sites that were curtailing at 4.0 m/s or greater or feathering blades below normal cut-in speeds reduced the number of Myotis carcasses found by 92.8% and at sites curtailing at or 4.5 m/s or greater reduced the number of Myotis carcasses found by 94.4%.

Black Rock has proposed a 3-year curtailment regime of a 6.9 m/s cut-in speed, followed by possible modification to the regime after review of post-construction fatality data and bat activity patterns at the Project. As such, the bat fatality rate at the Project is expected to be comparable to or lower than fatality rates observed at those projects in the region that have implemented operational mitigation.

Based on the results of the fatality studies in the region, passerines are the bird group likely to comprise the majority of avian fatalities at this Project, and long-distance migratory bats such as the eastern red bat, hoary bat, and silver- haired bat, are the species likely to comprise the majority of bat fatalities at this Project. Erickson et al. (2014) suggest that species with smaller populations are more susceptible to cumulative impacts from collision with wind turbines. Species most vulnerable to collision-related impacts would include populations already at risk, such as those species listed as endangered or threatened at either a federal or state level. To-date, there has been no significant impact to any one passerine species’ population due to collision mortality at wind projects in North America; even for those passerine species of conservation concern found during fatality searches in North America, 0.016% or less of these species’ populations were impacted (Erickson et al. 2014).

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

On-site field surveys and a review of available information indicate that wildlife habitat in the Project area is representative of the region. No unique features such as cave or mine openings indicative of typical hibernation sites for the federally endangered Indiana bat or federally threatened northern long-eared bat were observed in the Project area in 2018. Rocky forested habitat and talus slopes along the ridgeline of the Project area does represent suitable habitat for a number of species of concern, particularly species of state concern, such as Allegheny woodrat, timber rattlesnake, and spotted skunks. Similarly, however, those areas are representative of the region and similar habitats occur elsewhere along the Fore Knobs ridgeline, adjacent ridges, and this part of the overall Allegheny Front region. Impacts to these areas from the project are expected to be relatively limited in nature and minimized to the extent practicable.

Comparison of the habitat and setting with other nearby wind projects indicates that the Project likely receives relatively similar use by the avian, bat and other wildlife communities documented at those sites. As such, effects of the Project to birds and bats is likely to be similar to that at other sites and the avian and bat fatality rates from those sites may provide an indication of fatality rates at the Project. Given that most of the other projects with available post-construction data are operating under different operational conditions (i.e., curtailment with different cut-in wind speeds) there may be some variation between the Black Rock Project and those other sites. However, Black Rock is

CONFIDENTIAL 20 Appendix S - 023 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

currently proposing a 3-year curtailment plan that exceeds the curtailment parameters of those other projects. During that time, bat fatalities are expected to be lower than those other projects. Following that 3-year period the Project may develop an alternative curtailment regime designed to maintain a restricted impact to bats while reducing overall economic costs associated with the lost production of curtailment.

6.0 REFERENCES

Arnett, E. B., W. P. Erickson, J. Kerns, J. Horn. 2005. Relationships 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. A final report prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. June 2005.

Bat Conservation International [BCI]. 2018a. Species Profile: Myotis septentrionalis. http://www.batcon.org/resources/media-education/species-profiles/detail/2306.

_____. 2018b. Species Profile: Myotis leibii. http://www.batcon.org/resources/media-education/species- profiles/detail/2014.

Center for Biological Diversity. 2010. Petition for rulemaking to enact immediate cave closures to protect bat species from white-nose syndrome; to promulgate a rule governing the “take” of endangered bat species; and to designate as significant all caves on federal lands in the continental United States. January 21, 2010. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/bat_crisis_white-nose_syndrome/pdfs/Cave-petition-01-21- 2010.pdf.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2018. All About Birds. https://www.allaboutbirds.org. Accessed 12 November 2018.

Curry and Kerlinger, LLC. 2004. A study of Bird and Bat Collision Fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual Report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee.

Erickson, W.P., M. M. Wolfe, K. J. Bay, D. H. Johnson, J. Gehring. 2014. A Comprehensive Analysis of Small- Passerine Fatalities from Collision with Turbines at Wind Energy Facilities. PlosOne, Vol. 9 Issue 9: 1-18.

Evans Ogden, L. J. 1996. Collision Course: The Hazards of Lighted Structures and Windows to Migrating Birds. Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP). 3. Available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/flap/3.

Fiedler, J. K. 2004. Assessment of Bat Mortality and Activity at Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, Eastern Tennessee.

Fiedler, J.K, T. H. Henry, R. D. Tankersley, and C. P. Nicholson. 2007. Results of Bat and Bird Mortality Monitoring at the Expanded Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, 2005.

Gruver, J. and L. Bishop-Boros. 2015. Summary and Synthesis of Myotis Fatalities at Wind Facilities with a Focus on Northeastern North America. Prepared for: EDP Renewables North America. April 13, 2015.

CONFIDENTIAL 21 Appendix S - 024 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Hein, C.D., A. Prichard, T. Mabee, M.R. Shirmacher. 2013a. Avian and Bat Post-construction Monitoring at the Pinnacle Wind Farm, Mineral County, West Virginia, 2012. Prepared for Edison Mission Energy.

Hein, C.D., A. Prichard, T. Mabee, M.R. Shirmacher. 2013b. Effectiveness of an Operational Mitigation Experiment to Reduce Bat Fatalities at the Pinnacle Wind Farm, Mineral County, West Virginia, 2012. April 2013.

Hein, C.D., A. Prichard, T. Mabee, M.R. Shirmacher. 2014. Efficacy of an Operational Minimization Experiment to Reduce Bat Fatalities at the Pinnacle Wind Farm, Mineral County, West Virginia, 2013. An annual report submitted to Edison Mission Energy and the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA.

Hein, C.D., A. Prichard, T. Mabee, M.R. Shirmacher. 2016. Evaluating a Novel Approach to Optimize Operational Minimization to Reduce Bat Fatalities at the Pinnacle Wind Farm, Mineral County, West Virginia, 2015. An annual report submitted to NRG Energy and the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas, USA.

Homer, C.G., J.A. Dewitz, L. Yang, S. Jin, P. Danielson, G. Xian, J. Coulston, N.D. Herold, J.D. Wickham, and K. Megown. 2011. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States- Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5. . Accessed November 12, 2018.

Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian Mortality at Communication Towers: A Review of Recent Literature, Research, and Methodology. Prepared for: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Migratory Bird Management. 31 pages + appendices.

Kerlinger, P. 2009. Avian Risk Assessment for the Pinnacle Wind Power Project, Mineral County, West Virginia. Prepared for Pinnacle Wind Force, LLC. February 2009.

Marques, A. T., H. Batalha, S. Rodrigues, H. Costa, M. J. R. Pereira, C. Fonseca, M. Mascarenhas, and J. Bernardino. 2014. Understanding bird collisions at wind farms: An updated review on the causes and possible mitigation strategies. Biological Conservation 179 (2014) 40–52.

Nicholson, C. P. 2003. Buffalo Mountain Windfarm Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring Report, October 2001 - September 2002. February 2003.

New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2018. Timber Rattlesnake Fact Sheet. https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7147.html

North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). 2018. Eastern Spotted Skunk: North Carolina Wildlife Profiles. https://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Learning/documents/Profiles/Mammals/Spotted_Skunk_Wildlife%20Profi le_2018_FINAL.pdf

Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC). 2014. Allegheny Woodrat. https://www.pgc.pa.gov/Wildlife/EndangeredandThreatened/Pages/AlleghenyWoodrat.aspx

CONFIDENTIAL 22 Appendix S - 025 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

Plissner, J.H., T.J. Mabee, and B.A. Cooper. 2006a. A radar and visual study of nocturnal bird and bat migration at the proposed Preston Wind Development Project, Virginia, Fall 2005. Report to Highland New Wind Development, LLC.

Plissner, J.H., T.J. Mabee, and B.A. Cooper. 2006b. A radar and visual study of nocturnal bird and bat migration at the proposed Highland New Wind Development project, Virginia, Fall 2005. Report to Highland New Wind Development, LLC.

Sibley, D. 2003. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Eastern North America. A. A. Knopf. New York, USA.

Smallwood K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 73, No. 7, pp. 1082-1098.

Stantec Consulting Services Inc [Stantec]. 2007a. A Spring 2007 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project near Elkins, West Virginia. Prepared for AES Laurel Mountain, LLC.

_____. 2007b. A Spring 2007 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project near Elkins, West Virginia. Prepared for AES Laurel Mountain, LLC. November 2007.

_____. 2007c. A Fall 2007 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project near Elkins, West Virginia. Prepared for AES Laurel Mountain, LLC.

_____. 2008a. A Fall 2007 Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the New Creek Wind Project, West Virginia. Prepared for AES New Creek, LLC.

_____. 2008b. Spring, Summer, and Fall 2008 Bird and Bat Migration Survey Report: Visual, Radar, and Acoustic Bat Surveys for the New Creek Mountain Project. Prepared for AES New Creek, LLC.

_____. 2013. Fall 2011 and Spring/Summer 2012 Post-construction Monitoring Data Report for the Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project in Randolph and Barbour Counties, West Virginia. Prepared for AES Laurel Mountain Wind, LLC.

_____. 2014. 2013 Bird and Bat Post-construction Monitoring report - Report for Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project in Randolph and Barbour Counties, West Virginia. Prepared for AES Laurel Mountain Wind, LLC. January 2014.

_____. 2015. 2014 Bird and Bat Post-construction Monitoring Report - Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project, Randolph and Barbour Counties, West Virginia. Prepared for AES Laurel Mountain Wind, LLC. January 2015.

_____. 2016. 2015 Bird and Bat Post-construction Monitoring Report - Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project, Randolph and Barbour Counties, West Virginia. Prepared for AES Laurel Mountain Wind, LLC. January 2016.

CONFIDENTIAL 23 Appendix S - 026 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

_____. 2017. 2016 Bird and Bat Post-construction Monitoring Report - Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project, Randolph and Barbour Counties, West Virginia. Prepared for AES Laurel Mountain Wind, LLC. January 2017.

_____. 2018. Proposal for Wildlife Surveys, Black Rock Wind Project, Grant and Mineral Counties, West Virginia. October 1, 2018.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Prepared by United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/BCC2008.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2018.

_____. 2011. Virginia Big-eared Bat (Plecotus townsendii virginianus) Fact Sheet. November 2011. https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/fact-sheet/virginia-big-eared-bat.pdf

_____. 2013. Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. Module 1 – Land-based Wind Energy Version 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management. April 2013.

_____. 2015a. Endangered Species. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/index.html

_____. 2015b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Northern Long- eared Bat with 4(d) Rule. Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2011–0024; 4500030113. https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-07069.pdf

_____. 2017a. National Wetland Inventory – Seamless Wetland data. . Accessed November 12, 2018.

_____. 2017b. 2017 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Population Status Update. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/mammals/inba/pdf/2017IBatPopEstimate5July2017.pdf

_____. 2017c. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, Bombus affinis. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/pdf/RPBBFactSheet10Jan2017.pdf

_____. 2018a. Endangered Species: Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Fact Sheet. March 12, 2018. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/inbafctsht.html

_____. 2018b. Endangered Species: Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) Fact Sheet. March 12, 2018. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/grbat_fc.html

_____. 2018c. Environmental Conservation Online System, Listed Species Reports. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species-reports. Accessed November 12, 2018.

_____. 2018d. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Map. . Accessed November 12, 2018.

_____. 2018e. Survey Protocols for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) Version 2.1. Prepared by the US Fish & Wildlife Service US Department of the Interior. Dated February 28, 2018. 19 pages + appendices.

CONFIDENTIAL 24 Appendix S - 027 BLACK ROCK WIND FARM WILDLIFE RISK ASSESSMENT

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources [WVDNR]. 2018a. Environmental Review for Natural Resources. Potential Wind Energy Facility Project: Black Rock Wind Project, Grant and Mineral Counties. Correspondence from Barbara Sargent, Environmental Coordination, dated October 29, 2018.

_____. 2018b. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species in West Virginia. . Accessed November 12, 2018.

Woodlot Alternatives, Inc [Woodlot]. 2004. A Fall 2004 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed Dan’s Mountain Wind Project in Frostburg, Maryland. Prepared for US Wind Force.

_____. 2005a. A Radar and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed Liberty Gap Wind Project in Franklin, West Virginia - Fall 2004. Prepared for US Wind Force, LLC.

_____. 2005b. A Spring 2005 Radar, Visual, and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed Dan’s Mountain Wind Project in Frostburg, Maryland. Prepared for US Wind Force.

_____. 2005c. A Spring 2005 Radar and Acoustic Survey of Bird and Bat Migration at the Proposed Liberty Gap Wind Project in Franklin, West Virginia. Prepared for US Wind Force, LLC.

_____. 2005d. Fall 2005 Bat Echolocation Surveys at the Proposed Dan’s Mountain Wind Project in Frostburg, Maryland. Prepared for US Wind Force.

Young, D.P., S. Strickland, W.P. Erickson, K.J. Bay. 2004. Baseline Avian Studies: Mount Storm Wind Power Project, Grant County, West Virginia, May 2003–March 2004. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, April 23, 2004.

Young, D., M. Kauffman, W. P. Erickson, K. Bay, S. Nomani, W. Tidhar. 2009. Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, Phase I Post-construction Avian and Bat Monitoring, July–October 2008. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC. February 17, 2009.

Young, D., S. Nomani, W. Tidhar, K. Bay. 2011a. NedPower Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility Post-Construction Avian and Bat Monitoring July–October 2010. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC. February 10, 2011.

Young, D., S. Nomani, Z. Courage, K. Bay. 2011b. NedPower Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, Post-construction Avian and Bat Monitoring, April–July 2011. Prepared for NedPower Mount Storm, LLC. August 29, 2011.

Young, D., M. Lout, Z. Courage, S. Nomani, and K. Bay. 2012. 2011 Post-Construction Monitoring Study, Criterion Wind Project Garrett County, Maryland, April 2011–November 2011. Prepared for Criterion Power Partners, LLC.

Young, D., C. Nations, M. Lout, and K. Bay. 2013. 2012 Post-Construction Monitoring Study, Criterion Wind Project Garrett County, Maryland, April–November 2012. Prepared for Criterion Power Partners, LLC.

Young, D., M. Kaufmann, M. Lout, and K. Bay. 2014. 2013 Post-Construction Monitoring Study, Criterion Wind Project Garrett County, Maryland, April–November 2013. Prepared for Criterion Power Partners, LLC.

CONFIDENTIAL 25 Appendix S - 028

Appendix T

Wildlife Studies

Appendix T Wildlife Studies

Black Rock Wildlife Surveys and Survey Timeframe.

Application Wildlife Survey Survey Date(s) Location

Appendix R. Habitat assessment

Bat hibernacula assessment December 2018

Timber rattlesnake den evaluation December 2018

Eastern spotted skunk game camera December 2018 to April 2019

Allegheny woodrat game camera December 2018 to April 2019

Appendix T (in preparation) Bat mist-netting June 2019

Appendix T (in July 2018 to November 2018, April preparation) Acoustic bat 2019 to August 2019

Appendix T (in preparation) Common nighthawk mid-May to early-June 2019

Appendix T (in preparation) Eagle point count June 2018 to May 2019

Appendix T (in preparation) Eagle nest flight/follow-up ground visit February 2019/April 2019

As these reports become available, they will be provided to the PSC for insertion into Appendix T.

Appendix T - 001

Appendix U

Acoustic Sound Study

ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

WVPSC Docket No. Not Yet Assigned

May 2, 2019

Prepared for: Black Rock Wind Force, LLC 100 California Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1165 Scheuring Road De Pere, Wisconsin 54115

Project No: 195601430

Appendix U - 001 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 NOISE REGULATIONS ...... 1

3.0 AMBIENT SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND PREDICTED NOISE ANALYSES ...... 2 3.1 PRECONSTRUCTION AMBIENT SOUND MEASUREMENTS ...... 3 3.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS ...... 3 3.3 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS ...... 6

4.0 CONCLUSION...... 8

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Short-term Ambient Noise Levels Table 2 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Table 3 Operational Sound Analysis Summary of Results

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Project Overview with One and Five-mile Radii

Figure 2 – Estimated LDN Construction Sound Levels (one-mile radius)

Figure 3 – Estimated LDN Construction Sound Levels (five-mile radius)

Figure 4 – Estimated LDN Operational Sound Levels (aerial imagery)

Figure 5 – Estimated LDN Operational Sound Levels (land-use)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Turbine Coordinates

Appendix B – Receptor Results and Coordinates

Appendix C – Preconstruction Ambient Sound Study

Appendix U - 002 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Black Rock Wind Force, LLC (Black Rock) is proposing to construct the Black Rock Wind Farm (“Black Rock Project” or the “Project”) along the Allegheny Front, centered around Skyline, 11.5 miles southwest of Keyser, in Mineral and Grant Counties, West Virginia. The wind farm is projected to have a total operating capacity of approximately 110 megawatts “MW”. Black Rock will be submitting a Siting Certificate Application to the Public Service Commission (PSC) of West Virginia. The Project is proposed to consist of a combination of 29 General Electric (GE) 4.2-MW and Siemens Gamesa (SG) 4.2-MW wind turbine generators (WTG).

Black Rock retained Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) to conduct an acoustical assessment for the Project. The study includes: measurements of the ambient sound level at multiple locations within or adjacent to the proposed Project; an estimate of construction noise impact on the surrounding area; and an assessment of the predicted sound level expected from the operation of the Project on sensitive receptors within approximately 1.25 miles of the 29 proposed turbine locations. Figure 1 presents a Project area overview with one and five-mile radii indicated. This report describes the results of the acoustical analyses.

2.0 NOISE REGULATIONS

Stantec has reviewed noise regulations in the State of West Virginia and the counties of Mineral and Grant and have identified no noise regulations applicable to the Project. There are; however, regulations that stipulate the noise studies that are required to be completed in order to obtain a Siting Certificate from the West Virginia Public Service Commission. Black Rock will comply with regulations set forth in the Public Service Commission’s Rules Governing Siting Certificates for Exempt Wholesale Generators in Title 150, Series 30 published July 2005 (WV PSC Rules). Section 3.1.m.4 describes the studies and analyses to be completed. The studies and analyses completed include the following:

• A preconstruction study of ambient sound levels within approximately one mile of the proposed facility.

• A prediction of noise levels expected within one and five miles of construction activities, such as blasting, earth moving, pile driving, traffic and facility installations. Noise sensitive areas include residences, hospitals, schools, churches, parks and cemeteries. Give a description of the expected construction equipment to be used, procedures and potential noise mitigation options.

• A prediction of operation noise expected within one mile of the facility. Describe the proposed facility installations and potential noise mitigation options.

Appendix U - 003 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified an LDN level of 55 dBA as protective of public health and welfare. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) also uses 55 dBA as an LDN limit at noise sensitive areas during their project reviews. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides guidance and criteria for the assessment of construction

related noise for projects. The recommended LDN noise limits related to construction are approximately 20 dBA higher then operational noise recommendations. The Project has referred

to the 55 dBA LDN as a general comparative noise limit in this study.

A summary of the results of the acoustical sound study are presented in the following sections.

3.0 AMBIENT SOUND MEASUREMENTS AND PREDICTED NOISE ANALYSES

Stantec and their sub-consultant Hankard Environmental Inc. (HEI) completed preconstruction ambient sound measurements and predictions of expected sound levels due to the construction and operation of the proposed wind farm. Preconstruction sound measurements were completed in late December 2018 through early January 2019 considering the guidelines provided in the WV PSC Rules Section 3.1.m.4.A. The results of the ambient sound survey are presented in a separate report provided in Appendix C.

Noise levels at residential and other sensitive receptors located within approximately 1.25 miles of the Project facilities were predicted using the WindPRO software application developed by EMD International. Conservative ISO 9613-2 algorithms are utilized to estimate sound propagation and atmospheric absorption, assuming an ambient temperature of 10 degrees Celsius and 70 percent relative humidity. WindPro is an industry recognized modelling program that considers the location and sound power level from proposed equipment or facilities, along with the locations of identified receptors to assess the potential sound to be expected at receptor points. The model analyzes the propagation of noise from the source to receptors within approximately 1.25 miles of the 29 proposed turbine locations.

Black Rock is proposing to utilize a combination of up to 29 GE 4.2-158 and SG 4.2-145 wind turbines for the Project with a total nameplate generating capacity of 131.4 MW. The assessment described in this report assumes that the SG 4.2-145 turbine model is operating at each location, as it has the louder sound signature of the two proposed turbines. Three alternate turbine locations are also being considered. The sound impact of the Project has been predicted with a primary turbine layout and an alternate turbine layout. Noise due to construction was also assessed up to five miles from expected areas of construction.

Appendix U - 004 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

3.1 PRECONSTRUCTION AMBIENT SOUND MEASUREMENTS

Preconstruction sound measurements were completed by Hankard Environmental, Inc. (HEI) in late December 2018 through early January 2019. HEI completed two types of testing to determine ambient noise levels: short- and long-term testing. The long-term testing consisted of a continuous monitoring for 23 days at three representative locations within the project area. The short-term testing consisted of an additional three representative locations in the project area with measurements and observations made throughout the day and night.

The short-term measurements ranged from 27 dBA on calm nights and 63 dBA during the daytime. On average nighttime measurements are about 10 dBA lower than in the daytime hours. The Table below summarizes the specific results from the short-term monitoring.

Table 1 Short-term Ambient Noise Levels

Measurement Min (dBA) Max (dBA) Total Range 27 63 L10 44 52 Leq 42 51 L90 39 41

Long-term testing considered meteorological factors measured by the nearest tower to the project area and ranged from 40 to 69 dBA averaging 54 dBA. The lowest average of the three monitoring sites was 51 dBA and the highest average of the three was 58 dBA. Meteorological conditions were integrated into results to determine critical wind speed for minimum operation (4 m/s), full capacity operation (7 m/s) and full acoustical output (10 m/s).

Detailed results of the ambient sound survey are provided in Appendix C.

3.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS

The WV PSC Rules Section 3.1.m.4.B states that a predictive noise study is required for construction noise exposure predicted at the sensitive receptors within one-mile and five-mile radii. In addition, the predictive noise study should include measures put in place to mitigate noise to sensitive receptors.

Construction activities related to the development of the Black Rock Wind Farm will occur over approximately 12 months and is expected to be completed by the end of 2020. Construction will occur in phases, starting with site preparation activities, such as vegetation clearing, road improvements and access road and crane pad construction. Facility foundations will require a substantial amount of concrete, which will either be trucked in from an off-site concrete plant or

Appendix U - 005 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

prepared on site at temporary batch plants. Upon completion of the site preparation the turbine towers, nacelles and rotors will be staged and erected. Turbine generation equipment, transformers and electrical cabling will be installed. Construction of the Project substation along with the trenching and installation of the underground electrical collection system will likely be occurring concurrently with the turbine installation activities. The construction process is progressive in nature; therefore, several locations will see activity during the same time period, with installation activities then progressing to other turbine sites.

Construction activities will likely be conducted during daylight hours (7am to 7pm). Heavy construction equipment including, but not limited to, bulldozers, haul trucks, graders, compactors, concrete trucks, backhoe, rollers, loaders and cranes, may be present and operational at different points during the construction period. Noise levels from equipment will vary by type, age of equipment and overall condition. Sound levels associated with the type of equipment expected to be used will vary from approximately 79 to 94 dBA at 50 feet. At times, construction activities will be audible to nearby sensitive receptors; however, not all equipment will be operating at the same time, and activities will be spread throughout the Project area and temporary in duration. Construction activities will predominantly occur during daytime hours. If construction is required during night time hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), activities will be limited. Noise levels at non-participant dwellings are expected to be 55 dBA or less if the ambient sound is less than 55 dBA or 10 dBA higher than ambient levels if ambient noise is greater than 55 dBA.

A summary of representative noise levels associated with typical construction equipment is provided in Table 2. Potential noise levels are provided at distances of 300 feet (the closest distance from a turbine site to a non-participant property line) and 1,000 feet. Noise levels are

reported in Ldn; however, with the assumption of a 10-hour daytime construction work day, construction during nighttime hour is not anticipated.

Table 2 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Typical Noise Typical Noise Typical Noise Levels Levels Levels Equipment Approximately 50 Approximately 300 Approximately Feet from Source Feet from Source 1,000 Feet from (dBA) (dBA) Source (dBA) Bulldozer 85 70 60 Dump Truck 84 69 59 Grader 83 68 58 Roller 85 70 60 Blasting 94 79 69 Excavator 85 70 60

Appendix U - 006 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

Typical Noise Typical Noise Typical Noise Levels Levels Levels Equipment Approximately 50 Approximately 300 Approximately Feet from Source Feet from Source 1,000 Feet from (dBA) (dBA) Source (dBA) Generator 82 67 57 Mobile Crane 85 70 60 Backhoe 80 65 55 Concrete Mixer Truck 85 70 60 Loader 79 64 54

Results of the predictive construction noise analysis assumes a “worst-case” scenario, with multiple pieces of construction equipment operating at the same time on all 29 turbine sites. For example, construction equipment for the Black Rock project may include a concrete mixer truck, a flatbed truck, an excavator, a bulldozer, a dump truck and a roller. Sound emitted during the construction phase of the Project is expected to occur during daytime hours. Estimates considering simultaneous construction at multiple sites indicate that the levels will be at or below 55 dBA at the nearest non-participating occupied residence. Mitigation methods are available if required to reduce construction noise. Figure 2 (one-mile radius) and Figure 3 (five-mile radius) present contours of predicted maximum sound due to construction activities. The contours represent a conservative estimate, as construction will not occur at all sites concurrently.

Mitigation Measures

During construction of the Project, the following mitigation measures will be employed:

• Construction vehicles and equipment will be maintained in proper operating condition and equipped with manufacturers’ standard noise control devices. Defective exhaust mufflers will be promptly replaced. Access roads and turnaround areas will be constructed wide enough to allow construction equipment to avoid backing up.

• Contractors will be required to comply with federal limits on truck and equipment noise.

• Contractors and their staff will be required to drive delivery vehicles responsibly.

• If nighttime construction work is required, it will generally be limited to activities that are quieter in nature, such as welding and equipment and cabling installation.

• If blasting is required, communities and nearby receptors will be notified.

In summary, while noise from construction activities may be heard at off-site locations, the sound will vary over time and be temporary in nature. Construction will occur mostly in the daytime hours

Appendix U - 007 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

and will generate sounds that are familiar to residents due to other construction, industrial and agricultural activities in the area. The overall noise impact on nearby sensitive receptors during construction of the Project is not expected to be significant.

3.3 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS

The WV PSC Rules Section 3.1.m.4.C states that a predictive noise study is required for operational noise exposure predicted at the sensitive receptors within one-mile of Project facilities.

Due to the dissipation of sound with distance, potential receptors within approximately 1.25 miles of the Project turbines were identified and analyzed for potential sound utilizing the Decibel module of WindPRO Version 3.2 software. The model utilizes the maximum total sound power level provided by Siemens-Gamesa for the SG 4.2-145 turbines, as it has the louder sound signature of the two proposed turbine models. Conservative ISO 9613-2 algorithms are utilized to estimate sound propagation. The approximate center point location of each proposed turbine and identified receptor is represented within the model. Modeling results were compared with maximum allowable noise levels under normal operating conditions, as stated in the WV PSC Rules. Modelling analyses were completed to assess the predicted sound levels considering the 29 proposed turbine sites. The predicted noise assumes that all 29 turbines are constructed and operating.

Potential turbine sites were chosen based on factors including, but not limited to: wind resources, environmental impacts, constructability, and sound impacts. The proposed GE 4.2-MW turbines will have a 158-meter (518.4-foot) rotor diameter and the SG 4.2-MW turbine will have a 145- meter (475.7-foot) rotor diameter. Both turbines are proposed at 127.5-meter (418.3-foot) hub heights. The sound signature of the SG 2.4-145 turbine with standard rotor blades was assessed at all locations, as this is the louder of the proposed turbine models.

The modeling analysis utilizes total sound power levels from the turbine manufacturer. The

A-weighted total sound power level (Lwa) for the SG 4.2-145 turbine models in full power mode is 106.9 dB(A). Turbines will operate during day and nighttime hours; therefore, a 10 dB penalty during the nine nighttime hours has been applied to bring the total A-weighted sound power level modeled for each turbine to 113.3 dB(A).

Sound impact is also dependent on the distance between the source turbine and sound receptor. The locations of the wind turbines are based on the current layout of the wind farm provided by BRWF. Elevations for turbines and receptors were calculated using the National Elevation Dataset acquired from the U.S. Geological Survey.

A total of 328 potential receptors were identified by Black Rock and Stantec within approximately 1.25 mile of proposed turbine locations utilizing aerial imagery and on-site reconnaissance (Figures 4 and 5). Of the 328 receptors, 302 were identified as occupied dwellings. Nineteen of

Appendix U - 008 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

the receptors were identified as seasonal dwellings, such as hunting cabins or other structures used on a seasonal basis. Seven receptors represent other sites considered sensitive, such as schools, churches, or other public locations. Project participants (land owners with land under Project leases/agreements) and non-participants (land owners without Project leases/agreements) were distinguished in the assessment. Coordinates (UTM Zone 17 North) of turbines and receptors are included in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

Sound attenuates between the source and the receptor due to a variety of factors, including but not limited to, atmospheric absorption, interaction with the ground, and attenuation due to vegetation and ground cover. Standard ISO 9613-2 settings for atmospheric absorption were used, assuming an ambient temperature of 10° Celsius and 70 percent relative humidity (these are conditions that favor sound propagation). The “ground effect” relates to sound reflecting off the surface and interfering with the direct wave of sound traveling through the air. For this project, a 0.5 ground attenuation or ground factor was used to conservatively represent the vegetated land cover within the Project area.

In addition to the nighttime sound penalty and the 0.5 ground attenuation factor, sound levels were calculated using other conservative parameters within the model. Sound was predicted using 29 SGE 4.2 turbines, which are the loudest of the two turbine models proposed. Sound emitted by the turbines was calculated using the maximum sound power level, although this level of sound will not be emitted at lower wind speeds. The model assumes that all receivers are downwind of all turbines, at all times, even though this is a physical impossibility. Also, the fact that turbines emit less sound in some directions than others (depending on orientation of the rotors), was not accounted for. Existing ambient sound was not considered in the model results.

Results of the predicted sound at the 302 occupied and sensitive receptors within approximately 1.25 mile of the turbines are provided in tabular form in Appendix A with a visual representation of total sound and receptor locations provided in Figure 4 (aerial imagery background) and Figure 5 (land use background).

The results demonstrate that the Black Rock Wind Farm as designed, utilizing a combination of the 29 GE 4.2 MW and SG 4.2 MW wind turbine generators, can be operated without exceeding

an LDN of 55 dBA at occupied dwellings or other sensitive receptors, with the exception of one private family cemetery. Predictions do not consider the existing ambient sound level, which may exceed 55 dBA at limited locations, due to vehicular traffic or current land use. If a different turbine model is utilized or the Project layout changes, Black Rock will comply with these same limitations and a new noise study will be produced demonstrating compliance.

Appendix U - 009 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

Table 3 Sound Analysis Summary of Results (maximum dB(A) with 29 turbines)

Number of Other Sensitive Number of Occupied Dwellings Maximum Sound Level Receptors within within Approximately 1.25 Miles (Ldn) Approximately 1.25 Miles of of 29 Project Turbines 29 Project Turbines 35 dB(A) or less 9 0 35.1 dB(A) to 40 dB(A) 69 1 40.1 dB(A) to 45 dB(A) 115 4 45.1 dB(A) to 50 dB(A) 91 1 50.1 dB(A) to 55 dB(A) 18 0 55.1 dB(A) to 55.4 dB(A) 0 11 Total 302 7

1 Represents a family cemetery located on private land.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Sound levels in the Project area were measured from late December 2018 to early January 2019 to determine the ambient sound present prior to construction and operation of the Project. Long- term sound levels ranged from 51 to 58 dB(A) with an average of 54 dB(A). Nighttime noise levels were determined to be approximately 10 dB(A) quieter than daytime levels.

Sound emitted during the construction phase of the Project is expected to occur during daytime hours. Conservative estimates considering construction occurring at multiple sites simultaneously indicate that the levels will be at or below 55 dB(A) at the nearest non-participating occupied residence. Mitigation methods are available if required to reduce construction noise.

The analysis of potential sound impact from operation of the Project on occupied homes and other identified sensitive community receptors indicates that noise levels, due to the operation of the Project, are expected to be less than 55 dB(A), with the exception of one private cemetery. The results discussed in this report assume that turbines at all 29 proposed locations are operational.

Appendix U - 010 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

FIGURES

Appendix U - 011 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

FIGURE 1

PROJECT OVERVIEW WITH ONE AND FIVE-MILE RADII

Appendix U - 012 Figure No. 1 Title Project Overview

Client/Project Black Rock Wind Force, LLC Black Rock Wind Farm Project Elk Garden Project Location 195601430 Grant & Mineral County, Prepared by JM on 2019-04-26 West Virginia Technical Review by JH on 2019-04-26 GARRETT COUNTY D Independent Review by JB on 2019-05-01 N 1 A IA L N 0 4,000 8,000 Y I Feet G 1:96,000 (At original document size of 11x17) $ $ R R 2 A I ¯ V 1 ( M T Legend S E !> Turbine Location W 1 Mile Buffer MINERAL COUNTY 5 Mile Buffer Incorporated Area !> !> District Boundary !> !> !> !> !> !> !> !> !> !>

1 Union !> !> !> !> !> !> !> Union !> !> !> !> !> !> !> !> !> !>

Allegany

Garrett Preston 1 GRANT COUNTY Grant Mineral

Hampshire

MD WV

Grant

Union Grant Tucker 1 Hardy WV VA MillMill Creek Creek Notes Old 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Fields 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, NRG, USGS 3. Background: USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangles s ld ie Grant F d l O

Page 1 of 1

V:\1956\Active\195601430\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\BC1937_only\revised_set\fig1_overview_topo_195601430.mxdRevised: 2019-05-01 jmarty By: Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data. Appendix U - 013 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

FIGURE 2

ESTIMATED LDN CONSTRUCTION SOUND LEVELS (ONE-MILE RADIUS)

Appendix U - 014 157 Figure No. ! 2 Title Estimated Ldn Construction Sound Contours 316 156 ! ! 155 (1 Mile) ! ! 153 154 ! Client/Project 151 ( ! 152 Black Rock Wind Force, LLC 29 ! Black Rock Wind Farm Project 150 296 ! 148 ! 30 318 ( ! ! ( 149 Project Location 195601430 ! 319 ! 147 33 ! Grant & Mineral County, Prepared by JM on 2019-04-26 31 ! 146 ! 144 West Virginia Technical Review by JH on 2019-04-26 32 ! 145 ! ! Independent Review by JB on 2019-05-01 ! 34 131 35 !! 36 ! ! 37 130 0 1,000 2,000 38 ! ! Feet 158 ! 40 129 $ $ !! ! 1:24,000 (At original document size of 11x17) 41 39 ! 317 ¯ 42 ! ( ! 159 Legend ! 160 ! A23_I !> Turbine Location 54 !> 45 Sensitive Receptors ! ! 44 ! ! Occupied Dwelling A22_I ( 46 Seasonal Dwelling ! 143 !> ( ! Other Sensitive Receptor 56 Sound Contours - dBA 84 ! ! 47 A21_I 85 ! !> 39 ! 48 58 ! 332 ! 42 49 ! 142 86 ! ! ! C03_I 87 ! 50 45 ! 51 !> A20_I ! 169 300 !> 48 ! ( 192 ! C02_I 51 53 193 !> 88 ! ! A19_I 54 ! ! 60 !> ! 89 52 ! ! 59 57 170 C01_I ! 90 ! !> 288 60 ! 91 A18_I ! 168 61 267 ! 171 ! !> 299 ! 63 ! 62 298 ! ! ! 172 66 331 !! 63 266 173 ! A17_I ! ! 297 65 64 69 92 135 ! !> ! ! ! ! ! 66 133 72 ! 28 ! 27 ! 24 315 ! 69 ! ! 25 ! 75 26 ! A16_I 78 !> 23 220 ! 166 A15_I ! ! TS972 ! 221 21 20 ! ! !> 270 Garrett MD 167 222 22 ! 194 ! ! ! 18 ! ( WV 19 195 ! 67 ( 289 ! TS42 ! ! ! 68 ! 17 ! ! 301 ! ! 224 ! 196 ! ! 223 226 ! 1 ! ! ! ! ( ! Mineral 225 ! ! 227 !! ! 259 229 228 ! ! ! 16 230 258 £¤50 ! ! 232 ! ! ! ! ! 231 233 ! 257 ! 236 255 292 ! 234 252 ! ! ! TS93 ! ! 242 ! ! 333 ! ! ! ! 293 10 ! 2 ! ! ! 251 254 ! 256 ! ! ! 250 ! ! 235 237 ! ! ! ! 9 ! 187 ! 165 83 82 93 ! ! 247 2 ! ! ! Grant ! ! 238 253 ! 164 ! 163 8 11 ! !! ! ! 249 ! ! ! 94 ! ! 3 4 ! 240 ! 162 7 !! 186 ! ! 81 ! 79 161 12 ! !! 248 71 ( ! 5 13 ! 243 ! 78 ! 70 ! 6 ! 185 244 245 80 ! ! 178 ! ! ! ! 302 ! 179 75 77 72 ! ! 269 ! 182 ! 14 ! 268 ! ! ! ! ! 73 ! ! 184 260 ! 181 76 Notes ! 303 ! ! 74 ! 183 188 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 180 ! ! 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, NRG, NADS, USGS A14_I 3. Orthophotography: 2016 NAIP !> 189 190 !! 15 ! MINERAL COUNTY ( 191 GRANT COUNTY A13_I 314 ( !> 330 ( 136 ( Page 1 of 2

V:\1956\Active\195601430\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\BC1937_only\revised_set\fig2_sound_const_1mi_195601430.mxdRevised: 2019-05-01 jmarty By: Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data. Appendix U - 015 ! ! ! ! ! 19 ! 67 195 ! ! Figure No. 17 ! 68 301 224 ! 196 2 223 226 ( ! ! ! Title 225 ! ! 227 ! 259 229 228 Estimated Ldn Construction Sound Contours ! ! 258 ! 16 230 ! ! 232 ! ! (1 Mile) 231 ! 233 257 255 292 234 236 252 ! ! ! ! 256 ! 333 ! ! 242 ! ! 293 10 Client/Project ! 251 254 ! ! ! 235 250 ! ! 165 ! 2 ! 9 187 237 ! 83 93 Black Rock Wind Force, LLC ! ! ! ! ! 238 247 253 ! 81 164 ! 163 8 11 !! ! 249 ! ! ! ! 3 4 Black Rock Wind Farm Project 240 ! ! 82 94 162 7 ! ! ! ! 80 79 161 !! 12 ! 186 !! 248 ! 71 ( ! 13 ! 243 ! 78 ! 70 ! 6 5 ! 185 244 245 ! ! 178 ! ! ! ! 302 177 ! 179 75 77 72 ! ! 269 175 ! 182 14 ! 268 Project Location 195601430 ! ! ! ! ! ! 73 ! ! 174 ! ! 184 260 ! Grant & Mineral County, Prepared by JM on 2019-04-26 181 76 ! 284 ! 303 ! ! 74 West Virginia Technical Review by JH on 2019-04-26 ! ! 183 188 Independent Review by JB on 2019-05-01 180 ! ! 207 208 A14_I ! ! 0 1,000 2,000 206 ! 209 !> ! ! Feet 189 $ $ 210 190 !! 15 1:24,000 (At original document size of 11x17) ! MINERAL COUNTY ( ¯ 191 211 GRANT COUNTY ( ! ! 212 A13_I Legend 314 ! 213 ( !> 330 !> Turbine Location 214 ( 136 ( ! Sensitive Receptors 215 141 A12_I ! ! Occupied Dwelling ! 103 !> 216 ! ! 95 ( Seasonal Dwelling ! ! 140 ! 97 96 A11_I Other Sensitive Receptor ! ! 1 218 !> Sound Contours - dBA ! ! 98 99 ! ! 39 217 ! 100 138 ! 304 A10_I ! 305 42 ! ! !> 101 294 45 ! ! B03_I ! 139 A09_I 261 48 124 123 ! !> !> !! 122 ! ! 102 51 219 ! ! 120 121 ! 54 119 A08_I ! !> 57 125 126 ! ! 128 B02_I 60 308 ! 127 ! 307 132 ( !> ! ! A07_I 137 63 104 !> ( ! 66 B01_I !> A06_I 69 !> 72

105 75 ! A05_I 279 197 306 ! 106 ! ! 118 117 107 !> ( 78 ! 262 ! ! ! A04_I 198 !> 285 ! ! TS972 200 199 Garrett MD ! ! A03_I 201 283 WV ! ! 116 114 !> TS42 ! ! ! ! ! 329 ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! Mineral 112 A02_I ! 113 !! 109 ! ! 291 ! !> ! 110 202 £¤50 115 111 ! ! ! ! ! 203 ! ! A01_I ! ! ! ! S93 ! T !> ! 2 ! 204 280 ! ! ! !! ! ! 282 281 Grant ! 205 ! ! ! !

290 176 ! (

Notes 275 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N ( 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, NRG, NADS, USGS 309 3. Orthophotography: 2016 NAIP 286 287 ! ( ! 273 276 313 ! 312 ! ! 274 ! ! 311 277 272 ! ! ! 278 !

Page 2 of 2

May 2, 2019

FIGURE 3

ESTIMATED LDN CONSTRUCTION SOUND LEVELS (FIVE-MILE RADIUS)

Appendix U - 017 Figure No. 3 Title Estimated Ldn Construction Sound Contours (5 Miles)

Client/Project Black Rock Wind Force, LLC " Black Rock Wind Farm Project

" Project Location 195601430 # % # Grant & Mineral County, Prepared by JM on 2019-04-26 # West Virginia Technical Review by JH on 2019-04-26 # " GARRETT COUNTY # Independent Review by JB on 2019-05-01 % MINERAL COUNTY 0 4,000 8,000 " % " # Feet #" $ $ " 1:96,000 (At original document size of 11x17) (¯ $ $$ Legend $ # $ !> Turbine Location Sound Contours - dBA %$$ $ $ 30 $ $ 5 Mile Buffer $$$$ $ $$$ $$$ $ Sensitive Receptors 33 $$ $ $$$ $ " $ # $ Cemetery 36 $ $ $ !> $$ # # Church 39 $ !> $ $$ $ G Hospital 42 $$ " $$ !> $ $$ !> !> $ $ ' $ $$ !> Library 45 $ $$ !> $ $ $ $ !> $ $ $ $$ !> $ Park 48 $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ !> $ $$$$ $ % School 51 !> $ $ $ $ $ $$ !> $ $ $ $$$ Residence 54 $ $ $ $#$ $$$ $$ $ 57 $$ $ $$ $$$ $$$ $ $$ $$ A $ $ $$ $$ $ $$$$ $ $$$$ $$$$$ $ $ I $$$$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ 60 D $ $ $ $#"$ $ $$$$$ $ $ " $ $ $$ N N $$ !> 63+ I " $$ $ $ $ " A $$$ # G !> L $ $ $$ !> R $ Y I $ $ $ !> $ $$ R $ $ $$ V $ $" !> $ $ A $$$ !> !> $$ $ T $ $ $$ $ $ !> M S $ $$ $ !> $ !> E !> !> $ $ W $$$ $ $ !> !> $ $ $$ $$ !> $ $ $$ $$$ $$$$ !> $ $ $ $ !> $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Allegany # $ # $ $ $ $$ %G ' # Garrett Preston Mineral

" Hampshire " # MD GRANT COUNTY " WV Grant Tucker Hardy WV VA

Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, NRG, USGS # 3. Background: ESRI World Topography

" #

Page 1 of 1

V:\1956\Active\195601430\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\BC1937_only\revised_set\fig3_sound_const_5mi_195601430.mxdRevised: 2019-05-01 jmarty By: Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data. Appendix U - 018 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

FIGURE 4

ESTIMATED LDN OPERATIONAL SOUND LEVELS (AERIAL IMAGERY)

Appendix U - 019 !

157 Figure No. ! 4 Title Estimated Ldn Operational Sound Levels 316 156 ! ! 155 (Aerial Imagery) ! ! 153 154 ! Client/Project 151 ( ! 152 Black Rock Wind Force, LLC 29 ! Black Rock Wind Farm Project 150 296 ! 148 ! 30 318 ( ! ! ( 149 Project Location 195601430 ! 319 ! 147 33 ! Grant & Mineral County, Prepared by JM on 2019-04-26 31 ! 146 ! 144 West Virginia Technical Review by JH on 2019-04-26 32 ! 145 ! ! Independent Review by JB on 2019-05-01 ! 34 131 35 !! 36 ! ! 37 130 0 1,000 2,000 38 ! ! Feet 158 ! 40 129 $ $ !! ! 1:24,000 (At original document size of 11x17) 41 39 ! 317 ¯ 42 ! ( ! 159 Legend ! 160 ! A23_I !> Turbine Location 54 !> 45 ! Sensitive Receptors ! 55 44 ! ! ! Occupied Dwelling A22_I ( Seasonal Dwelling 46 " 143 !> ! " ( " ! Other Sensitive Receptor

56 " Commercial or Industrial 84 ! ! 47 A21_I 85 ! 57 Sound Contours - dBA ! !> ! 48 58 ! 332 ! 33 49 ! 142 86 ! ! ! C03_I 87 ! 50 36 ! 51 !> A20_I ! 169 300 !> 39 ! ( 192 ! C02_I 42 53 193 !> 88 ! ! A19_I 45 ! ! 60 !> ! 89 52 ! ! 59 48 170 C01_I ! 90 ! !> 288 51 ! 91 A18_I ! 168 61 267 ! 171 ! !> 299 ! 54 ! 62 298 ! ! ! 172 57 331 !! 63 266 173 ! A17_I ! ! 297 65 64 60 92 135 ! !> ! ! ! ! ! 66 133 ! 28 ! 27 24 315 ! ! ! 69 ! ! 25 ! " 26 " A16_I " !> 23 220 ! 166 A15_I ! ! TS972 ! 221 21 20 ! ! !> 270 Garrett MD 167 222 22 ! 194 ! ! ! 18 ! ( WV 19 195 ! 67 ( 289 ! TS42 ! ! ! 68 ! " 17 ! ! 301 ! ! 224 ! 196 ! ! 223 226 ! 1 ! ! ! ! ( ! Mineral 225 ! ! 227 !! ! 259 229 228 ! " ! ! 258 " 16 50 230 " " £¤ ! ! 232 ! ! ! ! ! 231 233 0 " ! " " 257 ! 236 ! 255 292 ! 234 252 ! ! ! TS93 ! ! 242 ! ! 333 ! ! ! ! 293 10 ! 2 ! ! ! 251 254 ! 256 ! ! ! 250 ! ! 235 237 ! ! ! ! 9 ! 187 ! 165 83 82 93 ! ! 247 2 ! ! ! Grant ! ! 238 253 ! 164 ! 163 8 11 ! !! ! ! 249 ! ! ! 94 ! ! 3 4 ! 240 ! 162 7 ! 186 ! ! 81 ! 79 161 ! 12 ! !! 248 ! 71 !( ! 6 5 13 ! 243 245 80 78 70 ! ! 185 "244 ! ! 178 ! ! ! ! 302 ! 179 75 77 72 ! ! 269 ! 182 ! 14 ! 268 ! ! ! ! ! 73 ! ! 184 260 ! 181 76 Notes ! 303 ! ! 74 ! 183 188 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 180 ! ! 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, NRG, NADS, USGS A14_I 3. Orthophotography: 2016 NAIP !> 189 190 !! 15" ! MINERAL COUNTY ( 191 GRANT COUNTY A13_I 314 ( !> 330 ( 136 ( Page 1 of 2

V:\1956\Active\195601430\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\BC1937_only\revised_set\fig4_sound_oper_1mi_195601430.mxdRevised: 2019-05-01 jmarty By: Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data. Appendix U - 020 ! ! ! ! ! 19 ! 67 195 ! ! Figure No. ! 68 " 17 301 224 ! 196 4 223 226 ( ! ! ! Title 225 ! ! 227 ! 259 229 228 Estimated Ldn Operational Sound Levels ! ! " 16 ! 258 " " 230 ! ! 232 ! ! " (Aerial Imagery) 231 ! 233 0 " " " 257 ! 255 292 234 236 252 ! ! ! ! 256 ! ! ! 242 ! ! 293 333 ! 251 254 ! 10 ! Client/Project 235 250 165 !! 2 ! 9 187 237 ! ! 83 93 ! ! ! Black Rock Wind Force, LLC ! 238 ! 247 253 ! 81 164 ! 163 8 11 249 ! !! ! ! ! ! 94 ! ! 3 4 ! Black Rock Wind Farm Project 240 ! ! 82 162 7 !! 186 ! ! 248 80 ! 79 161 12 ! !! ! 71 !( ! 6 5 13 ! 185 243 245 78 70 ! ! "244 ! ! 178 ! ! ! ! 302 177 ! 179 75 77 72 ! ! 269 175 ! 182 14 ! 268 Project Location 195601430 ! ! ! ! ! ! 73 ! ! 174 ! ! 184 260 ! Grant & Mineral County, Prepared by JM on 2019-04-26 181 76 ! 284 ! 303 ! ! 74 West Virginia Technical Review by JH on 2019-04-26 ! ! 183 188 Independent Review by JB on 2019-05-01 180 ! ! 207 208 A14_I ! ! 0 1,000 2,000 206 ! 209 !> ! ! Feet 189 $ $ 210 190 !! 15" 1:24,000 (At original document size of 11x17) " MINERAL COUNTY " ! ( ¯ 191 211 GRANT COUNTY ( ! ! 212 A13_I Legend 314 ! 213 ( !> 330 !> Turbine Location 214 ( 136 ( ! Sensitive Receptors 215 141 A12_I ! ! Occupied Dwelling ! 103 !> 216 ! ! 95 ( Seasonal Dwelling ! ! 140 ! 97 96 A11_I Other Sensitive Receptor ! ! !> 1 218 " Commercial or Industrial ! ! 98 99 ! ! Sound Contours - dBA 217 ! 100 138 ! 304 A10_I ! 305 36 ! ! !> 101 294 39 ! ! B03_I ! 139 A09_I 261 42 124 123 ! !> !> !! 122 ! ! 102 45 219 ! ! 120 121 ! 48 119 A08_I ! !> 51 125 126 ! ! 128 B02_I 54 308 ! 127 ! 307 132 ( !> ! ! A07_I 137 57 104 !> ( ! 60 B01_I !> A06_I !>

105 ! A05_I 279 197 306 ! 106 ! ! 118 117 107 !> ( ! 262 ! ! ! A04_I 198 !> 285 ! ! TS972 200 199 Garrett MD ! ! A03_I 201 283 WV ! ! 116 114 !> TS42 ! ! ! ! ! 329 ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! Mineral 112 A02_I ! 113 !! 109 ! ! 291 ! !> ! 110 202 £¤50 115 111 ! ! ! ! ! 203 ! ! A01_I ! ! ! ! S93 ! T !> ! 2 ! 204 280 ! ! ! !! ! ! 282 281 Grant ! 205 ! ! ! !

290 176 ! (

Page 2 of 2

May 2, 2019

FIGURE 5

ESTIMATED LDN OPERATIONAL SOUND LEVELS (WITH LAND USE)

Appendix U - 022 !

157 Figure No. ! 5 Title Estimated Ldn Operational Sound Levels 316 156 (! ! 155 (Land-Use) ! ! 153 154 ! Client/Project 151 ( ! 152 Black Rock Wind Force, LLC 29 ! Black Rock Wind Farm Project 150 296 ! 148 ! 30 318 ( ! ! ( 149 Project Location 195601430 ! 319 ! 147 33 ! Grant & Mineral County, Prepared by JM on 2019-05-01 31 ! 146 ! 144 West Virginia Technical Review by DG on 2019-05-01 32 ! 145 ! ! Independent Review by JB on 2019-05-01 ! 34 131 35 !! 36 ! ! 37 130 0 1,000 2,000 38 ! ! Feet 158 ! 40 129 $ $ !! ! 1:24,000 (At original document size of 11x17) 41 39 (! 317 ¯ 42 ! ( ! 159 Legend ! 160 ! A23_I !> Turbine Location National Land Cover Dataset 54 !> 45 ! Sensitive Receptors Barren Land ! 55 (Rock/Sand/Clay) 44 ! ! ! Occupied Dwelling Grassland/Herbaceous A22_I 46 ( Seasonal Dwelling ") 143 !> Shrub/Scrub ! ") ( ") (! Other Sensitive Receptor Deciduous Forest 56 84 ! ") Commercial or Industrial ! 47 A21_I Evergreen Forest 85 ! 57 Sound Contours - dBA ! ! !> 48 58 Mixed Forest ! 332 ! 49 (! 142 33 86 ! ! Emergent Herbaceous ! C03_I 87 ! 50 36 Wetlands ! 51 !> A20_I ! 300 169 !> Woody Wetlands ! ( 39 192 ! C02_I 42 Open Water 53 193 88 ! ! !> A19_I ! ! 60 !> 45 Cultivated Crops ! 89 52 ! ! 59 48 Hay/Pasture 170 C01_I 90 ! 288 ! !> 51 Developed, Open Space ! 91 A18_I ! 168 61 267 ! 171 ! !> 299 ! Developed, Low Intensity ! 62 54 298 ! ! ! 172 63 Developed, Medium ! 331 !! 266 57 173 A17_I ! Intensity ! 297 65 64 92 135 ! !> 60 ! ! ! ! ! 66 133 Developed, High Intensity ! 28 ! 27 24 315 ! ! ! 69 ! ! 25 ! ") 26 ") A16_I ") !> 23 220 ! 166 A15_I ! ! TS972 ! 221 21 20 ! ! !> 270 Garrett MD 167 222 22 ! 194 ! ! ! 18 ! ( WV 19 195 ! 67 ( 289 ! TS42 ! ! ! 68 ! ") 17 ! ! 301 ! ! 226 ! 196 ! ! 224 223 ! 1 ! ! (! ! ( ! Mineral 225 ! ! 227 !! ! 259 229 228 ! ") ! ! 258 ") 16 50 230 ") ") £¤ ! ! 232 ! ! ! ! ! 231 233 0 ") ! ") ") 257 ! 236 ! 255 292 ! 234 252 ! ! ! TS93 ! ! 242 ! ! 333 ! ! ! ! 293 10 ! 2 ! ! ! 251 254 ! 256 ! ! ! 250 ! ! 235 237 ! ! ! ! 9 ! 187 ! 165 83 82 93 ! ! 247 2 ! ! ! Grant ! ! 238 253 ! 164 ! 163 8 11 ! !! ! ! 249 ! ! ! 94 ! ! 3 4 ! 240 ! 162 7 ! 186 ! ! 81 ! 79 161 ! 12 ! !! 248 ! 71 !( ! 6 5 13 ! 243 245 80 78 70 ! ! 185 ")244 ! ! 178 ! ! ! ! 302 ! 179 75 77 72 ! ! 269 ! 182 ! 14 ! 268 (! ! ! ! ! 73 ! (! 184 260 ! 181 76 Notes ! 303 ! ! 74 ! 183 188 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 180 ! ! 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, NRG, NADS, USGS A14_I 3. Background: National Land Cover Dataset !> 189 190 !! 15") ! MINERAL COUNTY ( 191 GRANT COUNTY A13_I 314 ( !> 330 ( 136 ( Page 1 of 2

V:\1956\Active\195601430\03_data\gis_cad\gis\mxds\BC1937_only\revised_set\fig5_sound_oper_1mi_NLCD_195601430.mxdRevised: 2019-05-01 jmarty By: Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provision of the data. Appendix U - 023 ! ! ! ! ! 19 ! 67 195 ! ! Figure No. ! 68 ") 17 ! 301 196 5 224 223 226 ( ! (! ! Title 225 ! ! 227 ! 259 229 228 Estimated Ldn Operational Sound Levels ! ! ") 16 ! 258 ") ") 230 ! ! 232 ! ! ") (Land-Use) 231 ! 233 0 ") ") ") 257 ! 255 292 234 236 252 ! ! ! ! 256 ! ! ! 242 ! ! 293 333 ! 251 254 ! 10 ! Client/Project 235 250 165 !! 2 ! 9 187 237 ! ! 83 93 ! ! ! Black Rock Wind Force, LLC ! 238 ! 247 253 ! 81 164 ! 163 8 11 249 ! !! ! ! ! ! 94 ! ! 3 4 ! Black Rock Wind Farm Project 240 ! ! 82 162 7 !! 186 ! ! 248 80 ! 79 161 12 ! !! ! 71 !( ! 6 5 13 ! 185 243 245 78 70 ! ! ")244 ! ! 178 ! ! ! ! 302 177 ! 179 75 77 72 ! ! 269 175 ! 182 14 ! 268 Project Location 195601430 ! (! ! ! ! ! 73 ! ! 174 ! (! 184 260 ! Grant & Mineral County, Prepared by JM on 2019-05-01 181 76 ! 284 ! 303 ! ! 74 West Virginia Technical Review by DG on 2019-05-01 ! ! 183 188 Independent Review by JB on 2019-05-01 180 ! ! 207 208 A14_I ! ! 0 1,000 2,000 206 ! 209 !> ! ! Feet 189 $ $ 210 190 !! 15") 1:24,000 (At original document size of 11x17) ") MINERAL COUNTY ") ! ( ¯ 191 211 GRANT COUNTY ( ! ! 212 A13_I Legend 314 ! 213 !> ( 330 !> Turbine Location National Land Cover Dataset 214 ( 136 ( ! Sensitive Receptors Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 215 141 A12_I ! ! ! Occupied Dwelling 103 !> Grassland/Herbaceous ! 216 ! 95 ( Seasonal Dwelling ! Shrub/Scrub ! 140 97 96 A11_I (! Other Sensitive Receptor ! ! Deciduous Forest 1 218 !> ! ! 98 99 ") Commercial or Industrial ! ! Evergreen Forest Sound Contours - dBA 217 ! 100 138 Mixed Forest ! 304 A10_I ! 305 ! 36 ! !> Emergent Herbaceous 101 294 39 Wetlands ! (! B03_I ! 139 A09_I 261 42 Woody Wetlands 124 123 ! !> !> !! 122 ! ! 102 Open Water 219 ! 45 ! 120 121 ! 48 Cultivated Crops 119 A08_I ! !> Hay/Pasture 125 126 51 ! ! 128 B02_I 308 ! 127 54 Developed, Open Space ! 307 132 ( !> ! ! A07_I 137 Developed, Low Intensity 104 !> ( 57 ! 60 Developed, Medium B01_I Intensity !> A06_I !> Developed, High Intensity

290 176 ! (

Notes 275 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N ( 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec, NRG, NADS, USGS 309 3. Background: National Land Cover Dataset 286 287 ! ( ! 273 276 313 ! 312 ! ! 274 ! ! 311 277 272 ! ! ! 278 !

Page 2 of 2

May 2, 2019

APPENDICES

Appendix U - 025 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

APPENDIX A

TURBINE COORDINATES

Appendix U - 026 Appendix A Black Rock Wind Farm Project - Turbine Locations

Turbine Easting Northing Identification (UTM 17) (UTM 17)

A01_I 658,819 4,350,116 A02_I 658,972 4,350,366 A03_I 659,120 4,350,619 A04_I 659,278 4,350,868 A05_I 659,543 4,351,040 A06_I 659,727 4,351,310 A07_I 659,866 4,351,569 A08_I 660,037 4,351,806 A09_I 660,143 4,352,102 A10_I 660,361 4,352,330 A11_I 660,571 4,352,609 A12_I 660,695 4,352,879 A13_I 660,821 4,353,144 A14_I 660,962 4,353,504 A15_I 661,547 4,354,889 A16_I 661,821 4,355,067 A17_I 662,026 4,355,460 A18_I 662,224 4,355,713 A19_I 662,365 4,356,009 A20_I 662,547 4,356,285 A21_I 662,755 4,356,558 A22_I 662,869 4,356,860 A23_I 663,106 4,357,163 B01_I 657,688 4,351,354 B02_I 657,909 4,351,658 B03_I 657,996 4,352,095 C01_I 659,870 4,355,817 C02_I 660,194 4,356,081 C03_I 660,527 4,356,330

4/30/2019 Page 1 of 1 Appendix U - 027 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

APPENDIX B

RECEPTOR RESULTS AND COORDINATES

Appendix U - 028 Appendix B Black Rock Wind Farm Project - Receptor Locations and dBA

Receptor Easting Northing Turbine Sound Receptor Type Identification (UTM 17) (UTM 17) (dBA) R-001 Inhabited Dwelling 656,392 4,352,541 39.3 R-002 Inhabited Dwelling 659,592 4,354,155 43.2 R-003 Inhabited Dwelling 660,897 4,354,001 48.9 R-004 Inhabited Dwelling 660,924 4,354,002 48.9 R-005 Inhabited Dwelling 660,769 4,353,916 49.5 R-006 Inhabited Dwelling 660,721 4,353,911 49.3 R-007 Inhabited Dwelling 660,625 4,353,967 48.2 R-008 Inhabited Dwelling 660,707 4,354,028 48.1 R-009 Inhabited Dwelling 661,113 4,354,106 48.1 R-010 Inhabited Dwelling 661,077 4,354,157 47.8 R-011 Inhabited Dwelling 661,150 4,354,030 48.5 R-012 Inhabited Dwelling 661,125 4,353,991 48.9 R-013 Inhabited Dwelling 661,134 4,353,941 49.4 R-014 Inhabited Dwelling 661,139 4,353,828 50.8 R-015 Seasonal Dwelling 661,005 4,353,348 57.7 R-016 Inhabited Dwelling 661,352 4,354,385 48.7 R-017 Inhabited Dwelling 661,208 4,354,612 49.9 R-018 Inhabited Dwelling 661,167 4,354,787 50.5 R-019 Inhabited Dwelling 661,187 4,354,722 50.5 R-020 Inhabited Dwelling 661,156 4,354,849 50.6 R-021 Inhabited Dwelling 661,112 4,354,854 49.9 R-022 Inhabited Dwelling 661,105 4,354,818 49.7 R-023 Inhabited Dwelling 661,148 4,354,982 50.5 R-024 Inhabited Dwelling 661,342 4,355,311 51.0 R-025 Inhabited Dwelling 661,340 4,355,236 51.6 R-026 Inhabited Dwelling 661,294 4,355,265 50.9 R-027 Inhabited Dwelling 661,193 4,355,276 49.8 R-028 Inhabited Dwelling 661,250 4,355,345 49.9 R-029 Inhabited Dwelling 660,534 4,358,149 38.8 R-030 Inhabited Dwelling 660,518 4,357,953 39.6 R-031 Inhabited Dwelling 660,562 4,357,834 40.2 R-032 Inhabited Dwelling 660,564 4,357,815 40.3 R-033 Inhabited Dwelling 660,694 4,357,854 40.2 R-034 Inhabited Dwelling 660,630 4,357,772 40.6 R-035 Inhabited Dwelling 660,528 4,357,705 40.8 R-036 Inhabited Dwelling 660,559 4,357,712 40.8 R-037 Inhabited Dwelling 660,515 4,357,649 41.1 R-038 Inhabited Dwelling 660,499 4,357,589 41.4 R-039 Inhabited Dwelling 660,550 4,357,489 42.0 R-040 Inhabited Dwelling 660,582 4,357,489 42.1

4/30/2019 Page 1 of 9 Appendix U - 029 Appendix B Black Rock Wind Farm Project - Receptor Locations and dBA

Receptor Easting Northing Turbine Sound Receptor Type Identification (UTM 17) (UTM 17) (dBA) R-041 Church 660,660 4,357,421 42.5 R-042 Inhabited Dwelling 660,279 4,357,343 42.7 R-044 Inhabited Dwelling 659,801 4,357,005 43.8 R-045 Inhabited Dwelling 659,649 4,357,085 42.6 R-046 Inhabited Dwelling 659,461 4,356,840 43.2 R-047 Inhabited Dwelling 659,534 4,356,575 45.4 R-048 Inhabited Dwelling 659,503 4,356,486 45.8 R-049 Inhabited Dwelling 659,425 4,356,419 45.6 R-050 Inhabited Dwelling 659,382 4,356,353 45.7 R-051 Inhabited Dwelling 659,297 4,356,285 45.2 R-052 Inhabited Dwelling 659,152 4,356,022 44.7 R-053 Inhabited Dwelling 659,062 4,356,049 43.7 R-054 Inhabited Dwelling 660,790 4,357,104 44.8 R-056 Inhabited Dwelling 661,104 4,356,662 47.0 R-058 Inhabited Dwelling 661,516 4,356,473 47.4 R-059 Inhabited Dwelling 661,332 4,355,909 48.5 R-060 Inhabited Dwelling 661,395 4,355,972 48.6 R-061 Inhabited Dwelling 661,427 4,355,694 49.7 R-062 Inhabited Dwelling 661,418 4,355,644 49.8 R-063 Inhabited Dwelling 661,451 4,355,568 50.4 R-064 Inhabited Dwelling 661,391 4,355,456 50.5 R-065 Inhabited Dwelling 661,372 4,355,436 50.5 R-066 Inhabited Dwelling 661,357 4,355,406 50.5 R-067 Inhabited Dwelling 662,324 4,354,742 48.5 R-068 Inhabited Dwelling 662,329 4,354,696 48.1 R-069 Inhabited Dwelling 662,793 4,355,243 47.8 R-070 Inhabited Dwelling 660,407 4,353,894 47.6 R-071 Inhabited Dwelling 660,327 4,353,953 46.8 R-072 Inhabited Dwelling 660,307 4,353,865 47.2 R-073 Inhabited Dwelling 660,285 4,353,822 47.3 R-074 Inhabited Dwelling 660,232 4,353,782 47.2 R-075 Inhabited Dwelling 660,010 4,353,818 45.8 R-076 Inhabited Dwelling 660,073 4,353,806 46.2 R-077 Inhabited Dwelling 660,134 4,353,826 46.4 R-078 Inhabited Dwelling 660,054 4,353,897 45.7 R-079 Inhabited Dwelling 659,993 4,353,955 45.2 R-080 Inhabited Dwelling 659,920 4,353,980 44.8 R-081 Inhabited Dwelling 659,818 4,354,038 44.2 R-082 Inhabited Dwelling 659,740 4,354,072 43.9 R-083 Inhabited Dwelling 659,697 4,354,092 43.7

4/30/2019 Page 2 of 9 Appendix U - 030 Appendix B Black Rock Wind Farm Project - Receptor Locations and dBA

Receptor Easting Northing Turbine Sound Receptor Type Identification (UTM 17) (UTM 17) (dBA) R-084 Inhabited Dwelling 658,028 4,356,608 37.1 R-085 Inhabited Dwelling 658,074 4,356,533 37.4 R-086 Inhabited Dwelling 658,118 4,356,377 37.7 R-087 Inhabited Dwelling 658,142 4,356,332 37.9 R-088 Inhabited Dwelling 658,327 4,356,014 39.0 R-089 Inhabited Dwelling 658,315 4,355,951 39.0 R-090 Inhabited Dwelling 658,365 4,355,806 39.3 R-091 Inhabited Dwelling 658,350 4,355,750 39.3 R-092 Inhabited Dwelling 658,366 4,355,416 39.4 R-093 Inhabited Dwelling 660,242 4,354,090 45.7 R-094 Inhabited Dwelling 660,250 4,354,043 45.9 R-095 Inhabited Dwelling 659,457 4,352,755 47.3 R-096 Inhabited Dwelling 659,329 4,352,620 47.2 R-097 Inhabited Dwelling 659,086 4,352,632 46.1 R-098 Inhabited Dwelling 659,227 4,352,501 47.2 R-099 Inhabited Dwelling 659,309 4,352,497 47.6 R-100 Inhabited Dwelling 659,253 4,352,442 47.5 R-101 Inhabited Dwelling 659,129 4,352,197 48.0 R-102 Inhabited Dwelling 659,034 4,351,988 48.4 R-103 Inhabited Dwelling 659,436 4,352,816 46.9 R-104 Inhabited Dwelling 658,632 4,351,497 49.3 R-105 Inhabited Dwelling 658,745 4,351,110 51.0 R-106 Inhabited Dwelling 658,726 4,351,059 51.1 R-107 Inhabited Dwelling 658,663 4,350,999 50.9 R-109 Inhabited Dwelling 658,093 4,350,351 47.3 R-110 Inhabited Dwelling 657,962 4,350,283 46.2 R-111 Inhabited Dwelling 657,820 4,350,333 45.5 R-112 Inhabited Dwelling 657,776 4,350,371 45.4 R-113 Inhabited Dwelling 657,752 4,350,384 45.3 R-114 Inhabited Dwelling 657,618 4,350,555 45.6 R-115 Inhabited Dwelling 657,626 4,350,225 44.0 R-116 Inhabited Dwelling 657,529 4,350,551 45.2 R-117 Inhabited Dwelling 657,317 4,350,987 47.9 R-118 Inhabited Dwelling 656,917 4,350,996 43.9 R-119 Inhabited Dwelling 657,327 4,351,810 48.9 R-120 Inhabited Dwelling 656,924 4,351,922 44.2 R-121 Inhabited Dwelling 656,872 4,351,946 43.7 R-122 Inhabited Dwelling 656,913 4,352,014 43.9 R-123 Inhabited Dwelling 656,759 4,352,047 42.6 R-124 Inhabited Dwelling 656,675 4,352,048 42.0

4/30/2019 Page 3 of 9 Appendix U - 031 Appendix B Black Rock Wind Farm Project - Receptor Locations and dBA

Receptor Easting Northing Turbine Sound Receptor Type Identification (UTM 17) (UTM 17) (dBA) R-125 Inhabited Dwelling 656,058 4,351,721 38.7 R-126 Inhabited Dwelling 656,293 4,351,716 40.0 R-127 Inhabited Dwelling 656,640 4,351,633 42.4 R-128 Inhabited Dwelling 656,500 4,351,660 41.3 R-129 Inhabited Dwelling 662,000 4,357,509 44.4 R-130 Inhabited Dwelling 662,009 4,357,583 44.0 R-131 Inhabited Dwelling 662,321 4,357,707 44.6 R-132 Seasonal Dwelling 657,797 4,351,643 58.8 R-133 Inhabited Dwelling 662,607 4,355,351 50.2 R-135 Inhabited Dwelling 661,294 4,355,399 50.0 R-136 Seasonal Dwelling 660,439 4,353,077 54.3 R-137 Seasonal Dwelling 660,469 4,351,565 51.0 R-138 Inhabited Dwelling 656,207 4,352,348 38.8 R-139 Inhabited Dwelling 659,169 4,352,150 48.3 R-140 Inhabited Dwelling 659,426 4,352,708 47.3 R-141 Inhabited Dwelling 659,595 4,352,885 47.5 R-142 Inhabited Dwelling 661,405 4,356,413 47.3 R-143 Seasonal Dwelling 662,186 4,356,821 50.0 R-144 Inhabited Dwelling 662,256 4,357,820 43.6 R-145 Inhabited Dwelling 662,361 4,357,884 43.5 R-146 Inhabited Dwelling 662,471 4,357,905 43.7 R-147 Inhabited Dwelling 662,509 4,357,961 43.4 R-148 Inhabited Dwelling 662,536 4,357,999 43.2 R-149 Inhabited Dwelling 662,589 4,357,993 43.4 R-150 Inhabited Dwelling 662,492 4,358,058 42.7 R-151 Seasonal Dwelling 662,483 4,358,240 41.4 R-152 Inhabited Dwelling 662,578 4,358,231 41.6 R-153 Inhabited Dwelling 662,604 4,358,311 41.1 R-154 Inhabited Dwelling 662,790 4,358,375 40.8 R-155 Inhabited Dwelling 662,823 4,358,421 40.6 R-156 Inhabited Dwelling 662,723 4,358,456 40.3 R-157 Inhabited Dwelling 662,954 4,358,776 38.5 R-158 Inhabited Dwelling 660,532 4,357,517 41.9 R-159 Inhabited Dwelling 659,627 4,357,266 41.5 R-160 Inhabited Dwelling 660,829 4,357,204 44.0 R-161 Inhabited Dwelling 660,477 4,353,946 47.6 R-162 Seasonal Dwelling 660,336 4,353,977 46.7 R-163 Inhabited Dwelling 660,288 4,354,062 46.0 R-164 Inhabited Dwelling 659,883 4,354,038 44.5 R-165 Inhabited Dwelling 659,556 4,354,167 43.1

4/30/2019 Page 4 of 9 Appendix U - 032 Appendix B Black Rock Wind Farm Project - Receptor Locations and dBA

Receptor Easting Northing Turbine Sound Receptor Type Identification (UTM 17) (UTM 17) (dBA) R-166 Inhabited Dwelling 658,214 4,354,903 38.9 R-167 Inhabited Dwelling 658,242 4,354,794 39.0 R-168 Inhabited Dwelling 657,907 4,355,689 37.6 R-169 Inhabited Dwelling 658,435 4,356,213 39.3 R-170 Inhabited Dwelling 658,379 4,355,833 39.4 R-171 Inhabited Dwelling 658,382 4,355,673 39.5 R-172 Inhabited Dwelling 658,427 4,355,550 39.7 R-173 Inhabited Dwelling 658,247 4,355,496 38.9 R-174 Inhabited Dwelling 656,658 4,353,744 37.2 R-175 Inhabited Dwelling 656,905 4,353,798 37.7 R-176 Seasonal Dwelling 658,828 4,349,755 51.2 R-177 Inhabited Dwelling 657,703 4,353,824 39.5 R-178 Inhabited Dwelling 657,849 4,353,852 39.7 R-179 Inhabited Dwelling 657,951 4,353,865 39.8 R-180 Inhabited Dwelling 657,967 4,353,616 40.6 R-181 Inhabited Dwelling 657,941 4,353,728 40.2 R-182 Church 658,076 4,353,819 40.2 R-183 Inhabited Dwelling 658,134 4,353,685 40.7 R-184 Inhabited Dwelling 658,222 4,353,740 40.7 R-185 Inhabited Dwelling 658,204 4,353,884 40.3 R-186 Inhabited Dwelling 658,044 4,353,938 39.8 R-187 Inhabited Dwelling 658,016 4,354,079 39.4 R-188 Inhabited Dwelling 658,295 4,353,650 41.1 R-189 Inhabited Dwelling 659,172 4,353,377 43.8 R-190 Inhabited Dwelling 659,155 4,353,372 43.8 R-191 Inhabited Dwelling 659,095 4,353,340 43.7 R-192 Inhabited Dwelling 659,098 4,356,124 43.9 R-193 Inhabited Dwelling 659,170 4,356,049 44.8 R-194 Inhabited Dwelling 662,351 4,354,789 48.6 R-195 Inhabited Dwelling 662,270 4,354,695 48.6 R-196 Inhabited Dwelling 662,327 4,354,665 47.9 R-197 Inhabited Dwelling 660,731 4,351,052 46.6 R-198 Inhabited Dwelling 660,633 4,350,837 46.3 R-199 Inhabited Dwelling 660,561 4,350,688 46.0 R-200 Inhabited Dwelling 660,440 4,350,702 46.8 R-201 Inhabited Dwelling 660,289 4,350,625 47.3 R-202 Inhabited Dwelling 660,311 4,350,271 45.5 R-203 Inhabited Dwelling 660,240 4,350,165 45.4 R-204 Inhabited Dwelling 660,060 4,350,027 45.5 R-205 Inhabited Dwelling 659,909 4,349,927 45.8

4/30/2019 Page 5 of 9 Appendix U - 033 Appendix B Black Rock Wind Farm Project - Receptor Locations and dBA

Receptor Easting Northing Turbine Sound Receptor Type Identification (UTM 17) (UTM 17) (dBA) R-206 Inhabited Dwelling 656,472 4,353,433 37.5 R-207 Inhabited Dwelling 656,538 4,353,530 37.4 R-208 Inhabited Dwelling 656,589 4,353,537 37.5 R-209 Inhabited Dwelling 656,583 4,353,477 37.7 R-210 Inhabited Dwelling 656,570 4,353,441 37.7 R-211 Inhabited Dwelling 656,487 4,353,212 38.0 R-212 Inhabited Dwelling 656,533 4,353,200 38.2 R-213 Inhabited Dwelling 656,428 4,353,133 38.0 R-214 Inhabited Dwelling 656,400 4,353,029 38.2 R-215 Inhabited Dwelling 656,382 4,352,877 38.5 R-216 Inhabited Dwelling 656,373 4,352,807 38.6 R-217 Inhabited Dwelling 656,379 4,352,382 39.5 R-218 Inhabited Dwelling 656,704 4,352,533 40.8 R-219 Inhabited Dwelling 656,820 4,352,027 43.1 R-220 Inhabited Dwelling 658,448 4,354,923 39.6 R-221 Inhabited Dwelling 658,448 4,354,881 39.6 R-222 Inhabited Dwelling 658,319 4,354,787 39.3 R-223 Church 658,478 4,354,550 39.8 R-224 Inhabited Dwelling 658,431 4,354,555 39.7 R-225 Inhabited Dwelling 658,457 4,354,497 39.8 R-226 Inhabited Dwelling 658,554 4,354,554 40.0 R-227 Inhabited Dwelling 658,534 4,354,497 40.0 R-228 Inhabited Dwelling 658,530 4,354,427 40.1 R-229 Inhabited Dwelling 658,448 4,354,472 39.8 R-230 Inhabited Dwelling 658,465 4,354,425 39.9 R-231 Inhabited Dwelling 658,468 4,354,380 39.9 R-232 Inhabited Dwelling 658,557 4,354,384 40.2 R-233 Inhabited Dwelling 658,568 4,354,347 40.2 R-234 Inhabited Dwelling 658,500 4,354,237 40.2 R-235 Inhabited Dwelling 658,490 4,354,204 40.2 R-236 Inhabited Dwelling 658,594 4,354,228 40.4 R-237 Inhabited Dwelling 658,620 4,354,181 40.6 R-238 Inhabited Dwelling 658,661 4,354,088 40.8 R-239 Inhabited Dwelling 658,674 4,354,032 40.9 R-240 Inhabited Dwelling 658,662 4,354,021 40.9 R-241 Inhabited Dwelling 658,701 4,354,035 41.0 R-242 Inhabited Dwelling 658,689 4,354,199 40.7 R-243 Inhabited Dwelling 658,533 4,353,899 40.9 R-244 Inhabited Dwelling 658,645 4,353,962 41.0 R-245 Inhabited Dwelling 658,672 4,353,969 41.0

4/30/2019 Page 6 of 9 Appendix U - 034 Appendix B Black Rock Wind Farm Project - Receptor Locations and dBA

Receptor Easting Northing Turbine Sound Receptor Type Identification (UTM 17) (UTM 17) (dBA) R-246 Inhabited Dwelling 658,705 4,353,983 41.1 R-247 Inhabited Dwelling 658,742 4,354,047 41.1 R-248 Inhabited Dwelling 658,772 4,353,997 41.2 R-249 Inhabited Dwelling 658,822 4,354,027 41.3 R-250 Inhabited Dwelling 658,916 4,354,119 41.4 R-251 Inhabited Dwelling 658,936 4,354,141 41.4 R-252 Inhabited Dwelling 659,080 4,354,204 41.7 R-253 Inhabited Dwelling 659,055 4,354,036 41.9 R-254 Inhabited Dwelling 659,138 4,354,143 41.9 R-255 Inhabited Dwelling 659,185 4,354,240 41.9 R-256 Inhabited Dwelling 659,322 4,354,182 42.4 R-257 Inhabited Dwelling 659,418 4,354,254 42.6 R-258 Inhabited Dwelling 659,317 4,354,372 42.2 R-259 Inhabited Dwelling 659,478 4,354,432 42.7 R-260 Inhabited Dwelling 659,269 4,353,737 43.1 R-261 Inhabited Dwelling 657,200 4,352,076 46.3 R-262 Inhabited Dwelling 657,023 4,350,947 44.6 R-263 Inhabited Dwelling 663,255 4,359,118 36.7 R-264 Inhabited Dwelling 663,266 4,359,143 36.6 R-265 Inhabited Dwelling 663,219 4,359,031 37.1 R-266 Inhabited Dwelling 664,458 4,355,523 39.3 R-267 Inhabited Dwelling 664,562 4,355,682 39.0 R-268 Inhabited Dwelling 662,226 4,353,804 43.7 R-269 Inhabited Dwelling 662,063 4,353,837 44.4 R-270 Seasonal Dwelling 663,808 4,354,815 40.5 R-271 Inhabited Dwelling 660,396 4,348,835 38.9 R-272 Inhabited Dwelling 660,218 4,349,065 40.3 R-273 Inhabited Dwelling 660,281 4,349,282 41.1 R-274 Inhabited Dwelling 660,140 4,349,192 41.1 R-275 Seasonal Dwelling 659,531 4,349,522 45.0 R-276 Inhabited Dwelling 659,800 4,349,256 42.4 R-277 Inhabited Dwelling 659,827 4,349,068 41.3 R-278 Inhabited Dwelling 659,481 4,348,986 41.5 R-279 Seasonal Dwelling 660,333 4,351,036 49.3 R-280 Inhabited Dwelling 660,679 4,350,041 42.8 R-281 Inhabited Dwelling 660,878 4,349,955 41.6 R-282 Inhabited Dwelling 660,320 4,349,952 43.9 R-283 Inhabited Dwelling 660,890 4,350,618 44.0 R-284 Inhabited Dwelling 657,267 4,353,690 38.9 R-285 Inhabited Dwelling 660,804 4,350,811 45.2

4/30/2019 Page 7 of 9 Appendix U - 035 Appendix B Black Rock Wind Farm Project - Receptor Locations and dBA

Receptor Easting Northing Turbine Sound Receptor Type Identification (UTM 17) (UTM 17) (dBA) R-286 Seasonal Dwelling 659,345 4,349,385 44.6 R-287 Inhabited Dwelling 659,610 4,349,400 43.8 R-288 Inhabited Dwelling 664,531 4,355,770 39.2 R-289 Seasonal Dwelling 663,803 4,354,758 40.4 R-290 Inhabited Dwelling 657,389 4,349,764 41.3 R-291 Inhabited Dwelling 657,857 4,350,339 45.7 R-292 Inhabited Dwelling 659,523 4,354,230 42.9 R-293 Inhabited Dwelling 659,539 4,354,215 43.0 R-294 Cemetery 659,215 4,352,208 48.3 R-295 Inhabited Dwelling 663,206 4,358,913 37.7 R-296 Inhabited Dwelling 662,719 4,358,063 43.1 R-297 Inhabited Dwelling 658,429 4,355,438 39.6 R-298 Inhabited Dwelling 658,367 4,355,624 39.4 R-299 Inhabited Dwelling 664,450 4,355,641 39.4 R-300 Seasonal Dwelling 661,613 4,356,227 48.8 R-301 Seasonal Dwelling 661,551 4,354,574 52.2 R-302 Inhabited Dwelling 661,135 4,353,875 50.2 R-303 Cemetery 658,109 4,353,797 40.3 R-304 Inhabited Dwelling 659,125 4,352,326 47.4 R-305 Inhabited Dwelling 659,052 4,352,301 47.3 R-306 Inhabited Dwelling 656,839 4,351,016 43.3 R-307 Inhabited Dwelling 657,266 4,351,614 49.0 R-308 Inhabited Dwelling 656,294 4,351,618 40.0 R-309 Inhabited Dwelling 659,884 4,349,449 43.2 R-310 Inhabited Dwelling 660,260 4,348,780 39.0 R-311 Inhabited Dwelling 660,540 4,349,085 39.5 R-312 Inhabited Dwelling 660,503 4,349,232 40.2 R-313 Inhabited Dwelling 660,696 4,349,260 39.7 R-314 Seasonal Dwelling 660,449 4,353,121 54.1 R-315 Inhabited Dwelling 661,072 4,355,254 48.8 R-316 School 662,569 4,358,471 40.1 R-317 Inhabited Dwelling 662,063 4,357,388 45.4 R-318 Seasonal Dwelling 662,468 4,358,002 43.0 R-319 Seasonal Dwelling 662,482 4,357,996 43.1 R-320 Inhabited Dwelling 653,586 4,350,125 30.8 R-321 Inhabited Dwelling 655,165 4,349,264 33.3 R-322 Inhabited Dwelling 654,091 4,351,747 32.3 R-323 Inhabited Dwelling 654,021 4,351,789 32.1 R-324 Inhabited Dwelling 654,083 4,351,888 32.3 R-325 Inhabited Dwelling 654,495 4,352,238 33.2

4/30/2019 Page 8 of 9 Appendix U - 036 Appendix B Black Rock Wind Farm Project - Receptor Locations and dBA

Receptor Easting Northing Turbine Sound Receptor Type Identification (UTM 17) (UTM 17) (dBA) R-326 Inhabited Dwelling 653,414 4,350,350 30.6 R-327 Inhabited Dwelling 653,247 4,350,313 30.3 R-328 Inhabited Dwelling 653,351 4,350,321 30.5 R-329 Inhabited Dwelling 657,729 4,350,474 45.6 R-331 Inhabited Dwelling 661,427 4,355,561 50.3 R-332 Cemetery 660,668 4,356,448 55.4 R-333 Inhabited Dwelling 661,175 4,354,178 47.8

4/30/2019 Page 9 of 9 Appendix U - 037 ACOUSTIC SOUND STUDY BLACK ROCK WIND FARM

May 2, 2019

APPENDIX C

PRECONSTRUCTION AMBIENT SOUND STUDY

Appendix U - 038 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed

Black Rock Wind Farm

February 28, 2019

Prepared for: Black Rock Wind Force, LLC

Prepared by: Hankard Environmental, Inc. Verona, Wisconsin

Appendix U - 039 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Applicable Standards ...... 4 3. Project Site ...... 4 4. Survey Methods, Equipment, and Locations ...... 6 Survey Methodology ...... 6 Equipment ...... 7 Measurement Locations ...... 7 5. Ambient Noise Survey Results ...... 10 Attended Measurement Results ...... 10 Unattended Measurement Results ...... 13 6. Summary and Conclusions ...... 15

Tables

Table 4-1. Coordinates of Ambient Noise Measurement Locations ...... 8 Table 5-1. Attended (Short-Term) Ambient Measurement Results ...... 11 Table 5-2. Dates and Times of Attended Measurements ...... 12 Table 5-3. Meteorological Conditions During Attended Measurements ...... 12 Table 5-4. Results of Unattended Noise Level Monitoring ...... 14 Table 5-5. Noise Levels Versus Wind Speeds ...... 14

Figures

Figure 1-1. General Location of the Proposed Project ...... 3 Figure 3-1. Project Site Plan and Noise Measurement Locations ...... 5 Figure A-1. LT1 Measurement Location ...... 17 Figure A-2. LT2 Measurement Location ...... 18 Figure A-3. LT3 Measurement Location ...... 19 Figure A-4. ST1 Measurement Location ...... 20 Figure A-5. ST2 Measurement Location ...... 21 Figure A-6. ST3 Measurement Location ...... 22

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page i Appendix U - 040 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Figure B-1. ST1 Sound Frequency Spectra ...... 24 Figure B-2. ST2 Sound Frequency Spectra ...... 25 Figure B-3. ST3 Sound Frequency Spectra ...... 26 Figure C-1. LT1 Ambient Noise Level vs. Time ...... 28 Figure C-2. LT2 Ambient Noise Level vs. Time ...... 29

Figure D-1. LT1 Nighttime L90 vs. Wind Speed ...... 32

Figure D-2. LT2 Nighttime L90 vs. Wind Speed ...... 33

Figure D-3. LT3 Nighttime L90 vs. Wind Speed ...... 34

Appendices

APPENDIX A: Photographs of Measurement Locations ...... 16 APPENDIX B: Spectral Plots for Short-Term Measurement Locations ...... 23 APPENDIX C: Long-Term Noise Measurements Over Time Plots ...... 27 APPENDIX D: Long-Term Noise Level vs. Wind Speed Regression Plots ...... 31

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page ii Appendix U - 041 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

1. Introduction

This report describes the results of a pre-construction ambient noise measurement survey conducted by Hankard Environmental for Black Rock Wind Force, LLC (Black Rock) who is proposing to construct the Black Rock Wind Farm (Project) in Mineral and Grant Counties, West Virginia. The general location of the Project is shown in Figure 1-1. Black Rock will be submitting a Siting Certificate Application to the Public Service Commission of West Virginia. The Project is a proposed 131.4-megawatt (MW) wind powered electric-generating facility consisting of a combination of up to 32 General Electric 4.2-MW and Siemens Gamesa 4.2-MW wind turbine generators. Black Rock retained Hankard Environmental to conduct measurements of ambient sound levels at multiple locations in the Project area. This report documents the methods and equipment used to measure existing noise levels, the measurement locations, and the measurement results.

Figure 1-1. General Location of the Proposed Project

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 3 Appendix U - 042 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

2. Applicable Standards

There are no specific Federal, State of West Virginia, or local noise level limits that apply to the Project. The Public Service Commission of West Virginia, in its Rules Governing Siting Certificates for Exempt Wholesale Generators (Title 150, Legislative Rule, Series 30, July 2005), requires the following for proposed wind turbine projects:

. Preconstruction – identify land uses and existing ambient sound levels (Ldn) in communities within one mile of the generating facility’s property line. (Note that the Rules require the preparation of a noise contour map showing existing noise levels. However, this is not technically possible, as ambient noise levels vary considerably throughout the study area, and they change over time, therefore they cannot be represented by single- value noise level contours. In lieu of this, this report describes ambient noise levels measured at six different locations distributed throughout the Project area, what existing sources of noise create these levels, and how the levels vary over time and from location to location.)

. Construction – predict construction noise associated with blasting, earthmoving, pile driving, turbine erection, traffic, and equipment installation at the nearest property boundary and within one mile and five miles from the facility. Identify noise-sensitive areas within one mile and five miles of the facility. The noise sensitive areas include hospitals, schools, residences, cemeteries, parks, and churches. Describe construction equipment, procedures, and potential noise mitigation options.

. Operation – predict operation noise and identify land uses and type of structures (residential, commercial, or industrial) within one mile of the facility. Describe equipment and procedures to mitigate potential noise.

This report describes the pre-construction ambient noise level measurement results only. Construction and operational noise are described in other documents as part of Black Rock’s permit application.

3. Project Site

As shown in Figure 3-1, the Project is located in northeastern West Virginia, straddling the line between the counties of Mineral and Grant. The layout of the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm is also shown in the Figure 3-1. The area in the immediate vicinity of the Project is forested. Rural residences are located in the area, particularly in Skyline, to the north of Skyline along Hwy 42, and along Evans Drive in the southwest part of the Project. Ambient noise measurements were taken at the six representative locations shown in Figure 3-1.

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 4 Appendix U - 043 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Figure 3-1. Project Site Plan and Noise Measurement Locations

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 5 Appendix U - 044 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

4. Survey Methods, Equipment, and Locations

Wind turbine projects are unique in the field of environmental acoustics in that the Project will only produce noise when it is windy, and when it is windy ambient noise levels will be elevated due to the sound generated by the wind as it blows through trees and other vegetation. In general, the wind speed at the ground and at hub-height are correlated, with wind speed increasing with height according a consistent mathematical formula. The nights when it is very calm and quiet at the ground will, in general, be the nights when the turbines do not operate because there is not enough wind at hub-height. Nights of full operation will often have blustery winds at ground level, causing ambient noise levels to be louder due to the rustle of vegetation. Occasionally, upper-level winds enable full operation while ground winds, and therefore ambient noise levels, are relatively low (a condition known as “shear”). Given this relationship between wind speed, Project operation, and ambient noise levels, the primary purpose of this ambient noise survey was to determine ambient noise levels verses wind conditions.

Survey Methodology The survey made use of two methods of measurement to characterize ambient noise levels in the Project area. First, unattended “long-term” noise monitoring systems recorded data continuously over a period of many days at three separate locations. Second, attended “short-term” measurements were conducted at three other locations where sound levels were recorded and observations were made regarding audible sources of noise during both daytime and nighttime periods at three other representative locations.

The long-term monitors were installed on December 17, 2018 and were visited again on December 18 to confirm correct operation and data logging. Sound levels and ground wind speeds were recorded continuously and unattended over a 23-day period from December 17, 2018 until January 8, 2019. Upper-level wind speed measurements for the same period were acquired from a meteorological tower centrally located in the Project area.

Attended measurements were conducted during each of two separate visits, December 17-18, 2018 and January 7-8, 2019. During the December visit one set of measurements was conducted during one daytime and one nighttime period. During the January visit a set of measurements was conducted during two daytime and one nighttime period. Each measurement recorded ambient noise level data for a period of at least 15 minutes at each short-term measurement location while trained staff logged observations regarding various activities and noise sources at the site.

Ambient noise levels were measured and analyzed according to applicable portions of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S12.9-2013 Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound – Part 3: Short-term Measurements with an Observer Present, as well as ANSI S12.18-1994(R2009) Procedures for Outdoor Measurement of Sound Pressure Level. The sound level meters were configured to continuously measure and record 10-second samples of the L50, L10, L90 and Leq, as well as one-third octave band levels.

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 6 Appendix U - 045 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Equipment Ambient sound levels were measured using Larson Davis sound level meters (model 831), all of which conform to Type 1 specifications for sound level measurement systems as defined in ANSI S1.4-1983(R2006), American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters. All noise measurement and field calibration equipment were certified by a traceable laboratory within the past year. Laboratory calibration certificates and records are available upon request. Field calibrations were conducted upon equipment installation and retrieval with a Larson Davis CAL200 speakerphone calibrator, and the drift in the measured noise level was minimal (-0.2 to +0.2 dB over the measurement period) and within accepted limits (±0.5 dB per ANSI S12.9). The microphones were covered with hydrophobically treated seven-inch-diameter 80 pores-per-inch density windscreens (ACO Pacific model WS7-80T).

At the short-term (attended) measurement locations, the sound level meter was mounted to a tripod, and the microphone with windscreen was attached directly to the meter. The microphone was positioned 1.5 meters above the ground (per ANSI S12.9), in an open area, and away from acoustically reflective surfaces.

At each long-term (unattended) measurement location, the microphone was mounted on a steel pole and positioned 1.5 meters above the ground (per ANSI S12.9), in an open area, and away from acoustically reflective surfaces. All electronic equipment was contained in weatherproof locked cases, and was self-powered by batteries with solar panels.

Anemometers were also installed at each of the three long-term monitoring locations. Ten-second averages of ground wind speed and direction were measured using Vaisala WXT532 or WMT52 sonic anemometers mounted on steel poles approximately two meters above the ground (per ANSI S12.18), and located within approximately three meters of the microphones. Upper-level wind speed and direction at ten-minute intervals were provided by the Project from ongoing measurements at a 58-meter-tall meteorological tower centrally located in the Project area.

Measurement Locations The purpose of the measurements was to obtain a representative sample of the pre-construction environment in the Project area. Hankard Environmental staff chose the specific locations based on standard industry procedures, analysis requirements, aerial photograph surveys, access to sites via Project land agreements, and in-person site visits. The locations are geographically spread out across the Project area, with some located near busier roads, and some located away from any such sources.

Measurement locations are shown in Figure 3-1. The three long-term monitoring sites are identified as LT1, LT2, and LT3, and the three short-term monitoring sites are identified as ST1, ST2, and ST3. Photographs of all six measurement locations are presented in Appendix A. Table 4-1 lists the precise locations of each ambient measurement site. A description of each measurement location is as follows.

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 7 Appendix U - 046 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Table 4-1. Coordinates of Ambient Noise Measurement Locations

Longitude Lattitude Site ˚ W ˚ N LT01 79.1251 39.3407 LT02 79.1312 39.3208 LT03 79.1764 39.3031 ST01 79.1115 39.3597 ST02 79.1084 39.3338 ST03 79.1647 39.2898

Location LT1 Measurement location LT1 is in Mineral County toward the northern end of the Project area in an open area on a westward facing slope. The monitor is located about 150 meters off (east) of state route 42, which has intermittent traffic through the day. Heavier vehicles on highway 50 (1500 meters to the south) might also be heard at times due to an unobstructed line-of-sight. Nearby vegetation includes a large mown field space to the west and some tall brush on other sides. There are other fields beyond the brush to the north. The nearest tall trees are about 40 meters to the southeast, and a large forested area extends to the south from there. There are two residences visible from the monitor site: the nearest is a seasonal cabin 50 meters to the south, and the other is a home 200 meters uphill to the north. No activity was observed at either property during the site visits.

Location LT2 Measurement location LT2 is in Mineral County, centrally located in the Project, and near the busiest highway in the area, U.S. Hwy 50. The monitor was placed in the yard of an uninhabited residence accessed via Streets Lane about 40 meters south of Hwy 50 and elevated about five meters above the level of the highway. The monitor position was about 10 meters northeast of the house in an area of grass surrounded by trees. Highway noise was significant here, and there was a pull-off spot along the highway for east-bound trucks to stop and check brakes before descending the hill. There are two neighboring homes within 100 meters that both seemed quiet during observation periods. There is a highway maintenance facility about 400 meters away (near the intersection of Rte 42 and Hwy 50) from which truck back-up alarms could be heard.

Location LT3 Measurement location LT3 is in Grant County toward the southwestern part of the Project area on a dead-end road, Evans Drive, and is about 400 meters from the nearest through-road, Butterfly Hollow. The monitor position was beside the gate to a cow pasture; livestock were active near a shelter and feeding site about 90 meters away. There are only two residences within view of the site (approximately 80 meters and 150 meters distance).

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 8 Appendix U - 047 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Location ST1 Measurement location ST1 is alongside Pinnacle Road, a rural road with only light vehicle traffic. Land surrounding the site is a mixture of fields, woods, and brush. There are only two residences within view of the site, both within 100 meters. The monitor was placed near the driveway of one residence, but no activity was observed while measurements were being taken. The dominant noise source here was due to winds through tall brush and some trees very near the monitor location.

Location ST2 Measurement location ST2 is in a pull-off area alongside U.S. Highway 50. There was frequent vehicle traffic during the day (almost constant at times), including cars and large trucks. Traffic was sporadic during the night. Noise from wind through the nearby trees was common and was the dominant source of noise when traffic was absent. Sounds of water from a small stream of run-off were also audible when wind and traffic noises were lower. There are no residences or other facilities within view. The nearest residences are several hundred meters away and are separated from the site by forests and significant changes in elevation.

Location ST3 Measurement location ST3 is alongside Mt. Pisgah Road in an open field. There are forested areas immediately across the road to the east and about 40 meters to the west. There are existing wind turbines just beyond the trees to the east (the nearest is about 700 meters away), and the turbine noise was distinguishable during at least one of the daytime measurements. Only one residence was visible (to the south), but no activity was observed there. Only a few cars passed by during the daytime measurements and none during the nighttime measurements. The dominant noise source was usually from wind through the trees just across the road.

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 9 Appendix U - 048 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

5. Ambient Noise Survey Results

Attended Measurement Results The results of the attended ambient noise levels are listed in Table 5-1. Three quantities are listed for each measurement. The L10 is the level exceeded 10% of the time during the measurement interval (15 minutes), and is representative of loud events such as vehicle pass-bys and wind gusts. The Leq, or equivalent level, is the average noise level over the interval. The L90 is the level exceeded 90% of the time, and is representative of the baseline, constantly-occurring ambient noise levels occurring in an environment. Overall, levels range from 27 dBA (L90 at night during calm conditions) to 63 dBA (L10 during the daytime with significant vehicle traffic present nearby).

On a site-wide basis, average L10 levels range from 44 to 52 dBA, Leq levels range from 42 to 51 dBA, and L90 levels range from 39 to 41 dBA. Noise levels at night are about 10 dBA quieter than during the day.

Daytime sound levels at sites ST1 and ST3 were fairly similar to one another on each of the three days, while levels differed more substantially from one day to the next due to changing winds. Daytime Leq values at these two sites ranged from 39 to 53 dBA overall. Site ST2 had significantly higher measured daytime Leq levels, ranging from 56 to 63 dBA due to the frequent vehicular traffic. In addition to traffic on local roads and aircraft overflights, other common audible sounds included wind in trees, wildlife vocalizations, and dogs. The most consistent dominant noise source across all sites was the sound of wind blowing through vegetation (trees and brush). Location ST2 (along Highway 50) was much more affected by vehicular traffic than the other sites.

The frequency spectra of the short-term measurement data were also examined. Plots of the frequency spectra for the five short-term measurements at each site are presented in Appendix B. Frequency spectra vary depending on the dominant source in the environment. Traffic, wind, and other sources emit different spectra. Comparing spectra from different measurements reinforces the fact that wind speed is a major determinant of ambient noise levels. Another notable spectral feature is a series of “spikes” among the lower frequencies present in the daytime measurements at site ST2, which are consistent with vehicular traffic.

Table 5-2 lists the dates and start times of each measurement. Table 5-3 lists the weather conditions for each of the five attended observation periods. Weather conditions during short- term measurements were mostly typical of the season with temperatures ranging from a few degrees below freezing to a high of 12˚ C. Winds were varied, and most observation periods had some substantial gusts.

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 10 Appendix U - 049 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Table 5-1. Attended (Short-Term) Ambient Measurement Results

L10 Leq L90 Location Day/ Night (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Observation notes wind through trees/foliage; occasional vehicles passing by; fairly light winds with ST01 Day 1545245 some gusting

Day 2 42 39 34 gusty wind through trees and underbrush; no vehicles or other activity

winds increasing; nearby trees constantly noisy; airplane flyover ~12:35; no Day 3484939 vehicles until two passed after 12:40

Night 1 54 52 46 wind through foliage loud and constant;

distant trees can be heard as gusts come through; no nearby traffic; some distant Night 2343127 trucks (route 42?) can be heard but not seen Day Average484739 Night Average444236 Location Avg.474538 wind through trees; cars on rte 50 approx one per minute; sound of flowing water ST02 Day 1605752 on hillside; fairly light winds with some gusting frequent road traffic, including some heavy trucks; bird sounds; water trickling Day 2636336 from hillside run‐off; car horn at ~16:37 winds light at the monitor but turbines spinning across the valley; frequent traffic Day 3595637 passing by; distant chain saw; some bird sounds; rustling of leaves constant wind noise through trees; water running on hillside; one car passed; Night 1494948 partly cloudy water trickling from run‐off; some rustling from treetops; very distant, long Night 2373534 "roars" are likely trucks further down valley Day Average615842 Night Average434241 Location Avg.535241 wind through foliage; distant dog/s barking; possible wind turbines to SE; fairly ST03 Day 1505344 light winds with some gusting

Day 2 43 44 39 wind noise through trees; existing turbines to the SE were clearly audible

extremely windy; wind rocked the tripod at one point; abbreviated collection Day 3504741 time; loud airplane passed near the end of measurement wind through foliage, sounds like an ocean all around; ground winds are moderate Night 1535045 but higher trees are experiencing much stronger winds;

Night 2 34 34 33 turbine noise from S/SE; light noise from wind in trees; no vehicular traffic

Day Average484841 Night Average444239 Location Avg.464540

Site‐Wide Average Day525141 Night444239

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 11 Appendix U - 050 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Table 5-2. Dates and Times of Attended Measurements Observation start time Date ST1 ST2 ST3 Day 1 Dec 17, 2018 16:55 17:30 16:15 Day 2 Jan 7, 2019 13:30 16:30 14:50 Day 3 Jan 8, 2019 12:30 12:00 13:10 Night 1 Dec 17, 2018 22:50 23:30 22:10 Night 2 Jan 7‐8, 2019 1:45 2:20 0:45

Table 5-3. Meteorological Conditions During Attended Measurements Temperature (C) Wind Wind Speed at 2.5 m (m/s) Relative Date/time Low High Direction Avg. Low Avg. High Gusts Humidity Dec 18, 2018 (day) 1.7° 3.1° NW 4.7 5.1 11.3 44-50% Dec 18, 2018 (night) -1.9° -1.1° NW 4.1 4.7 10.4 56-58% Jan 7, 2019 (day) -1.9° -1.8° S-SE 2.7 3.5 7.5 59-60% Jan 7-8, 2019 (night) 3.3° 5.5° S-SE 1.1 2.6 7.8 90-92% Jan 8, 2019 (day) 11.8° 12.2° NW 2.4 2.4 9.2 73-79%

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 12 Appendix U - 051 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Unattended Measurement Results Noise levels were measured continuously from December 17, 2018 to January 8, 2019 at the three long-term locations. Plots of the noise levels measured over time at each location are shown in the figures in Appendix C. Also included in the plots are the measured ground-level wind speeds and wind speeds measured at a height of 58 meters at the Project’s meteorological tower.

Table 5-4 list the average noise level measured during each of 20 full days (December 18, 2018 through January 6, 2019) at each location. In keeping with Public Service Commission of West Virginia requirements, noise levels are expressed in terms of the day-night level (Ldn, dBA). The Ldn is the average noise level (Leq) over a 24-hour period with 10 dBA added to the nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) hours to account for heightened noise sensitivity at night. The overall average Ldn level across all sites ranges from 51 to 58 dBA, with an average of 54 dBA. Site LT1 had the lowest average Ldn level (51 dBA), while site LT2 was consistently the loudest (average Ldn of 58 dBA).

Wind speed data were obtained from an on-site meteorological tower for the purposes of correlating ambient noise levels with wind speeds near the hub-height of the proposed turbines (wind speeds were extrapolated to the proposed hub-height of 127.5 meters). The measured ambient noise levels (10-minute L90, dBA) at each site were correlated with these hub-height wind speeds, and a regression curve fit was performed to determine the relationship between ambient noise levels and turbine operations (which depend on wind speed). Plots of the regression for each site are presented in Appendix C.

Table 5-5 summarizes the results of this analysis. Ambient noise levels at each site are provided for three hub-height wind speeds: Cut-in (approximately 4 m/s at hub height), Critical (approximately 7 m/s at hub height), and full turbine power output (approximately 10 m/s at hub height). Figures C-4 through C-6 show the resulting noise level versus wind speed regression plot for each location. A summary of the results is as follows:

. The cut-in wind speed is that at which turbines just begin to operate, and, as expected, ambient noise levels are relatively low (29 to 32 dBA, L90).

. The critical wind speed is that at which turbines would operate near full acoustic output, yet ground winds could still be expected to be moderate. Ambient noise levels under these conditions range from approximately 33 to 36 dBA, L90.

. At full turbine power output, the turbines would be producing full acoustic emissions, but ground wind speeds are expected to be moderate to high. Ambient noise levels under these conditions range from approximately 35 to 38 dBA, L90.

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 13 Appendix U - 052 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Table 5-4. Results of Unattended Noise Level Monitoring LT01 Ldn LT02 Ldn LT03 Ldn Calendar Day* (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 12/18/2018 52 61 64 12/19/2018 43 56 47 12/20/2018 43 55 49 12/21/2018 52 60 53 12/22/2018 59 62 61 12/23/2018 47 55 43 12/24/2018 56 59 57 12/25/2018 42 52 46 12/26/2018 48 55 44 12/27/2018 49 55 47 12/28/2018 54 57 57 12/29/2018 57 57 62 12/30/2018 44 52 52 12/31/2018 49 54 52 1/1/2019 66 68 69 1/2/2019 44 55 45 1/3/2019 54 57 58 1/4/2019 45 56 40 1/5/2019 58 63 61 1/6/2019 64 67 65 site average 51 58 54 site minimum 42 52 40 site maximum 66 68 69

* Only complete (24‐hr) measurement days were included

Table 5-5. Noise Levels Versus Wind Speeds Average 10-Min L Measurement Period 90 (dBA) Measurement

Location Start Stop Cut-In Critical Full Power LT1 Dec 17, 2018 Jan 7, 2019 29 33 35 LT2 Dec 17, 2018 Jan 8, 2019 32 36 38 LT3 Dec 17, 2018 Jan 8, 2019 31 35 37

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 14 Appendix U - 053 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

6. Summary and Conclusions

Black Rock retained Hankard Environmental to conduct measurements of ambient sound levels at multiple locations in area of the Project. This report documents the methods and equipment used to measure existing noise levels, the measurement locations, and the measurement results.

The survey made use of two methods of measurement to characterize ambient noise levels in the Project area. First, unattended “long-term” noise monitoring systems recorded data continuously over a period of many days at three separate locations. Sound levels and ground wind speeds were recorded continuously and unattended over a 23-day period from December 17, 2018 until January 8, 2019. Upper-level wind speed measurements for the same period were acquired from a meteorological tower centrally located in the Project area. Second, attended “short-term” measurements were conducted at three other representative locations where sound levels were recorded and observations were made regarding audible sources of noise during both daytime and nighttime periods. Attended measurements were conducted during three daytime and two nighttime periods at each short-term measurement location.

Based on the attended short-term measurements, ambient noise levels range from 27 dBA (L90 at night during calm conditions) to 63 dBA (L10 during the daytime with significant vehicle traffic present nearby). On a site-wide basis, average L10 levels range from 44 to 52 dBA, Leq levels range from 42 to 51 dBA, and L90 levels range from 39 to 41 dBA. Noise levels at night are about 10 dBA quieter than during the day.

Based on the unattended long-term measurements, ambient noise levels range from 40 to 69 dBA (Ldn), with an average of 54 dBA. Site LT1 had the lowest average Ldn level (51 dBA), while site LT2 was consistently the loudest (average Ldn of 58 dBA).

The long-term data were also correlated with wind speeds measured at the Project’s meteorological tower to determine what ambient noise levels are under three different hub-height wind speed conditions: (1) at the cut-in speed of 4 m/s when the turbines would just start operating, (2) at the “critical” wind speed of 7 m/s, which is when the turbines produce near full acoustic output but ground winds might still be low, and (3) at 10 m/s when the turbines would be producing full acoustic output. The noise levels during these conditions are approximately 30 dBA (L90) at cut-in, 35 dBA at the critical speed, and 37 dBA at full turbine power output. These are typical ranges based on measurements conducted by Hankard Environmental at other locations.

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 15 Appendix U - 054 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

APPENDIX A: Photographs of Measurement Locations

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 16 Appendix U - 055 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Figure A-1. LT1 Measurement Location

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 17 Appendix U - 056 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Figure A-2. LT2 Measurement Location

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 18 Appendix U - 057 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Figure A-3. LT3 Measurement Location

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 19 Appendix U - 058 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Figure A-4. ST1 Measurement Location

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 20 Appendix U - 059 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Figure A-5. ST2 Measurement Location

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 21 Appendix U - 060 Pre‐Construction Ambient Noise Survey for the proposed Black Rock Wind Farm

Figure A-6. ST3 Measurement Location

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 22 Appendix U - 061 Pre‐Construction Noise Analysis for the proposed Freeborn Wind Farm

APPENDIX B: Spectral Plots for Short-Term Measurement Locations

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 23 Appendix U - 062 Pre‐Construction Noise Analysis for the proposed Freeborn Wind Farm

Figure B-1. ST1 Sound Frequency Spectra

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 24 Appendix U - 063 Pre‐Construction Noise Analysis for the proposed Freeborn Wind Farm

Figure B-2. ST2 Sound Frequency Spectra

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 25 Appendix U - 064 Pre‐Construction Noise Analysis for the proposed Freeborn Wind Farm

Figure B-3. ST3 Sound Frequency Spectra

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 26 Appendix U - 065 Pre‐Construction Noise Analysis for the proposed Freeborn Wind Farm

APPENDIX C: Long-Term Noise Measurements Over Time Plots

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 27 Appendix U - 066 Pre‐Construction Noise Analysis for the proposed Freeborn Wind Farm

Figure C-1. LT1 Ambient Noise Level vs. Time

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 28 Appendix U - 067 Pre‐Construction Noise Analysis for the proposed Freeborn Wind Farm

Figure C-2. LT2 Ambient Noise Level vs. Time

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 29 Appendix U - 068 Pre‐Construction Noise Analysis for the proposed Freeborn Wind Farm

Figure C-3. LT3 Ambient Noise Level vs. Time

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 30 Appendix U - 069 Pre‐Construction Noise Analysis for the proposed Freeborn Wind Farm

APPENDIX D: Long-Term Noise Level vs. Wind Speed Regression Plots

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 31 Appendix U - 070 Pre‐Construction Noise Analysis for the proposed Freeborn Wind Farm

Site LT01 Nighttime Ambient: L90 vs. Wind Speed

L90 (dBA) 40

y = 0.0321x2 + 0.6014x + 25.663 25

20 246810121416182022242628 Wind Speed (m/s) at hub‐height (127.5m)

Figure D-1. LT1 Nighttime L90 vs. Wind Speed

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 32 Appendix U - 071 Pre‐Construction Noise Analysis for the proposed Freeborn Wind Farm

Site LT02 Nighttime Ambient: L90 vs. Wind Speed

L90 (dBA) 40

25 y = 0.0342x2 + 0.5635x + 29.41 20 246810121416182022242628 Wind Speed (m/s) at hub‐height (127.5m)

Figure D-2. LT2 Nighttime L90 vs. Wind Speed

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 33 Appendix U - 072 Pre‐Construction Noise Analysis for the proposed Freeborn Wind Farm

Site LT03 Nighttime Ambient: L90 vs. Wind Speed

L90 (dBA) 40

25 y = 0.0387x2 + 0.4474x + 28.697

20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Wind Speed (m/s) at hub‐height (127.5m)

Figure D-3. LT3 Nighttime L90 vs. Wind Speed

Hankard Environmental February 28, 2019 Page 34 Appendix U - 073