DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Statement DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE Copenhagen Wind Farm Town of Denmark, Lewis County and Towns of Rutland, Champion and Watertown, Jefferson County, New York Lead Agency: Town of Denmark Planning Board 3707 Roberts Road Carthage, New York 13619 Project Sponsor: Copenhagen Wind Farm, LLC c/o OwnEnergy 45 Main Street, Suite 538 Brooklyn, New York 11201 Contact: James Damon Phone: (646) 898-3690 Prepared By: edr Companies 217 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000 Syracuse, New York 13202 Contact: Brian Schwabenbauer Phone: (315) 471-0688 Date Submitted to Lead Agency: May 7, 2013 Date Accepted by Lead Agency: June 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................... viii FIRMS INVOLVED IN PREPARATION OF THE DEIS ................................................................................................. x 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Project Sponsor .................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.2 Project Components.............................................................................................................................. 9 2.1.3 Project Lease Easements ................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Project Purpose, Need, and Benefit............................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Project Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 10 2.2.2 New York State Policy......................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Federal Policy ..................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.4 Project Benefits ................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Project Cost and Funding .............................................................................................................................. 17 2.4 General Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 18 2.5 Project Layout and Components ................................................................................................................... 19 2.5.1 Project Siting Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 19 2.5.2 Wind Turbines ..................................................................................................................................... 21 2.5.3 Electrical System ................................................................................................................................ 22 2.5.4 Access Roads ..................................................................................................................................... 24 2.5.5 Wind Measurement Tower .................................................................................................................. 24 2.5.6 Staging Area ....................................................................................................................................... 24 2.5.7 Operations and Maintenance Facility .................................................................................................. 25 2.6 Project Construction ...................................................................................................................................... 25 2.6.1 Pre-construction Activities ................................................................................................................... 26 2.6.2 Staging Area Construction .................................................................................................................. 27 2.6.3 Site Preparation for Construction ........................................................................................................ 27 2.6.4 Public Road Improvements ................................................................................................................. 27 2.6.5 Access Road Construction .................................................................................................................. 28 2.6.6 Foundation Construction ..................................................................................................................... 29 2.6.7 Electrical Collector System Installation ............................................................................................... 30 2.6.8 Wind Turbine Assembly, Erection and Commissioning ....................................................................... 31 2.6.9 Point of Interconnection Station and Transmission Line ..................................................................... 32 2.6.10 Operations and Maintenance Facility Construction ............................................................................. 33 2.6.11 Project Construction Summary ........................................................................................................... 33 2.7 Operations and Maintenance ......................................................................................................................... 34 2.8 Decommissioning and Closure Plans ............................................................................................................ 37 2.9 Required Approvals and Applicable Regulatory Programs ............................................................................ 39 2.9.1 Public and Agency Outreach ............................................................................................................... 40 2.9.2 SEQRA Process ................................................................................................................................. 42 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................... 46 3.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 47 3.1.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................................. 47 3.1.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 51 3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 54 3.2 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 56 3.2.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................................. 56 3.2.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 63 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ii Copenhagen Wind Farm 3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 70 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................................... 74 3.3.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................................. 74 3.3.2 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 94 3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 112 3.4 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................... 116 3.4.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................................ 116 3.4.2 Potential Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 118 3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 119 3.5 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 120 3.5.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................................ 120 3.5.2 Potential
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elevated Opportunities for the South with Improved Turbines and Reduced Costs, Wind Farms the South Is a New Frontier for the Wind Industry
    Southern Alliance for Clean Energy October 2014 Advanced Wind Technology Expanded Potential Elevated Opportunities for the South With improved turbines and reduced costs, wind farms The South is a new frontier for the wind industry. now make economic sense in all states across the Advanced wind turbine technology and reduced costs South. Using currently available wind turbine have expanded the resource potential and have made technology, over 134,000 megawatts (MW) of wind wind energy economically feasible in more places in the potential exists within the region - about half as much Southern United States. of the total installed electric utility capacity. Megawatts of Onshore Wind Potential Improved Turbines The biggest changes in wind turbine technology over the past five years include taller turbines and longer blades. Just five years ago, wind turbines with a hub height of 80 meters (about 260 feet) and blade lengths of 40 meters (about 130 feet) were fairly standard. Taller turbines reach stronger, more consistent wind speeds. Hub heights of up to 140 meters (460 feet) are now available for wind farm developers. Longer blades are capable of capturing more wind, thus harnessing slower wind speeds. Blades are now available over 55 meters (180 feet) in length. Reduced Costs Wind energy is now one of the least expensive sources of new power generation in the country. Costs have Source: Adapted from National Renewable Energy Lab 2013 declined by 39% over the past decade for wind speed As can be seen in the chart above, all states in the areas averaging 6 meters per second. This reduced cost particularly applies to the Southeast, a region with South now contain substantial onshore wind energy typically lower wind speeds.
    [Show full text]
  • P501 Numerical Simulation of Wind Power Potential in Upstate New York
    P501 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF WIND POWER POTENTIAL IN UPSTATE NEW YORK Robert Ballentine *, Scott Steiger and Daniel Phoenix State University of New York at Oswego 1. INTRODUCTION 2. METHODOLOGY Consistent with the national goal of moving away 2.1 Grid Arrangement from our dependence on carbon-based fuels, there is considerable interest in New York State in developing We are running the ARW-core of WRF on a wind power especially in areas with highest potential. doubly-nested grid (Fig. 1) to ensure that both large- The purpose of this research is to simulate low-level scale meteorological forcing and local geographical winds over upstate New York by running the Weather effects are well-represented. The grid spacings of the Research and Forecasting (WRF, Skamarock, et al large, intermediate and fine grids are 12 km, 4 km and 2005) model every day on a high-resolution (1.333 1.333 km respectively. We use 33 sigma levels where km) domain. Using the standard wind speed-versus- the lowest levels correspond to 10m, 40m and 80m power generation curve for a GE 1.5 MW wind above ground under typical meteorological conditions. turbine, we can estimate the monthly and seasonal We employ the Noah LSM and Yonsei PBL schemes. average wind power potential at all of our grid points (covering much of upstate New York and adjacent Lake Ontario). To determine the accuracy of WRF wind predictions, we are comparing winds simulated by WRF at 10 m AGL with hourly observations at three regularly reporting sites near Lake Ontario. 1.1 Brief Description of Wind Power Sites As of November 2009, New York State had more than 1200 MW of wind generating capacity from sites such as Horizon Wind Energy's Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County and farms operated by Noble Environmental Power in Clinton, Franklin and Wyoming Counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Opinion and the Environmental, Economic and Aesthetic Impacts of Offshore Wind
    Public Opinion and the Environmental, Economic and Aesthetic Impacts of Offshore Wind * Drew Busha,b , Porter Hoaglandb a Dept. of Geography and McGill School of Environment, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A0B9, Canada1 b Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, USA E-mail addresses: [email protected]; [email protected] * Corresponding Author for all stages: Drew Bush, (202)640-0333 1 Permanent/Present Address: Drew Bush, PO Box 756, 17 Becker Lane, New Castle, NH 03854 Bush D. & Hoagland, P. 1 Highlights • Early Cape Wind advocates and opposition use impacts to sway uninformed public. • “Extremist" arguments perpetuate uncertainties about impacts in public's mind. • Expert elicitation compares stakeholder understandings of impacts with scientists. • We find "non-extremist" stakeholder attitudes converge with scientists over time. • We hypothesize scientific education at outset may improve planning process. Abstract During ten-plus years of debate over the proposed Cape Wind facility off Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the public’s understanding of its environmental, economic, and visual impacts matured. Tradeoffs also have become apparent to scientists and decision-makers during two environmental impact statement reviews and other stakeholder processes. Our research aims to show how residents’ opinions changed during the debate over this first- of-its-kind project in relation to understandings of project impacts. Our methods included an examination of public opinion polls and the refereed literature that traces public attitudes and knowledge about Cape Wind. Next we conducted expert elicitations to compare trends with the level of understanding held by small groups of scientists and Cape Cod stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Turbine Related Noise: Current Knowledge and Research Needs
    New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Wind Turbine-Related Noise: Current Knowledge and Research Needs June 2013 NYSERDA Report 13-14 for Energy NYSERDA’s Promise to New Yorkers: NYSERDA provides resources, expertise and objective information so New Yorkers can make confident, informed energy decisions. Our Mission: Advance innovative energy solutions in ways that improve New York’s economy and environment. Our Vision: Serve as a catalyst—advancing energy innovation and technology, transforming New York’s economy, empowering people to choose clean and efficient energy as part of their everyday lives. Our Core Values: Objectivity, integrity, public service, partnership and innovation. Our Portfolios NYSERDA programs are organized into five portfolios, each representing a complementary group of offerings with common areas of energy-related focus and objectives. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Deployment Energy and the Environment Helping to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of Helping New York to achieve its aggressive energy efficiency and energy production and use – including environmental research renewable energy goals – including programs to motivate increased and development, regional initiatives to improve environmental efficiency in energy consumption by consumers (residential, sustainability and West Valley Site Management. commercial, municipal, institutional, industrial, and transportation), to increase production by renewable power suppliers, to support Energy Data, Planning and Policy market
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Action Plan 2019
    Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement Communities Program Annual Action Plan Program Year 2019 Prepared by the City of Watertown Planning and Community Development Department 245 Washington Street Watertown, NY 13601 Adopted- May 20, 2019 Executive Summary AP-05 Executive Summary - 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1. Introduction This document represents the City of Watertown’s Annual Action Plan for Program Year 2019 for the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The City became an Entitlement Community under the CDBG Program for the first time in 2014 and developed a two-year Consolidated Plan to start the program. In 2016, the City developed its first five-year Consolidated Plan, which was written in conjunction with the North Country Home Consortium’s (NCHC) Consolidated Plan. The NCHC represents a three county area consisting of Jefferson, Lewis and St. Lawrence counties and receives annual funding from the HOME Investment Partnership program. This plan is the fourth Annual Action Plan that has been developed using the five-year Consolidated Plan that covers Program Years 2016- 2020. The City’s 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan goals include neighborhood stabilization and revitalization, affordable housing rehabilitation, homeownership assistance, fair housing education, homeless assistance, support of public services and job support and creation. The plan was developed through extensive public outreach and citizen participation that included two public meetings, a public hearing and individual outreach to numerous partner agencies identified in our Citizen Participation Plan. The City’s 2016 Annual Action Plan emphasized the City’s three primary goals of neighborhood stabilization and revitalization, affordable housing rehabilitation and homeownership assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Wind Energy
    Planning for Wind Energy Suzanne Rynne, AICP , Larry Flowers, Eric Lantz, and Erica Heller, AICP , Editors American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 566 Planning for Wind Energy is the result of a collaborative part- search intern at APA; Kirstin Kuenzi is a research intern at nership among the American Planning Association (APA), APA; Joe MacDonald, aicp, was program development se- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the nior associate at APA; Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp, is a research American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and Clarion associate and co-editor of PAS Memo at APA. Associates. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department The authors thank the many other individuals who con- of Energy under award number DE-EE0000717, as part of tributed to or supported this project, particularly the plan- the 20% Wind by 2030: Overcoming the Challenges funding ners, elected officials, and other stakeholders from case- opportunity. study communities who participated in interviews, shared The report was developed under the auspices of the Green documents and images, and reviewed drafts of the case Communities Research Center, one of APA’s National studies. Special thanks also goes to the project partners Centers for Planning. The Center engages in research, policy, who reviewed the entire report and provided thoughtful outreach, and education that advance green communities edits and comments, as well as the scoping symposium through planning. For more information, visit www.plan- participants who worked with APA and project partners to ning.org/nationalcenters/green/index.htm. APA’s National develop the outline for the report: James Andrews, utilities Centers for Planning conduct policy-relevant research and specialist at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; education involving community health, natural and man- Jennifer Banks, offshore wind and siting specialist at AWEA; made hazards, and green communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Final Phase II Report
    REVISED DRAFT FINAL REPORT NNYYSS RROOUUTTEE 1122 CCOORRRRIIDDOORR SSTTUUDDYY PPHHAASSEE IIII Broome, Chenango, Madison & Oneida Counties Prepared For: New York State Department of Transportation October 2008 NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II DRAFT FINAL REPORT NYS ROUTE 12 CORRIDOR STUDY PHASE II October 2008 Prepared For : New York State Department of Transportation Region 2 Region 9 207 Genesee Street 44 Hawley Street Utica, New York 13501 Binghamton, New York 13901 In Conjunction With: Broome County Chenango County 47 Thomas Road 79 Rexford Street Binghamton, New York 13901 Norwich, New York 13815 Madison County Oneida County 139 North Court Street 321 Main Street Wampsville, New York 13163 Utica, NY 13501 And the Route 12 Task Force Prepared By : Barton & Loguidice, P.C. Wilbur Smith Associates 290 Elwood Davis Road 1301 Gervais Street Box 3107 P.O. Box 92 Syracuse, New York 13220 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 October 2008 - i - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Phase II Objectives 1.2 Description of Study Area 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 NY-12 Function 2.2 Analysis of Corridor Community Land Use 2.3 Analysis of Corridor – Base Maps 2.4 Traffic Data and Analysis 2.5 Phase I Report 2.6 Endangered and Threatened Species Inquiry 2.7 Origin-Destination Analysis 3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 3.1 Public Meeting Schedule & Locations 3.2 Website 3.3 Distributed Materials 3.4 Comments Received 4. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 4.1 Problem Identification 5. LONG RANGE ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Evaluation Criteria 5.2 Preliminary Alternatives Considered 1. I-88 Connector 2.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment
    U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment Issue Date | March 2020 Prepared By American Wind Energy Association Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Current Status of U.S. Offshore Wind .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Lessons from Land-based Wind ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Announced Investments in Domestic Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 5 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Input Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Modeling Tool ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Power Today, 2010, Wind and Water Power Program
    WIND AND WATER POWER PROGRAM Wind Power Today 2010 •• BUILDING•A•CLEAN• ENERGY •ECONOMY •• ADVANCING•WIND• TURBINE •TECHNOLOGY •• SUPPORTING•SYSTEMS•• INTERCONNECTION •• GROWING•A•LARGER• MARKET 2 WIND AND WATER POWER PROGRAM BUILDING•A•CLEAN•ENERGY•ECONOMY The mission of the U.S. Department of Energy Wind Program is to focus the passion, ingenuity, and diversity of the nation to enable rapid expansion of clean, affordable, reliable, domestic wind power to promote national security, economic vitality, and environmental quality. Built in 2009, the 63-megawatt Dry Lake Wind Power Project is Arizona’s first utility-scale wind power project. Building•a•Green•Economy• In 2009, more wind generation capacity was installed in the United States than in any previous year despite difficult economic conditions. The rapid expansion of the wind industry underscores the potential for wind energy to supply 20% of the nation’s electricity by the year 2030 as envisioned in the 2008 Department of Energy (DOE) report 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply. Funding provided by DOE, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act CONTENTS of 2009 (Recovery Act), and state and local initiatives have all contributed to the wind industry’s growth and are moving the BUILDING•A•CLEAN•ENERGY•ECONOMY• ........................2 nation toward achieving its energy goals. ADVANCING•LARGE•WIND•TURBINE•TECHNOLOGY• .....7 Wind energy is poised to make a major contribution to the President’s goal of doubling our nation’s electricity generation SMALL •AND•MID-SIZED•TURBINE•DEVELOPMENT• ...... 15 capacity from clean, renewable sources by 2012. The DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy invests in clean SUPPORTING•GRID•INTERCONNECTION• ....................
    [Show full text]
  • Wind Energy in NY State
    2010 New York State Wind Energy Study Final Report Source: Milian, Chris; www.photosfromonhigh.com Submitted by: Christina Hoerig Kimballe Campbell Daniel Grew Nicole Gumbs Happiness Munedzimwe Sandeep George Jun Wan Timothy Komsa Karl Smolenski Tyler Coatney Cornell University II Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................II List of Figures .................................................................................................................... VI List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... VII 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................. VIII 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................10 3 New York State Present Energy Supply/Demand ....................................................14 3.1 New York Energy Background ............................................................................14 3.2 Current NYS Wind Power ...................................................................................16 3.3 Near Term Growth of New York State Wind Power .............................................17 3.4 Progress of Other Renewables in New York State ..............................................19 3.5 Power Demand in Tompkins County ...................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Before the State of New York Board on Electric
    15-F-0122 Sokolow Post Hearing Brief BEFORE THE STATE OF NEW YORK BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT In the Matter of Baron Wind LLC Case 15-F-0122 INITIAL POST-HEARING BRIEF Alice Sokolow Case #15-F-0122 also for Parties: Thomas Flansburg Mary Ann McManus Bert Candee Virginia Gullam Dated: 4/15/2019 1 15-F-0122 Sokolow Post Hearing Brief TABLE OF CONTENTS I Introduction 2 II Facility 2 III Legal Background 2-3 IV. Issues- Fremont Wind Law 3 V. Nature of Env Impact-Avian & Bat 5 VI. Nature of Env Impact –Safety Exh1001.6 11 Exh 1001.15 29 VII Nature of Env Viewshed & Flicker 54 VIII Not Addressed 70 IX Conclusions 70 I Introduction We are five individual parties with grave concerns over conditions and completeness of Baron Winds Applications for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article 10 to Construct a Wind Energy Facility. II. Facility Description Baron Winds LLC (the Applicant) is proposing to construct the Baron Winds Project, a wind energy generation facility and associated infrastructure (the Facility) in the Towns of Cohocton, Dansville, Fremont, and Wayland in Steuben County, New York (See Figure 1).The Facility will consist of up to 69 utility scale wind turbines with a total generating capacity of up to 242 Megawatts (MW). Other proposed components will include: access roads, buried collection lines, up to four permanent meteorological (met) towers, one operations and maintenance (O&M) building, up to two temporary construction staging/laydown areas, and a collection/point of interconnection.
    [Show full text]
  • Jericho Rise Wind Farm Towns of Chateaugay and Bellmont Franklin County, New York
    SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) FOR THE Jericho Rise Wind Farm Towns of Chateaugay and Bellmont Franklin County, New York Co-lead Agencies: Town of Chateaugay and Bellmont Applicant: Jericho Rise Windfarm, LLC 808 Travis Street, Suite 700 Houston, Texas 77002 Contact: Aron Branam Phone: (503)-535-1519 Prepared By: Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Services, D.P.C. 217 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000 Syracuse, New York 13202 Contact: John Hecklau Phone: (315) 471-0688 Date of DEIS Submittal: February, 2008 Date of DEIS Acceptance: February, 2008 Date of SEIS Submittal: November 10, 2015 Date of SEIS Acceptance: December 7, 2015 Public Comment Period: December 9, 2015 – January 11, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... ii 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY/INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Project Participation .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 PROJECT FACILITY
    [Show full text]