212
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC
3 GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
4
5 CASES 17-F-0597 - Application of High
6 River Energy center, LLC for a Certificate of
7 Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant
8 to Article 10 of the Public Service Law for
9 Construction of a Solar Electric Generating Facility
10 Located in the Town of Florida, Montgomery County.
11
12 WEBEX EVIDENTIARY HEARING
13 DATE: September 24, 2020
14 TIME: 9:03 a.m. - 4:18 p.m.
15
16
17
18
19 ALJ SEAN MULLANY DPS
20 ALJ RICHARD SHERMAN DEC
21
22
23
24
25
213
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 APPEARANCES:
3 HIGH RIVER ENERGY CENTER, LLC
4 BY: SAM LANIADO ESQ.
5 TYLER WOLCOTT, ESQ.
6 CITY OF AMSTERDAM
7 BY: MATTHEW AGRESTA
8 NYS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
9 BY: MARY A. BONILLA, ESQ.
10 THOMAS MCGUIRE, ESQ.
11 KRISTY PRIMEAU, ANALYST
12 CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE SOLAR FARM PLACEMENT
13 BY: GARY BOWITCH ESQ.
14 NYS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
15 BY: ANDREA CERBIN, ESQ.
16 NOREENA CHAUDARI, ESQ.
17 LORNA GILLINGS, ESQ.
18 TOWN OF FLORIDA
19 BY: MICHAEL CROWE, ESQ.
20 JANET BLOCKER, INDIVIDUAL
21 TOWN OF FLORIDA
22 BY: STEPHEN LEFEVRE
23 NYS LABORERS’ ORGANIZING FUND
24 BY: SEAN MORAN
25 NYS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS
214
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 BY: JASON MULFORD
3 TARA WELLS, ESQ.
4 CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE SOLAR FARM PLACEMENT
5 BY: VIJAY V. PURAN
6 NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
7 BY: WILLIM SACKS
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
215
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 I N D E X O F P R O C E E D I N G S
3 WITNESSES:
4 MICHAEL ROSS
5 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BOWITCH 223
6
7 DPS PANEL (CHAUDARI, DAVIS, FLAUM, MORENO-CAVALLERO,
8 QUACKENBUSH, GILLING, EDMUNDSON)
9 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BOWITCH 317
10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LANIADO 333
11
12 VIJAY PURAN, PETER MICHALSKI, DAVID SLEZAK
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BOWITCH 360
14 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CROWE 371
15
16 DIANE RIELLY
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LANIADO 399
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
216
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 (On the record 9:03)
3 MR. ULASEWICZ: I think Mike Crowe
4 told you yesterday Judge he'll be joining us in about
5 an hour.
6 A.L.J. MULLANY: Very good, thank you
7 Mr. Ulasewicz. Okay, Howard. I think we can go on the
8 record.
9 THE REPORTER: Okay, just one moment.
10 Okay, we are on the record.
11 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, sir. Good
12 morning everyone. This is Judge Mullany. We're also
13 joined this morning by Judge Sherman of the DEC. I'd
14 like to take appearances for the record please
15 starting with the company.
16 MR. LANIADO: On behalf of High River
17 Energy Center, LLC. the law firm of Read and Laniado,
18 Tyler Wolcott, Zachary Perdek, and Sam Laniado.
19 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you. Next,
20 department staff please.
21 MS. CHAUDARI: Good morning. On behalf
22 of the Department of Public Service staff this is
23 Noreena Chaudari and with me is Brian Ossias.
24 A.L.J. MULLANY: Good morning. Next
25 will be Department of Environmental Conservation
217
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 please.
3 MR. MCGUIRE: This is Tom McGuire for
4 New York State DEC staff.
5 A.L.J. MULLANY: Good morning. Next
6 will be New York State Department of Agriculture and
7 Markets please.
8 MS. WELLS: Good morning. This is Tara
9 Wells on behalf of New York State Department of
10 Agriculture and Markets.
11 A.L.J. MULLANY: Good morning. Next
12 will be Town of Florida please.
13 MR. ULASEWICZ: Yeah, this is Tom
14 Ulasewicz with the law firm of Fitzgerald Morris
15 Baker Firth representing the Town of Florida.
16 A.L.J. MULLANY: Good morning.
17 MR. ULASEWICZ: Good morning.
18 A.L.J. MULLANY: And lastly, but not
19 least, the Citizens for Responsible Solar Farm
20 Placement please.
21 MR. BOWITCH: This is Gary Bowitch of
22 the law firm of Bowitch and Coffey on behalf of the
23 Citizens group, and we also have on the line Vijay
24 Puran who is a member of the group.
25 A.L.J. MULLANY: Good morning. Okay,
218
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 so procedurally I have two things on my agenda for
3 today. First is the cross regarding visual impacts
4 and second is addressing the request for cross
5 examination by the Town of Florida. Mr. Ulasewicz,
6 because Mr. Crowe is not available yet, it's my
7 understanding you're going to wait until he's making
8 an appearance. Is that correct?
9 MR. ULASEWICZ: That's correct Judge.
10 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, very good. So
11 all right, we can then proceed to the cross
12 examination regarding visual impacts unless anyone
13 has any procedural matters they'd like to raise
14 first. Very good so Citizens, Mr. Bowitch, what's
15 your first cross?
16 MR. BOWITCH: I'm not sure I
17 understand Your Honor. We're going to be crossing the
18 applicant.
19 A.L.J. MULLANY: The applicant, okay.
20 So we have an applicant panel?
21 MR. BOWITCH: Yes.
22 A.L.J. MULLANY: Mr. Laniado, is your
23 panel available?
24 MR. LANIADO: They should be. The
25 panel consists of Judith Bartos, Keddy Chandran,
219
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 William Boer, Samantha Kranes, Heather Vaillant,
3 Daniel Marieni, and Michael Ross.
4 A.L.J. MULLANY: I'm sorry, that last
5 name Michael?
6 MR. LANIADO: Ross, R-O-S-S.
7 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, Mr.
8 Laniado. I believe Howard you have all those names
9 from yesterday so I think we're good to go.
10 THE REPORTER: Yeah, can I hear the
11 first two names?
12 MR. LANIADO: Sure, Judith Bartos, B-
13 A-R-T-O-S.
14 THE REPORTER: Okay, yeah I have that.
15 MR. LANIADO: Keddy Chandran.
16 THE REPORTER: Okay, yeah, I do. I
17 have those two. Okay, thank you.
18 MR. LANIADO: Right, no. Your Honor,
19 let me just make sure all the panel members are on
20 the phone. Is everybody on the phone that I just
21 named from the applicant?
22 MS. BARTOS: Yes, Judy is here.
23 MR. BOER: Bill is here.
24 MR. LANIADO: Michael, are you here?
25 MR. CHANDRAN: Keddy is here.
220
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MS. KRANES: Samantha is here.
3 MR. ROSS: Michael is here.
4 MS. VAILLANT: Heather is here.
5 MR. LANIADO: Dan? Dan, are you there?
6 MR. LANIADO: Okay, great. All right,
7 we're -- Your Honor, the panel's testimony has
8 already been entered to the record as if orally given
9 as well as their supporting exhibits. So I don’t
10 think Michael Ross has been sworn in yet if you want
11 to swear him in or you could swear the panel once
12 again. It's a new day.
13 A.L.J. MULLANY: I -- I like your
14 sense of renewal Mr. Laniado. I think Mr. Ross is the
15 only one we need to swear in a new -- the other
16 witnesses I'm going to consider to still be sworn in
17 under oath. I hope that they know and understand
18 that. So if I can just get an affirmative from them
19 that would be great.
20 MS. BARTOS: Witness Bartos, yes.
21 JUDITH BARTOS; SWORN
22 A.L.J. MULLANY: My apologies for
23 interrupting. I heard Judith and I heard someone else
24 who didn’t identify themselves. If you could for the
25 record just identify yourself before you speak.
221
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MR. BOER: This is William Boer also
3 affirming.
4 WILLIAM BOER; SWORN
5 MS. KRANES: Samantha Kranes, yes.
6 SAMANTHA KRANES; SWORN
7 MR. CHANDRAN: Keddy Chandran, yes.
8 KEDDY CHANDRAN; SWORN
9 MR. MARIENI: Dan Marieni, yes.
10 DAN MARIENI; SWORN
11 A.L.J. MULLANY: And do we have an
12 affirmative from Heather Vaillant? Ms. Vaillant, are
13 you on the line?
14 MR. LANIADO: She's either on mute or
15 dropped off.
16 A.L.J. MULLANY: She may have dropped
17 off?
18 MR. LANIADO: Yeah.
19 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. Well, Mr.
20 Laniado, do you think you could maybe try and reach
21 her by an alternative means?
22 MR. LANIADO: Yes. We'll call her now,
23 but we can proceed -- the panel can proceed with the
24 cross, and then she can join.
25 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, just instruct
222
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 her when she joins to announce herself and to affirm
3 that she understands she's still under oath, okay?
4 MR. LANIADO: Very good.
5 A.L.J. MULLANY: Mr. Ross, do you
6 swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
7 give shall be the truth and the whole truth?
8 MR. ROSS: I swear.
9 MICHAEL ROSS; SWORN
10 A.L.J. MULLANY: Please identify
11 yourself.
12 MR. ROSS: This is Michael Ross.
13 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, sir.
14 MR. ROSS: Thank you.
15 A.L.J. MULLANY: I believe you -- Mr.
16 Laniado, shall we proceed?
17 MR. LANIADO: Sure. Heather, did you
18 just join? No, let's proceed Your Honor.
19 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you. Okay, Mr.
20 Bowitch you're -- you're free to proceed with your
21 cross.
22 CROSS EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. BOWITCH:
24 Q. Thank you and good morning to the
25 panel and thank you for your appearances. I'm Gary
223
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Bowitch. Unfortunately, for all of you, you probably
3 know my voice by now since I was on the phone for
4 many hours yesterday.
5 A.L.J. MULLANY: I apologize for
6 interrupting Mr. Bowitch, but I think we may have
7 just been joined by somebody. Did somebody just join
8 this call?
9 MR. MORENO: Miguel Moreno from DPS
10 staff.
11 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, thank you Mr.
12 Moreno. Please proceed with Mr. Bowitch. Oh, did we
13 have somebody else just join? Did somebody just join
14 the call? Okay, we'll proceed Mr. Bowitch.
15 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
16 Q. So, Your Honor, I think there's
17 numerous several documents that we're going to want
18 the panel to focus on, but I think for the sake of
19 simplicity at the outset I just want to identify four
20 documents. And I'm going to give the consensus
21 exhibit number again because I find that helpful for
22 me at least to identify them, and I'll give the
23 names. So the first document that I want -- and I
24 will be asking some or many questions about some or
25 all of these. The first document is Consensus Exhibit
224
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 134, which is Appendix 24-1, and it's the Visual
3 Impact attachments four through six.
4 A.L.J. MULLANY: I'm just going to
5 take these down in writing Mr. Bowitch and then I'm
6 going to pull them up. I'm going to give everybody a
7 couple of minutes. I'm going to need a couple of
8 minutes to pull these up.
9 MR. BOWITCH: Okay, so you want me to
10 just make the list.
11 A.L.J. MULLANY: Yeah, if you would,
12 just go through the list. And then I'm going to vet
13 your indulgence while I pull this stuff up.
14 MR. BOWITCH: No problem. The next one
15 is Consensus Exhibit 199, which is the supplement to
16 the Application Attachment C. The next is Exhibit
17 214, which is Attachment C to the Visual Impact
18 Assessment Update for Alternative Layout I think or
19 Location.
20 A.L.J. MULLANY: Attachment C as in
21 Charlie?
22 MR. BOWITCH: C as in Charlie.
23 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, sir.
24 MR. BOWITCH: And finally, Exhibit --
25 Consensus Exhibit 241, which is the High River
225
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Rebuttal Exhibit 3 or identified as HRR-3.
3 A.L.J. MULLANY: Very good, if you
4 would just bear with me while I pull these documents
5 up.
6 MR. DAVIS: Could you please repeat
7 what the fourth exhibit title is.
8 A.L.J. MULLANY: I'm sorry Mr. Davis,
9 but this is a chronic problem with you. And I'm going
10 to caution you that I don’t want to have keep
11 reminding you to get close to your microphone. I
12 can't hear you, and the court reporter is not going
13 to be able to record you unless you speak clearly and
14 forcefully into the microphone. And part of your job
15 you get paid to actually participate in these things,
16 so please do so competently.
17 MR. DAVIS: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I
18 just asked if Mr. Bowitch could repeat the title of
19 the Exhibit 241 he referenced.
20 MR. BOWITCH: Yes, Exhibit 241 is -- I
21 believe it's identified as HRR-3, which is one of the
22 exhibits to the High River Rebuttal Testimony.
23 MS. VAILLANT: Excuse me, I'm sorry to
24 interrupt. This is Heather Vaillant. I rejoined the
25 call.
226
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A.L.J. MULLANY: Good morning, Ms.
3 Vaillant. I just want you to affirm for the record
4 that you understand that you are still under oath
5 during this cross examination.
6 MS. VAILLANT: Yes, I understand.
7 HEATHER VAILLANT; SWORN
8 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you.
9 MR. BOWITCH: Your Honor, while I'm at
10 it, why don’t I just also add the -- I don’t think it
11 has an exhibit number -- the Direct Testimony of the
12 applicant.
13 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, Mr.
14 Bowitch. Okay, please proceed Mr. Bowitch.
15 MR. BOWITCH: All right, yes thank you
16 Your Honor.
17 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
18 Q. Just at the outset, I want to
19 mention I have a little concern. I'm going to try my
20 best to be clear, but what's going to happen is I'm
21 going to be asking numerous questions of the panel
22 regarding photographs and simulations without all of
23 us having those up in one place on the screen, like
24 the screen sharing. I'm going to try my best, but I'm
25 a little concerned about making a clear record as we
227
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 go through. But I will try my best. So at the outset,
3 as everyone knows, there are numerous photos and
4 simulations that are part of this application, many,
5 and there -- there are numerous -- from what I can
6 tell, there's numerous iterations of certain
7 simulations and photos or identified simulations and
8 photos, but they seem to be different I think some
9 between the various iterations. So what I would like
10 to start with is sort of just to establish where we
11 are. So I'd like to focus on two or three of these
12 viewpoints and ask the panel to explain generally the
13 difference between the simulations and photos in each
14 of the exhibits, these four exhibits that I
15 identified at the outset here. So, with that, I'd
16 like to focus on VP-27, which has been identified as
17 Bulls Head Road view north. And I'm going to identify
18 for everyone the -- I can either do them altogether
19 or one at a time -- identify the exhibit and the
20 pages in that exhibit and -- so people can pull that
21 up. And then I'm going to identify the next exhibit
22 and the pages in that exhibit and so on. So for VP-
23 27, as far as I can tell, there are four iterations
24 if you will of the photos and simulations. So I'm
25 going to start with Appendix -- this is Exhibit --
228
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A.L.J. MULLANY: When you mentioned
3 VP-27, that's a given doc -- given photograph? Why
4 don’t you steer us to the document first.
5 MR. BOWITCH: Sure, Your Honor.
6 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
7 Q. It's identification of -- of the
8 groups of photographs from a certain viewpoint
9 location. So we're going to start with the Exhibit
10 134, Appendix 24-A, Attachment 4 -- the VIA
11 Attachments four through six and on pages -- and I
12 have to pull it up -- on pages -- there's two pages
13 for VP-27 as far as I can tell, page 11 and 12 of 76
14 of the PDF. Those are the PDF pages. Does the panel
15 still have that?
16 A.L.J. MULLANY: No, I'm still trying
17 to get that particular one. I only pulled up a couple
18 and told you to go ahead prematurely, so bear with
19 me.
20 MR. LANIADO: Mr. Bowitch, this is Sam
21 Laniado. What is the title of the page?
22 MR. BOWITCH: The title of page 11,
23 for example? There is no title. I -- VP --
24 MR. LANIADO: VP-27, Bulls Head Road
25 view north?
229
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MR. BOWITCH: Correct. That's what I
3 said a few minutes ago.
4 MR. LANIADO: Okay.
5 MR. BOWITCH: And -- and so -- Your
6 Honor, can I proceed?
7 A.L.J. MULLANY: I'm not there yet Mr.
8 Bowitch.
9 MR. BOWITCH: No problem. This is
10 going to be difficult because I'm going to be
11 referring to the various exhibits. So, when we get
12 into the heart of the question, I'm going to really
13 focus on only one of them.
14 A.L.J. MULLANY: As I understand it,
15 you're looking for Application Attachment 24-1?
16 MR. BOWITCH: It's Appendix 24-1,
17 Visual Impact Assessment Attachment 4-6 as far as I -
18 -
19 A.L.J. MULLANY: Just give me the
20 appendix first. Just -- I'm scrolling through DMM
21 looking for the appendix.
22 MR. BOWITCH: Sorry, Your Honor,
23 Appendix -- and Mr. Laniado, if you can jump in if
24 I'm incorrectly identifying it -- Appendix 24-1, the
25 visual impact assessment attachments 4-6. Is that
230
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 correct, Sam, the title?
3 A.L.J. MULLANY: I just found that in
4 DMM. I think that's ascertainable.
5 MR. BOWITCH: I also will note, Your
6 Honor, the Consensus Exhibit was, which is actually
7 very helpful, also has the DMM number for each of
8 these exhibits. So Exhibit 134, the DMM number is 51.
9 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you. Okay, Mr.
10 Bowitch. I apologize for the delay. I've got Article
11 10, Exhibit 24, Attachments four through six.
12 MR. BOWITCH: I want to refer the
13 panel to pages 11 and 12 of 76. Those are PDF pages.
14 A.L.J. MULLANY: And are those the
15 pages Mr. Bowitch that are labeled existing
16 conditions and then opposed conditions?
17 MR. BOWITCH: Correct.
18 A.L.J. MULLANY: Does the panel have
19 those pages?
20 MR. BOWITCH: And I also want to point
21 out --
22 A.L.J. MULLANY: Does the panel have
23 those pages in front of them, Ms. Bartos, Mr. Boer?
24 MS. BARTOS: Yes.
25 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, great. Go ahead
231
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Gary.
3 MR. BOWITCH: And I also want to point
4 out in the -- in the box on the right, it says August
5 2019 on both of these pages.
6 A.L.J. MULLANY: I'm sorry, Mr.
7 Bowitch. Can you just give me that page number once
8 more, the PDF page number?
9 MR. BOWITCH: The PDF page numbers are
10 11 and 12.
11 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, sir.
12 MR. BOWITCH: Okay, here we go again.
13 And I'm going to -- what I'd like to know --
14 A.L.J. MULLANY: Can I just confirm
15 one thing Mr. Bowitch? I've got the page that says
16 VP-27 Bulls Head Road view north on page 11.
17 MR. BOWITCH: Correct and it says
18 existing conditions a little to the right of the
19 title.
20 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, sir. Yep.
21 MR. BOWITCH: And the next one says
22 proposed conditions a little to the right.
23 A.L.J. MULLANY: Very good, thank you.
24 MR. BOWITCH: And -- and I would like
25 -- I'm trying to make this as -- as speedy as
232
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 possible. The next iteration -- I'm calling them
3 iterations -- of the VP-27 photos and simulations is
4 in -- is -- that I'd like to talk about is in --
5 A.L.J. MULLANY: Let's just focus on
6 what we have in front of us if we could. Is that all
7 right, Mr. Bowitch?
8 MR. BOWITCH: Well, my goal Your Honor
9 is to -- I want to see what the difference between
10 the various simulations.
11 A.L.J. MULLANY: Oh, you want to do a
12 comparison. Okay.
13 MR. BOWITCH: Yes. And there -- like I
14 said at the outset, as far as I can tell, there are
15 four documents with VP-27 phots and simulations. And
16 I just want to get a -- I think it's important for
17 the record to get an understanding of the difference.
18 So the second group of photos of VP -- and I say
19 photos, but there's photos and simulations -- VP-27
20 is in exhibit -- it's Consensus Exhibit 199, which is
21 -- and I'm reading Sam from your consensus list --
22 Attachment G, photographic simulations, and it's DMM
23 number 77.
24 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, sir.
25 MR. BOWITCH: When you're ready, I can
233
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 tell you the pages. That is G as in --
3 A.L.J. MULLANY: I'm pulling it up
4 right now. Thank you.
5 MR. BOWITCH: Again, I -- I know this
6 is cumbersome again since I can't sort of throw it up
7 on the screen. I'm trying my best.
8 A.L.J. MULLANY: No, I understand.
9 These are the limits we're working within, and I
10 understand -- I appreciate your patience. Okay, so
11 I've got attachment G up now, Supplemental Attachment
12 G.
13 MR. BOWITCH: Yeah, and I -- and I
14 will point out, so the pages on Attachment G that I
15 want the panel to look at are pages seven, eight, and
16 nine. And then, in this exhibit, it appears there is
17 a third -- seven, eight, and nine -- let me find --
18 okay, seven, eight, and nine -- a third item related
19 to VP-27. So, on page seven, it -- it says VP-27
20 Bulls Head Road view north, and the right it says
21 existing conditions. And, in the block with all the -
22 - in that block or legend block, it says December
23 2019. On page eight on that exhibit, it says proposed
24 conditions. Everything is the same except it says
25 proposed conditions. And, on page nine, it says VP-27
234
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Bulls Head Road view north -- landscape mitigation at
3 five years proposed conditions.
4 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
5 Q. And so, after all of that, my
6 question to the panel is if they could at least for
7 the first two docs -- the first two photos, existing
8 and proposed, what is the difference between them?
9 The only thing I see as a difference is that the date
10 on one is August 2019 and the other is December 2019.
11 A. (Bartos) This is Judy Bartos. The
12 one that -- pardon me --
13 This is Judy Bartos, and the one in
14 Appendix 24-1 that's dated August is the view point
15 with the project in the fence line. The one that is
16 in Appendix G dated December 2019 is the one that has
17 mitigation at five years. It's showing the same view
18 to refresh your memory, the first two photos, and
19 then we're showing the landscape mitigation. So this
20 was an update. The appendix G December version is
21 only an update of the same alignment showing
22 mitigation.
23 Q. Okay, so -- so -- again, is it
24 fair to say that the difference between the first
25 two, counting the one showing the mitigation, is just
235
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 the date and the block from August 2019 to December
3 2019?
4 A. Let me rephrase. The one that's
5 only showing the first two in August is the first cut
6 or the first version of that alignment with existing
7 conditions and only proposed conditions with the
8 fence. We provided an update, which is Appendix G, so
9 because it's a separate document the existing and
10 proposed conditions with fence line is the same to
11 refresh the readers memory. And then we added the
12 third one because we had the landscape plan, the
13 landscape mitigation incorporated into this third
14 one. So the view and alignment is not the same. The
15 only difference between the two versions is just the
16 addition of that third landscape mitigated photo.
17 Q. So -- so what did you mean by
18 addition of the --
19 A.L.J. MULLANY: I'm sorry. I have to
20 interrupt here because I'm confused by the answer,
21 and I'm the one who ultimately has to understand what
22 the transcript reads. So I'm going to insist. I've
23 got Attachment 24, page 12, which shows proposed
24 conditions VP-27 Bulls Head Road. And then I've got
25 the Attachment G, page seven, VP-27 Bulls Head view
236
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 north existing conditions. What is the difference
3 between those two photographs?
4 MS. BARTOS: There are no differences.
5 A.L.J. MULLANY: I see a detectable
6 difference between the two of them. One of them
7 simulates the project and the other doesn’t.
8 MS. BARTOS: Oh, I thought you meant
9 the existing conditions difference between the two
10 documents. Yes.
11 A.L.J. MULLANY: I'm referring to
12 specific pages now, all right?
13 MS. BARTOS: Okay, so yes.
14 A.L.J. MULLANY: VP-27 Bulls Head Road
15 proposed conditions as depicted in Attachment 24-1
16 appears to depict project simulated.
17 MS. BARTOS: Yes.
18 A.L.J. MULLANY: VP-27 Bulls Head Road
19 Existing Conditions in Supplemental Application
20 Attachment G appears to be the same perspective but
21 without the project in the -- in the image, correct?
22 MS. BARTOS: The project is in the
23 image in Appendix G.
24 MR. BOER: There are -- This is
25 William Boer. So you -- you are correct when
237
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 comparing those two pages. In the Attachment G, if
3 you proceed to PDF page eight --
4 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay.
5 MR. BOER: I believe that's what Ms.
6 Bartos was comparing. Those are both proposed
7 conditions.
8 A.L.J. MULLANY: They're comparing
9 Attachment G to page 12 of Attachment 4-6, okay.
10 MR. BOER: Correct.
11 A.L.J. MULLANY: And what's the
12 difference between those, just the mitigation?
13 MR. BOER: No.
14 MS. BARTOS: Between the two
15 documents, the mitigation. Between the two pages,
16 there is no difference.
17 A.L.J. MULLANY: There is no
18 difference, okay. Thank you.
19 MR. BOWITCH: Your Honor, maybe it
20 would be helpful if -- if the panel could -- could
21 just in a general sense explain what the -- what --
22 what is meant by existing conditions and proposed
23 conditions. I think I understand but for clarity of
24 the record, when it says existing conditions, what
25 does that mean?
238
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MS. BARTOS: Existing conditions is
3 the photo taken during the site visit without the
4 project. Proposed conditions is the simulation of the
5 project with the fence line, and then typically
6 there's a third one such as in Attachment G where we
7 show mitigation at five years. So that's with the
8 alignment project, the fence line, and vegetative
9 mitigation.
10 MR. BOWITCH: Could you please clarify
11 what you mean by with the fence line? Are you
12 simulating only the fence or are you simulating
13 panels?
14 MS. BARTOS: When I project with fence
15 line, I mean the arrays with the fence line -- with
16 the fence.
17 MR. BOWITCH: Okay. And I'm going to
18 ask you more questions later on about the fence line
19 but -- the distances -- but that's very helpful.
20 Okay, Your Honor, if you're ready, I want to move
21 onto what I believe is the third iteration of VP-27.
22 And again, this is I think from my understanding and
23 also I think it will clarify the record. So the --
24 the -- the next document I'd like to have everyone
25 pull up is Attachment C, the VIA update for
239
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 alternative location. It's Exhibit 214, and it is
3 also -- I'm going to reference three pages. Pages 42,
4 43, and 44 of 60 I believe are those with relation to
5 VP-27.
6 A.L.J. MULLANY: What's the hearing --
7 proposed hearing exhibit number and DMM item number
8 please?
9 MR. BOWITCH: It's Exhibit 214.
10 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay.
11 MR. BOWITCH: And it's DMM -- I have
12 to look it up -- DMM item number 96.
13 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you. Okay, so
14 I'm looking at item 96 in DMM. I see the Attachment
15 C. That's what you're looking for, DIA update?
16 MR. BOWITCH: Correct for alternative
17 location.
18 A.L.J. MULLANY: Alternative layout.
19 MR. BOWITCH: Oh, I'm sorry.
20 A.L.J. MULLANY: No problem.
21 MR. BOWITCH: Pardon me, layout.
22 A.L.J. MULLANY: We need elevator
23 music for this pause, maybe the Jeopardy tune.
24 MR. BOWITCH: I was thinking of the
25 theme for Jaws, but that's okay.
240
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, I'm there.
3 Thank you, Mr. Bowitch for waiting.
4 MR. BOWITCH: All right. No problem,
5 Your Honor.
6 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
7 Q. So I guess the simplest thing to
8 do is now to ask the panel to explain -- and this,
9 Your Honor, pages 42, 43, and 44. And I will ask the
10 panel to now compare these three images to the three
11 images we were discussing in Attachment G. We can
12 start with -- again, it's VP-27 Bulls Head Road view
13 north. Why don’t we start with the two that are
14 labeled existing conditions in Attachment G and in --
15 A.L.J. MULLANY: Let's do one page at
16 a time please, one page at a time.
17 MR. BOWITCH: I am, Your Honor. I want
18 them to compare the existing conditions page in these
19 two documents.
20 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay.
21 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
22 Q. Attachment C, the update, and
23 Attachment G and explain what the difference -- the
24 only obvious difference to me is for existing
25 conditions is one says May 2020 in Attachment C and
241
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Attachment G says December 2019. And I'd like the
3 panel -- we'll start with this, to explain please
4 what if any difference there is.
5 A. (Bartos) There is no difference.
6 Oh, I'm sorry Bill.
7 MR. BOER: Judy, yeah, I'll -- I'll --
8 I’ll answer the inquires for these.
9 MS. BARTOS: Okay.
10 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
11 A. (Boer) Mr. Bowitch, for the
12 existing conditions, they are the same. Only the date
13 has changed. You are correct.
14 Q. So everything else is the same?
15 A. With the exception, I will add,
16 of the mapping on the right side of the figure. The
17 purpose of this Attachment C, VIA update for the
18 alternative layout, was to account for the additional
19 parcel that was added. So you'll notice the
20 difference on the two maps on the right side of the
21 figure. You'll notice that the array layouts are
22 different.
23 Q. Correct. Okay, thank you. That's
24 helpful. If we can move on each of these documents to
25 the next page entitled proposed conditions. Mr. Boer,
242
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 that was very helpful. If you can identify between
3 Attachment G and Attachment C the difference between
4 these two proposed conditions, Mr. Boer or whoever on
5 the panel. These are simulations. What's the
6 difference here?
7 A. Okay, this is again William Boer.
8 So for the Supplemental Attachment G dated December
9 2019, that is a different layout than what is
10 presented in Attachment C, the VIA update dated May
11 2020. So the purpose of this revised simulation was
12 to show the new proposed layout of just the arrays
13 and the project specs without the proposed
14 landscaping buffer.
15 Q. In a sentence or two, can you
16 just describe the new proposed layout?
17 A. Yeah. The new layout --
18 Q. The difference.
19 A. Sure. There are some minor
20 differences here in there, but the primary difference
21 is the addition of a parcel located to the west of
22 the site along Thayer Road. So the addition of that
23 parcel, which we referred to in the application as
24 the update materials, is the Envision Diary parcel
25 that now has solar rays on it and that is now counted
243
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 for in the simulation dated May 2020.
3 Q. Okay. And before we move onto the
4 next one -- one last question is, for both of these
5 proposed conditions, are you using the same -- I’ll
6 you the phrase base photo? You're using the same
7 existing conditions photo for each of these. Is that
8 correct?
9 A. Yes, that is correct.
10 Q. And then you just did a different
11 type of simulation between the two, the newer one
12 being taking into account the Envision Diary parcel?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. Okay, that's very helpful. Okay,
15 one last try with this. If the panel would -- would
16 pull up now Exhibit 241, HRR-3. And I'm trying to
17 find the DMM number. DMM number is 120. Oh, sorry.
18 Pardon me. I want to back up. Between Attachment C
19 and G, there's a third photo in both of them, which
20 is proposed mitigation at five years. Mr. Boer,
21 what's the difference between those two now? Is it --
22 is it only the addition of the Envision Diary?
23 A. Correct, so Attachment C, the VIA
24 update dated May 2020 labeled mitigation at five
25 years does show that updated layout with the Envision
244
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Diary parcel. And now this simulation does include
3 the visual mitigation in the form of the landscape
4 proper.
5 Q. Okay. And -- okay, so now --
6 pardon me for backtracking there. If you could pull
7 up -- and I have to do it myself -- HRR-3, which is
8 the exhibit to the applicant's rebuttal testimony,
9 and I want to refer you to -- to -- here, I'm going
10 to -- if you look at attachment HRR-3, I can give the
11 PDF numbers, but I prefer to focus Your Honor because
12 I'm going to mostly be asking questions using this
13 series of simulations and photos. If you look at the
14 upper right-hand corner of each of the photos and
15 simulations, you will see it's a little hard to read
16 on the first one. But it says Exhibit HRR-3 page --
17 the first one says page 1 of 12, so page two of the
18 PDF. And then it goes on three, four, so on through
19 12.
20 A.L.J. MULLANY: I follow you.
21 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
22 Q. And so panelists -- and I have to
23 pull it up -- can we look at -- I want to compare the
24 three pages we were just discussing in Attachment C
25 to the -- to pages four, five, and six of 12 in the
245
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 HRR-3. Again, we're looking at VP-27 Bulls Head Road
3 view north. Why don’t we start with the existing
4 conditions page for those two exhibits? In HRR-3,
5 that's page 4 of 12, and in Attachment C it's page 42
6 of the PDF. So what is, if anything, any difference
7 between these two documents?
8 A. This is William Boer. There's no
9 difference between these two simulations.
10 Q. Okay, so they're --
11 A. Part of the existing conditions.
12 Q. Existing conditions. They must
13 have just pulled down to the next page for both of
14 those documents. Would you say the same for that?
15 A. Yes. Judy -- this is William
16 Boer. Yes, Judy, correct me if I wrong, but I believe
17 each of these simulations in the two referenced
18 documents are the exact same.
19 A. (Bartos) That's correct.
20 Q. Okay. And the same for mitigation
21 at five years?
22 A. (Boer) Judy?
23 A. (Bartos) Yes.
24 A.L.J. MULLANY: When you the same for
25 mitigation at five years, can you point to page
246
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 numbers please?
3 MR. BOWITCH: Yeah, sorry Your Honor.
4 On Attachment C, we're looking at page 44 of the PDF.
5 And, in HRR-3, I want -- I'm referring to page 6 of
6 12. I -- I find using that pagination much more
7 helpful.
8 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you. That's
9 very helpful Mr. Bowitch. Thank you.
10 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
11 Q. And, Mr. Boer, the -- the only
12 other difference is that the ones in HRR-3 actually
13 have the designation Exhibit HRR-3 and the page
14 numbers?
15 A. (Boer) Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. Which are not in Attachment C. Is
17 that -- okay. So, for the record, that -- that's much
18 clearer. Okay -- okay. Your Honor, maybe I can try to
19 expedite things a little bit. I was going to ask the
20 panel to do the same exercise for VP-28, so there are
21 four documents, Bulls Head Road view north. It's a
22 different -- it's a different viewpoint location. If
23 it's not clear for the record, we can go all the way
24 back to the start, but if the panel could tell me if
25 there's -- what the difference is or -- strike that -
247
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 - if the -- the -- the differences that you just
3 described for VP-27, are they the same types of
4 differences for VP-28? In other words, you had a -- a
5 -- a photo simulation in the August 2019 in Exhibit
6 134. Then, one in December -- dated December 2019 --
7 sorry -- in Exhibit 199, Attachment G. Then, there's
8 three actually in that one with mitigation. And then,
9 in Attachment C for their alternate location, there's
10 three pages dated May 2020 and then in HRR-3. Do you
11 understand my question? I'm trying to see if what we
12 just -- that exercise we just went through applies
13 the same to VP-27 -- VP-28.
14 MR. LANIADO: This is Sam Laniado. Mr.
15 Boer and Ms. Bartos, that was a very long detailed
16 question so why don’t you take a few minutes to
17 review the documents and -- so you can give an
18 accurate answer.
19 A.L.J. MULLANY: And I would ask that,
20 if you can when you provide your answer, if you make
21 specific reference to page -- to the specific pages
22 in each of the exhibits that Mr. Bowitch is asking
23 you to evaluate.
24 MR. BOWITCH: If it's helpful for the
25 panel, I can give the page numbers right now.
248
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A.L.J. MULLANY: I'd prefer that they
3 do so. Thank you.
4 MR. BOWITCH: No, I can give the page
5 numbers. Or you prefer they do so? Sorry, Your Honor.
6 A.L.J. MULLANY: That's correct.
7 MR. LANIADO: So Mr. Boer and Ms.
8 Bartos, when you come back on the record, why -- why
9 don’t you have Bill just start it off, and then Mr.
10 Bartos you just supplement what Bill is saying, all
11 right? So we just have some clarity in the sequence
12 in the answering of the questions.
13 MR. BOER: Yes, we will do so. Just
14 one moment please. Okay, this is William Boer. I'm
15 ready to proceed if everyone else is.
16 A.L.J. MULLANY: Please proceed Mr.
17 Boer.
18 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
19 A. Thank you. So the first I will
20 reference is the existing conditions page, so in the
21 Appendix 24-1, VIA Attachments 4-6 dated August 2019
22 existing conditions on PDF page 13 is the same as
23 that provided in the Supplement Attachment G on PDF
24 page 10 dated December 2019, which is also the same
25 as the existing conditions in Attachment C, VIA
249
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 update versus the alternative layout dated May 2020,
3 which is the same in HRR Exhibit 3 on page -- PDF
4 page eight also dated May 2020.
5 A.L.J. MULLANY: And could you give
6 the page for -- for the HRR-3, the page out of 12 as
7 opposed to the PDF page because that's what I've got
8 to reference?
9 MR. BOER: Sure, yes.
10 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
11 A. Again, William Boer. For HRR
12 Exhibit 3, the existing conditions would be on page 7
13 of 12. Then for Attachment -- excuse me, Appendix 24-
14 1, VIA Attachments four through six on PDF page 13,
15 or excuse me, PDF page 14 dated August 2019 is the
16 proposed conditions, just the arrays on the project
17 fence from August 2019. And Supplement Attachment G
18 dated December 2019 proposed conditions would be the
19 same as the previous document I referenced. And
20 additionally, on page 12, it has that same view with
21 landscape mitigation at five years. Then, I would
22 refer to Attachment C for the VIA update dated May
23 2020 on PDF page 46 is a simulation that was prepared
24 to account for the revision to the layout, and it was
25 revised to include the Envision Diary parcel. And the
250
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 following, page 47, has the proposed mitigation. And
3 then finally I would refer to HRR Exhibit 3, which is
4 also dated May 2020 on page 8 of 12 with landscaping
5 on page 9 of 12. So HRR Exhibit 3 for VP-28 is the
6 exact same as Attachment C, VIA update for the
7 alternative layout in both scenarios. So I would
8 conclude that the changes are the same scenario as we
9 discussed for VP-27.
10 Q. And Mr. Boer, the only difference
11 again between the HRR-3 versions and the Attachment C
12 of the VIA update are that you’ve added the page
13 numbers on the top right corner to Attachment -- I
14 mean to HRR-3?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. Okay, thank you. Okay, Your
17 Honor, I have one more to do. This -- what you have
18 to pull up is two documents this time I believe.
19 A.L.J. MULLANY: Are we done with
20 these documents Mr. Bowitch? Can I close these
21 documents?
22 MR. BOWITCH: Your Honor, I'm going to
23 come back and ask questions. I'm trying to group my -
24 - I'm going to ask detailed questions about the
25 various existing and proposed the mitigation on VP-27
251
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 and VP-28 and then this third one, which I'm about to
3 raise.
4 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay.
5 MR. BOWITCH: And so the purpose of
6 this, though it has been a little cumbersome, is to
7 make sure that when I start the record is clear that
8 when I start asking detailed questions I'm using the
9 correct, most up to date, most relevant version of
10 these things for each of these viewpoints.
11 A.L.J. MULLANY: Is that what you're
12 looking for is the -- the correct most up to date,
13 most relevant version?
14 MR. BOWITCH: Yes, Your Honor, but I
15 think it's important for the panel to point out any
16 differences. And I think it has been very helpful
17 that they have done that, and I have just one more
18 simulation -- I'm sorry -- photos/simulation to ask
19 them about.
20 A.L.J. MULLANY: Can you explain to me
21 Mr. Bowitch why it's been relevant and very helpful
22 that we just went through that exercise?
23 MR. BOWITCH: Because -- in my humble
24 opinion, Your Honor, because when I start asking
25 questions I want to make sure that the answers are
252
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 about what is really going to be -- what is really
3 being proposed, what is being analyzed by DPS and the
4 applicant -- or I'm sorry and the Siting Board. And I
5 don’t want to make any mistakes in the record as to
6 starting to ask a series of questions about documents
7 that are no longer the most current and up-to-date
8 versions.
9 A.L.J. MULLANY: So you intend to ask
10 questions about -- about documents that are no longer
11 the most current and up-to-date version?
12 MR. BOWITCH: No, Your Honor. I want
13 to know the difference. I'm going to ask, after I do
14 the last set, which will be much quicker, I'm going
15 to focus on the versions in HRR-3. And the reason for
16 that is they’ve -- they’ve -- the applicant has
17 conveniently added page numbers to the upper right-
18 hand corner.
19 A.L.J. MULLANY: Can we just ask
20 questions with respect to HRR-3?
21 MR. BOWITCH: That's what I intend to
22 do. Maybe I can -- I want -- before I get to HRR-3, I
23 want to ask, if Your Honor will allow this, so the
24 applicant -- maybe we'll do this an easier way -- I
25 want to -- I'm going to be asking questions about the
253
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 photo and simulation identified as 15-C, Mohr Road
3 view west. And my examination of the record document
4 indicates to me, and I'd like the panel to confirm
5 it, that there are three pages relevant to 15-C and
6 that those three pages can be found in Exhibit 134 --
7 pardon me -- Appendix 24-1, Attachment four through
8 six -- I can give the page numbers if you like -- and
9 then in HRR-3. And, in this case, I want the panel to
10 tell me if those are exactly the same, those three
11 pages. There's an existing, a proposed, and a
12 mitigation slide for those. Is that clear Panel what
13 I'm asking?
14 MR. BOER: This is William Boer.
15 MS. BARTOS: This is Judy Bartos.
16 Could you just repeat --
17 MR. BOWITCH: Actually, I take that
18 back. I have -- I have to clarify and then I can
19 repeat. I said mitigation, but I meant the third
20 slide for 15-C that is actually entitled
21 representative simulation. I'm sorry Ms. Bartos. What
22 did you want to ask? Can you repeat?
23 MS. BARTOS: Could you repeat? You're
24 comparing HRR-3 with which other document?
25 MR. BOWITCH: Yes, so pages 10, 11, 12
254
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 of 12 in HRR-3 to Appendix 24-1, VIA Attachment 4-6,
3 pages five, six, and seven of the PDF.
4 MS. BARTOS: Okay, thank you.
5 A.L.J. MULLANY: Mr. Bowitch, what
6 viewpoint are you referring to?
7 MR. BOWITCH: VP15-C Mohr Road view
8 west.
9 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you. And you're
10 comparing Attachment 24 four through six with HRR-3?
11 Is that correct?
12 MR. BOWITCH: Yes. I would like the
13 panel to compare and tell me if there are any
14 differences between the three -- three photos or
15 simulations for -- in each of those documents.
16 MR. BOER: This is William Boer.
17 A.L.J. MULLANY: So Mr. Boer, can I
18 ask you to go through a specific sequence of the
19 documents so I'm looking at the right one at the
20 right time? I think we're toggling between Appendix
21 Attachment 24-1 four through six and HRR Exhibit 3.
22 Is that correct?
23 MR. BOER: Yes.
24 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. And we're
25 starting with Appendix 24-1 on page -- it looks like
255
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 page 10 of 12, VP-15C Mohr Road view west?
3 MR. BOER: Yes.
4 MR. BOWITCH: Your Honor, on Appendix
5 24-1 Attachments four through six, I think it's pages
6 five, six, and seven.
7 A.L.J. MULLANY: That's not what I
8 have. Five, six, and seven for that particular
9 document deal with Bulls Road. You're thinking of
10 Mohr Road at this point, right?
11 MR. BOWITCH: Correct. Maybe the panel
12 can clarify. I -- I have Appendix 24-1 Attachments
13 four through six. I see on page 5 of 76 on the bottom
14 it says Mohr Road view west.
15 A.L.J. MULLANY: Oh, you're using the
16 PDF page numbers. Okay, yep. So PDF five and PDF six
17 and is that it, five and six for this particular
18 document?
19 MR. BOWITCH: And seven, Your Honor.
20 A.L.J. MULLANY: I'm sorry.
21 MR. BOWITCH: And page seven as well.
22 A.L.J. MULLANY: Page seven, okay. All
23 right, so we're looking at pages five, six, and seven
24 for Attachment 24-1. And we're comparing it to HRR-3
25 and what are the page numbers there Mr. Bowitch?
256
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MR. BOWITCH: These are not the PDF
3 numbers, but 10, 11, and 12.
4 A.L.J. MULLANY: 11 and 12?
5 MR. BOWITCH: 10, 11, and 12.
6 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you, okay.
7 Sorry to interrupt Mr. Boer. Please proceed.
8 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
9 A. Yes, this is William Boer and I
10 will ask Ms. Bartos to confirm, but in Appendix 24-1
11 VIA Attachments four through six, pages five, six,
12 and seven are the same as in HRR-Exhibit 3, pages 10,
13 11, 12 respectively for existing and proposed
14 conditions.
15 A . (Bartos) That is
16 correct.
17 Q. Except for the addition of the
18 imprint on the top right corner of HRR-3, which
19 indicates the exhibit number in the pages, correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay, thank you. Your Honor, do
22 you have any other questions on this because I'm --
23 I'm going to move on to the specific questioning?
24 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, please do so
25 Mr. Bowitch.
257
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
3 Q. Okay. I know that was cumbersome
4 but I -- again I believe it's important on the record
5 that we know what we're referring to. So we're going
6 -- I'm going to use -- now that we've identified the
7 differences, if any, between the various iterations
8 I'd like to begin to ask some questions about VP-27.
9 So, on HRR-3, we have three pages and those four,
10 five, and six of 12. So does everyone have that?
11 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, so HRR-3, oh
12 you're talking about the actual page numbers, not the
13 PDF numbers. Okay, I got you.
14 MR. BOWITCH: I can switch, but I
15 found -- I find that --
16 A.L.J. MULLANY: I don’t care as long
17 as you're clear Mr. Bowitch.
18 MR. BOWITCH: Okay, thank you Your
19 Honor.
20 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
21 Q. So why don’t we start with VP-27,
22 page 4 of 12. Could the panel identify -- well, let
23 me back up. This is -- as we said earlier, this is a
24 photo of existing conditions, correct?
25 A. That's correct.
258
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Q. That's what it looked like when
3 the photographer took that picture on the day
4 indicated January 8, 2019, correct?
5 A. This is William Boer. Yes, that's
6 correct.
7 Q. That -- that's what the photo
8 shows. Okay, not what it looks like, but what the
9 photo shows. Can you identify who -- who the
10 photographer was?
11 A. Judy, do you recall for that one?
12 A. (Bartos) I believe that was you.
13 A. (Boer) Okay, yes. This is William
14 Boer. I was the photographer of that.
15 Q. Okay, thank you. And is it --
16 now, I just lost the page. Pardon me. And -- and it
17 is a fair statement that -- just to confirm -- that
18 this -- what date was this taken on?
19 MR. BOWITCH: Who's saying that?
20 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
21 A. I see it's dated May 2020.
22 Q. No, that's not what I mean. I
23 want to ask the panel what date this picture -- this
24 photograph was taken.
25 A.L.J. MULLANY: Why Mr. Bowitch?
259
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MR. BOWITCH: Because Your Honor, if
3 you look at the -- if you at the block on the right
4 where it says date, and if you go to the right
5 column, it says 28 mm. As far as I can tell, that's
6 not a date.
7 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
8 A. This is William Boer. Yes, that
9 looks like we might have had an error. The date is
10 actually listed on the where the time is. Judy that
11 would be January 8, 2019, at 11:47 a.m.?
12 A. (Bartos) Yes, I see the date and
13 time are on the same line, the bottom line.
14 Q. Okay. And so what lens setting
15 because I know in many of the other photos and
16 simulations this line actually says lens setting.
17 What is the lens setting?
18 A. That would be 28 mm.
19 Q. Okay. So it's a fair statement to
20 say that this photo was taken with a 28 mm lens just
21 to be clear?
22 A.L.J. MULLANY: The question has been
23 asked and answered. Can we move on please Mr.
24 Bowitch?
25 MR. BOWITCH: Yes, Your Honor.
260
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
3 Q. So does the panel consider a 28
4 mm lens a wide-angle lens?
5 A. (Boer) Judy, can you respond to
6 that?
7 A. (Bartos) Yes.
8 A.L.J. MULLANY: Is that yes you can
9 respond or yes to the question?
10 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
11 A. Yes, that would be considered a
12 wide angle.
13 Q. Okay, so if I were standing or
14 the photographer was standing where this photo was
15 taken would this represent the view that you would
16 see out of your human eye?
17 A. Bill, I'll take this. The
18 millimeter focal length that most closely resembles
19 human vision is probably around 48 or 50 mm.
20 Q. Thank you. So -- so this -- this
21 does -- thank you for that. I was going to ask that
22 as the next question. So that -- that mostly
23 approximates the natural eye or the human vision. Is
24 that right?
25 A. Yes.
261
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Q. Okay, so -- so this 28 is not --
3 if I was standing there, this is not what I would see
4 out of my own vision. This is a wide-angle shot,
5 correct?
6 A.L.J. MULLANY: Asked and answered
7 Mr. Bowitch.
8 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
9 Q. Okay. In this -- in this existing
10 conditions, there is a -- there is a house there that
11 you can see. I believe that's -- is that Mr. Puran's
12 driveway if you know? The --the road with the snow on
13 it and the tire tracks?
14 A. (Boer) This is William Boer. Yes,
15 it is.
16 Q. Okay. And that's Mr. Puran's
17 house? The one -- the one -- there's two structures
18 there, but the -- the stone I guess or the one on the
19 right-hand side of the picture -- I'm sorry -- the
20 left-hand side of the picture.
21 A. Again, this is William Boer. The
22 brick house would be Mr. Puran's house.
23 Q. Okay, brick thank you. Was there
24 any attempt to take -- take a photo from Mr. Puran's
25 house to use for your existing conditions?
262
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A. This is William Boer. The photo
3 we've taken was from the public right of way of Bulls
4 Head Road.
5 Q. Okay. Was there any attempt to
6 request that Mr. Puran or for that matter any of the
7 residents at your other locations to allow you to
8 take a photo from their house?
9 A. We took photos from publicly
10 accessible areas to provide representative viewpoints
11 throughout the project area.
12 Q. Okay. I guess the reason I'm
13 asking is because the view from someone's home -- in
14 this case Mr. Puran's home -- for example, from the
15 second floor, you were taking a photo from the back
16 of his house from the second floor. That would be
17 different than what you’ve just described as a
18 representative photo, correct?
19 A. I'm not clear on the question. It
20 would be a different location for the photograph.
21 This is a representative view from the residences
22 along Bulls Head Road.
23 Q. Okay. I guess what I'm asking is
24 we don’t have a -- there's -- there's no existing
25 conditions photo from, in this example Mr. Puran's
263
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 home, his second floor?
3 A. I believe I already stated that
4 the photo was taken from Bulls Head Road for VP-27.
5 A.L.J. MULLANY: I think the answer is
6 a simple no Mr. Boer. Is that correct?
7 MR. BOER: No, correct.
8 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
9 Q. Okay. Just give me a moment Your
10 Honor. Okay, I want to go down to the next slide if
11 you will, page 5 of 12, and I'm going to ask
12 questions. Now, Your Honor, we're working -- this is
13 where it's difficult to be using the telephonic
14 method here, but I'm going to ask these questions as
15 best that I can. So this is proposed conditions. So,
16 as you said earlier, this is a simulation. Is that
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you used the existing
20 conditions photo on the previous page as -- I don't
21 know what the official word is -- but the -- the base
22 photograph for your simulation. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes, it's the same photo of the
24 existing conditions.
25 Q. Okay, so it's -- it's a full
264
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 photo with a 28 mm -- taken with a 28 mm lens, right?
3 A.L.J. MULLANY: Asked and answered.
4 Please Mr. Bowitch.
5 MR. BOWITCH: I'm trying just to
6 establish -- fine Your Honor. Let's just move on.
7 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
8 Q. So now this is going to be I
9 believe a little hard and maybe we have to zoom in,
10 but could the panel or -- or Mr. Boer or Ms. Bartos,
11 whichever, can you try to indicate on this photo
12 where -- what's different where the simulations are?
13 You know, what's simulated? And I just had a problem
14 with my screen here. Can you describe somehow what
15 was added between the proposed conditions and the --
16 from the existing condition photo?
17 A. Judy, can you explain that?
18 A. (Bartos) We added the arrays as
19 they were given to us by the engineers, and they were
20 placed in the photo. So they were placed in the
21 existing photo -- conditions photo.
22 Q. Okay, just a quick question. In
23 terms of the information you were given from the
24 engineers to identify the place where -- where they
25 were placed what kind of data did you use? Were you
265
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 using GIS data or some other method to most
3 accurately place it in this photo -- place the panels
4 in this photo?
5 A. I --
6 A.L.J. MULLANY: Mr. Bowitch -- excuse
7 me, Judy -- Mr. Bowitch, that process is explained in
8 excruciating detail in the rebuttal. Did you have a
9 question about what was presented in the rebuttal?
10 MR. BOWITCH: No.
11 MS. BARTOS: I would like to add
12 there's -- there's a very detailed document in
13 Citizens 20 as to the methodology on how these were
14 created.
15 MR. BOWITCH: Okay, thank you. I'll
16 move on.
17 A.L.J. MULLANY: Can you just clarify
18 for me before you move on when you say Citizens 20 is
19 that an exhibit to their testimony?
20 MS. BARTOS: That's one of the
21 supporting documents that we've listed on the
22 condensed -- on the condensed list. So that is not
23 one of the supporting documents we have open. I
24 apologize.
25 A.L.J. MULLANY: That's okay. I just -
266
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 - for later. When I go back, I'm just looking for
3 clarification in the transcript. What are you
4 referring to when you refer to Citizens 20?
5 MS. BARTOS: That was a request from
6 Citizens to High River asking about the methodology
7 and how the simulations were prepared and -- and we
8 responded.
9 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, so that's an
10 interrogatory request and the response by the
11 applicant. Mr. Laniado, are you aware whether or not
12 that's been offered?
13 MR. LANIADO: Yes. It's on the
14 consensus exhibit list.
15 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, thank you.
16 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
17 Q. Okay. To go back to my
18 questioning on the -- on the simulation, is there any
19 -- and I know this is difficult -- is there any way
20 to identify -- you said that you included panels to
21 just identify on the photo -- this is not that easy -
22 - where you put that simulation? Where those photos
23 are placed? I mean I think I see them, but I don’t
24 want to make assumptions.
25 A. (Boer) Judy, can you describe the
267
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 location of the arrays for Mr. Bowitch?
3 A. (Bartos) They're in the middle
4 ground field of that photo. So, if you look at the
5 front yellow ocher field, that's empty. And then, if
6 you look a little farther in the distance, you'll see
7 that's where the arrays are.
8 Q. Okay. And this is -- this is the
9 fields that are closer to Mr. Puran's house? Is that
10 where I should be looking?
11 A. If you look at his house and
12 you'll see a dark group of trees on the left, scan
13 your eye over to the right.
14 Q. Correct, okay. The -- the way I
15 see it is I see there two sets of panels with a gap
16 in between. And could you please confirm that I'm
17 seeing what you intended as the simulation? It seems
18 to be there's some black areas closer to the hedge
19 row just -- just to the right of those trees you were
20 talking about. And then there's a gap, a lighter gap,
21 and another sort of area of black. Is that -- is that
22 two sets of panels/arrays?
23 A. Oh, no. Those are many arrays.
24 What you're seeing there --
25 Q. Yeah, I guess I wasn’t clear. Go
268
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 ahead please. Maybe I'll ask a question. I apologize.
3 Ms. Bartos, if you look at the trees you were just
4 referring to and then there's -- there's sort of a
5 lower line of trees going to the right to that swing
6 set. Do you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And -- and right behind that line
9 of trees or hedge row, however you want to describe
10 it, there seems to be black areas right behind those
11 trees if you zoom in. Is that part of the arrays that
12 are simulated in there?
13 A. If I'm understanding you
14 correctly, yes. If you see something that's an off
15 color from the brown -- that's as best as I can
16 describe it -- those would be arrays.
17 Q. Okay. That's actually very
18 helpful.
19 A. And I -- I mean that's the --
20 that's the purpose of providing the existing photos
21 so you can compare the two differences.
22 Q. I know. Since you guys are the
23 expert, I wanted to make sure that that for the
24 record it was described and we can all be
25 understanding the same thing. That's fine. If you
269
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 could turn your attention to the -- the -- the slide
3 identified as -- let's just go with the one
4 identified as proposed conditions page -- I'm sorry
5 I'm having -- proposed conditions page 5 of 12 in
6 HRR-3. If you look at the block on the right -- I'm
7 calling it a block, but it has all that information -
8 - there's a number of items listed there and -- and
9 fourth from the bottom row it says distance to fence
10 line 0.7 miles. Do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And could you describe for us
13 with as much specificity as possible distance to
14 fence line? Your Honor, there's some feedback or
15 somebody's unmuted.
16 A.L.J. MULLANY: I would ask people to
17 please mute their phones if they're not actually
18 speaking so we don’t have interference. Thank you.
19 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
20 Q. As far as when you say distance
21 from fence line, what's the starting point? Is it the
22 place where the photograph was taken?
23 A. Yes, where the viewer of the
24 photograph, the camera, the viewpoint.
25 Q. Okay. And it says distance to
270
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 fence line, which is 0.7 miles, which I will say I've
3 calculated is about -- is 3696 feet. Can you identify
4 the fence line that you are referring to that is 0.7
5 miles away? Can you identify on the photo where that
6 fence line is?
7 A. You can't see the fence on the
8 photo? You cannot see the fence line in the photo
9 because it's dropped down behind the hill in the
10 foreground.
11 Q. Okay. Would it be helpful to look
12 at the viewpoint location diagram to help explain
13 where the fence line is that you're referring to? I'm
14 looking at the one that says viewpoint location topo.
15 You can see the panels and the arrays in the areas.
16 Where is -- can you identify the fence line there?
17 A. Yes. And I would like to clarify
18 it's the fence line that is in the view. So there
19 could be other fence lines that are closer or
20 farther, and this is an estimate of the fence line
21 that would be closest to the viewer.
22 Q. Okay, thank you. So could you
23 please identify using that viewpoint location topo? I
24 see there's a V, which presumably is the view that
25 you're -- that you're identifying. Can you somehow
271
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 identify for the record where the fence line that is
3 being referred to as being 0.7 miles away where that
4 is?
5 A. That red V that you see is a
6 rough direction. So you would be probably looking at
7 the fence line that is sort of going in the northwest
8 to southeast direction. On the -- let me see here --
9 look at the V -- take the center line and sort of
10 follow your eye up to the north.
11 Q. Okay, so it's -- it's more
12 vertical than horizontal for those of us that are
13 directionally challenged?
14 A. Sure, yes.
15 Q. Okay. And -- and -- and so you're
16 saying in the photo itself you can't see the fence
17 line, but is it -- is that fence line that you're
18 referring to behind that row of trees that I was
19 describing a minute ago across the swing set, behind
20 and down?
21 A. Yes. I'm looking at the upper
22 aerial photo, so it would be behind there. And I
23 would like to add we made this measurement through
24 GIS.
25 Q. Okay. How far is -- is -- is the
272
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 -- how far is the -- the photographer to Mr. Puran's
3 residence?
4 A. This is itemized out in the
5 rebuttal.
6 Q. Correct.
7 A. Pardon me?
8 Q. Correct. I just want to -- I'm
9 trying to figure out distances here.
10 A.L.J. MULLANY: Mr. Bowitch, if you
11 have a question related to the rebuttal testimony of
12 the company, can you point us to that?
13 MR. BOWITCH: Yes, Your Honor,
14 rebuttal testimony lines 21 through 23.
15 A.L.J. MULLANY: What page?
16 MR. BOWITCH: I'm sorry, page 30.
17 MS. BARTOS: If I may be heard, I have
18 it here. Page 30, line 20. The viewpoint photo is 730
19 feet south of 859 Bulls Head Road.
20 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
21 Q. And that 859 Bulls Head Road is
22 the home. Is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So that's -- that's 730 feet, but
25 you're saying the fence line is -- is 0.7 miles,
273
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 which is almost -- which is just about 3600 feet.
3 Let's call it 3700 feet, 3696 feet is 0.7 miles so
4 let's call it 3700 feet. So are you saying roughly
5 there's a -- there's another 3000 feet between Mr.
6 Puran's house and the fence line?
7 A. I'd have to look at the GIS to
8 recalculate, but as I said this is sort of a rough
9 estimate towards the fence line from the viewpoint
10 location. Looking at --
11 A. (Boer) This is William Boer. As
12 Judy indicated, to where roughly the fence line would
13 be visible to the viewer of that location. Is that
14 correct, Judy?
15 A. (Bartos) Yes.
16 Q. Could you --
17 A. Because the fence line varies,
18 it's -- because the fence line varies, it's not a
19 precise. It's -- it's an estimated measurement to the
20 -- to the fence line. I mean there's going to be a
21 vast difference between, you know, a few hundred feet
22 and -- and 0.7.
23 MR. LANIADO: Ms. Bartos, this is Sam
24 Laniado. Did you say you wanted to look at the GIS?
25 Is that something that's readily available to you
274
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 now?
3 MS. BARTOS: Let me try to pull
4 something up. Okay, so I have a measurement -- bear
5 with me here --
6 A.L.J. MULLANY: Take your time.
7 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
8 A. Okay. I have -- that's a typo.
9 That is 0.3 miles from the fence line.
10 Q. So it -- it -- what -- what is a
11 typo?
12 A. The 0.7 miles is a typo.
13 Q. So it should be 0.3?
14 A. Roughly, 1350 feet roughly.
15 Q. Okay. And -- and Mr. Puran's
16 house you said was 730 feet?
17 A. Bear with me. Roughly, 730-740.
18 Q. Okay, so -- so then from his
19 house to the fence line is about 600 feet is what
20 you're saying? I'm just doing the math.
21 A. Yeah. You know, I'd like to make
22 a correction on that 0.7 miles. I apologize. 0.3
23 miles was the estimated distance to the fence line as
24 you're looking at it on a plan view. 0.7 miles is the
25 estimated distance -- well, to the project that's in
275
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 the view. Your --
3 Q. Okay, that's fine. That's fine.
4 A. So --
5 Q. I'm going -- I'm going to move
6 on.
7 A.L.J. MULLANY: Can you let her
8 finish her answer please? Go ahead Judy.
9 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
10 A. I was just going to answer his
11 other question about the distance of Mr. Puran's
12 house. You know, this isn't surveyed. I'm working on
13 some rough estimates here and I believe --
14 A. (Boer) Hey Judy -- sorry to
15 interrupt -- this is William Boer. I believe we
16 provided the setback of the arrays from Mr. Puran's
17 house in the rebuttal testimony on page 47, line 17.
18 And that distance was 565 feet.
19 Q. Thank you. Thank you very much.
20 So to go back to -- and -- and Your Honor I'm
21 wondering if we can -- I have a couple more
22 questions. I'm wondering if we can take a short
23 break. It's been an hour and a half staring at a
24 screen. I don't know if folks are interested or ready
25 for that Your Honor or I can just finish my
276
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 questioning on VP-27. I'm -- I'm almost done. Why
3 don’t I do that, Your Honor? Your Honor? Hello?
4 Hello? Can anyone here me.
5 A.L.J. MULLANY: My apologies. I had
6 my phone muted. Mr. Bowitch, I would prefer that you
7 finish your questioning on VP-27 unless some other
8 party wants to take a break.
9 MR. BOWITCH: That's fine, Your Honor.
10 I realize that I don’t have that much more on VP-27.
11 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
12 Q. Ms. Bartos or Mr. Boer, just to
13 go back to the -- the photographs and the photo
14 simulations, we've established that this was taken
15 with a 28 mm lens, which is a wide-angle lens. Would
16 it be fair to say that when a wide-angle lens is used
17 that objects in the distance look farther away than
18 if you were standing there with your human eye?
19 A. (Boer) Judy.
20 A. (Bartos) Yes, that's typically
21 the case. However, the proportionality of the objects
22 in the view do not change. So the arrays relative to
23 the surrounding trees and those existing trees that
24 have the ability to block views will still be the
25 same whether it's zoomed in or panned out. The
277
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 purpose of the wider-angle lens in some instances was
3 to capture more viewing extent in the view.
4 Q. Okay, thank you. That -- that --
5 that --
6 A. More context.
7 Q . That -- that -- that's
8 helpful, but as a general rule, objects in -- when
9 you use a wide-angle lens, objects nearer by look
10 bigger and objects in the background look smaller
11 than -- than normal. Is that a fair statement?
12 MR. LANIADO: Your Honor, objection.
13 The question was asked and answered.
14 MR. BOWITCH: I don’t think it was
15 asked and answered. I ask a different question, and
16 I'm asking --
17 A.L.J. MULLANY: It was asked and
18 answered, and the witness has testified that
19 proportionality remains the same. So please proceed
20 Mr. Bowitch.
21 MR. BOWITCH: I will.
22 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
23 Q. I'd like the panel to go to page
24 6 of 12, which is VP-27 mitigation at five years. And
25 could you describe --
278
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A.L.J. MULLANY: Just for clarity of
3 the transcript, we're dealing with Exhibit HRR-3,
4 page 6 of 12. Thank you.
5 MR. BOWITCH: Yeah, sorry Your Honor.
6 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
7 Q. So again, this mitigation, can
8 you point for us for the record where exactly and
9 what exactly is the mitigation that you're referring
10 to that -- oh, let me -- strike that -- when you say
11 mitigation in five years, what does that phrase mean?
12 A. (Boer) Judy.
13 A. (Bartos) That would be the view
14 at five years with the proposed mitigation in place.
15 A. (Boer) This is William Boer. I'll
16 add that specifically it's the -- the addition is
17 that of the landscape buffer.
18 Q. So it's what you're simulating if
19 you -- you're simulating a landscape buffer and what
20 it would look like in five years or are you using
21 existing landscape and then saying this is what it
22 will look like in five years? I'm just trying to
23 clarify that thought.
24 A. It would be the growth of the
25 proposed landscape buffer in five years.
279
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Q. And, when you say proposed, do
3 you mean something that's going to be added in or
4 existing vegetation that changes in five years?
5 A. It's the landscaping that's --
6 it's -- it's proposed landscaping. So that's -- that
7 which is -- would be included with the project as
8 indicated on the projects landscape plans.
9 Q. Okay, so I'd like to have you
10 compare the proposed condition photo. That's -- that
11 -- that one, which is one page five that does not
12 have the mitigation identified in there. Is that
13 correct?
14 A.L.J. MULLANY: Again, for the
15 clarity of the record, we're talking about page 5 of
16 12 of HRR-3 I believe.
17 MR. BOWITCH: Yes, sorry Your Honor
18 and titled proposed conditions.
19 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
20 Q. So I'm asking the panel, this
21 does not include the mitigation simulation, correct -
22 - mitigation in five years?
23 A. Yes, page 5 of 12 does not
24 include mitigation.
25 Q. Okay, so then if you go to page 6
280
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 of 12 on HRR-3, which is identified as mitigation at
3 five years, this is supposed to include what it will
4 look like in five years? What the mitigation will
5 look like? Is that correct? Oh, I asked that already.
6 I -- I'll -- I'll ask a direct question. I've looked
7 at both of these photos next to each other and zoomed
8 in, and to be perfectly blunt I don’t see any
9 difference in the mitigation or in the shrubbery or
10 the trees between these two photos. Can you identify
11 for us exactly what you have simulated to show
12 mitigation after five years?
13 A. Yes. Judy, can you explain that?
14 A. (Bartos) Yeah. There's minimal
15 mitigation that can be visible. There's little spots
16 of green in some of the front area, but I'd like to
17 add that is for this location. The mitigation is
18 there, and it has the ability to serve for others in
19 other locations and other views. So, because you
20 cannot see it in this one, does not mean it's not
21 serving elsewhere.
22 Q. Okay, but if I am a person that
23 is standing on the end of Mr. Puran's driveway where
24 this photo was taken can you identify for me what the
25 difference -- what the increased -- what the
281
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 increased mitigation is? And -- and like I said, I
3 don’t see it. You used the word minimal. What do you
4 mean by that? Minimal, to me, sounds like minimal,
5 not much from this location. That's all I'm asking.
6 This is the -- this is the viewpoint the applicant
7 chose to you.
8 A. You observed correctly.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A.L.J. MULLANY: Excuse me. Isn't this
11 a question for Michael Ross on the panel? Isn't he
12 the one that selected what the vegetation would be
13 for the -- the buffer Mr. Boer?
14 (On the record 10:48 a.m.)
15 MR. ROSS: Yes. That is correct. It
16 can explain the makeup--
17 MR. BOWITCH: Mr. Ross, can you --yeah
18 --
19 A.L.J. MULLANY: And I would remind
20 the panel that you can confer among yourselves before
21 you provide an answer.
22 MR. BOWITCH: Mr. Ross, can you
23 address that question, please?
24 MR. ROSS: I can. This is Michael
25 Ross. The land--the proposed landscaping that was
282
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 done was based on the BIA. The simulation
3 incorporates all the proposed landscaping that was
4 incorporated into the plan set through the simulation
5 process. So, rather the view indicates with clarity
6 that the proposed landscaping is visible or not is
7 another question. But the simulation generated for
8 this specific exhibit at five years does incorporate
9 the landscaping that was proposed based on the BIA.
10 A.L.J. MULLANY: I--I--I can ask a
11 question of the panel to just maybe dispense with
12 this line of inquiry? Would it be a fair statement to
13 say that based on the perspective that’s depicted in
14 this particular simulation, VP27, Bulls Head Road
15 North, view north, mitigation in five years proposed
16 conditions in hearing Exhibit HRR3…would it be a fair
17 statement to say that there’s no appreciable
18 vegetation visible from this particular viewpoint?
19 MR. BOER: Yes. This is William Boer.
20 I could try to explain why you cannot see some of it,
21 but I would say that your statement is correct. It’s
22 a fair statement…fair statement.
23 A.L.J. MULLANY: Mr. Bowitch.
24 MR. BOWITCH: Yes, thank you, Your
25 Honor. I have--I have no more questions on VP27. If
283
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 its--if--if--if Your Honor would be so--so--if we
3 could, it would be appreciated if we can take a short
4 break before I move onto my next series of questions,
5 which is going to be on VP28 and then on 15C.
6 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, you mean the
7 same documents?
8 MR. BOWITCH: Yeah, we’re going to
9 continue to focus on HRR3, again because it has page
10 numbers and…and it’s easier to use.
11 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. Very good.
12 Thank you. We’ll break until 11:00 a.m.
13 (On the record 11:10 a.m.)
14 A.L.J. MULLANY: I’d just like to go
15 on the record for a moment to note that the phone
16 system is not working and that’s why there’s a delay.
17 THE REPORTER: Okay. Give me just a
18 moment here. Okay, you’re on the record.
19 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. This is just to
20 note for the record that we took a break at 10:45
21 a.m., scheduled to return at 11:00 a.m., and at that
22 time a number of parties have sent emails indicating
23 that they’re not able to get through by calling the
24 WebEx call-in number. We’ve confirmed on our end that
25 we are unable to dial in to the WebEx system. So,
284
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 we’re working on the problem now. And for the time
3 being, we’re going to go back off the record. Thank
4 you.
5 (Off the record 11:11 a.m.)(On the
6 record 11:46 a.m.)
7 THE REPORTER: Okay, we’re back on the
8 record.
9 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. Let the record
10 reflect that we had a delay due a failure of the
11 WebEx teleconferencing system. The applicant has
12 through its office--has set up a new teleconferencing
13 platform and--with minimal delay, about 30, 35, 40-
14 minute delay. We’re out--we’re back on. So, Mr.
15 Bowitch, I guess it’s now time for you to proceed to
16 the next group of questions you want to ask. Are you
17 ready to proceed?
18 MR. BOWITCH: Yes, Your Honor. I--
19 well, for hopefully everyone got, you know,
20 betterment--we’re going to skip our questioning on
21 VP28 if you’re looking to ask any questions on that,
22 and instead we’re going to go to--I would like--
23 again, we’re going to use HRR3, and I want to have
24 the panel go to the photos and simulations with
25 respect to VP17, identified as Mohr Road View West,
285
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 and on HRR3 it is--I’m going to ask questions about
3 pages 10 of 12, 11 of 12, and 12 of 12.
4 MR. LANIADO: You mean 15C, not 17,
5 Mr. Bowitch?
6 MR. BOWITCH: Did I say--I do mean
7 15C. Did I say 17? I apologize.
8 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, let’s go.
9 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
10 Q. So, I want to start with the top-
11 -the first photo on page 10. So, there’s--this--on
12 the bottom blue bar it says VP15C Mohr Road View
13 West. It does not indicate whether this is an
14 existing conditions photo or a proposed conditions
15 photo, other than the very--unlike the others--could
16 somebody explain whether this represents existing
17 conditions?
18 A. (Bartos) I can answer that. Judy
19 Bartos here. Page 10, yes. That is existing
20 conditions. If you go to page 11, you’ll see at the
21 top it says existing conditions and then underneath
22 that simulation.
23 Q. Okay, thank you. That’s helpful.
24 So, go back to page 10. So, that’s existing
25 conditions and that was taken with the photographer
286
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 standing on Mohr Road, is that correct?
3 A. (Boer) Yes. This is William Boer.
4 That’s correct.
5 Q. Did you take this photograph?
6 A. Judy, can you answer that?
7 A. (Bartos) The field team for TRC
8 Environmental.
9 Q. So, we don’t know an individual,
10 but you’re saying somebody at TRC took the photo?
11 A. I do know an individual, Asa
12 Kalis, was on the field team. He’s with TRC.
13 Q. Could you just spell that, just
14 for the record, first and last name?
15 A.L.J. MULLANY: Mr. Bowitch, why are
16 you spending time on the identity of the
17 photographer. This appears irrelevant to me. Let’s
18 move on.
19 MR. BOWITCH: Okay. So, this was taken
20 on Mohr Road, correct, and the box says that the lens
21 setting, which is correctly identified. So, this
22 picture was taken with a 55-millimeter lens, is that
23 correct?
24 A.L.J. MULLANY: I read 50, five zero.
25 MR. BOWITCH: I want the panel to
287
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 acknowledge that, Your Honor.
3 A.L.J. MULLANY: You just said 55.
4 They don’t need to acknowledge it. The document
5 speaks for itself.
6 MR. BOWITCH: I apologize if I said
7 55. I don’--I don’t--didn’t think that I did.
8 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, if the document
9 speaks for itself, then we can--then this photo would
10 have been taken with a 50 mm lens.
11 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
12 Q. I want to move on to page 11, and
13 as Ms. Bartos said earlier, there were--there’s sort
14 of two sets here, one the top of it says existing
15 conditions. Ms. Bartos or anyone on the panel, what
16 millimeter lens was this photo taken with? It is not
17 indicated on page 11.
18 A. (Bartos) The simulations are of a
19 set of suits. So, the title block is the first one,
20 and that’s where you read 50 millimeters. It applies
21 to page 11 as well.
22 Q. So--so, the top photo on page 11
23 that says existing conditions, you’re saying that was
24 50 millimeters, correct?
25 A. Yes.
288
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Q. Okay, and you know what, it’s a
3 little hard to tell, was…was this photo on the top of
4 page 11 the same as the photo in page 10?
5 A. Yes.
6 A.L.J. MULLANY: Can I ask, is this
7 actually three separate that were stitched together
8 to create a panoramic view?
9 MS. BARTOS: This top photo? Yes. The
10 bottom? No.
11 MR. BOWITCH: Okay, Your Honor, you
12 helped me get to our point much quicker.
13 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
14 Q. So, the three photos on the
15 bottom of page 11, where it says simulations, that is
16 three photographs, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay, and tell me the lens that
19 was used--these are simulations, but there were base
20 photos that you simulated on top of, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay, and what was the--what was
23 the lens setting for each of these three photos?
24 A.L.J. MULLANY: Focal length he’s
25 talking about. Is it 50 millimeters?
289
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MS. BARTOS: Yes, sir.
3 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you.
4 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
5 Q. So, each was taken with 50
6 millimeters and then you simulated the panels onto
7 the left-hand photo and the middle photo. I don’t see
8 any on the right photo.
9 A. That’s correct. They’re not
10 visible on the right.
11 A. (Boer)This his William Boer. I
12 would just add, yes, the existing vegetation strains
13 many of the arrays at this location.
14 Q. And so that--so, just so we’re
15 clear, you took these three photos--or please
16 confirm--you took these three photos on the bottom
17 set on page 11 and you stitched them
18 together…together to give you the photo on the top,
19 is that correct?
20 A. (Bartos) They’re not stitched
21 together specifically with a software program.
22 They’re three individual photos placed side by side.
23 Q. Okay, I used the phrase and the
24 judge used the phrase stitched together. What’s the
25 difference between side by side and stitched
290
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 together?
3 A. When you stitch a photograph,
4 there’s a mechanism in the software by which you can
5 consolidate multiple photos into one.
6 Q. Okay. So, here’s the question,
7 so, the three photos on--on the bottom, which--which
8 you said were each taken with a 50 millimeter lens
9 and then you simulated panels on top of them, but the
10 photo that says existing conditions you also said was
11 a 50 millimeter--was taken with a 50 millimeter lens.
12 My question is how can that be? This is--
13 A. Let me--let me clarify--pardon
14 me, go ahead.
15 Q. Go ahead and clarify.
16 A. The top photo is comprised of
17 three 50-millimeter lens, so they become equivalent.
18 The top photo--
19 Q. I disagree. I find that
20 confusing. Was the top photo merged with software so
21 it appears seamless?
22 A. Yes.
23 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you. And the
24 bottom photograph, which appears to be three photos
25 laid together was not through software merged
291
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 together.
3 MS. BARTOS: Correct.
4 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you.
5 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
6 Q. The question I have, for the top
7 photo as well as the one on page 10, if I was
8 standing there with a camera, as you said earlier
9 today, that a view--a natural view approximate--I
10 think you said--48 to 50 millimeters, and you’ve
11 already said that the picture on page 11 was a 50-
12 millimeter lens setting. Is the view that I would see
13 with my normal eye if I was standing on Mohr Road
14 when this picture was taken?
15 A. Yes, it would.
16 Q. Even though this is a 50-
17 millimeter lens?
18 A. Fifty millimeters is equivalent.
19 This is using a full-frame camera. Fifty millimeters
20 with a full-frame camera is 50 millimeters, and
21 that’s equivalent to human vision, around 48 to 50
22 millimeters.
23 Q. Well, I just was confused--
24 A. So, this would be the view you--
25 you could--
292
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Q. Let me--let me ask my question
3 and then you can--you can clarify. I’m looking at
4 again page 11--page 10 or the top photo on page 11--
5 if you look at the--the bottom left-hand side and the
6 bottom righthand side, that’s--that’s Mohr road,
7 correct? The road in the bottom right corner and the
8 bottom left corner.
9 A. Yes.
10 A. (Boer) Yes.
11 Q. But if I was standing there,
12 would I--and--and--and on the right--it’s sort of
13 sloping up to the right and on the left, it’s sort of
14 sloping up to the left. If I was standing there with
15 my normal eye, would I see the road like that?
16 A. (Bartos) The road slopes up to
17 the left, and this is a phenomenon that occurs with
18 photography, is that you get a certain parallax that
19 occurs when you shift camera angle, so that there
20 will be a little bit of a bend. So, basically that
21 photo on the right is more or less straight road, and
22 then you can see that--that the road begins to slope
23 upwards to the left.
24 Q. So--okay--so, it--it--is it
25 similar to the effect you would get with a wide-angle
293
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 lens?
3 A. That question, I can’t answer. I
4 don't know.
5 Q. I--okay--I mean, what I’m trying
6 to focus on is whether or not the top photo on 11 and
7 the photo on ten is something that would be what you
8 would see with your natural eye. And if you look at
9 the three photos, which you say were--were basically
10 stitch--placed together, each of those would be 50.
11 So, how can the--the large wide photo on the top
12 there, of page 11, be a 50-millimeter picture?
13 A. The three photos on the bottom
14 were taken with a 50-millimeter lens that got merged
15 and that panoramic was--millimeters was maintained.
16 You can see they are the same--generally the same.
17 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, I’m going to
18 cut to the chase here. This is just way too
19 laborious.
20 MR. BOWITCH: I’m going to move on.
21 Judge, I’m going to move on to another question. Can
22 I proceed?
23 A.L.J. MULLANY: Yes. I have a final
24 question for the panel. Being the person who prepared
25 these--put these photographs and prepared these
294
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 photographic exhibits and understanding that this is
3 not the same as actually standing there, these are
4 photographic representations of this particular view,
5 would--in your expert view--would this fairly
6 represent--understanding the limitations of
7 photography--would this fairly represent the view
8 that it seeks to depict?
9 MR. BOER: Yes.
10 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. Thank you.
11 Let’s move on, Mr. Bowitch.
12 THE REPORTER: Wait. Who was that that
13 said yes? Wait a minute. It’s the court reporter. Who
14 was that that said yes?
15 MR. BOER: William Boer.
16 THE REPORTER: Thank you.
17 MR. BOWITCH: Well, Your Honor, I’m
18 going to draw the panel’s attention--I mean, this is
19 not just an exercise. What’s happening here is I’m
20 going to draw the panel’s attention to page 12 of 12,
21 which is identified as representative simulation.
22 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
23 Q. I want to ask the panel what this
24 represents.
25 A. (Boer) Judy?
295
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A. (Bartos) We chose to show a
3 larger--we chose one of the three. Generally, it’s
4 the focal point of the--the view. And we put in its
5 own page, in its own extended format.
6 Q. What do you mean by in its own
7 extended format?
8 A. We pulled one out to put in a--in
9 a different viewpoint for the viewing ease.
10 Q. Okay. So, I want you to look at
11 this representative photo and I want you to look at
12 the--the simulation photos, and the center simulation
13 photo--and this is why I’m trying to find out what it
14 would look like if I was standing at that location,
15 let’s say by that--by that post--that stick there,
16 what it would look like to the natural eye. And the
17 reason I’m asking you these questions is if you
18 compare the representative simulation to the middle
19 photo, the--the panel from the middle photo, with the
20 other two there on page 11, look way smaller to the--
21 to the eye than the ones in 12. And that’s why I was
22 trying to find out what was the natural view if you
23 were standing at that location. Would it be what’s on
24 page 12 or would it be what you see on page 11?
25 A.L.J. MULLANY: I’m sorry, that was a
296
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 very long question. Does it boil down to what are the
3 differences between the two simulations. One looks
4 like panels are more prominent than the other. Is
5 that what you’re asking, Mr. Bowitch?
6 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
7 Q. We’ll go with that question.
8 We’ll have a follow-up.
9 A. They’re both representative with
10 what you would see. If you look, proportionality
11 remains the same within the environment. It’s a
12 difference on how it’s portrayed on the page and how
13 it’s sized, but you can see the panels in relation to
14 each of them and they remain constant.
15 Q. I--I understand that, but I--I--I
16 think--the reason I’m asking these questions, is if
17 you look at the three photos next to each other on
18 the bottom of page 10, particularly if you’re
19 focusing on the panels in the center at the end of
20 that--that grass path, it makes it look, does it not-
21 -it makes it look like the panels are a lot smaller
22 than they would look and that you show in--in page
23 12. Why have a photo that makes the panels look--and
24 this is the question--why did you put a photo--this
25 is three photos laid together--in this document that
297
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 makes those panels look considerably less than they
3 look on page 12?
4 A. There’s a page restriction when
5 you present these things. So, essentially, we showed
6 three photos together to show a wider extent of the
7 project so you can get a better context. And we chose
8 the middle one to portray on its own page so you can
9 see it a little more clearly and to have the ability
10 to hone in on different features and just sort of see
11 that, you know, how the project lays against the
12 vegetation. It’s just kind of showing a different
13 view, where some level of detail may be obtained.
14 Q. Understood. I just think it--in
15 my personal view, I think it--it’s misleading because
16 it’s not a view you would see if you were standing by
17 that post, by that stick. Instead you would see the
18 view at the bottom. But I’m going to move on.
19 MR. LANIADO: I’m sorry, Your Honor,
20 can Mr. Bowitch be warned not to make these
21 declaratory statements that are testimony in nature?
22 Let’s just stick to questioning.
23 A.L.J. MULLANY: Mr. Bowitch, do you
24 understand the objection?
25 MR. BOWITCH: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
298
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A.L.J. MULLANY: Do you have anything
3 to say in response or do you have any problem with
4 complying with that request?
5 MR. BOWITCH: I don’t have a problem
6 with complying with that request, Your Honor.
7 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, thank you, sir.
8 MR. BOWITCH: We--we will--we will
9 brief as necessary. I just have a few more questions.
10 I’d like to turn to the same document and--and-and go
11 to the--the panels with respect to VP26. So, please
12 go to pages 1 of 12 and 2 of 12 and 3 of 12. You see
13 those?
14 MR. BOER: This is William Boer. Yes.
15 Judy, do you have that in front of you?
16 MS. BARTOS: Yes. Page one, two, and
17 three.
18 MR. BOWITCH: Correct, of 12 on HRR3,
19 correct. So--and you don’t have to go through this--
20 this whole long exercise that we did with 15C. The
21 top photograph, is that a photograph of existing
22 conditions? On page one.
23 MR. BOER: Yes. William Boer. Yes.
24 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
25 Q. And you’re saying that was taken
299
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 with a 50-millimeter lens, correct?
3 A. (Boer) Yes. That’s what is stated
4 on the table on page 1 of 12, 50 millimeters.
5 Q. Okay, so if you go to page two,
6 under simulation it shows--there’s two--there’s two
7 sets of photos here on page two. You see that? The
8 top one, it says simulation and the bottom one says
9 landscaping at five years. So, if you look at the two
10 photos on the top of page two, those--those--you
11 have--tell me the lens that each of those two photos
12 on the top there were taken with before you added the
13 simulation.
14 A. Judy?
15 A. (Bartos) Once again, it’s the
16 same as the previous answer. The photos were taken
17 with a 50-millimeter lens--for all photos in this
18 suite.
19 Q. Okay, and so, is it fair to say--
20 ?
21 A. Like I described before--as I
22 described before, the page restrictions are showing
23 different sizes of that same 50-millimeter photos.
24 And the third one is shown to illustrate greater
25 clarity.
300
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Q. Correct, and the third one on
3 page three that says represented simulation, correct?
4 That’s what you meant--that’s what you were referring
5 to when you said greater clarity?
6 A Yes.
7 Q. Okay, good. So, let’s just go
8 back to--to page one. Is that the photo where you
9 merged the two photos on page two to make the photo
10 on page one?
11 A. Repeat your question.
12 Q. So, similar to what we were
13 talking about with 15C, I’m looking at the photo on
14 page one, which you said was existing conditions with
15 a 50-millimeter lens, and I’m looking at the two
16 photos on--on the top of page two, and I want to know
17 whether the photo on page one is a merger of the two
18 photos on page two.
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. Okay and can you--can you point
21 out for me on the simulation, the ones on--on--on
22 page two--and this is similar to what we talked about
23 this morning. I can--can you identify where the solar
24 arrays have been simulated in on these two photos?
25 Can you try to describe that to us? Because I don’t
301
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 see a huge difference, but I want you to explain
3 where the panels have been simulated in, if you
4 would.
5 A. (Boer) When you say a huge
6 difference, are you talking difference between what
7 and what?
8 Q. I--I--I’ll just switch to another
9 question and ask a simpler question. Can you please
10 describe on the simulation--there’s two photos there
11 on the top of page two--can you please describe where
12 the solar array had been simulated or added on to
13 the--to the base picture?
14 A. Yes. This is William Boer. I’ll
15 try to only be a second or two, but yeah, on the
16 existing to the proposed, given the distance of this
17 location to the arrays, it is very hard to discern
18 because they’re far away and they’re low profile. But
19 Judy, I’ll point it over to you if you could try to
20 point on the actual simulation where they for Mr.
21 Bowitch.
22 A. (Bartos) We should focus on the
23 left photo because that’s where the greater focus is,
24 and if you see the left photo and you’re looking at
25 the top and there’s a vegetated area, drop your eyes
302
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 down and you’ll see some darker areas where they’re a
3 little bit of a different color from the forested
4 area in the field. So, it would be just below the
5 very large, forested area at the top of the hill.
6 Q. At the top of the hill, sort of
7 not quite center of that left picture, a little to
8 the right of center, is that where you mean?
9 A. A little right of the center.
10 Yeah, you can see a little bit of a crescent field in
11 the middle of that.
12 Q. Okay, and the panels are below
13 that crescent?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I just wanted to make sure we’re
16 talking about the same thing. As you see below the
17 crescent, there looks to be some panels that sort of
18 are U-shaped on one side and less U on the other, is
19 that right? U on a side?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Those are the panels. Okay. How
22 did you--what kind of information did you use to
23 place those panels in the simulation?
24 A. I’ll repeat my earlier comment
25 and that--that methodology is the same used--that
303
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 methodology was fully described in detail during the
3 interrogatories, and that’s titled Citizens 20. And
4 that same methodology was applied throughout the
5 project--or throughout the project simulations.
6 Q. So, the--the--the methodology
7 that’s described in IR20, you know, response to IR20-
8 -that applies to this--this information that you used
9 applies to this VP26 simulation.
10 A. Yes, it does.
11 Q. Great. When you look at the
12 righthand photo on page--I zoomed in too much--this
13 is a little hard--page two, I guess. Could you just
14 bear with me because I’ve lost the photo? Bear with
15 me, Your Honor. I seemed to have X’ed out of that
16 photo. I need to pull it back up--or that document.
17 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay.
18 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
19 Q. Okay. I apologize. Here we go.
20 So, on page 2 of 12, you were--Ms. Bartos, you were
21 talking about the photo on the right--I’m sorry, on
22 the left--and you--you described the--the simulated
23 panels. Can you describe if and what simulated panels
24 are on the photo on the right?
25 A. Do you see the tree in the
304
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 foreground that has a--the large at the end of the
3 field in the foreground?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. That’s sort of the--they’re
6 behind that and carry--go to the top of that and
7 carry your eye over to the right, and you can see
8 some panels there. And then there’s a tree row and
9 there’s panels on the other side of that.
10 Q. Thank you. The second photo on
11 page 2 of 12--not second photo--the second group on
12 the bottom of page 2 of 12. Those are supposed to
13 represent landscaping at five years, that’s what that
14 says?
15 A. Yes, it does.
16 Q. And now in the other simulations
17 we were looking at, the phrase mitigation at five
18 years was used. Is there a--is there a difference
19 between using landscaping in five years versus the
20 sort of mitigation at five years?
21 A. There’s no difference in terms.
22 It’s proposed landscaping at five years.
23 Q. Okay, and this is similar to what
24 I was asking before, and Your Honor actually
25 simplified the question. If you look at the
305
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 simulation at the top of that page and then the one
3 below that says landscaping at five years, can you
4 describe the difference in the landscaping or
5 mitigation between the top set of photos and the
6 bottom?
7 A. I’m looking, bear with me here.
8 Go ahead, Bill.
9 A. (Boer) Yes. I--I guess I was just
10 going to ask you to--I wasn’t clear on the question.
11 Q. The question is can you describe
12 what difference in landscaping or mitigation
13 vegetation there is between the top two photos on
14 that page and the bottom two, because similar to
15 before, I don’t see any appreciable difference
16 between those two sets of photos.
17 A. Well, the--the top two--
18 A. (Bartos) There is--wait--all
19 right, go head, sorry.
20 A. (Boer) This is William Boer. This
21 is--the top two do not have landscaping. The bottom
22 two do depict the proposed landscaping. So, that
23 landscaping where it may not be discernable from this
24 distance, which I don’t recall--I’m going to say
25 nearly two miles away--it does--you will see glimpses
306
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 of the landscaping along Pattersonville Road, where a
3 special planting area was proposed for the residences
4 along Pattersonville Road to screen the project. So,
5 that’s a little discernable in this particular
6 simulation. The purpose was to screen visibility from
7 the project from the residences that are at a much
8 closer proximity than those two miles away, on top of
9 the hill, with sweeping views of the area.
10 Q. What--what--?
11 A. (Bartos) I would also like to
12 add--
13 Q. Go ahead.
14 A. May I--may I be heard?
15 A.L.J. MULLANY: Yes, please.
16 MS. BARTOS: I would also like to add,
17 there’s quite an abundance of existing vegetation
18 that blocks views of the project and of this view
19 itself. There’s various tree rows that are in the
20 middle of the field that are blocking views to
21 panels. A good lower portion--okay, if you remember
22 you describing the panels that are--that are just
23 below that crescent hill--drop your eye even further
24 and a good two, maybe half of the panels are blocked
25 by existing vegetation. That would be along Patterson
307
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Road. Well, I should say that is in the vicinity of
3 Patterson Road, between the viewer and the project.
4 So, there--and then you carry your eye over to the
5 right, and there’s foreground vegetation that blocks
6 views, and as you roam your eye throughout each of
7 these photographs, there’s various tree rows and
8 other vegetation that exists that also serve to--to
9 mitigate and block views.
10 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
11 Q. Thank you. That--that wasn’t my
12 question. I want to know, in the simulation, what was
13 added--what was simulated to show--to show from the
14 viewer, who took these two photos and presumably from
15 the people that lived in that house, what was added
16 in your simulation between the existing and the one
17 described as landscaping at five years?
18 MR. LANIADO: Your Honor, I’m going to
19 object to the question. It has been asked and
20 answered by Mr. Boer already.
21 MR. BOWITCH: Your Honor, I don’t
22 think it was answered. I don’t think it was answered,
23 Your Honor.
24 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
25 Q. Why don’t I move on to page 3 of
308
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 12, where it says representative simulation? Do you
3 see that? Hello. Am I still on?
4 A. Yes.
5 A. (Boer) I can hear you.
6 Q. Okay. So--so, let’s ask a
7 question here. This is a representative simulation
8 of--of the slides--of the--of the--the area, and it
9 says landscape mitigation at five years. Can you
10 describe for us what you simulated to show landscape
11 mitigation, that’s between the--if I were to look at
12 it now, from the--from the viewpoint of the
13 photographer, what’s different in this picture? What
14 was simulated in?
15 A. Again--this is William Boer. The
16 simulated in, though not very discernable from this
17 simulation, would be--primarily in the center would
18 be the special planting area we proposed of
19 landscaping, an area of Pattersonville Road and an
20 area Parsons Road. So, we proposed a special planting
21 area there with various screening vegetative heights,
22 which our landscape architect, Mike Ross, can speak
23 to and the--the makeup of it, but that’s--that’s the
24 primary vegetation landscape mitigation in that--in
25 that particular simulation.
309
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Q. Did you say it wasn’t very
3 discern--?
4 A. (Bartos) I would add--
5 Q. You said it wasn’t very
6 discernable, correct?
7 A. (Boer) This is William Boer. From
8 two miles away, it’s tough to see in the simulation,
9 but for those residents along Pattersonville Road,
10 this will provide very effective screening, visual
11 mitigation of the project.
12 Q. Well, let me ask you this
13 question. If--if it--if it’s not that discernable
14 from the people living or from this location, why did
15 you use this picture? I mean, it does--I guess what
16 I’m getting at is, does this show from the person
17 taking this photograph any difference in view between
18 five years from now to five years from now, in this
19 photo?
20 A. The simulation was prepared--this
21 is William Boer--again to account for the mitigation
22 that is proposed is aged in for the project. So, it’s
23 with and without it. It’s an--
24 A. (Bartos) May I add something?
25 A. (Boer) Go ahead, Judy.
310
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A. (Bartos) This particular
3 viewpoint and many of the others were taken as
4 representative locations. Now, this is the north side
5 of the Mohawk River that had a view of the project,
6 so we simulated it because there were nearby
7 residences. We--we include the mitigation as it
8 appears from the view. We didn’t select the photo
9 because of the mitigation. So, if there’s a photo--if
10 there’s a simulation and there’s--regardless of not--
11 whether or not the proposed landscaping appears in--
12 in that mitigation photo. We put this photo in the
13 suite.
14 Q. So, is there--is there any
15 proposed vegetative mitigation being proposed for
16 Swart Hill Road?
17 A. (Boer) The proposed--we did
18 propose landscaping in front of--adjacent to the
19 arrays that are visible from Swart Hill Road--that in
20 combination with the existing vegetation that’s out
21 there and given the distance from the elevated
22 location of Swart Hill Road to the arrays--those
23 combination of those factors--that’s given the
24 distance and the vegetation. So, that’s--that’s
25 what’s mitigating the views of the project.
311
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Q. Okay. Well, without--
3 A.L.J. MULLANY: Let’s refrain from
4 commentary, please.
5 MR. BOWITCH: I’m--I’m just pausing to
6 think, Your Honor. I just want to see if there’s
7 anything else I want to ask.
8 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
9 Q. I--I might ask the panel--is
10 there--are the panel members, particularly Ms. Bartos
11 and Mr. Boer--are--are--are you professional
12 photographers?
13 A. (Boer) This is William Boer. I--I
14 work for NextEra Energy Resources as an Environmental
15 Services Project Manager. That’s my profession but I
16 have--
17 Q. Excuse me. I’m sorry.
18 A. Thank you. I have worked on
19 visual impact assessments for numerous projects
20 throughout New York steak--New York State and
21 particular to the renewable energy projects and solar
22 specifically.
23 Q. And when you say you worked on
24 them, did that include work as a photographer, as a
25 simulator? Can you clarify?
312
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A. In this--in this context I’ve
3 worked on numerous visual impact assessments to
4 assess the visual impacts as the result of a solar
5 energy project.
6 Q. So, did you--is your job to
7 perform or supervise simulations? Does it include
8 that?
9 A. My job is to work with our--in
10 this case our consultant, TRC, to develop these
11 simulations and the overall visual impact assessment
12 that was included in the Appendix 24.
13 Q. Okay, Ms. Bartos, would you mind
14 answering the same question? Are you a professional
15 photographer?
16 A. (Bartos) I’m currently--I
17 wouldn’t consider myself currently a professional
18 photographer, meaning I have my own business. Long
19 ago, back when there was such thing as film cameras,
20 I did quite a bit of darkroom work. So, I have
21 experience with developing photos, paper photos, and
22 that experience with those cameras and then the now
23 digital cameras. As far as simulation experience, I
24 have a visual--visualization team. So, there are
25 other people who perform visualization--simulations.
313
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 But I myself used to work the software and produce
3 simulations. So, I understand what goes into that
4 and--
5 Q. So--so, are you a supervisor of
6 that team? You said you worked with them. I just want
7 to--did you super--do you supervise--?
8 A. I would say yes. I may not have
9 had that specific title, but yes, I supervise the
10 visual impact assessments. I would also like to add--
11 not necessarily relevant to professional photography,
12 I do have a master’s in science, but long ago,
13 probably in the late seventies and early eighties, I
14 also have a bachelor’s of fine art with a minor in
15 art history, which helps inform--that experience
16 helps inform, you know, all of the other elements
17 that go into the visual impact--impact assessments,
18 such as contrast gradings and being able to evaluate
19 and critique--well, we used to do that in the art
20 history class. You know, we used to evaluate and
21 critique the masters, and so that knowledge can be
22 applied for photographs as well. So, there is
23 technical experience and a little educational
24 experience.
25 Q. Okay. Thank you. Your Honor, I
314
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 have no further questions. I want to thank the panel
3 for answering my questions. This will conclude our--
4 our cross examination on the visual impacts of the
5 applicant. We have--I have to actually pull it up. We
6 have a very short cross of the DPS panel, but I’m
7 done with this panel.
8 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. I think it’s an
9 opportune time for us to take a break for lunch. It’s
10 12:32 p.m. So, Howard, we’re going to go off the
11 record.
12 THE REPORTER: Okay. Okay, one moment.
13 (Off the record 12:33 p.m.)
14 A.L.J MULLANY: If -- if that's -- if
15 that's it, then I’m going to go on the record and
16 we'll proceed.
17 THE REPORTER: Okay.
18 A.L.J MULLANY: Mr. Hubbard, you can
19 put us on the record, please.
20 THE REPORTER: Okay. One moment. Okay.
21 We are on the record.
22 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. Thank you. We're
23 back on the record after having taken a break for --
24 for lunch. We had a brief conference off the record
25 and at this point, citizens is going to conduct its
315
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 cross-examination of the DPS panel. So, I would ask
3 Ms. Chaudari, is your panel available for cross-
4 examination?
5 MS. CHAUDARI: Yes, Your Honor. I
6 would just ask that the panel members confirm -- it's
7 my understanding that they are certainly on the line.
8 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. If you could
9 have them identify themselves, that'd be great.
10 THE REPORTER: Wait. Wait. I’m sorry,
11 who was that that answered?
12 MS. CHAUDARI: Noreena Chaudari.
13 THE REPORTER: Oh, okay. Thank you.
14 MS. CHAUDARI: Oh, yes. Yes, Your
15 Honor, if the panel members would like to, I think
16 just for the benefit of hearing your voices, if you
17 could each run through in the order that you all
18 appear in the testimony, it'd be very much
19 appreciated. Starting with Mr. Davis.
20 MR. DAVIS: Sorry, I was on mute.
21 Andrew Davis.
22 MR. FLAUM: Jeremy Flaum.
23 MR. MORENO-CAVALLERO: Miguel Moreno-
24 Cavallero.
25 MR. QUACKENBUSH: John Quackenbush.
316
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MS. GILLING: Lorna Gilling.
3 MS. EDMUNDSON: Kaitlyn Edmundson.
4 MS. CHAUDARI: Your Honor, that's our
5 whole panel.
6 A.L.J MULLANY: And have all the
7 panels been previously sworn in? All the panel
8 members?
9 MS. CHAUDARI: Yes. Yes, this is the
10 same group that we presented yesterday and we have
11 already moved to admit their testimony and exhibit.
12 A.L.J MULLANY: Very good. Okay. I
13 remind the panel that you're all under oath again.
14 Mr. Bowitch, this is the panel, so you should just
15 direct your questions to the panel generally and they
16 will have the discretion to answer you and how they
17 see fit. Any questions?
18 MR. BOWITCH: Thank you, Your Honor.
19 Good afternoon, everyone.
20 CROSS-EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. BOWITCH
22 Q. So, panel, did DPS review all of
23 the visual impact assessment materials, photos, and
24 photo simulations?
25 A.L.J MULLANY: I’m hearing terrible
317
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 feedback. Let me just remind everybody on the phone,
3 if you would, just place your microphones on mute
4 unless you expect to be speaking in the immediate
5 future. Thank you.
6 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
7 Q. I’ll say it again. Did DPS review
8 all the visual impact assessment materials including
9 the photos and the photo simulations which were
10 provided by the applicant?
11 A. (Davis) Andrew Davis here. The
12 exhibits, and supplements, and appendices... yes, we
13 reviewed that material.
14 Q. And was Mr. Davis primarily
15 responsible for that review of the visual impact
16 information?
17 A. Myself and another staff
18 colleague who's not on the panel, yes. She reports to
19 me.
20 Q. Okay. Thank you. Did DPS do any
21 of its own photo simulations with respect to the
22 project?
23 A. No.
24 Q. And why not?
25 A. We saw no reason to. We reviewed
318
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 the app -- the application is -- stands for its -- on
3 its own and you review that material; you don't
4 recreate necessarily for all exhibits -- or even many
5 of them -- we don't -- we don't recreate application
6 material.
7 Q. Understood. So, how do you
8 confirm the accuracy of the simulations provided? If
9 you don't do your own, how does DPS confirm the
10 accuracy of the simulations provided by the
11 applicant?
12 A. We review the material provided
13 and consider it closely or as a related -- related to
14 all its components and... as stated in the testimony,
15 we believe it's a reasonable representation of the
16 projected impact of the appearance of the facility
17 from the viewpoints examined.
18 Q. So, it's DPS's view that it's a
19 reasonable -- that those simulations are accurate and
20 valid.
21 A.L.J MULLANY: The testimony stands
22 for itself; he said what he said. Please don't try
23 and characterize his answer.
24 MR. BOWITCH: Okay. All right. Thank
25 you, Your Honor. We heard this morning -- maybe this
319
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 afternoon -- that when I was questioning the
3 applicant's panel with respect to VP 15C Mohr Road,
4 they testified that when you merged three -- and
5 there were three -- there 50-millimeter photographs
6 together, the resulting picture would be a 15-
7 millimeter photograph. A question for the panel -- or
8 for Mr. Davis -- is isn't it true that when you merge
9 three 50-millimeter photos together, the resulting
10 image is closer to a 12 to 16-millimeter lens, which
11 would result in a 129 to 140-degree field of view?
12 MR. DAVIS: I don't believe I heard --
13 excuse me. Go ahead.
14 MR. LANIADO: I’m going to object to
15 the question because no foundation whatsoever was
16 laid for the -- the estimates or the figures in that
17 question.
18 A.L.J MULLANY: Sustained.
19 MR. BOWITCH: Well, I’ll ask it a
20 simpler -- simpler -- that the applicant said that
21 when you merge -- I’m going to ask the panel, when
22 you merge three 50-millimeter images together, as the
23 applicant did in their simulation, is the resulting
24 image closer to a 16 -- 12 to 16-millimeter lens.
25 A.L.J MULLANY: I’m sorry. But that --
320
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 again, what's the basis for that question? There's
3 nothing in the -- in the record to suggest that.
4 MR. BOWITCH: Well, Your Honor --
5 A.L.J MULLANY: There's no foundation
6 that the people on the panel are photography experts
7 either; there's no establishment that has any
8 relevance.
9 MR. BOWITCH: Your Honor, the reason
10 I’m asking is DPS is responsible for reviewing, as
11 they said, and evaluating the accuracy of the
12 simulations; and we want to know whether they agree -
13 - maybe I’ll ask it this way: do they agree that when
14 you merge three 50-millimeter photos together, as was
15 testified to earlier, is the resulting picture an
16 image that would be... would be representative of one
17 taken with a 15-millimeter lens?
18 MS. CHAUDARI: Your Honor, I'm going
19 to object to this. I don't see how this question is
20 relevant to this testimony that's been provided by
21 staff or is certainly being provided. As Mr. Davis
22 stated, they have reviewed the applicant's entire
23 submission and has put the panel's deposition in this
24 testimony. I don't see how this questioning is
25 relevant to that.
321
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 THE REPORTER: This is the court
3 reporter. Who was that?
4 MS. CHAUDARI: Sorry, this is Noreena
5 Chaudari.
6 THE REPORTER: Okay. Thank you.
7 A.L.J MULLANY: Sustained. I don't see
8 -- I don't see the relevance either, Mr. Bowitch.
9 You're focusing on focal lengths. The testimony from
10 the panel of as far as they've reviewed those
11 materials and found them to be a fair representation,
12 a reasonable representation. And if you want to --
13 you know... I guess you're trying to challenge that
14 by asking them technical questions about focal
15 length.
16 MR. BOWITCH: You sustained the
17 objection. I’ll move on, Your Honor. I’d like to
18 panel to -- and, Your Honor -- to pull up the DPS
19 Response to Citizens 22. It does not yet have an
20 exhibit number on the exhibit list, but the DMM
21 number is... I think 124.
22 A.L.J MULLANY: This is DPS Response
23 to Citizens number what?
24 MR. BOWITCH: IR 22.
25 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. And that was
322
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 part of the citizen's recent submission, I believe,
3 right?
4 MR. BOWITCH: That's correct, Your
5 Honor.
6 A.L.J MULLANY: Thank you.
7 MR. LANIADO: Your Honor, on the
8 Consensus Exhibit List that we reserved on 245.
9 A.L.J MULLANY: 245 is reserved. Okay.
10 MR. LANIADO: Yes.
11 MR. BOWITCH: Thank you, Mr. Laniado.
12 Anyway, it's getting late.
13 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
14 Q. So, do you have that -- does the
15 panel have that response in front of them?
16 A. (Davis) I have -- I’m got a slow
17 computer today. Could you repeat the DMM number and
18 specify if that's the serial number or the item
19 number in DMM?
20 Q. I think -- I don't have it up,
21 it's the one to the -- to the right, not all the way
22 to the left. I think that is item number... there's
23 nothing else, yeah.
24 A.L.J MULLANY: I think it is, yeah.
25 Yes, I believe it's item number.
323
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MR. BOWITCH: 124.
3 A.L.J MULLANY: So, you docketed it on
4 September 9, Mr. Davis?
5 MR. DAVIS: There's a lot of things
6 in... and a lot of them are...
7 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
8 Q. It's the one that's labeled
9 "Citizens IR 22".
10 A. Okay. I see it.
11 Q. Okay. Okay. If you -- if you can
12 pull that up, that'd be great. He has it up? Okay.
13 So, in -- in this IR response, it indicates that DPS
14 staff performed a site visit on June 24, 2020,
15 correct?
16 A.L.J MULLANY: Can you point us to
17 where it said that, please?
18 MR. BOWITCH: I’m sorry, Your Honor.
19 It's on Page -- the bottom of Page 1 of 2.
20 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay, that chart?
21 MR. BOWITCH: Yeah, that table.
22 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay, the table. Okay.
23 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
24 Q. And is that correct, DPS?
25 A. I’m sorry, what was the question?
324
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Q. I’m trying to establish DPS did
3 an inspection of this -- of the project area on June
4 24th. And that inspection, at least with respect to
5 DPS staff, was performed by Jeremy Rosenthal and
6 Chase Chasky (phonetic spelling), correct?
7 MS. CHAUDARI: Your Honor, I’m going
8 to object to this. The document speaks for itself;
9 the information is in the IR response.
10 A.L.J MULLANY: Are you challenging
11 the contents of the IR, Mr. Bowitch?
12 MR. BOWITCH: No, no -- sorry, Your
13 Honor.
14 A.L.J MULLANY: Are you looking for
15 corroboration?
16 MR. BOWITCH: No, I’m trying to find
17 out what the -- what the professional duties and
18 expertise of Mr. Rosenthal and, I guess, Mr. Chasky
19 are; what are their -- what are their functions or
20 their duties at DPS that, you know, that allows them
21 to have been the ones to go out there and do this
22 inspection.
23 A.L.J MULLANY: Did they testify as
24 part of the staff panel?
25 MS. CHAUDARI: Your Honor, this is
325
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Noreena Chaudari. They did not. And I was also going
3 to note that this response was submitted to Citizens
4 on August 17th; and in that time, Citizens did not
5 ask us for any further information about the site
6 visit from Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Chasky.
7 MR. BOWITCH: Well, are you saying
8 that I can't ask you questions about the site visit?
9 Your Honor, can I just ask some simple questions
10 about this site visit?
11 A.L.J MULLANY: I’m going to give you
12 a little latitude, Mr. Bowitch, but I’m wondering why
13 you sat on this for -- for a little while.
14 MR. BOWITCH: We want to know -- thank
15 you, Your Honor. When the site visit was conducted,
16 did anyone at DPS staff do any evaluation of visual
17 impacts during this site visit -- or potential visual
18 impacts?
19 MS. CHAUDARI: Your Honor, this is
20 Noreena Chaudari again. I just want to point out
21 again, Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Chasky are not members
22 of this panel; so the panel cannot testify to
23 everything that those two non-DPS staff did while
24 they were out at the site.
25 A.L.J MULLANY: Does anyone on the
326
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 panel -- who's available to testify -- have any
3 information about whether or not those two
4 individuals, Mr. Rosenthal and/or Mr. Chasky, when
5 they conducted their site visit, were doing so for
6 the purposes, in part or whole, of assessing visual
7 impact? Because it looks like the purpose of the site
8 visit is wetland delineation confirmation. And we
9 also have testimony already from Mr. Davis that the
10 department staff of visual impacts was based on the
11 papers.
12 MR. BOWITCH: Okay, Your Honor. I just
13 wanted to make sure of that fact.
14 BY MR. BOWITCH: (Cont.)
15 Q. If I could ask one last question:
16 did anyone -- these two gentlemen or otherwise -- did
17 anyone at DPS do a field site observation for the
18 purpose of evaluating visual impacts of the project?
19 A. (Davis) Yes.
20 Q. Who did such field observations?
21 A. I made a site inspection recently
22 to confirm -- by touring the project area and looking
23 at the most of the photo simulation locations, to
24 confirm my analysis -- my desktop analysis.
25 Q. Okay. And when did you conduct
327
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 that inspection?
3 A. Very recently.
4 Q. Yesterday?
5 A. Monday of this week.
6 Q. Monday of this week. Okay. And
7 not before then?
8 A. I’ve been in the project area
9 previously; I’m familiar with the landscape and I’ve
10 done other work in the general region, including
11 looking at a project within -- within the area.
12 MR. BOWITCH: Okay. No further
13 questions, Your Honor.
14 A.L.J MULLANY: Ms. Chaudari, do you
15 have any redirect?
16 MS. CHAUDARI: If we could just have
17 five minutes to confer.
18 A.L.J MULLANY: You have.
19 MS. CHAUDARI: Thank you.
20 THE REPORTER: Mr. Mullany, did you
21 want me to take us off the record here?
22 A.L.J MULLANY: That would be good,
23 Howard. Thank you.
24 THE REPORTER: Okay.
25 (Off the record 2:09 p.m.)(On the
328
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 record 2:14 p.m.)
3 THE REPORTER: We're back on the
4 record.
5 A.L.J MULLANY: Thank you. So, Ms.
6 Chaudari, will you be wanting to conduct any redirect
7 of the staff panel?
8 MS. CHAUDARI: Yes, we will, Your
9 Honor.
10 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. Are you ready to
11 proceed?
12 MS. CHAUDARI: Yes, we're ready to
13 proceed.
14 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay, please do so.
15 REDIRECT
16 BY MS. CHAUDARI
17 Q. Mr. Davis, as you may recall,
18 yesterday you confirmed that you had no additional
19 changes to the testimony submitted by the staff panel
20 in support of settlement, is that correct?
21 A. (Davis) Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. So, taking that statement into
23 consideration --
24 A. Other than deleting -- I’m sorry.
25 Other than deleting the one sentence of text from
329
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Page 68.
3 Q. Yes, thank you for putting that
4 clarification in. So, you stated during Mr. Bowitch's
5 questioning that you had conducted a site visit
6 Monday to confirm your desktop study. Could you state
7 whether or not -- or confirm more accurately --
8 whether Monday's site visit impacted the testimony
9 that you had previously submitted in this case?
10 A. No, it did not.
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Davis. In looking
12 at the staff testimony -- that would be the prepared
13 testimony of staff panel in support of settlement --
14 looking through experience which appears at the top
15 of Page 2, you state that your professional training
16 includes visual impact assessments, correct?
17 A. Yes, it does.
18 Q. So, Mr. Davis, you have
19 experience in reviewing the simulations and
20 photographs of the sort provided in this application,
21 correct?
22 A. Yes, this has been part of my
23 standard project reviews for... probably 33 years.
24 Q. So, taking that into
25 consideration, Mr. Davis, do you have an opinion
330
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 regarding the 15-millimeter lens matter that was an
3 issue during the cross of the applicant's panel?
4 A. Yes, I -- I don't have that
5 exhibit open in front of me to make reference. But
6 the -- I believe the important part of those -- of
7 that exhibit and that viewpoint photo simulation does
8 not... the three side-by-side photos simulations to
9 present the panoramic look; it's the following photo,
10 which is entitled "Representative Photo Simulation"
11 which was more of the centerpiece -- the center
12 photo, by itself, about the overlap of these
13 adjoining photos for the web.
14 So, I think Mr. Bowitch's apprehension
15 over the side-by-side photos, those are irrelevant to
16 my review of that exhibit.
17 MR. BOWITCH: Your Honor, I would
18 object to characterizing me as being having
19 apprehension.
20 A.L.J MULLANY: Duly noted.
21 MS. CHAUDARI: Thank you, Mr. Davis.
22 We have no further questions.
23 A.L.J MULLANY: Do we have anything
24 further from this panel from any of the parties?
25 MR. LANIADO: Not from the applicant,
331
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Your Honor.
3 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. We thank you for
4 your time and attention to this matter.
5 THE REPORTER: Oh, before they -- this
6 is the court reporter. Before they leave, there was
7 one name I didn't catch. I’ve got Jeremy's, Miguel's,
8 John, Kaitlyn's, and there was one more name.
9 MS. CHAUDARI: That was Lorna Gilling.
10 THE REPORTER: Okay. Thank you. I have
11 the spelling for that too. Thank you. I’m good. I’m
12 good.
13 MS. CHAUDARI: No problem.
14 MR. LANIADO: Your Honor, to refresh
15 your recollection, I have some redirects of the
16 applicant's visual panel.
17 A.L.J MULLANY: Thank you, Mr.
18 Laniado.
19 MR. LANIADO: Can I?
20 A.L.J MULLANY: You may. If the
21 panel's ready, you may proceed.
22 MR. LANIADO: Bill Boer and Judy, are
23 you there?
24 MR. BOER: This is Bill. Yes, I'm
25 here.
332
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MS. BARTOS: Yes, Judy here.
3 MR. LANIADO: Okay.
4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
5 BY MR. LANIADO
6 Q. Mr. Boer, in Mr. Bowitch's cross-
7 examination of our panel on Viewpoint 27, it was
8 mentioned that the vegetative buffer was placed where
9 it is for several purposes. And -- and can you
10 explain what those purposes were?
11 A. (Boer) Yes. This is William Boer.
12 So, there's other residences in the -- in that area
13 and particularly -- particularly to the east of
14 Viewpoint 27 to have visibility of the project, so
15 landscaping that would be seen both in VP 27 and
16 further to the east was proposed to provide
17 mitigation of those visual -- of that proposed
18 visibility. So, the other residences to the east,
19 that was the primary purpose for proposing
20 landscaping in that area.
21 Q. And the residences to the east
22 are along which road?
23 A. They are along Bulls Head Road,
24 same as VP 27.
25 MR. LANIADO: No further redirect,
333
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Your Honor.
3 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. I believe that
4 concludes our proceeding with respect to the
5 examination of visual impacts. I thank the
6 applicant’s panel for making themselves available
7 too. So, now, we have an outstanding issue in
8 connection with a request for cross-examination by
9 the town of Florida. And I am going to draw folks'
10 attention to the proposed consolidated issues list
11 dated September 18, 2020 which was something that was
12 submitted by the company in response or in compliance
13 with the email ruling that was issued on September
14 15th.
15 And on the first page of that proposed
16 consolidated issues list, the town of Florida
17 indicated that it intends to cross-examine the
18 applicant on the factual basis for determining, one,
19 that adherence to the town's setback requirements
20 would be technologically impossible and practical or
21 unreasonable, as stated in Exhibit 31 at Page 9; two,
22 specific measures being proposed to mitigate any
23 potential impacts to the maximum extent possible as
24 stated in Exhibit 31 Page 9 of the application with
25 reference to Exhibit 24; and three, the specific
334
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 economic benefits including landowner payments,
3 construction jobs, pilot payments, and host community
4 agreements which the applicant asserts will outweigh
5 adherence to the town's setback requirements as
6 stated in Exhibit 31, Pages 9 and 10.
7 And immediately below that
8 articulation of the town's request to conduct
9 crossing to these matters, is a brief summary of High
10 River's position on this. I read that and I’m
11 familiar with it. I wanted to first give the town of
12 Florida an opportunity -- if it chooses -- to shed
13 any more light on those three requests for cross-
14 examination.
15 MR. CROWE: Good afternoon, Your
16 Honor. Michael Crowe on behalf of the town.
17 A.L.J MULLANY: Good afternoon, Mr.
18 Crowe.
19 MR. CROWE: I’d just like to clarify a
20 couple of points. First, to the extent that the
21 applicant is claiming surprise or prejudice by this
22 issue, I don't think that there is an argument there
23 going back essentially two years ago.
24 A.L.J MULLANY: Before -- before we go
25 there, my -- my intention is to give you an
335
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 opportunity to just expand on your request for cross
3 if you think that that description in the first page
4 of the September 18th proposed consolidated tissues
5 list is somehow incomplete. After you've done that,
6 I’m going to turn to Mr. Laniado and ask him if he
7 wants to supplement his motion beyond the information
8 that's contained there; and if he does, then we'll
9 hear from him. And then -- since he's the mover, he
10 gets heard first -- and then, if you want to respond
11 to his motion, I’ll give you that opportunity. Okay,
12 Mr. Crowe?
13 MR. CROWE: Understood, Your Honor.
14 And no amplifying information to the points raised in
15 (i) on that September 18th letter.
16 A.L.J MULLANY: Thank you, sir. Mr.
17 Laniado, I understand that you spelled out the
18 rationale for your motion both in this summary
19 position on -- on this page here and also on the
20 cover letter as well. I’m going to give you an
21 opportunity now, if you choose to take it, to expand
22 it as you deem fit, the basis for your motion and
23 also specifically the relief you're seeking.
24 MR. LANIADO: I -- I would expand it
25 only that I found between September 2nd, when the
336
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 first issues list came up -- came out -- and that
3 focused on a waiver concerning agricultural impacts -
4 - and the September 15 which converted, after step-
5 backs, there was a September 9th revised issues list
6 from the town that also focused on a waiver
7 concerning agricultural impacts and did not mention
8 setbacks. So, there were two iterations of the issues
9 list, September 2nd and September 9th, that focus on
10 agricultural and then it went from the 9th to 15th to
11 -- to step-backs.
12 Now, I -- I do acknowledge that in one
13 -- I think it was the conversation with Your Honor --
14 I -- I believe it was, I’m not sure -- that I said I
15 wanted to know which waiver you were focusing on.
16 Now, that could have been taken that any of the
17 waivers that we're asking for in the case, but I just
18 assumed it was going to be zeroed in on the waiver
19 that was related to prior filings. Now, I know
20 setbacks have been an issue, as Mr. Crowe is about to
21 say, from years ago but we're in a winnowing process
22 right now, that the parties are supposed to be
23 identifying issues cross-examination. So, what
24 happened two years ago, I think, is irrelevant.
25 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. Are you done,
337
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Mr. Laniado? Can I now hear from Mr. Crowe?
3 MR. LANIADO: Yes. Thank you.
4 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. Mr. Crowe, now
5 here's your opportunity to speak to the motion and --
6 or let me just ask one clarifying question here. Mr.
7 Laniado, is the relief you're seeking, a ruling that
8 says that they cannot conduct cross with respect to
9 items 1, 2, and 3 on the first page of that September
10 18th proposed consolidated issues list?
11 MR. LANIADO: Your Honor, I have to go
12 back to that letter just for a moment. I think that
13 might be --.
14 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay.
15 MR. LANIADO: Once you -- oh, those
16 are the three subparts of the setback. The answer is
17 yes. Yes.
18 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. Thank you for
19 clarifying. Mr. Crowe, thank you for your patience.
20 Would you like to now speak to the motion from the
21 applicant?
22 MR. CROWE: Yes. Thank you, Your
23 Honor. As Mr. Laniado mentioned, in -- in terms of
24 this being, I guess, an issue of surprise or
25 prejudice -- and he raised it only from the
338
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 perspective of lack of surprise or prejudice -- the
3 issue in -- certainly, in general terms, was raised
4 by the town regarding the adherence to local laws
5 back at the comments on the preliminary scoping
6 statements in December of... I believe it was 2018.
7 That then was followed up. Again,
8 there has been consistently an issue with the town
9 and the -- notwithstanding the September 2nd letter
10 which identifies just the -- the local laws and the
11 agricultural point that Mr. Laniado was mentioning,
12 the September 9th letter, which was a follow-up to
13 conversations that we were having, but essentially a
14 memorialization of the conversations between the
15 applicant's attorney and the town's attorney,
16 identified that the -- the town was looking to elicit
17 cross-examination on the unreasonably burdensome
18 standard.
19 And then that was followed up with the
20 informal phone conference from last Monday in which -
21 - again, mentioning the local laws generally, the
22 town was directed to identify the specific issues --
23 or issue -- that they were seeking cross on, which we
24 then provided in the letter dated the 15th. And so,
25 from that perspective, it seems as though the time
339
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 would be penalized for doing what was mandated which
3 was narrowing down the points -- of the factual
4 points to cross on.
5 And then, finally, the last point that
6 I’ll raise is that pursuant to Public Service Law
7 Section 168 3e, the -- the town is provided with an
8 opportunity to present evidence in support of its
9 laws; and the evidence that we're looking to present,
10 among others, is the cross-examination of the
11 applicant on this issue.
12 MR. LANIADO: Your Honor, may I be
13 heard --
14 A.L.J MULLANY: I’m sorry you got cut
15 off, Mr. Laniado.
16 MR. LANIADO: May I be heard in
17 response?
18 A.L.J MULLANY: Yes, just bear with me
19 for a minute, I’m pulling up Section 168 of the
20 public service law. Mr. Crowe, you had cited Section
21 168, I believe you mentioned the subdivision?
22 MR. CROWE: Yes, Your Honor. 3-E.
23 A.L.J MULLANY: Thank you. Just bear
24 with me for a moment. Okay. Mr. Laniado, you would
25 like to now speak in response?
340
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MR. LANIADO: Yes.
3 A.L.J MULLANY: Please, go ahead.
4 MR. LANIADO: I’ll address the last
5 point first since we have the law open -- it's the
6 last sentence of 168 3e.
7 A.L.J MULLANY: Yes.
8 MR. LANIADO: The laws provide the
9 municipality an opportunity to present evidence.
10 They've had that opportunity to present a testimony
11 and they availed themselves of that opportunity. A
12 cross-examination is no vehicle to present evidence,
13 it's to challenge facts. So, they've had the
14 opportunity. That's number one.
15 Number two, what Mr. Crowe fails to
16 mention to the court, is that in his September 9th
17 letter, where he referred to the unreasonably
18 burdensome argument, again, he referred to a waiver
19 concerning agriculture, not setbacks, as he had done
20 in his September 2nd letter and now the September 9th
21 letter. That's why the September 15th letter was a
22 complete left turn.
23 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. I’m going to ask
24 some questions now to both of you. I want to start
25 with... Mr. Laniado, if you could -- these are things
341
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 I looked up before the hearing started this morning
3 and it's -- you may not be able to confirm this off
4 the top of your head -- but it's my understanding the
5 application was originally filed on October 11, 2019?
6 MR. LANIADO: Outright, yes.
7 A.L.J MULLANY: And I also looked and
8 found out that the application was deemed complete as
9 of March 13, 2020, by letter of the chair?
10 MR. LANIADO: Correct.
11 A.L.J MULLANY: And we had a
12 procedural ruling on August 25, 2020, that required
13 the parties to provide their list of issues and
14 offers of proof with respect to what fact issues they
15 sought to litigate at the evidentiary hearing. That
16 was on August 25th. And -- excuse me, I’m getting
17 another call. Please hold on a minute. My apologies,
18 I was interrupted by multiple lines of communication
19 which are irksome at best.
20 After the August 25, 2020 procedural
21 ruling, there was an informal conference call on the
22 14th of September and that was, in part, to discuss
23 the responses that the parties had submitted in
24 response or in compliance with the procedural ruling.
25 The procedural ruling set a deadline... I don't have
342
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 it off the top of my head here, but there was a
3 deadline that preceded the informal conference. So,
4 we had that informal conference, and at that
5 conference, it was -- the company objected to the
6 common substance of the town's proposed issues list
7 on the ground that it was insufficiently precise and
8 amounted to not complying with the procedural ruling
9 from August 25th.
10 And during that informal conference,
11 we discussed the possibility of the town
12 supplementing its issues with, and that led to an
13 email ruling on September 15, 2020 in which I
14 directed that all parties were allowed until the
15 close of business
16 Thursday, September 17th, to attempt,
17 once again, to identify disputed facts and
18 communicate them to the applicant. I also would note
19 that the procedural ruling that was issued on August
20 25th put all the parties on notice that a failure to
21 identify issues and provide the required offer of
22 proof may result in a party being barred from
23 litigating any fact issue that does not appear on the
24 consensus list and for which there is an insufficient
25 offer of proof. The ruling says, "This may result,
343
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 upon a motion or objection by another party, or by a
3 decision instead of the examiners, this being a party
4 being barred from litigating the fact that -- a fact
5 issue that was not specifically identified or for
6 which there was an insufficient offer of proof."
7 So, now, some of these letters that
8 have been mentioned, the September 2nd letter and the
9 September 9th letter, I’m not sure if those are in
10 the record or not. Can -- can either Mr. Laniado or
11 Mr. Crowe confirm whether those are in the record.
12 MR. CROWE: They are not, Your Honor.
13 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay.
14 MR. CROWE: It shows that like --
15 A.L.J MULLANY: Well, I -- I’ve heard
16 the motion, I’ve heard the town's response to the
17 motion, I’m aware of what the town hopes to do in
18 terms of cross, and I’m aware of the basis for the
19 company's objection to the proposed cross. I’m trying
20 to balance two considerations here: one is procedural
21 fairness. The town has had an abundance of time to
22 present evidence on the issue of setbacks, to
23 propound interrogatories on the issue of setbacks --
24 did the town propound any interrogatories with
25 respect to the applicant's claim that it would be
344
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 unduly burdensome to comply with the setbacks, Mr.
3 Crowe?
4 MR. CROWE: No, Your Honor.
5 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. And did the town
6 address the issue of setbacks in its testimony?
7 MR. CROWE: In -- in -- I guess, the
8 overarching terms of the local laws, generally
9 speaking.
10 A.L.J MULLANY: So, there was no
11 specific reference in your testimony to the setbacks
12 issue under local law, was there?
13 MR. CROWE: Correct.
14 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. So, given that,
15 I think there's a very strong foundation for a ruling
16 that denies your request to cross on the grounds that
17 you've failed to adequately prepare for this issue
18 and identified in time to allow the applicant a
19 reasonable opportunity to prepare for cross-
20 examination. Having said that, I’m also -- I also
21 have to weigh whether or not the proposed cross-
22 examination might lead to any sort of relevant or
23 material information that would inform the record and
24 therefore advance the siting board's evaluation of
25 this proposal.
345
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 So, I’m going to ask you, Mr. Crowe,
3 what is it you're hoping to get at? Because when I
4 look at your latest statement of the issue, it's
5 still vague and I see little or no offer of prefacing
6 what you're intending to get at. What value would
7 this be to the siting board?
8 MR. CROWE: The value would be the --
9 the determination -- that the basis for the
10 determinations that were made by the applicant in its
11 waiver request.
12 A.L.J MULLANY: Yes, specifically, how
13 would you do that? Have you prepared any analysis of
14 the -- of the applicant's rationale for why it
15 requested the waiver?
16 MR. CROWE: Yes, Your Honor.
17 A.L.J MULLANY: Do you have any
18 affirmative evidence that you want to offer? Because
19 cross-examination is not evidence.
20 MR. CROWE: Your Honor, we would be
21 submitting affirmative evidence; we're seeking to
22 cross-examine the applicant on the waiver request.
23 A.L.J MULLANY: How, specifically?
24 What questions are you going to ask?
25 MR. CROWE: We're going to ask
346
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 specifically on the -- the technological restriction
3 that the applicant referred to that the setback
4 requirement imposes on the project. Also going to
5 inquire about the potential impacts that were
6 referred to in the waiver request, and the mitigation
7 measures that were referred to and relied upon in the
8 waiver request, and we're also going to look and
9 inquire on the economic benefits that the applicant
10 referred to and relied on in seeking his waiver
11 request.
12 A.L.J MULLANY: How much time do you
13 think you'll take on that?
14 MR. CROWE: Twenty minutes, Your
15 Honor.
16 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay, I'll allow --
17 I’ll allow it. But I’m going to keep a tight leash on
18 you, Mr. Crowe. I’m very concerned about the fairness
19 of allowing this vis-a-vis the applicant. This is
20 very late.
21 MR. LANIADO: Oh, Your Honor, I -- I
22 have informed the record yesterday that a witness,
23 Mr. Chandran, will not be available until three
24 o'clock if we have to do the setback cross. So, if we
25 can take a break until then, if you wanted to talk
347
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 about a briefing schedule now, I -- I have some
3 briefing dates to propose.
4 A.L.J MULLANY: That's a -- that's a
5 good suggestion, Mr. Laniado. I’d rather do than just
6 sit around for 15 minutes.
7 MR. LANIADO: Okay. So, I haven't
8 circulated this to all the parties, but I’m proposing
9 an initial brief by October 27th and a reply brief by
10 November 24th.
11 A.L.J MULLANY: At this point, Mr.
12 Laniado, I’m prepared just to take it under advising
13 and I’m -- I’m going to have to go back and assess it
14 relative to the other matters that are going on. But
15 I would like to know whether any of the parties have
16 an initial reaction to those proposed briefing dates.
17 MR. BOWITCH: Your Honor, this is Gary
18 Bowitch. My initial reaction is I don't know -- I
19 think somewhere, it was stated -- but I don't know
20 exactly when we're going to get the transcript. And
21 obviously, a lot of what we were relying on in our
22 briefing is what was in the record during this
23 hearing. And we don't want to be placed in a position
24 where the transcript comes in and then we're limited
25 in our time; if we -- if we knew the transcripts were
348
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 going to be available, let's say... I mean it's
3 already the 24th September -- if it was going to be
4 available in a week, that's one thing. But if it's
5 going to be three weeks, well that's a much different
6 thing. So, that's our major response to this
7 proposal.
8 A.L.J MULLANY: So, how long do you
9 think it would take to insert the citations if the
10 briefs are written already?
11 MR. BOWITCH: I’m not sure -- are you
12 asking me that question? I’m not sure I understand.
13 A.L.J MULLANY: Yes, because in the
14 past, one of the ways that we tried to deal with this
15 -- because it takes time to get the transcript
16 assembled, I have to assemble all the testimonies and
17 put them in the sequence appropriate, and transmit
18 them to the court reporting service, and then give
19 them at least five business days to insert those into
20 the transcript. Then they have to send the transcript
21 back to errata, I have to circulate it to the parties
22 for errata. So, it's certainly not going to happen
23 within five days; more likely, it's going to happen
24 within two weeks.
25 The October 27th date is about a month
349
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 out at this point, so my question is if we get the
3 transcripts back around the 20th of October and the
4 parties had a week to insert their citations into
5 their briefs, would that be sufficient for you?
6 MR. BOWITCH: I don't think so, Your
7 Honor. I -- it's going to be an extensive transcript,
8 there was a lot that was covered here. A week? I
9 don't think that's enough. I don't know what the town
10 thinks or other parties, but I -- I just... you
11 know...
12 A.L.J MULLANY: No, I hear you. I --
13 I’m not reaching any decisions yet. I’m listening.
14 MR. LANIADO: Your Honor, I -- I don't
15 have a problem. I think we can do it in a week, but
16 I’m speaking to the applicant. But I don't have a
17 problem pushing out the initial brief date as long as
18 we also push out the reply brief date.
19 A.L.J MULLANY: Yeah.
20 MR. LANIADO: Yeah, that's all I’m
21 trying to protect.
22 MR. BOWITCH: I have no objections to
23 that.
24 A.L.J MULLANY: You have no objection?
25 Okay. And does any other party have concerns about
350
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 these proposed dates or does any other party want to
3 offer something more for me to consider with Judge
4 Sherman when we go back to look at this? Okay.
5 MR. LANIADO: So -- sorry, Your Honor.
6 Go ahead.
7 A.L.J MULLANY: You know, I’m -- I’m
8 going to just take this under advisement and we'll
9 have to come up with a ruling on schedule. But
10 realistically, it's certainly not going to happen
11 before the 27th given the need to get the transcript
12 prepared.
13 MR. LANIADO: Okay. The other item we
14 can bring up, if you're so disposed, Your Honor, if
15 we could take up time before three o'clock, is could
16 -- just move all the exhibits into evidence.
17 A.L.J MULLANY: Yes. Are we off the
18 record? Did we tell Howard we're off the record or
19 are we still on?
20 THE REPORTER: I have us on the record
21 right now.
22 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. Very good. Thank
23 you, mister.
24 THE REPORTER: Do you want me to take
25 us off the record?
351
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A.L.J MULLANY: No, I think what we're
3 going to do is we're going to entertain a motion to
4 move exhibits. But we -- we looked in certain
5 testimonies already and I recall specifying that the
6 testimony and the related exhibits were moved in.
7 MR. LANIADO: You honor, I think we
8 should have a collective motion from all the parties
9 to move in the exhibits that are listed on the
10 consensus exhibit list.
11 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay.
12 MR. LANIADO: If the parties don't
13 object, I can make that motion on their behalf.
14 MR. BOWITCH: Your Honor. We are -- I
15 have two questions. We are okay with that motion as
16 long as the items that we docketed and are on DMM at
17 124 -- DMM Number 124 -- are part of that. I know Mr.
18 Laniado left a slot for it, I just want to make it
19 clear that all the documents that we file that are
20 listed up as Item Numbers 124 are part of this
21 motion.
22 THE REPORTER: This is the court
23 reporter. Who is speaking?
24 MR. BOWITCH: I’m sorry. This is Mr.
25 Bowitch.
352
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 THE REPORTER: Okay. Thank you.
3 A.L.J MULLANY: So, which slot is
4 open?
5 MR. LANIADO: It's appearing as
6 Exhibit 245.
7 MR. BOWITCH: Okay.
8 MR. LANIADO: And we didn't have a DMM
9 item number or a date dialed because the exhibit list
10 came out too early.
11 MR. BOWITCH: Okay.
12 MR. LANIADO: If you would like, I can
13 send out a revised list filling in Exhibit Numbers
14 245 and 236 (phonetic spelling) if they need dates
15 and DMM numbers et cetera.
16 A.L.J MULLANY: That would be a real
17 help, Mr. Laniado. I appreciate that.
18 MR. LANIADO: Sure.
19 A.L.J MULLANY: And if we could run
20 that by the town and make sure they're okay with it
21 before you submit it -- and I think that takes care
22 of it. And then, at that point, we would entertain a
23 global motion to move all these exhibits in with the
24 associated numbering.
25 MR. LANIADO: Well, Your Honor,
353
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 they're already --
3 MR. BOWITCH: Your Honor --
4 A.L.J MULLANY: They're already listed
5 on the exhibit list. So, if you were ready to
6 entertain the motion now, we could do it. The other
7 stuff is just ministerial.
8 A.L.J MULLANY: Oh, I see what you
9 mean. Okay. Do we have any objection to moving these
10 exhibits in?
11 MR. MCGUIRE: Your Honor, this is Tom
12 McGuire, DEC. I don't have an objection, but I have a
13 question. How are we going to handle the direct pre-
14 filed testimony that has not been subject to cross-
15 examination? I’m thinking of the two testimonies
16 filed in DMM by DEC staff and their associated
17 exhibits that are part of the consolidated exhibit
18 list.
19 A.L.J MULLANY: The -- the -- any
20 testimonies that have exhibits -- associated exhibits
21 -- on this list have to be admitted as well. So, to
22 the extent he admitted testimony that was related to
23 the cross, we're all set on that. But if there's
24 testimony that hasn't yet been admitted, I’m going to
25 need to have motions from the individual parties to
354
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 admit their testimony. So, if DEC wants to make that
3 motion now -- and if there's any other party that
4 wants to make that motion now -- then we should do
5 that.
6 MR. MCGUIRE: I don't know... I don't
7 have the DEC staff here to affirm their earlier pre-
8 filed testimony. I can submit written affidavits
9 affirming the pre-filed testimony if that would work.
10 A.L.J MULLANY: That would work. I
11 think what we could do is admit subject to receipt of
12 the affidavits.
13 MR. MCGUIRE: Very good.
14 MR. BOWITCH: Your Honor, citizens
15 would likewise like to move to put their testimony --
16 direct testimony -- and associated exhibits which are
17 all listed on the DMM Item Number 109 as well, and I
18 -- I ask the court for guidance on how best to do
19 that.
20 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. DMM Item 109. I
21 earlier submitted what I called snip images of the
22 various testimonies and related exhibits that had
23 remained following a convention that I have employed
24 when preparing testimonies for transmission to the
25 court reporting services. That convention is much
355
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 more readily comprehended than Document and Matter
3 Management System. I can't rely on DMM to correctly
4 describe or characterize documents; so, what I do is
5 I separately name the electronic versions of the
6 testimony and those are what are transmitted to the
7 court reporting service. And typically, I have a
8 chart that just has a DMM item number, so it can be
9 cross-referenced later if the agency is called upon
10 to assemble an administrative record.
11 So, Mr. Bowitch, what I’d like -- and
12 Mr. McGuire and any other party that wants to move
13 its testimony in -- I’d like you to make reference to
14 the name of the testimony as it's identified in those
15 snip images so that I know what electronic files to
16 transmit to the court reporter. I hope that's not too
17 burdensome.
18 MR. BOWITCH: No, I have to pull up
19 those emails, Your Honor. I know that we looked at it
20 and it -- we stamped it, it was satisfactory.
21 I've been informed by my client that
22 my three witnesses are -- are available to be sworn
23 in and we can move to have their testimony entered if
24 that is a possibility, apparently available by
25 telephone.
356
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. If they're
3 available by telephone, we can go ahead and do that.
4 I’m just going to -- I guess I can untangle this
5 after the fact, as long as you describe if it's the
6 direct testimony -- you didn't do rebuttal, did you?
7 MR. BOWITCH: We did not do any
8 rebuttal, no.
9 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. So, I think we
10 can proceed based on just a common language reference
11 of the testimonies and I can untangle it when I deal
12 with the court reporter.
13 MR. BOWITCH: Okay, Your Honor. Mr.
14 Puran, you're on the line?
15 MR. PURAN: Yes, I am.
16 MR. BOWITCH: And you have the other
17 parties that -- that provided the part of the panel -
18 - the citizen's panel?
19 MR. PURAN: Yes, we are all here.
20 MR. BOWITCH: Mr. Michalski and Mr.
21 Slezak?
22 MR. PURAN: Yes, Your Honor.
23 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. Let me just get
24 those names for the court reporter. Howard?
25 THE REPORTER: Yes.
357
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A.L.J MULLANY: Vijay Puran. V-I-J-A-
3 Y. Puran, P-U-R-A-N.
4 THE REPORTER: P-U-R?
5 A.L.J MULLANY: Capital P --
6 THE REPORTER: Yeah, that second the
7 second name again.
8 A.L.J MULLANY: Did you have a
9 question, Howard?
10 THE REPORTER: Yes, the second name. I
11 need you to spell it again.
12 A.L.J MULLANY: Puran. P-U-R-A-N.
13 THE REPORTER: Okay. There we go.
14 A.L.J MULLANY: The next name is Peter
15 Michalski, M-I-C-H-A-S-K-I.
16 THE REPORTER: Okay.
17 A.L.J MULLANY: The last name is David
18 -- and I’m not sure "Slezak", is that the
19 pronunciation?
20 MR. BOWITCH: Yes, Your Honor.
21 A.L.J MULLANY: S-L-E-Z-A-K.
22 THE REPORTER: Last letter?
23 A.L.J MULLANY: K, as in kangaroo.
24 THE REPORTER: Okay. Got it.
25 A.L.J MULLANY: No offense intended,
358
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Mr. Slezak. [Chuckles] Thank you for the
3 clarification. Okay. So, in that, I have prepared
4 testimonia dated July 2020 which is the citizens
5 direct testimony; it's the Citizens for Responsible
6 Solar Farm Placement Panel. Correct, Mr. Bowitch?
7 MR. BOWITCH: Yes, that is correct.
8 A.L.J MULLANY: And are there any
9 associated exhibits with that testimony?
10 MR. BOWITCH: There are, Your Honor.
11 And I’m stretched, trying -- struggling to get them
12 all handy here. Yes, Your Honor. There's the citizens
13 direct testimony, the Citizens Exhibit CT1. I can --
14 I can put the titles that are listed in the DMM, if
15 that's helpful.
16 A.L.J MULLANY: I-I had named them on
17 the snip file exhibit -- well, okay. CT1 -- and they
18 follow that same convention, right? CT1, CT2, CT3,
19 CT4, CT5, CT6?
20 MR. BOWITCH: That's correct. Unless
21 Mr. Puran or anybody on the panel wants to disagree,
22 I believe that is true, that is correct. And in
23 addition, there is a cover page filed separately for
24 the exhibits.
25 A.L.J MULLANY: Yes, okay. All right.
359
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Thank you, those are the associated exhibits. So, I’m
3 going to -- those exhibits should be on the exhibits
4 list and they'll get admitted once we get to the
5 process of admitting the testimony. So, why don't you
6 go ahead and ask your witnesses about their
7 preparation of this testimony and whether it's still
8 accurate, no corrections and their answers would be
9 the same if they're asked today.
10 MR. BOWITCH: Yes.
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. BOWITCH
13 Q. Mr. Puran, Mr. Michalski, and Mr.
14 Slezak, did you prepare the pre-filed testimony that
15 we've been discussing on behalf of the Citizens for
16 Responsible Solar Farm Placement dated -- pre-filed
17 testimony dated July 2020?
18 A. (Panel) Yes, sir.
19 Q. Have there been any -- are there
20 any changes to your testimony from that which was
21 filed?
22 A. (Panel) No, sir.
23 MR. BOWITCH: And I guess, Your Honor,
24 can I move to have this testimony accepted into the
25 record as if orally given today?
360
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A.L.J MULLANY: Along with the
3 exhibits, yes.
4 MR. BOWITCH: I so move.
5 A.L.J MULLANY: Any objections? Okay,
6 the motion to admit it, granted. Mr. McGuire?
7 MR. MCGUIRE: Yes, Your Honor.
8 A.L.J MULLANY: Can we go through a
9 similar exercise?
10 MR. MCGUIRE: Well, I don't have the
11 witnesses, of course, to affirm anything. But I would
12 say that subject to my submission and distribution to
13 the parties of the DEC staff's affidavits affirming
14 their pre-filed testimony, I would like to move now
15 for the introduction into the evidentiary record of
16 the testimony labeled "DEC Georgette Walters Wetlands
17 and Streams" and the testimony labeled "DEC Brianna
18 Denoncour T and E Species", and the associated
19 exhibits labeled "DEC Exhibit BD1" and "DEC Exhibit
20 GW1" Is that sufficient, Your Honor?
21 A.L.J MULLANY: My apologies. I -- I -
22 - I -- every time I hit the mute button, I forget
23 about it. I hate phones. Does anybody have any
24 objection to the DEC's motion to admit the identified
25 testimonies and associated exhibits? Hearing none,
361
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 the motion to admit is granted subject to the
3 submission of affidavits from the witnesses. Thank
4 you, Mr. McGuire.
5 MR. MCGUIRE: Thank you.
6 A.L.J MULLANY: And we already did --
7 Ms. Chaudari, did we already do all the DPS
8 testimony?
9 MS. CHAUDARI: Yes, that's correct,
10 Your Honor. There is just the one testimony. I just
11 have one question for you regarding that. After we've
12 submitted the previous correction during the
13 admission yesterday, we had one more correction. When
14 would you like -- or would you -- I’m assuming you
15 would like an updated copy of the testimony making
16 the correction that was given orally yesterday --
17 when would you like that submitted?
18 A.L.J MULLANY: I -- I would
19 appreciate if you could get to -- get it to me as
20 soon as possible so I can include it in the package
21 I’m going to send to the court reporter.
22 MS. CHAUDARI: Okay. Will do, Your
23 Honor.
24 A.L.J MULLANY: So, maybe on Monday?
25 MS. CHAUDARI: Yes, I’ll have it no
362
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 later than Monday.
3 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. Very good. Thank
4 you.
5 MR. LANIADO: Ms. Chaudari, can you
6 just refresh my memory as to what correction that
7 was? I thought that was the correction related to
8 CHIPPO (phonetic spelling).
9 MS. CHAUDARI: There was another
10 sentence that needed to be deleted. Let me go back to
11 my notes, if I can. Just a moment. That was the
12 sentence that needed to be removed that appeared on
13 Page 68, line -- starting at Line 15, and it went
14 from Line 15 to the bottom of the page at Line 21.
15 MR. LANIADO: I’m sorry. So, you're
16 deleting the sentence from Line 15 to Line 21 on Page
17 68? Did I get that right?
18 MS. CHAUDARI: Yes. It's a sentence
19 that begins, "As described above..." and ends on
20 "consultation with CHIPPO".
21 MR. LANIADO: Yeah. Okay, we have a
22 pagination difference here. "As described above..."
23 I'm trying to find it. Oh, here it is.
24 MS. CHAUDARI: Yes. So, it's Page 60
25 in the September 18th corrected testimony.
363
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MR. LANIADO: Okay, I’m set. Thank you
3 very much.
4 A.L.J MULLANY: So, where we left, Ms.
5 Chaudari, you would be submitting a corrected page
6 and I’m -- I’m going to assume that what you're going
7 to do is just black that sentence out so the
8 pagination doesn't change?
9 MS. CHAUDARI: Yes, I could do that.
10 A.L.J MULLANY: I think that's
11 probably best just -- just to keep the pagination
12 stable.
13 MS. CHAUDARI: Okay.
14 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. And I guess I’m
15 now at the point where I would ask the town if it
16 wants to move its testimony in.
17 MR. CROWE: Good afternoon, Your
18 Honor. Michael Crowe on behalf of the town. Yes, I’d
19 like to move subject to receipt of an affidavit
20 affirming the testimony. And I can identify the
21 testimony as labeled in your snip, if that would be
22 helpful.
23 A.L.J MULLANY: Yeah, I -- what I’m
24 thinking is this is the joint -- jointly-submitted
25 testimony of Stephen B. LeFevre submitted on behalf
364
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 of both the citizens and the Town of Florida, is that
3 correct?
4 MR. CROWE: That is correct, Your
5 Honor.
6 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. So, I guess I’m
7 going to have to entertain a motion by both the
8 citizens and Florida to admit this testimony. And if
9 you could do as you described, Mr. Crowe, if you
10 could reference it as described in the snip, and I’ll
11 chase it down in DMM later.
12 MR. CROWE: Yes, Your Honor. As
13 identified in the snip that you -- [Music]
14 A.L.J MULLANY: I know I asked for
15 elevator music before. Does anyone know where that's
16 coming from? Can everybody check to see where or not
17 -- that's lovely music. Thank you. Okay. Sorry for
18 the interruption, Mr. Crowe.
19 MR. CROWE: Yes, Your Honor. I
20 identified as 17-S-0597 High River Direct Testimony
21 Citizens Florida Stephen B. LeFevre.
22 A.L.J MULLANY: And that testimony is
23 dated as of July 17, 2020. Is that correct?
24 MR. CROWE: That's correct, Your
25 Honor.
365
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A.L.J MULLANY: Do I -- and are there
3 any exhibits associated with that, Mr. Crowe?
4 MR. CROWE: No exhibits.
5 A.L.J MULLANY: Are there any -- well,
6 you're going to submit affidavit for corrections and
7 so forth, right?
8 MR. CROWE: Correct, Your Honor.
9 A.L.J MULLANY: Does any party have
10 any objection to the motion to admit this testimony?
11 Okay. Hearing no objection, the motion to admit is
12 granted. Thank you, Mr. Crowe. Did I miss anybody?
13 MS. WELLS: Your Honor, this is Tara
14 Wells.
15 A.L.J MULLANY: Oh, I knew I missed
16 you.
17 MS. WELLS: Your Honor, this is Tara
18 Wells. I just wanted to make -- I just wanted to
19 actually make sure that we were okay because Jason
20 testified yesterday and I believe I put it in the
21 record yesterday, but I just wanted to make sure you
22 didn't need me to do anything else now.
23 A.L.J MULLANY: I don't think so. If
24 it came in yesterday, I think we're good.
25 MS. WELLS: All right. I just wanted
366
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 to confirm; I didn't want to close the record and
3 have any issues later.
4 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. Howard, are you
5 keeping track of what's been admitted?
6 THE REPORTER: No, actually.
7 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. That makes two
8 of us. Well, let's hope that it's been admitted. But
9 if it's not, we can do it with the affidavit --
10 THE REPORTER: Mr. Mullany. Mr.
11 Mullany, what I’m writing down is where it's supposed
12 to be put in the transcript, and "Insert Here" mark,
13 but I’m not catching what the exhibits are.
14 A.L.J MULLANY: Are there any
15 exhibits, Ms. Wells, to the Jason Mulford testimony.
16 MS. WELLS: He did not have any
17 exhibits.
18 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. I believe we did
19 entertain a motion to admit the shift today. At
20 least, that's my recollection. Caveat the --
21 MS. WELLS: I believe so. That is my
22 recollection as well.
23 A.L.J Sherman: This is Judge Sherman.
24 According to my notes, it was admitted, yeah.
25 A.L.J MULLANY: Thank you, Judge
367
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Sherman. All right. So, we've been through the
3 exercise of getting the testimony admitted with a
4 couple of caveats regarding affidavits. Do we have
5 any other housekeeping?
6 MR. BOWITCH: Your Honor, so I just
7 want to confirm, Mr. Laniado, you have an updated
8 exhibits list?
9 THE REPORTER: Wait a minute. This is
10 the court reporter. Who's speaking?
11 MR. LANIADO: Yes, we're just going to
12 fill in the last two items which include your
13 discovery responses.
14 MR. BOWITCH: Okay. I just want to
15 have a correction on the document title. It's both
16 "DPS and "AGM staff responses to citizen IRS." Not
17 just DPS.
18 MR. LANIADO: All right. Okay. Thank
19 you.
20 MR. BOWITCH: And in the brief
21 description -- I’m just looking at it now -- you're
22 correct on the DPS staff responses and then you
23 should also list "AGM response to IR 19 and
24 associated exhibits."
25 THE REPORTER: Excuse me. Who's
368
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 speaking right there?
3 MR. BOWITCH: I’m sorry, I’ve been on
4 so much I've hurt my voice. Everyone knows. It's Mr.
5 Bowitch.
6 THE REPORTER: Okay. Thank you.
7 MR. BOWITCH: Thank you, Sam.
8 MR. LANIADO: Mr. Chandran, are you on
9 the phone?
10 MR. CHANDRAN: I am.
11 MR. LANIADO: Okay. So, Mr. Boer, Mr.
12 Chandran, Mr. Ross -- Mr. Ross are you on the phone?
13 MR. ROSS: I'm here.
14 MR. LANIADO: Mr. Marieni?
15 MR. MARIENI: Yes, Your Honor. I'm
16 here.
17 MR. LANIADO: And Ms. Bartos?
18 MS. BARTOS: Yes, I'm here.
19 MR. LANIADO: And Bill Boer, did I get
20 you?
21 MR. BOER: Yes, I'm on here.
22 MR. LANIADO: Okay, Your Honor, the
23 panel's ready for the cross by the town.
24 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. Are you prepared
25 to proceed, Mr. Crowe?
369
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 MR. CROWE: Yes, Your Honor. We're
3 going to be referencing Exhibit 31 to the
4 application.
5 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. Does everybody
6 have Exhibit 31 up? Most importantly, does the panel
7 have it up?
8 MR. BOWITCH: Just one last -- more
9 minute here, Your Honor.
10 MS. WELLS: Yeah. Myself, I’m getting
11 it too, but proceed without me.
12 A.L.J MULLANY: Take your time. Take
13 your time, please.
14 MR. PURAN: Did we get cut off?
15 A.L.J MULLANY: I don't think so. I
16 think we're still on.
17 MR. PURAN: Okay. Thank you.
18 A.L.J MULLANY: I -- I can hear you,
19 Mr. Puran.
20 MR. PURAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
21 MR. BOER: This is William Boer. I’m -
22 - I have the document, but I'll wait for the
23 concurrence of my other members of the panel to make
24 sure they do as well.
25 MS. BARTOS: Just about a late-
370
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 afternoon internet lag.
3 MR. ROSS: This is Michael Ross. I
4 have mine up.
5 MS. BARTOS: Okay. Judy Bartos. Yes.
6 Exhibit 31.
7 A.L.J MULLANY: Very good. So, then,
8 are we ready to proceed? Can I give Mr. Bowitch the
9 green light?
10 MR. BOWITCH: You can give Mr. Crowe -
11 -
12 A.L.J MULLANY: Mr. Crowe the green
13 light. My apologies.
14 MR. CROWE: Thank you, Your Honor.
15 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. I guess you can
16 go, Mr., Crowe.
17 MR. CROWE: Okay. I guess you can go,
18 CROSS-EXAMINATION
19 BY MR. CROWE
20 Q. Good afternoon, panel. My name is
21 Michael Crowe, an attorney on behalf of the town of
22 Florida. I just wanted to direct your attention to
23 Exhibit 31 of the application, and first ask if you
24 are familiar with this document.
25 A. (Panel) Yes, we are.
371
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Q. And I’ll just note that while the
3 document Exhibit 31 is not dated, it appears to be
4 part of the application which was submitted to the --
5 posted on the DMM on October 11, 2019. Is that your
6 recollection?
7 A. (Boer) This is William Boer. I
8 just want to clarify the actual filing date. Keddy or
9 anyone else who can confirm that?
10 A. (Chandran) October 20th of '19,
11 did they say?
12 Q. I had October 11, 2019, but that
13 was, I believe, when it was posted, not necessarily
14 when it was submitted initially.
15 MR. LANIADO: It was filed on October
16 10th. So, one day before.
17 MR. BOER: Yes. So, this is William
18 Boer. Yes, we're both looking at the same document
19 from October for Exhibit 31, that's correct.
20 BY MR. CROWE: Thank you. I'd like to
21 direct the panel's attention beginning on Page 8 of
22 that Exhibit 31.
23 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay.
24 BY MR. CROWE: (Cont.)
25 Q. And at the -- near the top of
372
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Page 8 on Exhibit 31, you'll see a heading, "Height
3 and Setbacks Statement of Justification", do you see
4 that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And is it accurate to portray
7 what follows as the applicant's waiver request of the
8 town's local law regarding setback -- height and
9 setback requirements.
10 A. (Boer) This is William Boer. Yes,
11 this is our statement of justification for the
12 request of the waiver to the siting board.
13 Q. Thank you. I’d next like to
14 direct your attention to the following page, Page 9,
15 Exhibit 31. Can you explain -- can you explain what
16 the "technological restriction", that you refer to on
17 that page, means?
18 A.L.J MULLANY: Can you reference
19 which paragraph on Page 9, please?
20 BY MR. CROWE: Sure. It's the second
21 paragraph from the top, first sentence.
22 A.L.J MULLANY: Okay. I'm just going
23 to read that one moment.
24 MR. BOER: Yes. So, again, this is
25 William Boer. So, by having a minimum step-back of
373
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 500 feet from parcel boundaries and 200 feet from all
3 wetlands, ponds, and streams, technological
4 restriction on the project, meaning that in order to
5 -- to build the project and have the available land
6 area, those minimum -- those dimensional requirements
7 make the projects impossible to -- to build and to
8 fulfill our requirement under the contract awarded
9 with -- by NYSERDA under 2017 -- their 2017
10 solicitation.
11 BY MR. CROWE: (Cont.)
12 Q. Okay. And am I understanding
13 correctly that the applicant states that
14 approximately 479 acres is required for solar panels
15 and supporting components in order to meet the 90 MW
16 requirement?
17 A. (Boer) That's correct. So, again,
18 this was our original application before we had
19 proposed our alternative layout with the addition of
20 the -- what we refer to as the Envision Diary parcel.
21 So, by having that original project area of
22 approximately 1200 acres, by applying the town's
23 minimum step back of 500 feet from parcel boundaries,
24 and 200 feet from wetlands and ponds, in additional
25 to other dimensional requirements in the town's
374
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 ornaments such as no rays above elevation 700, and
3 the maximum on generating capacity of 5 MW megawatts
4 and a maximum acreage of 25 acres, combining all
5 those dimensional requirements together makes it
6 technologically impossible to construct the project.
7 Q. And again, just to understand the
8 dimensions the -- the project requires approximately
9 479 acres of solar panels and supporting components.
10 Is that accurate?
11 A. Under the original configuration
12 that was proposed at the time of the filing, yes, an
13 area of approximately 479 acres of -- we call it
14 project fence line, so the perimeter fencing that's
15 what was required to construct the 90 MW generating
16 facility we proposed.
17 Q. Understood. Thank you. I -- you
18 mentioned and testified just a second ago about
19 additional acreage. You're aware, then, that after
20 the October 2019 application, there was additional
21 acreage added to the project?
22 A. Yes. When we -- again, this is
23 William Boer -- when we proposed our alternative
24 layout, the project area expanded from 1221 acres in
25 the original application and the project area of all
375
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 land being assessed in the alternative layout was
3 1425 acres. So, roughly a 200-acre increase.
4 Q. And after the roughly 200-acre
5 increase, are you aware if the -- the document,
6 Exhibit 31, regarding setbacks was revisited with
7 that additional acreage taken into account?
8 A. I’m sorry, can you repeat that
9 question?
10 Q. Sure. After the additional
11 acreage was added to the project, are you aware of
12 Exhibit 31, the waiver request -- and specifically
13 the height and setback waiver request -- was
14 revisited to take the added acreage into account?
15 A. Yes. Even -- again, this is
16 William Boer -- even with the addition of the 200-
17 acre parcel, there still would not be enough land
18 area to comply with the town's dimensional
19 requirements. I guess, to put it in perspective, when
20 we initially applied the dimensional requirements of
21 the town's ordinance under the original layout, so on
22 the approximately 1200-acre project area, when you
23 apply the town's dimensional requirements -- we only
24 wound up with having what may be allowed from a
25 setback and other restriction requirements of the
376
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 town, of roughly 15 percent of that entire 1200-acre
3 project area of 180 acres.
4 So, even adding the additional land
5 and trying to abide by the town's setbacks, it's
6 still technologically -- technological restriction
7 that makes it impossible to build the project.
8 Q. And again, for clarification, in
9 order to build the project and to meet the
10 requirements, your calculations were approximately
11 479 acres. Is that accurate?
12 A. Under their -- again, this is
13 William Boer -- under the original layout submittal,
14 it required an area of approximately 479 acres --
15 again, that's the land within the perimeter fencing.
16 Under the alternative layout, the area inside the
17 fence line was approximately 582 acres.
18 Q. And do you know how the -- the
19 number starting at 479 acres and then going to 582
20 acres, do you have any information on how that
21 calculation was arrived at?
22 A. Yes, so the amount for the actual
23 perimeter fencing acreage increasing from 479 to 582,
24 is that what you're asking?
25 Q. The -- I guess the -- the
377
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 identification of that number as the threshold.
3 A. Right. Okay. So, yeah, I’ll let
4 the other members of the panel chime in here. But
5 when we're developing the site, ultimately the
6 footprint that's required for it and that perimeter
7 fencing is dependent on a number of scenarios; not
8 just the town's setback requirements, but also slope
9 -- slope requirements, also spacing between the roads
10 and the arrays; also another important one is the
11 outreach we conducted being requested of various
12 stakeholders, adjacent landowners to try to
13 incorporate their input on the layout, as well as
14 incorporating input from the landowners themselves.
15 An example of that would be we established a cattle
16 path to get from an existing farm to a pasture field,
17 or moving project components around so that another
18 landowner had access to -- to the hayfield on a
19 different side of the array from -- from where he
20 stores his tractors, so that all those constraints
21 are accounted for.
22 And when you -- then when we lay out
23 the project to meet our 90 MW generating capacity,
24 that's how we ultimately determine -- like accounting
25 for the constraints and what we need, the terms to
378
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 meet that generating capacity, that's where we lined
3 up on that land area required as the -- as the fence
4 line area.
5 Q. And I just want to touch on an
6 aspect that you discussed there. In terms of public
7 outreach, were you ever made aware of concerns from
8 adjacent landowners and residents regarding the issue
9 of setbacks?
10 A. Keddy, would you like to address
11 that?
12 A. (Chandran) And which -- what kind
13 of setbacks are you referring to?
14 Q. I’m -- I guess I’m referring to
15 the setbacks that you're seeking a waiver request to
16 avoid adherence to the town's setback requirement.
17 So, the waiver -- the -- the setbacks that would
18 impact the feasibility of the project.
19 A. Could you restate the question,
20 I’m sorry?
21 Q. Sure. Yep. And it's to the panel,
22 but were you ever made aware of concerns from
23 adjacent landowners and residents regarding the issue
24 of setbacks?
25 A. So, in our -- in our local
379
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 outreach that we conducted --
3 THE REPORTER: Oh, wait a minute. This
4 is the court recorder. Who's speaking? Who's
5 answering?
6 MR. CHANDRAN: Sorry about that. Yeah,
7 this is Keddy Chandran.
8 THE REPORTER: Okay. Thank you.
9 MR. CHANDRAN: So, during our public
10 outreach that we conducted, you know during the open
11 house, and, you know, various visits that we've made
12 -- particularly at the open house -- people were able
13 to comment on their concerns with setbacks and we
14 took that into account and visited numerous adjacent
15 landowners to discuss how we've increased setbacks
16 away to account for their concerns.
17 BY MR. CROWE: (Cont.)
18 Q. Were any of those concerns voiced
19 directly to you, Mr. Chandran?
20 A. And -- and like I said, at the
21 open house, they're -- those are expressed in groups.
22 You know, it's an open -- open style, open house so
23 there are multiple people who probably heard
24 concerns.
25 A. (Boer) And this is William Boer.
380
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 I'll just also add that in visiting with other
3 adjacent landowners as well, the overall project was
4 discussed and at times, it did include setbacks or
5 just other consideration of the project.
6 Q. And setbacks were considered in
7 the -- the concerns, I guess, that the adjoining
8 landowners and residents had regarding the setbacks -
9 - that was taken into account, as you mentioned, on
10 Page 8, Exhibit 31, in how you cited the panels. Is
11 that accurate?
12 A. (Boer) Can you refer exactly to the
13 document, sir?
14 Q. It was on Page 8, the second
15 paragraph under "Height and Setbacks." And it was the
16 second and maybe third sentence refers to the public
17 outreach and then the applicant's response to the
18 public outreach.
19 A. Okay. Sorry. It took a moment to
20 locate, but I see -- I see where it is.
21 Q. Correct.
22 A. Yeah, as Mr. Chandran had stated,
23 yes.
24 Q. Yes, that the -- the applicant
25 took steps in response to the concerns about
381
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 setbacks?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And now I’d like to refer
5 you back to Page 9 of Exhibit 31, and -- the -- the
6 very last paragraph on the bottom starts with the
7 words, "In addition..." Can you take a look at that
8 first sentence and read it? I’ll give you a second to
9 do that for yourselves.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. Can you identify the potential
12 impacts that are being referred to in that sentence?
13 A. (Boer) The potential impacts
14 would be not complying with the town’s height and
15 set…or in this case setback requirements.
16 Q. Is that the only impact?
17 A. The section you’re referencing is
18 a statement on justification for height and setbacks.
19 Those other impacts, or potential impacts addressed
20 throughout that application, but in this specific
21 section it’s on the town’s restrictive setback
22 requirements.
23 Q. Correct, yeah, and just to
24 clarify--I didn’t mean to be vague on that. The
25 potential impacts to the community regarding the
382
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 setback waiver that you’re requesting, were there any
3 other potential impacts to the community regarding
4 that setback waiver that you had identified?
5 MR. LANIADO: Mr. Crowe, are you
6 referring to the phrase on the fourth line of that
7 paragraph, potential insignificant impacts to the
8 community? Is that what you’re asking about, the
9 potential insignificant impacts?
10 MR. CROWE: Correct. I was asking them
11 without designating whether hit was significant or
12 insignificant, just identification of the impacts
13 that were being referred to. That is the--the correct
14 phrase that I was looking at.
15 MR. BOER: Again--this is William
16 Boer--I mean I--this is the justification for
17 setbacks, so visibility is addressed elsewhere in the
18 application and land use elsewhere. This specific
19 section is to the town’s restrictive setback
20 requirements.
21 BY MR. CROWE: (Cont.)
22 Q. Understood. As--as was mentioned,
23 it was determined that the potential impacts were
24 insignificant. Do you have any idea as to how that
25 classification was arrived at, insignificant impacts?
383
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A. Yes. This is William Boer. We
3 provided great detailed analysis on land use impacts
4 and visual impacts. We were able to review other
5 ordinances surrounding the town with other
6 communities around their solar ordinances in our
7 rebuttal testimony. If I could find the page of--
8 section in our rebuttal testimony on page 48,
9 beginning on line eight. We looked at numerous other
10 municipalities and their solar laws and ordinances
11 and what they have for setbacks. The most ranged from
12 50 to 200 feet. In our particular project proposal,
13 we for the majority of the projects with a few minor
14 exceptions were able to propose a minimum setback of
15 200 feet and many cases much further than that from
16 property lines, and we felt that we were able to
17 minimize any impacts in terms of setbacks to the
18 maximum setback by incorporating stakeholder input
19 and altering our design where we could while still
20 achieving our goals to provide adequate setbacks for
21 neighboring residences. Therefore, we could determine
22 that any potential impacts were insignificant.
23 Q. Okay, the concern I guess from
24 the neighboring and adjoining residents, it was
25 concerning enough to be addressed in the exhibit
384
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 though, and to also, as we just discussed, to alter
3 the siting to increase the setbacks where possible.
4 A. Again, this is William Boer. Any
5 time we try to develop our site plan for the project,
6 you know, we always try to incorporate stakeholder
7 input where we can and setbacks are obviously a
8 consideration because it’s a conventional zoning
9 requirement of the town. But yes, setbacks are
10 considered along with a number of other constraints
11 on determining a site layout.
12 Q. Did you seek any zoning approvals
13 from the town?
14 MR. LANIADO: Actually, Your Honor,
15 that’s a legal question, and if you want to, I can
16 answer it, but--
17 MR. CROWE: No, it’s not a legal
18 question if it was just a yes or no whether or not
19 they sought any zoning approvals because it was
20 brought up in Mr. Boer’s testimony.
21 A.L.J. MULLANY: Go ahead, Bill.
22 MR. BOER: Okay, right, so, the
23 project was 90 megawatts, so therefore it’s regulated
24 under Article 10 and local zoning approval is
25 supplanted, so no we could not request a variance or
385
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 waiver from the town as it was not required since
3 it’s being reviewed under Article 10.
4 BY MR. CROWE: (Cont.)
5 Q. Okay. What specific litigation
6 measures were proposed to lessen the potential
7 impacts? And again, referring only to setbacks.
8 A. Referring only--only--
9 Q. Only to the setbacks, not to the
10 project in total.
11 A. I’m sorry, can you clarify your
12 question.
13 Q. Certainly. Certainly. What--what
14 specific measures were proposed to litigate the
15 potential impacts from the lack of adherence to the
16 town’s setback law?
17 A. Sure. This is William Boer again.
18 What we did was, as I stated earlier, the--with the
19 exception of four--minimal locations, we are able to
20 provide a minimum of 200 feet setback and in many
21 cases a greater setback. We are able to--specifically
22 along Bulls Head Road, we were able to avoid some
23 areas that were closer to clusters of residences,
24 staying along Pattersonville Road. We tried to keep
25 the arrays internal to the site, away from
386
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 residences. And additionally, we proposed a very
3 robust landscaping buffer. We are proposing over
4 25,000 linear feet of vegetative landscape buffers to
5 mitigate visual impacts that may be associated with
6 not having a greater setback.
7 Q. Okay. I want to shorten your
8 attention back here to page nine, that last
9 paragraph, and the last sentence on page nine that
10 flows into page 10, but it deals with the economic
11 benefits to the community and the waiver request
12 cites that the economic benefits to the community
13 outweigh the benefits to applying the town’s setback
14 law, and specifically the waiver requests that by--
15 for economic benefits--the first economic benefit is
16 identified as landowner payments--that, just asking
17 the panel, what’s a landowner payment?
18 A. Keddy, can you address that?
19 A. (Chandran) Sure. This is Keddy
20 Chandran. Landowner payments, that’s the rent
21 payments to the--to the farmer--farmers who we’ve
22 entered into contracts with to--to help support their
23 farming operation and to keep the farm in the family
24 long-term.
25 Q. As you mentioned, that’s payment
387
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 to the parcel, the property that the panels and
3 supplemental facilities are located on, correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Okay. And how does payment of the
6 rent help lessen the potential impacts of waiving the
7 town’s setback law?
8 A. You know, I would say that these
9 participating landowners themselves are members of
10 the community, farming is difficult, having this
11 supplemental income should be benefit. I’m sorry go
12 ahead.
13 A. (Boer) Go ahead.
14 Q. I didn’t mean to step on you, Mr.
15 Boer. If you have anything to add, please.
16 A. No, no, sorry, go ahead.
17 Q. Okay, and just to clarify, the
18 landowner payments are not paid to adjoining
19 landowners, just the landowners who have the solar
20 equipment facilities located on their property. Is
21 that accurate?
22 A. (Chandran) The landowners where
23 we are placing equipment are receiving payment.
24 Q. Okay. Is--was that payment
25 negotiated based on the amount of setbacks that were
388
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 going to be used?
3 A. Those were--those payments are
4 based upon acreage.
5 Q. Okay. The--the second item is
6 construction jobs. Do you know how many local jobs
7 you are anticipating to create, local construction
8 jobs like--that you’re anticipating to create?
9 A. I believe that to be--go ahead,
10 sorry.
11 A. (Boer) Go ahead, Keddy. I was
12 going--this is William Boer. I was just going to
13 state that the--you said that the exhibit 27 on
14 socioeconomics lists the specifics on construction,
15 labor for the project. I don't know if anyone else on
16 the panel recalls the--the specific number.
17 Q. That’s fine.
18 MR. LANIADO: Page seven.
19 MR. CHANDRAN: I’m sorry, can you
20 repeat that?
21 MR. LANIADO: Exhibit 27, page seven.
22 MR. CHANDRAN: Yes, okay. I’m sorry,
23 it’s just the ad for that. So, as presented on page
24 seven of exhibit--sorry, seven of the application,
25 it’s anticipated that 60 to 90 percent of the total
389
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 payroll during construction is expected to be pay for
3 workers in the--in the region, which, as indicated in
4 the exhibit is a value of 5.9 to 8.9 million dollars
5 in construction payroll.
6 BY MR. CROWE: (Cont.)
7 Q. Okay. How do those jobs lessen
8 the potential impacts of waiving the town’s setback
9 law?
10 A. (Chandran) I’m sorry, can you
11 repeat that one again?
12 Q. Yeah. The local jobs that are
13 proposed to be created--how do those jobs lessen the
14 potential impacts of waiving the town’s setback law?
15 A. (Boer) Again, this is William
16 Boer. So, with the town’s restrictive setback
17 requirements, in addition to their cap on generating
18 capacity, their cap on acreage per solar, their cap
19 on--their restriction on wetland setbacks, and their
20 restrictions to minimal zones in the town for solar
21 is allowed--the combination of those factors,
22 including setbacks of 500 feet, make the project
23 technically restrictive. It’d be impossible to build
24 it and without being able to build this project, the
25 local community wouldn’t be able to take in the
390
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 benefits that the project would propose, and in this
3 case, the construction payroll of millions of dollars
4 for local workers, having that setback not be waived
5 does have a ripple effect.
6 Q. And just going to the--the next
7 item listed--PILOT payments. Can you explain the term
8 PILOT as it’s used?
9 MR. LANIADO: Top of page ten to
10 exhibit 31.
11 MR. BOER: Keddy, would you like to
12 address that?
13 MR. CHANDRAN: Sure. This is Keddy
14 Chandran. Best answer, a payment in lieu of taxes.
15 BY MR. CROWE: (Cont.)
16 Q. Okay, and how does a PILOT
17 payment work? Who--I guess--let me put it this way.
18 In this specific project, who is receiving the PILOT
19 payment?
20 A. (Chandran) In the specific
21 states, PILOT payments are allocated to the county
22 and the school district.
23 Q. Okay, and the payment in lieu of
24 taxes, I guess, if I’m understanding it correctly, is
25 just that. It’s a reduction in taxes based on a
391
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 payment schedule. Is that an accurate way of
3 describing it?
4 A. Yeah, that contributes to the tax
5 base of the community.
6 Q. What did that--I’m sure you are
7 also aware that certain ad valorem taxes, such as
8 fire taxes, are not abated by a PILOT. So, that would
9 also be an additional benefit to the project existing
10 or additional revenue but not abated by a PILOT.
11 A. Sure, but it is in essence a form
12 of tax that would otherwise be paid, if the setback
13 waiver wouldn’t be granted.
14 Q. Well, I guess I -- I’m -- put it
15 this way, the properties would have a local tax
16 burden, correct? Project or no project, is that
17 correct?
18 A. I’m sorry, can you repeat that
19 question?
20 Q. Sure. Are you aware of whether or
21 not the properties that the project is going to--is
22 proposed to being constructed on--have a local
23 property tax burden?
24 A. Yes. They do.
25 Q. Okay. And the purpose of PILOT is
392
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 to alleviate that tax burden. Is that an accurate
3 statement?
4 A. The purpose of a PILOT is to fix
5 the property tax obligation of the project that is a
6 party to that PILOT agreement.
7 Q. And how do the PILOT payments
8 outweigh the potential impacts of waiving the town’s
9 setback law?
10 A. So, again, the contribution to
11 the county, school, and eventually we’re going to get
12 to the host community agreement section of this
13 paragraph--go towards the tax base of the community,
14 and since there’s a property tax cap, it could
15 potentially have a positive impact on the tax levy
16 for residents and businesses.
17 Q. So, is the PILOT a way of
18 increasing the amount of funds that the applicant
19 would pay to the taxing entity. Is it not payment in
20 lieu of tax, it’s a payment in addition to taxes?
21 A. It’s--it’s a payment in lieu of
22 taxes that contributes to the tax base.
23 Q. You mentioned the host community
24 agreement--again, same general question, can you
25 explain what that phrase means?
393
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 A. Sure. That’s an agreement between
3 the project and the host community to deliver kinds
4 of benefits that could be funding for projects,
5 funding that the town could distribute to their tax
6 base, and other things that can deliver a local
7 benefit to the host community, this being the Town of
8 Florida.
9 Q. And so would the--the Town of
10 Florida would be the receiving entity of that
11 economic benefit?
12 A. In theory, yes. Yes. This hasn’t
13 been finalized, however, yet, but that is certainly
14 the way we were envisioning it.
15 Q. Okay. I’ll ask the same question.
16 How does the host community agreement payment lessen
17 the potential impacts of reducing the setback?
18 MR. LANIADO: Mr. Crowe, can you point
19 to that paragraph where they--you used the word
20 lessen the impact?
21 MR. CHANDRAN: I think we specifically
22 used the words outweigh.
23 MR. CROWE: Okay, outweigh the impact.
24 MR. CHANDRAN: Well--this is Keddy
25 Chandran--well, as I said, the benefits--that could
394
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 be part and parcel of a host community agreement.
3 That agreement is designed to deliver benefits
4 locally that the host community would like.
5 BY MR. CROWE: (Cont.)
6 Q. Okay, the--the economic census
7 that we’ve been referring to, as they were described
8 in the filing in October 2019--is the panel aware
9 that the applicant recently modified the proposed
10 PILOT and host community figures?
11 A. Yes, that was filed on the DMM on
12 September 16th, 2020.
13 Q. Okay, and if you’re familiar at
14 all with the revised PILOT and host community
15 figures, do you know if those numbers went up or went
16 down?
17 A. They went down.
18 Q. Okay. Since those proposed--and
19 just call them the revised figures--were offered,
20 have you revisited the waiver request, specifically
21 regarding the economic benefits?
22 A. (Boer) This is William Boer. You
23 say, have they been revisited, or what was--what’s
24 the question?
25 Q. Sure. Yeah, I had said had you
395
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 revisited, and I guess a better way of putting it
3 would be has the waiver request regarding setbacks
4 been amended following the submission of the revised
5 PILOT and host community agreement payments?
6 A. This is William Boer. While the
7 exact numbers may have changed, the overall
8 justification for the waiver still remains the same
9 in that the needs of consumers to have greenhouse gas
10 emissions reduced, the goals of the state, in
11 addition to these economic benefits, that though they
12 were lowered, are still substantial and value
13 millions of dollars. Still those positive results of
14 the project outweigh any detriment of the town’s
15 restrictive 500-foot setback.
16 Q. Understood. Again, just on the
17 issue of PILOT. PILOT is actually a benefit to the
18 project, correct, and a long-term benefit to the
19 project?
20 A. Keddy, you hung up?
21 A. (Chandran) This is Keddy
22 Chandran. So, as I stated, you know, the--the PILOT
23 payments are--are a benefit to the community in that
24 those payments would’ve otherwise not be--be realized
25 for the community. So, definitely, a PILOT is
396
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 essential to--to the project moving forward. So that,
3 as Bill said--that in addition to the landowner
4 payments, construction jobs, unabated taxes to the
5 fire district, for example, and the host community
6 agreement, all things together contribute a
7 significant amount of benefit in addition to the
8 obvious greenhouse gas reductions to justify this
9 waiver. And I should say also that the--the-the
10 correction of the--of the figure--there was a mistake
11 in the math. So, the numbers that we have updated are
12 the correct numbers.
13 Q. In terms of the economic benefit,
14 was there any payment that I missed that was offered
15 to the adjoining property owners to outweigh the
16 impact of the setback?
17 A. There are--in instances where we
18 are within a 200-foot setback, we have approached
19 certain landowners to seek participation agreements.
20 Q. Okay, and any other payments that
21 would be included in the economic benefits
22 outweighing the setback requirement--I mean, that I
23 didn’t mention that you would like to mention?
24 A. No.
25 Q. I--I thank the panel for it’s
397
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 time. Your Honor, I have no further questions.
3 A.L.J. MULLANY: Very good. Do we have
4 any redirect by the company?
5 MR. LANIADO: Can I have five minutes
6 with the panel, Your Honor?
7 A.L.J. MULLANY: You can.
8 MR. LANIADO: Thank you.
9 THE REPORTER: I’ll take us off the
10 record here.
11 (Off the record 4:05 p.m.)
12 (On the record 4:12 p.m.)
13 MS. REILLY: I do swear.
14 DIANE REILLY; SWORN
15 A.L.J. MULLANY: Thank you. You may
16 proceed, Mr. Laniado.
17 THE REPORTER: Wait. We have to go on
18 the record.
19 A.L.J. MULLANY: Oh, sorry, Howard.
20 THE REPORTER: That’s okay. We’re on
21 the record now.
22 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay, let the record
23 reflect that--is it Suzanne Reilly?
24 MS. REILLY: Diane.
25 A.L.J. MULLANY: Diane. I’m sorry, Ms.
398
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 Reilly. Diane Reilly is a member of the applicant’s
3 panel who was present during the cross examination
4 that was conducted by Mr. Crowe on behalf of the Town
5 of Florida. However, due to an oversite, she had not
6 been sworn in. Ms. Reilly has now been sworn in and
7 the applicant is now going to conduct redirect of the
8 panel. Please, proceed, Mr. Laniado.
9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
10 BY MR. LANIADO
11 Q. Thank you. Ms. Reilly there were
12 questions about the construction jobs being part of
13 the equation of the justification for the waiver, and
14 I believe Mr. Boer testified that there would be
15 approximately 87 construction jobs. Is that right?
16 A. (Reilly) That’s correct.
17 Q. And what’s the estimated payroll
18 associated with those construction jobs?
19 A. A little over $9.8 million.
20 Q. And this was all in the
21 application, correct, in Exhibit 27, pages seven
22 through 13, is that what you’re referring to?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. All right. And can you tell me
25 what the local New York expenditures associated with
399
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 construction, as shown on page nine of Exhibit 27,
3 what would they be?
4 A. Local New York expenditures would
5 be a little over 13 million dollars.
6 Q. And turning to operations of the
7 project--and we’re not talking about secondary
8 economic impacts--we’re only talking about direct.
9 Turning to the operation of the project, what is the
10 estimated payroll associated with the creation of the
11 new full-time equivalent jobs?
12 A. $259,556.00 per year.
13 Q. And how many jobs will we--will
14 be created for the 30-year service type of project?
15 A. Two and a half jobs per year.
16 Q. And with respect to project
17 operation and maintenance annually, what is the local
18 spending on an annual basis projected to be as shown
19 on page 13?
20 A. Just under $850,000.00 per year.
21 Q. Thank you. No further redirect,
22 Your Honor.
23 A.L.J. MULLANY: Very good. Do we have
24 anything more in terms of testimony or are we
25 completed with that phase of this process?
400
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 I thank the panel for making
3 themselves available. Thank you, Mr. Crowe for being
4 expeditious in your conducting of the cross
5 examinations. So, I’m just wondering, do we need to
6 stay on the record to deal with anything? We talked
7 previously about briefing schedules. I’m going to
8 take those dates under advisement. My next step is
9 going to be to assemble the testimonies and forward
10 them to the court reporting service electronically
11 for insertion into the transcript. Mr. Laniado, I
12 understand that you will be modifying the proposed
13 consensus exhibit list to include those last two
14 items relating to the Citizens--the Citizens Group
15 and also, I guess DPS staff response IRs. Or those
16 are running the same, right?
17 MR. LANIADO: Yep.
18 A.L.J. MULLANY: Okay. Do we have any
19 other housekeeping that needs attention before we
20 adjourn? Okay, I want to thank everyone for your
21 patience and tolerance given the extraordinary
22 limitations that we’re operating under during this
23 COVID-19 pandemic. I very much appreciate the
24 patience people have shown in allowing others time to
25 get these documents up and allowing us to all be on
401
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 the same page literally. And I want to thank the
3 cross examiners for doing their best effort to
4 expedite the cross-examination stage of this
5 proceeding. And also, thanks to the court reporter.
6 So, having said all that, we are adjourned.
7 THE REPORTER: Okay, Mr. Mullany?
8 (Off the record 4:18 p.m.)
9 (The hearing concluded.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
402
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 I, HOWARD HUBBARD, do hereby certify that the foregoing
3 was reported by me, in the cause, at the time and place,
4 as stated in the caption hereto, at Page 1 hereof; that
5 the foregoing typewritten transcription consisting of
6 pages 213 through 404, is a true record of all
7 proceedings had at the hearing.
8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
9 subscribed my name, this the 28TH day of September, 2020.
10
11
12 HOWARD HUBBARD, Reporter
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
403
NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
In the Matter of
Application of High River Energy Center, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article 10 of the Public Service Law for Construction of a Solar Electric Generating Facility Located in the Town of Florida, Montgomery County. Case No. 17-F-0597 July 17, 2020
Prepared Testimony of:
Jason Mulford, CPESC Senior Environmental Analyst New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets 10 B Airline Drive Albany, NY 12235 P: (518) 457-5606
404
1 Witness Introduction
2 Q: Please state your name, employer and business address.
3 A: Jason Mulford, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (herein referred
4 to as the “Department” or AGM), 10B Airline Drive, Albany New York 12235.
5 Q: In what capacity are you employed by the Department?
6 A: I am a Senior Environmental Analyst in the Division of Land and Water Resources –
7 Agricultural Protection Unit.
8 Q: Please summarize your educational background and professional experience.
9 A: I received an A.S. degree in natural resources from the SUNY Collage of Agriculture
10 and Technology at Morrisville, New York. I received a B.T. degree in agronomics from
11 the SUNY College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill, New York. Directly
12 after college I was employed for a year by a licensed Surveyor. I was then employed for
13 approximately seven years as the District Field Manager for the Otsego County Soil and
14 Water Conservation District, in which capacity I worked on a variety of projects
15 including the conservation of environmental resources related to agricultural land. I
16 worked for several private consulting firms where I specialized in environmental
17 permitting. My most recent employment with a consulting firm involved a workload
18 supporting alternative energy and energy transmission projects being constructed
19 pursuant to New York State Public Service Law (NYSPSL) Article VII and Article 10. I
20 have been working for the Department for over a year.
21 Q: Please describe your duties with the Department.
22 A: I am responsible for reviewing and determining impacts to agricultural operations and
23 resources associated with energy generation and transmission projects on agricultural
2
405
1 lands. I represent the Department’s position on the conversion of agricultural lands, as
2 well as to monitor compliance for construction mitigation on agricultural lands associated
3 with energy generation and transmission projects. As relevant to this proceeding, I am
4 responsible for evaluating the potential impacts of solar electric generation and electric
5 collection project infrastructure on agricultural lands. My primary responsibilities include
6 the review and evaluation of the applications submitted pursuant to Article 10 of the NYS
7 Public Service Law, and providing necessary follow-up concerning my evaluation.
8 When reviewing these projects, I focus on identifying possible adverse impacts to
9 agricultural resources and farming operations. When a proposed project presents adverse
10 impacts to agriculture, as representing a Statutory Party under Article 10 of the NYSPSL,
11 I advise the project Applicant and/or approving Commission Siting Board of the possible
12 alternatives, construction techniques, and mitigation measures that would reduce or
13 eliminate such adverse impacts. As applicable, I also provide guidance during the
14 development of final construction plans, as well as, performing agricultural compliance
15 inspections during construction and restoration stages of Article VII and Article 10 of
16 NYSPSL projects.
17 Q: Do you have any professional certifications?
18 A: I am certified by Envirocert International as a Certified Professional in Erosion and
19 Sediment Control (CPESC). I have held this certification since August of 2009. This
20 certification has been utilized to meet the qualification for Qualified Inspector and
21 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) preparer for many construction
22 projects covered under the NYS State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
23 General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities. As this
3
406
1 experience pertains to this case, I have been involved with the development of SWPPPs
2 and served as a Qualified inspector on many Solar Energy Projects, thus making me
3 very familiar with the typical construction of a solar array.
4 Q: What is your experience working on PSL Article VII and Article 10 cases?
5 A: Prior to this case I testified in my current capacity concerning a PSL Article 10 wind
6 projects (Case Numbers 16-F-0267, 18-F-0262) and solar projects (Case Numbers 17-F-
7 0182, 17-F-0617, 17-F-0599). I also am actively involved in several Article VII cases
8 (Case Numbers 10-T-0080, 11-T-0068, 11-T-0116, 13-T-0585, 17-T-0816, 18-T-0207,
9 18-F-0262, 19-T-0549, 19-T-0684). Prior to NYS employment, I served as an
10 Environmental Monitor, Agriculture Inspector and Qualified Inspector for several high
11 voltage overhead electric transmission lines regulated under NYS Public Service Law
12 Article VII involving cases numbered 10-T-0080, 11-T-0068. I have also served as a
13 consulting advisor (not limited to agricultural considerations) for the EM&CP
14 development of electric and pipeline transmission lines regulated under Article VII of
15 the NYS Public Service Law, and the development of a wind generating project
16 regulated under Article 10 of the NYS Public Service Law.
17
18 Direct Testimony
19
20 Q: What are your responsibilities in this proceeding, as they pertain to this testimony?
21 A: My responsibilities in this proceeding include reviewing the Article 10 Application,
22 dated October 2019, submitted by the Applicant, High River Energy Center, LLC, as
4
407
1 well as the submitted Supplement to the Application dated February 2020 and the
2 Proposed Certificate Conditions.
3 Q. Have you reviewed the exact locations where the Applicant proposes to construct
4 the proposed facility within agricultural fields?
5 A. Yes. I have conducted a desktop analysis of the project layout. I am also familiar with
6 the area due to other work performed in the vicinity.
7 Q: What was the purpose of your review and evaluation in this proceeding?
8 A: My purpose of my review and evaluation was to determine the nature and scope of
9 potential impacts of the proposed project on agricultural lands. Developers routinely
10 seeks out the benefits of large, clear and flat farmland, which minimizes costly project
11 expenses associated with expensive land clearing efforts and more regulated areas (e.g.
12 wetlands, wetland adjacent areas, wildlife habitat). The Department has a
13 comprehensive appreciation for the value of the state’s finite agricultural soil resources
14 as it pertains to our agricultural economy and food production. The Department strives
15 to minimize the permanent conversion of productive agricultural lands. Where the
16 conversion of agriculture lands (either temporarily or permanently) are unavoidable or
17 meet Department siting policies, the Department will work with the Applicant to ensure
18 that the Departments Guidelines for Solar Energy Projects - Construction Mitigation for
19 Agricultural Lands (Revision 10/18/2019) will be followed to the maximum extent
20 practicable.
21
22
5
408
1 Q: What is the Department’s position on utility scale solar energy generation facilities
2 proposed for development in active agricultural lands?
3 A: The Department discourages the conversion of any farmland to a non-agricultural use.
4 This effort is in accordance with Section 4 of Article 14 of the New York State
5 Constitution, which provides for the conservation of agricultural lands, as well as NYS
6 Agriculture and Markets Law (AML), Article 25-AA, §300, more specifically stating:
7 “It is, therefore, the declared policy of the state to conserve, protect and
8 encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural land for
9 production of food and other agricultural products. It is also the declared policy
10 of the state to conserve and protect agricultural lands as valued natural and
11 ecological resources which provide needed open spaces for clean air sheds, as
12 well as for aesthetic purposes.”.
13 The Department, specifically the Agricultural Protection Unit in which I am
14 assigned, identifies this statute to be a mission statement. However, the Department also
15 recognizes New York State’s initiative with respect to the development of utility scale
16 solar facilities and is prepared to support the initiative. The Department’s efforts to
17 support the alternative energy goals include the recently negotiated Department’s revised
18 Guidelines with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
19 (NYSERDA), entitled Solar Energy Projects - Construction Mitigation for Agricultural
20 Lands (Revision 10/18/2019).
21 The Department understands that although the legislative intent of AML supports
22 the preservation of NYS lands for agricultural purposes, there is currently no law or
6
409
1 regulation acting on such intent. Department policies are in place to act on the legislative
2 intent and the Department will continue to protest the conversion of agriculture land to a
3 non-agricultural use applicable to Department policy.
4 Prior to large-scale solar development, the Department did not have issue with
5 PSL Article 10 cases converting large acreages as the renewable wind electric generation
6 allows farming to largely continue post construction. In comparison, the solar industry
7 arguably eliminates the ability to perform normal viable agricultural operations within
8 and potentially immediately surrounding the facility . The Department identifies solar
9 facilities as a permeant conversion of agricultural lands when there is a potential for
10 upgrading the facility and extending the facilities useful life. Decommissioning plans,
11 such as included in this proceeding, are too open ended. Due to increasing NYS energy
12 goals encouraging renewable energy development, the Department sees no reason that
13 facilities constructed would not be upgraded and released to maintain the growing or
14 static renewable energy demand, in this case, 30 years from energization. The
15 Department further asserts that as long as NYS incentives for the development of
16 renewable energy exists, the complete decommissioning for solar electric energy
17 generation will not likely occur.
18 With respect to the PSL Article 10 solar electric generating cases, participating
19 landowners and farm operators are supporting the conversion of large acreages of
20 agricultural land-use for the proposed solar facility, often putting Department policy at-
21 odds with the participants. This Department is in a rather unique position specifically
22 concerning solar electric energy generation, where the Department’s normal position
23 defends continuing Farm Operators as well as the agricultural resource. The Department
7
410
1 recognizes the financial benefits of participating landowners; however, farm operator(s)
2 lease payments are not viewed by the Department as a benefit to agriculture when
3 agricultural crops, livestock and livestock products are downsized or eliminated. The
4 application does not specify impacts to the individual farm operations; however, AGM
5 did not further inquire due to acceptable siting as discussed below.
6 Q: What Department policies are subject to this proceeding?
7 A: The Department recognizes New York State’s initiative with respect to the development
8 of utility scale solar facilities and is prepared to support the initiative. The Department’s
9 efforts to support the alternative energy goals include the recently negotiated
10 Department’s revised Guidelines with the New York State Energy Research and
11 Development Authority (NYSERDA), entitled Solar Energy Projects - Construction
12 Mitigation for Agricultural Lands (Revision 10/18/2019). According to the draft
13 certificate conditions, the Applicant has agreed to the Department’s Guidelines for Solar
14 Energy Projects - Construction Mitigation for Agricultural Lands (Revision 10/18/2019)
15 construction mitigation techniques to address the unavoidable impacts to agriculture
16 lands. The applicant will develop an Agricultural Plan which will specify how the
17 construction of the facility components propose to follow the Department’s guidelines.
18 Furthermore, the Applicant has agreed to consult with the Department for any conflicting
19 construction techniques not practicable, where the parties will negotiate applicable
20 alternatives.
21 The Department’s siting policy is supportive of solar development efforts on
22 agricultural lands if the proposed projects are properly sited on lands other than the
23 State’s most productive farmland. The Department’s goal is for projects to limit the
8
411
1 conversion of agricultural areas within the Project Areas, to no more than 10% of soils
2 classified by the Department’s NYS Agricultural Land Classification mineral soil groups
3 1-4, which represent the State’s most productive farmland. Soils classified with the soil
4 groups 5-10 are identified as having soil limitations. Agricultural activities on soils with
5 limitations are typically less productive for crops, require increased Farm Operator
6 investments and have considerably more impact on receiving water resources, if adjacent.
7 The generally low impact development of solar arrays can be constructed on these areas
8 with more soil limitations, not limiting the harvest of solar energy which does not require
9 specific natural resources for the production of energy. The only responsible position the
10 Department can take to stay true to AML Article 25-AA §300, and to support the NYS
11 renewable energy initiative, is to ensure the preservation of agricultural areas involving
12 soils classified as soil groups 1-4 for the production for food and fiber, as well as not
13 object to proposed development on lesser productive soils, i.e. agriculture lands
14 comprised on classified mineral soil groups 5-10.
15 Q. What are the primary agricultural impacts associated with the construction of a
16 commercial solar energy generation facility on agricultural lands?
17 A. The primary agricultural impact associated with the construction of a commercial solar
18 energy generation facility is the permanent conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural
19 use. The development of a solar arrays and ancillary facilities (including panels, panel
20 racking, transformer/inverter equipment pads, access roads, security fencing, substations,
21 energy storage options, operation and maintenance facilities, planted visual screening
22 areas, etc.) makes viable agricultural operation(s) infeasible to continue in the Project
23 areas.
9
412
1 Impacts to agricultural lands remaining outside of the security fencing also have
2 the highly likelihood to become abandoned and/or orphaned. More specifically, these
3 area outside the fenced facility may include narrow areas that limit complete
4 development of agricultural properties, for example municipal setbacks, shading buffers,
5 regulated stream buffers and regulated wetland adjacent areas. The Department attempts
6 to analyze the remaining lands in these areas that are available for contined agricultural
7 production as a large-scale farm would, due to the statistical fact that large scale
8 agriculture is a growing demographic and are more likely to utilize lands within the
9 Project Area if not converted to a non-agricultural industrial use. The scenarios cited
10 above create narrow strips of land that although may be available to agricultural
11 producers (at the landowner’s discretion) are unattractive for most large-scale farm
12 operators, as they are inefficient to harvest crops due to the limitations of acreage and
13 maneuverability for modern large-scale mechanized farming equipment agricultural
14 equipment. The location of project-related infrastructure in agricultural fields create
15 obstacles that the farm operator will have to avoid during numerous types of agricultural
16 equipment operations; including, but not limited to, cultivation, seeding, nutrient
17 recycling or top-dressing, weed management, harvest, etc. Impacts often result in loss of
18 farmland viability, ultimately resulting in a decrease of in mechanized farming efficiency
19 leading to a reduction in production of crops, livestock and livestock products.
20 The Department’s guidelines are available for those facilities constructed wherein
21 a return to agricultural production post decommissioning is proposed, as well as those
22 temporary disturbances during facility construction. The Applicant agreed to the terms
23 of the Department’s Guidelines for Solar Energy Projects - Construction Mitigation for
10
413
1 Agricultural Lands (Revision 10/18/2019) to the maximum extent practicable.
2 Typically, the Department is concerned with what the Applicant deems as not practicable,
3 however in this case the Applicant has agreed to consult with the Department for any
4 deviations. Additionally, The Applicant has agreed to provide an Agricultural Area Plan
5 identifying any programs, policies, and procedures implemented consistent with the
6 AGM Guidelines for Solar Energy Projects – Construction Mitigation for Agricultural
7 Lands Revision 10/18/2019 to the maximum extent practicable.
8 Q. How does your review of the application compare with the Departments siting
9 policy?
10 A. The Department found the application to have inconsistent agricultural impacts
11 information. Exhibit 4(x) Agricultural Impacts and Farmland protection Plan, states
12 “Although solar panels will cover 355 acres of agricultural land, only 0.30 acres of
13 ground disturbance will occur on these lands.” The following section, Exhibit 4(y)
14 Description of Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Natural Resources and Prime
15 Farmland, states “Approximately 566 acres of agricultural disturbance is anticipated to
16 occur within the Project’s proposed limits of disturbance.” The Department assumes
17 that the Applicant is limiting the agricultural impact in the first statement to the installed
18 access and equipment pads and landscape plantings, however identifying temporary
19 disturbance to a much greater extent. The Department disagrees with the 0.30-acre
20 statistic, as previously discussed position on agricultural impacts. The Department
21 believes that the facility site is the minimal impact area, with a likely potential to impact
22 greater than 500 acres. Despite the applications conflicting information and limited
23 analysis and discussion of agricultural impact, the need for more clarification is
11
414
1 overshadowed by the fact that the Project meets the Department’s siting policy.
2 According to the Department’s calculated conservative Project impact to the agricultural
3 land-use, mineral soil groups 1-4 make up 8% of the impact to agricultural areas within
4 the Project Area, agreeing with the Applicant’s 46.6 acre.
5 Q: Are there any Additional Department concerns regarding the construction of the
6 proposed facility?
7 A: Yes. The Department has concerns regarding the implementation of the proposed
8 grading within several of the arrays, most notably within arrays 2, 2A, 3 and 4. The
9 Department expects details regarding how this excavation work will be perform will be
10 addressed in the Agricultural Plan associated with the Site Engineering Environmental
11 Plan (SEEP). Considering that the facility has the potential to be decommissioned and
12 returned to agricultural land use, the Department insists that topsoil conservation and
13 segregation associated with grading or any other excavation be performed as well as
14 having a suitable environmental monitor to direct topsoil stripping according the
15 Department’s guidelines.
16 Q: Does this conclude your testimony?
17 A: Yes.
12
Case No.: 17-F-0597 415
NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
In the Matter of the Application of
High River Energy Center, LLC Case No.: 17-F-0597
For a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article 10 of the Public Service Law for Construction of a Solar Electric Generating Facility
Direct Testimony of
Stephen B. Le Fevre, P.G., C.P.G., Senior Managing Hydrogeologist
Joint Application Review and Filing of Testimony for the Town of Florida and Citizens for Responsible Solar Fann Placement
Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C.
July 17, 2020 416
1 Q. Please state your name and business address. 2 3 A. My name is Stephen B. Le Fevre. The address ofmy company's administrative offices is
4 10 Airline Drive, Suite 200, Albany, NY 12205.
5 Q. Mr. Le Fevre, by whom are you employed and in what capacity?
6 A. I am employed by Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. ("B&L"), as a Senior Managing
7 Hydrogeologist. B & L is an engineering consulting firm that provides services in several
8 practice areas, including engineering, environmental science, planning, and landscape
9 architecture.
10 Q. Please describe your firm's experience with the review of municipal applications?
11 A. B &L has been providing Environmental Assessment and Review services for more than
12 10 30 years, supporting large scale infrastructure siting and design projects, undergoing State
13 Environmental Quality Review Act and/or National Environmental Policy Act processes. A 12
14 number of these projects have progressed beyond the typical SEQR short/long form review, to
15 Environmental Impact Statement evaluations. We have assessed, permitted and designed some of
16 the most controversial and large-scale land impact projects in Upstate New York. This
17 experience includes both renewable energy projects, and other civil infrastructure projects such
18 as landfills, incinerators and municipal facilities. Presently, we are consulting with several
19 communities as they address the proposed siting and installation of large-scale renewable energy
20 installations.
21 Q. Please describe your educational background and your professional experience?
22 A. I received my Bachelor of Science in Geology (B.S.), 1981, at Hope College, Holland,
23 Michigan, and a Master of Science in Geology (M.S.), 1989, at Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
24 I am a New York State licensed Professional Geologist (PG License No. 001105), and I am also
25 a licensed Professional Geologist in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the states of
1 417
1 Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. I am also a Certified Professional Geologist (CPO) in
2 accordance with the requirements set forth by the American Institute of Professional Geologists
3 {AIPG}. I am also a member of the National Ground Water Association, the Hudson Mohawk
4 Professional Geologist Association, and the Eastern New York Chapter of the Air & Waste
5 Management Association. My professional specialization is in the area of environmental
6 assessments and permitting. I serve as the Lead Project Manager in the environmental review
7 and assessment of proposed utility scale solar projects on behalf ofB&L's municipal clients. I
8 have led the review of 15 solar projects that range in size from 2 megawatts to 100 megawatts.
9 Five of those solar projects were subject to the Article 10 review process. For that reason, I am
10 very familiar with the requirements of Article 10.
11 Q. What are your responsibilities in reviewing this Application Jointly for the Town of
12 Florida and Citizens for Responsible Solar Farm Placement (the "Citizens")?
13 A. On behalf of both parties, I have undertaken B&L' s review of the Application of High
14 River Energy Center, LLC (the "Applicant" or "High River Energy") to construct a major solar
15 energy facility generating facility of up to 90 megawatts (the "Project") to be located in the
16 Town of Florida, Montgomery County for compliance with Article 10 requirements and with
17 specific attention to the Project's potential impacts on the Town and its residents, with added
18 attention to the membership in the Citizens Group.
19 Q. What materials and documents have you reviewed?
20 A. I have reviewed the Application submitted by High River Energy to the Siting Board on
21 October 11, 2019 and all other supporting materials for the Project, with particular attention to
22 Exhibit 3, Location of Facilities; Exhibit 4, Land Use; Exhibit 9, Alternatives; Exhibit 14, Cost
23 of Facilities; Exhibit 15, Public Health & Safety; Exhibit 19, Noise & Vibration; Exhibit 21,
24 Geology, Seismology and Soils; Exhibit 22, Terrestrial Ecology and Wetlands; Exhibit 24,
2 418
1 Visual Impacts; Exhibit 25, Effect on Transportation; Exhibit 26, Effect on Communications;
2 Exhibit 27, Socioeconomic Effects; Exhibit 31, Local Laws and Ordinances; and Exhibit 35,
3 Electric & Magnetic Fields. I have also reviewed the Applicant's responses to the discovery
4 requests made by the parties to this proceeding.
5 Q. What is your overall opinion of the Application?
6 A. I believe that certain aspects of the Application fail to comply with the Town's local laws
7 and ordinances, contributing to substantive and significant concerns about the Project's potential
8 impacts on farming, community character, and the visual qualities of the Town. On March 21,
9 2019, the Town of Florida amended its zoning law to further regulate solar energy facilities
10 (Local Law No. 1 of the year 2019; the "Solar Law"). This amendment established a number of
11 substantive requirements for the construction and operation of utility-scale solar facilities in the
12 Town. The Application in its current form fails to comply with several of these requirements.
13 The Application also goes against provisions of the Town of Florida's Comprehensive Plan first
14 published in February 1996 with selected Amendments adopted February 21, 2011. Furthermore,
15 as shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-8 of the Application, many of the non-participating Parcels
16 neighboring the project area are used for agricultural purposes. In addition, a significant amount
17 of land surrounding the project area is designated as prime farmland or farmland of statewide
18 importance. See Figure 4-9. While the Applicant describes the project's impacts on the farmland
19 in the project area, the Applicant fails to address the project's impacts on these neighboring
20 agricultural resources. The construction of the solar facility will also have potential detrimental
21 impacts on adjacent farmland due to the performance of site clearing and grading activities that
22 can result in increased stormwater runoff onto non-participating neighboring parcels. In my
23 professional opinion, the Application also fails to adequately address potential construction
3 419
1 related impacts to private residential water supply wells, including the potential impacts to
2 groundwater quality; and construction related impacts to roadways.
3 Q. What specific provisions of the Town's Solar Law does the Application not comply
4 with?
5 A. Appendix 31-1 of the Application contains the Town of Florida Zoning Ordinance.
6 Section 45.5 (starting at page 75); titled "Solar Energy Systems and Equipment" begins with the
7 following "Town Policy Statement" for "Specific Policies" (§45.5 A 3):
8 "With respect to what is defined herein as Large Scale Solar Energy Systems (of which 9 this project qualifies), the Town is concerned with the potential scale and location of such 10 Systems not fitting in with the existing community character. However, with proper 11 guidelines, criteria and planning, Large Scale Solar Energy Systems of a limited size (see 12 Section C below) may be appropriate but would have to be reviewed on a case by case 13 basis. These Systems are to be encouraged and allowed so long as they fit it in with the 14 Town's community character, do not impact neighboring properties, are safely installed 15 and operated, and do not impair scenic views or vistas, future growth, or economic 16 development of the Town, and are appropriately and promptly removed upon 17 decommissioning. Placement of large Scale Solar Energy Systems in existing fields or 18 areas that do not require significant deforestation or clear cutting and are well- screened 19 from public view as well as nearby properties would increase the possibility of 20 compatibility with the Town's community character and decrease the possibility of 21 significant adverse impacts. It is recognized by the Town that certain scenic views and 22 vistas are important to the Town and should be preserved since they significantly 23 contribute to the Town's rural residential character. The layout of the solar panels and 24 equipment should utilize existing natural features for screening and should avoid 25 detrimental impacts to important natural resources such as wetlands, streams and other 26 surface waters, prime agricultural soils, areas important for outdoor recreation and 27 tourism, historic districts and buildings, home and property values and the aesthetics of 28 the Town's natural environment. The following regulations are intended to ensure that 29 large Scale Solar Energy Systems are only allowed of a scale, location and plan that 30 appropriately recognizes the aforementioned land use policies, as well as the policies set 31 forth in the Town's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance."
32 The Project, as proposed, does not comport with much of the substantive statements in this
33 Policy provision.
34 In addition, while the Project, as proposed, violates many Town Ordinance provision, those of
35 main concern to the Town for "Ground-Mounted Solar Energy Systems" are as follows:
4 420
1 1. "All such Systems shall be located in such a manner so that the System is adequately 2 screened with respect to neighboring properties so that the views of the System from 3 neighboring properties, particularly residences, are not a significant detraction. Screening can 4 be accomplished by utilizing existing buildings and vegetation as well as deer resistant 5 evergreen plantings when necessary. Any screening which is proposed by the applicant as 6 part of the application or required by the Town Board as part of the approval shall be fully 7 installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of compliance and prior to any operation of the 8 System. All Solar Panels and Solar Equipment shall be made of such materials so as to not 9 create or be conducive to glare." [§ 45.SB.2.d)] 10 11 2. " ... As is set forth below, the size of a Large Scale Solar Energy System is restricted in the 12 Town of Florida. The reason for restriction is that the Town's current community character 13 and economic well-being is dependent upon its natural resources and setting, its scenic 14 views, its historic places and buildings, its agricultural history and its outdoor recreation and 15 tourism opportunities. The future of the Town in terms of both its economy and the welfare 16 of its residents depends in the continual preservation and promotion of such vital aspects of 17 the Town. In this regard, the Town Board specifically finds that any Large Scale Solar 18 Energy System greater in size than what is allowed by special use permit or otherwise as is 19 set forth herein will be contrary to the community character and the future economic viability 20 of the Town and would unreasonably burden the residents, taxpayers and the electric rate 21 payers of the Town of Florida The aforementioned policies and findings are based upon, 22 supported by, and consistent with the Town of Florida's Comprehensive Plan." (§45.Sc. 23 under ''Solar-Large/Utility Scale")
24 3. "Large Scale Solar Energy Systems are permitted through the issuance of a special use 25 permit within the C-1 Commercial, C-2 Commercial, Industrial Business Parks, and Natural 26 Products Districts, subject to the requirements set forth in this section, including site plan 27 approval by the Planning Board. Applications for a special use Permit shall be submitted to 28 the Town Board for an initial review of completeness; once the Town Board determines that 29 an application is complete, it will refer the application to the Planning Board for a report and 30 recommendation; the Planning Board shall submit its report and recommendation to the 31 Town Board within forty five days after receiving the referral; the Town Board will then 32 commence its review and action, which can include approval, approval conditions, or denial; 33 following approval, or approval conditions, the application will be subject to site plan review 34 by the Planning Board." (§45.SC.l.- "Application Requirements")
35 4. "Specific Standards for Large Scale Solar Systems as a Special Use.
36 a) Height and Setback. The Solar Energy System shall have a maximum height of 37 twenty (20) feet from ground elevation and shall be setback at a minimum of five 38 hundred (500) feet from all of the parcel's boundary lines and two hundred (200) 39 feet from all wetlands, ponds and streams. Buildings and accessory structures 40 other than Solar Energy Equipment, if any, shall adhere to the height and setback 41 requirements of the underlying zoning district.
42 b) Lot and System Size. Large-Scale Energy Systems shall only be located on lots 43 with a minimum lot size often (10) acres. The size of the Solar Energy System 5 421
1 shall be limited to a maximum of 5 MW of electrical energy generation per design 2 at peak levels of operation or the land surface area covered by the Solar Energy 3 System including access roads, Solar Panels and all System components and Solar 4 Equipment, shall not encompass more than twenty-five (25) acres of the lot 5 regardless of whether the System is contiguous or noncontiguous. 6 c) Lot Coverage. For purposes of this section, the surface area covered by Solar 7 Panels, Solar Equipment and all System components including internal access 8 roads shall be included in total lot coverage. If the area in which the Solar Energy 9 System is to be placed is leased, then the terms "lots" and entire lot size" shall 10 mean the land area that is leased. A Large Scale Solar Energy System shall not 11 exceed the maximum lot coverage of the lot on which it is installed as follows: 12 - For lots consisting of 10 to 15 acres, the maximum total lot coverage shall be 1/3 13 (33/3%) of the entire lot size.
14 - For Lots consisting of 15 to 25 acres, the maximum total lot coverage shall be 2/5 15 (40%) of the entire lot size.
16 - For Lots greater than 25 acres, the maximum total lot coverage shall be½ (50%) 17 of the entire lot size with a maximum system size as set forth in subsection b 18 above. 19 d) No part of a Large Scale Solar Energy System shall be located above the elevation 20 of 700 feet, along ridgelines, on hilltops, or on slopes greater than 12% ... " 21 "f) ... In no case shall the Solar Energy System require clear cutting of more than 9 22 acres .... 23 g) Installation of large Scale Solar Energy Systems on land areas which contain 24 prime agricultural soils shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible. In no 25 case shall the Solar Energy System cover more than 5 acres of prime agricultural 26 soils. 27 h) The material used for the Solar Energy System shall not be conducive to glare 28 visible from beyond the lot's boundary lines. The Solar Energy System shall not 29 generate noise or heat detectable from beyond the lot's boundary lines." 30 (§45.5C.2.)
31 Q. How does the Application fail to comply with the above referenced provisions of the
32 Town's Solar Law?
33 A. According to my review, certain components of the Project, as proposed, do not meet
34 some of these requirements. In addition, certain aspects of the entire Project do not meet all of
35 these requirements. Hence, the reason that they are highlighted in the prior question.
6 422
1 Q. Why is compliance with these restrictions in the Town's Solar Law important for
2 the protection of farming?
3 A. The loss of fannland is a subject of federal, state and local concern that the Town of
4 Florida has considered in its Comprehensive Plan and its Solar Law. Prime fannland is
s recognized by all levels of government as comprising lands that have the best combination of
6 physical and chemical characteristics for producing fann products and that is available for
7 agricultural uses. The loss of prime farmland to other land uses not only threatens farming as a
8 critical source of food and part of our economy, but it also puts pressure on lands less suitable for
9 farming, which generally are more erodible, subject to drought, less productive and not easily
10 cultivated. Improperly sited, solar facilities have the potential to have a greater adverse impact on
11 farmland than necessary if prime farmland is not avoided. This problem may occur equally to
12 lands on individual farms that are actively fanned, since typically those lands are the best lands
13 available on a given parcel for farming. The Town, following its Comprehensive Plan, sought to
14 address the potential loss of productive farmland to solar projects through section 45.SC of the
15 Solar Law in two ways: ( 1) by requiring applicants to demonstrate that they have avoided prime
16 farmland to the "maximum extent possible"; and (2) by restricting solar facilities, on a farm by
17 farm basis, to no more than 25 acres of any fanned parcel whether the system is contiguous or
18 noncontiguous. The Applicant has not shown how it has complied with these requirements.
19 Q. How could the Applicant comply with these requirements of the Solar Law?
20 A. Similar to a wetlands project, for prime farmland the Applicant should be required to
21 present and consider reasonable alternatives that avoid Project impacts to prime farmland, and to
22 analyze and explain if certain impacts to prime farmland cannot feasibly be avoided. The
23 operating presumption should be that all Project impacts to prime farmland will be avoided once
24 such a showing is made. For compliance on a farm by farm basis with the restrictions on the use
7 423
1 of actively-farmed lands by the Project, the first step is for the Applicant to identify the actively-
2 farmed lands on each parcel within the Project Area. To the extent that the Applicant is unable to
3 comply with this restriction for a given parcel, it should be required to obtain an area variance
4 from the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA"). Requiring an area variance for
s compliance with the restriction pertaining to actively farmed lands will not place an
6 unreasonable burden upon the Applicant as compared to the importance of limiting the impacts
7 of the Project on such lands in the Town. As noted above, the Applicant would initially need to
8 provide easily ascertainable information on a parcel by parcel basis identifying actively-farmed
9 lands within the Project Area in order to determine whether a variance is even required. For the
10 parcels that do not comply with the restriction, the Applicant would have to consider feasible
11 alternatives that would not require a variance from the restriction or that would minimize the
12 extent of the variance requested. Ultimately, the ZBA would make a decision based on a
13 balancing of the impacts to the Applicant if the variance is denied compared to the detriment to
14 the Town's objective of protecting local farmland if the variance is granted. The Town's concern
15 with the elimination of actively-farmed lands within the Project Area are based on such
16 information as Table 4-1. "Project Facility Impacts to Agricultural Districts and Prime
17 Farmland" (see Exhibit 4) which states in part: Temporary Soil Impact, 197.01 acres and Soil
18 Impact for Project Service Life, 373.30 acres. The Project components are estimated to utilize
19 479 acres (Exhibit 4- Land Use at page 1; see also Figure 4-1, Existing Land Uses). Furthermore,
20 under "4(y) Description of Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Natural Resources and
21 Prime Fannland" (also Exhibit 4- Land Use at page 39 & 40), it states in pertinent part:
22 "Approximately 566 acres of agricultural disturbance is anticipated to occur within the Project's
23 proposed limits of disturbance." In the May 22, 2020 Update to the Application under Exhibit 4:
24 Land Use, it states in part: "Of the overall 1,425- acre Project Area assessed, only approximately
8 424
1 491.4 acres (34.5 percent) will be physically occupied by Project Components within a fenced
2 area of approximately 582.5 acres to generate 90 MW of renewable energy (Exhibit 4 (i))."
3 Under "4 (z) Buildable Acres" (Exhibit 4, page 40), it states: "The Project Area for the High
4 River Energy Center is 1,221 acres. Approximately 355.16 acres of the proposed buildable acres
5 will be covered by solar panels and the fenced in area of the Project will be 4 79 acres."
6 Q. In your professional opinion, do you consider this section of the Application, namely
7 "4(y) Description of Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Natural Resources and
8 Prime Farmland" to be Comprehensive in its content on the subject matter?
9 A. No, I do not.
10 Q. Why not, again in your professional opinion?
11 A. For starters, it is only about one page of text out of thousands making up this Application.
12 It is very generalized in its descriptions and has its main justification in my opinion as reliance
13 on complying with the NYSDAM Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Solar Energy
14 Projects "to the maximum extent practicable." I believe greater efforts with regard to this subject
15 matter should have been included by the Applicant as it is required by both the Town's Solar
16 Law and its Comprehensive Plan.
17 Q. Does the Application adequately address the project's potential impacts on potable
18 water supply, including the project's effects on private residential water wells?
19 A. No. The Applicant states that the project construction and operation is not anticipated to
20 cause impacts to drinking water. Ex. 23(a)(3). The Applicant states that the NYSDEC provided
21 well completion reports for 53 wells in Montgomery County and 19 wells in Schenectady
22 County. However, only 11 of these wells are located within 2,000 feet from the project area
23 boundaries, and no wells were located within the project area. Ex. 23(a)(2). It is important to
24 note that these 11 wells were installed in the year 2001 or later, as the NYSDEC did not require
9 425
1 Water. Well Drillers to submit well completion reports prior to 2001. The Applicant also states
2 that a total of 154 water well surveys were distributed to all landowners located within a 2,000
3 foot radius of the proposed Project Area The Applicant only received a total of 36 responses
4 that provided information on 30 wells. Therefore, the Applicant has not presented information in
s the Article 10 Application regarding the other estimated 124 private water supply wells that
6 serve the landowners located within a 2,000 foot radius of the proposed Project Area.
7 Furthermore, the Application does not provide information regarding the specific location and/or
8 well construction characteristics for the 30 individual private water supply wells that were
9 obtained via the submitted water well surveys since the Applicant has redacted that information
10 from disclosure. The Applicant states that the project will not have adverse impacts on public or
11 private water wells. Ex. 23(a)(2). However, it is unclear what impact the construction of the
12 foundations for the solar arrays and the substation facility will have on nearby private water
13 supply wells. As stated in Exhibit 21 (Geology, Seismology, and Soils), in the event 19 that
14 bedrock cannot be extracted with a backhoe, other means such as pneumatic jacking and/or
15 hydraulic fracturing may be used for excavation of the bedrock. However, the Applicant fails to
16 address 21 the potential permanent impact that the excavation of bedrock, including the use of the
17 above noted methodologies will have on the groundwater quality or quantity that is used by the
18 23 local residences for their potable water supply.
19 Q. Does the Application adequately address the potential impacts of other
20 construction-related impacts on the quality and quantity of the groundwater water supply
21 source?
22 A. No. The Applicant states that "temporary impacts to groundwater could potentially occur
23 through the introduction of pollutants from inadvertent discharges of petroleum or other
24 chemicals used during the construction, operation, or maintenance phases of the project. These
10 426
1 discharges could result from mechanical failures in construction, operation, and maintenance
2 equipment, and through spills during the refueling of equipment". Ex. 23(a)(3). However, the
3 Applicant states that implementation of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures
4 presented in the project's Preliminary Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure
s (SPCC) Plan will prevent impacts to the groundwater quality at the project site. Unfortunately,
6 the Applicant does not appear to have sufficient knowledge or understanding of the proper
7 application of a SPCC Plan. Specifically, as noted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
8 (USEPA) on their website (www.epa.gov), a SPCC Plan must be prepared for a facility that
9 "stores, transfers, uses, or consumes oil or oil products, such as diesel fuel, gasoline, lube oil,
10 hydraulic oil, adjuvant oil, crop oil, vegetable oil or animal fat; and stores more than 1,320 U.S.
11 gallons in total of all aboveground containers, or more than 42,000 gallons in completely buried
12 containers; and could reasonably be expected to discharge oil to navigable waters of the U.S. or
13 adjoining shorelines, such as lakes, rivers, and streams". Therefore, the Applicant has proposed
14 to develop and implement totally inappropriate measures to prevent and address, if necessary, the
15 occurrence of inadvertent discharges of petroleum or other chemicals used during the
16 Construction, operation, and maintenance phases of the project.
17 Q. Does the Application adequately address the project's potential construction-related
18 impacts on Town Roads?
19 A. No. The Town is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of its local roads. The
20 Applicant states that it plans to enter into a Road Use Agreement with the Town and
21 Montgomery County to address impacts to the roads caused by construction equipment. Ex.
22 25(d)(5). Specifically, the Applicant states that "directly prior to construction, a survey of the
23 agreed delivery route will be carried out by appropriately qualified engineers (and NYSDOT,
24 County Highway, and Town Highway Departments as available) to assess and document the
11 427
1 current existing road conditions. Any extraordinary damage or over-run caused by vehicles
2 during the construction period is to be repaired to agreeable standards under a Road Use
3 Agreement with the relevant Authority (State, County, or Town)". In addition, the Applicant
4 plans enter into easements or any other required approval from the Town of Florida and
5 Montgomery County for the installation of collection lines along Mohr Road, which is a Town of
6 Florida public road, and Bulls Head Road, Thayer Road, and Patterson Road, which are county
7 roads. The Applicant has indicated that it intends to enter into a Road Use Agreement with the
8 Town and Montgomery County, and Easements acceptable to all parties, but doesn't indicate
9 when. It is my opinion that such an Agreement should be negotiated during the course of these
10 proceedings and be in place well before the commencement of any construction to protect the
11 Town's interest in ensuring that the costs of road repair are covered by the Applicant. However,
12 there are no guarantees such an Agreement will be reached.
13 Q. Does the Application adequately address construction-related stormwater impacts,
14 including potential stormwater impacts to adjoining (non-participating) properties?
15 A. No. The Applicant states in Exhibit 21 (Geology, Seismology, and Soils) that "the
16 primary impact to the physical features of the Project Area will be the disturbance to soils during
17 construction. The limit of disturbance (LOD) for the Project is approximately 569 acres. Based
18 on the assumptions outlined in Table 22-2, disturbance to soils from all construction activities
19 will total approximately 70.14 acres". Ex.21(q). However, the Application states that
20 "approximately 56 acres within the Project Area with steep slopes will be graded to slopes of
21 12% or less". Ex. 21(b). Furthermore, the Application indicates that the soils within the
22 project area are characterized as having low permeability, and that "the bedrock material
23 may be within one to three meters of the ground surface with possible sporadic crop outs".
24 Ex. 21 (m). Therefore, the soil disturbance activities that are performed on the 56 acres of
12 428
1 the project site that include steep slopes and thin soil cover will be highly susceptible to
2 severe erosion and downstream water quality issues during significant rainfall events. The
3 Application states that "stormwater management features proposed for the Project will
4 route stormwater around or away from earth disturbing activities and will slowly filter
5 stormwater through the soil, preventing inundation of groundwater to underground
6 features". Ex. 21(m). B&L questions the applicability and effectiveness of this stormwater
7 management approach when regrading activities are being performed on steeply sloping
8 areas, particularly in those instances when the area being regraded is located in close
9 proximity to non-participating neighboring parcels or a Town or County-owned roadway.
10 The Application states that "public road ditches and other locations where Project-related
11 runoff is concentrated will be armored with rip-rap to dissipate the energy of flowing water
12 and to hold the soils in place". Ex. 21 ( q). This poses certain critical questions: Is the
13 Applicant going to maintain and clean the rip-rap that is placed in public road ditches
14 should it become filled with sediment? Will the Applicant commit to maintaining the rip-
15 rap lined ditches for the entire 25 to 35 year life of the project? What will happen to the
16 rip-rap during site restoration activities? Will rip-rap be used to prevent stormwater run-
17 off from trespassing onto a non-participating property? If not, what erosion and sediment
18 control measures will be implemented to address those concerns? Will the Applicant
19 maintain the erosion and sediment features for the entire duration of the project to insure
20 that non-participating properties aren't detrimentally impacted by stormwater runoff?
21 Without specific answers to such questions the effectiveness of the Applicant's stormwater
22 management plan cannot be determined.
23 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
24 A. Yes.
13 429
BEFORE THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
In the Matter of Application of High River Energy Center, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article 10 of the Public Service Law for Construction of a Solar Energy Generating Facility in the Town of Florida, Montgomery County.
Case Number 17-F-0597
July 2020
Prepared Testimony of:
Citizens for Responsible Solar Farm Placement Panel
Vijay Puran, P.E.
Peter Michalski
David Slezak
430
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 Introduction and Qualifications Q . Panel pleas e bri efly introd uce y ourse lves. 2 Q. Panel please briefly introduce yourselves. 3 A. My name is Vijay Puran and I live at 859 Bulls 4 Head Rd, Amsterdam NY 12010 in extremely close p roxim ity t o the prop osed s olar gener ating 5 proximity to the proposed solar generating f acili ty in the Town of Flo rida. 6 facility in the Town of Florida. 7 My name is Peter Michalski and I live at 1205 8 Touareuna Rd, Amsterdam, NY 12010. I live across t he Mo hawk River from the p ropos ed so lar 9 the Mohawk River from the proposed solar 10 generating facility and am in the direct line-of- 11 site of the proposed solar generating facility. 12 My name is David Slezak and I live at 205 Mohr 13 Rd, Amsterdam NY 12010 in very close proximity to 14 the proposed solar generating facility. I am 15 also a large-scale farmer in the Town of Florida. Q . Please desc ribe the g roup y ou re prese nt. 16 Q. Please describe the group you represent. 17 A. We are members of the Citizens for Responsible 18 Solar Farm Placement (Citizens). Citizens is a 19 grass-roots group of individuals and families, 20 including farmers, retirees, professionals, l andsc apers and homem akers, livi ng in the 21 landscapers and homemakers, living in the 22 immediate vicinity and direct line of site of the 23 proposed High River Energy solar generating
1
431
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 facility. Thirteen members live in the Town of 2 Florida and eight live in the Town of Amsterdam. 3 Q. Mr. Puran, please state your position and place o f emp loyme nt. 4 of employment. 5 A. I am employed as a Utility Supervisor at the New Y ork S tate Depar tment of Pu blic Servi ce. 6 York State Department of Public Service. 7 Q. Please summarize your educational background and p rofes siona l exp erien ce. 8 professional experience. 9 A. I graduated from the University of Guyana in 10 October 1987 with a Bachelor of Engineering 11 Degree in Electrical Engineering. In February 12 1993, I graduated from the City College of New 13 York with a Master of Engineering Degree in 14 Electrical Engineering. I also received a Master 15 of Public Administration Degree from the Nelson 16 A. Rockefeller College, University at Albany, in 17 December 2001. I am a Licensed Professional E ngine er in New York State. 18 Engineer in New York State. 19 My professional responsibilities include and have 20 in the past included the technical analyses of 21 electric utility rate case filings, focusing on 22 revenue allocation, rate design, examination of 23 capital infrastructure projects and budgets,
2
432
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
e xamin ation of o perat ing an d mai ntena nce 1 examination of operating and maintenance e xpens es, a nd th e rev iew, a nalys is an d 2 expenses, and the review, analysis and 3 supervision of electric transmission lines and g enera tion sitin g in New Yo rk St ate. I am a 4 generation siting in New York State. I am a m ember of t he No rthea st Pow er Co ordin ating 5 member of the Northeast Power Coordinating 6 Council (NPCC) Regional Standards Committee and 7 the National Association of Regulatory Utility C ommis sione rs (N ARUC) Elect ricit y Sta ff 8 Commissioners (NARUC) Electricity Staff S ubcom mitte e. 9 Subcommittee. 10 Q. Given your professional responsibilities and your 11 place of employment is there any conflict of 12 interest in your participation in this case as an i ndivi dual? 13 individual? 14 A. No. I have asked for and have gotten permission 15 to be recused from any DPS involvement in this p artic ular case. 16 particular case. Q . Mr. Pu ran, what’ s your inte rest in th is 17 Q. Mr. Puran, what’s your interest in this p rocee ding? 18 proceeding? 19 A. I am going to be severely impacted as discussed 20 further in this testimony by the proposed siting 21 of a solar generating facility some of which will 22 be located only 200 feet from my property line. I h ave i nvest ed an d con tinue to in vest a 23 have invested and continue to invest a
3
433
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 significant amount of money to develop and build 2 on my land that had been abandoned for about 25 3 years before I purchased it, with the expectation 4 of a return of significant profit to fund my 5 retirement and to pass on financial inheritance t o my famil y. 6 to my family. 7 Over 400 acres of the proposed solar generating 8 facility will be visible from my residence and it 9 will be impossible to screen the solar panels 10 during the leaf-off months because my residence 11 is on a much higher topographic elevation than 12 where the panels will be located. During the 13 leaf-on months most of the panels will still be 14 visible from my residence despite the presence of 15 a hedgerow with trees over 50 feet tall that will p rovid e onl y min imal screen ing. 16 provide only minimal screening. I am a lso s evere ly co ncerne d abo ut gl are 17 I am also severely concerned about glare 18 impacting my residence. When I built my home, 19 there was no indication that a solar generating 20 facility would be located so close to my property 21 or else I would not have chosen to live there. 22 The High River Energy Center, LLC (Applicant) 23 “Supplement to the Application” (Deficiency
4
434
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 Filing) Appendix D filed May 22, 2020, states on p age 5 , "Th e res ults of the anal ysis also 2 page 5, "The results of the analysis also 3 indicate that there is no predicted glare at 4 observation point OP-47, the property located at 5 859 Bulls Head Road, Amsterdam, NY 12010." Thus, 6 the Applicant indicated that “no predicted glare” 7 will affect my property. While this is a bit 8 comforting it may, in fact, not be the case as 9 discussed later in this testimony, and so I would 10 like the Applicant to be ordered that should any 11 glint or glare be detected at my property, it m ust b e cor recte d wit hin on e mon th of 12 must be corrected within one month of 13 notification by the current resident living at 8 59 Bu lls H ead R oad, Amster dam, NY 12 010. 14 859 Bulls Head Road, Amsterdam, NY 12010. I am a lso s evere ly co ncerne d abo ut th e 15 I am also severely concerned about the 16 possibility of wildfires originating from the 17 proposed solar generating facility location next 18 to my residence during the no-burn season given 19 the extremely heavy wind that is experienced in t he ar ea. As di scuss ed fur ther in th is 20 the area. As discussed further in this t estim ony, I and the other membe rs of the 21 testimony, I and the other members of the 22 Citizens’ Panel are very concerned about the 23 Applicant’s Emergency Response Plan in terms of
5
435
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 procedures for identifying and responding to f ires in th e Pro ject Area. 2 fires in the Project Area. 3 In general, I am concerned about the location of 4 the proposed solar generating facility and I i ntend to h ighli ght i n this test imony the 5 intend to highlight in this testimony the 6 concerns of other members of Citizens that live 7 in the Town of Florida as well as those of other 8 residents in the Town of Florida who are not m ember s of the g roup but ha ve sh ared their 9 members of the group but have shared their c oncer ns wi th me . 10 concerns with me. 11 Q. Mr. Michalski, what’s your interest in this p rocee ding? 12 proceeding? 13 A. I read an article in The Recorder newspaper 14 (Amsterdam, NY) on August 2, 2019 about "Florida 15 farmer eyes solar leases for survival" by Winnie 16 Blackwood of the news staff. When I looked at the 17 aerial view of the proposed solar generating 18 facility, I became very upset because it’s in the d irect view of s ome h omes i n the Town of 19 direct view of some homes in the Town of 20 Amsterdam, across the Mohawk River. Although we 21 are about two miles away in terms of direct line- 22 of-sight, this proposed solar generating facility 23 will be highly visible given the expansive area
6
436
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
i t wil l cov er. 1 it will cover. 2 As a member of Citizens, I am concerned about the l ocati on of the propo sed so lar g enera ting 3 location of the proposed solar generating f acili ty an d I i ntend to hi ghlig ht in this 4 facility and I intend to highlight in this t estim ony t he co ncern s of o ther membe rs of 5 testimony the concerns of other members of 6 Citizens that live in the Town of Amsterdam as 7 well as those of other residents in the Town of 8 Amsterdam who are not members of the group but h ave s hared thei r con cerns with me. 9 have shared their concerns with me. Q . Mr. Sl ezak, what ’s you r int erest in t his 10 Q. Mr. Slezak, what’s your interest in this p rocee ding? 11 proceeding? A . I am a larg e-sca le far mer w ho fa rms o ver 12 A. I am a large-scale farmer who farms over 13 300 acres and my residence is situated at one of 14 the highest elevation in the Town of Florida so I 15 will be able to see the vast majority of the 16 proposed solar generating facility from my home. 17 I am deeply concerned about all aspects covered 18 in this testimony, however, I am personally 19 concerned about the effects the proposed solar g enera ting facil ity c an hav e on my fu ture 20 generating facility can have on my future 21 business decisions with regards to being able to s ub-di vide and s ell s ome of my l and f or 22 sub-divide and sell some of my land for 23 residential purposes. My ability to sell the
7
437
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 land is highly dependent on the scenic nature of t he lo catio ns. Havin g an e xpans ive s olar 2 the locations. Having an expansive solar g enera ting facil ity s ited i n the imme diate 3 generating facility sited in the immediate 4 vicinity of my lands and its interference with 5 the scenic nature of the area will likely greatly 6 reduce the interest of individuals in purchasing 7 my land, resulting in multi-million dollar losses t o me and m y fam ily. 8 to me and my family. 9 I am also extremely concerned about stormwater 10 runoff affecting my ability to farm my fields 11 because my farm fields are on lower elevations to w here panel s wil l be placed . I b eliev e the 12 where panels will be placed. I believe the p lacem ent o f pan els o n land that curr ently 13 placement of panels on land that currently 14 provides a breaking action to the stormwater 15 runoff will, once those lands are in a changed 16 condition, lead to severe erosion on my fields. I 17 understand that the Applicant will be evaluating s tormw ater runof f so I hope that spec ial 18 stormwater runoff so I hope that special 19 attention will be paid to prevent stormwater r unoff from affe cting my fi elds. 20 runoff from affecting my fields. 21 Finally, I am very concerned about the spread of 22 wildfires from sparks ignited by faulted panels 23 or wiring. This area is known for vicious winds
8
438
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 and a wildfire during the no-burn season can 2 bring devastation to this community just like w hat h appen ed in Cali fornia . 3 what happened in California. 4 Q. Mr. Slezak, given that you are a large-scale 5 farmer what is your opinion about the potential 6 loss of 1,425 acres of Agricultural lands where 7 the solar generating facility is proposed to be s ited? 8 sited? A . It tru ly br eaks my he art. I am t he th ird 9 A. It truly breaks my heart. I am the third 10 generation of my family who have lived here in 11 the Town of Florida since the early 1900s. My 12 family is of the strong belief that God has given u s thi s ric h pro ducti ve soi l to farm it to 13 us this rich productive soil to farm it to 14 provide food for the people. My son Mark, who is 15 also a member of Citizens, is actively engaged in 16 my farming business and wants to carry on our 17 family tradition of planting and harvesting the 18 land. The soil that is proposed to be used is 19 among the richest soil in Montgomery County. It 20 pains me that it seems like we are going to lose a lot of ou r pro ducti ve lan d for sola r 21 a lot of our productive land for solar 22 development. I support clean energy, but I 23 believe that the Applicant should not be allowed
9
439
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 to use our productive soil to host solar panels. 2 Upstate New York takes pride in our contribution 3 to agriculture and we cannot afford to lose our l ands for o ther purpo ses. 4 lands for other purposes. 5 Q. Mr. Slezak, were you approached to lease your l and t o a s olar gener ating compa ny? 6 land to a solar generating company? 7 A. Yes, I was offered a lot of money over a number o f yea rs to leas e my land. 8 of years to lease my land. Q . Did yo u acc ept t he of fer? 9 Q. Did you accept the offer? 10 A. No, I did not. For the reasons I stated before, 11 I do not believe agricultural lands should be 12 used for any other purposes than what God has 13 given it to us for. Further, it will severely 14 distress me to inconvenience the residents of 15 this beautiful scenic community to have their 16 views obstructed by solar panels. The people 17 have been here first and they would not want t heir commu nity chara cter t o be chang ed by 18 their community character to be changed by u nsigh tly s olar panel s. 19 unsightly solar panels. 20 Q. Mr. Slezak, there is growing concern that farming 21 is not profitable and it’s the main reason why f armer s are leas ing t heir l ands to so lar 22 farmers are leasing their lands to solar c ompan ies, what’ s you r opin ion o n thi s? 23 companies, what’s your opinion on this?
10
440
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 A. Farming is a profitable business but you have to 2 be ready to work hard to be successful. I do not 3 believe that farmers are leasing their lands 4 because it’s not profitable. I believe they are 5 leasing their lands for the money involved. The 6 New York State taxpayers are subsidizing the 7 Applicant through NYSERDA contracts, why can’t 8 this money be used to subsidize our farming to 9 make it even more profitable. I would be willing 10 to farm every tillable acre of land that High 11 River Energy Center proposes to use were the 12 subsidy given to them used instead to allow me to 13 lease the land from the farmers/owners so I can f arm i t. T he To wn of Flori da is a fa rming 14 farm it. The Town of Florida is a farming c ommun ity, let’s pres erve t hat! 15 community, let’s preserve that!
16 PANEL ISSUES 17 Q. Panel, please identify the issues you will be f urthe r tes tifyi ng to . 18 further testifying to. 19 A. We will be testifying to the Article 10 process 20 in this proceeding; location of the proposed 21 solar generating facility; visual impacts; glare 22 impacts; the Applicant’s request on substantive 23 Town Ordinances; and proposed construction days
11
441
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 and hours. Please note that we intend to address 2 additional issues not covered in this testimony d uring the remai nder of the proc eedin g. 3 during the remainder of the proceeding. Q . Are yo u pre senti ng an y exhi bits in th is 4 Q. Are you presenting any exhibits in this p rocee ding? 5 proceeding? 6 A. Yes. We relied upon a number of the Applicant’s 7 responses to our Information Requests, or IRs, 8 which are presented as Exhibit__(CP-1). We also p resen t Exh ibit_ __(CP -2) - Notic e Inv iting 9 present Exhibit___(CP-2) - Notice Inviting 10 Comments from the Siting Board in Case 17-F-0599; E xhibi t___( CP-3) – Fi re Cal l Rep ort; 11 Exhibit___(CP-3) – Fire Call Report; 12 Exhibit___(CP-4) – Visual Impacts; Exhibit___(CP- 13 5) – Glare Impacts; and Exhibit___(CP-6) – Town 14 of Florida Local Law #1 2019 Solar Ordinance. 15 Q. Is there anyone else testifying on your behalf? 16 A. Yes, Mr. Stephen B. Le Fevre from the consulting 17 firm Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C., is testifying on 18 behalf of the Town of Florida and Citizens.
19 Article 10 Process in this Proceeding 20 Q. Panel, what is Citizens’ view of the Article 10 p roces s in this proce eding? 21 process in this proceeding? 22 A. Citizens does not question the Siting Board’s a uthor ity f or si ting electr ic ge nerat ing 23 authority for siting electric generating
12
442
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 facilities with a proposed generating capacity of 2 5 MW or mo re un der A rticle 10. Howe ver, 2 25 MW or more under Article 10. However, 3 Citizens notes that Article 10 regulations do not 4 expressly contemplate or include the siting of 5 solar generating facilities, as they do for wind, n atura l gas powe r and nucle ar fa cilit ies. 6 natural gas power and nuclear facilities. 7 Indeed, the Memorandum and Resolution Adopting 8 the Article 10 Regulations, issued and effective 9 July 17, 2012, as well as the current version of 10 16 NYCRR § 1001 do not mention the word “solar” 11 at all and do not include any evaluation of the 12 siting of a solar generating facility. This 13 raises a concern that impacts specifically from 14 solar generating facilities, in contrast to other f orms of el ectri c gen eratio n, we re no t 15 forms of electric generation, were not 16 sufficiently evaluated during the drafting of the A rticl e 10 regul ation s. 17 Article 10 regulations. 18 In the One Commissioner Order (Order) in this 19 proceeding dated April 3, 2020 and confirmed by 20 the Siting Board on June 30, 2020, the Chair of 21 the Siting Board reversed the Examiners’ Ruling 22 on Party Status and Application Funding in this c ase t o the exte nt th e Exam iners ’ Rul ing 23 case to the extent the Examiners’ Ruling
13
443
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 authorized intervenor funding to examine the 2 potential impact of a project on property values n oting that neit her A rticle 10 n or th e 3 noting that neither Article 10 nor the 4 implementing regulations require or even mention 5 the impact of property values as an issue to be 6 examined in the application (Order, page 5). 7 Citizens does not agree with this Order. It 8 should be noted that both ad hoc members on the 9 Siting Board voted against confirming the Order. 10 Citizens also does not agree with the Chair of 11 the Siting Board’s March 13, 2020 letter in this 12 proceeding which stated that “the Article 10 13 application filed by High River Energy Center, 14 LLC, complies with Public Service Law (PSL) §164. 15 The application consists of a filing made on 16 October 11, 2019, together with a supplemental 17 filing made on February 18, 2020.” In Section 3 18 of the “Supplement to the Application,” dated 19 February 14, 2020, the Applicant, for the first t ime i n thi s pro ceedi ng, pr opose d usi ng an 20 time in this proceeding, proposed using an 21 additional 200-acre parcel of land to place solar 22 panels. In this filing the Applicant noted that 23 studies not provided in the original Application
14
444
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 materials or in the Supplement to the Application r egard ing t he is sues of gla re; g eotec hnica l 2 regarding the issues of glare; geotechnical e valua tion; wetl ands and ve rnal pool 3 evaluation; wetlands and vernal pool 4 delineations; invasive species surveys; breeding 5 bird survey; winter raptor survey; noise; visual 6 impact analysis; Phase IB archaeological testing; a nd la nd us e ass essme nt wer e exp ected to b e 7 and land use assessment were expected to be 8 submitted in May-June of 2020. Citizens does not 9 understand how the Application could have been 10 determined complete (i.e., comply with PSL §164) 11 prior to these studies being filed and evaluated 12 for completeness by DPS staff. It should be noted 13 that the proposed distance of the module setback 14 line for this additional 200-acre parcel is only 2 00 fe et fr om pa rcel bounda ries of ei ght 15 200 feet from parcel boundaries of eight p roper ties as in dicat ed in the A pplic ant’s 16 properties as indicated in the Applicant’s 17 response to Citizens information request (IR) 8 18 (Citizens IR-8). Citizens notes that the studies 19 mentioned above were provided in two batches on 20 May 15 and May 22, 2020, more than 2 months after 21 the Siting Board determined the application to be c omple te. G iven the v olume of in forma tion 22 complete. Given the volume of information 23 provided and the fact that members of Citizens
15
445
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 had to evaluate these studies on their own time, 2 we were not able to complete an in-depth review 3 in time for this testimony. As indicated before, 4 Citizens’ consultant Mr. Le Fevre is testifying 5 on our behalf on only limited issues which we can 6 afford to pay for by the intervenor funds we were a warde d. 7 awarded. 8 Finally, Citizens notes that a “Notice Inviting 9 Comments” on the proposed stipulations in this 10 case was not published for comments pursuant to 11 Public Service Law Section 163(5) and the Siting 12 Board rules, including 16 NYCRR §1000.5(j). A 13 copy of a “Notice Inviting Comments” in another c ase, Case 17-F- 0599 is pro vided as 14 case, Case 17-F-0599 is provided as 15 Exhibit__(CP-2) in order to show that such a 16 notice is required and has been published in 17 another proceeding. Citizens is aware of members 18 of the public who heard about the proposed siting 19 but were not aware of opportunities to comment in 20 this case. A “Notice Inviting Comments” in this 21 proceeding would have provided such opportunity. 22 Citizens respectfully requests that the Siting 23 Board address all the issues raised by us in this
16
446
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
t estim ony. 1 testimony.
2 Location of the Proposed Solar Generating 3 Facility 4 Q. Panel, what are your concerns about the location o f the prop osed solar gener ating faci lity? 5 of the proposed solar generating facility? A . Citize ns un derst ands the ne ed fo r ren ewabl e 6 A. Citizens understands the need for renewable 7 energy and is supportive of the State’s goal of 8 generating 50% of all electricity with renewable 9 resources by year 2030. However, specific to this 10 proceeding, we do not believe the State’s goal is 11 well served by the placement of a large-scale s olar gener ating faci lity i n a v ery s cenic 12 solar generating facility in a very scenic 13 farming community with many homes and on active 14 prime agricultural land. We believe that utility- 15 scale solar generating facilities are more aptly 16 placed in commercial or industrial zones or on 17 lands such as capped landfills, decommissioned 18 power plants, former mining areas and brownfield 19 sites. While such developments might have higher 20 initial financial costs, we believe the long-term 21 benefits of such siting will benefit the State as 22 a whole by not only preserving agricultural and s cenic land , but also by ma intai ning the 23 scenic land, but also by maintaining the
17
447
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
l ifest yle o f the near by res ident s and the 1 lifestyle of the nearby residents and the 2 character of the community in which they live. From p erson al ex perie nce, w e kno w tha t the 3 From personal experience, we know that the l ocati on of this prop osed s olar gener ating 4 location of this proposed solar generating 5 facility experiences very high winds lasting for h ours and a wild fire there could beco me 6 hours and a wildfire there could become 7 uncontrollable within minutes of its origin. 8 Consequently, the Citizens group is extremely 9 concerned about wildfires in the no-burn season t hat c an or igina te fr om a s olar gener ating 10 that can originate from a solar generating f acili ty lo cated in c lose p roxim ity t o 11 facility located in close proximity to r eside ntial buil dings . On p age 4 of t he 12 residential buildings. On page 4 of the P relim inary Oper ation and M ainte nance Plan 13 Preliminary Operation and Maintenance Plan 14 included as Appendix 5-3 of the Application, the A pplic ant s tates : 15 Applicant states: 16 During the operation and maintenance period 17 of the Project, vegetation will be mowed at 18 least twice a year within array fence lines 19 and will not be allowed to grow over the 20 height of the lowest portion of the panels. 21 Vegetation immediately around the outside of 22 fence lines will be mowed, maintained or 23 brush-hogged periodically, as needed, to
18
448
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
p reven t sha ding on th e pane ls an d to 1 prevent shading on the panels and to 2 facilitate maintenance along the fence line; 3 this brush removal or mowing will likely
4 take place every two to three years. All 5 brush removal and mowing clippings will be (em phasi s add ed). 6 left on-site (emphasis added). 7 Citizens is extremely concerned that leaving 8 brush and mowing clipping on-site will produce 9 fuel for wildfires. Electrical faults at the 10 proposed solar generating facility can result in 11 sparks or fires that can ignite the brush and 12 mowing clipping left on-site, thereby starting a 13 wildfire during the no-burn season. Citizens has 14 attached a “Call Sheet” from the Pattersonville 15 Volunteer Fire Department, see Exhibit__(CP-3), 16 of an electrical fire at the solar facility on R oute 5S in Patt erson ville to bo lster our 17 Route 5S in Pattersonville to bolster our 18 concerns about electrical fires starting at the 19 proposed solar generating facility. Notably, the 20 details on the Call Sheet indicate that there was n o shu t off at t he pa nel, w hich stres s the 21 no shut off at the panel, which stress the i mport ance of mo nitor ing wo rk at thes e 22 importance of monitoring work at these f acili ties. 23 facilities.
19
449
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 In its response to question 3 of Citizens IR-6, 2 the Applicant stated that “If a fire occurred 3 within the array area, the Site Leader would be a lerte d by the m onito ring c enter and the 4 alerted by the monitoring center and the 5 appropriate emergency responders and local fire d epart ments woul d be alerte d imm ediat ely 6 departments would be alerted immediately 7 thereafter by the Site Leader.” However, in its r espon se to ques tion 1 of C itize ns IR -6 th e 8 response to question 1 of Citizens IR-6 the 9 Applicant stated, “An operator will not be on- 10 site twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 11 however, the Facility will be monitored twenty- f our h ours a day , sev en day s a w eek b y the 12 four hours a day, seven days a week by the 13 Applicant’s Renewable Operations Control Center 14 (ROCC) located in Juno Beach, Florida.” Citizens 15 is extremely concerned with this process. First, 16 the fire will have to be detected by the ROCC 17 located in Florida 1,000 miles away, then the 18 Site Leader will have to be notified, and then 19 the appropriate emergency responders and local 20 fire departments will need to be contacted. 21 Obviously, this process is an extensive one and g iven that the l ocal fire d epart ment is a 22 given that the local fire department is a 23 volunteer force, response time to any wildfire
20
450
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
w ill b e eve n lon ger. 1 will be even longer. 2 Citizens urges the Siting Board to seriously 3 consider our concerns raised here and the danger 4 wildfires could pose to the local community, 5 bearing in mind the devastating wildfires in 6 California caused by the Pacific Gas & Electric C ompan y. 7 Company. 8 As noted in information request Citizens IR-13, 9 on June 16, 2002, a 70 mph tornado touched down 10 in the Town of Florida and on September 4, 2011, 11 a 110 mph tornado touched down in the vicinity of 12 the Project Area causing extensive physical 13 damage. In its response to Citizens IR-13, the 14 Applicant stated that “the solar panels, panel 15 racking system and foundations will be designed t o mee t the wind load requi remen ts of the 16 to meet the wind load requirements of the 17 Building Code of New York State. The Building 18 Code does not specifically require structures to 19 be designed to withstand wind speeds generated by 20 tornadoes.” Citizens is very concerned that the 21 placement of a solar generating facility in a 1 ,425 acre Proje ct Ar ea in extre mely close 22 1,425 acre Project Area in extremely close 23 proximity to people’s homes puts local residents
21
451
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 in danger from flying debris from the proposed 2 solar generating facility equipment that can be 3 ripped up in the event of a tornado. Citizens 4 urges the Siting Board to consider this potential s eriou s dan ger t o suc h resi dents . 5 serious danger to such residents. 6 On page 3 of Exhibit 8 of its Application the A pplic ant e stima ted t hat th e pro posed sola r 7 Applicant estimated that the proposed solar 8 generating facility will operate at an annual c apaci ty fa ctor of ap proxim ately 20%. Thi s 9 capacity factor of approximately 20%. This 10 simply means that the facility will only be 11 generating power one-fifth of the time and will 12 be dormant for the other four-fifths of the time 13 when sufficient sunlight is not available. From p erson al ex perie nce, we are awar e tha t the 14 personal experience, we are aware that the 15 proposed project area is prone to extremely dense 16 fog, very high snowfall and lasting snow cover 17 compared to lower elevation locations. Therefore, 18 it is yet to be seen if the proposed generating 19 facility will even produce power one-fifth of the 20 time. The only utility-scale solar facility with r ecord ed en ergy outpu t per the N ew Yo rk 21 recorded energy output per the New York 22 Independent System Operator (NYISO) Gold Book is 23 the “Long Island Solar Farm” in Long Island, New
22
452
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
Y ork a nd th at op erate s at a bout 19 pe rcent 1 York and that operates at about 19 percent 2 capacity factor under much less severe weather c ondit ions. 3 conditions. The Ap plica nt al so no ted on page 2 of its 4 The Applicant also noted on page 2 of its 5 Exhibit 8 that the proposed solar generating 6 facility is expected to reduce the State’s carbon 7 dioxide pollution by 0.19 percent, which is about t wo-te nths of on e per cent, a mea ger a mount . 8 two-tenths of one percent, a meager amount. C itize ns is trou bled that 1 ,425 acres of 9 Citizens is troubled that 1,425 acres of a gricu ltura l lan ds co uld be lost to h ost a 10 agricultural lands could be lost to host a 11 generating facility that will be dormant for the v ast m ajori ty of the time a nd wi ll ma ke 12 vast majority of the time and will make 13 negligible contribution to the reduction of 14 greenhouse gas and thus have negligible effect on 15 climate change. Citizens urges the Siting Board 16 to consider the costs versus the benefits of 17 losing active, prime agricultural lands to host a 18 generating facility that will have basically no c ontri butio n to rever sing c limat e cha nge. 19 contribution to reversing climate change.
20 Visual Impacts of the Proposed Solar Generating 21 Facility 22 Q. Panel, what are your concerns about the visual i mpact s of the p ropos ed sol ar ge nerat ing 23 impacts of the proposed solar generating
23
453
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
f acili ty? 1 facility? A . All th e res ident s we have s poken to h ave 2 A. All the residents we have spoken to have 3 indicated that they have chosen to live in the 4 Town of Florida and Town of Amsterdam because of 5 the unspoiled scenic beauty the area provides. 6 Some of our members have built their retirement h omes in th e are a to be abl e to enjoy the 7 homes in the area to be able to enjoy the 8 country-life and beautiful surroundings which the 9 area provides. The siting of a solar generating 10 facility as proposed, will destroy the viewshed 11 of the residents of the Town of Florida and Town 12 of Amsterdam and even those living in the City of A mster dam a s sho wn in Exhib it__( CP-4) and 13 Amsterdam as shown in Exhibit__(CP-4) and d iscus sed l ater in th is sec tion. 14 discussed later in this section. In Exh ibit 24 of its Octobe r 10, 2019 15 In Exhibit 24 of its October 10, 2019 A pplic ation , the Appl icant propo sed u sing 16 Application, the Applicant proposed using 17 vegetative screening in affected areas, but did 18 not depict the proposed vegetative screening in i ts si mulat ion a s req uired by 16 NYCR R § 19 its simulation as required by 16 NYCRR § 20 1001.24(b)(5) and (6)d and Stipulation 24(b)(6) 21 and (7). In Attachment G of its February 14, 2020 D efici ency Filin g, th e Appl icant prov ided 22 Deficiency Filing, the Applicant provided p hotog raphi c sim ulati ons to indi cate the 23 photographic simulations to indicate the
24
454
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 screening effects of proposed mitigation for 2 several Viewpoints. However, comparing pages 8 3 and 9 of 15 (PDF page references are used since 4 Attachment G has no page numbering), for example, 5 there is no distinction between the proposed 6 condition on page 8 and the “Landscape Mitigation 7 at 5 years” on page 9. That is, the proposed v egeta tive scree ning will n ot pr ovide any 8 vegetative screening will not provide any 9 screening, even after 5 years of growth. Citizens d oes n ot fi nd th is re sult t o be surpr ising 10 does not find this result to be surprising 11 because many of the residential homes lie at a h igher elev ation than where the panel s are 12 higher elevation than where the panels are 13 proposed to be situated and thus it will be 14 impossible to use vegetative screening to block t he vi ew of the panel s. Th is is clea rly 15 the view of the panels. This is clearly 16 demonstrated in our Exhibit__(CP-4) discussed l ater in th is se ction . 17 later in this section. 18 Citizens is also concerned about proposed tree 19 clearing to place solar panels in areas where the 20 trees would have provided natural vegetative 21 screening. In it response to Citizens IR-10, the A pplic ant s tated that it pr opose s to clear 22 Applicant stated that it proposes to clear 6 5.3 a cres of tr ees o f whic h 23. 2 acr es is 23 65.3 acres of trees of which 23.2 acres is
25
455
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
p ropos ed to be u sed t o loca te so lar p anels . 1 proposed to be used to locate solar panels. 2 In it response to question 7 of Citizens IR-10 3 which asked “Will removal of trees on tax parcel 4 88.-1-11, property owned by Envision Dairy LLC, 5 lessen the vegetative screening of the solar p anels prop osed to be place d at any o ther 6 panels proposed to be placed at any other 7 locations in the Project Area (e.g., tax parcels 8 88.-1-12 and 88.-1-13) from the residence located 9 at 859 Bulls Head Rd?”, the Applicant stated 10 generically that “Landscape Screening Plans for 11 the Alternative Layout will be submitted on or 12 about May 22, 2020.” Citizens could not find the 13 answer to question 7 in either of the Applicant’s 14 May 2020 filings and is very concerned that the 15 Applicant refused to answer this simple question. 16 Similar non-answers were provided to questions 12 17 and 17 of Citizens IR-10, which were identical to 18 question 7, except that they referenced different t ax pa rcels . 19 tax parcels. 20 Attachment M of the Deficiency Filing shows tree 21 clearing on properties owned by Envision Dairy 22 LLC, and Hutchison Family Irrev. Trust where 23 natural vegetative screening will be removed to
26
456
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 be replaced by solar panels. Citizens is very c oncer ned a bout this propos al an d urg es th e 2 concerned about this proposal and urges the 3 Siting Board to disallow any tree clearing in the 4 Project Area that would have otherwise provided 5 natural vegetative screening for any residence in 6 the Town of Florida and the Town of Amsterdam. 7 As mentioned before, the Applicant for the first 8 time in its February 14, 2020 Deficiency Filing 9 proposed using an additional 200-acre parcel of 10 land to place solar panels. In Section 3 of the 11 Deficiency Filing the Applicant stated, “By 12 adding modules on this parcel, some modules on 13 steeper slopes in Area 2 and the modules in Area 14 6 (between Pattersonville Road and Interstate 90) 15 are no longer proposed. The proposed Alternative 16 Layout will reduce impacts to steep slopes and 17 reduce visibility of the Project from the New 18 York State Thruway.” In its response to question 19 2-a of Citizens IR-8 asking, “Were the views of 20 the solar panels from the residences adjacent to 21 the relocated solar panels and from those located 22 in the Town of Amsterdam weighed against reducing 23 the visibility of the Project from the New York
27
457
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
S tate Thruw ay gi ven t hat th e vie ws fr om th e 1 State Thruway given that the views from the 2 adjacent residences will be permanent ones for 3 365 days per year” the Applicant stated “The A ltern ative Layo ut wa s desi gned to re locat e 4 Alternative Layout was designed to relocate m odule s awa y fro m Int erstat e 90 and 5 modules away from Interstate 90 and 6 Pattersonville Road, and away from steep slopes. 7 Potential visual impacts to residences along 8 Bullshead Road and those in the Town of Amsterdam 9 are being assessed and will be provided in an 10 update to the Visual Impact Assessment.” The 11 updated Visual Impact Assessment provided in the 12 Deficiency Filing did not provide an assessment 13 as why the new site was chosen over the original 14 proposed location, and therefore, the Applicant 15 failed to answer question 2-a of Citizens IR-8 16 mentioned above. This new proposed location is 17 only 200 feet from parcel boundaries of eight p roper ties as in dicat ed in the A pplic ant’s 18 properties as indicated in the Applicant’s 19 response to Citizens IR-8 and will be visible to 20 these land owners and possibly thousands of 21 residents in the City of Amsterdam 365 days per 22 year. This can be easily verified, if necessary, 23 by standing at the new proposed location and
28
458
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 looking at all the buildings that are visible. 2 It is obvious that the Applicant is giving more 3 weight to the visual impacts on passing motorists o n Int ersta te 90 than impac ts to poss ibly 4 on Interstate 90 than impacts to possibly t housa nds o f res ident s who will have their 5 thousands of residents who will have their 6 viewshed destroyed 365 days per year. Citizens 7 is frankly appalled by the Applicant’s lack of 8 concern for the direct and on-going visual impact o n res ident s and urge s the Sitin g Boa rd to 9 on residents and urges the Siting Board to s eriou sly c onsid er vi sual i mpact s to all 10 seriously consider visual impacts to all 11 residents that will have their viewshed destroyed 12 by the placement of panels in the 1,425 acres P rojec t Are a. 13 Project Area.
14 “Before and After” Photographs and Simulations The ph otogr aphs and s imulat ions shown in 15 The photographs and simulations shown in 16 Exhibit__(CP-4) were prepared by Jeanne Henderson 17 and Jake Sporn, working under Ms. Henderson's 18 direction. Ms. Henderson is a professional 19 photographer with over 25 years of photographic 20 experience and who owned her own photography 21 business, Living Proof Photography, until 2015. 22 During her career as a professional photographer s he wo rked on be half of num erous corp orate 23 she worked on behalf of numerous corporate
29
459
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 clients including Pepsi Bottling Corporation, 2 Hope House, and St. Mary’s Hospital. Mr. Sporn 3 is a professional photographer and owner, for 4 over 12 years, of Jake Sporn Photography. He is a lso e mploy ed by the Adiron dack Water shed 5 also employed by the Adirondack Watershed I nstit ute a t Pau l Smi th’s C olleg e. H e has 6 Institute at Paul Smith’s College. He has 7 substantial experience creating photographic s imula tions . 8 simulations. 9 The photographs of the existing views were shot 10 with the focal length of the lens set to render a 11 close interpretation of the human’s eye view and 12 were taken on March 21-22, 2020 and on May 12, 2 020. 13 2020. 14 The first four pictures on pages 1 through 8 of 15 Exhibit__(CP-4)show the “before and after” view 16 (i.e., a photograph of the existing view and a 17 simulation of the proposed solar panels) from the 18 Puran’s residence at 859 Bulls Head Road in the 19 Town of Florida. These pictures when placed side 20 by side give a panoramic view of the proposed 21 solar generating facility from this location. It 22 should be noted that some of the trees in the 23 hedgerow in the foreground are about 50 feet tall
30
460
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 and still do not provide any effective screening. 2 Also, most of the trees/shrubs in the hedgerow b elong s to the P urans who c an re move the 3 belongs to the Purans who can remove the 4 trees/shrubs at any time if so desired. However, 5 if the solar generating facility is sited, as 6 proposed, the Purans will be forced to keep the h edger ow in orde r to provid e eve n a m inima l 7 hedgerow in order to provide even a minimal 8 amount of screening. Thus, as a result of the 9 proposed project, the Purans enjoyment of and 10 freedom to do what they wish with their property 11 will be severely restricted. This should not be t he ca se. 12 the case. 13 The pictures on pages 9 and 10 of Exhibit__(CP-4) s how t he “b efore and after” view (i.e ., a 14 show the “before and after” view (i.e., a 15 photograph of the existing view and a simulation 16 of the proposed solar panels) from the VanDetta’s 17 residence at 1005 Bulls Head Road in the Town of 18 Florida. Again, as clearly demonstrated by the 19 simulation on page 10, the hedgerow shown will 20 not provide screening of the proposed solar g enera ting facil ity. 21 generating facility. 22 The pictures on pages 11 and 12 of Exhibit__(CP- 23 4) show the “before and after” view (i.e., a
31
461
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 photograph of the existing view and a simulation o f the prop osed solar panel s) fr om Ma rk an d 2 of the proposed solar panels) from Mark and 3 Brittany Slezak’s residence at 937 Bulls Head 4 Road in the Town of Florida. Again, as clearly 5 demonstrated by the simulation on page 12, the 6 hedgerow shown, even though fairly tall, will not p rovid e scr eenin g of the pr opose d sol ar 7 provide screening of the proposed solar 8 generating facility. It will be impossible for 9 the Applicant to provide screening from this 10 location because of its higher elevation compared t o whe re th e sol ar ge nerati ng fa cilit y is 11 to where the solar generating facility is p ropos ed to be s ited. 12 proposed to be sited. The pi cture s on pages 13 th rough 20 o f 13 The pictures on pages 13 through 20 of 14 Exhibit__(CP-4) show the “before and after” view 15 (i.e., a photograph of the existing view and a 16 simulation of the proposed solar panels) from 17 David and Cheryl Slezak’s property on Mohr Road 18 in the Town of Florida. The Slezak’s own over 19 300 acres of land which they might want to sub- 20 divide and sell at some point. Given the high e levat ion o f the ir pr operty , it will be 21 elevation of their property, it will be 22 impossible for the Applicant to provide screening 23 and therefore the viewshed from the Slezak’s
32
462
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
p roper ty wi ll be dest royed as sh own i n the 1 property will be destroyed as shown in the s imula tions . 2 simulations. The pi cture s on pages 21 th rough 24 o f 3 The pictures on pages 21 through 24 of 4 Exhibit__(CP-4) show the “before and after” view 5 (i.e., a photograph of the existing view and a 6 simulation of the proposed solar panels) from the 7 Michalski’s residence at 1205 Touareuna Road in 8 the Town of Amsterdam across the Mohawk River. 9 As clearly demonstrated by the simulations the 10 extremely tall trees in the foreground are not 11 tall enough to provide screening of the proposed 12 solar generating facility. It will be impossible 13 for the Applicant to provide screening for this 14 location because of its higher elevation compared t o whe re th e sol ar ge nerati ng fa cilit y is 15 to where the solar generating facility is 16 proposed to be sited. This will destroy the 17 Michalski’s viewshed, something they treasured 18 and the reason they built their home there. 19 The pictures on pages 25 and 26 of Exhibit__(CP- 20 4) show the “before and after” view (i.e., a 21 photograph of the existing view and a simulation 22 of the proposed solar panels) from the McDonald’s 23 residence at 274 Swart Hill Road in the Town of
33
463
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 Amsterdam across the Mohawk River. Again, as 2 clearly demonstrated by the simulations, it will b e imp ossib le fo r the Appli cant to pr ovide 3 be impossible for the Applicant to provide 4 screening for this location because of its higher 5 elevation compared to where the solar generating 6 facility is proposed to be sited. This will 7 destroy the McDonald’s viewshed, something they t reasu red a nd th e rea son th ey ch ose t o liv e 8 treasured and the reason they chose to live t here. 9 there. The pi cture s on pages 27 th rough 30 o f 10 The pictures on pages 27 through 30 of 11 Exhibit__(CP-4) show the “before and after” view 12 (i.e., a photograph of the existing view and a 13 simulation of the proposed solar panels) from the 14 Martuscello’s residence at 258 Swart Hill Road in 15 the Town of Amsterdam across the Mohawk River. O nce a gain, as c learl y demo nstra ted b y the 16 Once again, as clearly demonstrated by the s imula tions , it will be imp ossib le fo r the 17 simulations, it will be impossible for the 18 Applicant to provide screening for this location 19 because of its higher elevation compared to where 20 the solar generating facility is proposed to be 21 sited. This will destroy the Martuscello’s 22 viewshed, something they treasured and the reason t hey c hose to li ve th ere. 23 they chose to live there.
34
464
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 The pictures on pages 31 and 32 of Exhibit__(CP- 2 4) show the “before and after” view (i.e., a 3 photograph of the existing view and a simulation 4 of the proposed solar panels) from a popular 5 sight-seeing location on Swart Hill Road in the 6 Town of Amsterdam across the Mohawk River. As 7 stressed over and over, as clearly demonstrated 8 by the simulations it will be impossible for the 9 Applicant to provide screening for this location 10 because of its higher elevation compared to where 11 the solar generating facility is proposed to be 12 sited. This will destroy the viewshed of the 13 many visitors who usually stop at this location t o enj oy th e vie w. 14 to enjoy the view. 15 The pictures on pages 33 and 34 of Exhibit__(CP- 16 4) show the “before and after” view (i.e., a 17 photograph of the existing view and a simulation 18 of the proposed solar panels) from a popular 19 sight-seeing location on Krutz Road in the Town 20 of Amsterdam across the Mohawk River. As clearly d emons trate d by the s imulat ions it wi ll be 21 demonstrated by the simulations it will be 22 impossible for the Applicant to provide screening 23 for this location because of its higher elevation
35
465
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 compared to where the solar generating facility 2 is proposed to be sited. This will destroy the 3 viewshed of the many visitors who usually stop at t his l ocati on to enjo y the view. 4 this location to enjoy the view. 5 Finally, the picture on page 35 taken from the 6 Puran’s residence at 859 Bulls Head Road in the 7 Town of Florida shows a small section of the 8 properties in the City of Amsterdam that will 9 have their viewshed destroyed by the proposed 10 solar generating facility if allowed to be built. 11 Given the negligible effects the proposed solar g enera ting facil ity w ill ha ve in prod ucing 12 generating facility will have in producing 13 electricity and its negligible contribution to 14 carbon dioxide reduction and climate change as 15 discussed previously, Citizens urges the Siting 16 Board to carefully consider the harmful effects 17 the proposed solar generating facility will have 18 on the viewshed of thousands of residents who 19 will have a direct view of the proposed solar p anels 365 days per y ear as well as t hose 20 panels 365 days per year as well as those 21 visitors seeking to enjoy the existing scenic and n atura l vie ws of the area. 22 natural views of the area.
23 Glare Impacts
36
466
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 A. The Applicant tries to downplay the effects of 2 glare, stating on page 20 of Exhibit 24 of its 3 Application that “no significant impacts from 4 glare are expected as a result of the Project.” 5 The Applicant further stated in its response to 6 question 1 of Citizens IR-5, that the maximum 7 duration of potential glare ranging from five to 8 20 minutes per day will occur between the hours 9 of 6 am to 7 am and between 5 pm and 6 pm Eastern 10 Standard Time. Moreover, in its response to 11 question 2 of Citizens IR-5 which asked the 12 Applicant to explain how it intends to comply 13 with the Town of Florida Zoning Ordinance Article 14 VIII, Section 45.5.C.2. Specific Standards for 15 Large-Scale Solar Systems as a Special Use, 16 Section h, which requires that the materials used f or th e Sol ar En ergy System “sha ll no t be 17 for the Solar Energy System “shall not be 18 conducive to glare visible from beyond the lot’s 19 boundary lines” the Applicant stated that “solar 20 panels are designed to reflect only about 2 21 percent of incoming light, so issues with glare 22 from photovoltaic panels are rare.” Notably, the 23 Applicant did not request the Siting Board to
37
467
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
e lect not t o app ly th e loca l sub stant ive 1 elect not to apply the local substantive 2 requirements of Article VIII, Section 45.5.C.2. 3 Therefore, the Town of Florida will be in charge o f enf orcin g the prov ision requi ring the 4 of enforcing the provision requiring the 5 materials used for the Solar Energy System “shall 6 not be conducive to glare visible from beyond the l ot’s bound ary l ines. ” 7 lot’s boundary lines.” 8 Regardless of the Applicant’s statements that 9 there will be no significant impacts from glare 10 and that glare occur between the hours of 6am to 11 7am and between 5pm and 6pm Eastern Standard 12 Time, Citizens personal experience is strikingly 13 different. Some Citizens members have personally 14 witnessed blinding glare from the small-scale 15 solar facilities on Route 30 in the Town of 16 Florida and Route 67 in the Town of Johnstown. P ictur e 1 o f Exh ibit_ _(CP-5 ) was take n by 17 Picture 1 of Exhibit__(CP-5) was taken by 18 Mr. Puran and shows blinding glare from the solar 19 panels on Route 30 in the Town of Florida when 20 the sun was high in the sky. This is an accurate 21 depiction of the view from that location and t here was n o pho tosho pping of th is im age. 22 there was no photoshopping of this image. P ictur e 2 o f Exh ibit_ _(CP-5 ) was take n by 23 Picture 2 of Exhibit__(CP-5) was taken by
38
468
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 Mr. Michalski at his residence at 1205 Touareuna 2 Road in the Town of Amsterdam and shows blinding 3 glare from a single residence very close to where
4 solar panels are proposed to be sited. Similarly, p ictur e 3 o f Exh ibit_ _(CP-5 ) was take n by 5 picture 3 of Exhibit__(CP-5) was taken by 6 Citizens member Mr. Martuscello at his residence 7 at 258 Swart Hill Road in the Town of Amsterdam 8 and shows blinding glare from the same residence 9 as in picture 2. These pictures cause grave 10 concern to Citizens members because if they are 11 currently subjected to this level of glare from a 12 single residence, the potential effects of glare 13 from the proposed solar generating facility in 14 the 1,425 acres Project Area will undoubtedly be s ubsta ntial ly wo rse. 15 substantially worse. 16 We also spoke to many residents in the Town of F lorid a and Town of A msterd am wh o are very 17 Florida and Town of Amsterdam who are very 18 concerned about the effects of glare on their 19 homes. Occupants of houses that were built before 20 the proposed solar generating facility should not 21 have to suffer from the effects of glare for any 22 amount of time. Table 2 of “Attachment D. Update 23 to Glint and Glare Alternative Layout” of the
39
469
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 Applicant’s Deficiency Filing shows a number of 2 residences and road locations beyond the Project 3 boundary lines that will be subject to as much as 4 56.6 hours of glare per year. These are just the l ocati ons s tudie d. T here a re po tenti ally 5 locations studied. There are potentially 6 thousands of residents that could be affected. W e saw in E xhibi t__(C P-5) t hat g lare from a 7 We saw in Exhibit__(CP-5) that glare from a 8 single residence in the Town of Florida severely 9 affects at least two residences in the Town of 10 Amsterdam located 2 miles away. Citizens notes 11 that glare is not limited to the solar panel 12 surfaces, glare can originate from the racking s ystem mate rials if t hey ha ve re flect ive 13 system materials if they have reflective 14 surfaces. Therefore, Citizens urges the Siting 15 Board to carefully consider the effects of glare t hat c ould affec t pot ential ly th ousan ds of 16 that could affect potentially thousands of 17 residents who are in the direct line-of-sight of 18 the proposed solar generating facility. The 19 Siting Board should require a health analysis of 20 the potential effects of glare on residents if it 21 chooses to allow a solar generating facility to b e sit ed in the midst of th ese r eside ntial 22 be sited in the midst of these residential c ommun ities . 23 communities.
40
470
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 Applicant’s Request on Substantive Town 2 Ordinances 3 On page 5 of Exhibit 31 of its Application, the 4 Applicant requested that the Siting Board elect 5 not to apply 11 substantive requirements of the 6 Town of Florida zoning ordinance. Citizens is 7 opposed to the Siting Board electing not to apply t he 11 subs tanti ve re quirem ents becau se th e 8 the 11 substantive requirements because the 9 zoning ordinances were carefully considered by 10 the Town Board when it adopted Local Law No. 1 of t he ye ar 20 19, s ee Ex hibit_ _(CP- 6). 11 the year 2019, see Exhibit__(CP-6). 12 Specifically, on page 4 of Exhibit__(CP-6) the T own B oard found : 13 Town Board found: Large Scale Sola r Ene rgy Sy stems are 14 Large Scale Solar Energy Systems are 15 permitted only in the C-1 Commercial, C-2 16 Commercial, Industrial Business Parks, and 17 Natural Products zoning districts of the 18 Town of Florida and only upon issuance of a 19 special use permit and site plan approval 20 and compliance with the general standards 21 and requirements in these regulations as 22 well as the following requirements and 23 standards. As is set forth below, the size
41
471
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 of a Large Scale Solar Energy System is r estri cted in th e Tow n of F lorid a. Th e 2 restricted in the Town of Florida. The 3 reason for restriction is that the Town’s 4 current community character and economic 5 well-being is dependent upon its natural 6 resources and setting, its scenic views, its h istor ic pl aces and b uildin gs, i ts 7 historic places and buildings, its a gricu ltura l his tory and it s out door 8 agricultural history and its outdoor 9 recreation and tourism opportunities. The 10 future of the Town in terms of both its 11 economy and the welfare of its residents 12 depends on the continual preservation and 13 promotion of such vital aspects of the Town. 14 In this regard, the Town Board specifically 15 finds that any Large Scale Solar Energy 16 System greater in size than what is allowed 17 by special use permit or otherwise as is set f orth herei n wil l be contra ry to the 18 forth herein will be contrary to the 19 community character and the future economic 20 viability of the Town and would unreasonably 21 burden the residents, taxpayers and the 22 electric rate payers of the Town of Florida. Citize ns is part icula rly op posed to t he 23 Citizens is particularly opposed to the
42
472
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 Applicant’s request that the Siting Board elect 2 not to apply Article VIII Section 45.5.C.2.a of 3 the Town of Florida Zoning Ordinance, relative to 4 height and setbacks, which states the following: 5 The Solar Energy System shall have a maximum h eight of t wenty (20) feet from groun d 6 height of twenty (20) feet from ground 7 elevation and shall be setback at a minimum 8 of five hundred (500) feet from all of the 9 parcel’s boundary lines and two hundred 10 (200) feet from all wetlands, ponds and 11 streams. Buildings and accessory structures 12 other than Solar Energy Equipment, if any, 13 shall adhere to the height and setback r equir ement s of the u nderly ing z oning 14 requirements of the underlying zoning d istri ct. 15 district. 16 Specifically, the Applicant requests that the 17 Siting Board elect not to apply the section 18 requiring setback at a minimum of five hundred 19 (500) feet from all of the parcel’s boundary 20 lines. Citizens is terrified by this request. 21 Citizens has no knowledge of any other utility 22 scale generating facility being sited 200 feet 23 from residential parcels’ boundary lines as
43
473
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 requested by the Applicant. This request could 2 set a frightening precedent. Citizens believes 3 that even the 500 foot setback, as required in t he To wn’s ordin ance, is to o clo se to a 4 the Town’s ordinance, is too close to a 5 residential parcel’s boundary lines, especially 6 given that the Town clearly intended Large Scale 7 Solar Energy Systems to be permitted only in the C -1 Co mmerc ial, C-2 C ommerc ial, Indus trial 8 C-1 Commercial, C-2 Commercial, Industrial B usine ss Pa rks, and N atural Prod ucts zonin g 9 Business Parks, and Natural Products zoning 10 districts. Citizens pleads with the Siting Board 11 to reject the Applicant’s request that the Siting 12 Board elect not to apply Article VIII Section 4 5.5.C .2.a of th e Tow n of F lorid a Zon ing 13 45.5.C.2.a of the Town of Florida Zoning O rdina nce. 14 Ordinance.
15 Proposed Construction Days and Hours 16 Q. What is the construction schedule proposed by the A pplic ant? 17 Applicant? A . In Exh ibit 19 of its Defici ency Filin g the 18 A. In Exhibit 19 of its Deficiency Filing the 19 Applicant stated that “On-site construction 20 activity is anticipated to last approximately 21 nine months in total and will generally occur 22 within the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm, Monday 23 through Saturday, assuming favorable weather.
44
474
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 Should work be required outside these days/hours, t he Ap plica nt wi ll no tify t he To wn an d DPS 2 the Applicant will notify the Town and DPS S taff. ” 3 Staff.” 4 Q. What is the Panel’s opinion of the construction s chedu le pr opose d by the Ap plica nt? 5 schedule proposed by the Applicant? 6 A. The length and schedule proposed by the Applicant 7 clearly show its disdain for and utter lack of c oncer n for the well- being of th e loc al 8 concern for the well-being of the local 9 residential community. It is wholly inconsiderate 10 and highly problematic to propose construction 11 from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, Monday through Saturday f or a 9-mon th pe riod in a r eside ntial 12 for a 9-month period in a residential 13 neighborhood. Additionally, it is likely that 14 there will pre-construction activities before 15 7:00 am so that construction can commence each 16 day precisely at 7:00am. In reality, therefore, 17 the homeowners surrounding the Project Area will 18 be subject to noise and other negative impacts v ery e arly each day l ong be fore 7:00 am. 19 very early each day long before 7:00 am. 20 Moreover, allowing construction to take place 21 after 5:00 pm will subject the local residents to 22 noise and other disturbances for the key hours 23 after they have returned home from work, a time
45
475
Case Number 17-F-0597 Citizens Panel
1 when people seek to rest and enjoy time with t heir famil ies. Simil arly, weeke nds a re a 2 their families. Similarly, weekends are a 3 treasured and special time for homeowners, one 4 which will be severely and negatively interrupted 5 if construction is allowed on Saturdays. In sum, 6 the hours proposed by the Applicant will result 7 in a huge negative impact on residents' use and 8 enjoyment of their property and on the quality of 9 life of the local residential community. In the 10 event that the Siting Board approves the siting o f the prop osed solar gener ating faci lity, 11 of the proposed solar generating facility, 12 despite the significant and valid reasons set 13 forth in this testimony to deny the Application, 14 Citizens strongly urges the Siting Board to 15 reject the Applicant's proposed construction 16 hours and limit construction hours to 8:00 am to 5 :00 p m, Mo nday throu gh Fri day. 17 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. 18 Q. Does this conclude your testimony at this time? 19 A. Yes, however, because of the time constraints r esult ing f rom t he Ju ly 1, 2020 Rulin g on 20 resulting from the July 1, 2020 Ruling on 21 Schedule in this proceeding, we have not been 22 able to addresses all issues facing Citizens’ m ember s at this time. 23 members at this time.
46
476
NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT ______
In the Matter of the Application of High River Energy Center, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Case No. 17-F-0597 Pursuant to Article 10 of the Public Service Law for Construction Of a Solar Electric Generation Facility Located in the Town of Florida, Montgomery County ______
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF BRIANNA DENONCOUR
Division of Fish and Wildlife New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
July 17, 2020 477 Case No. 17-F-0597 DENONCOUR
1 WITNESS INTRODUCTION
2 Q. What is the witness’ name, employer, title and business address?
3 A. My name is Brianna Denoncour. I have been employed by the New York State Department
4 of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC or the Department) in the Division of Fish and Wildlife,
5 Bureau of Ecosystem Health (formerly known as the Bureau of Habitat) as a Wildlife Biologist and
6 Avian Ecologist for 15 years. I currently work in the NYSDEC Central Office located in Albany,
7 New York.
8 Q. Ms. Denoncour, what are your educational background, experience, and professional
9 certifications?
10 A. Please see a copy of my resume marked as NYSDEC-BD-1.
11 Q. What are your responsibilities at the Department?
12 A. As a Wildlife Biologist, I participate in the programmatic oversight for the State’s
13 statutory and regulatory threatened and endangered species programs. In this capacity, I assist in
14 the implementation of Article 11 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL and Article 11), and
15 its implementing regulations set forth in Part 182 of Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes,
16 Rules and Regulations of the State of York (6 NYCRR Part 182). Included in this oversight is
17 the review of Article 11 permit applications, as well as compliance with the requirements of Article
18 11 and its implementing regulations for projects reviewed under Article 10 of the Public Service
19 Law (Article 10) and the Department’s assessment of potential and realized impacts to birds and
20 bats at wind and solar energy projects.
21 Q. What is your experience regarding rare, threatened, and endangered species, and
22 review of proposed solar energy projects?
1 478 Case No. 17-F-0597 DENONCOUR
1 A. I coordinate the Department’s review of potential impacts that major wind and solar energy
2 development projects have on wildlife and terrestrial habitats, including State-listed birds and bats,
3 grasslands, and forests. This is for projects reviewed under Article 10 as well as those reviewed
4 under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR).
5 I have reviewed many proposed Article 10 projects, including for wind and solar energy
6 development, as well as a Part 182 permit application for impacts to State-listed threatened and
7 endangered species. For example, I worked on the Hounsfield Wind Farm Part 182 permit and
8 provided testimony as an expert witness in several Article 10 proceedings regarding impacts to
9 threatened and endangered species. I have also been involved in developing protocols for conducting
10 surveys targeting State-listed breeding and wintering grassland bird species, and I drafted and
11 oversaw the release and implementation of the Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at
12 Commercial Wind Energy Projects (2009, revised 2016) (Guidelines).
13 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
14 A. The purpose of my testimony is to provide an overview of the State’s threatened and
15 endangered species program, and, specifically, how the ECL, i t s implementing regulations, and
16 responsibilities regarding the protection of wildlife should be applied when assessing, avoiding,
17 minimizing, and mitigating the impacts of solar energy projects on threatened and endangered bat
18 and bird species (collectively, listed species). The High River Energy Center (the Project), as currently
19 proposed, is not anticipated to adversely impact any listed species. Nonetheless, High River Energy
20 Center, LLC (Applicant) has agreed to certificate conditions acceptable to the Department that are
21 protective of listed species and meant to prevent species take during construction, operation, restoration,
22 and maintenance of the Project.
2 479 Case No. 17-F-0597 DENONCOUR
1 Q. What information has provided the basis for your testimony?
2 A. My testimony is based on the Project application— specifically Exhibit 22 and
3 corresponding Appendices—submitted by High River Energy Center, LLC on October 11, 2019 ,
4 together with Supplement filed on February 18, 2020 (collectively, the Application), and the
5 document entitled “Proposed High River Energy Center Certificate Conditions” dated July 17, 2020
6 (Proposed Certificate Conditions) and corresponding Appendix A containing the document entitled
7 “Guidance For The Development of Site Engineering And Environmental Plan” (SEEP Guide) filed
8 with the Secretary on July 17, 2020. I reviewed all the above-referenced materials in the context of
9 ensuring that the Project meets the requirements of Article 11 and Part 182.
10 Q. Based on data available to NYSDEC, what listed species have been documented within
11 or near the Project?
12 A. The Department does not have record of any listed species occupied habitat documented
13 within the Project area. Possible and confirmed occupied habitat for the following listed species
14 occurs immediately adjacent to the Project and within five miles of the Project area: northern harrier
15 (Circus hudsonius), upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), sedge wren (Cistothorus stellaris)
16 (collectively, listed grassland bird species), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and peregrine
17 falcon (Falco peregrinus). These species may utilize the Project area in some capacity now, and if
18 they engage in nesting or roosting activities, or the Project area otherwise becomes occupied habitat,
19 there is a potential listed species could be adversely impacted by the construction, operation,
20 restoration or maintenance of the Project. The Proposed Certificate Conditions are intended to
21 protect the Applicant from violating Part 182 and harming a listed species without appropriate
22 avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures in place.
3 480 Case No. 17-F-0597 DENONCOUR
1 Q. What does occupied habitat mean?
2 A. Occupied habitat is defined as the areas where listed species have been documented
3 exhibiting “essential behaviors.” Essential behaviors include the following: breeding, hibernation,
4 reproduction, feeding, sheltering, migration, movement, and overwintering. The Department
5 considers such areas to remain occupied by a species until suitable habitat no longer exists, or until
6 appropriate surveys of sufficient duration and effort demonstrate the likely absence of the species at
7 the site.
8 Q. How may solar projects impact listed species?
9 A. Solar projects have the potential to impact listed species if the project is sited in occupied
10 habitat, if project-related activities occur during a time of year listed species may be present, or if
11 listed species move into or adjacent to the project area after construction is completed, and a project
12 then contains occupied habitat. Here are some examples:
13 The siting of solar project components in listed grassland bird species occupied habitat
14 removes the functionality of the open fields that these species require for essential behaviors, and is
15 considered a take of occupied habitat. If disturbance activities associated with the construction,
16 operation, restoration or maintenance of a project occur within grassland bird occupied habitat,
17 individual birds may be killed or injured if such activities are conducted during the time when birds
18 may be present. To avoid potential take of listed grassland bird species individuals, no disturbance
19 activities in occupied habitat are allowed between November 1 and March 31 if wintering species
20 are at issue, and between August 16 and April 22 if breeding species are at issue. If both wintering
21 and breeding species are present, disturbance activities may only occur between April 1 and April
22 22, and between August 16 and October 31. While listed grassland bird species occupied habitat is
4 481 Case No. 17-F-0597 DENONCOUR
1 not currently known to occur within the Project area, should any occupied habitat be documented in
2 the Project in the future, the Certificate Holder will be required to adhere to these date restrictions
3 when undertaking disturbance activities as part of the Project’s construction, operation, restoration,
4 and maintenance.
5 If tree clearing activities associated with the construction, operation or maintenance of a
6 project occur within northern long-eared bat occupied habitat (e.g., within one and one half miles of
7 known maternity roosts, or five miles of hibernacula), individual bats may be killed or injured if
8 such activities are conducted during the time when bats may be present in and around the trees. To
9 avoid potential take of Northern long-eared bats, all tree clearing in occupied habitat must take place
10 between November 1 and March 31. While northern long-eared bat occupied habitat is not currently
11 known to occur within the Project, should any occupied habitat be documented in the Project in the
12 future, the Certificate Holder will be required to adhere to these date restrictions when undertaking
13 tree clearing activities as part of the Project’s construction, operation, restoration, and maintenance.
14 APPLICATION OF PART 182
15 Q. Does Part 182 apply to the Project?
16 A. No, not as currently proposed.
17 Q. What is the summary of the application of Part 182?
18 A. Part 182 requires that the Applicant first avoid all impacts to listed species, to the extent
19 practicable. If such impacts cannot be fully avoided based on a showing by the Applicant that full
20 avoidance is impracticable, then the Applicant is required to minimize impacts to listed species to
21 the maximum extent practicable. If impacts are demonstrated to be unavoidable, the Applicant
22 must provide appropriate and effective mitigation, resulting in a net conservation benefit.
5 482 Case No. 17-F-0597 DENONCOUR
1 As stated above, as currently designed the Project is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact to
2 any listed species. The Applicant has agreed to Proposed Certificate Conditions acceptable to the
3 Department that are protective of listed species and meant to prevent a take should listed species enter or
4 make use of the Project area during construction, operation, restoration, and maintenance of the Project.
5 PROPOSED CERTIFICATE CONDITIONS
6 Q. Has the Applicant proposed any certificate conditions to be included in an Article 10
7 Certificate that would be issued by the Siting Board?
8 A. Yes. The Applicant’s Proposed Certificate Conditions and SEEP Guide capture all of
9 Department staff’s recommendations to ensure that the Project complies with the requirements of
10 the ECL, including Article 11, and implementing associated regulations including Part 182.
11 Q. Do you hold your opinions to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Does this conclude your direct testimony on these topics at this time?
14 A. Yes, it does.
6 483
NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
______
In the Matter of the Application of High River Energy Center, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Case No. 17-F-0597 Pursuant to Article 10 of the Public Service Law for Construction Of a Solar Electric Generation Facility Located in the Town of Florida, Montgomery County
______
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF GEORGETTE WALTERS
Biologist for the Bureau of Ecosystem Health Division of Fish and Wildlife New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
July 17, 2020 Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 484
1 WITNESS INTRODUCTION
2 Q. Will you please state your name, employer, title, and business location?
3 A. My name is Georgette Walters. I am employed by the New York State Department of
4 Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC or Department), Division of Fish and Wildlife, as a Biologist for
5 the Bureau of Ecosystem Health in the NYSDEC Region 4 Office, Stamford, New York.
6 Q. Will you please describe your educational background and professional certifications?
7 A. Please see a copy of my resume marked as NYSDEC-GW-1.
8 Q. What are your responsibilities in your position at the Department?
9 A. In my position, I am responsible for programmatic oversight of the State’s statutory and regulatory
10 Freshwater Wetland Protection and the Protection of Waters Programs in Region 4, which includes
11 Albany, Schenectady, Rensselaer, Montgomery, Columbia, Greene, Schoharie, Delaware, and Otsego
12 counties. In this capacity, I oversee the implementation of Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation
13 Law (ECL) (Article 15) and associated State regulations, Article 24 of the ECL (Article 24) and associated
14 State regulations, and, as applicable, State water quality standards applicable to Section 401 of the Federal
15 Water Pollution Control Act (CWA) and associated State regulations. Included in this oversight is my
16 responsibility to review Article 15, Article 24, and CWA permit applications, including State water
17 quality certificates applications, for projects that involve potential impacts to protected waters and
18 wetlands of the State as well as ensuring proper delineation of State-regulated wetland boundaries and
19 identification of state waters.
20 Q. Will you please summarize your experience regarding wetlands and review of proposed solar
21 projects?
22 A. I have delineated a considerable number of wetlands and reviewed the permit applications for
23 activities in and near wetlands that were associated with the above referenced delineations, including for
2
Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 485
1 solar projects and other development activities. I have also conducted stream surveys and reviewed many
2 permit applications for activities proposed in and near streams. I have reviewed several solar projects that
3 required Article 15 permits, Article 24 permits, and/or State water quality certificates, or that must meet
4 the corresponding statutory and regulatory standards, to be constructed. These projects include those
5 subject to Article 10 of the Public Service Law (Article 10), such as the High River Energy Center project
6 (the Project), and those which were reviewed pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
7 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony today?
8 A. The purpose of my testimony is to provide an overview of the Department’s implementation of
9 Article 9, Article 15, Article 24, and the State water quality program pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA,
10 including the associated regulations found in Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and
11 Regulations of the State of New York (6 NYCRR) Parts 575, 608, 663, 664, 701, 702, 703, 704, and 750.
12 In that context, I will discuss the following: (1) the factors the Department considers in making regulatory
13 determinations pursuant to the applicable statutes and regulations, (2) how these factors apply to the
14 Project, and (3) whether the Project has met the applicable State statutory and regulatory standards. I am
15 advised by Department Counsel that the wetlands program, with its attendant statutory and regulatory
16 authority, as well as State water quality standards, apply to the Project, as proposed, and to the
17 deliberations by the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting
18 Board) pursuant to Article 10. Accordingly, my testimony discusses how the Siting Board must apply the
19 statutory and regulatory programs outlined above to its deliberations under Article 10 to ensure the
20 Project’s compliance therewith, should it decide to approve the Project.
21 Q. What information was provided for the basis of your testimony?
22 A. My testimony is based on the Project application, submitted by High River Energy Center, LLC,
23 specifically Exhibits 22 and 23 and corresponding Appendices, together with supplemental filings filed on
3
Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 486
1 October 11, 2019, together with the Supplement filed on February 18, 2020 (collectively, Application)
2 and the document entitled “Proposed High River Energy Center Certificate Conditions” dated July 17,
3 2020 (Proposed Certificate Conditions) and corresponding Appendix A containing the document entitled
4 “Guidance For The Development of Site Engineering And Environmental Plan” (SEEP Guide), filed on
5 July 17, 2020. I have also reviewed the Applicant’s responses to information requests relating to wetlands,
6 streams, and other natural resources, and conducted a site visit of the Project site on June 24, 2020. I have
7 reviewed all the above-referenced materials in the context of compliance with relevant statutory and
8 regulatory programs.
9 Q. Is there any information the Applicant has not provided, that you believe is necessary to
10 conduct a thorough review of the Project in order to assess its environmental impacts and
11 determined whether it has met the applicable State statutory and regulator standards?
12 A. No.
13 ECL ARTICLE 24 AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE PROJECT
14 Q. Can you describe the Department’s policy with respect to freshwater wetlands?
15 A. As articulated in Article 24, the State’s policy regarding wetlands is to preserve, protect, and
16 conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits that wetlands provide, to prevent the despoliation and
17 destruction of freshwater wetlands, and to regulate use and development of such wetlands to secure the
18 natural benefits of freshwater wetlands, consistent with the general welfare and beneficial economic,
19 social, and agricultural development of the State. The Department must take this public policy into
20 consideration with respect to any proposed project that may impact regulated freshwater wetlands, or the
21 associated regulated adjacent areas (the area within 100 feet of a State-regulated wetland). Accordingly,
22 if the Department determines that a project with potential adverse impacts to freshwater wetlands does
23 not satisfy an economic or social need and does not meet specific permit issuance standards, the
4
Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 487
1 Department may find that the project does not meet statutory and regulatory standards.
2 Q. How is Article 24 implemented?
3 A. The Department’s regulations contain the standards that implement the Freshwater Wetlands Act
4 (See 6 NYCRR Parts 663 and 664). Through Part 663, the Department has established procedures and
5 standards to guide the review of permit applications for projects that propose to construct in, or adjacent
6 to, freshwater wetlands. Part 664 contains the mapping and classification standards and procedures
7 applicable to all wetlands protected under Article 24.
8 Q. How is a regulatory review of proposed activities within a State-regulated wetland, or the
9 associated regulated adjacent area, conducted?
10 A. As required by 6 NYCRR § 663.5(a), the burden is on an applicant to demonstrate that any
11 proposed activity within a State-regulated wetland, or the associated regulated adjacent area, will comply
12 with the implementing regulations mentioned above , and all other applicable laws and regulations.
13 (6 NYCRR § 663.5(a)).
14 Q. To be consistent with the State’s freshwater wetlands program, what information must an
15 applicant provide for the Siting Board to conduct its review?
16 A. I have been advised by Department Counsel that activities regulated by PSL Article 10 do not
17 require an Article 24 freshwater wetlands permit. However, the standards in subdivision 6 NYCRR §
18 663.5(e) regarding standards for permit issuance, must be applied in determining whether to issue a
19 certificate of environmental compatibility and public need pursuant to PSL Article 10. In order for the
20 Department to conduct a technical review of any project that will occur, in part or in its entirety, within
21 a State-regulated wetland, or the associated regulated adjacent area, an applicant must provide detailed
22 project plans of sufficient scale, including, at minimum the following: (1) a delineated boundary for all
23 wetlands on or near the project site; (2) the precise location of all temporary and permanent structures;
5
Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 488
1 and (3) the extent of all temporary and permanent disturbances, including clearing and grading. This
2 information is not exhaustive – on a case-by-case basis, additional project information may be required for
3 the Siting Board, as well as the Department, to complete its respective reviews and make regulatory
4 determinations, including whether the project has met State statutory and regulatory standards.
5 Under the Department’s review process, once all of the needed information has been submitted,
6 the examination of the project continues with a consultation of the Department’s mapped regulatory
7 wetlands, as well as those unmapped wetlands that meet state criteria for jurisdiction, and geographical
8 information systems data to determine if a protected wetland is located within 100 feet of the proposed
9 project. If a regulated wetland is likely located on or near the project, the Department then considers the
10 proposed activities associated with the project in relation to the delineated boundary of the wetlands, the
11 activities listed in 6 NYCRR § 663.4(d), and the standards set forth in 6 NYCRR § 663.5(e), before
12 making an ultimate determination whether the project meets statutory and regulatory standards.
13 Q. In general, what are the 6 NYCRR Part 663 standards applicable to proposed
14 activities within a State-regulated wetland, or the associated regulated adjacent area?
15 A. The standards under 6 NYCRR § 663.5(e) apply to determine if the proposed project meets
16 regulatory standards. The first step in determining the applicable standards is identifying which activity
17 or activities apply to the proposed project (see activities list in 6 NYCRR § 663.4(d)). This step will, in
18 turn, determine which standards must be considered in the review of the project.
19 Q. What type of activity applies to the Project?
20 A. This Project involves the construction of an industrial use facility, which is defined as “any
21 building or facility associated with the manufacturing, production, processing or assembly of goods or
22 materials, or the production of power.” 6 NYCRR § 663.2(q) (emphasis added). Industrial use facilities
23 are considered incompatible with a wetland and its functions and benefits (6 NYCRR § 663.4(d)(43)).
6
Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 489
1 When evaluating the compatibility of a project that is comprised of multiple underlying activities (see Part
2 663.4), Department staff evaluates all the various underlying activities and applies the most restrictive
3 level of compatibility to the entire project before moving on to the appropriate procedural requirements
4 under Part 663.5. Thus, pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 663.5(e), this Project must be reviewed in accordance
5 with the weighing standards contained in 6 NYCRR § 663.5(e)(2).
6 Q. Can you describe the weighing standards?
7 A. In general terms, the weighing standards require an applicant to first demonstrate that any
8 activities in, and impacts to, a wetland and its adjacent area cannot be avoided entirely. If avoidance is
9 impossible, impacts on the functions or benefits of a wetland must be minimized. Finally, any remaining
10 loss of wetland acreage or function, or both, must be mitigated, unless it can be shown that the losses are
11 inconsequential or that, on balance, economic or social need for the project outweighs the loss.
12 The degree of balancing required is commensurate with the classification of an affected wetland
13 and the severity of the remaining impacts. The higher the class of wetland or the greater the impact to
14 a wetland or its adjacent area, the greater the burden upon an applicant to demonstrate an over-riding
15 need not to fully compensate for unavoidable impacts. The standards that must be demonstrated as set
16 forth in the implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR § 663.5 are “compelling” need for Class I wetlands
17 and “pressing” need for Class II wetlands. More specifically, the standards are organized into two tiers,
18 varying according to the class of the wetland. The first tier requires avoidance and minimization of
19 impacts. For wetland Classes I, II, III and IV, the proposed activity must be compatible with the public
20 health and welfare, be the only practicable alternative that could accomplish the applicant’s objectives and
21 have no practicable alternative on a site that is not a freshwater wetland or adjacent area. For wetland
22 Classes I, II, and III, the proposed activity must minimize degradation to, or loss of, any part of the
23 wetlands or adjacent areas and must minimize any adverse impacts on the functions and benefits that the
7
Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 490
1 wetland provides. For wetland Class IV, the proposed activity must make a reasonable effort to minimize
2 degradation to, or loss of, any part of the wetland or its adjacent area. The second tier of conditions only
3 applies once the first tier of conditions has been satisfied. These conditions vary with the class of wetlands
4 as follows:
5 Class I Wetlands: Class I wetlands provide the State’s most critical wetland benefits. Alteration
6 of a Class I wetland is acceptable only in the most unusual circumstances – only if a determination is
7 made that the proposed activity satisfies a compelling economic or social need that clearly and
8 substantially outweighs the loss of or detriment to the wetland benefits. (See 6 NYCRR § 663.5(e)(2)).
9 Class II Wetlands: Class II Wetlands provide important benefits. An alteration of a Class II wetland
10 is acceptable only in limited circumstances. A proposed activity meets applicable standards, and the
11 Department would issue a permit, only if the Department determines that the proposed activity satisfies
12 a pressing economic or social need that clearly outweighs the loss of or detriment to the wetland
13 benefits. (See 6 NYCRR § 663.5(e)(2)).
14 Class III Wetlands: Class III Wetlands supply wetland benefits. An alteration of a Class III
15 wetland is acceptable only after the exercise of caution and discernment. A proposed activity meets
16 applicable standards, and the Department would issue a permit, only if the Department determines that the
17 proposed activity satisfies a pressing economic or social need that outweighs the loss of or detriment to
18 the wetland benefits. (See 6 NYCRR § 663.5(e)(2)).
19 Class IV Wetlands: Class IV Wetlands provide some wildlife and open space benefits and may
20 provide other benefits cited in the Freshwater Wetlands Act. Therefore, wanton or uncontrolled
21 degradation or loss of Class IV wetlands is unacceptable. A proposed activity meets applicable
22 standards, and the Department would issue a permit, only if the Department determines that the activity is
23 the only practicable alternative which could accomplish the applicant’s objectives. (See 6 NYCRR §
8
Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 491
1 663.5(e)(2)).
2 Q. Can you describe the criteria on which the Department bases its decision as to whether a
3 project meets wetlands-related statutory and regulatory standards?
4 A. The regulations (6 NYCRR Part 663) provide a step-by-step process that requires applicants to
5 do the following:
6 1) avoid wetland impacts by keeping all regulated activities landward of the regulated
7 adjacent area;
8 2) minimize impacts by maximizing setbacks within the regulated adjacent area; and
9 3) provide mitigation for all unavoidable impacts to wetlands and adjacent areas.
10 Once the Department reviews its mapped regulatory wetlands, as well as those unmapped wetlands that
11 meet State criteria for jurisdiction and confirms the presence of a State-regulated wetland, the
12 Department checks its classification sheet to determine if a particular wetland is a Class I, II, III, or IV.
13 Based on the wetland class, the Department uses the appropriate weighing standards to determine whether
14 a proposed project or activity meets applicable standards to issue a permit.
15 Q. If it is determined that impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, what information must the
16 Applicant provide regarding wetland mitigation to demonstrate compliance with Department’s
17 requirements?
18 A. A plan that meets the regulatory requirements of 6 NYCRR § 663.5(g) and the Department’s
19 Guidelines on Compensatory Mitigation. For example, the plan must include the following details:
20 • A detailed mitigation site relative to proposed wetland impact areas and other state-jurisdictional
21 freshwater wetlands;
22 • A Project construction timeline;
23 • Documentation of ownership of the mitigation site, or a conservation easement with participating
9
Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 492
1 landowners unless such an agreement can be shown to not be practical, in which case, a deed
2 restriction may be employed;
3 • A monitoring plan including at least five years of monitoring, quarterly the first year and twice
4 per year thereafter. The monitoring may need to be extended if problems arise;
5 • A commitment to maintain an 85% survival rate of tree and shrub plantings with replacements
6 in kind when the survival rate is not met; and
7 • An invasive species management plan.
8 Q. Are there State-regulated wetlands within this Project’s proposed boundary?
9 A. No. Based on my desktop review of the Application using the Department’s GIS, and the site visit
10 I conducted June 24, 2020, I determined that there are no regulated Article 24 wetlands within the project
11 boundary. However, there are newly delineated federally regulated wetlands onsite.
12 Q. What must the Applicant provide to demonstrate compliance with Article 24 and Part 663?
13 A. In general, the Applicant must provide evidence that impacts to State-regulated wetlands and
14 adjacent areas cannot be fully avoided. For demonstrated unavoidable impacts to State-regulated wetlands
15 and adjacent areas, there must be evidence that losses or impacts on the functions or benefits of the
16 wetland have been minimized. Finally, the Applicant must fully mitigate all unavoidable impacts to
17 State-regulated wetlands and adjacent areas in a manner approved by the Department.
18 Q. Will the Project, as proposed, involve activities regulated by Article 24, including State-
19 regulated wetlands and adjacent areas?
20 A. No, as described previously, as currently proposed, there are no wetlands or adjacent areas regulated
21 by Article 24 within the Project’s proposed boundary.
22 Q. Will the Project, as proposed, entirely avoid State-regulated wetlands and adjacent areas?
23 A. Yes.
10
Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 493
1
2 ECL ARTICLE 15 AND ITS APPLIACTION TO THIS PROJECT
3 Q. Can you describe the Department’s policy with respect to protection of the State’s waters?
4 A. The policy of New York State, set forth in Article 15, recognizes that New York is rich with valuable
5 water resources, and directs us as stewards of the environment to preserve and protect certain lakes, rivers,
6 streams, and ponds. These rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds are necessary for fish and wildlife habitat;
7 drinking and bathing; and agricultural, commercial and industrial uses. In addition, New York's waterways
8 provide opportunities for recreation; education and research; and aesthetic appreciation. Certain human
9 activities can adversely affect, even destroy, the delicate ecological balance of these important areas,
10 thereby impairing the uses of these waters.
11 Q. How is Article 15 implemented with respect to stream protection?
12 A. To implement this policy, NYSDEC created the Protection of Waters Program (see 6 NYCRR Part
13 608) to prevent undesirable activities on waterbodies by establishing and enforcing regulations that: (1)
14 are compatible with the preservation, protection, and enhancement of the present and potential values of
15 the water resources; (2) protect the public health and welfare; and (3) are consistent with the reasonable
16 economic and social development of the State. The objectives of the Department’s Protection of Waters
17 Program are to (i) minimize the disturbance of streams and waterbodies and (ii) prevent unreasonable
18 erosion of soil; increased turbidity of the waters; irregular variations in velocity; temperature and level of
19 waters; the loss of fish and aquatic wildlife; the destruction of natural habitat; and the danger of flood or
20 pollution. The activities regulated under this Program include, but are not limited to, modification or
21 disturbance of the bed or banks of “protected streams” (6 NYCRR § 608.2), and excavation and fill in
22 navigable waters or wetlands adjacent to and contiguous to the navigable waters (6 NYCRR § 608.5).
23 Q. What are considered protected streams?
11
Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 494
1 A. Protected streams are defined in 6 NYCRR § 608.1(aa) as streams or portions of streams that have
2 any of the following water quality classifications or standards (in declining order water quality): AA,
3 AA(T), AA(TS), A, A(T), A(TS), B, B(T), B(TS), C, C(T), or C(TS). The designation of “T” means that
4 the waters provide habitat in which trout can survive and grow; “TS” (trout spawning) means that the
5 waters provide conditions in which trout eggs can be deposited, fertilized, develop, hatch, and grow.
6 Q. Are streams other than those defined as protected under 6 NYCRR § 608.1(aa) regulated?
7 A. Yes, Article 15 also regulates excavation from, or the placement of fill in, any navigable waters of
8 the State (as defined in 6 NYCRR § 608.1(u)).
9 Q. Are there waterbodies within the proposed Project site?
10 A. Yes. The Applicant references 49 delineated perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams in the
11 Application. Of which, four (4) are mapped Class C streams and fall within the Project area including:
12 (1) Terwilleger Creek (H-240-63) and 3 Unnamed Tributaries (H-240-62, H-240-58 and H-240-58-1) all
13 of which are tributaries to The Mohawk River. The Applicant references the newly delineated streams in
14 Application Exhibit 23, Table 23-3, “Impacts to Streams.” The Applicant also identified 8 open water
15 wetlands (ponds) within the Project area with no proposed impacts: Exhibit 23, Table 23-4, “Impacts to
16 Open Water Wetlands.”
17 Q. Can you describe the Project’s negative impacts on these water bodies?
18 A. Table 23-3 “Impacts to Streams” of the Application indicates that there will be no permanent or
19 temporary impacts to streams within the Project area. The Department considers permanent and temporary
20 impacts to include: 1) the direct placement of fill in surface waters to accommodate road crossings, causing
21 suspension of sediments and turbidity; 2) disturbance of stream banks and/or substrates resulting from
22 buried cable installation and culvert placement causing suspension of sediment and turbidity; and 3)
23 siltation and sedimentation due to earthwork, such as excavating and grading activities. These impacts
12
Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 495
1 directly and adversely affect the best usages of a stream for aquatic species, pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 701.8.
2 Q. Has the Applicant demonstrated that the Project, as proposed, meets the applicable ECL
3 Article 15 standards?
4 A. Yes, provided that the Proposed Certificate Conditions and SEEP Guide filed with the Secretary
5 on July 17, 2020 are included in any Article 10 Certificate ultimately issued by the Siting Board.
6 OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTORY STANDARDS
7 Q. Are there any other applicable standards related to wetlands that would apply to the Project?
8 A. Yes. The Project will require a Water Quality Certification (WQC) pursuant to Section 401 of
9 the CWA. State water quality standards are set forth in 6 NYCRR § 608.9, with related regulations at 6
10 NYCRR Parts 701, 702, 703, 704 (Qualifications and Standards), and 750 (State Pollutant Discharge
11 Elimination System Permits).
12 Q. What are the standards for issuing a Section 401 WQC?
13 A. The CWA requires that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct an activity that
14 may result in a discharge into navigable waters must obtain a WQC from the State where the activity
15 occurs. The standards for issuing a WQC are contained in 6 NYCRR § 608.9, with the burden placed on
16 the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the following:
17 1) New York State effluent limitations and standards,
18 2) New York State water quality standards and thermal discharge criteria,
19 3) New York State new source standards,
20 4) New York State prohibited discharges, and
21 5) other New York State regulations and criteria otherwise applicable.
22 These standards mandate that the certifying agency require compliance with the Department’s water
23 quality regulations set forth at 6 NYCRR Parts 701, 702, 703, 704, and applicable provisions of Part 750.
13
Case No. 17-F-0597 WALTERS 496
1 Q. Does the Invasive Species Management and Control Plan, Appendix 22-7, filed by the
2 Applicant on October 11, 2019 meet the standards of ECL Article 9 and implementing regulations
3 set forth in 6 NYCRR Part 575?
4 A. Yes.
5 PROPOSED CERTIFICATE CONDITIONS
6 Q. Has the Applicant proposed any certificate conditions to be included in an Article 10
7 Certificate ultimately issued by the Siting Board?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do the Applicant’s Proposed Certificate Conditions adequately capture all of Department
10 staff’s recommendations?
11 A. Yes. The Applicant’s Proposed Certificate Conditions and SEEP Guide capture all of Department
12 staff’s recommendations to ensure the Project complies with the requirements of the ECL, including
13 Articles 9, 15 and 24, the State water quality program pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, and
14 implementing associated regulations.
15 Q. Do you hold your opinions to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. Does this conclude your direct testimony on these topics at this time?
18 A. Yes, it does.
14
497
BEFORE THE STATE OF NEW YORK BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
In the Matter of
High River Energy Center
Case 17-F-0597
July 17, 2020 Corrected September 25, 2020
Prepared Testimony of Staff Panel in Support of Settlement:
Andrew Davis Chief – Certification & Compliance Office of Electric, Gas, and Water
Jeremy Flaum Utility Supervisor Office of Electric, Gas, and Water
Miguel Moreno-Caballero Utility Engineering Specialist 3 (Acoustics) Office of Electric, Gas, and Water
John Quackenbush Engineering Specialist 2 Office of Electric, Gas, and Water
Lorna Gillings Utility Consumer Program Specialist 4
498
Outreach and Education Office of Consumer Services
Caitlyn Edmundson Associate Economist Office of Market and Regulatory Economics
State of New York Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350
499
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 Q. Please state the names, employer, and business
a ddres s of the S taff Panel in Su pport of 2 address of the Staff Panel in Support of
S ettle ment (the SPSS or Pan el). 3 Settlement (the SPSS or Panel).
4 A. Our names are Andrew Davis, Jeremy Flaum, Miguel
M oreno -Caba llero , Joh n Quac kenbu sh, L orna 5 Moreno-Caballero, John Quackenbush, Lorna
G illin gs, a nd Ca itlyn Edmun dson. We are 6 Gillings, and Caitlyn Edmundson. We are
7 employed by the New York State Department of
P ublic Serv ice ( DPS o r Depa rtmen t). Our 8 Public Service (DPS or Department). Our
9 business address is Three Empire State Plaza,
A lbany , New York 1222 3. 10 Albany, New York 12223.
Q . Mr. Da vis, what is yo ur pos ition with the 11 Q. Mr. Davis, what is your position with the
D epart ment? 12 Department?
13 A. I am the Chief of Environmental Certification
14 and Compliance, in the Office of Electric, Gas
a nd Wa ter ( or EC &C, O EGW). 15 and Water (or EC&C, OEGW).
Q . Please brie fly d escri be you r edu catio nal 16 Q. Please briefly describe your educational
b ackgr ound and p rofes sional expe rienc e. 17 background and professional experience.
18 A. I graduated from the State University of New
Y ork, Colle ge of Envi ronmen tal S cienc e and 19 York, College of Environmental Science and
20 Forestry with a Bachelor of Science degree in
21 Natural Resources Management (Forestry) in 1981.
1 500
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
M y pro fessi onal train ing in clude s cul tural 1 My professional training includes cultural
2 resources management, visual impact assessments,
3 remote sensing, ARC-MAP geographic information
s ystem s, ha bitat eval uation , and wetl ands 4 systems, habitat evaluation, and wetlands
d eline ation , amo ng ot her sp ecial ties. 5 delineation, among other specialties.
Q . Mr. Da vis, what are y our qu alifi catio ns an d 6 Q. Mr. Davis, what are your qualifications and
e xperi ence in re viewi ng maj or el ectri c 7 experience in reviewing major electric
g enera ting and r elate d faci litie s? 8 generating and related facilities?
9 A. Since starting as an environmental analyst for
t he De partm ent i n 198 6, I h ave p rovid ed 10 the Department in 1986, I have provided
11 professional testimony regarding environmental
12 and land use effects (including natural and
13 cultural resources, visual impacts, land use,
14 and local plans, and land use and development
15 laws consistency) before the Board on Electric
16 Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting
B oard) in a t lea st 18 proje cts p ursua nt to 17 Board) in at least 18 projects pursuant to
18 Public Service Law (PSL) Articles X and 10; and
19 testimony on similar matters in at least 16
20 projects before the Public Service Commission
21 (Commission) pursuant to PSL Article VII. In
2 501
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 addition, I have provided advisory review and
2 assessment in approximately 60 DPS Staff team
3 reviews in various proceedings pursuant to PSL
4 Articles X, 10, VII, and Section 68, as well as
o ther proce eding s pur suant to th e Sta te 5 other proceedings pursuant to the State
6 Environmental Quality Review Act or the National
7 Environmental Policy Act environmental analysis.
A nalys es in clude revi ews of larg e-sca le 8 Analyses include reviews of large-scale
9 facilities for electric generating, electric and
10 gas transmission, and energy storage. This is
t he fo urth major sola r elec tric gener ating 11 the fourth major solar electric generating
12 facility that has come before the Siting Board
o r the DPS for l icens ing su bject to a gency 13 or the DPS for licensing subject to agency
j urisd ictio n und er PS L Arti cle 1 0. 14 jurisdiction under PSL Article 10.
Q . Mr. Fl aum, what is yo ur pos ition with the 15 Q. Mr. Flaum, what is your position with the
D epart ment? 16 Department?
17 A. I am employed as a Utility Supervisor in the
E nviro nment al Ce rtifi cation and Compl iance 18 Environmental Certification and Compliance
S ectio n of the O ffice of El ectri c, Ga s and 19 Section of the Office of Electric, Gas and
W ater. 20 Water.
Q . Please brie fly d escri be you r edu catio nal 21 Q. Please briefly describe your educational
3 502
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
b ackgr ound and p rofes sional expe rienc e. 1 background and professional experience.
2 A. I graduated from the State University of New
3 York College at Cortland in 2003 with a Bachelor
4 of Science degree in Geology. I also received a
M aster of S cienc e deg ree in Envi ronme ntal 5 Master of Science degree in Environmental
M anage ment from the U nivers ity o f Mar yland , 6 Management from the University of Maryland,
U niver sity Colle ge, i n 2008 . I joine d the 7 University College, in 2008. I joined the
D epart ment in 20 09. Prior to jo ining the 8 Department in 2009. Prior to joining the
9 Department, I held Geologist positions at two
10 environmental consulting firms where I performed
f ield inves tigat ions, overs ight, and data 11 field investigations, oversight, and data
12 analysis for multiple environmental remediation
s ites. 13 sites.
14 Q. Please describe your responsibilities with the
D epart ment. 15 Department.
16 A. My primary responsibilities include evaluating
e nviro nment al im pacts and c onstr uctio n 17 environmental impacts and construction
f easib ility issu es fo r elec tric gener ating 18 feasibility issues for electric generating
f acili ties under Arti cle 10 of t he PS L and 19 facilities under Article 10 of the PSL and
20 electric and gas transmission facilities under
21 Article VII of the PSL. Additionally, I have
4 503
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 reviewed utility property site contamination
2 investigation and remediation (SIR) matters and
3 provided recommendations for SIR cost recovery
4 in utility rate cases before the Commission.
Q . Have y ou pr ovide d tes timony in p revio us 5 Q. Have you provided testimony in previous
p rocee dings befo re th e Siti ng Bo ard? 6 proceedings before the Siting Board?
7 A. Yes. I provided testimony regarding geologic
8 and water resource impacts of proposed major
9 electric generation wind energy facilities in
10 Cases 14-F-0490, 15-F-0122, 16-F-0062, 16-F-
11 0328, 16-F-0559, 16-F-0205, 17-F-0282, and 16-F-
12 0267. I also testified as part of the Staff
13 Policy Panels for all of those cases, except 16-
F -0267 , and as p art o f the Staff Pane l in 14 F-0267, and as part of the Staff Panel in
15 Support of Settlement (SPSS) for Case 18-F-0262.
16 Further, I recently submitted testimony as part
17 of the SPSS for Case 17-F-0182 - Mohawk Solar
18 Project, Case 17-F-0617 - Coeymans Solar Farm,
19 and Case 17-F-0599 – East Point Energy Center,
20 the first three major solar electric generating
21 facilities proposed pursuant to Article 10.
5 504
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
Q . Have y ou pr ovide d tes timony in a ny ot her 1 Q. Have you provided testimony in any other
2 proceedings as a member of Department Staff?
3 A. Yes. I have testified before the Commission as
p art o f Dep artme nt St aff’s SIR P anels for 4 part of Department Staff’s SIR Panels for
5 numerous rate cases, including, most recently:
6 Cases 19-G-0309 and 19-G-0310, KeySpan Gas East
C orpor ation and Brook lyn Un ion G as Co mpany ; 7 Corporation and Brooklyn Union Gas Company;
C ases 18-E- 0067 and 1 8-G-00 68, O range and 8 Cases 18-E-0067 and 18-G-0068, Orange and
9 Rockland Utilities, Inc.; and Cases 17-E-0459
10 and 17-G-0460, Central Hudson Gas and Electric
11 Corporation. I have also testified before the
12 Commission regarding the water quality issues
13 and environmental impacts of proposed major
14 electric transmission projects in Cases 08-T-
0 034 a nd 10 -T-01 39. 15 0034 and 10-T-0139.
Q . Mr. Mo reno what is yo ur pos ition at t he 16 Q. Mr. Moreno what is your position at the
D epart ment? 17 Department?
A . I am a Util ity E ngine ering Speci alist 3 18 A. I am a Utility Engineering Specialist 3
19 (Acoustics) in the Environmental Certification
a nd Co mplia nce s ectio n of t he Of fice of 20 and Compliance section of the Office of
E lectr ic, G as an d Wat er. 21 Electric, Gas and Water.
6 505
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 Q. Please summarize your educational background and
p rofes siona l exp erien ce. 2 professional experience.
3 A. I attended the Pontifical Xaverian University in
B ogota , Col ombia and receiv ed a Bache lor o f 4 Bogota, Colombia and received a Bachelor of
S cienc e in Civil Engi neerin g in 1986. 5 Science in Civil Engineering in 1986.
T herea fter, I co ntinu ed my educa tion at 6 Thereafter, I continued my education at
7 Universidad del Norte in Barranquilla, Colombia
a nd gr aduat ed wi th a Master of B usine ss 8 and graduated with a Master of Business
A dmini strat ion d egree in 19 92. I hav e 9 Administration degree in 1992. I have
10 accumulated more than 20 years of experience in
11 the field of acoustics and noise control. I
12 owned and operated my own business in Colombia
f or ab out 1 3 yea rs, w here I work ed as an 13 for about 13 years, where I worked as an
14 acoustical consultant and acoustical contractor.
15 I designed and built noise abatement solutions
16 for emergency generators, industrial machinery,
17 HVAC equipment, and interior acoustical designs
f or in door space s. I obtai ned e xtens ive 18 for indoor spaces. I obtained extensive
19 experience in noise control including noise
20 surveys and computer simulations of aircraft
n oise for t wo in terna tional airp orts. 21 noise for two international airports.
7 506
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 After my arrival to the United States, I was
2 employed as a Senior Acoustical Consultant by an
3 acoustical consulting firm in Washington D.C.,
f rom O ctobe r 200 5 unt il May 2008 . Th ere, I 4 from October 2005 until May 2008. There, I
5 analyzed sound surveys and performed computer
6 noise modeling for roadways and highways and
7 designed mitigation measures such as barriers
8 and selected building envelope specifications
f or en viron menta l noi se con trol. I a lso 9 for environmental noise control. I also
10 designed noise control solutions for mechanical
11 equipment and interior acoustics for indoor
12 spaces for a variety of projects. From May 2008
13 to June 2009, I was employed by an acoustical
14 consulting company in Manhattan and worked for
15 several acoustical and noise control projects
16 including data centers and corporate projects.
17 I joined the Department in November 2013. My
18 duties include reviewing PSL Article VII and
A rticl e 10 pre-a pplic ations , app licat ions, 19 Article 10 pre-applications, applications,
20 environmental noise assessments, noise surveys,
21 and mitigation measures. I also review sound
8 507
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
c ollec tion proto cols and wi tness soun d 1 collection protocols and witness sound
m easur ement s to ensur e comp lianc e wit h 2 measurements to ensure compliance with
3 Certificate Conditions. I am a full-member of
4 the Institute of Noise Control Engineering and
5 an Associate member of the Acoustical Society of
A meric a. 6 America.
7 Q. Mr. Moreno, which projects have you reviewed
u nder PSL A rticl e 10 and Ar ticle VII 8 under PSL Article 10 and Article VII
r egula tions ? 9 regulations?
10 A. Under Article VII regulations, I have reviewed
11 the applications for the following certified
12 cases: New York Power Authority, Case 13-T-0515;
13 DMP New York, Inc. and Williams Field Services
14 Company LLC, Cases 13-T-0538 and 13-T-0350; PSEG
P ower New Y ork, Inc., Case 15-F- 0040; and 15 Power New York, Inc., Case 15-F-0040; and
16 Consolidated Edison (Con Edison) Company of New
17 York, Inc., Case 13-T-0586. I am currently
18 assigned to numerous PSL Article 10 proceedings
19 (and some potentially affiliated Article VII
20 filings) regarding wind generating facilities at
21 various stages including the following projects:
9 508
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 Cassadaga Wind, LLC, Case 14-F-0490; Lighthouse
2 Wind, LLC, Case 14-F-0485; Baron Winds, LLC,
3 Case 15-F-0122; Bull Run Energy, LLC, Case 15-F-
4 0377; Eight Point Wind, LLC, Case 16-F-0062;
5 Atlantic Wind, LLC, Case 16-F-0267; Canisteo
6 Wind Energy, LLC, Case 16-F-0205; Number Three
7 Wind, LLC, Case 16-F-0328; Heritage Wind, LLC,
8 Case 16-F-0546; Bluestone Wind, LLC, Case 16-F-
9 0559; Alle-Catt Wind Energy, LLC, Case 17-F-
10 0282; Atlantic Wind, LLC, Case 16-F-0713; and
11 High Bridge Wind, LLC, Case 18-F-0262. I am
a lso a ssign ed to mult iple P SL Ar ticle 10 12 also assigned to multiple PSL Article 10
13 proceedings (and some potentially affiliated
14 Article VII filings) regarding solar generating
f acili ties at va rious stage s inc ludin g the 15 facilities at various stages including the
16 following projects: Hecate Energy Albany 1, LLC
17 and Hecate Energy Albany 2, LLC, Case 17-F-0617;
18 and Hecate Energy Greene 1 LLC, Hecate Energy
19 Greene 2 LLC, and Hecate Energy Greene County 3
L LC, C ase 1 7-F-0 619. 20 LLC, Case 17-F-0619.
Q . Mr. Mo reno, what is y our ro le in revi ewing 21 Q. Mr. Moreno, what is your role in reviewing
10 509
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 projects filed under Article 10 of the PSL?
A . My dut ies i nclud e the revie w of Preli minar y 2 A. My duties include the review of Preliminary
S copin g Sta temen ts, s tipula tions and 3 Scoping Statements, stipulations and
a pplic ation s as they relate to t he no ise 4 applications as they relate to the noise
5 assessments and avoidance or minimization of
6 environmental noise impacts from major electric
g enera tion facil ities . My role regar ding 7 generation facilities. My role regarding
g enera ting proje cts c onsist s of revie wing 8 generating projects consists of reviewing
9 application sections related to noise impact
10 assessments from construction and operation of
11 the facilities, which includes: pre-construction
12 ambient noise surveys; analysis of existing or
13 potential future prominent tones; noise modeling
14 parameters; assumptions and results; amplitude
15 modulation; low-frequency noise; infrasound;
16 potential for hearing damage; indoor and outdoor
17 speech interference; interference with the use
18 of outdoor public facilities and public areas;
19 community complaint potential or annoyance; and
t he po tenti al fo r int erfere nce w ith 20 the potential for interference with
21 technological, industrial, or medical activities
11 510
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 that are sensitive to vibration or infrasound.
2 I also review applicable noise standards and
3 guidelines, local regulations on noise, design
g oals for t he fa cilit ies, n oise abate ment 4 goals for the facilities, noise abatement
5 measures, complaint and resolution plans for
n oise from const ructi on and oper ation of 6 noise from construction and operation of
p ropos ed fa cilit ies a nd pro posed post -7 proposed facilities and proposed post-7
8 construction noise evaluations and compliance
9 for conformance with certificate conditions.
10 Q. Mr. Quackenbush, what is your position with the
D epart ment? 11 Department?
A . I am a n Eng ineer ing S pecial ist 2 in t he 12 A. I am an Engineering Specialist 2 in the
E nviro nment al Ce rtifi cation and Compl iance 13 Environmental Certification and Compliance
s ectio n of the O ffice of El ectri c, Ga s and 14 section of the Office of Electric, Gas and
W ater. 15 Water.
16 Q. Please summarize your educational background and
p rofes siona l exp erien ce. 17 professional experience.
18 A. I attended Hudson Valley Community College in
19 Troy, New York and received an individual study
20 Associate Degree, as well as an Associate Degree
i n App lied Scien ce in Civil Engi neeri ng 21 in Applied Science in Civil Engineering
12 511
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
T echno logy. The reaft er, I conti nued my 1 Technology. Thereafter, I continued my
2 education at the State University of New York
3 Polytechnic Institute, formerly known as the
S tate Unive rsity of N ew Yor k Ins titut e of 4 State University of New York Institute of
5 Technology in Utica, New York and graduated with
a Bach elor of Sc ience in Ci vil E ngine ering 6 a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
7 Technology. I was employed at CHA Consulting,
8 Inc. (formerly Clough, Harbour, & Associates
9 LLP) as a Design and Drafting Technician from
10 2000 until November 2006. In February 2007, I
j oined the Depar tment Staff of E lectr ic 11 joined the Department Staff of Electric
12 Distribution Section in the Office of Electric,
13 Gas and Water as a Utility Engineer, where I
14 performed utility inspections to assess electric
d istri butio n inf rastr ucture cond ition s, 15 distribution infrastructure conditions,
16 investigated various electric utility customer
17 reliability complaints, and reviewed utility
18 reliability reports. Since October 2009, I have
19 worked as an Engineering Specialist 2 in the
E nviro nment al Ce rtifi cation and Compl iance 20 Environmental Certification and Compliance
s ectio n in the O ffice of El ectri c, Ga s and 21 section in the Office of Electric, Gas and
13 512
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 Water. My duties include reviewing site plans,
p ropos ed ma jor e lectr ic gen erati ng, 2 proposed major electric generating,
t ransm issio n, an d dis tribut ion f acili ties 3 transmission, and distribution facilities
l ocati ons a nd ut ility route s, co nstru ction 4 locations and utility routes, construction
5 practices, and environmental control plans for
v ariou s pro jects , inc luding revi ew of PSL 6 various projects, including review of PSL
A rticl e VII and Artic le 10 appli catio ns. 7 Article VII and Article 10 applications.
8 Q. Mr. Quackenbush, have you previously testified
b efore the Commi ssion or th e Sit ing B oard? 9 before the Commission or the Siting Board?
10 A. Yes. I have testified before the Commission and
11 the Siting Board in several cases regarding
p ropos ed el ectri c inf rastru cture upgr ades, 12 proposed electric infrastructure upgrades,
13 electric power transmission routes, the siting
14 of electric generation plants, electric rates,
15 and research and development programs. One
16 representative Article VII case includes Hudson
17 Transmission Partners, LLC, Case 08-T-0034, in
18 which I analyzed its proposed electric upland
19 route in Manhattan, the constructability of the
r oute, prop osal of al ternat ive r outes , and 20 route, proposal of alternative routes, and
c onstr uctio n pra ctice s. Ad ditio nally , I 21 construction practices. Additionally, I
14 513
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 reviewed routing and constructability issues
p ertai ning to th e gra nting of a Certi ficat e 2 pertaining to the granting of a Certificate
t hroug h a J oint Propo sal fo r the Cham plain 3 through a Joint Proposal for the Champlain
4 Hudson Power Express, Inc., Case 10-T-0139. I
h ave p rovid ed te stimo ny reg ardin g 5 have provided testimony regarding
6 decommissioning plans and provisions of proposed
7 major electric generation facilities in cases
8 14-F-0490, 14-F-0122, 16-F-0062, 16-F-0205, 16-
9 F-0267, 16-F-0238, and 16-F-0559. Additionally,
10 I testified as part of the Staff Policy Panel
f or Ca se 16 -F-02 67. I rece ntly submi tted 11 for Case 16-F-0267. I recently submitted
12 testimony as part of the Staff Panel in Support
13 of Settlement for the Mohawk Solar Project in
14 Case 17-F-0182; the Coeymans Solar Farm, Case
15 17-F-0617; East Point Energy Center, Case 17-F-
16 0599; and High Bridge Wind, Case 18-F-0262.
17 Q. Please describe other roles you have in the
18 review processes of Article VII and 10 Projects.
A . Curren tly, I am invol ved in revi ewing and 19 A. Currently, I am involved in reviewing and
20 analyzing routing and construction methods for
21 ongoing PSL Article VII and Article 10 projects
15 514
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 pending before the Commission or Siting Board,
2 respectively, regarding major electric, wind,
3 and solar generation projects at various pre-
4 application and application stages. My primary
5 role regarding major wind and solar electric
6 generation projects involves review of proposed
7 setback distances, preliminary design drawings,
8 and general construction practices (including
a ssemb ly an d fou ndati on wor k), e lectr ic 9 assembly and foundation work), electric
10 collection lines and related transmission lead
11 installations, access ways, and any associated
b uildi ng fa cilit ies. I als o rev iew t he 12 building facilities. I also review the
13 potential impacts related to transportation due
14 to general construction and delivery activities
15 during wind turbine and solar installations.
16 Lastly, I review the various site restoration
17 and decommissioning proposals for Article 10
p rojec ts. 18 projects.
19 Q. Ms. Gillings what is your position with the
D epart ment? 20 Department?
21 A. My current position is in the Office of Consumer
16 515
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
S ervic es as a Ut ility Consu mer P rogra m 1 Services as a Utility Consumer Program
S pecia list 4. M y key respo nsibi lity in th e 2 Specialist 4. My key responsibility in the
O utrea ch an d Edu catio n Unit is t o pro mote 3 Outreach and Education Unit is to promote
4 consumer education regarding electric, natural
g as, t eleco mmuni catio n and water util ity 5 gas, telecommunication and water utility
6 services, and ensure opportunities for public
7 participation in Commission and Siting Board
p rocee dings . 8 proceedings.
Q . Have y ou ev er pr ovide d test imony befo re th e 9 Q. Have you ever provided testimony before the
C ommis sion or th e Sit ing Bo ard? 10 Commission or the Siting Board?
A . Yes. I pro vided test imony as pa rt of the 11 A. Yes. I provided testimony as part of the
12 Consumer Services Panel for Case 14-F-0490,
13 Cassadaga Wind; Case 15-F-0122, Baron Winds;
14 Case 16-F-0328, Number Three Wind; Case 16-F-
0 062, Eight Poin t Win d; Cas e 16- F-055 9, 15 0062, Eight Point Wind; Case 16-F-0559,
16 Bluestone Wind; Case 16-F-0205, Canisteo Wind;
17 Case 17-F-0282, Alle-Catt Wind; Case 16-F-0267
18 Atlantic Wind, DPS Staff Policy Panel and Office
19 of Consumer Services direct testimony; and DPS
20 Staff Policy Panel in Support of Settlement on
C ases 17-F- 0182, Moha wk Sol ar; 1 7-F-0 617, 21 Cases 17-F-0182, Mohawk Solar; 17-F-0617,
17 516
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
C oeyma ns So lar F arm; 17-F- 0599, East Poin t 1 Coeymans Solar Farm; 17-F-0599, East Point
2 Energy Center; and 18-F-0262, High Bridge Wind.
3 Q. Ms. Edmundson, what is your position with the
D epart ment? 4 Department?
5 A. I am employed as an Associate Economist in the
O ffice of M arket and Regula tory Econo mics. 6 Office of Market and Regulatory Economics.
7 Q. Please briefly discuss your related educational
b ackgr ound and p rofes sional expe rienc e. 8 background and professional experience.
A . I rece ived a Bac helor of Sc ience Degr ee in 9 A. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in
E conom ics a nd a Bache lor of Arts Degr ee in 10 Economics and a Bachelor of Arts Degree in
11 Mathematical Sciences from Binghamton University
12 in 2010. I received a Master of Science in
A gricu ltura l, En viron mental , and Regi onal 13 Agricultural, Environmental, and Regional
14 Economics from the Pennsylvania State University
i n 201 2. I have been emplo yed w ith t he 15 in 2012. I have been employed with the
D epart ment since 2012 . 16 Department since 2012.
Q . Have y ou pr eviou sly t estifi ed be fore the 17 Q. Have you previously testified before the
C ommis sion or th e Sit ing Bo ard? 18 Commission or the Siting Board?
A . Yes. I tes tifie d bef ore th e Com missi on on 19 A. Yes. I testified before the Commission on
20 management compensation and benefit issues in
21 Cases 13-E-0030, 13-G-0031, 13-S-0032, 16-E-
18 517
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
0 060, and 1 6-G-0 061, regard ing C onsol idate d 1 0060, and 16-G-0061, regarding Consolidated
2 Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison);
3 Cases 15-E-0283, 15-G-0284, 15-E-0285, and 15-G-
4 0286 regarding New York State Electric & Gas
C orpor ation (NYS EG) a nd Roc heste r Gas and 5 Corporation (NYSEG) and Rochester Gas and
6 Electric Corporation (RGE); and Case 15-G-0382,
7 St. Lawrence Gas Company, Inc. I testified as
8 part of the Staff Sales Forecasting Panel in
9 Case 16-E-0060, regarding Con Edison; and Case
1 7-E-0 238, regar ding Niagar a Moh awk P ower 10 17-E-0238, regarding Niagara Mohawk Power
C orpor ation d/b/ a Nat ional Grid (Niag ara 11 Corporation d/b/a National Grid (Niagara
M ohawk ). I test ified as pa rt of the Staff 12 Mohawk). I testified as part of the Staff
13 Earnings Adjustment Mechanisms Panel in Case 17-
14 E-0238, regarding Niagara Mohawk; Case 17-E-0459
r egard ing, Centr al Hu dson G as & Elect ric 15 regarding, Central Hudson Gas & Electric
16 Corporation; Case 18-E-0067 regarding, Orange
17 and Rockland Utilities, Inc; Case 19-E-0065,
18 regarding Con Edison; and Cases 19-E-0378, and
19 19-E-0380 regarding NYSEG and RGE. I have also
20 testified as part of the Staff Advanced Metering
21 Infrastructure Panel in Cases 19-E-0378 and 19-
19 518
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 E-0380, regarding NYSEG and RGE. Additionally,
2 I have testified before the Siting Board on jobs
3 impact issues in Case 14-F-0490, Cassadaga Wind;
4 Case 15-F-0122, Baron Winds; Case 16-F-0205,
C anist eo Wi nd; a nd Ca se 17- F-061 7, Co eyman s 5 Canisteo Wind; and Case 17-F-0617, Coeymans
S olar Farm. 6 Solar Farm.
Q . Is the Pane l spo nsori ng any exhi bits to 7 Q. Is the Panel sponsoring any exhibits to
a ccomp any o r sup port its te stimo ny? 8 accompany or support its testimony?
9 A. Yes, we are sponsoring two exhibits. Exhibit __
( SPSS- 1) is the Appli cant’s conf ident ial 10 (SPSS-1) is the Applicant’s confidential
11 response to DPS IR 2. Exhibit__(SPSS-2) is a
12 letter from the New York State Office of Parks,
13 Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)
14 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), dated
N ovemb er 8, 2019 , ind icatin g tha t no 15 November 8, 2019, indicating that no
16 archaeological sites were identified within the
F acili ty Si te an d tha t no a dditi onal 17 Facility Site and that no additional
a rchae ologi cal w ork i s requ ired. 18 archaeological work is required.
Q . Please summ arize the scope of th e Pan el’s 19 Q. Please summarize the scope of the Panel’s
t estim ony. 20 testimony.
21 A. The Panel is presenting DPS Staff’s overall
20 519
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 recommendations on whether the Siting Board can
2 make the required findings pursuant to Article
3 10 of the PSL under Section 168 necessary to
g rant a Cer tific ate o f Envi ronme ntal 4 grant a Certificate of Environmental
5 Compatibility and Public Need (Certificate) to
6 construct and operate the Facility. The Panel
7 is also providing DPS Staff’s recommendations on
8 the stipulated Certificate Conditions proposed
9 by the Applicant and several parties in this
10 proceeding that should be considered and adopted
11 by the Siting Board if a Certificate is issued.
12 Q. What findings does PSL Section 168 require prior
13 to the Siting Board granting a Certificate?
14 A. The Siting Board shall not grant a Certificate,
15 either as proposed or modified, without making
16 explicit findings on the nature of the probable
17 environmental impacts of the construction and
o perat ion o f a m ajor electr ic ge nerat ion 18 operation of a major electric generation
19 facility, including the cumulative environmental
i mpact s of the f acili ty and the relat ed 20 impacts of the facility and the related
21 interconnection facilities, impacts to ecology,
21 520
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 air, ground and surface water, wildlife, and
2 habitat; impacts to public health and safety;
3 impacts to cultural, historic, and recreational
r esour ces, inclu ding aesthe tics and s cenic 4 resources, including aesthetics and scenic
v alues ; and impa cts t o tran sport ation , 5 values; and impacts to transportation,
c ommun icati on, u tilit ies an d oth er 6 communication, utilities and other
i nfras truct ure ( the p robabl e env ironm ental 7 infrastructure (the probable environmental
8 impacts). Moreover, the Siting Board may not
9 grant a Certificate for the construction and
o perat ion o f a m ajor electr ic ge nerat ing 10 operation of a major electric generating
11 facility, either as proposed or modified, unless
12 the Siting Board determines that the facility is
a bene ficia l add ition or su bstit ution for 13 a beneficial addition or substitution for
14 electric generation capacity of the State; the
15 construction and operation of the facility will
s erve the p ublic inte rest; and t he ad verse 16 serve the public interest; and the adverse
17 environmental effects of the construction and
18 operation of the facility will be minimized or
19 avoided to the maximum extent practicable. If
20 the Siting Board finds that the facility results
21 in or contributes to a significant and adverse
22 521
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 disproportionate environmental impact in the
c ommun ity i n whi ch th e faci lity would be 2 community in which the facility would be
3 located, it must also find that the Applicant
4 has avoided, offset or minimized the impacts
5 caused by the facility upon the local community
6 for the duration that the Certificate is issued
t o the maxi mum e xtent pract icabl e usi ng 7 to the maximum extent practicable using
8 verifiable measures. The Siting Board must also
9 find that the facility is designed to operate in
10 compliance with applicable state and local laws
11 and regulations, all of which shall be binding
12 on the Applicant, except that the Siting Board
13 may elect not to apply, in whole or in part, any
14 local ordinance, law, resolution or other action
15 or any regulation issued thereunder, or any
16 local standard or requirement which would be
o therw ise a pplic able, if it find s tha t, as 17 otherwise applicable, if it finds that, as
a pplie d to the p ropos ed fac ility , suc h is 18 applied to the proposed facility, such is
19 unreasonably burdensome in view of the existing
t echno logy or th e nee ds of or co sts t o 20 technology or the needs of or costs to
21 ratepayers, whether located inside or outside of
23 522
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
s uch m unici palit y. F inally , in makin g its 1 such municipality. Finally, in making its
2 determinations, the Siting Board shall consider
3 the state of available technology; the nature
4 and economics of reasonable alternatives; the
e nviro nment al im pacts found ; the impa ct of 5 environmental impacts found; the impact of
c onstr uctio n and oper ation of re lated 6 construction and operation of related
7 interconnection facilities; the consistency of
8 the construction and operation of the facility
w ith t he en ergy polic ies an d lon g-ran ge 9 with the energy policies and long-range
10 objectives contained in the most recent state
11 energy plan; the impact on community character;
12 whether the facility would affect communities
t hat a re di sprop ortio nately impa cted by 13 that are disproportionately impacted by
c umula tive level s of pollut ants; and such 14 cumulative levels of pollutants; and such
15 additional social, economic, visual or other
a esthe tic, envir onmen tal an d oth er 16 aesthetic, environmental and other
c onsid erati ons d eemed perti nent. 17 considerations deemed pertinent.
Q . Please desc ribe DPS S taff’s revi ew of the 18 Q. Please describe DPS Staff’s review of the
19 Application and subsequent filings in this case.
20 A. In order to develop our positions, DPS Staff
21 reviewed the Application; supplements to the
24 523
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 Application, including the Application Updates
2 filed by the Applicant on May 15, 2020, and May
3 22, 2020; discovery responses; and the proposed
4 settlement documents stipulated to by DPS Staff
5 and filed by the Applicant on July 17, 2020,
i nclud ing p ropos ed Ce rtific ate C ondit ions, 6 including proposed Certificate Conditions,
7 proposed Guidance for the Development of Site
E ngine ering and Envir onment al Pl ans f or th e 8 Engineering and Environmental Plans for the
9 Construction of the High River Energy Center
10 Project (SEEP Guide), and proposed High River
E nergy Cent er No ise C omplai nt Re solut ion 11 Energy Center Noise Complaint Resolution
12 Protocol (NCRP). The documents, stipulated to
13 by DPS Staff, constitute the Settlement Package
i n thi s cas e. 14 in this case.
15 Q. How were the proposed Certificate Conditions
d evelo ped? 16 developed?
17 A. Following the Chair’s determination that the
18 Application, as supplemented, was compliant, the
19 Applicant issued a Notice of Settlement in this
c ase i n an effor t to addres s pro posed 20 case in an effort to address proposed
21 Certificate Conditions. Through a series of
25 524
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 meetings and other communications, the proposed
C ertif icate Cond ition s were deve loped and 2 Certificate Conditions were developed and
e ventu ally stipu lated to by the Settl ement 3 eventually stipulated to by the Settlement
P artie s in this case, inclu ding DPS S taff. 4 Parties in this case, including DPS Staff.
5 Thereafter, the Applicant filed the proposed
6 Certificate Conditions on July 17, 2020. DPS
S taff suppo rts t he pr oposed Cert ifica te 7 Staff supports the proposed Certificate
C ondit ions as fi led a nd wit hout excep tion. 8 Conditions as filed and without exception.
9 Thus, DPS Staff recommends that the Siting Board
10 could make findings in all areas without further
11 recommendation or modification to the proposed
C ertif icate Cond ition s. 12 Certificate Conditions.
Q . Please desc ribe the p ropose d SEE P Gui de 13 Q. Please describe the proposed SEEP Guide
d ocume nt. 14 document.
15 A. The proposed SEEP Guide is a set of guidelines
f or fi nal e ngine ering , cons truct ion, and 16 for final engineering, construction, and
17 environmental plans and details that should be
18 required as a compliance filing for Siting Board
19 review and approval prior to the construction
20 and operation of the Facility. The purpose of
21 the SEEP Guide is to establish a single filing,
26 525
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 or series of filings if Project construction
2 will be performed in phases, that would satisfy
t he re quire ments of n umerou s ind ividu al 3 the requirements of numerous individual
4 compliance filings needed for construction, and
5 to create a single package of plans and details
6 for contractors and regulatory agencies. The
7 component parts may be submitted sequentially
b ased on co nstru ction phasi ng (s ee 16 NYCR R 8 based on construction phasing (see 16 NYCRR
9 §1000.2(i)) or other rational basis subject to
d emons trati on. 10 demonstration.
11 Q. Please describe the parties to this proceeding.
12 A. In addition to DPS Staff and the Applicant, the
13 following are parties in this proceeding who
14 have participated in settlement discussions: the
D epart ment of En viron mental Cons ervat ion 15 Department of Environmental Conservation
16 (NYSDEC), the Department of Agriculture and
17 Markets (NYSAGM), Citizens for Responsible Solar
F arm P lacem ent ( Citiz ens), and t he To wn of 18 Farm Placement (Citizens), and the Town of
F lorid a (To wn). 19 Florida (Town).
20 Q. Please describe the settlement discussions.
21 A. The settlement discussions included attending
27 526
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 settlement conferences and the review of the
2 proposed Certificate Conditions and SEEP Guide
p revio usly descr ibed. 3 previously described.
4 Q. Have each of the parties that participated in
t he se ttlem ent d iscus sions agree d to the 5 the settlement discussions agreed to the
s ettle ment? 6 settlement?
7 A. No, Citizens and the Town have not indicated
8 that they agree to the settlement or any part
9 thereof. However, several parties did agree to
10 sign-on to the settlement and that agreement
11 will be memorialized in the Settlement Package.
T hose signa tory parti es may disa gree with 12 Those signatory parties may disagree with
13 discrete conditions included in the proposed
C ertif icate Cond ition s or p ortio ns of the 14 Certificate Conditions or portions of the
15 proposed SEEP Guide. Where a party disagrees
w ith a disc rete porti on of the S ettle ment 16 with a discrete portion of the Settlement
17 Package, that party will note its respective
e xcept ions upon execu ting t he Se ttlem ent 18 exceptions upon executing the Settlement
P ackag e. 19 Package.
20 Q. Is DPS Staff taking exception to any portions of
t he Se ttlem ent P ackag e? 21 the Settlement Package?
28 527
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
A . No. D PS St aff h as no excep tions . 1 A. No. DPS Staff has no exceptions.
2 Q. Please explain why the Panel recommends that the
S iting Boar d ado pt th e prop osed Certi ficat e 3 Siting Board adopt the proposed Certificate
C ondit ions and p ropos ed SEE P Gui de. 4 Conditions and proposed SEEP Guide.
5 A. The proposed Certificate Conditions and proposed
6 SEEP Guide reflect extensive consultation among
7 the Settlement Parties to identify conditions
a nd gu idanc e tha t wou ld avo id, m inimi ze, o r 8 and guidance that would avoid, minimize, or
9 mitigate environmental and other adverse impacts
10 of the Project. These consultations resulted in
11 agreements on conditions with respect to several
12 issues, including: grassland bird impacts; noise
13 impacts; decommissioning requirements; siting
14 and construction protocols to minimize impacts
t o agr icult ural land uses; condi tions for 15 to agricultural land uses; conditions for
16 facility vegetation management; measures to
17 avoid and protect known archeological resources,
a nd re spons ive m easur es in the e vent of 18 and responsive measures in the event of
u nanti cipat ed di scove ry of addit ional 19 unanticipated discovery of additional
a rcheo logic al si tes; detail s of prote ctive 20 archeological sites; details of protective
21 measures for construction impacts on regulated
29 528
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
w etlan ds; o ffset prov isions for impac ts on 1 wetlands; offset provisions for impacts on
2 historic resources, wetlands, and threatened and
e ndang ered (T&E) spec ies; a nd av oidan ce of 3 endangered (T&E) species; and avoidance of
4 offsite exposure to glare from solar panels;
5 among other measures. In addition, many of the
p ropos ed Ce rtifi cate Condit ions are 6 proposed Certificate Conditions are
a dmini strat ive, or st andard cons truct ion 7 administrative, or standard construction
8 conditions and in the expert opinions of DPS
S taff are r eason able for an y maj or el ectri c 9 Staff are reasonable for any major electric
10 solar generation project. The Facility, as
p ropos ed he re an d mod ified pursu ant t o the 11 proposed here and modified pursuant to the
12 proposed Certificate Conditions, would avoid,
13 minimize, or reasonably offset the potential for
14 the Project to result in adverse impacts in the
15 following areas: Land Use, Visual Resources,
C ultur al Re sourc es, W etland s and Aqua tic 16 Cultural Resources, Wetlands and Aquatic
17 Resources, Terrestrial Ecology and Rare Species,
18 Topography, Geology, Soils and Groundwater,
19 Transportation and Communication, Noise, and
20 Electromagnetic Fields, while fulfilling the
21 objective of constructing and operating a 90-MW
30 529
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 generating capacity solar electric facility.
2 Further, the proposed Certificate Conditions are
3 generally consistent with Siting Board policy
4 and precedent developed through certification
5 proceedings for several wind energy projects;
6 include specific provisions to address issues
7 and concerns for solar facility construction and
o perat ion; and a dequa tely a ddres s pro ject-8 operation; and adequately address project-8
9 specific concerns. The proposed Certificate
10 Conditions are supported by the record of this
p rocee ding. 11 proceeding.
12 Q. Does the Panel advise that the Application, as
13 amended, and including all related supplemental
14 filings and proposed Certificate Conditions, and
p re-fi led d irect test imonie s and exhi bits, 15 pre-filed direct testimonies and exhibits,
16 provides sufficient detail on the nature of the
p robab le en viron menta l impa cts o f the 17 probable environmental impacts of the
18 construction and operation of the Facility, for
19 the Siting Board to render a determination?
20 A. Yes. The Application, as originally presented
b y the Appl icant , did not c omply with all 21 by the Applicant, did not comply with all
31 530
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 Article 10 application requirements, or provide
s uffic ient desig n or contro l mea sures for 2 sufficient design or control measures for
m inimi zing envir onmen tal im pacts of t he 3 minimizing environmental impacts of the
4 construction and operation of the Facility, or
i denti fy mi tigat ion m easure s to addre ss al l 5 identify mitigation measures to address all
p otent ial a dvers e imp acts. Howe ver, the 6 potential adverse impacts. However, the
7 Application, supplements and updates, discovery
8 responses, and results of technical discussions
a nd ne gotia tions lead ing to the Settl ement 9 and negotiations leading to the Settlement
10 Package, provide sufficient detail on the nature
11 of the probable environmental impacts of the
12 Project. In addition, the proposed Certificate
13 Conditions and compliance requirements contained
i n the SEEP Guid e wil l impo se re asona ble 14 in the SEEP Guide will impose reasonable
15 controls that, if adopted and enforced, would
16 enable the Siting Board to make the required
f indin gs th at en viron mental impa cts a re 17 findings that environmental impacts are
18 minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
19 Electric Generation
20 Q. Does the Panel recommend that the Siting Board
m ake a find ing t hat t he Pro ject provi des a 21 make a finding that the Project provides a
32 531
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 beneficial addition or substitution for electric
g enera tion capac ity o f the State ? 2 generation capacity of the State?
3 A. Yes. DPS Staff recommends that the Siting Board
f ind t hat t he Pr oject will resul t in a 4 find that the Project will result in a
b enefi cial addit ion o f elec tric gener ation 5 beneficial addition of electric generation
c apaci ty in the State . 6 capacity in the State.
Q . Please expl ain f urthe r. 7 Q. Please explain further.
A . DPS St aff d oes n ot di spute the A pplic ant’s 8 A. DPS Staff does not dispute the Applicant’s
9 estimates of NYS electric energy market emission
i mpact s, as prov ided in Exh ibit 8 of its 10 impacts, as provided in Exhibit 8 of its
11 Application. Environmental emission impacts are
12 provided in the form of reductions of carbon
13 dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen
14 oxides (NOx), as shown in Exhibit 8, Table 8-1
o f the Appl icati on. These impac ts ar e 15 of the Application. These impacts are
16 consistent with DPS Staff’s production modeling
a nalys is. The A pplic ant’s produ ction cost 17 analysis. The Applicant’s production cost
18 modeling also illustrates that the proposed
19 Facility would have a de-minimus impact on the
p roduc tion from must- run un its d efine d as 20 production from must-run units defined as
21 existing wind, hydro, nuclear, and cogeneration,
33 532
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 in the 2023 study year, as shown in Exhibit 8,
2 Table 8-4. These impacts are also consistent
3 with DPS Staff’s production modeling analysis.
4 Q. Does DPS Staff recommend that the Siting Board
m ake a find ing t hat t he Fac ility prov ides 5 make a finding that the Facility provides
6 consistency with energy policies and long-range
7 objectives contained in the most recent state
e nergy plan ? 8 energy plan?
A . Yes. The F acili ty wo uld pr ovide bene fits 9 A. Yes. The Facility would provide benefits
10 consistent with the State’s policies regarding
e nergy gene ratio n and more speci fical ly, 11 energy generation and more specifically,
12 renewable energy generation. It would also help
t he St ate m eet i ts re gional gree nhous e gas 13 the State meet its regional greenhouse gas
e missi ons g oals. 14 emissions goals.
15 Q. What is New York’s current policy on renewable
e nergy ? 16 energy?
17 A. The Climate Leadership and Community Protection
18 Act (CLCPA), signed into law by Governor Cuomo
19 on June 18, 2019, establishes a clean energy
20 mandate of 70 percent renewable electricity by
21 2030 and 100 percent renewable electricity by
34 533
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 2040. Prior to the CLCPA, The Energy to Lead,
2 2015 New York State Energy Plan (State Energy
3 Plan), stated that 50 percent of electricity
4 consumed in the State should be generated by
r enewa ble s ource s by 2030. 5 renewable sources by 2030.
6 Q. Are there any State-specific policies, plans or
7 programs currently enacted to effectuate the
8 State Energy Plan goal of 50 percent consumption
f rom r enewa ble e nergy by 20 30? 9 from renewable energy by 2030?
10 A. Yes. In Case 15-E-0302, Proceeding on Motion of
11 the Commission to Implement a Large-Scale
12 Renewable Program and a Clean Energy Standard,
13 Order Adopting a Clean Energy Standard (issued
14 August 1, 2016), the Commission established a
C lean Energ y Sta ndard (CES) desi gned to 15 Clean Energy Standard (CES) designed to
e ncour age c onsum er-in itiate d cle an en ergy 16 encourage consumer-initiated clean energy
17 investments; supports new renewable generation
r esour ces t hroug h reg ular s olici tatio n of 18 resources through regular solicitation of
19 renewable energy credits (RECs) and obligates
l oad s ervin g ent ities to pr ovide reta il 20 load serving entities to provide retail
21 customers with increasing amounts of electricity
35 534
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 from new renewable generation sources; supports
2 the maintenance of certain at-risk facilities;
3 maximizes the value of potential new offshore
4 wind resources; and supports the preservation of
e xisti ng at -risk nucl ear ze ro-em issio ns 5 existing at-risk nuclear zero-emissions
a ttrib utes to se rve r etail custo mers. 6 attributes to serve retail customers.
7 Q. Does the Project, as proposed by the Applicant,
8 contribute to the goals as effectuated through
t he Re newab le En ergy Standa rd? 9 the Renewable Energy Standard?
10 A. Yes. As proposed, the energy for this Project
11 will be generated within the State of New York.
12 The Project’s renewable attributes will likely
13 be sold to New York’s load serving entities and
14 energy from the Project will be delivered for
c onsum ption by N ew Yo rk cus tomer s. 15 consumption by New York customers.
16 Q. Is New York a member of any regional cap and
17 trade system aimed at reducing greenhouse gas
e missi ons? 18 emissions?
A . Yes, N ew Yo rk is a me mber o f the Regi onal 19 A. Yes, New York is a member of the Regional
20 Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) which is a
21 regional marketplace that limits CO2 emissions
36 535
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
t hroug h a c ap an d tra de pro gram. 1 through a cap and trade program.
Q . Does t he Pr oject help the S tate of Ne w Yor k 2 Q. Does the Project help the State of New York
c ontri bute to a regio nal ma rketp lace for 3 contribute to a regional marketplace for
g reenh ouse gas e missi ons re ducti ons? 4 greenhouse gas emissions reductions?
emiss ions 5 A. Yes. The direct benefits of CO2 emissions
r educt ions are r ealiz ed thr ough the b roade r 6 reductions are realized through the broader
7 regional marketplace that New York participates
i n thr ough RGGI. 8 in through RGGI.
Q. Will t he Pr oject resul t in a con sider able 9 Q. Will the Project result in a considerable
r educt ion o f gre enhou se gas emis sions ? 10 reduction of greenhouse gas emissions?
11 A. Yes. The Applicant forecasted the environmental
12 impacts from the proposed commercial operation
o f the High Rive r Ene rgy Ce nter, meas ured 13 of the High River Energy Center, measured
14 relative to a “business as usual” base-case
15 (with the Facility not in-service) for the year
16 2023. The Applicant’s analysis estimated New
17 York’s impact on CO2 emissions is a reduction of
18 approximately 49,754 short tons, as shown in
19 Exhibit 8, Table 8-1 of the Application. This
e missi ons i s 20 estimated reduction in CO2 emissions is
21 consistent with DPS Staff’s in-house production
37 536
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
m odeli ng an alysi s. 1 modeling analysis.
2 Public Interest
3 Q. Does DPS Staff recommend that the Siting Board
4 make a finding that construction and operation
5 of the Facility would serve the public interest?
6 A. Yes, subject to the Siting Board adopting the
7 Project modifications and conditions presented
8 in the proposed Settlement Package, including
9 the proposed Certificate Conditions to minimize
10 the environmental and other adverse impacts of
t he Pr oject . 11 the Project.
Q . Please elab orate on t hese p ropos als. 12 Q. Please elaborate on these proposals.
13 A. If the Siting Board imposes the modifications
a nd co nditi ons p resen ted in the propo sed 14 and conditions presented in the proposed
C ertif icate Cond ition s, as noted abov e the 15 Certificate Conditions, as noted above the
16 Project will result in environmental emissions
17 benefits in the form of reductions of CO2, SO2,
18 and NOx, as shown in Exhibit 8, Table 8-1 of the
19 Application. The Project would also contribute
20 towards the goals of the RGGI and advance other
S tate Polic y pro grams for i ncrea sing clean 21 State Policy programs for increasing clean
38 537
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 electric energy production. Furthermore, the
2 Project should provide additional income for
3 participating property owners, additional real
p roper ty ta x rev enues for t he lo cal t axing 4 property tax revenues for the local taxing
5 jurisdictions, short-term construction jobs and
6 related construction-period expenditures, and
7 some long-term operation and maintenance jobs.
8 Q. Based on the Application and its supplements, do
t here appea r to be so cioeco nomic bene fits 9 there appear to be socioeconomic benefits
a ssoci ated with the p ropose d Pro ject? 10 associated with the proposed Project?
11 A. Yes. The construction and operation of the
12 Facility will result in new direct jobs and
13 wages paid in the immediate Montgomery County
a rea. 14 area.
15 Q. Are the Applicant’s direct job impact estimates
f or th e Pro ject reaso nable? 16 for the Project reasonable?
A . The Ap plica nt’s direct cons truct ion a nd 17 A. The Applicant’s direct construction and
18 operation job impact estimates, including the
19 confidential estimate of direct jobs provided by
t he Ap plica nt to the New Yo rk St ate E nergy 20 the Applicant to the New York State Energy
21 Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA),
39 538
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
w hich is co ntain ed in the A pplic ant’s 1 which is contained in the Applicant’s
2 confidential response to the IR DPS-2 included
3 in Exhibit __ (SPSS-1), appear to be reasonable
f or th e sca le of the Projec t as compa red t o 4 for the scale of the Project as compared to
5 other New York State solar generation projects.
H oweve r, be cause the job im pact numbe rs ar e 6 However, because the job impact numbers are
7 estimates, which may end up being inaccurate due
8 to changes in Project timelines, budgets and/or
o ther facto rs, S taff is sup porti ng pr opose d 9 other factors, Staff is supporting proposed
10 Certificate Condition 28, which requires the
11 Applicant to file with the Secretary, within one
12 year after the Project becomes operational, a
13 tracking report of the actual number of direct
14 jobs created and payments to local jurisdictions
15 made during the construction and operational
p hases of t he Pr oject . 16 phases of the Project.
17 Q. Why is Staff proposing this recommendation?
18 A. This after-the-fact tracking will allow Staff,
19 the relevant Stakeholders, and the Siting Board
20 to assess the accuracy of the estimated direct
j ob im pacts , and actu al pay ments to l ocal 21 job impacts, and actual payments to local
40 539
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 jurisdictions, and will also enable Staff and
2 the Siting board to ascertain the reasonableness
3 of job impact estimates for other future major
4 electric generation projects within the State.
5 Moreover, this is consistent with several other
6 Certificate Conditions adopted by the Siting
B oard in ot her A rticl e 10 c ases. 7 Board in other Article 10 cases.
8 Environmental Impacts or Mitigation or Avoidance
9 Q. Does DPS Staff recommend that the Siting Board
10 make a finding that the adverse environmental
e ffect s of the F acili ty’s c onstr uctio n and 11 effects of the Facility’s construction and
o perat ion a re mi nimiz ed or avoid ed to the 12 operation are minimized or avoided to the
m aximu m ext ent p racti cable? 13 maximum extent practicable?
14 A. Yes. The Siting Board can find that the adverse
e nviro nment al ef fects of co nstru ction and 15 environmental effects of construction and
o perat ion o f the Faci lity a re mi nimiz ed or 16 operation of the Facility are minimized or
17 avoided to the maximum extent practicable,
18 subject to the adoption of the modifications and
19 conditions presented in the Settlement Package,
20 including the proposed Certificate Conditions,
21 as necessary to minimize the environmental and
41 540
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
o ther adver se im pacts of th e Pro ject. As 1 other adverse impacts of the Project. As
2 initially proposed by the Applicant, DPS Staff’s
3 opinion was that the Project did not minimize or
a void, to t he ma ximum exten t pra ctica ble, 4 avoid, to the maximum extent practicable,
5 adverse environmental impacts. However, with
t he Pr oject modi ficat ions, as we ll as the 6 the Project modifications, as well as the
7 design, performance, and mitigation measures
8 included in the proposed Certificate Conditions,
9 which, among other things, propose measures to
a void, mini mize or mi tigate impa cts t o: 10 avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to:
11 wildlife; geology, wetlands and water resources;
l and u ses, inclu ding adjoin ing r eside ntial 12 land uses, including adjoining residential
13 properties and agricultural lands comprising the
14 Facility Site; visual, historic and cultural
15 resources; and potential noise receptors, DPS
16 Staff recommends that the Siting Board can make
17 the required findings. These conditions also
18 include specific requirements for the filing,
r eview , and appr oval of Com plian ce Fi lings 19 review, and approval of Compliance Filings
20 including: clearing and grading plans; final
c onstr uctio n pla ns; t raffic cont rol p lans; 21 construction plans; traffic control plans;
42 541
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 access road designs; visual resource controls
i nclud ing e xteri or li ghting plan s, si te 2 including exterior lighting plans, site
3 screening and planting plans; and environmental
4 monitoring which will ensure that the Facility
i s con struc ted a nd op erated in a safe and 5 is constructed and operated in a safe and
r espon sible mann er. 6 responsible manner.
7 Q. Please explain further how the Applicant has
a voide d and mini mized impac ts to wetl ands, 8 avoided and minimized impacts to wetlands,
9 archeological resources, T&E species habitat,
a nd ag ricul tural reso urces. 10 and agricultural resources.
11 A. The Applicant agreed to Facility design layouts
12 that avoid and minimize wetlands, T&E species
h abita t, an d agr icult ural r esour ces t o the 13 habitat, and agricultural resources to the
m aximu m ext ent p racti cable. The prop osed 14 maximum extent practicable. The proposed
15 Facility design also takes into consideration
16 constraints from archeological resources in the
17 Project Area, and landowner preferences; direct
18 effects on archeological and historic resource
19 sites and cemeteries are avoided by detailed
f acili ty ar range ment and es tabli shmen t of 20 facility arrangement and establishment of
r esour ce bu ffers . Su bject to ad optin g the 21 resource buffers. Subject to adopting the
43 542
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
S ettle ment Packa ge, t he Sit ing B oard can, 1 Settlement Package, the Siting Board can,
a ccord ingly , fin d tha t the Facil ity’s 2 accordingly, find that the Facility’s
3 construction and operation minimizes or avoids
4 significant adverse impacts to environmental and
5 cultural resources, community character, and
6 natural resources including prime agricultural
7 soils, wetlands and T&E species and habitats, to
t he ma ximum exte nt pr actica ble. 8 the maximum extent practicable.
Q . Has th e App lican t avo ided o r min imize d the 9 Q. Has the Applicant avoided or minimized the
i mpact to S tate- prote cted s tream s? 10 impact to State-protected streams?
11 A. Yes. As noted in Exhibit 23 of the Application,
12 there are no State-protected streams within the
13 proposed Facility site that would be crossed or
o therw ise a ffect ed by the c onstr uctio n and 14 otherwise affected by the construction and
o perat ion o f the Faci lity. 15 operation of the Facility.
16 Q. What measures has the Applicant taken to avoid
o r min imize impa cts t o T&E speci es? 17 or minimize impacts to T&E species?
18 A. As indicated in Exhibit 22 of the Application,
n o fed erall y or State -liste d thr eaten ed or 19 no federally or State-listed threatened or
20 endangered grassland bird species were observed
21 within the Study Area. Consequently, impacts to
44 543
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 federally or State-listed T&E grassland bird
2 species are not anticipated. The Applicant has
3 agreed to proposed Certificate Conditions to
r equir e res torat ion m easure s for temp orary 4 require restoration measures for temporary
d istur bance or m odifi cation of e stabl ished 5 disturbance or modification of established
6 grassland vegetation coverage that occurs at any
7 time of year in the Project Area as a result of
c onstr uctio n, re stora tion, or ma inten ance 8 construction, restoration, or maintenance
9 activities. Further, the proposed Certificate
10 Conditions establish tree-clearing time of year
11 restrictions and setbacks to avoid and minimize
12 impacts to potential hibernacula and maternity
r oosts of T &E ba t spe cies. The propo sed 13 roosts of T&E bat species. The proposed
14 Certificate Conditions also include protocols
15 for incidental observations of T&E species and
16 discovery of T&E species nests or dead, injured
o r dam aged T&E i ndivi duals. 17 or damaged T&E individuals.
18 Q. Does DPS Staff recommend that the Siting Board
19 make a finding that the Applicant has avoided,
20 offset, or minimized the impacts caused by the
21 Project upon the local community to the maximum
45 544
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 extent practicable using verifiable measures?
A . Yes. DPS S taff asser ts tha t, as orig inall y 2 A. Yes. DPS Staff asserts that, as originally
p ropos ed, t he Fa cilit y woul d not avoi d, 3 proposed, the Facility would not avoid,
4 minimize, or provide offsets for impacts on the
e nviro nment or t he co mmunit y to the m aximu m 5 environment or the community to the maximum
6 extent practicable. However, with the proposed
C ertif icate Cond ition s agre ed up on in the 7 Certificate Conditions agreed upon in the
S ettle ment Packa ge, D PS Sta ff be lieve s the 8 Settlement Package, DPS Staff believes the
9 Siting Board can make the required findings and
10 recommends that the Siting Board adopt these
C ondit ions. 11 Conditions.
12 Q. Has the Applicant minimized the impact to the
13 local community from noise generated by the
P rojec t? 14 Project?
15 A. Yes. DPS Staff believes that the potential
a dvers e env ironm ental noise impa cts f rom 16 adverse environmental noise impacts from
17 operation of the Facility have been minimized
18 with the design presented in the Application if
19 the Siting Board adopts the proposed Certificate
20 Conditions on noise and vibration, the SEEP
G uide provi sions on n oise, and t he NC RP 21 Guide provisions on noise, and the NCRP
46 545
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 (collectively, the Noise Package), contained in
2 the Settlement Package filed by the Applicant.
3 Q. What are the anticipated sound impacts from the
4 Facility as designed and as presented in the
A pplic ation ? 5 Application?
A . The Ap plica tion shows that the P rojec t, as 6 A. The Application shows that the Project, as
7 designed, will produce a maximum daytime sound
8 level of 44 dBA at participating residences and
9 42 dBA at non-participating residences. The
10 Application also shows that the Project will
11 produce a maximum nighttime sound level of 35
12 dBA at participating residences and 39 dBA at
13 non-participating residences. The maximum sound
14 level at boundary lines and portions of non-
15 participating lands is estimated to be 50 dBA
d uring the dayti me fr om the 16 during the daytime from the
17 inverters/transformer packages and 49 dBA during
18 the nighttime from the substation transformers.
19 Q. What is the scope of the proposed Certificate
20 Conditions concerning noise stipulated to for
t his P rojec t? 21 this Project?
47 546
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 A. The parties stipulated to proposed Certificate
2 Conditions that contain noise limits for non-
p artic ipati ng re siden ces, n on-pa rtici patin g 3 participating residences, non-participating
p ortio ns of land s, an d for parti cipat ing 4 portions of lands, and for participating
5 residences that reasonably limit the daytime and
n ightt ime i mpact s fro m nois e. P ropos ed 6 nighttime impacts from noise. Proposed
7 Certificate Conditions also include provisions
8 for construction noise and refer to the NCRP,
9 which contains provisions about how complaints
10 from construction and operation of the Facility
11 will be filed, documented, handled, reported,
12 and resolved, should they occur. Also, the SEEP
13 Guide specifications on noise contain specific
14 provisions about how the final computer noise
m odeli ng an d ton ality asses sment will be 15 modeling and tonality assessment will be
p resen ted d uring Comp liance Fili ngs. The 16 presented during Compliance Filings. The
17 proposed Noise Package will ensure that adverse
e nviro nment al ef fects from noise will be 18 environmental effects from noise will be
19 minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
20 Q. Do the proposed Certificate Conditions and SEEP
21 Guide include a post-construction sound test?
48 547
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 A. No. Based on the estimated sound impacts from
2 the design and the Noise Package agreed to by
3 the Applicant, the Project does not require a
p ost-c onstr uctio n sou nd tes t at the m ost 4 post-construction sound test at the most
5 impacted participating and non-participating
6 residences during the first year of operation
7 (during leaf-on and leaf-off seasons), as has
b een p revio usly adopt ed for wind gene ratin g 8 been previously adopted for wind generating
f acili ties under Arti cle 10 . In stead , the 9 facilities under Article 10. Instead, the
10 Applicant has agreed to present final design and
11 computer noise modeling 60 days prior to the
12 start of construction to demonstrate that the
f inal desig n, in cludi ng any chan ges t o the 13 final design, including any changes to the
14 design presented in the Application, complies
15 with all proposed Certificate Conditions on
16 noise. The Applicant has agreed to perform the
m odeli ng an d cal culat ions b y fol lowin g the 17 modeling and calculations by following the
18 provisions included in the section entitled
“ Sound ” in the p ropos ed SEE P Gui de. In 19 “Sound” in the proposed SEEP Guide. In
20 addition, the Applicant has agreed to follow the
21 NCRP to investigate noise complaints during
49 548
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
c onstr uctio n and oper ation, perf orm n oise 1 construction and operation, perform noise
2 measurements, and reduce sound levels or provide
m itiga tion, if n ecess ary. 3 mitigation, if necessary.
4 Q. What does DPS Staff recommend on noise impacts?
5 A. DPS Staff recommends that the Siting Board adopt
6 proposed Certificate Conditions 44 through 46,
4 9, 75 thro ugh 7 7, 83 , and 84 (a ), th e SEE P 7 49, 75 through 77, 83, and 84 (a), the SEEP
8 Guide protocols on noise, and the NCRP so that
9 the adverse environmental noise effects from the
o perat ion o f the Faci lity a re mi nimiz ed or 10 operation of the Facility are minimized or
a voide d to the m aximu m exte nt pr actic able. 11 avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
12 Q. Are there other areas where the Siting Board
13 should consider adverse environmental impacts?
14 A. Yes. The Siting Board should also consider the
p otent ial a dvers e env ironme ntal impac ts 15 potential adverse environmental impacts
a ssoci ated with decom missio ning and s ite 16 associated with decommissioning and site
r estor ation . 17 restoration.
18 Q. Has the Applicant minimized or avoided probable
a dvers e env ironm ental effec ts fr om th e 19 adverse environmental effects from the
20 construction and operation of the Facility?
21 A. Yes. If the Siting Board adopts the proposed
50 549
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 Certificate Conditions and SEEP Guide, it can
m ake t he re quire d fin dings that adver se 2 make the required findings that adverse
e nviro nment al ef fects of co nstru ction and 3 environmental effects of construction and
4 operation of the Facility will be avoided or
5 minimized to the maximum extent practicable. As
6 part of proposed Certificate Condition 51, the
A pplic ant h as co mmitt ed to provi ding, as a 7 Applicant has committed to providing, as a
c ompli ance filin g, a final “Deco mmiss ionin g 8 compliance filing, a final “Decommissioning
9 Plan” and proving financial assurance in the
10 form of a letter of credit to be held by the
T own o f Flo rida. 11 Town of Florida.
Q . Please expl ain t he “De commi ssion ing P lan” 12 Q. Please explain the “Decommissioning Plan”
f urthe r. 13 further.
14 A. The “Decommissioning Plan” will be required to
15 include an estimate based on final Facility
16 design. The proposed Certificate Conditions as
17 stipulated prohibit the inclusion of salvage
18 value of Project components as decommissioning
19 cost offsets in this estimate. Furthermore,
20 this estimate will be updated by a qualified
i ndepe ndent engi neer licens ed to prac tice 21 independent engineer licensed to practice
51 550
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 engineering in the State of New York to reflect
2 inflation and any other changes after one year
o f Fac ility oper ation and e very fifth year 3 of Facility operation and every fifth year
4 thereafter. Such estimates will be submitted to
5 the Secretary as a compliance filing. As part
6 of that filing, the Applicant must file proof
7 that a letter of credit has been obtained based
o n the fina l dec ommis sionin g and site 8 on the final decommissioning and site
9 restoration and updated estimates along with
c opies of a greem ents betwee n the Appl icant 10 copies of agreements between the Applicant
11 (Certificate Holder) and the Town of Florida,
12 establishing a right for the Town to draw on the
13 financial security. Also, the Plan will include
14 procedures and timeframes for providing notice
15 to the Town of Florida, NYSDEC, NYSAGM, and
16 participating landowners prior to commencement
17 of decommissioning activities and will describe
18 provisions for decommissioning and restoration
19 activities within former agricultural land in
a ccord ance with Solar Energ y Pro jects – 20 accordance with Solar Energy Projects –
21 Construction Mitigation for Agricultural Lands
52 551
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 (Revision 10/18/2019). Finally, as required in
p ropos ed Ce rtifi cate Condit ion 5 1, 2 proposed Certificate Condition 51,
3 decommissioning will commence if the Project has
4 not generated electricity for a period of 12
c ontin uous month s, un less t he pe riod of no 5 continuous months, unless the period of no
e nergy outp ut is a re sult o f rep air o r 6 energy output is a result of repair or
7 restoration activities being diligently pursued,
i n whi ch ca se th e Cer tifica te Ho lder may 8 in which case the Certificate Holder may
9 petition the Secretary for additional time to
c onduc t rep airs, or s imilar acti vitie s, as 10 conduct repairs, or similar activities, as
d etail ed in Cert ifica te Con ditio n 140 . 11 detailed in Certificate Condition 140.
12 Q. Did the Applicant request any waivers of local
l aws r elate d to decom missio ning? 13 laws related to decommissioning?
14 A. Yes, the Applicant requests that a portion of
15 Article VIII Section 45.5.C.3.j of the Town of
16 Florida Zoning Ordinance be waived, which states
17 that “[u]pon abandonment or discontinuance of
u se, t he sy stem owner or op erato r sha ll in 18 use, the system owner or operator shall in
19 addition to complying with the decommissioning
p lan, assur e, if not part o f the appr oved 20 plan, assure, if not part of the approved
21 decommissioning plan, physical removal of the
53 552
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
S olar Energ y Sys tem, and al l acc essor y 1 Solar Energy System, and all accessory
2 structures and/or equipment within 90 days from
3 the date of abandonment or discontinuance of use
( Decom missi oning Sche dule). ” 4 (Decommissioning Schedule).”
5 Q. What justification did the Applicant provide in
s uppor ting the a bove noted waive r req uest? 6 supporting the above noted waiver request?
7 A. As explained in Exhibit 31 of the Application,
8 the Applicant notes that the decommissioning
9 process is expected to take approximately four
t o six mont hs; a nd de commis sioni ng a solar 10 to six months; and decommissioning a solar
f acili ty as larg e as the Pr oject take s 11 facility as large as the Project takes
s ignif icant effo rt, i ncludi ng pr epara tion, 12 significant effort, including preparation,
13 disassembling components, and removing access
14 roads. It cannot be done safely and completely
15 within 90 days. Furthermore, the Applicant
16 requests that the Board elect not to apply the
9 0-day requ ireme nt be cause the n ecess ary 17 90-day requirement because the necessary
f acili ty co mpone nt bu lk and mate rials make 18 facility component bulk and materials make
c ompli ance techn ologi cally impos sible . 19 compliance technologically impossible.
20 Q. What is DPS Staff’s recommendation regarding the
w aiver of A rticl e VII I Sect ion 4 5.5.C .3.j, 21 waiver of Article VIII Section 45.5.C.3.j,
54 553
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 pertaining to the Decommissioning Schedule, of
t he To wn of Flor ida Z oning Ordin ance? 2 the Town of Florida Zoning Ordinance?
3 A. DPS Staff recommends that the Siting Board waive
t he lo cal l aw re quire ment r egard ing t hat 4 the local law requirement regarding that
c omple tion of de commi ssioni ng an d sit e 5 completion of decommissioning and site
r estor ation be d one w ithin 90 da ys of 6 restoration be done within 90 days of
a bando nment or d iscon tinuan ce of use of th e 7 abandonment or discontinuance of use of the
F acili ty, a s it belie ves th e loc al la w is 8 Facility, as it believes the local law is
9 unreasonably burdensome. The proper removal of
a larg e-sca le so lar g enerat ion p lant is a 10 a large-scale solar generation plant is a
11 significant construction project; and requiring
t he co mplet ion o f suc h an u ndert aking in a 12 the completion of such an undertaking in a
13 shorter duration of time than anticipated by the
14 individuals that prepared the estimate of 4 to 6
m onths is n ot pr udent . The dism antli ng of 15 months is not prudent. The dismantling of
16 potentially dangerous electrical equipment and
o ther decom missi oning and s ite r estor ation 17 other decommissioning and site restoration
18 activities should be done in a safe and thorough
19 manner. Therefore, DPS Staff recommends that
20 the Siting Board grant the Applicant’s requested
w aiver of A rticl e VII I Sect ion 4 5.5.C .3.j, 21 waiver of Article VIII Section 45.5.C.3.j,
55 554
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 pertaining to the Decommissioning Schedule, of
2 the Town of Florida’s Zoning Ordinance.
Q . Is the re an ythin g fur ther t he Si ting Board 3 Q. Is there anything further the Siting Board
4 should consider related to decommissioning?
5 A. Yes. The proposed Certificate Conditions and
6 requirements for the “Decommissioning Plan” are
7 consistent with DPS Staff’s position in prior
8 cases and prior Siting Board orders. Provisions
a nd re quire ments incl uded i n pro posed 9 and requirements included in proposed
10 Certificate Condition 51 are consistent with DPS
11 Staff’s recommendations for past Article 10
12 cases and Siting Board orders, in for example,
13 Cases 14-F-0490, 15-F-0122, 16-F-0062, 16-F-
0 205, 16-F- 0328, and 16-F-0 559. 14 0205, 16-F-0328, and 16-F-0559.
15 Visual Impacts
Q . What d oes t he Ap plica tion d emons trate and 16 Q. What does the Application demonstrate and
17 conclude regarding solar photo-voltaic panel
g lint and g lare expos ure an d mit igati on? 18 glint and glare exposure and mitigation?
19 A. The Glint and Glare analysis (Application Appx.
20 24-2) follows the Sandia National Laboratories
S olar Glare Haza rd An alysis Tool (SGH AT) 21 Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT)
56 555
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
m ethod ology and adopt s reco mmend ation s for 1 methodology and adopts recommendations for
2 determining significance of predicted exposure
f rom a guid ance docum ent pu blish ed by Page r 3 from a guidance document published by Pager
4 Power that concludes that 60 hours of exposure
5 annually is a threshold of significance (based
o n ind ustry stan dard of 30 hours annu al 6 on industry standard of 30 hours annual
7 residential exposure to shadow flicker resulting
8 from wind turbine operation). DPS notes that
9 literature regarding assessment of residential
10 exposure to solar glare is limited; and that
11 other publications referred to in the assessment
12 make general statements about the limited amount
13 of glare from solar panels rather than providing
a ny de taile d ass essme nt of opera tiona l 14 any detailed assessment of operational
15 experience. DPS advises, however, that the
16 Glint and Glare analysis provides analysis for
t he fe w res ident ial l ocatio ns pr edict ed to 17 the few residential locations predicted to
18 potentially be exposed to glare between 30 and
19 60 hours and identifies specific locations of
20 landscape screening that should reduce or avoid
21 those potential exposures. These provisions
57 556
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 should be implemented to provide mitigation as
p redic ted. In a dditi on, DP S adv ises that 2 predicted. In addition, DPS advises that
p rovis ions of th e pro posed Certi ficat e 3 provisions of the proposed Certificate
4 Conditions can be applied to effectively respond
t o lan downe r req uests for a dditi onal relie f 5 to landowner requests for additional relief
s hould expo sure impac t exce ed Ap plica nt 6 should exposure impact exceed Applicant
p redic tions : pro posed Certi ficat e Con ditio n 7 predictions: proposed Certificate Condition
8 60(g), providing for remedial mitigation (or
9 complaint resolution), should be interpreted to
10 apply to residences experiencing solar glare, as
w ell a s for mini mizat ion of visi bilit y of 11 well as for minimization of visibility of
F acili ty vi sibil ity g eneral ly. 12 Facility visibility generally.
Q . What o ther provi sions for v isual impa ct 13 Q. What other provisions for visual impact
14 minimization and mitigation are recommended to
b e imp lemen ted? 15 be implemented?
16 A. Several measures are recommended to be required
17 conditions of certification, and final facility
d esign plan s as refle cted i n rec ommen ded 18 design plans as reflected in recommended
19 Compliance Filings included in the SEEP Guide
a nd sh ould be ad opted as re comme nded by 20 and should be adopted as recommended by
21 Settlement Documents. Proposed Certificate
58 557
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 Conditions addressing visual impacts include:
C ondit ion 5 5, wh ich r equire s fin al Ex terio r 2 Condition 55, which requires final Exterior
3 Lighting Plans including provisions for avoiding
4 off-site light trespass and minimizing lighting
5 effects generally; Condition 60 as described
6 above; Condition 74 that implements mitigation
7 measures for cultural resource impacts including
8 final recommendations by the SHPO for impacts on
H istor ic Re sourc es; a nd Con ditio n 86, whic h 9 Historic Resources; and Condition 86, which
10 generally requires minimization of existing tree
a nd ve getat ion c leari ng as part of fi nal 11 and vegetation clearing as part of final
12 Facility design. Also, the recommended SEEP
13 Guidance document includes details applicable to
14 visual mitigation measures. Applicable SEEP
15 provisions for visual impact mitigation include:
16 Detail vegetation screening mitigation plans
17 (1.e., p. 1;) Exterior lighting plan (1.o., p.
18 5); vegetation protection measures (3.h., p. 6)
a nd (1 3.a. & b., p. 9 ); and Land scape and 19 and (13.a. & b., p. 9); and Landscape and
S creen ing P lan ( 14.a. p. 17 -18). 20 Screening Plan (14.a. p. 17-18).
21 State and Local Laws
59 558
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 Q. Does the Application identify applicable New
2 York State Laws and regulatory requirements?
3 A. Yes, Exhibit 32 lists provisions of NYS laws and
r egula tions . 4 regulations.
5 Q. Does DPS Staff recommend that the Siting Board
6 make a finding that the Facility is designed to
7 operate in compliance with applicable State laws
a nd re gulat ions? 8 and regulations?
9 A. Yes, subject to the Siting Board adopting the
10 proposed Certificate Conditions filed by the
11 Applicant. In addition, the following must be
d emons trate d in the f inal F acili ty de sign, 12 demonstrated in the final Facility design,
c onstr uctio n pla ns an d comp lianc e fil ings: 13 construction plans and compliance filings:
p rotec tion of ar cheol ogical reso urces ; 14 protection of archeological resources;
15 conformance with water quality standards and
16 permitting standards for State-protected water
17 bodies and State-regulated wetlands; an approved
S tormw ater Pollu tion Preven tion Plan to 18 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to
19 demonstrate conformance with State Pollution
D ischa rge E limin ation Stand ards; and if 20 Discharge Elimination Standards; and if
21 required, compliance with provisions addressing
60 559
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 incidental take of a threatened species at 6
2 NYCRR Part 182 and development of a final net
c onser vatio n ben efit plan. 3 conservation benefit plan.
Q . Has th e pro ject been propos ed to avoi d or 4 Q. Has the project been proposed to avoid or
5 minimize adverse effects on cultural resources,
6 including archeological resources and historic
p roper ties? 7 properties?
A . The Ap plica tion Exhibi t 20 and s uppor ting 8 A. The Application Exhibit 20 and supporting
9 documents provide information regarding results
o f stu dies for a rcheo logic and h istor ic 10 of studies for archeologic and historic
11 resources. The archeologic resources study
12 included Phase 1A and 1B reports that provided
13 review of reports regarding known resources in
14 the Project Area, and results of field studies
15 including test pit excavations and analyses. As
16 demonstrated in its letter dated November 8,
17 2019, included as Exhibit__(SPSS-2), OPRHP SHPO
18 reviewed the archeologic test results for the
o rigin al Pr oject layo ut and issu ed a 19 original Project layout and issued a
d eterm inati on ba sed o n the Study that “No 20 determination based on the Study that “No
21 archaeological sites were identified. It is
61 560
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
O PRHP’ s opi nion that no add ition al 1 OPRHP’s opinion that no additional
a rchae ologi cal w ork i s nece ssary .” 2 archaeological work is necessary.”
3 Subsequently, the Applicant updated the Project
4 by adding a property and revising some facility
5 locations as described in the May 15, and May
6 22, 2020 filings. The May 22, 2020 Exhibit 20
u pdate repo rts t hat d esktop Phas e 1A 7 update reports that desktop Phase 1A
8 archeological resource review of the additional
9 property area was performed; and stated that
10 additional Phase 1B field work was needed for
11 areas proposed for Facility components including
12 fencing, access roads, inverter locations and
13 areas requiring tree clearing (Exhibit 20 May
14 22, 2020 Update p. 5). The Update report also
15 states that the Phase 1B field investigations
16 will be conducted as soon as possible now that
17 New York on Pause restrictions are lifted, and
18 the results will be submitted following analysis
( Exhib it 31 May 22, 2 020 Up date p. 6) . 19 (Exhibit 31 May 22, 2020 Update p. 6).
20 Q. Have the updates to the Phase 1B report been
p rovid ed? 21 provided?
62 561
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 A. Yes, DPS received a copy of the High River Phase
1 B Add endum Repo rt on July 15, 2 020. This 2 1B Addendum Report on July 15, 2020. This
3 report was provided to SHPO Cultural Resources
4 Information Service (CRIS) as follow-up to the
5 Project file regarding the additional Phase 1B
6 field work recommended by the Applicant in the
M ay 22 , 202 0 Upd ate a nd bas ed on othe r 7 May 22, 2020 Update and based on other
8 refinements of the Facility design. DPS notes
t hat t he Ph ase 1 B Add endum incl udes a 9 that the Phase 1B Addendum includes a
10 recommendation that essentially concludes that
11 the limited artifact finds are in areas of minor
12 proposed disturbance (within areas of proposed
13 solar arrays) and are of little significance and
14 are “recommended as ineligible for inclusion in
15 the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
16 and no further archaeological investigations are
r ecomm ended .” ( Phase 1B Ad dendu m p. 34). 17 recommended.” (Phase 1B Addendum p. 34).
Q . What a bout revie w of potent ial i mpact s on 18 Q. What about review of potential impacts on
19 Historic Architectural Resources: has there been
20 any determination regarding potential effects of
21 the proposed facilities on Historic resources?
63 562
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
A . The Ap plica tion provi des a detai led r eport 1 A. The Application provides a detailed report
2 regarding Historic Architectural resources in
3 the Project area, including consideration of
d irect impa cts o n pot ential ly hi stori c 4 direct impacts on potentially historic
p roper ties, and poten tial v isibi lity of th e 5 properties, and potential visibility of the
6 Project from the buildings and properties that
7 were reviewed. (Application Ex. 20, Appendix
2 0-2). The Appl icant ’s cul tural reso urces 8 20-2). The Applicant’s cultural resources
9 consultants recommend in that report that there
10 are no direct effects on historic resources
11 identified, and recommends findings be made that
12 the Project will have no effect on the resources
w ithin the Area of Po tentia l Eff ect e ither 13 within the Area of Potential Effect either
14 listed, previously-determined Eligible, and
15 recommended Eligible historic resources in
t erms of cr iteri a for NRHP listi ng. 16 terms of criteria for NRHP listing.
17 (Application Update May 22, 2020; Appendix 20-2;
p age 8 9.) That recom mendat ion b y the 18 page 89.) That recommendation by the
19 consultants is supported by the report with
20 resource-specific considerations at pp. 89-107.
21 The Historic Resources suggests no effects of
64 563
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
P rojec t vis ibili ty on those prop ertie s. 1 Project visibility on those properties.
( Appen dix 2 0-2). As descri bed a bove for 2 (Appendix 20-2). As described above for
3 archeological resources, additional review of
4 historic resource effects due to the additional
5 property identified in the May 15 and 22, 2020
A pplic ation Upda te, a dditio nal a nalys is an d 6 Application Update, additional analysis and
7 assessment was recommended by the consultants.
T he Ap plica nt pr ovide d to D PS St aff a 8 The Applicant provided to DPS Staff a
s upple menta l rep ort t itled Histo ric 9 supplemental report titled Historic
A rchit ectur al Re sourc es Sur vey a nd Ef fects 10 Architectural Resources Survey and Effects
11 Report for the updated layout on July 16, 2020.
12 The Report was submitted to the OPRHP SHPO for
13 thorough review and development of an effect
14 determination and recommendations. DPS advises
15 that on August 31, 2020, SHPO provided a letter
i n res ponse to t he Ju ly 16, 2020 Repo rt, 16 in response to the July 16, 2020 Report,
17 indicating that the Office had “concluded its
18 review of the undertaking” and “found that no
19 additional archaeological survey is warranted
f or th is pr oject . We have also asses sed 20 for this project. We have also assessed
21 potential, impacts to historic buildings and
65 564
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
d istri cts. Based upon our r eview we h ave 1 districts. Based upon our review we have
2 identified a total of nine historic resources,
3 including the NYS Barge Canal National Historic
L andma rk Di stric t. Af ter re viewi ng th e 4 Landmark District. After reviewing the
5 previously submitted visual assessment report,
6 we found none of the identified resources will
b e imp acted by t his u nderta king. ” (O PRHP 7 be impacted by this undertaking.” (OPRHP
8 Historic and Cultural Resources Finding 2020).
Q . Is thi s rev iew s ubjec t to S tate Parks , 9 Q. Is this review subject to State Parks,
10 Recreation and Historic Preservation Act §14.09?
A . The Ar ticle 10 A pplic ation indic ates that 11 A. The Article 10 Application indicates that
f edera l per mitti ng by the U S Arm y Cor ps of 12 federal permitting by the US Army Corps of
13 Engineers is anticipated; thus, federal agency
r eview , pur suant to N ationa l His toric 14 review, pursuant to National Historic
15 Preservation Act §106 applies. Regardless of
16 that distinction, the Article 10 regulations
17 require showings and impact characterizations,
a nd th e Sit ing B oard genera lly c onsid ers 18 and the Siting Board generally considers
19 cultural resource impacts and impact avoidance
20 and mitigation considerations in considering the
21 public interest. The Applicant has proposed to
66 565
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
a dopt certa in me asure s for: avoi ding direc t 1 adopt certain measures for: avoiding direct
i mpact s to known reso urces; avoi ding 2 impacts to known resources; avoiding
c onstr uctio n in areas that have not b een 3 construction in areas that have not been
r eview ed fo r cul tural resou rce i mpact s; 4 reviewed for cultural resource impacts;
5 addressing unanticipated archeological resources
6 discovered during construction; and providing
7 offset mitigation for historic resource impacts.
T hese provi sions are includ ed in prop osed 8 These provisions are included in proposed
C ertif icate Cond ition 74. 9 Certificate Condition 74.
10 Q. Does the Application adequately address visual
r esour ces a nd im pact minimi zatio n? 11 resources and impact minimization?
12 A. Application Exhibit 24 and the supporting Visual
13 Impact Assessment (Appendix 24-1 – “VIA”) and
14 Glint and Glare Analysis (Appendix 24-2) address
15 the impact analysis and mitigation requirements
o f the Arti cle 1 0 reg ulatio ns an d the 16 of the Article 10 regulations and the
17 Stipulation regarding Application requirements.
18 The VIA provides information including: viewshed
m appin g whi ch in dicat es are as of pred icted 19 mapping which indicates areas of predicted
F acili ty vi sibil ity i n rela tion to va rious 20 Facility visibility in relation to various
21 receptor locations of potential visual interest;
67 566
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
p hoto- simul ation s of predic ted F acili ty 1 photo-simulations of predicted Facility
2 appearance from several representative receptor
l ocati ons; contr ast a ssessm ent o f eff ect o f 3 locations; contrast assessment of effect of
c hange in t he ex istin g view s; an d eff ect o f 4 change in the existing views; and effect of
5 visual mitigation measures including landscape
6 screen plantings. In addition, the Application
7 addresses Project operational effects, including
p relim inary exte rior lighti ng pl ans f or 8 preliminary exterior lighting plans for
s ubsta tion and s witch yard s ites, and the 9 substation and switchyard sites, and the
10 assessment of areas of exposure to potential
11 glint and glare of reflected sunlight from solar
p anel colle ctor surfa ces. These anal yses 12 panel collector surfaces. These analyses
13 suggest that reasonable efforts have been made
14 to identify potential impacts, and that measures
15 for impact reduction have been identified.
16
17
18
19
20
21
68 567
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 Q. Does DPS Staff recommend that the Siting Board
2 make a finding that the Project is designed to
o perat e in compl iance with appli cable 3 operate in compliance with applicable
s ubsta ntive prov ision s of l ocal laws and 4 substantive provisions of local laws and
r egula tions ? 5 regulations?
6 A. As indicated in Exhibit 31 of the Application of
7 the Application, the Applicant has requested
8 that the Siting Board elect not to apply eleven
s ubsta ntive requ ireme nts of the Town of 9 substantive requirements of the Town of
F lorid a’s Z oning Ordi nance. 10 Florida’s Zoning Ordinance.
11 Q. Does the Panel agree that those eleven specified
12 requirements of the Town of Florida’s Zoning
13 Ordinance include substantive provisions that
w arran t con sider ation for w aiver ? 14 warrant consideration for waiver?
A . Yes. The A pplic ation prese nts a nalys is to 15 A. Yes. The Application presents analysis to
16 demonstrate that the substantive provisions of
17 those Sections of the Town of Florida’s Zoning
18 Ordinance are unreasonably restrictive based on
19 the state of technology and the needs of New
20 York consumers based on the mandates for clean
21 energy in the New York State CLCPA and the Clean
69 568
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 Energy Standard. The Applicant’s request for
2 waivers are reasonably supported by the analysis
p rovid ed in Appl icati on Exh ibit 31(e) 3 provided in Application Exhibit 31(e)
4 (Application Ex. 31(e), pp. 5-20), as required
b y the appl icabl e Art icle 1 0 reg ulati ons. 5 by the applicable Article 10 regulations.
Q . Has th e App lican t req uested dele gatio n of 6 Q. Has the Applicant requested delegation of
p ermit ting autho rity for an y asp ect o f the 7 permitting authority for any aspect of the
p ropos ed pr oject ? 8 proposed project?
9 A. Yes, at Exhibit 31(c), the Application requests
10 that the Siting Board delegate Building Code
r eview to t he To wn of Flori da fo r per mit 11 review to the Town of Florida for permit
a dmini strat ion b y eit her th e Tow n Cod e 12 administration by either the Town Code
13 Enforcement officer or qualified consultants to
14 the Town. The Applicant requests that this
15 delegation specify that intervenor funding not
16 be used to support permit or review fees for
17 this review. Staff does not object to such
d elega tion as re quest ed. 18 delegation as requested.
19 Public Involvement
20 Q. What does Article 10 require in terms of public
i nvolv ement ? 21 involvement?
70 569
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 A. Article 10 regulations mandate that an applicant
2 actively seek public involvement throughout the
A rticl e 10 proce ss, i ncludi ng pl annin g, pr e-3 Article 10 process, including planning, pre-3
a pplic ation , cer tific ation, comp lianc e and 4 application, certification, compliance and
i mplem entat ion p hases . 5 implementation phases.
Q . For wh at pu rpose ? 6 Q. For what purpose?
7 A. It is the policy of the Siting Board to enable
8 the public to participate in the decisions that
9 affect their health, safety and the environment.
10 The goal is to facilitate communication between
a pplic ants and i ntere sted o r aff ected 11 applicants and interested or affected
12 stakeholders; solicit public comments, ideas and
l ocal exper tise; prov ide ti mely notic e of 13 local expertise; provide timely notice of
14 proposed project milestones and events; and to
15 encourage the public and interested parties to
16 engage in the process and provide input into key
17 decisions. A robust public involvement program
18 will ensure that the Siting Board is aware of
19 stakeholder concerns when deciding whether to
a ward a Cer tific ate o f Envi ronme ntal 20 award a Certificate of Environmental
21 Compatibility and Public Need to the Applicant.
71 570
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 Q. How does public involvement become part of the
A rticl e 10 proce ss? 2 Article 10 process?
3 A. Applicants are expected to communicate with the
p ublic earl y in the p rocess and estab lish a 4 public early in the process and establish a
5 community presence. The Article 10 regulations
a t 16 NYCRR §100 0.4 r equire appl icant s to 6 at 16 NYCRR §1000.4 require applicants to
d evelo p and impl ement a pub lic i nvolv ement 7 develop and implement a public involvement
p rogra m (PI P) pl an. The PI P mus t inc lude 8 program (PIP) plan. The PIP must include
9 consultation with affected agencies and other
10 stakeholders; pre-application activities to
e ncour age s takeh older parti cipat ion a t the 11 encourage stakeholder participation at the
12 earliest opportunity, as well as activities
13 during certification and compliance; activities
14 to educate the public about the proposed project
a nd th e Art icle 10 pr ocess; and the 15 and the Article 10 process; and the
e stabl ishme nt of a pr oject websi te to 16 establishment of a project website to
d issem inate info rmati on to the p ublic . 17 disseminate information to the public.
18 Q. Did the Applicant for the High River Energy
C enter Proj ect d evelo p a PI P Pla n? 19 Center Project develop a PIP Plan?
20 A. Yes. The Applicant filed a PIP Plan with the
21 Department in September 2017. Staff reviewed
72 571
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 the plan and the Applicant filed a revised PIP
P lan i n Nov ember 2017 . 2 Plan in November 2017.
3 Q. What elements were included in the Applicant’s
P IP Pl an? 4 PIP Plan?
5 A. The Applicant stated in the PIP Plan that it had
6 identified several categories of stakeholders
t hat m ay be inte reste d or a ffect ed by the 7 that may be interested or affected by the
8 Project, including affected federal, state and
l ocal agenc ies, munic ipalit ies a nd sc hool 9 local agencies, municipalities and school
10 districts in the facility and study areas, host
a nd ad jacen t lan downe rs, le gisla tive 11 and adjacent landowners, legislative
12 representatives, highway departments, emergency
13 responders, utilities, public interest groups,
14 area residents, airports and heliports and other
15 stakeholders based on DPS guidance, experience
16 in developing other projects, knowledge of its
17 local representatives to identify potential
18 stakeholders, review of Montgomery County GIS
19 data, tax records, personal visits to project
a nd st udy a reas, and consul tatio n wit h 20 and study areas, and consultation with
21 environmental/regulatory counsel in addition to
73 572
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 its research efforts. The PIP Plan described
h ow th e App lican t pla nned t o fos ter 2 how the Applicant planned to foster
p artic ipati on in the Articl e 10 proce ss by 3 participation in the Article 10 process by
d issem inati ng Pr oject infor matio n usi ng th e 4 disseminating Project information using the
5 stakeholder list, soliciting knowledge through
c onsul tatio n wit h aff ected agenc ies a nd 6 consultation with affected agencies and
7 stakeholders, and conducting activities designed
8 to educate the public about the Project, the
9 process and intervenor funding opportunities.
10 The Applicant established a Project website,
11 document repositories, and a toll-free telephone
12 number for public access to Project information.
T hroug hout the p roces s, the Appl icant has 13 Throughout the process, the Applicant has
14 completed a log recording its consultation and
15 outreach activities covering the period May 2018
16 through November 2019. The logs are included in
17 the High River Energy Center case file (Case
18 number 17-F-0597) on the Department’s website
a t, ww w.dps .ny.g ov. 19 at, www.dps.ny.gov.
20 Q. Throughout the pre-application, scoping and
21 application phases, did the Applicant implement
74 573
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 a public involvement program as described in the
P IP Pl an? 2 PIP Plan?
3 A. Yes. The Applicant encouraged participation from
4 municipal officials and affected local, state
5 and federal agencies, and as evidenced in the
6 meeting tracking logs, sought input from these
s takeh older s. I n add ition, the Appli cant 7 stakeholders. In addition, the Applicant
c ommun icate d wit h oth er sta kehol ders by 8 communicated with other stakeholders by
t eleph one, lette r, em ail, a nd in -pers on 9 telephone, letter, email, and in-person
10 meetings. The Applicant also hosted two open
11 houses for the public on August 29, 2018, at the
T own o f Flo rida, Town Hall prior to t he 12 Town of Florida, Town Hall prior to the
13 submittal of the Preliminary Scoping Statement
14 on November 16, 2018, and on September 12, 2019,
15 at the Fonda Fairground, Scott Hall, prior to
16 the Application filing on October 10, 2019. The
A pplic ant p osted noti ce of the o pen h ouse 17 Applicant posted notice of the open house
18 meetings in the local newspapers of record and
19 on its website and sent notification letter to
20 stakeholders. The Applicant also attended Town
21 and County Board Meetings which were open to the
75 574
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
p ublic . Th e App lican t prov ided acces s to 1 public. The Applicant provided access to
2 Project information through the Project website
a nd th e est ablis hment of lo cal d ocume nt 3 and the establishment of local document
r eposi torie s. 4 repositories.
Q . In add ition to t he PI P plan deve loped and 5 Q. In addition to the PIP plan developed and
6 implemented by the Applicant, did the Siting
B oard condu ct ot her p ublic invol vemen t 7 Board conduct other public involvement
a ctivi ties? 8 activities?
A . Yes. As pa rt of the Docume nt an d Mat ter 9 A. Yes. As part of the Document and Matter
10 Management (DMM) system on the Department’s
11 website, the Department maintains a list of
12 parties to the case, as well as individuals and
13 organizations that request to be informed of
P rojec t fil ings. 14 Project filings.
15 Q. How does the Siting Board use the party list and
s ervic e lis t? 16 service list?
17 A. The individuals and organizations on the party
18 and service lists are advised, by mail or email,
19 of filings, rulings, and notices of Project
m ilest ones, such as t he ava ilabi lity of 20 milestones, such as the availability of
21 intervenor funding. The lists are also used to
76 575
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 inform parties of Project activities, such as
c ommen t per iods, proc edural conf erenc es, 2 comment periods, procedural conferences,
t echni cal c onfer ences , and publi c sta temen t 3 technical conferences, and public statement
h earin gs. 4 hearings.
5 Q. Has the Siting Board issued press releases or
6 conducted mailings concerning public statement
h earin gs ab out t he Pr oject? 7 hearings about the Project?
8 A. The Siting Board issued a letter on March 13,
9 2020, that the Application was deemed complete
a nd th at on or a bout May 6, 2020 , a p ublic 10 and that on or about May 6, 2020, a public
11 statement hearing will commence. Due to the
12 COVID-19 pandemic, public statement hearings
13 were not scheduled. However, the public has a
v ariet y of ways that they c an ha ve th eir 14 variety of ways that they can have their
15 concerns communicated to the record in this
16 proceeding. Members of the public that desired
17 to make a statement could do so by mail, e-mail,
18 telephone hotline, or go directly to DPS DMM
19 system tab to place their public comments.
20 Q. Besides the development and implementation of
t he PI P pla n, ar e the re oth er wa ys fo r the 21 the PIP plan, are there other ways for the
77 576
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 public to be involved in an Article 10 process?
2 A. Yes. Applicants are required at several stages
3 in the Article 10 process to provide funds to be
4 used by parties that participate in the Article
5 10 process. The funds, known as “intervenor
6 funds,” are collected by assessing a fee on the
7 Applicant. The fee, as set forth by PSL §163(4)
8 and §164(6), varies depending on the stage of
9 the project: applicants submitting a PSS are
10 assessed a fee equal to $350 for each megawatt
11 (MW) of generating capacity of the project with
a cap of $2 00,00 0. W hen an appl icati on is 12 a cap of $200,000. When an application is
f iled, a fe e of $1,00 0 per 1 MW gener ation 13 filed, a fee of $1,000 per 1 MW generation
14 capacity is assessed on the applicant, with a
c ap of $400 ,000. Add itiona l fee s may be 15 cap of $400,000. Additional fees may be
a ssess ed if the appli cant r evise s the 16 assessed if the applicant revises the
17 application requiring additional scrutiny or to
18 ensure an adequate record for the Siting Board’s
19 review. Upon filing the PSS and Application,
t he Ap plica nt su bmitt ed int erven or fe es of 20 the Applicant submitted intervenor fees of
$ 31,50 0 and $90, 000, respec tivel y. 21 $31,500 and $90,000, respectively.
78 577
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
Q . How do the inter venor funds ensu re pu blic 1 Q. How do the intervenor funds ensure public
p artic ipati on in the proces s? 2 participation in the process?
3 A. The intervenor funds can be used to help defray
4 expenses incurred by municipalities and local
5 parties that participate in the scoping process
a nd in the proce eding to co nside r the 6 and in the proceeding to consider the
7 application. The funds can be used to pay for
8 expert witnesses, consultants and legal fees.
9 Q. Have intervenor funds been assessed and awarded
i n thi s pro ceedi ng? 10 in this proceeding?
11 A. Yes. The Town and Citizens were awarded pre-
12 application and application stage funding. The
13 intervenors have been granted awards to ensure
t heir const ituen ts ar e repr esent ed in the 14 their constituents are represented in the
15 Article 10 process and that the Siting Board has
a comp lete recor d on which to ba se th eir 16 a complete record on which to base their
d ecisi on re gardi ng th e faci lity. 17 decision regarding the facility.
18 Q. Will there be additional public involvement and
19 education requirements during the certification
20 and compliance stages of the Article 10 process?
21 A. Yes. There are public involvement procedures
79 578
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 identified in the Project Application regarding
2 notifying the public of project milestones and
s ite a ctivi ties, as w ell as deve lopme nt an d 3 site activities, as well as development and
4 implementation of a complaint resolution plan.
5 In addition, the proposed Certificate Conditions
6 identified in the testimony of the Staff Policy
7 Panel include conditions that the Certificate
H older is r equir ed to meet regar ding publi c 8 Holder is required to meet regarding public
n otifi catio ns an d com plaint reso lutio n 9 notifications and complaint resolution
10 procedures. These conditions will ensure that
11 complaints regarding the facility are handled
12 consistently and that the public will continue
13 to receive information about the project. They
14 are reasonable for a project of this type and
s hould be a dopte d by the Si ting Board . 15 should be adopted by the Siting Board.
16 Q. Have there been public comments submitted to the
17 Siting Board regarding the proposed Project?
18 A. Yes. There have been approximately 159 public
19 comments, including comments submitted as group
p etiti ons, throu ghout the p roces s to date, 20 petitions, throughout the process to date,
21 beginning in August 2018, and continuing through
80 579
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
D ecemb er 20 19. 1 December 2019.
Q . Did De partm ent S taff review publ ic co mment s 2 Q. Did Department Staff review public comments
r eceiv ed by the Sitin g Boar d abo ut th e Hig h 3 received by the Siting Board about the High
R iver Energ y Cen ter P roject ? 4 River Energy Center Project?
5 A. Yes. Staff reviewed comments received through
6 various means such as DMM filings, letters, and
7 e-mails to the Siting Board. Staff analyzed the
8 case record, including the public comments, when
d evelo ping the t estim ony re gardi ng va rious 9 developing the testimony regarding various
t opica l are as in the case. 10 topical areas in the case.
11 Q. Are copies of these comments kept for public
r eview ? 12 review?
A . Yes, t he co mment s can be fo und i n the 13 A. Yes, the comments can be found in the
14 Department’s DMM system, on the Department’s
15 website, under the High River Energy Center case
f ile. 16 file.
17 Q. Can you characterize the nature of the comments?
18 A. There were commenters who were in favor of the
19 project, but the vast majority were opposed to
t he Pr oject . 20 the Project.
Q . What t ype o f com ments did t he Si ting Board 21 Q. What type of comments did the Siting Board
81 580
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 receive from people in support of the Project?
2 A. In summary, the commenters in support referred
t o the Proj ect a s a g ood ne ighbo r to the 3 to the Project as a good neighbor to the
4 community that will provide economic benefits to
5 the area, such as, increased job opportunities;
6 tax benefits and reliable revenue to the County
7 and Town; income to boost farming operations as
8 a supplemental revenue source; the low impact,
h igh v olume deve lopme nt tha t wil l sti mulat e 9 high volume development that will stimulate
10 positive economic activity for the Town. In
11 addition, commenters added that the Project will
12 help to maintain agricultural operations in the
13 town, i.e., farmers are not forced to sell off
14 land for non-agricultural uses and the land will
15 be returned to substantially the same condition
16 for agricultural purposes when the facilities
17 are decommissioned; the Project is a source of
18 safe, clean, and quiet energy generation; and
19 the Project will provide support for New York
20 State Independent System Operators wholesale
e nergy mark et. 21 energy market.
82 581
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
Q . What t ype o f com ments did t he Si ting Board 1 Q. What type of comments did the Siting Board
r eceiv e fro m peo ple o pposed to t he Pr oject ? 2 receive from people opposed to the Project?
3 A. In summary the commenters in opposition to the
4 Project had concerns regarding environmental,
5 health, wildlife disruption, community impacts,
v isual impa cts, and p ropert y val ue. 6 visual impacts, and property value.
7 Specifically, commenters concerns included, but
8 were not limited to, height of the substation,
9 Project panels and substation directly in the
10 line of sight from their homes; possible use of
11 horizontal drilling and/or hydrofracking; use of
12 chemicals and pesticides which may be approved
13 for use presently, but could be carcinogenic in
14 the future; contamination of ground and well
15 water; height of vegetative barrier to conceal
s olar panel s, th e acc uracy of th e dra wings 16 solar panels, the accuracy of the drawings
s howin g the loca tion of the road way t o the 17 showing the location of the roadway to the
18 substation; lease agreements made with entity
19 other than NextEra/High River; restoration of
20 property to its original state; reduced sale
v alue for p roper ty; i nterfe rence with the 21 value for property; interference with the
83 582
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
1 panoramic views from the Town’s hillside; soil
2 erosion; glare; impact to the scenic beauty of
3 the surroundings; wildlife migration; endangered
4 species; pollution during construction; noise
a nd th e tow n’s z oning laws. In addit ion, 5 and the town’s zoning laws. In addition,
c ommen ts fr om re siden t(s) f rom t he To wn of 6 comments from resident(s) from the Town of
7 Amsterdam and Swart Hill area indicated that
p rior to re ceivi ng an invit ation to a n Ope n 8 prior to receiving an invitation to an Open
9 House in Fonda, there was no notification about
10 the Project. Commenters also questioned why the
11 land will remain zoned as “agricultural” since
12 the solar farm is not agricultural. Commenters
a lso h ad co ncern s abo ut non -part icipa ting 13 also had concerns about non-participating
14 City/Town who will receive no monetary benefits
15 but are affected by the Project. Commenter(s)
w ho st ated they are n ot opp osed to so lar, 16 who stated they are not opposed to solar,
17 suggested that the placement of the facilities
18 should be sited elsewhere from visible lands to
19 lowlands or another location where the views are
20 not affected. Commenters also stated that they
21 did not receive answers to questions asked at
84 583
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
t he Op en Ho uses. Ove rall, the c ommen ters’ 1 the Open Houses. Overall, the commenters’
2 position is that the negative impacts on the
c ommun ity f ar ou tweig h the benef its o f the 3 community far outweigh the benefits of the
P rojec t. 4 Project.
5 Q. Did the Applicant address the concerns raised by
6 the public about the proposed solar facility?
A . The co ncern s bro ught to the Appl icant ’s 7 A. The concerns brought to the Applicant’s
8 attention by members of the public have been
a ddres sed i n the vari ous ex hibit s in the 9 addressed in the various exhibits in the
10 Application and proposed Certificate Conditions.
11 Q. Is there anything else the Siting Board should
c onsid er in rend ering its d eterm inati on? 12 consider in rendering its determination?
A . If the Siti ng Bo ard d ecides to g rant a 13 A. If the Siting Board decides to grant a
14 Certificate, it should, at a minimum, adopt the
15 proposed Certificate Conditions and SEEP Guide,
16 including many provisions for compliance filings
17 to be submitted for review and approval pursuant
18 to 16 NYCRR §§1002.2 and 1002.3, and information
r eport s doc ument ing c omplia nce, submi tted 19 reports documenting compliance, submitted
20 pursuant to 16 NYCRR §1002.4. Further, any
21 grant of a Certificate should include delegation
85 584
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
o f ins pecti on an d sto p-work auth ority to 1 of inspection and stop-work authority to
a pprop riate DPS Staff to en force the 2 appropriate DPS Staff to enforce the
3 environmental, engineering, public safety, and
p ublic inte rest requi rement s in those 4 public interest requirements in those
C ertif icate Cond ition s. 5 Certificate Conditions.
Q . Is the re an ythin g fur ther? 6 Q. Is there anything further?
7 A. Yes. Through the settlement process and the
8 documents that parties have stipulated to in the
9 Settlement Package, the issues that DPS Staff
10 anticipated raising early in this proceeding
11 have been resolved. Based on its initial review
12 of the Application, DPS Staff’s potential issues
13 for litigation included socioeconomic and site
14 restoration and decommissioning issues. Through
15 information provided in discovery, proposed
16 Certificate Conditions, and the proposed SEEP
17 Guide, DPS Staff is satisfied that all potential
18 issues and issues it initially believed would
r equir e lit igati on ha ve bee n res olved . 19 require litigation have been resolved.
20 Q. Does this conclude the Panel’s testimony at this
t ime? 21 time?
86 585
CASE 17-F-0597 STAFF SETTLEMENT PANEL
A . Yes. 1 A. Yes.
87 586
NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Case 17-F-0597 – Application of High River Energy Center, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article 10 of the Public Service Law for Construction of a Solar Electric Generating Facility Located in the Town of Florida, Montgomery County.
PRE-FILED DIRECT PANEL TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF HIGH RIVER ENERGY CENTER, LLC
Panel Witnesses:
Keddy Chandran William Boer Joe Cartaya Daniel Marieni Samantha Kranes Heather Vaillant Judith Bartos Andrew Dion Patrick Fennell Kirsten Johnson John Mannix Kevin Martin Peter Trottier George Mohan Diane Reilly Michael Ross Timothy Sara Matthew Hyland Jim Shea Brianne Tylock Nancy Vlahos Ryan Callahan Robert O’Neal
Dated: October 10, 2019 587
1 Q. Please state the names, employers, business addresses, and the purpose of the
2 testimony of the individual members of the Panel.
3 A. Keddy Chandran, NextEra Energy Resources (“NextEra”), 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno
Beach, FL 33408. 4 Beach, FL 33408.
5 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
6 A. My position at NextEra is Project Director for Development. I lead the development of
7 renewable energy projects. I have been employed there for approximately two years. I
8 have over four years of experience developing solar energy projects of various sizes
9 across the country, both ground mounted and rooftop. Prior to joining NextEra, I was
10 Director of Business Development and Project Development at a leading NY-based firm,
11 where I led the development efforts on four U.S. military bases across the country. My
12 activities included, but were not limited to, overseeing early stage design and
13 engineering, construction logistics, financial modelling, permitting, commercial contract
14 negotiations and tax equity financing. I began my career in the energy industry at the U.S.
15 Department of Energy, based out of Washington, DC, during the American Recovery and
16 Reinvestment Act, where we worked to deploy billions of dollars in R&D,
17 demonstration, and capital projects nationwide, creating jobs and cultivating the then
18 nascent renewable energy sector. Supporting the Under Secretary for Energy and
19 Environment, I gained broad exposure to all aspects of the energy industry including, but
20 not limited to, fossil energy, nuclear, electricity delivery, vehicle technology, energy
21 efficiency, storage and renewable energy. I was also a Commercialization Advisor at
22 Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), the Department’s high-risk,
23 high-reward research arm, inspired by DARPA, which is tasked to fund next generation 588
1 technologies which will transform the energy industry. I subsequently worked in a
2 number of roles related to start-up finance, entrepreneurship, and marketing strategy. I
3 hold a Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering and a Master in Engineering
4 Management, both from Duke University. I have also earned my Master in Business
5 Administration from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. I am
6 currently a Project Director in NextEra’s renewables group and am responsible for
7 developing new projects. My role includes responsibilities related to acquiring leases for
8 sites, origination, permitting projects, and managing the development process until
9 construction is complete and a new project is turned over to NextEra’s Asset
10 Management group.
11 My CV is attached below.
12 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
13 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center (“High River”) Application.
14 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
15 A. I am sponsoring the entire High River Application.
16 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
17 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
20 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
21 company? If so, please cite these sources.
22 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
23 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself? 589
1 A. William Boer, NextEra, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408.
2 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
3 A. My position at NextEra Energy Resources, LLC is Environmental Services Project
4 Manager. I lead the permitting of renewable energy projects in New York State. I have
5 been employed there for approximately one year and my responsibilities include
6 managing and preparation of all applications and supporting environmental studies
7 submitted under Article 10 of the Public Service Law and the State Environmental
8 Quality Review Act for utility scale solar energy projects in New York. Prior to joining
9 NextEra, I worked with the company for five years as an outside consultant performing
10 these same responsibilities. I have over 15 years of environmental permitting experience
11 with a focus in energy-related projects. I have submitted numerous permit applications to
12 federal and state agencies and site plan/special permit applications to local
13 planning/zoning boards for renewable energy projects. I have a Bachelor of Science
14 Degree from Plymouth State University in Environmental Planning. I am certified by the
15 American Institute of Certified Planners and am a licensed Professional Planner in the
State of New Jersey. 16 State of New Jersey.
17 My CV is attached below.
18 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
19 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
20 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
21 A. I am sponsoring the entire High River Application.
22 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
23 direction and supervision? 590
A. Yes. 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
3 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
4 company? If so, please cite these sources.
5 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
6 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
7 A. Joe Cartaya, NextEra, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408.
8 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
9 A. I joined NextEra in 2015. My previous role, in Project Controls, included the successful
10 management of forecasts, risk mitigation, cash flow, and facilitation of project financing
11 of over 500 MW of commercial solar projects. In my current role as Project Manager, I
12 am responsible for managing the early state project support and daily coordination of
13 engineering, estimating, supply chain, and construction resources. I am currently
14 attending Florida International University seeking a Bachelor of Arts Degree in
15 Sustainability and the Environment with a focus on renewable energy (expected
16 graduation is spring 2020).
17 My CV is attached below.
18 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
19 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
20 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
21 A. Exhibit 11 and construction/engineering portions throughout the Application.
22 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
23 direction and supervision? 591
A. Yes. 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
3 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
4 company? If so, please cite these sources.
5 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
6 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
7 A. Daniel Marieni, NextEra, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408.
8 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
9 A. My position at NextEra is Project Engineer for the Engineering and Construction
10 Department. I provide engineering support during the design and construction of solar
11 energy projects. My role responsibilities include establishing design criteria, supporting
12 the procurement of major power plant equipment, and overseeing the engineering
13 activities during the design and construction of solar energy projects. I also provide
14 engineering support during development and permitting activities. Prior to working at
15 NextEra, I was the Geotechnical Department Manager for an engineering consultant.
16 Project experience within the energy sector included providing geotechnical engineering
17 services for solar energy centers, transmission lines, substations and pipelines. I have also
18 worked as an environmental engineer designing and managing remediation systems for
19 petroleum contaminated sites. I am a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of
20 Florida and have 10 years of engineering experience. I have a Bachelor of Science in
21 Civil Engineering from the University of Connecticut.
22 My CV is attached below.
23 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding? 592
1 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
2 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
3 A. Exhibit 11, and design, engineering and construction portions throughout the Application.
4 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
5 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
8 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
9 company? If so, please cite these sources.
10 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
11 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce herself?
12 A. Samantha Kranes, TRC, 215 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 102, Liverpool, New York
13088. 13 13088.
14 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
15 A. I am a Senior Project Manager at TRC and have been employed here for over five years.
16 My current role includes the management of multiple large-scale renewable energy
17 projects (both wind and solar), as well as several community solar and traditional energy
18 projects in New York State. I am experienced in environmental permitting, agency
19 consultation, environmental assessments, SEQRA and NEPA, ecological risk assessment,
20 and environmental compliance. I also have experience managing and preparing Article 10
21 and Article VII applications for other energy projects in New York, both as lead author,
22 lead reviewer, and manager. Prior to working at TRC, I worked as an environmental 593
1 scientist for over eight years in many capacities for another environmental consultant in
2 the Syracuse area.
3 My CV is attached below.
4 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
5 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
6 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
7 A. I am sponsoring portions of the following Exhibits: Exhibit 2, Overview and Public
8 Involvement; Exhibit 3, Location of Facilities; Exhibit 9, Alternatives; Exhibit 18, Safety
9 and Security, Exhibit 22, Terrestrial Ecology and Wetlands; Exhibit 23, Water Resources
10 and Aquatic Ecology.
11 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
12 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
15 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
16 company? If so, please cite these sources.
17 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
18 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce herself?
19 A. Heather Vaillant, TRC, 10 Maxwell Drive, Suite 200, Clifton Park, New York 12065.
20 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
21 A. I am a Senior Project Manager at TRC and have been employed here for 10 years. My
22 current role includes management of multiple energy development projects, including
23 both renewable energy and traditional energy projects in New York State. I have over 14 594
1 years of experience in environmental permitting and licensing, agency consultation,
2 environmental assessments, and environmental compliance. My experience also includes
3 managing and preparing Article VII applications for other energy projects in New York,
4 both as lead author, lead reviewer, and manager. Prior to working at TRC, I worked as an
5 Environmental Planner for four years for another consulting firm in the Boston, MA area.
6 I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology and Environmental Studies and a Master
of Arts degree in Biology. 7 of Arts degree in Biology.
8 My CV is attached below.
9 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
10 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
11 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
12 A. I coordinated the compilation of the entire High River Application.
13 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
14 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
17 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
18 company? If so, please cite these sources.
19 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
20 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce herself?
21 A. Judith Bartos, TRC, 650 Suffolk Street, Wannalancit Mills, Lowell, Massachusetts,
01854. 22 01854.
23 Q. Please summarize your credentials. 595
1 A. My position at TRC is Senior GIS Analyst and Senior Scientist. My primary focus is
2 providing technical analyses using ESRI GIS and Autodesk Max visualization software
3 in addition to the regulatory report writing required for Visual Impact Assessments. I
4 have been employed at TRC for approximately 20 years. I have a master’s degree in Soil
5 Science and formerly, a Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree in the Visual Arts with a minor in
6 art history. I have 28 years of experience in the environmental field primarily on energy-
related projects. 7 related projects.
8 My CV is attached below.
9 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
10 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
11 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
12 A. The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) and Exhibit 24.
13 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
14 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
17 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
18 company? If so, please cite these sources.
19 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
20 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
21 A. Andrew Dion, TRC, 10 Maxwell Drive, Suite 200, Clifton Park, New York 12065.
22 Q. Please summarize your credentials. 596
1 A. My position at TRC is Operation Manager for Substation Engineering. I lead a team that
2 does substation engineering and design. I have been employed at TRC for approximately
3 12 years and have over 12 years of experience in substation design and engineering for
4 both utilities and client facilities. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to,
5 managing a client portfolio and individual projects, answering technical questions,
6 providing engineering estimates, and reviewing deliverables prepared by my team. I have
7 a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Clarkson University and am a
8 registered Professional Engineer in New York, Oklahoma, and Puerto Rico.
9 My CV is attached below.
10 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
11 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
12 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
13 A. I am sponsoring the transmission design portions of Exhibit 11 and Appendix 11-1.
14 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
15 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
18 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
19 company? If so, please cite these sources.
20 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
21 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
22 A. Patrick Fennell, TRC, 21 Griffin Road, North, Windsor Connecticut, 06095.
23 Q. Please summarize your credentials. 597
1 A. My position is Consulting Engineer in TRC’s Air Quality Consulting practice, where I
2 have been employed for 19 years. My responsibilities include preparing applications for
3 air permits and state and federal approvals for fossil fuel and renewable energy power
4 plants, natural gas pipelines, liquefied natural gas export terminals, and other industrial
5 and commercial projects. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from
6 the University of Missouri in Columbia and a Master of Science Degree in Civil
7 Engineering from the University of Illinois in Urbana. Prior to TRC, I was employed by
8 ABB and Combustion Engineering, first as a nuclear engineer and later as environmental
9 engineer. I am a licensed Professional Engineer in Connecticut.
10 My CV is attached below.
11 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
12 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
13 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
A. Exhibit 17. 14 A. Exhibit 17.
15 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
16 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
19 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
20 company? If so, please cite these sources.
21 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
22 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce herself?
23 A. Kirsten Johnson, TRC, 102 West State Street, 3rd Floor, Ithaca, New York 14850. 598
1 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
2 A. I am currently employed with TRC as an Environmental Scientist. I have been in the
3 position for four months. My primary responsibilities have been the coordination and
4 implementation of grassland breeding bird surveys across several renewable energy
5 projects. I have also drafted critical issues analyses documents, conducted wetland
6 screening efforts, and prepared various exhibits for Article 10 permit applications
7 associated with renewable energy developments. Prior to joining TRC I worked as an
8 Ecologist/Biologist/Project Manager. My main duties included developing study plans for
9 threatened/endangered species, conducting large bird surveys, performing wetland
10 deliberations, conducting post-construction mortality monitoring, desktop habitat
11 analyses for sensitive species, and developing bird and bat conservation strategies.
12 Additionally, I prepared reports, proposals, budgets, and managed field staff. I spent three
13 years managing a multi-state avian monitoring study documenting species response to
14 habitat management at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. I was also formerly
15 employed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to conduct waterfowl
16 banding and assist in developing statewide invasive species management initiatives. I
17 hold a bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University in Fisheries and Wildlife.
18 My CV is attached below.
19 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
20 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
21 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
A. Exhibit 22. 22 A. Exhibit 22. 599
1 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
2 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
5 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
6 company? If so, please cite these sources.
7 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
8 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
9 A. John Mannix, P.E., TRC, 124 Grove Street, Suite 205, Franklin, Massachusetts 02038.
10 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
11 A. I am employed at TRC as a Senior Communications Engineer. I have responsibility for
12 the design and implementation of wireless communications networks, primarily for
13 electric utilities. I have been employed at TRC for seven years. Part of my role includes
14 obtaining licensed frequencies from the Federal Communications Commission and
15 ensuring frequency coordination and interference analysis is completed. I was previously
16 employed by Verizon Communications and served as a Manager of Network Planning for
17 over 15 years. I hold an undergraduate degree in Engineering and a graduate degree in
18 Business Administration. I am licensed Professional Engineer in four states, including
19 New York.
20 My CV is attached below.
21 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
22 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
23 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring? 600
1 A. Exhibits 26 and 40.
2 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
3 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
6 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
7 company? If so, please cite these sources.
8 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
9 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
10 A. Kevin Martin, TRC, 215 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 102, Liverpool, New York 13088.
11 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
12 A. My position at TRC is Transmission Engineer III. My focus is underground cable
13 projects and electrical studies for transmission line projects. I have been employed at
14 TRC for approximately five years. I have over eight years of transmission line design
15 experience and managing transmission assets for major utilities. Responsibilities include,
16 but are not limited to cable ratings, EMF studies, insulation studies, project estimating,
17 and failure analysis. I am a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of New York and
18 have approximately five additional years of experience performing system integration
19 and applications engineering. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical
20 Engineering from Alfred University and a Graduate Certificate in Power System
21 Engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
22 My CV is attached below.
23 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding? 601
1 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
2 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
3 A. Exhibit 35 and Appendix 35-1 (EMF Study) and substation design.
4 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
5 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
8 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
9 company? If so, please cite these sources.
10 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
11 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
12 A. Peter Trottier, P.E., TRC, 6 Ashley Drive, Scarborough, Maine 04074.
13 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
14 A. I am a Senior Civil Engineer at TRC, where I have been employed for approximately 14
15 years. As a senior civil engineer, I lead engineering design teams in the development of
16 site/civil components of a variety of energy related projects. I have 19 years of
17 experience and progressive responsibility. My project experience includes site planning
18 and layout, roadway design, cost estimating, grading and stormwater management design,
19 hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, erosion and sediment control design, technical report
20 writing, and permitting support. I earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Architectural
21 Engineering Technology from Wentworth Institute of Technology.
22 My CV is attached below.
23 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding? 602
1 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
2 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
3 A. The civil design portions of Exhibit 11 as well as the civil design plans in Appendix 11-1.
4 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
5 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
8 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
9 company? If so, please cite these sources.
10 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
11 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
12 A. George Mohan, P.E., P.T.O.E., 1382 West Ninth Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, Ohio
44113. 13 44113.
14 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
15 A. My role at TRC is Senior Traffic Engineer. I am responsible for all aspects of traffic
16 engineering from planning to design, which include traffic studies, traffic operations
17 analysis, crash analysis, signal design, signing design, and pavement marking design. I
18 have over 15 years of experience (over 1 year with the company). I went to Cleveland
19 State University and graduated with a degree in Civil Engineering. My current
20 responsibilities are primarily on the technical side, which includes mentoring younger
21 staff and producing deliverables related to traffic engineering.
22 My CV is attached below.
23 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding? 603
1 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
2 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
A. Exhibit 25. 3 A. Exhibit 25.
4 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
5 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
8 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
9 company? If so, please cite these sources.
10 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
11 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce herself?
12 A. Diane Reilly, TRC, 4155 Shackleford Road, Suite 225, Norcross, Georgia 30093.
13 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
14 A. I am an Economist for TRC and serve as a Technical Manager providing socioeconomic
15 and recreation analysis for a variety of energy projects. I have been directly employed
16 with TRC since 2012. For several years prior to that time, I provided sub-consulting
17 services to TRC. I have over 20 years of experience in environmental consulting,
18 evaluating socioeconomic and recreation issues. I received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in
19 Economics and in Spanish from Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina. I have
20 a Master of Arts Degree in Economics from the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia
21 and completed additional studies specializing in Finance and Public Finance. I have
22 authored numerous EAs, EISs, and license applications addressing socioeconomics,
23 Environmental Justice, and recreation. I provide economic modeling using the Jobs and 604
1 Economic Development Impact (JEDI) Model developed by the National Research
2 Energy Laboratory to evaluate local impacts from proposed wind, solar, and natural gas
projects in New York State. 3 projects in New York State.
4 My CV is attached below.
5 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
6 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
7 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
8 A. Exhibits 27 and 28 and associated appendices.
9 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
10 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
13 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
14 company? If so, please cite these sources.
15 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
16 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
17 A. Michael Ross, RLA, ASLA, TRC, 4900 Ritter Road, Suite 240, Mechanicsburg,
18 Pennsylvania, 17055.
19 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
20 A. My position at TRC is a Landscape Architect. I manage a majority of the Landscape
21 Architecture projects, tasks and services at TRC and I have been employed there for
22 approximately two years and four months. I have been and continue to be directly
23 responsible for the overall coordination, implementation, and submission of numerous 605
1 Landscaping Plans for various solar projects throughout the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and
2 midwestern states in the US. I have also been directly responsible for the overall
3 coordination, implementation, and submission of various Vegetation Management Plans,
4 E&S/NPDES Plans, and Forest Conservation Reforestation/Afforestation Plans. I have
5 also participated as a panel member for Visual Impact Assessments related to a Wind
6 Energy Center and a Solar Energy Center. Prior to these responsibilities, I have had more
7 than 20 years of additional experience within the profession of Landscape Architecture.
8 I have a working knowledge and understanding of land development and construction
9 document production which involves a range of responsibilities including but not limited
10 to: site analysis, due diligence, conceptual design, utility coordination, preliminary and
11 final design of land development plan set production, estimates of probable costs,
12 construction documentation, site inspection, and all aspects of the permitting approvals
13 process. Other related experience includes: Master planning, Estate planning, Hardscape
14 and Planting design/implementation, and phased planning/design with a primary
15 emphasis of design/build construction being a significant part of my overall performance
16 skills and requirements. I have a Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture from
17 The Pennsylvania State University and I am a current member of the American Society of
18 Landscape Architects (ASLA). I am certified in Maryland as a Forest Conservation
19 Professional and I am currently licensed as a Landscape Architect in Pennsylvania,
Colorado, North Carolina, and West Virginia. 20 Colorado, North Carolina, and West Virginia.
21 My CV is attached below.
22 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
23 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application. 606
1 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
A. The Landscaping Plans in Appendix 11-1. 2 A. The Landscaping Plans in Appendix 11-1.
3 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
4 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
7 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
8 company? If so, please cite these sources.
9 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
10 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
11 A. Timothy Sara, RPA, TRC, 4425-B Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, Maryland 20706.
12 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
13 A. My position at TRC is Program Manager, Cultural Resources. I lead the cultural
14 resources staff for compliance studies for permitting of renewable energy projects. I have
15 been employed at TRC for approximately 12 years. I have over 34 years of experience
16 conducting cultural resources studies for a variety of energy and transportation
17 development projects. My responsibilities include, but are not limited to, preparing
18 scopes of work, budgets, research designs, and technical reports for submittal to state and
19 federal review agencies. I am a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) and have
20 developed most of my professional experience in New York State and other Northeastern
21 states. I have a bachelor’s degree from Binghamton University and a master’s degree
22 from Hunter College, City University of New York. I currently serve as Principal
23 Investigator for ongoing cultural resources studies in support of NextEra’s renewable 607
1 energy projects. I have been a contributing author on more than 100 Environmental
2 Assessments (EAs) and/or Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and principal or
3 contributing author to more than 300 cultural resources management reports. I also serve
4 as Office Practice Leader for TRC’s Lanham, Maryland office with responsibility for all
5 business functions of the office as well as quality control and staff management.
6 My CV is attached below.
7 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
8 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
9 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
10 A. Exhibit 20 and Appendices 20-1 and 20-2.
11 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
12 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
15 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
16 company? If so, please cite these sources.
17 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
18 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
19 A. Matthew Hyland, Ph.D., 2200 Liberty Avenue, Suite 100, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.
20 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
21 A. My qualifications exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications
22 standards for historian and architectural historian. I have over 15 years of experience in
23 architectural history, historic preservation, and public history education in the Mid- 608
1 Atlantic region. I am responsible for the full range of Section 110 and Section 106 above-
2 ground compliance projects including historic resource surveys, National Register
3 eligibility evaluations, effects determinations, preservation treatments, and mitigation of
4 adverse effects. I have experience supporting environmental assessment and clearance
5 documentation for energy clients and in the transportation industry, specifically Section
6 4(f) evaluations and categorical exclusions. My fieldwork experience includes cultural
7 resource management projects within the states of New York, West Virginia,
8 Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, Florida, Ohio, and Delaware. I hold a B.A.
9 in American Studies from University of Notre Dame du Lac, an M.A. in American
10 Studies from the University of Wyoming, and a Ph.D. in American Studies from the
11 College of William & Mary.
12 My CV is attached below.
13 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
14 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
15 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
16 A. Appendix 20-2 and the historic architectural portions of Exhibit 20.
17 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
18 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
21 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
22 company? If so, please cite these sources.
23 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits. 609
1 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
2 A. James Shea, TRC, 1382 West 9th Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, Ohio 44113.
3 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
4 A. My position at TRC is Transportation Engineer and I bring experience in planning,
5 design, and traffic operations on various transportation projects for county, state, and
6 local government agencies. I have worked at TRC for the past three years and graduated
7 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering in 2007 and a Master of Science
8 Degree in Civil Engineering in 2013, both from Cleveland State University. Throughout
9 my career, I have led various traffic-related projects including traffic impact studies and
10 corridor timing studies, traffic signal design, traffic signal system design, and signing and
11 marking design. I am a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer and have considerable
12 experience in traffic analysis using HCS and corridor modeling and simulation using
13 Synchro. In addition to my traffic study experience, I have also served as project engineer
14 on numerous roadway reconstruction, resurfacing, and reconfiguration projects with
15 design experience, including horizontal and vertical alignments, drainage, waterworks,
16 traffic control, and signal design.
17 My CV is attached below.
18 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
19 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
20 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
A. Exhibit 25. 21 A. Exhibit 25.
22 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
23 direction and supervision? 610
A. Yes. 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
3 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
4 company? If so, please cite these sources.
5 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
6 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce herself?
7 A. Brianne Tylock, TRC, 670 North Commercial Street, Manchester, New Hampshire
03101. 8 03101.
9 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
10 A. I have four years of solar-specific experience in the renewable industry. My
11 qualifications include a vast focus on renewables, including distribution aspects, such as
12 purchasing and inspecting materials and building vendor relations, as well as design and
13 permitting experience, including the creation of electrical drawings and site plans,
14 attendance at town meetings for permits, writing grants and proposals, and even solar
15 installation efforts. My background includes a focus on residential, commercial, and
16 utility scale solar, with projects ranging from 3 kW to 130 MW. For the last year, I have
17 served in the capacity of Electrical Engineer with a renewable focus for the Engineering
18 Group in the Power Division. I received my Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical
19 Engineering Technology with a minor in Environmental Studies from Rochester Institute
20 of Technology. My current responsibilities include managing a team of engineers as the
21 electrical lead in the solar sphere. I engineer projects from their infancy, conducting
22 feasibility studies and interconnection plans, pre-applications and utility applications, 611
1 preliminary layouts and optimized site plans, all the way up to for-construction electrical
2 permit sets.
3 My CV is attached below.
4 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
5 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
6 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
A. The electrical design in Exhibit 11 and Appendix 11-1. 7 A. The electrical design in Exhibit 11 and Appendix 11-1.
8 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
9 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
12 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
13 company? If so, please cite these sources.
14 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
15 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce herself?
16 A. Nancy Vlahos, TRC, 10 Maxwell Drive, Clifton Park, New York 12065.
17 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
18 A. My position at TRC is Project Manager for the Planning, Permitting and Licensing
19 Division where I manage the licensing and permitting efforts for numerous solar
20 developments and support several Article 10 projects in New York State. I have been
21 employed at TRC for approximately two years. I have over 15 years of experience in
22 environmental consulting working on a variety of scientific and regulatory projects in the
23 environmental field, including New York State SEQRA review, state and federal 612
1 permitting and compliance, wildlife impact analyses and SWPPP development and
2 inspection. My background includes extensive service to public and private-sector
3 clientele. I have a Bachelor Science in Chemistry from Purchase College and a Master of
4 Science in Environmental Science from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies. 5 Studies.
6 My CV is attached below.
7 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
8 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
9 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
A. Exhibit 31. 10 A. Exhibit 31.
11 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
12 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
15 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
16 company? If so, please cite these sources.
17 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
18 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself?
19 A. Ryan Callahan, Epsilon Associates, Inc. (“Epsilon”), 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250,
20 Maynard, MA 01754.
21 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
22 A. I am a Senior Engineer in the Acoustics Group at Epsilon Associates and have been
23 employed there for over two years. My responsibilities at Epsilon include project 613
1 management, sound modeling, sound monitoring and analysis of sound data. For eleven
2 years prior to joining Epsilon, I worked at another environmental consulting company as
3 an engineer performing sound level impact studies. I am an expert in the application of
4 the Cadna/A acoustic model to wind farms, industrial facilities, commercial
5 developments, and power plants. I am a full member of the Institute of Noise Control
6 Engineering (INCE). I have a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from
7 Northeastern University. I design and implement field monitoring programs for
8 permitting purposes and for demonstrating compliance with local and state noise
9 regulations. I have presented noise studies before town and county planning boards for
10 several renewable energy projects.
11 My CV is attached below.
12 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
13 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
14 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
A. Exhibit 19 and the appendices thereto. 15 A. Exhibit 19 and the appendices thereto.
16 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
17 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
20 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
21 company? If so, please cite these sources.
22 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits.
23 Q. Will the next member of the Panel please introduce himself? 614
1 A. Robert D. O’Neal, Epsilon, 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250, Maynard, MA 01754.
2 Q. Please summarize your credentials.
3 A. I am one of the Managing Principals at Epsilon Associates, and thus share in
4 responsibility for overall direction and operation of the company. Prior to this position, I
5 was a Principal and the leader of the Acoustics Group, where I managed staff and
6 assigned resources on our noise-related projects. I have been employed at Epsilon for
7 approximately 19 years. Prior to coming to Epsilon, I spent 13 years with other
8 environmental consulting companies performing sound level impact studies,
9 meteorological data analyses, and air pollution control modeling. I am a Certified
10 Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) by the American Meteorological Society and Board
11 Certified in Noise Control Engineering through the Institute of Noise Control
12 Engineering (INCE). I have a Bachelor of Arts in Engineering Science from Dartmouth
13 College and a Master of Science in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.
14 In addition to my current management responsibilities, I perform technical studies on a
15 variety of energy and industrial projects ranging from sound level measurements, sound
16 modeling, noise control design, and expert testimony. The energy projects range from
17 renewables (wind; solar; battery storage) to fossil fuel (combustion turbines; internal
18 combustion engines).
19 My CV is attached below.
20 Q. What is the purpose and scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
21 A. To sponsor certain portions of the High River Energy Center Application.
22 Q. What portion(s) of the Application is your testimony sponsoring?
A. Exhibit 19 and the appendices thereto. 23 A. Exhibit 19 and the appendices thereto. 615
1 Q. Were these Exhibits, Application sections, or studies prepared by you or under your
2 direction and supervision?
A. Yes. 3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In your testimony, will you refer to, or otherwise rely upon, any studies,
5 publications, data, or documents produced by persons other than yourself or your
6 company? If so, please cite these sources.
7 A. References are provided in corresponding Exhibits. 616
JUDITH A. BARTOS
EDUCATION M.S., Soil Science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, September 1994 Thesis title: Heavy Metal Distribution in Massachusetts Soils B.S., Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1989
AREAS OF EXPERTISE Ms. Judith A. Bartos has 23 years of cumulative experience in the following: GIS 10.7 ArcInfo/Spatial Analyst/3D Analyst; ArcServer/sde Geodatabase; 3DS Max 2016; Global Mapper; Infraworks, Visual Nature Studio 3; AutoCad; ArcGISPro Three-Dimensional Modeling, Photosimulation, Viewshed Analysis, Line-of-Sights, Advanced Terrain Analysis, Linear Referencing, Shadow Study, Cut and Fill, Air Modeling and Groundwater Modeling Isopleths, Advanced Geodatabases Visual Impact Assessments Expert Testimony for Visual Impact Assessments and Photosimulations Wind Farm and Generating Facility siting studies Soils, Glacial Geology, Hydrology, Landform Interpretation, Ecology, Forest Community Assessment, Stream Characterization, Wildlife Habitat Assessment, Census demographics, Environmental Justice: raster and vector data analysis with occasional use of external relational and non-relational databases Tailoring natural gas pipeline engineering information to state and federal permitting applications. Previously have written Resource Reports for FERC applications as well as final GIS analysis and cartography. FGDC-compliant metadata Environmental Inspection (FERC Guidelines) Natural Gas Pipeline Construction Wetland Assessment and Delineation in CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, PA, VT, & WV Ecology, Forest Community Assessment, Stream Characterization, Wildlife Habitat Assessment Environmental Permitting for Wetland Resource Areas and Hazardous Waste Construction Remediation Oversight, Hazardous Waste Management, Site Assessment, Remediation for large-scale infrastructure projects
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Ms. Bartos currently works with an integrated collection of GIS and visual/3-dimensional software products enabling her to deploy GIS functionality and to provide a full range of computerized visualization services for qualitative and quantitative visual impact assessments. Her main area of expertise includes three dimensional modeling skills and photosimulations of proposed facilities in real world coordinates for those projects requiring visual impact studies, as well as viewshed analysis and lines-of-sight. She has provided expert testimony deposition and has assisted in the preparation of pretrial written testimony for visual assessments.
Ms. Bartos is capable of providing the relevant focus and environmental analysis behind the final deliverable due to her cumulative 23 years of experience with various nationwide state and federal
TRCcompanies.com 617 Judith A. Bartos
environmental permitting efforts, involvement with siting studies, extensive field experience, and academic research.
FPS Coxsackie Solar Project, Coxsackie, NY - (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2018 to present). The proposed solar facility will generate up to five megawatts (MW) of power on a 68-acre site in Coxsackie, NY. Visual and aesthetic impacts were assessed out to a 5-mile radius under the NY SEQR process. Viewshed analysis using LiDAR data was performed and photosimulations were produced. Simulations also showed proposed vegetative mitigation at planting time and at five years based on proposed project landscaping.
NextEra Energy Resources (NEER) Solar Development Upstate NY - (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2017 to present). NEER is currently submitting applications to construct four Article 10 solar facilities exceeding 25 MW in Montgomery, Schoharie, Schuyler, and St. Lawrence counties. Ms. Bartos is responsible for the production and oversight of Visual Impact Assessments and Exhibit 24 for all four facilities pursuant to 16 NYCRR §1001.24. Ms. Bartos has conducted pre-application testimony for the East Point Energy Center. The East Point and High River Energy Centers expects to submit the Article 10 application in September 2019.
National Grid Gardenville, Dunkirk 141-142 115kV Transmission Line North Angola to Gardenville Rebuild & Reconductor Project – Erie County NY - (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2017 – present) Under the NY Article VII process, the Applicant is reconstructing two existing 115kV transmission lines, approximately 20.45 miles (of 44.87 miles) of the Gardenville – Dunkirk 141 & 142 line in Erie County, NY. Ms. Bartos is providing several viewshed analyses comparing a visual change detection between the existing line and two proposed structure types (triple circuit vs. double circuit). Simulations showing various structure types and alignment options for comparison have been provided.
Eversource West Roxbury to Needham Transmission Reliability Project – MA (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2016 – present) Ms. Bartos provided Visualization Services and expert testimony to the EFSB regarding the proposed new build electric transmission line for the West Roxbury to Needham Reliability Project. The project was a new transmission line build traversing through the towns of Needham, Dedham, and Boston (West Roxbury) along an existing above ground transmission. The work provided was in response to an EFSB Information Data Request dated December 8, 2016. Comparative viewshed analyses and photosimulations were provided. The project was high profile and contentious.
Eversource Sudbury to Hudson Transmission Reliability Project – MA (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2016 – present) Ms. Bartos performed and prepared a Visual Impact Assessment in support for a petition to the EFSB pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69J for authority to construct, operate, and maintain an approximately 9-mile 115-kilovolt transmission line from Eversource’s Sudbury Substation on Boston Post Road in Sudbury to Hudson Light & Power Department’s substation at Forest Avenue in Hudson. Ms. Bartos provided a viewshed analysis to assess impacts at a regional landscape level as well as producing photosimulations. The project was high profile and contentious.
2 618 Judith A. Bartos
Eight Point Wind Energy Center – Steuben County, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2016 – 2019) Eight Point Wind received its Article 10 Certificate in August 1019. Eight Point Wind proposes to install up 34 commercial scale wind turbines in addition to a collection substation and 16-mile overhead 115kv transmission line. Ms. Bartos has produced a combined Visual Impact Assessment for the project that was conducted according to the requirements in 16 NYCRR §1001.24 to be included as Exhibit 24 in an Article 10 application. The NYSDEC Program Policy “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts was used in order to comply with NYSPSC requirements and Article VII process for the transmission part of the project. Ms. Bartos also provided testimony for this project.
NEXUS Gas Transmission Project – OH and MI (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2015 – present) Ms. Bartos was tasked to provide a Visual Impact Assessment in support of FERC required Resource Report 8 for 5 communications towers associated with 5 compressor station sites along the proposed NEXUS gas transmission line. FERC does not have visual requirements or guidance documentation for gas transmission or ancillary components at this time. For this project, visual impacts were assessed in terms of performing an inventory of existing visual resources within a designated study area and evaluating the potential for visibility of the towers at those resources using the results of viewshed analyses at each location. State LiDAR data for Ohio and Michigan was used for base elevations as well as building and tree heights.
Vermont Green Line – Addison County, VT & Clinton County, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2015 – present) The Vermont Green Line Project is a high voltage direct current (HVDC) 400 MW electric power transmission system connecting the New York Power Authority (NYPA) Plattsburgh Substation in Beekmantown, Clinton County, New York, and the Vermont Electric Power Company (VELCO) New Haven Substation in New Haven, Addison County, Vermont. Ms. Bartos conducted visual impact assessments and corresponding analyses for the project. As part of the deliverable, the NYDEC Visual Policy was used to fulfill Article VII visual requirements for the state of NY and an extensive Quechee Analysis was performed for the VT part of the project to fulfill Section 248(b)(5) of Title 30 Vermont Statutes. In addition, she has submitted pre-trial written testimony for the project.
Lasher Road Substation Project – Saratoga County, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2015 – 2016) As part of an Article VII application, Ms. Bartos provided visual impact studies and final report writing for a proposed 115kV distribution substation and associated 115 KV tap lines tying into National Grid’s existing 115 kV Spier Falls to Rotterdam Transmission Line #2. The Article VII visual assessment used the NYDEC Visual Policy as guidelines for the submittal and included a visual resources inventory, viewshed analyses using existing point cloud LiDAR data and photosimulations.
Shoreham Solar Project – Suffolk County, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2015) Shoreham Solar Commons, LLC proposes to construct and operate a 24.9MW ground-mounted, stationary/non-tracking solar array installed on mounting racks and associated electric interconnect infrastructure to LIPA’s 69 kV power grid. The site is located in Brookhaven, Long Island, NY and subject to SEQRA and 6 NYCRR §617. Ms. Bartos provided technical oversight and analyses for a team providing visual simulations and authored a visual impact assessment following NYSDEC’s Visual Program Policy.
3 619 Judith A. Bartos
Rover Pipeline Project – MI, OH, PA, WV (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2014 – present) The Rover Pipeline Project is a new natural gas pipeline system that will consist of approximately 711.2 miles of Supply Laterals and Mainlines, 10 compressor stations, and associated meter stations and other aboveground facilities that will be located in parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Ms. Bartos performed the GIS analysis, produced multiple final tables, and authored all text for Resource Report 7, as required under FERC guidelines and jurisdiction.
Island Park Energy Center LLC, The Island Park Energy Center, A Repowering of the E.F. Barrett Power Station – Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst & GIS Coordinator: 2013 – Present) Ms. Bartos is presently serving as Sr. GIS Analyst and GIS lead for the repowering of the existing E.F. Barrett Power Station for Island Park Energy Center LLC. Proposed is the development of a new approximately 690 MW combined cycle facility with an additional development of approximately 290 MWs of new peaking (simple cycle) capacity to be known as the Island Park Energy Center (IPEC). The project requires a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need from the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment under Article 10 of the New York State Public Service Law. Ms. Bartos is also responsible for conducting a comprehensive Visual Impact Assessment according to 16 NYCRR §1001.24.
Enbridge Line 78 Project – IL, IN (Sr. GIS Analyst: 2014 – 2016) Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership is proposing to expand its existing pipeline system in Illinois and Indiana. The Line 78 Project will consist of approximately 78 miles of a new crude oil, 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Enbridge’s Flanagan Terminal near Pontiac, Illinois to its Hartsdale Terminal near Griffith, Indiana. Ms. Bartos assisted with compiling biological resources survey data for agency submittal. She has also provided an sde Geodatabase-ArcServer interactive webviewer for the project.
NEETNY Enterprise Line Project – NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst & GIS Coordinator: 2013 – present) NextEra Energy Transmission New York, Inc. proposed to construct and operate a new approximately 148-mile 345-kV single-circuit AC transmission line between the existing Marcy Substation in Oneida County and the existing Pleasant Valley Substation in Dutchess County. The effort for this project focused on the Article VII Part A and Part B Application process set forth in the New York State Public Service Commission’s order in Case 12-T-0502 on April 22, 2013. Ms. Bartos’ prime task is as GIS lead for all GIS related figures, analyses, and calculations issued in the submittal. In addition, she designed and constructed a GIS sde Geodatabase-ArcServer based interactive webviewer with project related information capable of file editing and data attribute extraction.
Caithness Long Island II – Suffolk County, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst & GIS Coordinator: 2013) On behalf Caithness Long Island II, LLC TRC provided a Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared in support of Caithness’ application for a Special Permit for Electric Generating Facility Use for its proposed Caithness Long Island Energy Center II (CLI-II). The Long Island Power Authority has a need for additional electrical resources based on existing and projected generation requirements established by the New York Independent System Operator and the New York State Reliability Council. LIPA selected the CLI-II project to help meet its baseload needs and will be an approximately 752 megawatt combined cycle generating facility, to be fueled primarily with natural gas with ultra-low sulfur distillate as a back-up fuel. Ms. Bartos served as GIS lead for all GIS project related material for the DEIS. She also produced a Visual Impact Assessment that included a field visit for field data acquisition, a balloon study,
4 620 Judith A. Bartos
a viewshed analysis and a suite of 10 photosimulations and related 3-dimensional work using 3- dimensional visualization software, as well as authoring the written document for the VIA. In addition, she developed an interactive sde Geodatabase-ArcServer project webviewer for the project.
Sabine Pass Liquefaction Expansion Project and Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline Expansion Project – LA (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2013) The Liquefaction Expansion Project involves the Stage 3 (Trains 5 and 6) construction of the current Sabine Pass Liquefaction Project. The Pipeline Expansion Project proposes to expand and extend the existing Cheniere Creole Trail pipeline system. Ms. Bartos authored Resource Reports 6 and 7, Geology and Soils respectively, for FERC submittal. In addition she provided the GIS analyses and calculations relevant to each of the two chapters.
Browns Falls to Taylorville Structure Replacement Project – Lewis and St. Lawrence Counties, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2013) This Project was part of National Grid’s Conductor Clearance Replacement Program. Approximately half of the structures proposed for replacement were located in the Adirondack Park and are subject to the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) permitting requirements. A comprehensive visual analysis was conducted to satisfy the requirement of 16 NYCRR Part 102 to identify the presence of existing public visual resources within ½ mile of National Grid’s Browns Falls-Taylorville #3&4 115kV Transmission Line. The impact assessment evaluated classes of areas pertaining to aesthetic resources as outlined in §102.3 of Part 102.
Rochester Gas & Electric Substation 251 Project – Rochester County, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2013) Ms. Bartos created extensive 3d modeling of substation components per transmission and substation engineering specifications was performed to provide visual simulations regarding a proposed 115kV four transmission-line termination facility. Ancillary buildings, tie-transmission along with landscaping and mitigative measures were included. In addition to the simulations, she did a full visual resources inventory along with terrain and viewshed analyses were incorporated into a final Visual Impact Statement.
Latigo Wind Project – San Juan County, UT (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2012) Using 3d visualization software, Ms. Bartos created the 135 meter turbine proposed for the Project according to vendor specifications. She produced several photosimulations from known observation points in and around the town of Monticello, Utah.
Moses-Willis Double Circuit Contingency Project – Massena, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2012) The purpose of this project is to correct a double contingency situation which occurs outside of the Authority’s St. Lawrence—FDR Power Project switchyard. Photosimulations for 18 locations in addition to Lines of Site Analyses and accompanying documentation were produced for the New York Power Authority (NYPA) under an agreement between NYPA, NY SHPO, and the NY DPS. Ms. Bartos conducted the necessary field work and photosimulations to support the Authority with regards to the National Register of Historic Places nomination of the nearby Robert Moses State Park.
5 621 Judith A. Bartos
Uranez Energy Corporation Hank Unit ISR Project – Cambell County, WY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2012) Uranerz Energy Corporation has proposed to develop and operate the Hank Unit in-situ recovery (ISR) project in southwestern Campbell County, WY. As part of analyses to aid in the BLM’s compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, TRC conducted an assessment of potential visual effects to visually sensitive cultural properties located near the proposed Hank Unit project area. Ms. Bartos produced photosimulations from sites that could potentially be visually affected by the proposed facility. As part of the visual mitigation plan, she incorporated the standard BLM environmental colors to aboveground elements of the project in order to reduce visual contrast.
Grandpa Knob – Pittsford, VT, (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2012) On behalf of Reunion Power, LLC and pursuant to 30 V.S.A. §§ 246 and 248, Ms. Bartos provided an aesthetic evaluation using the Vermont Environmental Boards’s Quechee Analysis to determine if: 1) a proposed 180 foot meteorological tower will have an adverse impact; and 2) if an adverse impact is concluded, does the impact result in an undue adverse effect.
DCP Searsport LPG Terminal – Searsport, ME (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2010 – 2012) This project entails the installation of one LPG bulk storage tank, ship unloading facilities on the existing pier, a truck loading station, a rail car loading station and other ancillary equipment such as ethyl- mercaptan storage tanks, an LPG fuel tank, an emergency propane flare, and administration, compressor and motor control center buildings. Visual impact analyses (viewshed analysis and photosimulations) were performed to support Section 480-D of the NRPA permit. Additional work included complex 3D landscape visualizations showing the existing character of the area combined with the post-construction environment.
Wasatch Wind Pioneer Wind Park – Converse County, WY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2011) Wasatch Wind's Pioneer Wind Park consists of two proposed 50 MW wind energy projects in Converse County, Wyoming. The turbines will be located approximately 9 miles south of the town of Glenrock and 7 miles south of Interstate 25. Ms. Bartos produced photosimulations consisting of various configurations and iterations of the proposed GE 1.6 xle turbines used for the project in attempts respond to community feedback and reduce visual impacts to surrounding landowners.
CMP Lewiston-Loop Project – Lewiston and Auburn, ME (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2010) CMP proposed to increase transmission capacity and reinforce their transmission system in the Lewiston/Auburn (L/A) area to support current and forecasted electrical load demand. Ms. Bartos conducted viewshed analyses and a suite of photosimulations for a proposed 115/34/12 kV substation and a new 115 kV overhead transmission line. An inventory of sensitive resources and a full report was produced according to the MDEP Guidance for Assessing Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses under the Natural Resources Protection Act, 2003. Ms. Bartos has constructed a portion of the three dimensional modeling of necessary project components as well as integrated engineered PLS-Cadd designed portions of the transmission line.
Champlain Hudson Power Express – Yonkers, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2010) Ms. Bartos produced a Visual Impact Assessment for a proposed HVDC converter station located in Yonkers, NY and a step-down 345/138kV transformer substation in Manhattan. The assessment was performed and produced according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts” guidance policy in support for Article VII filings and EM&CP
6 622 Judith A. Bartos
documents. An inventory of resources inventory within a designated study area as well as a photosimulation effort and full report was produced.
TransCanada Kibby Expansion Wind Power Project – ME (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2009-2010) The Kibby Expansion Project involves the addition of 15 turbines to the existing Kibby Wind Power Project in the Chain of Ponds and Kibby townships. The tasks for the Expansion Project include numerous viewshed analyses, photosimulations, and line of sight analysis to assess the impacts to the sensitive Chain of Ponds area and assessments of cumulative effects from the adjacent Kibby Wind Power Project wind farm. Wind farm 3-d model development and various photosimulations have been presented under the LURC expedited process and is currently undergoing rigorous review.
AES Wind Projects – PA, WV (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2007 – 2010) AES Snowy Creek Wind Farm Project, Preston County, West Virginia, 2010 AES Fox Hill Wind Project, Ulysses, Pennsylvania, 2010 AES New Creek Mountain Project, Grant County West Virginia, 2008 AES Laurel Mountain Wind Energy Project, Barbour/Randolph Counties, West Virginia, 2007 (Expert Testimony) AES Armenia Mountain, Tioga/Bradford Counties, Pennsylvania, 2007
Ms. Bartos has provided comprehensive visual assessments for five AES wind farm projects in support of federal, state, and local filings. Four are complete and Snowy Creek is ongoing. For each of these projects, a viewshed analysis incorporating the presence and effects of trees was performed to identify areas where the proposed wind turbines might potentially be seen within the landscape. Additional GIS data of various sensitive receptors were superimposed over the viewshed results to narrow down the focus for candidate sites suitable for photosimulations. Photosimulations were then produced to provide additional predictive visual modeling at sensitive receptor locations. For these efforts, three dimensional wind turbines were created for 118.5/121.25-meter 1.5sle/xleGE, 135-meter 2.5xlGE and 130-meter 2.5 C99 Clipper model turbines using vendor specifications. Line-of-Sight Profiles were also prepared as supplemental terrain analysis for New Creek Mountain. She has also prepared and provided written and oral expert testimony to the PSC in West Virginia.
Brookfield Resource Management Recycling Facility – Wawayanda, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2009) Ms. Bartos was tasked to produce a Visual Impact Assessment for a proposed recycling facility in Wawayanda, NY. The assessment was performed and produced according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts” guidance policy. A comprehensive viewshed analysis and resources inventory including the evaluation of historic and eligible historic locations within 3-miles was performed. An extensive photosimulation effort with the effects of final landscaping was provided.
Astoria Energy Phase II Project – Astoria, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2009) This project involved a transmission line upgrade to accommodate the existing 1,000 MW Astoria combined-cycle generating facility. The transmission line upgrade included larger structures and a 345 kV circuit. New photosimulations along several vantage points of the interconnect were produced to assess the visual impact of the upgrade.
7 623 Judith A. Bartos
CPV Valley Energy Center – Wawayanda, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2008 – 2009) Ms. Bartos performed analyses and produced a Visual Impact Assessment Report for submittal, according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts” guidance policy for a proposed 500 MW combined cycle facility. These analyses included a viewshed analysis of a 5-mile study area and an extensive suite of photosimulations of the proposed project during daytime and nighttime lighting conditions, including panoramic views. She also provided a nighttime video simulation of the facility animated in 3DS Max 9 visualization software primarily focused and based on an FAA Type L-864 Flashing Red Obstruction Beacon, with a flashing frequency occurring once every three seconds (1.5 seconds on, 1.5 seconds off) for a total of 20 flashes per minute.
Connecticut Light and Power Substation Siting – CT (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2008) Ms. Bartos provided site photosimulations as part of an alternatives analysis for proposed 115 kV substation siting. A computerized 3-dimensinal model was constructed in a real world coordinate system based on 2-dimensional cad plan and profile engineering specifications provided by the client. Photos at selected potentially sensitive receptor points were taken and marked by GPS. The photos were incorporated into the 3-d environment to depict the type and quality of view at the selected locations. Additional the 3-d model also presented ancillary elements such a proposed hedgerow, chain link fence, as well as proposed site clearing. These photosimulations were also used as a preliminary presentation to local jurisdiction prior to Connecticut Siting Council review.
CPV Walpole – Walpole, MA (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2007) Ms. Bartos conducted an extensive visual assessment for the CPV Walpole project. This project proposed to construct a 500 mw combined cycle power plant and associated switchyard in the town of Walpole, Massachusetts. An initial viewshed analysis was performed and combined with sensitive receptor information to determine photo vantage points for visual photosimulations. A 3-d model of the facility and the switchyard was constructed and used for leaf-on and leaf-off photosimulations to determine visual impacts. An ‘artist’s rendering’ of the facility, cooling towers, and switchyard within a terrain-correct environment combined with proposed landscaping was also created as well as an animated-flythrough of the facility.
CPV Wind County Line Project – Southwestern PA (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2006) Ms. Bartos provided GIS analysis and support for the initial critical issues phase to assess project feasibility. CPV proposed to construct and operate up to 45 wind turbines and associated facilities. Visibility analysis was performed to determine potential impacts to the visual environment. A viewshed analysis out to 10 miles was performed. This viewshed analysis showed areas that potentially could see all or some of the proposed facilities. The first phase of the analysis provided potential views using bare surface USGS digital elevation models. The second phase incorporated USGS based landcover data. The landcover data was reclassified to include deciduous and coniferous trees with an assigned average tree height. The viewshed was then performed again to provide potential views of the facility with trees and proposed cleared areas incorporated into the model.
Quoddy Bay LNG Import and Regasification Terminal Project – Quoddy Bay, ME (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2006) Ms. Bartos worked on extensive three dimensional modeling and photosimulations of the proposed Quoddy Bay LNG project. Modeled elements of the receiving terminal included pier sections, process platforms, typical dolphin mooring arrangements, berths, unloading platforms, two LNG tankers, and three
8 624 Judith A. Bartos
LNG tanks. Line-of-Sights utilizing digital elevation models were also performed to provide additional visibility analysis. Ms. Bartos also provided viewshed analysis out to 10 miles for both the proposed LNG tanks and tanker slip site. Additional sensitive resource data such as recreational areas, forests and parks, and cultural resources were overlaid on the final map to assist in assessing sensitive areas.
Additionally, a preliminary shadow study was performed to determine potential casting of shadows of the LNG tanks on a nearby residential area. This shadow study was also animated, showing a time range of shadow movement from 3:30 pm to darkness on a pre-determined day of December 21, 2006. Shadow studies were also produced to determine the effects of shadows produced by the berthing facilities on nearby shorebird habitats. Three different times during the day (7 am, 1 pm, and 6 pm) were depicted for the months of May, July, and September.
National Grid Wakefield Substation – Wakefield, MA (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2006) Ms. Bartos provided photosimulations for the proposed National Grid Wakefield Junction electric substation as a result of communications with concerned landowners residing in a nearby residential area who may potentially be visually impacted by the project. Photosimulations consisted of an extensive model of substation structures including steel pole structures, switchgear buildings and ancillary structures, and chain link fences rendered with photographs from strategic and selected vantage points to demonstrate that the proposed facility will not be visible from many of the vantage points of concern.
Jordan Cove Energy Project – North Bend, OR (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2006) Ms. Bartos provided photosimulation work to assess the visual impacts of a proposed 320,000 m3 capacity LNG facility at Jordan Cove in Oregon. Three dimensional LNG tanks were modeled according to engineering specifications and accurately incorporated into site photographs with detailed information about camera settings, vantage points, and site conditions. The photos were used to depict the current surrounding vicinity and incorporated into the 3-d environment where photo renderings of the facility were subsequently performed for a FERC pre-filing.
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management – MA (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2006) Ms. Bartos performed GIS offshore investigation and analyses for existing and potential ocean-based energy facilities and associated infrastructure in Massachusetts waters out to 200 miles. The goal of this project was to identify candidate areas for ocean-based energy facility including: wind turbines; free flow hydropower turbines such as wave turbines; tidal (hydrokinetic); ocean thermal; ocean current; on-sea solar electric; solar thermal electric; and ocean-based liquefied natural gas (LNG) port and or ocean- based LNG storage and vaporization facilities. Part of the final deliverable included oversize GIS maps depicting the resulting areas as well as extensive documentation of FGDC-compliant metadata to accompany a final GIS geodatabase.
Entergy, Threatened and Endangered Species Study – Northeastern and Southern U.S. (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2005) Ms. Bartos performed a GIS desktop study for Entergy, Inc. assessing the presence of Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E) along Entergy’s generation, transmission, and distribution assets in the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Texas, and Vermont. Ms. Bartos consulted extensively with state agencies and worked with NatureServe’s network of natural heritage programs to acquire the final T&E dataset. The final deliverable was provided to Entergy in the form of a usable GIS interactive ArcExplorer visual database.
9 625 Judith A. Bartos
Niagara Mohawk Transmission Line Expansions – NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2006) Ms. Bartos provided extensive GIS services in Erie and Albany Counties, New York regarding the expansion and rebuild of existing transmission line. Ms. Bartos provided GIS support, viewshed analyses, and a suite of photosimulations representing potential visibility of proposed structures in select areas, in preparation for Article VII documents and filing.
Algonquin Gas Transmission, Massachusetts Bay – MA (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2003) Ms. Bartos provided extensive GIS support and analytical aquatic ocean investigations for the Northeast Gateway Project. This project involves bringing a new supply of natural gas to New England by establishing a submerged off-shore mooring, buoy, and piping system coupled with an on-board single vessel regasification plant.
Cherokee Northeast – Pennsauken, NJ (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2003) Ms. Bartos developed an internet-based MapGuide application that is used for the redevelopment of the Township of Pennsauken’s Waterfront Redevelopment Area Project. TRC has been employed to implement the Scope of Work for the due diligence and site remediation portions of the Cramer Hill and Pennsauken Properties Redevelopment Projects located in Camden and Pennsauken, New Jersey. The client has the ability to access the secure website and utilize site-specific data along with orthoimagery to produce queried client-specific reports. These reports can be generated due to web-based integration with TRC’s Project Optimization and Performance System (POPS) provided by TRC’s IMG Group.
Mattiace – Glen Cove, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2006) As part of TRC’s Exit Strategy impetus, TRC has taken full statutory responsibility for environmental remediation of the former Mattiace Petrochemical site and is providing on-going operations, maintenance and monitoring. Cleanup has involved groundwater treatment and soil vapor extraction. As a part of EPA’s requirement, Ms. Bartos has provided GIS analyses and graphical representation of groundwater and soil vapor concentration isopleths using database tables generated from the quarterly monitoring.
Larfarge Building Materials, Inc. – Ravena, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2004) Utilizing ArcInfo Workstation, Ms. Bartos conducted visibility/raster viewshed analyses of new and existing structures for a project concerning the handling of materials for Tire Derived Fuel. The visibility analyses covered a 3-mile radius and incorporated New York State GAP data in order to obtain vegetated areas which was subsequently used in combination with 10-meter resolution digital elevation models. An inventory of existing resources including historic areas was also performed. This investigation was requested by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation as part of the SEQR review.
Confidential Client, Confidential Location – East Asia (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2003) Ms. Bartos recently worked on an international effort for a confidential client involving wind assessments and subsequent mapping. Ms. Bartos singularly performed the tasks for this comprehensive effort, entailing the preparation and calculation analyses of 5-year meteorological data sets obtained from the National Climatic Data Center detailing mean wind speeds and orientation coupled with digital terrain analysis, comparisons with weighted averages, the production of wind roses, and subsequent translation of the results to the GIS interface for the production of a final wind map.
TransGas Energy Systems – Brooklyn, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2003) Ms. Bartos provided GIS support services for the proposed TransGas Energy Systems combined cycle 1100 MW electric generating facility. Ms Bartos provided GIS analyses focused on the compatibility of the
10 626 Judith A. Bartos
project with local laws, existing land uses, existing socioeconomic data, zoning districts, and land use planning within the Greenpoint, Brooklyn urban coastal zone and waterfront areas. GIS was also used to address Environmental Justice issues using TRC’s Air Group, modeling air stack constituents of concern in relation to demographically sensitive areas within neighborhood districts and by providing a visual depiction of Environmental Justice locations utilizing EPA and New York Department of Environmental Conservation standards. Additionally, Ms. Bartos performed a Predictive Shadow Study as outlined in the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. Using the results of the CEQR screening analysis, three dimensional predictive modeling software was used to render the proposed facility. The computer generated 3D image was then transposed into different landscapes using spatial data. Subsequently, shadow lengths and angles at different times of day and year were predicted as required in the CEQR Manual. The resulting visual data were used to evaluate possible shadow impacts on city parks, historic areas, and aquatic species in the adjacent watercourse.
Northern New England Wind Power Siting Analysis, New England Windpower – ME, Ma, NH, VT (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2002) Ms. Bartos coordinated and performed GIS analyses for a project identifying and evaluating the suitability of candidate sites for wind power development in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Utilizing GIS, electronic digital overlays were compiled, reviewed and analyzed to obtain site-specific information used in determining high probability locations for wind power electric generating facility development. Parameters utilized in site identification and selection were developed and provided comparisons for development opportunities or constraints between potential areas. Sites were initially chosen from a macro-scale cartographic model. Candidate sites were then sequentially screened down as additional environmental constraints data were applied, narrowing the focus to locations that combined the greatest wind power potential with the least environmental constraints.
Freeport Electric Plant No. 2 – NY (GIS Systems Analyst: 2001) Ms. Bartos prepared surface modeling and isopleth contouring associated with air quality modeling to document Environmental Justice (EJ) issues. EJ considers disproportionate adverse human health and environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. Demonstrated that modeled air quality impacts from the proposed facility will not exceed EPA Significant Impact Levels and will not cause an NAAQS to be exceeded or violated. The initial screening area was selected by choosing census tracts that fall within or overlap a one-mile radius study area surrounding the generating facility sites. Total minority population and poverty rate were the main indicators used to determine the presence of a Community of Concern in the screening area.
Everett Lateral Project Critical Flaw Analysis, Algonquin Gas Transmission Company – MA (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2003) Ms. Bartos provided vector and raster image fatal flaw analysis for proposed 6.6-mile, natural gas pipeline configured to begin at the end of Algonquin’s Deer Island Lateral and pass through the communities of Winthrop, East Boston and Chelsea and terminate in Everett, Massachusetts. She also assessed the developed nature of the off-shore and on-shore Project area. Ms. Bartos used results of GIS analyses to tailor cartographic efforts for federal and state filing.
Puerto Rican Environmental Quality Board – Vieques and Culebra Islands, Puerto Rico (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2004) Ms. Bartos provided a fast-track GIS mapping effort for the Puerto Rican Environmental Quality Board in depicting boundaries for ten Solid Waste Management Units/Areas of Concern regarding sites that are
11 627 Judith A. Bartos
under consideration for SuperFund listing, in addition to sites that have been impacted by unexploded ordnance. The client requested that each site boundary and basis of determination conservatively incorporate known and potential environmental impacts for the proposed SuperFund sites, and known or strong potential for explosive items for the other additional sites.
Rochester Gas & Electric – Monroe and Wayne Counties, NY (Sr. GIS Systems Analyst: 2003) Ms. Bartos produced approximately 50 maps consisting of environmental constraints data and surveyed habitats mapping to support the efforts of an Article VII filing associated with the construction of new and rebuilding of existing overhead 115 kV transmission line in addition to reconstruction and upgrades to several substations.
Lake Erie Link Project, TransEnergie U.S. Ltd – PA to Canada (GIS Systems Analyst: 2001) Ms. Bartos provided comprehensive GIS support services for site assessment and alternatives analysis for the construction a fiber optic cable proposed from Pennsylvania to Canada beneath Lake Erie. She analyzed and evaluated potential impacts to environmental resources vs. engineered design. This determined feasibility of several water crossings by the cable route.
Kings Park Energy, PPL, Wawayanda Energy Center, Calpine Corporation – NY (GIS Systems Analyst: 2001) Ms. Bartos provided GIS services to support the permitting of these two proposed (600 MW and 540 MW, respectively) power generating facilities under Article X of the New York State Public Service Law. The Article X process included presenting cartographic information relative to environmental setting, potential environmental impacts and feasibility of facility operation, representation of reasonable alternatives and proposed mitigation.
Stamford Urban Transitway, City of Stamford – CT (GIS Systems Analyst: 2001) Ms. Bartos provided GIS cartography and vector analyses for an Environmental Assessment regarding the construction of an intermodal transportation project in Stamford, CT, documenting impact assessment methodologies utilized, alternatives analysis, key input data sets, and quantitative results for zoning, land use and environmental impacts. Additionally performed the GIS mapping, analyses, and subsequent write-up of comprehensive land use analysis for New Starts Application for federal funding.
Wetland Survey, Environmental Permitting, Environmental Inspection
Ms. Bartos specializes in environmental impact assessments and siting studies in the Northeast and Mid- Atlantic. Projects have included multidisciplinary permitting and field efforts for power generating facilities, natural gas pipeline, fiber optic installation, and transmission line upgrades. Former field experience includes wetland assessment and delineation in CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, PA, VT, VA, and WV with an emphasis on soil evaluation in addition to forest community assessment, stream characterization, and wildlife habitat assessment. Ms. Bartos has also formerly performed environmental site inspections (FERC Guidelines) for natural gas pipeline and energy facility construction projects. Ms. Bartos is familiar with sediment and erosion control methods, and has designed locally approved erosion control and/or Storm Water Pollution Prevention plans for pipeline and fiber optic installation projects.
12 628 Judith A. Bartos
Islander East Pipeline, Duke Energy – CT (Field Team Leader: 2000) Ms. Bartos performed wetland delineations and oversight of wetland field team for natural gas pipeline corridor in Connecticut. Responsible for federal wetland determination in addition to determining state- regulated wetlands based primarily on soils criteria.
Newington Energy Facility, Con Edison – Newington, NH (Sr. Scientist: 2000) Ms. Bartos provided environmental permitting services for Con Edison construction of a 520 MW power facility and ancillary features including the proposed Newington Industrial Corridor Road and Sprague Oil Pipeline. She performed site inspections of facility construction for environmental compliance in addition to oversight of the construction of new wetlands required under the mitigation plan.
National Grid USA Companies Contract Service Agreement – New England (Sr. Scientist: 1999- 2000) Ms. Bartos delineated wetlands, provided environmental site inspections, produced post-construction restoration plans along existing rights-of-way, and state and local environmental permitting for transmission line re-conductoring and pole replacement projects. She assisted client with fast track strategies to accomplish local permit filings within a limited time frame and in resolving public and environmental issues in problematic areas. Ms. Bartos presented projects to local Conservation Commissions in at least ten Massachusetts communities. In a three-year time frame she worked on 15 transmission lines for this client.
Millenium and ANP Blackstone Natural Gas Lateral Connects, Tennessee Gas Pipeline – MA (Environmental Site Inspector: 2000) Ms. Bartos was the environmental site inspector for two natural gas pipeline connects in Charlton and Blackstone, Massachusetts. She ensured environmental compliance and provided oversight of contractor during pipeline construction activities, post-construction restoration, and wetland resource crossings under FERC guidelines, and in accordance with the previously obtained state and local permits.
Chesapeake Network Fiber Optic Project, Columbia Transmission Communications Corporation – MD (Sr. Scientist: 1999) Ms. Bartos facilitated permit approvals at the state and local level for a new fiber optic installation in Montgomery, Howard, Baltimore, Harford, and Cecil Counties, Maryland. Revised and produced Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans for site specific wetland crossings and general upland BMPs in these counties. She assisted client with other fiber optic construction related tasks prior to final state permit approvals and agency sign-offs in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
Eastern Shore Natural Gas, ’99 Expansion Project – DE and PA (Sr. Scientist: 1998) Ms. Bartos performed wetland delineation and stream characterization for natural gas pipeline linear project in Chester County, PA and Newcastle County, DE. Additional focus on assisting client in determining the suitability of initial survey route based on pipeline construction techniques required in various environments encountered along proposed corridor.
Charles County Loop Project, Washington Gas Company – MD (Sr. Scientist: 1997) Ms. Bartos performed wetland and stream surveys along a proposed natural gas pipeline route in Charles and Prince George’s County, Maryland. Responsible for the project Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, and for obtaining the Application for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Permit for Utility
13 629 Judith A. Bartos
Construction in Prince George’s County. Assisted in Maryland Joint Federal/State Application for non-tidal wetlands, and alternative site analyses.
Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, Consortium of Companies – Troy, VT to Haverhill, MA (Scientist: 1995) Ms. Bartos delineated wetlands using the three-parameter federal methodology along an existing gas pipeline Right-of-Way for the Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS) in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. (130+ miles). Additional work consisted of wetland functional assessments, wildlife and songbird habitat evaluation, stream characterization, and forest cover type analyses. Associated permitting included report preparation for FERC application, and support for Vermont state environmental permitting. Assisted in preparing the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Committee state permit in New Hampshire with regards to PNGTS.
Hazardous Waste
Ms. Bartos formerly has seven years experience working on various construction sites in urban and rural areas and has worked extensively performing construction remediation oversight activities on several large infrastructure projects. She is familiar with the operation of heavy equipment often under chaotic environments or with strict working conditions. She has practical on-the-ground construction experience and has seen extensive dewatering operations and contaminated soil and water management, massive earthworks, and cut and fill activity.
NewPenn Trucking Terminal UST Removals, NewPenn Trucking – MA (Environmental Site Manager: 2000) Ms. Bartos was the environmental site manager for 4-10,000 gallon UST removals. Encountered contamination during site activities and implemented soil and water cleanup activities under a limited removal action per MCP compliance and in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Underground Storage Tank Closure Assessment Manual. Assisted in coordinating contractor construction activities and performed environmental sampling necessary for site closure.
Suffolk County House of Correction, Well Installation and Site Investigation – Boston, MA (On-Site Supervisor: 1997) Ms. Bartos was the on-site supervisor and person responsible for installing 14 boring and monitoring wells in the “yard” of an active medium-security prison in Boston for site investigation of a parcel proposed for additional inmate quarters. Following well-installation and soil sampling, performed low-flow water sampling over a period of several weeks.
Logan 2000 Modernization Project, Massport – MA (Supervisor: 1997 – 1998) Ms. Bartos provided extensive construction remediation oversight for groundwater and soil remediation, hazardous waste management, and environmental compliance during airside and landside construction activities at Logan International Airport (Boston, MA). Under this contract, Ms. Bartos was in a supervisory role involved in environmental compliance for; a) construction of an aircraft fueling system, hydrant water supply system, new terminal walkways installation, parking garage construction, International Terminal E expansion, fuel storage facility; and b) remedial activities for separate phase hydrocarbons (jet fuel) on airside including the installation of product recovery trenches and central treatment facility, multi-phase extraction wells, well-installation, sampling, and monitoring activities for Phase II investigations, soil vapor
14 630 Judith A. Bartos
extractions, airport wide NPDES permit compliance, UST removals, and underground storage vault demolitions.
Onsite Field Supervisor, Task Engineer – Ms. Bartos ensured design specification of selected remediation projects and environmental compliance was met, coordinated airside construction activities with daily airport and gate operations, staffed field activities, wrote scopes of work and cost estimates, reviewed specifications and environmental reports of subcontractors, data management; and
Field Site Inspector – Ms. Bartos performed environmental site inspections for MCP compliance during construction activities. Also performed chemical soil field screening of contaminated soils, groundwater and dewatering effluent sampling, oversight and sampling of drilling operations, and geotechnical inspection of excavations, oftentimes in active working terminals with moving aircraft or those residing on tarmack. Provided mandatory escort services for travel along perimeter road and across airport runways for those contractors without the required Class 2A or 2B licenses, in additional to mandatory supervision in areas of International Terminal E. Performed continual inspections of construction activity subject to stringent airport standards (i.e. dust levels and Foreign Object Detection) and communicated daily with airport operations personnel. Provided oversight and performed necessary activities for site closure for several UST removals, including a 50,000 and 100,000 gallon concrete vault demolition.
Permitting and Report Writing per MA MCP Compliance – Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan, Immediate Response Action (IRA) Plan, IRA Completion Report, Response Action Outcome Statement, Release Abatement Measure (RAM) Plans, RAM Status reports, NPDES Permit Applications, NPDES Quarterly Analytical Reports.
15 631 632
William J. Boer, PP, AICP Environmental Services Project Manager
EDUCATION B.S., Environmental Planning, Plymouth State University, New Hampshire 2003
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS American Institute of Certified Planners, (#021636), since 2009 Professional Planner, New Jersey, (License #33LI00599400), since 2007
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Environmental Services Project Manager (2018-Present) Environmental Services Project Manager for renewable energy projects in the states of New York and New Jersey. Responsible for preparation of all applications and supporting environmental studies submitted under Article 10 of the Public Service Law and the State Environmental Quality Review Act including the following renewable energy projects: o Calverton Solar Energy Center – 22.9 MW solar project o East Point Energy Center – 50 MW solar project o High River Energy Center – 90 MW solar project o Watkins Glen Solar Energy Center – 50 MW solar project o Excelsior Energy Center – 280 MW solar and 20 MW energy storage project o Trelina Solar Energy Center – 80 MW solar project Manage all environmental development activities and permitting issues, energy facility siting, and report analyses/conclusions. Participate in agency, stakeholder and public meetings. Tetra Tech, Supervising Project Manager (2018) Responsible for providing project management on renewable energy projects located throughout the states of New York and New Jersey. Perform writing and coordination of required technical reports and studies, oversee direction of project information/data between clients and Tetra Tech technical directors, and provide general client support to advance projects through regulatory review processes and into construction. TRC Environmental Corporation, Office Practice Leader/Environmental Planner (2013-2018) Responsible for managing a staff of 17 employees in three separate offices (Lyndhurst, NJ; Ithaca, NY; Plymouth Meeting, PA) and providing project management on complex projects in varied fields such as electric generation facilities, infrastructure and pipelines. Liaison with federal and state agencies and local government officials for application review processes. Extensive experience with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection – Division of Land Use Regulation, New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law, New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Article 10), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Preparation and submittal of jurisdictional permit applications to federal and state agencies and site plan/special permit applications to local planning/zoning boards for renewable energy projects. Review of environmental regulations in order to determine project compliance. French & Parrello Associates, P.A., Senior Staff Planner (2006-2013) Member of the Land Development and Transportation departments and responsible for project planning from conceptual layout through project design and agency/permit approval for private and public sector clients.
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC
700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408 633 634
Ryan Callahan, INCE
Senior Engineer
EDUCATION Mr. Callahan is an acoustic engineer with 11 years of experience as B.S. Civil Engineering, Northeastern a noise consultant, in acoustic modeling, and sound level University monitoring. Mr. Callahan is an expert in the application of the Cadna-A acoustic model (ISO 9613.2) to wind farms, construction noise, industrial facilities, commercial developments, and power PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP plants. Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) Mr. Callahan designs and implements field monitoring programs for permitting purposes and for demonstrating compliance with local and state noise regulations. He also has extensive experience with the TNM (Traffic Noise Model) for federal highway development projects. He has successfully completed sound monitoring and modeling for over 200 different projects ranging from small commercial developments to a large 420 MW wind farm, and has presented noise studies before town and county planning boards.
EPSILON ASSOCIATES INC. Resume/Callahan 978-897-7100 635
Ryan Callahan, INCE PAGE 2 OF 3
SELECTED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
♦ Apex Clean Energy, Galloo Island Wind, New York. Mr. Callahan performed acoustic modeling in support of the Galloo Island Wind Project. The objective was the provide the State with information about potential sound impacts from a proposed collector substation as part of the Article 7 process.
♦ Jordan Creek Wind Farm – Benton County, IN. Performed a sound modeling analysis of a proposed 300 MW wind project in Benton and Warren counties of Indiana to evaluate potential impacts from the project on the surrounding community, and evaluated the project with respect to local sound level limits.
♦ Ball Hill Wind Project – Villenova and Hanover, NY. Performed a sound modeling analysis of a proposed 38 turbine wind project in New York State as part of the SEQRA process, and in support of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
♦ Langdon Wind Project – Cavalier County, ND. Performed a sound modeling analysis of a proposed repowering wind project in North Dakota in order to demonstrate the Project would comply with the North Dakota Administrative Code with respect to sound.
♦ Heartland Divide Wind Energy Center – Audubon County, IA. Performed a sound modeling analysis of a proposed 104 MW wind project in Iowa in order to evaluate potential impacts from the Project on the surrounding community.
♦ National Grid – Lowell Area Gas Modernization Project. Mr. Callahan performed acoustic modeling and monitoring in support of the National Grid Tewksbury Gas Transmission Project. The objective was to model noise impacts resulting from horizontal directional drilling and other construction activities required for the Project.
♦ Medical Area Total Energy Plant (MATEP), Boston, MA. Performed compliance sound level measurement programs for the plant following the installation of two combustion turbines, gas compressors, and cooling towers. These programs included background sound level measurements, compliance operational sound level measurements, and evaluations of noise mitigation.
♦ Veolia Kendall Station, Cambridge, MA. Managed a sound level measurement program for the natural gas power generation facility in support of a new air-cooled condenser unit (ACHX) with multiple fans, and fin-fan coolers on the station rooftop. Results were presented to demonstrate compliance with the City of Cambridge sound level limits.
♦ MassCEC CAD Monitoring, New Bedford/Fairhaven, Massachusetts. Prior to joining Epsilon, Mr. Callahan maintained a continuous unattended sound monitoring station at a residential property near the dredging and confined-aquatic-disposal (CAD) cell operations along the Fairhaven/New Bedford waterfront over a two-month period. The objective was to provide MassCEC twice-weekly reports of measured sound levels (tables and graphs) to determine compliance with the MassDEP Noise Policy.
♦ Boston Redevelopment Authority Article 80 Noise Studies, Boston, Massachusetts. Prior to joining Epsilon,Mr. Callahan has performed noise studies for 15 residential and commercial developments in the City of Boston as part the Boston Redevelopment Authority Article 80 regulations.
EPSILON ASSOCIATES INC. Resume/Callahan 978-897-7100 636
Ryan Callahan, INCE PAGE 3 OF 3
The noise studies require both noise monitoring and modeling analyses to demonstrate compliance with the City of Boston noise regulations and MassDEP Noise Policy.
♦ Devens Enterprise Commision, Devens, Massachusetts. Prior to joining Epsilon, as the Sound Consultant to the Devens Enterprise Commission (DEC), Tech Environmental provided technical assistance in resolving noise complaints from residences in Harvard, MA that are adjacent to the Evergreen Solar (EGS) manufacturing plant in Devens, MA. Sound sources at the plant exceeded the Devens Industrial Performance Standards for Noise at site property boundaries, and at times, at the nearest residences. Mr. Callahan reviewed previous documentation, continous monitoring data reports and noise protocol prepared by EGS’ sound consultant and worked closely with the DEC staff, their previous sound consultant and EGS’ sound consultant to develop a resolution to reduce sound levels from EGS cooling towers and VOC scrubber system.
♦ Aggregate Industries, Littleton, Massachusetts. Aggregate Industries owns and operates a nonmetallic mineral processing/crushing plant in Littleton, Massachusetts. Prior to joining Epsilon, Mr. Callahan performed acoustic modeling to assess the reconfiguration and upgrade of their existing crushing plant to improve overall crushing operations and to obtain access to future reserves of rock deposit onsite. The resulting analysis led to a number of sound mitigation measures that included installing earth berms and sound walls and rearranging stockpiles to reduce noise from the loudest sound sources. Mr. Callahan monitored the sound levels during post-mitigation operation in order to demonstrate that the relocated plant met the MassDEP Noise Policy and Littleton Noise Bylaw.
♦ Noise Studies for Wind Energy Projects. Prior to joining Epsilon, Mr. Callahan has performed community sound level monitoring and acoustic modeling studies for a wide range of wind projects from a single 1-MW installation at Wayne School District in Ontario, NY to the 130-turbine, 420-MW offshore Cape Wind Project in Nantucket Sound. He has provided background sound monitoring, acoustic modeling, shadow flicker analysis, on over 85 wind energy projects in 15 States: Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.
♦ General Electric Transportation, Schenectady, New York. Prior to joining Epsilon, Mr. Callahan completed both noise monitoring and modeling for a new battery production plant in Schenectady, New York to assess the potential impacts on a nearby residential neighborhood as part of a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) application.
♦ Noise and Underwater Sound Studies for the Calais LNG Terminal. For the 1 billion cf/day LNG terminal in Calais, Maine. Prior to joining Epsilon, Mr. Callahan performed a comprehensive noise and underwater sound impact study of the facility’s construction and operations, including LNG carrier transit from the Bay of Fundy through Passamaquoddy Bay and up the St. Croix River. Predicted noise levels were compared to Maine DEP and FERC limits. Underwater sound levels were compared to NMFS criteria and mitigation measures were proposed. Text was written for the federal EIS.
EPSILON ASSOCIATES INC. Resume/Callahan 978-897-7100 637 638
Joe F. Cartaya Early Stage Development Project Manager
EDUCATION B.A., Sustainability and the Environment, Florida International University, Florida 2020
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Early Stage Development Project Manager (2019) Provide engineering support and daily coordination of Engineering, Estimating, Supply Chain, and Construction resources through the pre-construction activities for projects in the Development phase: o Quinebaug Solar Energy Center – 50 MW solar project o East Point Energy Center – 50 MW solar project o High River Energy Center – 90 MW solar project o Watkins Glen Solar Energy Center – 50 MW solar project o Excelsior Energy Center – 280 MW solar and 20 MWh energy storage project o Trelina Solar Energy Center – 80 MW solar project o Northside Solar Energy Center – 180 MW solar and 80 MWh energy storage project o Cortland Solar Energy Center – 50 MW solar project o Garnet Solar Energy Center – 200 MW solar and 80 MWh energy storage project Coordinate the project transition from preliminary design to execution once Management approval has been achieved. NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Project Controls Specialist (2015-2018) Responsible for engineering, procurement, and construction oversight activities involved in execution, coordination, and control of technical, financial and contractual commitments during power plant construction. Monitor, track and analyze actual expenditures to ensure accurate capital postings for monthly reporting and variance explanations. Monitor, track and analyze project schedules to prepare and present corrective action plans and mitigation strategies based on a critical path analysis. Preform risk assessment and financial analysis to ensure accurate project forecasting. Understand all major contracts and ensure details are incorporated into the project forecast and cash flows. Prepare executive level reports and ensure write ups are accurate, complete, clear, and concise.
Pryde Group Americas, Division Manager (2010-2015) Responsible for end-to-end business unit planning, forecasting and strategy development from market initiation to multi-channel campaign design and customer lifecycle sales and marketing programs. Developed a strategic brand and business-line vision, partnered with finance, logistics and global brand teams to harmonize efforts across an international organization. Created communications strategy, collateral/promotional design and end-to-end execution for highly successful lead-generation and business development events including Surf Expo Outdoor Retailer and other key trade shows.
T-Mobile USA, Corporate Trainer (2006-2009) Responsible for coordinating and facilitating all corporate and retail trainings conducted in the South Florida Market. Trainings included new product launch, career development, employee onboarding, and sales strategy.
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC
700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408 639 KEDDY A. CHANDRAN 640
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC (Subsidiary of NextEra Energy, Inc. NYSE: NEE) New York, NY Project Director December 2017-Present • Leading utility-scale development for solar, wind, and energy storage projects across New York State, representing significant infrastructure investment at various stages of maturity • Coordinating land acquisition, enviornmental assessments, interconnection, engineering, permitting, finance, and construction ONYX RENEWABLE PARTNERS, L.P. (a Blackstone Investment Platform) New York, NY Director, Business Development and Project Development June 2015-November 2017 • Led development of 30 MW of residential and commercial-scale projects on 4 military bases: Ft. Meade (8 MW), Aberdeen Proving Ground (7 MW), Ft. Riley (11 MW), and Edwards Air Force Base (4 MW) • Won a strategic partnership with the Connecticut Green Bank. Led the RFP process, contract negotiations, and ongoing development and M&A process with the Bank and member developers ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY – ENERGY (ARPA-E) Washington, DC Commercialization Advisor 2010-2011 Served as advisor for the $30MM Building Energy Efficiency Through Innovative Thermodevices (BEETIT) Program. Counseled portfolio companies on product/market fit, cost/performance modeling, and commercial milestones Identified and spearheaded a pilot program between ARPA-E and the Department of Defense to select and develop BEETIT technologies to be tested for potential deployment in forward operating bases Co-Chair: 2011 ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY Washington, DC Program Analyst 2009-2011 Reviewed loan guarantee applications for concentrated solar, wind, nuclear, and transmission projects, ranging from $100M-$1.5B, and provided briefings to the Under Secretary and Senior Technology Advisor Supported top Departmental leadership in assessing the energy R&D portfolio through a series of technical deep-dives and interviews, informing the President’s budget request to Congress for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 Represented the Department for a White House initiative to improve transparency of federal R&D investments
OTHER EXPERIENCE FORD MOTOR COMPANY Dearborn, MI Marketing Leadership Development Program Summer 2014 Designed statistical models to segment customers based on sales frequency, size, and product mix, identifying a fundamentally different marketing strategy for the wholesale parts business 4FRONT CAPITAL PARTNERS (a boutique investment bank specializing in knowledge-based industries) Toronto, ON Senior Associate, Energy Subject Matter Expert 2012-2013 Screened and conducted due diligence on technology startups based on foundational technology risk, financials, and strategy Built financial and operational models, valuation analyses, and pitch materials for early stage IT and hardware companies EDUCATION THE WHARTON SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia, PA Masters in Business Administration; Majors in Finance and Operations 2013-2015 Coursework in advanced mathematic modeling for financial applications, corporate finance, accounting, investment management, venture capital, negotiations, operational strategy, management, and organizational behavior Class of 2015 Leadership Fellow Member of Men’s Rugby Football Club (Past Officer), Energy Club, Social Impact Club, and Canada Club DUKE UNIVERSITY Durham, NC Masters in Engineering Management; Focus in Finance and Entrepreneurship 2007-2008 Fellow, 2008 Roundtable on Entrepreneurship Education, Stanford University Co-Chair, 2008 Duke Entrepreneurship Week DUKE UNIVERSITY Durham, NC Bachelors of Science in Engineering; Biomedical Engineering 2003-2007 Co-Founder, Duke Synthetic Biology Club and the International Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) Team Published in IET Synthetic Biology as lead researcher on two projects applicable to oncology and gene therapy 641 642
ANDREW K. DION, PE
EDUCATION BS, Electrical Engineering, Clarkson University, 2007
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS Professional Engineer, New York (#093958), 2014
AREAS OF EXPERTISE Mr. Andrew K. Dion, P.E., has technical experience in the following general areas: Substation Design Engineering Management Protection and Control Design EPC Project Management Project Estimating Project Engineering Preliminary & Conceptual Design Drafting Services Equipment Specifications Construction Specifications Commissioning Engineer
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Dion has over eight years of experience and progressive responsibility in electrical engineering consulting. His qualifications include extensive field investigation, design, project management and engineering. Mr. Dion’s background includes service to public and private-sector clientele including NGRID, Central Hudson, GlaxoSmithKline, PSEG, PPL and FirstEnergy. He currently serves in the capacity of Engineering Supervisor with project management, station/protection engineering, commission engineering and design responsibility.
PSEG-LI (Roslyn Breaker Replacement) (Principal Engineer: 2015) Mr. Dion served as the Principal Engineer on the PSEG-LI Roslyn Breaker Replacement project. His duties included overall review and acceptance of substation electrical package. In addition Mr. Dion served as the single point of contact for the client and ensured the project was kept on schedule and included all applicable industry and client standards.
Exelon Power (RE POWERTM Playbook, Cromby Station) (Utility Substation Engineer: 2014) Mr. Dion served as the Utility Substation Engineer on the Cromby RE POWERTM Playbook. His duties included reviewing the protection and controls, and communications connections for the adjacent utility substation that are located in the power block. Mr. Dion was tasked with developing and costing scopes of work for the relocation of these lines.
FirstEnergy (FirstEnergy TREP Program 2014) (Program Manager: 2014) Mr. Dion served as Program Manager on the FirstEnergy TREP program with responsibility for the overall technical responsibility of all TREP station projects. The 2014 TREP program consisted of seven station with upgrades including transformer and breaker replacements, protection and control relay upgrades and
TRCcompanies.com 643
Andrew K. Dion, PE
other various station upgrades. His duties included the coordination of design between all disciplines on the projects, ensure quality and customer specifications are followed and projects are kept on schedule and budget. Mr. Dion was responsible for cost estimation of the project, resource allocation and customer relations.
Public Service Electric & Gas (PSEG Ward Ave Station 230kV Station Upgrades) (Project Engineer: 2012-2014) Mr. Dion served as Project Engineer with responsibility for the complete design of a new breaker and line position at Ward Ave Station. His duties included the coordination of design between all disciplines on the project. Mr. Dion was responsible for cost estimation of the project, resource allocation, technical clarifications and customer relations.
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals, Building 36 Transformer Relay Replacement, King of Prussia, PA, (Lead Electrical Engineer: 2013) Mr. Dion served as Lead Electrical Engineer with responsibility for the complete electrical design of the transformer relay replacement project. His duties included the complete demolition of the existing transformer relaying, developed electrical system arrangement drawings for new SEL-487E transformer relays, performed circuit design calculations and relay & protection design systems.
Public Service Electric & Gas (PSEG Bergen Station 230kV GIS Installation) (Lead Commissioning Engineer: 2012-2014) Mr. Dion served as the Lead Commissioning Engineer. He was responsible for the interface with the onsite engineering firm, onsite electrical contractor and onsite PSE&G employees to install and commission the largest GIS substation in the USA. Bergen 230kV GIS included thirty-one (31) three pole GIS breakers and eighteen (18) line positions. Mr. Dion worked with PSE&G relay technicians to make design changes to circuit breaker control circuits, alarm circuits, transformer circuits, line relay circuits and ESOC RTU circuits to ensure all designs would function properly and meet PSE&G standards. He also performed and oversaw functional and circuit checkout on control, CT and PT circuits. He attended the final walkthrough and performed load checks when the equipment was placed into service. Mr. Dion was also responsible for assisting the PSE&G relay technicians in updating the final documentation at the close of the project to submit to PSE&G engineering.
Public Service Electric & Gas (PSEG), Cedar Grove Switching Station Two Line Single Breaker to Eight Bay Breaker and a Half Station Upgrade Capacitor Bank, Live Tank Breaker, Transformer and Ring Bus Addition (Lead Commissioning Engineer: 2011-2012) Mr. Dion served as the Lead Commissioning Engineer. He was responsible for the interface with the onsite engineering firm, onsite electrical contractor and onsite PSE&G employees in order to upgrade and add various equipment. Mr. Dion worked with PSE&G relay technicians to make design changes to circuit breaker control circuits, alarm circuits, transformer circuits, line relay circuits and ESOC RTU circuits to ensure all designs would function properly and meet PSE&G standards. He also performed and oversaw functional and circuit checkout on control, CT and PT circuits. He attended the final walkthrough and performed load checks when the equipment was placed into service. Mr. Dion was also responsible for assisting the PSE&G relay technicians in updating the final documentation at the close of the project to submit to PSE&G engineering.
2 644
Andrew K. Dion, PE
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals, Building 14 Switchyard Rebuild King of Prussia, PA, (Lead Electrical Engineer: 2011) Mr. Dion served as Lead Electrical Engineer with responsibility for the complete electrical design rebuild of Building 14 switchyard. Along with coordinating design efforts from various team members, Mr. Dion was responsible for outage sequence plans, construction cutovers and station reliability study.
Public Service Electric & Gas (PSEG), New Milford Line Relaying Replacement (Lead Commissioning Engineer: 2011) Mr. Dion served as the Lead Commissioning Engineer. He was responsible for the interface with the onsite engineering firm, onsite electrical contractor and onsite PSE&G employees in order to upgrade and add various equipment. Mr. Dion worked with PSE&G relay technicians to make design changes to circuit breaker control circuits, alarm circuits, transformer circuits, line relay circuits and ESOC RTU circuits to ensure all designs would function properly and meet PSE&G standards. He also performed and oversaw functional and circuit checkout on control, CT and PT circuits. He attended the final walkthrough and performed load checks when the equipment was placed into service. Mr. Dion was also responsible for assisting the PSE&G relay technicians in updating the final documentation at the close of the project to submit to PSE&G engineering.
National Grid, Ridge Road Circuit Switcher Installation- Buffalo, NY (Engineer: 2008 - 2009) Mr. Dion serves as an Engineer responsible for the electrical design of a new 115kV, 1200A Circuit Switcher at a transmission station including creating design drawings, grounding, conduit, physical connections and equipment specifications.
National Grid, Andover Capacitor Bank Addition- Andover, NY (Engineer: 2009) Mr. Dion serves as an Engineer responsible for the electrical design adding a 15MVAR, 115kV Capacitor Bank at a 115/34.5kV transmission station. The design included adding 115kV, 3000A Circuit Breaker, 2000A group operated switch and surge arresters. He coordinated the new design, conduits, grounding, physical connections, lightning calculations, wire sizing, panel arrangements, AC and DC panel upgrades and ordered necessary equipment.
3 645 646
PATRICK J. FENNELL, PE, BCEE
EDUCATION M.E., Environmental Engineering, University of Hartford, 1997 M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana, 1977 B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Missouri at Columbia, 1975
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS Licensed Professional Engineer, Connecticut (#18763) 1995 Board Certified Environmental Engineer, American Academy of Environmental Engineers, 2008.
AREAS OF EXPERTISE Patrick J. Fennell, PE. BCEE has demonstrated engineering and project management expertise in: Air Pollution Engineering and Permitting Oil and Gas Industry Permitting Power Plant Permitting Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal and Seaport Permitting Renewable Energy Permitting Surface Mine Permitting Odor Assessment and Environmental Compliance
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Fennell has 41 years of experience and progressive responsibility in Environmental, Civil, and Nuclear Engineering. He currently works in TRC’s Planning, Permitting, and Licensing group, and supports Energy and Environmental Services clients on a range of projects.
Air Pollution Engineering and Permitting - Power Plants (TRC Environmental Corporation, 2000 - Present) Mr. Fennell conducts engineering evaluations and prepares permit applications for power plants, including simple-cycle and combined-cycle combustion turbines, boilers, reciprocating engines, and integrated gasification combined-cycle facilities. He prepares stationary and mobile source emissions inventories for single-source and multi-source modeling. Mr. Fennell performs air pollution control technology assessments and economic analyses for BACT, LAER, BART, MACT, etc. He helps clients respond to problems that arise during startup and routine operation. Typical project experience includes the following:
Long Island Fast Track Project - The project involved preparing the initial air permit applications for three simple-cycle GE LM6000 combustion turbine facilities (Edgewood, Equus, and Pine Lawn) in Long Island, New York. Also prepare submittals for subsequent power up-rates and compliance activities.
Shoreham Solar Commons - The Project involved preparing the Environmental Assessment for a 24.9 MW solar photovoltaic facility in Brookhaven, New York.
TRCcompanies.com 647 Patrick J. Fennell, PE, BCEE
Kleen Energy Systems - The project involved preparation of the NSR air permit application for a 620 MW combined-cycle dual fuel-fired power plant in Middletown, Connecticut.
FirstLight Power Resources - The project involved preparation of the NSR air permit application for the Waterbury Generation Project, a dual-fuel General Electric LMS-100 gas turbine generator in Waterbury, Connecticut.
Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative - The project involved preparation of the NSR air permit application for the Alfred L. Pierce Generating Station Repowering Project, a dual-fuel simple-cycle General Electric 7EA gas turbine generator in Wallingford, Connecticut.
Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative - The project involved preparation of applications to construct and operate twenty 2.5 MW diesel engines located at 10 sites in 5 Connecticut cities or towns plus another site on Fishers Island, New York.
Beacon Falls Energy Park - The project involved preparation of the air permit application to construct a 63.3 MW fuel cell park in Beacon Falls, Connecticut.
LS Power Wallingford Energy - The project involved preparation of the NSR air permit application for the addition of two GE LM6000 simple-cycle natural gas-fired combustion turbines at a power plant in Wallingford, Connecticut.
Lawrence Energy Center - The project involved preparation of the Permit to Install/Prevention of Significant Deterioration air permit application and corresponding sections of the Ohio Power Siting Board application for a combined-cycle natural gas-fired power plant in Lawrence County, Ohio.
Fremont Energy Center - The project involved preparation of the Permit to Install/Prevention of Significant Deterioration air permit application and corresponding sections of the Ohio Power Siting Board application for a combined-cycle natural gas-fired power plant in Fremont, Ohio.
CPV Warren - The project involved preparation of the PSD air permit application for a 580 MW combined-cycle power plant in Front Royal, Virginia.
CPV Fluvanna County - The project involved preparation of the PSD air permit application for a 520 MW combined-cycle power plant in Fluvanna County, Virginia.
CPV Valley Energy Center - The project involved preparation of the PSD air permit application for a 680 MW combined-cycle power plant in Middletown, New York.
Air Pollution Engineering and Permitting - Oil and Gas Industry (TRC Environmental Corporation, 2000 - Present) Mr. Fennell prepares air permit applications and FERC environmental reports for oil and gas industry facilities, including natural gas compressor stations, storage facilities, and pipelines. He prepares emission inventories for facility construction and operation. Mr. Fennell prepares third-party environmental analyses and environmental impact statements under contract to FERC. He has also prepared general conformity submittals. Typical project experience includes the following:
2 648 Patrick J. Fennell, PE, BCEE
Kemmerer Mine Relocation - The project involved the relocation of a natural gas pipeline in Wyoming to accommodate the ongoing operation of the Kemmerer Mine. Prepared the air emission calculations and the air quality section for the project’s environmental assessment for the Bureau of Land Management.
Antelope Creek Oil and Gas Field - The project involved installation and operation of over 500 natural gas and oil wells in Utah. Prepared the air emission calculations and the air quality section for the project’s environmental assessment for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Dominion Transmission New Market - The project involved construction and operation of two new natural gas compressor stations and modifications to three existing compressor stations and one metering station in New York State. Performed third-party review of resource report submittals and prepared the air quality-related portions of the environmental assessment for the FERC.
Dominion Transmission Allegheny Storage - The project involved the construction of new natural gas compressor stations in Maryland and Ohio, expansion of natural gas compressor stations in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and construction of pipelines in these states. Prepared the pipeline construction calculations and made extensive revisions to the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal prepared by another organization. Also prepared responses to numerous public comments submitted to the FERC concerning air quality.
Midcontinent Express Pipeline - The project involved construction and operation of an approximately 500 mile pipeline from Oklahoma to Alabama, including four new compressor stations, one booster station, and numerous meter and regulating stations. Prepared air permit applications in Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama, and the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality).
Sawgrass Storage - The project involved a depleted natural gas reservoir located in Louisiana. Prepared the air permit application for the associated natural gas handling and compression facility.
Florida Gas Transmission Company Phase VIII Expansion - The project involved the construction and acquisition of approximately 500 miles of natural gas pipeline in Alabama and Florida. Prepared detailed air emissions calculations for the project construction for the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal.
Ruston Compressor Replacement - The project involved replacement of natural gas compressors and ancillary equipment at the Ruston Compressor Station in Louisiana. Prepared the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal.
Kosciusko Compressor Station - The project involved the replacement of existing natural gas compressors and ancillary equipment at the Kosciusko Compressor Station in Mississippi. Prepared the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal.
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America Compressor Station 201 - The project involved replacement of existing natural gas compressors and ancillary equipment, and the installation of additional compressors at the NGLP CS 201 in Illinois. Prepared the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal.
3 649 Patrick J. Fennell, PE, BCEE
Creole Trail Expansion - The project involved modifying the existing Creole Trail pipeline system to accommodate bi-directional gas flow. This entailed construction of a new compressor station and pipeline. Prepared the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal.
Daleville Compressor Station - The project involved replacement of existing natural gas compressors and ancillary equipment at the Daleville Compressor Station in Pennsylvania. Prepared the Pennsylvania air plan approval and operating permit applications and the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal.
Eastern Shore Natural Gas System Reliability Project - The project involved installation of a natural gas compressor and ancillary equipment at the Bridgeville Compressor Station and installation of 10 miles of pipeline Delaware. Prepared the Delaware synthetic minor operating permit application and the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal.
Eastern Shore Natural Gas White Oak Mainline Expansion Project - The project involved installation of a natural gas compressor and ancillary equipment at the Delaware City Compressor Station and installation of 7 miles of pipeline in Pennsylvania. Prepared the Delaware Synthetic Minor Operating Permit application and the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal.
Eastern Shore Natural Gas 2017 Expansion Project - The project involved installation of a natural gas compressor and ancillary equipment at the Daleville compressor station in Pennsylvania and installation of 32 miles of pipeline in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware. Prepared the Pennsylvania air plan approval application, and the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal, and the applicant-prepared environmental assessment.
Air Pollution Engineering and Permitting - Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals and Seaports (TRC Environmental Corporation, 2000 - Present) Mr. Fennell prepares air permit applications and FERC environmental reports for liquefied natural gas terminals. He has prepared third-party environmental analyses and environmental impact statements under contract to FERC. He has also prepared general conformity submittals. Mr. Fennell prepares air emissions inventories for seaport facilities on the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Coasts. The inventories included emissions from stationary facilities, onshore mobile sources, construction, and shipping and tow vessels. Typical project experience includes the following:
Jordan Cove Energy Project - The project involved preparing detailed calculations of the construction air emissions for natural gas liquefaction and export facilities in Oregon.
Sabine Pass LNG Project - The project involved construction of a LNG terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Revised construction calculations performed by another organization to avoid general conformity review.
Driftwood LNG Liquefaction Project - The project involves construction and operation of an LNG production and export terminal, south of Lake Charles. Provided the third-party review of FERC Resource Report 9 submittals (Air Quality) for FERC.
4 650 Patrick J. Fennell, PE, BCEE
Freeport LNG Liquefaction Project - The project involves construction and operation of natural gas liquefaction and export facilities at and near an existing LNG terminal in Freeport, Texas. Provided the third-party review of FERC Resource Report 9 submittals (Air Quality) for FERC jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional facilities.
Commonwealth LNG - The project involves construction and operation of an LNG liquefaction facility and a ship berth on Calcasieu Ship Channel near Johnson Bayou in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Currently preparing the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal.
Sabine Pass Liquefaction Expansion / Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline Expansion - The project involved expansion of natural gas liquefaction and export facilities and pipeline facilities in Louisiana. Prepared the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal.
Total Peaking Services - The project involved installation of new compressors, emergency engines, and vaporizers at a liquefied natural gas terminal in Milford, Connecticut. Prepared the FERC Resource Report 9 (Air Quality) submittal.
Air Pollution Engineering and Permitting - Renewable Energy (TRC Environmental Corporation, 2000 - Present) Mr. Fennell prepared air quality impacts evaluations for renewable energy facilties. Typical project experience includes the following:
Eight Point Wind Energy Center The project involved construction of and operation of a 103.4 megawatts (MW) with 32 wind turbines in Steuben County, New York. Prepared the air quality exhibit for the Article 10 submittal to the New York State by the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board).
Shoreham Solar Commons The project involved construction of and operation of a 24.9 MW solar photovoltaic facility in the Town of Brookhaven, New York. Prepared the air quality analyses and narrative for the Environmental Analysis.
Air Pollution Engineering and Permitting - Surface Mines (TRC Environmental Corporation, 2000 - Present) Mr. Fennell prepared air permit applications and emissions inventories for surface mines. These included the tailpipe emissions from stationary and mobile mining equipment, blasting emissions, and fugitive dust emissions from mining operations and wind erosion. Typical project experience includes the following:
Great Northern Project Development South Heart Project - The project involved preparing the air permits for a lignite mine and a 600 MW circulating fluidized bed mine-mouth power plant in Stark County, North Dakota.
Odor Assessment and Environmental Compliance (TRC Environmental Corporation, 2000 - Present) Mr. Fennell provides environmental compliance services to commercial, industrial and academic facilities. Typical project experience includes the following:
5 651 Patrick J. Fennell, PE, BCEE
Due Diligence Assessment of Power Plant Acquisition (New York State) - Performed the due- diligence assessment of air quality-related concerns and liabilities associated with the potential acquisition of a 1,000 MW combined-cycle combustion turbine power plant in New York State.
Feasibility Assessments of Power Plant Permit Consolidation (Northern California) - Performed the feasibility assessments of the potential consolidation of the NSR and Title V operating permits for a reciprocating internal combustion engine power plant in the North Coast Air Quality Management District and a combustion turbine power plant in the Colusa County Air Pollution Control District.
Orange Grove Energy Center - Prepared routine and non-routine the air quality compliance submittals to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, California Energy Commission, California Air Resources Board, and U.S. EPA for two simple-cycle LM6000 combustion turbines.
Waste Transfer Station Odor Study - Performed a third-party review for the City of Waterbury, Connecticut of the potential odor impacts of a proposed municipal solid waste transfer station. Testified at Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.
Asphalt Plant Odor Study - Performed a third-party assessment of odor impacts of an asphalt plant pursuant to a consent order with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Identified causes of potential nuisance odors and mitigation measures.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Odor Study - Performed an odor assessment of a Connecticut municipal wastewater treatment plant and sewage sludge incineration operation.
Environmental Laboratory Air Permitting and Enforcement Action Response - Assisted a Massachusetts environmental laboratory obtain an air permit for its operations and respond to an enforcement action by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Office of the Attorney General.
Odor Hotline - Staff an odor complaint hotline for a Connecticut municipal solid waste resource recovery facility. On a rotating basis, assume on-call responsibility for responding to odor complaint calls to a 24-hour hour hotline. Investigate complaints and report on findings.
Emergency Plans - Prepared spill prevention control and countermeasure plans, stormwater plans, and wastewater general permit applications for power plants, hospitals, office buildings, and industrial facilities.
ABB, Inc., Corporate Environmental Health and Safety - Windsor, CT (Senior Environmental Engineer: 1994 - 2000) Mr. Fennell developed and implemented regulatory compliance programs and procedures, prepared permit applications, conducted inspections and audits, developed emergency plans, performed regulatory reviews, and conducted training for the ABB Windsor, Connecticut facility, a 600-acre site with nuclear and fossil energy engineering, research and development, construction, maintenance, and remediation activities. Also served as Program Manager for the successful ISO 14000 certification of three ABB facilities.
6 652 Patrick J. Fennell, PE, BCEE
ABB Inc./Combustion Engineering, Nuclear Safety and Nuclear Licensing - Windsor, CT (Nuclear Engineer: 1977 - 1994) Mr. Fennell held a series of positions from Staff Engineer to Principal Nuclear Engineer. His responsibilities included performing seismic and structural analyses and accident simulations for nuclear power plants, providing project management and regulatory compliance support for the decommissioning of a nuclear reactor fuel manufacturing facility, and performing compliance and licensing functions for an operating nuclear fuel manufacturing facility.
SPECIALIZED TRAINING California Climate Action Registry Green House Gas Verifier, 2007 ABB, Inc. Courses in Environmental Management Systems, 1999 - 2000 OSHA 40-Hour HAZWOPER Course, 1996 DOT Hazardous Materials Transportation Courses, 1996 Arthur D. Little Institute, Environmental Auditing Course, 1995
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Air and Waste Management Association American Academy of Environmental Engineers - Board Certified Environmental Engineer
TEACHING AND ADVISORY Associate Adjunct Professor, College of Engineering, Technology, and Architecture, University of Hartford, 1998 to the present Industrial Advisory Committee, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Biomedical Engineering, University of Hartford, 2001 to the present.
7 653 654
Matthew G. Hyland, Ph.D. 2200 Liberty Avenue Suite 100 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 15222
Work History
Professional Cultural Resources Management 2018-present TRC Engineers, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2017-2018 ASC Group, Inc., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 2016-2017 Architectural Historian, Aurora Research, llc., Stowe, Ohio. 2004-2009 Senior Architectural Historian, GAI Consultants, Inc., Homestead, Pennsylvania. 2002-2004 Architectural Historian, Skelly & Loy, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
Public History/Public Archaeology 2000-2001 Interpreter, Ash Lawn-Highland, Albemarle County, Virginia. The historic home of President James Monroe. 1998 Research Fellow and Archaeology Field Crew, National Trust for Historic Preservation at Montpelier, Orange County, Virginia. 1997 Archaeology Summer Field Crew Member for The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and The College of William & Mary, St. George Tucker House and Garden, Williamsburg, Virginia. 1995-1997 Archival Research Intern, Description Services, The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia. Teaching Fall 2013-Spring 2017 Duquesne University, History Department, Assistant Professor. Fall 2009-Spring 2013 Duquesne University, History Department, Visiting Assistant Professor.
Education Ph.D. American Studies 2004, College of William & Mary M.A. American Studies 1995, University of Wyoming B.A. American Studies 1989, University of Notre Dame du Lac
Publications Book Montpelier and the Madisons: House, Home, and American Heritage. Charleston, South Carolina: The History Press, 2007.
Articles “New Deal Historic Preservation for Key West” The Florida Historical Quarterly, vol. 94, no. 4 (Spring 2016): 600-636.
1
655
“The Florida Keys Hurricane House: Post-Disaster New Deal Housing,” The Florida Historical Quarterly, vol. 91, no. 2 (Fall 2012): 212-247.
“Martha Stewart’s Living Landscapes,” American Studies 42 (Summer 2001): 101-112.
Reviews
City of Steel: How Pittsburgh Became the World’s Steelmaking Capital During the Carnegie Era, by Ken Kobus, Western Pennsylvania History, Winter 2015-2016, p. 62.
Long Key: Flagler’s Island Getaway for the Rich & Famous, by Thomas Neil Knowles, The Florida Historical Quarterly, Fall 2014 (vol. 93, No. 2), 264-265.
The Madisons at Montpelier: Reflections on the Founding Couple, by Ralph Ketcham, Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, Volume 108, No. 4, (Fall 2010), 391-393.
“Lincoln: the Constitution and the Civil War and Lincoln Slept Here,” exhibit review, The Public Historian, Vol. 32, No. 3 (August 2010): 11.
“Discovering the Real George Washington—in Pittsburgh?” exhibit review, Northern Neck of Virginia Historical Society Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Summer 2010): 2.
Cultural Resources Management Training 2004 Section 106 Fundamentals and Advanced Workshop, Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 2004 Section 106 NHPA Compliance Training, NPI Seminar, San Diego, California. 2006 Historic Landscape Assessment, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2006 Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Data Sharing System, Training Workshop, Winchester, Virginia. 2006 Section 106 Training, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, Ohio. 2006 “Bridge Basics,” Mary E. McCahon, Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, Inc., Byways to the Past, Indiana, Pennsylvania. 2008 Protecting Pennsylvania’s Historic Resources: A Conference on Transportation and the Environment, Byways IX and Heritage Partnerships XXX, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 2008 Section 106 Advanced Workshop, Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio. 2018 Completing Section 106: Resolving Adverse Effects and Writing Agreement Documents, PennDOT, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, June 12-13. 2018 Byways to the Past: Cultural Resource Management Workshop, PennDOT and Preservation Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, June 14.
Presentations
2016 “Historic Preservation and a City’s Sense of Self,” Betty Woods “Snookie” Nutting Lecture Series, sponsored by the West Virginia Division of Culture and History, Wheeling, West Virginia, November 9.
2
656
2016 “The Caribbean Mystique and Historic Preservation in Key West,” Florida Historical Society, Orlando, Florida, May 20. 2016 Commentator/Moderator, “American Civil War: Myth & Memory,” Phi Alpha Theta, PA-West regional conference, Mercyhurst University, Erie, Pennsylvania, March 5. 2016 “Restoration Montpelier: A Preservation Dilemma,” Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation, Landmarks Preservation Resource Center, Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, February 23. 2015 “Emerald View Park and the Usable Past,” Annual Meeting of the National Council on Public History, Nashville, Tennessee, April 18. 2015 Roundtable Discussion Participant, “Meeting at the Edges of Heritage Preservation: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Protecting History at Risk,” Annual Meeting of the National Council on Public History, Nashville, Tennessee, April 17. 2015 “A New Deal for Old Key West: A Case Study of Preservation and Populism,” Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation, Landmarks Preservation Resource Center, Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, February 17. 2014 “Historic Preservation and New Deal Key West,” the Florida Conference of Historians, 54th Annual Conference, St. Augustine, Florida, January 2014. 2013 “Tools and Gadgets of a Gentleman Farmer (1850-1930),” at Gilfillan Farm for The Historical Society of Upper Saint Clair, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 9 June 2013. 2011 “New Deal Concrete Houses: Mastery Over Nature,” the Marginal Theory Society, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, November 12. 2011 “Power Lines: Public History Today and Nineteenth-Century Log Houses in Southwestern Virginia,” the Virginia Forum, Lexington, Virginia, March 24-26. 2010 “The Florida Keys Hurricane House: Post-Disaster New Deal Housing,” the Florida Historical Society annual conference, St. Augustine, Florida, May 28. 2008 “Issues in Identifying Afro-American Ethnicity at Nineteenth-Century Sites, as seen from four Calvert County Sites,” with Lori Frye, for the Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology Conference, 23-26 October 2008, St. Mary’s City, Maryland. 2007 “European Contact at the Susquehannock’s Northern Border,” Virginia Beach, Virginia, the Middle Atlantic Archaeology Conference, March 2007. 2007 Fort Ethan Allen Cultural Landscape Documentation Report, “Final Presentation”, 21 April 2007, Arlington County, Virginia, for the Arlington Heritage Alliance. 2006 “A Landscape of Enclaves: Making of Sarasota.” Vernacular Architecture Forum Conference, New York, New York, June 2006. 2003 “Sea of Grass: Major Long and the Great West, 1820-1830.” Ohio Valley History Conference, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky, October 2003. 2000 “Everything Old is New Again: The Second Life of Montpelier in the Colonial Revival.” The Colonial Revival in America Symposium, November 16-18, 2000, Charlottesville, Virginia, sponsored by the University of Virginia School of Architecture. 2000 “Montpelier: The Architecture of Persuasion.” The Southeast Chapter, Society of Architectural Historians, 18th annual conference, Lexington, Virginia, October 2000. 1999 “Martha Stewart’s Living Landscapes.” American Studies/Canadian American Studies Association 1999 Annual Meeting. Montréal, Québec, Canada, October 1999. 1999 “Representations of African American History and Culture at James Madison’s Montpelier.” 1999 Biennial Conference of the Southern American Studies Association in Wilmington, North Carolina, February 27, 1999.
3
657
Professional Projects RECENT CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS 2019 Historical Architectural Survey for the Kanawha Falls Bridge Replacement Project, Fayette County, WVDOH.
2019 Historical Architectural Survey for the Raines Corner Bridge Project, Monroe County, WVDOH.
2019 Historical Architectural Survey for the Ruthbelle Slab Bridge Project, Preston County, WVDOH.
2018 Twin Branch Truss No. 1 and Truss No. 2 Replacement Project, Historic Resource Survey, McDowell County, for West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways.
2018 Architectural and Historic Resource Survey, Majorsville Slip, Rover Pipeline, Marshall County, West Virginia.
2018 Determination of Eligibility, S.R. 0228, Balls Bend Project, Middlesex Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, for HDR, Inc.
2018 Muddy Run Culvert #3 Project, Section 4(f) Evaluation, Huntingdon Borough, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, for Dewberry, Inc.
2018 Armstrong Tunnel (AR-01) Rehabilitation Project, Section 4(f) Evaluation, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, for Gannett-Fleming, Inc.
2018 Section 4 (f) Evaluation, S.R. 3014-153, Atherton Street Phase III, Borough of State College, Centre County, Pennsylvania, for Borton-Lawson Engineering, Inc.
2018 Determination of Effects and Section 4(f) Evaluation, I-95, Section CAP, Penn’s Landing Development Project, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, for Pennoni, Inc.
2018 Determination of Effects, South 15th Street Substation Replacement Project, City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, for SGS Architects-Engineers.
2018 Determination of Eligibility, S.R. 2007-016 Roadway Restoration Project, Liberty Borough, Tioga County, Pennsylvania, for Dewberry, Inc.
2018 Determination of Eligibility, S.R. 0414-059 Roadway Reconstruction Project, Liberty Borough, Tioga County, Pennsylvania, for Dewberry, Inc.
2018 Determination of Eligibility, Gaston Avenue Apartments, City of Fairmont, Marion County, West Virginia, for Sadd Brothers, llc.
Select Cultural Resources Management Projects Landscapes Summer Research Project: Emerald View Park. Prepared for the Mount Washington Community Development Corporation, History Department, Duquesne University, 2013.
4
658
Cultural Landscape Documentation Project, Fort Ethan Allen, Arlington County, Virginia, for the Arlington Heritage Alliance, grant-funded by National Park Service’s American Battlefield Protection Program, July 2006 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Carrie Furnace Site, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, for Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County. September 2007. Phase I Archaeological Survey, Jacobs Creek Wetland Bank, Fayette County, Pennsylvania, 2003 Technical Report, Cultural Resource Records Search within 10-Mile Radius of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Calvert County, Maryland, Prepared for: Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., and Constellation Energy, March 2007. Management Summary Cultural Resources Investigation Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Calvert County, Maryland, For Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., and Constellation Energy. March 2007. Discovering Tavernier, Tavernier Historic District Intensive-Level Survey and Publication, for Historic Florida Keys Foundation, Monroe County, Florida, and Florida Division of Historic Resources, Tallahassee, Florida, 2008. Buffalo Creek Watershed Conservation Plan, Cultural Resources/GIS Data Collection and Identification, for Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Recreation, June 2007. Phase I Archaeological Survey and Architectural and Historic Resources Survey, American Electric Power Wyoming-Jacksons Ferry 765 kV Transmission Line, Priority Section 5, 3, 2, 1, Tazewell, Bland, Wythe, and Pulaski Counties, Virginia, for American Electric Power, 2004 Architectural Survey, National Register Evaluation, and Assessment of Effects for Resources located within the APE of the Proposed Big Sandy Pipeline Project in Carter, Lawrence, Johnson, and Floyd Counties, Kentucky, for Equitrans and the Kentucky Heritage Council, January-June 2006.
Municipalities Islamorada Historical and Archaeological Survey, for the Islamorada, Village of Islands, Planning Department, Monroe County, Florida, October 2008. Phase III Architectural Survey and local and National Register evaluations for 767 architectural resources in the City of Sarasota, Florida, for the City of Sarasota Planning and Development Department, June 2005 Phase V Architectural Survey and local and National Register evaluations for 209 architectural resources and a nomination of the Laurel Park Historic District to the National Register in the City of Sarasota, Florida, for the City of Sarasota Planning and Development, October 2006 Phase IV Architectural Survey and local and National Register evaluations for 793 architectural resources in the City of Sarasota, Florida, for the City of Sarasota Planning and Development Department, 2006. Falling Branch-Merrimac 138kV Transmission Line Siting Study, Cultural Resource Data Collection and Architectural and Historical Resource Survey, Montgomery County, Virginia, for American Electric Power, 2009. Lockhart Station 138kV Transmission Line Siting Study, Cultural Resource Data Collection and Architectural and Historical Resource Survey, Lockhart Flats, Dickenson County, Virginia, for American Electric Power, 2008.
5
659
Huntington Court-Roanoke 138kV Transmission Line Siting Study, Cultural Resource Data Collection and Architectural and Historical Resource Survey, City of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton, Virginia, for American Electric Power. July 2008. Sunscape Siting Study, Cultural Resource Data Collection and Architectural and Historical Resource Survey, City of Roanoke and Roanoke County, Virginia, for American Electric Power, 2007. Lake Forest Siting Study, Cultural Resource Data Collection and Architectural and Historical Resource Survey, Botetourt County, Virginia, for American Electric Power, 2007. Matt Funk 138kV Reinforcement Siting Study, Cultural Resource Data Collection and Architectural and Historical Resource Survey, Montgomery County and Roanoke County, Virginia, for American Electric Power, 2008. Architectural Survey and local and National Register evaluations for 416 architectural resources located within the Phase II Historic Structure Survey area, Lake County, Florida, for the City of Leesburg, November 2005-June 2006 Riverbend Siting Study, Cultural Resource Data Collection, Pulaski County, Virginia, for American Electric Power, 2007. Phase IB, Archaeological Investigation and Archaeological Monitoring North Shore Connector Project, City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, ER# 89-1675-003, for Obabyashi Trumbull JV and Port Authority of Allegheny County, 2006. Phase I Archaeological and Architectural and Historic Resources Survey, Charleston Ball Park, Charleston, West Virginia, for the City of Charleston, 2004. Phase I Survey and Architectural and Historic Resources Survey, Maronda (36AL517) and Randolph (36AL516) Sites, Harrison Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Maronda Homes, Inc., 2004 Historic Districts Kopperston Historic District Survey, Ralston Branch Bridge No. 2 Replacement Project, Wyoming County, for West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, 2019. Matoaka Historic District Survey, WV 10 Operational Improvements Project, Matoaka Bridge No. 1 and Bridge No. 2 Replacement, Mercer County, for West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, 2019. Survey of Coral Gables Local Historic Districts, City of Coral Gables, Dade County, Florida, April 2007. Harrisonville Historic District Survey, Licking Creek Township, Fulton County, Pennsylvania, for the Harrisonville Bridge Replacement Project, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 9-0. June 2007. Tavernier Historic District Intensive-Level Survey, for Historic Florida Keys Foundation, Monroe County, Florida, and Florida Division of Historic Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. June 2008 Laurel Park Historic District, listed in the National Register on 11March 2008, the City of Sarasota, Florida, for the City of Sarasota Planning and Development, project field work completed October 2006 Central Cocoanut Historic District, NRHP listed 17 June 2005, City of Sarasota, Florida, for the City of Sarasota Planning and Development. Maine Colony Historic District, Sarasota County, Florida, for the Sarasota County Planning and Development, NRHP listed 5 October 2005
6
660
Albemarle & Chesapeake Canal Historic District, National Register of Historic Places Nomination, DSS Records Completion, City of Chesapeake, Virginia, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. August 2007. Architectural Survey, local and National Register evaluations, and local register district update of 144 resources in the Old School Square Historic Arts District, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, for the City of Delray Beach Planning and Zoning Department, June 2005
Buildings Documentation of the Frazier Log House, Wythe County, Virginia (098-5090), Prepared for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, VDHR File Number 1991-0278. By Matthew G. Hyland, Ph.D., American Electric Power, Inc., and GAI Consultants, Inc., August 2009. On file, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. Historic Structure Report for the General Albert Gallatin Jenkins House, Green Bottom, Cabell County, West Virginia, for the US Army Corps of Engineers and its lessee, the West Virginia Division of Culture and History, January 2006 Intensive Level Documentation of Camp Conoy (CT-1312), Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3, Section 106 Mitigation Field Recordation Project for GAI and Unistar Nuclear Energy, llc., June 2009 Documentation of the Billips Family Farmstead and Cemetery, Tazewell County, Virginia (092-5167). Prepared for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, VDHR File Number 1991-0278. American Electric Power, Inc., and GAI Consultants, Inc., August 2009. On file, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. Railroads Intensive Level Documentation of the Baltimore & Drum Point Railroad (CT-1295), Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3, Section 106 Mitigation Field Recordation Project for GAI and Unistar Nuclear Energy, llc., June 2009 Bridges WV 10 Operational Improvements Project, Matoaka Bridge No. 1 and Bridge No. 2 Replacement, Mercer County, for West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, 2019. Phase IA Archaeological and Historic Resource Survey, U.S. Route 9 (Margaret Street) over Dead Creek Bridge Reconstruction, Clinton County, New York, 2002, Skelly & Loy, Inc. Historic Resource Survey and Determination of Effect, Wiggins Bridge Replacement Project, Summers County, West Virginia, 2002, Skelly & Loy, Inc. Wiggins Bridge Replacement Project, State-level Recordation, Summers County, West Virginia, 2003, Bridge 146 Retaining Wall, Cultural Resources, Bridgeville, Sussex County, Delaware, 2003, Skelly & Loy, Inc. McKeesport and Duquesne Fly-over Bridges, Determination of Effects, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 2003 Determination of Effects, Jefferson Road Bridge II Replacement (S.R. 0188, Section A10), Greene County, Pennsylvania, 2003, Skelly & Loy, Inc.
7
661
West Hickory Bridge Replacement, Determination of Effects Addendum (S.R. 0127, Section B00), Forest County, Pennsylvania, 2003, Skelly & Loy, Inc. Roads Survey of Historic and Architectural Resources, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Bedford County, Mile Post 149.5-155.5 Roadway Reconstruction, November 2006-January 2007, GAI Consultants, Inc. National Register of Historic Places Evaluation and Preliminary Standards of Integrity, Multiple Townships, Pennsylvania Turnpike Historic Contexts, Pennsylvania, 2003, Skelly & Loy, Inc. Historic Resource Survey and Determination of Eligibility, South Valley Parkway Project, S.R. 3046, Section 301, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, 2002, Skelly & Loy, Inc. Phase I Archaeology and Historic Structures Inventory-Administrative Summary, S.R. 15 (Canterbury Road) Improvements, Holly Hill Road (K447) to Airport Road (K407), Kent County, Delaware, 2003, Skelly & Loy, Inc. Tioga County, Pennsylvania, S.R. 6015, Sections G20 and G22, U.S. Route 15 Improvements Project, E.R. #97-2018-117, Volume VI: Conclusions and Recommendations, Phase I/II/III Archaeological Investigations, by Thomas C. East, Christopher T. Espenshade, Matthew G. Hyland, and Kenneth W. Mohney. Skelly & Loy, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania, for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 3-0, December 2006.
Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance and Architectural and Historic Resources Survey of the Kirwan Heights Interchange and Collier Crossing Development, Collier Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, for the Goldenberg Group, Inc., 2005, GAI Consultants, Inc. Phase I Archaeological and Architectural and Historic Resources Survey, Twilight-Barlow Road Repair Project, Charleston, West Virginia, for the City of Charleston, 2004, GAI Consultants, Inc. Historic Architectural Resources Survey and Determination of Eligibility, New Castle Hundred, Church Road (Wynnefield to S.R. 007) Improvements, New Castle County, Delaware, 2003 Historic Architectural Resources Survey and Determination of Eligibility, New Castle Hundred, School Bell Road (S.R. 001 to U.S. 40) Improvements, New Castle County, Delaware, 2003 Reconnaissance Level Historic Resource Survey, Sandy Run Landfill Approach Routes, Bedford, Blair and Fulton Counties, Pennsylvania, 2003 Historic Resource Survey and Determination of Eligibility, St. Vincent Roadway (S.R. 1045, Section A10), Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, 2003 Historic Resource Survey and Determination of Effects, Intersection Improvement Project, U.S. Route 20/S.R. 0098, Section A00, Erie County, Pennsylvania, 2002 Historic Architectural Resources Survey and Determination of Eligibility, Pencader and New Castle Hundreds, Route 40 (S.R. 0896 to S.R. 001) Improvements, New Castle County, Delaware, 2002
Energy Cultural Resources Survey, Majorsville Lateral Pipeline, Glen Dale, Marshall County, West Virginia, for Rover Utilities, November 2018, TRC Engineers, Inc.
8
662
Phase Ib Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, PPL Option 1 Pipeline, Granville Township, Mifflin County, Pennsylvania, for PPL Gas Utilities, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. June 2008, GAI Consultants, Inc. Phase Ib Cultural Resources Investigation, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Calvert County, Maryland, for UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC. October 2007. GAI Consultants, Inc. Phase III Data Recovery Excavations at Site 18CV151, Calvert County, Maryland, Cove Point Expansion Project, for Dominion Cove Point, LNG, LP. March 2007. GAI Consultants, Inc. Survey of Historic and Architectural Resources, Hub II Project, Chemung and Steuben Counties, New York, prepared for Dominion Transmission, Inc., November 2007. GAI Consultants, Inc. Crawford Expansion Ohio Storage Project, Cultural Resources Survey, Hocking, Fairfield, and Jackson Counties, Ohio, for Columbia Gas, Inc. September 2007. GAI Consultants, Inc. Sewickley 138kV Loop Project, Architectural and Historic Resource Study, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, August 2007, for Duquesne Light Company. August 2007. GAI Consultants, Inc. Beaver Valley Power Station, Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Shippingport, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, August 2007, for First Energy Corporation. August 2007. GAI Consultants, Inc. Sauk Trail Siting Study, Cultural Resource Data Collection, Cass County, Michigan, for American Electric Power, July 2007. GAI Consultants, Inc. Phase IA Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of PPL Lands in the Vicinity of Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, for Constellation Power Generation – Environmental, June 2007. GAI Consultants, Inc. Survey of Historic and Architectural Resources, H-152 Pipe Replacement and Relocation Project, Collier, Robinson, Kilbuck, Ohio, Franklin Park, McCandless, Pine, and Marshall Townships, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, ER# 05-0630-003. Prepared for Equitrans, LP. March 2007. GAI Consultants, Inc. Architectural survey, National Register evaluation, and assessment of effects for resources located within the APE of the proposed Glade Run 138kV Looping Project located in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, for Allegheny Power, November 2006. GAI Consultants, Inc. Architectural survey, National Register evaluation, and assessment of effects for resources located within the APE of the proposed DTI-USA Racket-Newberne compressor station in Gilmer County, West Virginia, for Dominion Transmission, Inc., November 2006. GAI Consultants, Inc. Architectural survey, National Register evaluation, and assessment of effects for resources located within the APE of the proposed AEP IGCC Mountaineer Plant located near New Haven, Mason County, West Virginia, for American Electric Power, December 2005. Architectural Survey and National Register evaluation for five architectural resources located within the APE of the proposed Centre Relay Compressor Station in Centre County, Pennsylvania, for Dominion Transmission, Inc, 2005, GAI Consultants, Inc. Phase I Survey and Architectural and Historic Resources Survey, Cove Point Expansion Project, Dominion Transmission, Inc., Calvert, Charles, and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland, 2005, GAI Consultants, Inc.
9
663
Phase I-II Survey and Testing and Architectural and Historic Resources Survey, Virginia Looping Project, Shenandoah, Rockingham, Page, Greene, and Louisa Counties, Virginia, for Columbia Gas Transmission, Inc., a NiSource Company, 2005, GAI Consultants, Inc. Phase I Archaeological and Historic Resource Survey, Morgan District, National Energy Testing Laboratory Expansion Project, Monongalia County, West Virginia, 2002, Skelly & Loy, Inc. Phase I Architectural Survey, TL-263 Replacement Project, Oscar Nelson Pipe Yard, for Dominion Transmission, Inc., Wyoming County, West Virginia, 2004, GAI Consultants, Inc. Phase I Survey and Architectural and Historic Resources Survey, Wolfsburg Sewer and Water Expansion Project, Bedford Township Municipal Authority, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, 2005, GAI Consultants, Inc. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Cove Point Terminal Expansion, Calvert County, Maryland, for Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP., 2004, GAI Consultants, Inc.
Professional Affiliations
Florida Historical Society, member 2016
Vernacular Architecture Forum, member 2000-2015; Board Member, 2004-2007, Fellowship Committee, 20052007 (Chairperson 2006).
National Council on Public History, member 2015-2016.
Pennsylvania Historical Association, 2011-2012.
Public History Community Activities Historical Society of Upper Saint Clair, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Volunteer, 2012-present Historic tool interpretation project, historic preservation master plan consultation a NRHP-listed historic property Service Learning/Internship director
Mount Washington Community Development Corporation, City of Pittsburgh Volunteer, 2011-present Neighborhood history research and interpretation project Service Learning project director Trail maintenance volunteer laborer
Revitalize Dormont, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Design Committee, Dormont Main Street, Inc. Committee Member, 2008-2010 Provide historic preservation design guidelines to Dormont Revitalization Committee Partnership with the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street USA Program
10
664 665
KIRSTEN E. JOHNSON
EDUCATION M.S. (ABD), Biology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2019 B.S., Fisheries & Wildlife, Michigan State University, 2015
AREAS OF EXPERTISE Ms. Kirsten E. Johnson has program management and/or technical experience in the following general areas: Avian Ecology, Habitat Management, and Survey Methods Wetland Delineation Invasive Species Monitoring and Management Pollinator Habitat Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy Developmfent Endangered Species Act (ESA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Wind Energy Guidance (WEG) and Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (ECPG)
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Ms. Johnson has over 7 years of experience in coordinating and conducting a wide range of ecological surveys and project management. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Fisheries and Wildlife from Michigan State University and a Master of Science (ABD) in Biology from the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Prior to consulting she held positions with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology (Ithaca, NY), Indiana University of Pennsylvania Research Institute (Indiana, PA) and Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Lansing, MI). Her qualifications include extensive hands-on planning and implementation of breeding bird surveys, vegetation monitoring, and wetlands delineation; data management; and results reporting. As a consultant, Ms. Johnson has provided regulatory compliance support to private-sector clientele through conservation strategy development, critical issues analyses, Tier 1 and 2 site assessments, and Tier 3 ecological surveys. She currently serves as an Environmental Scientist within the Planning, Permitting and Licensing Group.
Consulting Experience
Confidential Client, Solar Facility Development – New York (Technical Support: 2019) Prepared multiple Critical Issue Analyses reports to identify permitting and environmental constraints associated with facility development.
Confidential Client, Solar Facility Development, Article 10 Projects – New York (Environmental Scientist/Technical Support: 2019) Conducted Grassland Breeding Bird studies on two utility-scale proposed solar facilities in accordance with requirements for Article 10 Permitting. Supported preparation of exhibits pursuant to Article 10 Filing through data analysis and reporting.
TRCcompanies.com 666
Kirsten E. Johnson
Confidential Client, Solar Facility Development, Article 10 Projects – New York (Environmental Scientist/Technical Support: 2019) Conducted Grassland Breeding Bird studies on two utility-scale proposed solar facilities in accordance with requirements for Article 10 Permitting. Supported preparation of exhibits pursuant to Article 10 Filing through data analysis and reporting
Confidential Client, Solar Facility Development – Michigan (Project Manager: 2018-2019) Served as Project Manager of ecological tasks for numerous projects in varying stages of development. Project tasks included determination of need for surveys for regulatory compliance and permitting. Completed Critical Issues Analyses and provided overview of surveys likely to be required. Coordinated desktop wetlands mapping and planned field delineation efforts. Conducted agency consultation for RTE species. Developed pollinator habitat planting guide for implementation on solar energy facilities post- construction. Ms. Johnson served as Project lead for proposal and budget development, budget tracking, and preparation of all deliverables.
Liberty Power, Wind Farm Expansion – Pennsylvania (Project Ecologist: 2018-2019) Served as project support in development of a Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy, Black Bear and Deer Impact studies, wetland field delineations, and tier 1 and 2 site assessments. Surveys were conducted on large-scale wind farm expansion and development projects (80-100 MW). Ms. Johnson served as project lead for completing surveys and reports, including working with sub—contractors to ensure deliverables met quality standards and adhered to proposed deadlines, preparing consultation communication for state agencies regarding RTE species and habitats, and proposal development and budget tracking for several project tasks.
Confidential Client, Proposed Wind Farm Development – Pennsylvania (Project Ecologist: 2018- 2019) Conducted surveys, performed data analysis and compiled report to determine eagle and raptor use of proposed wind energy facility. Served as project lead for providing monthly updates to client and finalizing reports.
Confidential Client, Deterrent Technology Research – New York (Project Planning: 2018-2019) Ms. Johnson served as project support on a research team conducting a two-phase study of the effectiveness of acoustic deterrent technology for use at operational wind farms. Ms. Johnson provided technical editing of a manuscript in the final phases of peer review and assisted with manuscript preparation for submission and publication. Ms. Johnson also served as Project lead for a phase-two field study (slated for 2020) in budget and proposal development and field effort planning.
Confidential Client, Deterrent Technology Research – New York (Project Planning: 2018-2019) Ms. Johnson served as project support on a research team conducting a two-phase study of the effectiveness of acoustic deterrent technology for use at operational wind farms. Ms. Johnson provided technical editing of a manuscript in the final phases of peer review and assisted with manuscript preparation for submission and publication. Ms. Johnson also served as Project lead for a phase-two field study (slated for 2020) in budget and proposal development and field effort planning.
2 667
Kirsten E. Johnson
Ecological Survey Experience
Indiana University of Pennsylvania Research Institute – Minnesota, Pennsylvania (Project Coordinator: 2015-2017) Ms. Johnson served as Project Co-Coordinator on a large-scale monitoring effort to assess target species response to range-wide habitat management implemented under NRCS and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation research grants. Ms. Johnson planned a field effort involving annual monitoring of breeding birds at over 1,000 locations during the three-year study. She hired, trained and supervised a field team of up to 14 technicians in conducting all-species avian point counts and vegetation surveys. Ms. Johnson helped develop survey protocols, conducted quality control of data entry and management, performed data analysis and contributed to preparation of annual reports for funding agencies. Ms. Johnson also presented findings at professional and scientific conferences, developed and presented project results at professional workshops and in academic settings.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources – Southwest Michigan (Waterfowl Bander: 2014) Worked on a two-man team to band waterfowl across Michigan’s southern Lower Peninsula. Identified locations and secured permission to trap primarily on private lands; Constructed, deployed, baited and checked waterfowl traps; aged, sexed and banded 588 waterfowl; entered and submitted data to Bird Banding Lab.
Michigan State University Burke Lake Banding Station/Avian Health and Disease Ecology Lab – East Lansing, MI (Mist-netting Technician: 2012-2013) As a member of the lab, Ms. Johnson conducted a two-year independent research project examining the pairing success of Kirtland's warblers on federal and state managed jack pine plantations. She prepared a project budget, secured funding and equipment, developed a work plan and completed permitting applications. Ms. Johnson conducted all field work including target-netting and banding of birds, re- sighting and data collection. She presented findings to the Kirtland’s Warbler Working Group and at Wildlife Society conferences. As a member of the banding station staff, Ms. Johnson served as a lead mist-netting technician, primary bird-bleeding technician, and daily conducted station maintenance, performed data collection, processed blood and fecal samples, and assisted with data entry.
Volunteer Surveys Aquatic Invasive Species Surveys, Michigan DNR (2013-2014) Eastern Population Sandhill Crane Surveyor, US Fish and Wildlife Service (10/2014-12/2014) Massasauga rattlesnake surveys, Michigan Natural Features Inventory (2014) Deer pellet transect surveys, Quantitative Ecology Lab, Michigan State University (Winter 2013) Kirtland’s Warbler Census Volunteer, US Forest Service (May 2012)
Agency/Other Experience
Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Conservation Science Department – New York (Program Assistant: 2018) Provided technical assistance to the Conservation Science Department. Assisted with literature reviews and data analysis for backlogged projects including investigation of effects of external nutrient inputs by migratory birds. Served as a program assistant to the CLO Land Trust Initiative; assisting with
3 668
Kirsten E. Johnson
administrative/communication tasks for small grants program, developing content for website, and multimedia production.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources – Lansing, Michigan (Private Lands and Invasive Species Program Assistant: 2013-2015) Assisted Program Coordinators with administrative tasks related to implementation of state-wide program initiatives. Ms. Johnson’s primary contributions included significant written contributions to the Terrestrial Invasive Species Management Plan, development of decontamination procedures for agency staff, drafting an Environmental Impact Statement for state-wide invasive species treatment program, development of outreach documents and website content, facilitation of meetings, trainings, and outreach events, reviewed grant applications, and conducted interviews for part- and full-time staff.
Fenner Nature Center/Americorps – Lansing, MI (Volunteer Stewardship Program Coordinator: 2012-2013) Coordinated volunteer programs and activities including invasive species removal and trail maintenance; facilitated public programs including weekly winter hikes and MLK Jr. Day of service activities. Ms. Johnson also formed a collaborative team to complete a prairie restoration project. Ms. Johnson facilitated communication and plan development for the project, which was completed in 2014.
SPECIALIZED TRAINING USACE- Wetland Delineation/Regional Supplement/ WOTUS 38-hour Training Woodcock Banding Training, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Waterfowl Banding Training, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Managing Aquatic Invasive Species, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Small Mammal Trapping Techniques, The Wildlife Society, 2014 IACUC Safe Handling Procedures for Small Mammals, Michigan State University, 2014
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Ornithological Society, National Chapter The Wildlife Society, National Chapter Pheasants Forever, National Chapter Rainforest Biodiversity Group, Board Member
AWARDS Dean’s Choice Best Presentation Award 3rd Place, IUP Annual Graduate Research Symposium, April 2016. Janice Lee Fenske Memorial Award Finalist. The Wildlife Society. 2013 Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation, Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow Scholarship Recipient. 2013.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Johnson, K. E., F. Rodriguez-Vasquez, C. Fiss, L. Chavarria-Duriaux, G. Duriaux, M. Silas, J. L. Larkin. 2019. Avian community-habitat relationships in a production-based landscape in Nicaragua. (In prep).
4 669
Kirsten E. Johnson
2. Johnson, K. E., S. McWilliams, R. McCullough, J. L. Larkin. 2018. Developing range-wide management targets through evaluating forest change; a case study for Golden-winged warbler habitat management. (In prep)
3. Bennett, R. E., W. Leuenberger, B. B. Bosarreyes Leja, A. Sagone Caceres, K. Johnson, J. L. Larkin. 2018. Conservation of neotropical migratory birds in tropical hardwood and oil palm plantations. Plos One 13(2): e0210293.
4. Larkin, J. L., D. J. McNeil, K. Johnson, C. Fiss, A. Rodewals, C. Lott, and A. Dayer. 2017. Assessing Avian Response to NRCS Conservation Programs Targeting Early-successional Habitats in the Appalachian Mountains and Western Great Lakes Regions. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 62 pp. 5. Johnson, K. E. Full life-cycle monitoring & management for Golden-winged Warblers. Aitkin County Foresters Association Meeting. McGregor, MN. May 2017.
6. Erich P. Hofmann, Cameron J. Fiss, Kirsten E. Johnson, Fabiola Rodríguez, Jeffery T. Larkin, Jeffery L. Larkin, Liliana Chavarría-Duriaux, Georges Duriaux & Josiah H. Townsend. 2016. Inventario preliminar de herpetofauna de la Reserva Silvestre Privada El Jaguar (Jinotega, Nicaragua). Revista Nicaraguensede Biodiversidad 7.
7. Johnson, K.E., D. McNeil, C. Fiss, A. Rodewald and J. L. Larkin. American Woodcock use of early successional communities managed for golden-winged warblers. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Annual American Woodcock Training. Remer, MN. April 2016.
8. Michigan Terrestrial Invasive Species Core Team. 2016. Terrestrial Invasive Species State Management Plan. 36pp. (In public comment period)
9. Johnson, K. E. 2015. Environmental Assessment of treatment methods for controlling aquatic invasive species. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division. 267pp.
10. Michigan QOL Departments. 2014. Invasive Species Decontamination for Field Operations in Michigan Policy and Procedure QOL-2-2014. 5pp
5 670 671
SAMANTHA W. KRANES
EDUCATION B.A., Environmental Studies, William Smith College, 2008 M.P.S., Ecology, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 2015
PROFESSIONAL COURSEWORK & TRAINING NYSDEC Erosion & Sediment Control Training Technical Writing Natural Resource Policy (2012) Environmental Impact Analysis (2013) Watershed Ecology & Management (2013) Environmental Law and Policy (2014) Stormwater Management (2014) Natural Resource Law (2015)
AREAS OF EXPERTISE Environmental Permitting Agency Consultation Proposal Writing Project Management Wetland Delineation Environmental Assessments State Environmental Quality Review Act National Environmental Policy Act Ecological Risk Assessment Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans & Inspections Environmental Compliance Environmental Impact Statements Implementation of Best Management Practices
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Ms. Kranes is a Project Manager with over ten years of experience working on a variety of scientific and regulatory projects in the environmental field, including federal, state and local permitting and compliance, wetland delineation and ecological assessment, risk assessment, project siting and stormwater pollution prevention plan development and inspection. She is experienced in client and regulatory coordination and prepares proposals and cost estimates for a variety of environmental projects. She manages projects from the proposal stage to project completion, including client coordination, staffing, oversight of project completion, monthly invoicing and project budget management.
Confidential Client, 101.8 MW Article 10 Wind Project – Steuben County, NY (Project Manager) Manages the budget, monthly invoicing and client coordination for the preparation of an Article 10 Application for a wind energy project in Steuben County, New York. Tasks managed as part of the project include wetland delineation field work and data collection, completion and compilation of the Article 10 Application, coordination for review and submittal of the application to applicable agencies, and coordination with the client regarding project status and budget. Scope also includes the preparation of an Article VII Application for the associated project transmission line. Ms. Kranes is also the lead author on Exhibit 4 (Land Use), Exhibit 13 (Real Property), Exhibit 31 (Local Laws and Regulations), Exhibit 32 (State Laws and Regulations) and Exhibit 33 (Other Applications and Filings). She has also been a lead reviewer on several exhibits prior to submittal to the client.
TRCcompanies.com 672
Samantha W. Kranes
Confidential Client, 50 MW, 50 MW, 90 MW, 180 MW Article 10 Solar Projects – Multiple Counties, NY (Project Manager) Manages the budget, monthly invoicing and client coordination for four solar projects going through the Article 10 process in New York State. Tasks include oversight of data collection, including field surveys (wetland delineations, noise monitoring, visual photo collection, archaeological surveys, breeding bird surveys, etc.), preparation of Public Scoping Statements (PSSs) for each project, and local coordination and guidance on environmental requirements in New York State. Coordinates for review and submittal of documents to applicable agencies, and coordination with the client regarding project status and budget.
Dunkirk Gas Corporation, Article VII Application, Wetland Delineation and Mitigation (Planner) Assisted in preparing responses to NYS Public Service Commission comments on the Environmental Effects section of the Article VII Application for Major Electric and Gas Transmission Facilities for the proposed Dunkirk Natural Gas Pipeline in western New York State. Assisted in wetland and waterbody delineations and impact calculations associated with revisions to the pipeline route and at potential mitigation site (i.e., wetland enhancement area). Perfomed Water Budget Analyses in accordance with the Pierce (1993) Methodology to evaluate current and future conditions at the mitigation site.
Confidential Client, Plattsburgh Solar Project, State Environmental Quality Review Act (Planner) Prepared Part 1 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) and supplemental information attachments to address SEQRA and concerns of town, county and state agencies as part of the siting, permitting and development of a 1.25 megawatt fixed-tilt ground-mounted solar photovoltaic system in Clinton County, New York. Performed desktop analysis of project site to evaluate potential permitting concerns and required approvals. Prepared project consultation packages and coordinated review with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of SEQRA review.
Confidential Client, Broome County Solar Project, State Environmental Quality Review Act (Planner) Coordinated and oversaw the preparation of Part 1 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) to address SEQRA and concerns of town, county and state agencies as part of the siting, permitting and development of a 5.46 megawatt fixed-tilt ground- mounted solar photovoltaic system in Broome County, New York. Performed desktop analysis of project site to evaluate potential permitting concerns and required approvals. Coordinated project consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of SEQRA review.
Confidential Client, Multiple Solar Projects, State Environmental Quality Review Act and Local Permitting (Planner) Coordinated and oversaw the preparation of Part 1 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) to address SEQRA and concerns of town, county and state agencies as part of the siting, permitting and development of approximately eight commercial fixed-tilt ground-mounted solar photovoltaic systems throughout New York State. Performed desktop analysis of project site to evaluate potential permitting concerns and required approvals. Coordinated project consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of SEQRA review. Coordinated with applicable agencies through formal consultation processes and prepared local permitting documents in accordance with local, regional, county and state requirements.
2 673
Samantha W. Kranes
Confidential Client, Multiple Solar Projects, Local Permitting Review (Planner) Evaluated local, state and county regulations for the development of multiple solar sites throughout New York State. Review included coordination with multiple local, state and county offices and evaluation of codes and regulations pertaining to solar development, as well as desktop review of mapped natural and historic resources.
Confidential Client, Multiple Solar Projects, Wetland Delineation Reporting (Planner) Coordinated field teams for completion of wetland delineations on multiple potential solar development sites throughout New York State. Oversaw completion of wetland delineation reports according to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and the Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement to the Wetland Delineation Manual (2012) for use in permitting.
Confidential Client – Multiple Solar Sites, Environmental Due Diligence (Project Manager and Planner) Managed the environmental due diligence and constraints analyses of over 70 proposed ground-mounted solar projects (approximately 1-2 MW in size) throughout New York State, including oversight of field work and associated reporting. Coordinated field work, including wetland delineation and other field surveys, and oversaw preparation of technical reports and GIS mapping. Consults client regarding regulatory requirements and potential agency jurisidiction for each of the project sites. Prepared formal consultation letters to agencies for their regulatory determination and advises client on local requirements. Perfomed regulatory database review of existing mapping, aerial photography, and online databases to evauate potential permitting implications for each Project site and completion of a Limited NEPA/SEQRA Report summarizing findings and recommendations to the client regarding siting, potential concerns, and permitting strategies.
Confidential Client – Ground-Mounted Solar Project, Town of Montgomery, Orange County (Project Manager) Manages the environmental due diligence and permitting of a ground-mounted solar project on approximately 20 acres in the Town of Montgomery, Orange County, New York. Applicable permits being sought include an Article 15 (Protection of Waters) permit from the NYSDEC for crossing of a Class B waterbody onsite. Coordinates and reviews the preparation of the permit application package to the NYSDEC and USACE and advises client on regulatory framework and recommended path forward. Coordinates with TRC civil engineers regarding preparation of the stream crossing design in line with agency requirements.
Confidential Client – 2 MW Solar Project, Town of Harpersfield, Delaware County (Project Manager) Manages the environmental due diligence and permitting of a ground-mounted solar project on approximately 60 acres in the Town of Harpersfield, Delaware County, New York. Attended multiple town meetings/hearings as the environmental representative to discuss the project and potential impacts to regulated resources, including wetlands and waterbodies, RTE species, land use and cover, archaeological resources, and stormwater. Advises client on agency consultations and recommended path forward.
3 674 675
JOHN C. MANNIX, PE
EDUCATION M.B.A., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 1985 B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Lowell, 1979
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS Professional Engineer, Massachusetts, (#33042) Professional Engineer, New Jersey, (#24GE05314100) Professional Engineer, New York, (#096099) Professional Engineer, Pennsylvania, (#PE087941) Certified Public Water System Operator, Massachusetts, (#3880)
AREAS OF EXPERTISE Mr. John Mannix has technical experience in the following general areas: Microwave & Mesh Radio Network Planning Fuel Cell, Solar and Battery back-up systems Telecom Network Infrastructure Digital Subscriber Line Fiber Network Design, Splicing Details and Optical Loss Budgeting Ethernet Over Copper Remote Terminal Design Project Management Equipment Vendor Evaluation and Selection Vendor Technical & Change Management Business Case Development Financial Modeling and Net Present Worth Analysis Mobile Radio, Mobile Data Bonding and Grounding
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Mannix started his engineering career with responsibility for the design and maintenance of telecommunications network facilities within Verizon. This included equipment selection and engineering plans related to implementation of new products and services. He also had responsibility for the oversight and modernization of existing communications assets.
Later in his career Mr. Mannix had responsibility for standardization of Access and Transport technologies, including vendor selection, management and deployment plans. Equipment platforms managed included Ethernet Routers, MPLS Switches, and Fiber to the Premises, Digital Subscriber Line and Microwave Radio.
TRCcompanies.com 676 John C. Mannix, PE
TRC Engineers, Inc. Franklin, MA (2012 – Present)
New York Power Authority (2016 – Present) Mr. Mannix is directing the Network and Site Design for the installation of Microwave radio links and Ethernet routers for NYPA’s communications network. This work consists of two separate Microwave Radio projects including network design, structural analysis and drawing updates.
Public Service Electric & Gas (2017 – Present) Mr. Mannix is providing engineering oversight to PSEG for the deployment of their Phase 1 Microwave Radio build, consisting of eight hops from Newark to Salem, NJ.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric (2014 – 2017) Mr. Mannix led the Network design and selection of technology and installation partners for Central Hudson’s Microwave and Mesh radio networks, to be used for mission critical communications.
Long Island Power Authority (2015 – 2016) Mr. Mannix managed the replacement of two communications equipment shelters for LIPA. This work included an analysis of existing shelter foundations, vendor selection and coordination as well as a grounding design to R56 standards.
Vermont Electric Cooperative (2013 – 2014) Mr. Mannix led the Network design of a 36 mile fiber communications cable deployment in the Northeast Kingdom, including; make ready details, system electronics, optical loss budgeting, splicing details and material lists.
Jemez Mountain Electric Cooperative (2013) Mr. Mannix conducted a detailed Fiber to the Home feasibility study for JMEC. This analysis included estimates of capital build and network operational costs, a market assessment and projected revenues.
Verizon Communications, Boston, MA (1979 – 2011) Mr. Mannix was the Microwave Technical Manager for Verizon. In this role he has responsibility for creating Microwave deployments guidelines, program management as well as vendor evaluation and selection.
Mr. Mannix was responsible for directing the development of corporate-wide equipment deployment guidelines for Verizon’s Fiber to the Premises Program, including creation of Passive Optical Network and Fiber Distribution Hub engineering standards. He also participated in the selection of Optical Line Terminal and Optical Network Terminal equipment and vendors.
2 677 678
Daniel J. Marieni, PE Solar Project Engineer
EDUCATION B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Connecticut, 2009
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS Professional Engineer, Florida (License Number 78629) OSHA 40 HAZWOPER Florida Stormwater, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Inspector
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Solar Project Engineer (2019-Present) Project engineer for solar renewable energy projects in the states of New York and Florida. Oversees the engineering activities of the 3rd party contractor during the design and construction phases of utility scale solar projects. Supports the preparation of applications and environmental studies submitted under Article 10 of the Public Service Law and the State Environmental Quality Review Act including the following renewable energy projects: o East Point Energy Center – 50 MW solar project o High River Energy Center – 90 MW solar project o Watkins Glen Solar Energy Center – 50 MW solar project o Excelsior Energy Center – 280 MW solar and 20 MW energy storage project o Trelina Solar Energy Center – 80 MW solar project Provides engineering support to development activities and permitting issues, energy facility siting, and report analyses/conclusions. Terracon Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Department Manager / Project Engineer (2013-2019) Managed projects, deliverables, staff, scheduling and financials of the geotechnical engineering department. Direct supervisor of 10 employees including five professional staff and five field staff. Project manager for all phases of large-scale geotechnical projects including proposal preparation, permitting, health and safety planning, coordination of field personnel and subcontractors, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and design, report preparation, maintaining schedules and budgets. Collaborated with clients and design teams to determine the most appropriate approach, design and recommendations for complex geotechnical projects. Project experience within the energy sector included providing geotechnical engineering services for solar energy centers, transmission lines, substations and pipelines. Typical services include subsurface investigations, electrical and thermal resistivity testing, test pile installation, load testing, pile foundation design and analysis. Groundwater and Environmental Services, Inc., Associate Engineer (2010-2013) Designed and managed remediation systems for various petroleum contaminated sites. Completed environmental site assessments, active remediation system design, system operation and maintenance, soil and groundwater monitoring and site closures. Coordinated and oversaw field activities including well installation, pilot testing, remediation system construction, equipment installation and startup activities. Prepared proposals, remedial action plans, design plans and specifications, bid packages and operation and maintenance reports. Review of environmental regulations in order to determine project compliance.
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC
700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408 679 680
KEVIN G. MARTIN, PE
EDUCATION Graduate Certificate, Power Systems Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2014 B.S., Electrical Engineering, Alfred University, 2005
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS Professional Engineer, New York (#099090), 2018
AREAS OF EXPERTISE Mr. Kevin G. Martin has technical experience in the following general areas: Underground (UG) Transmission Line Engineering and Design Thermal Ratings of Transmission Lines High Voltage Power Equipment Field Support of High Voltage Cable System Installation
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Martin has 11 years of experience and progressive responsibility in electrical engineering including 6 years in high voltage transmission with TRC Solutions and ITC Holdings. Prior to that, Mr. Martin spent 5 years in the electronics industry with AI Technology, Inc. and Lockheed Martin. His qualifications include field investigations, cost estimating, design, hands-on troubleshooting, and failure analysis. Mr. Martin’s background includes detailed systems integration and requirements management. Mr. Martin has training and a strong focus in safe working practices.
ITC Holdings, UG Asset Management– Detroit, MI (Senior Engineer: 2014 – 2017) Mr. Martin was responsible for overseeing field crews and contractors with the maintenance of ITC’s 130 circuit miles of high voltage UG transmission cables and 180 miles of UG control cable and fiber. He was responsible for developing standards for ITC's cable systems and served as a subject matter expert for cable systems supporting capital and development projects.
ITC Holdings, Gordie Howe International Bridge Circuit Relocations – Detroit, MI (Senior Engineer: 2014 – 2017) Mr. Martin worked extensively with government agencies to determine a relocation plan for three UG circuits to support the development of a proposed customs plaza for a new international bridge. Mr. Martin supported the design of approximately one mile of new double circuit ductbank which was installed for the relocation of two 120 kV Cross-Linked Polyethylene (XLPE) Circuits. Mr. Martin also supported the design of a Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) relocation of a 120 kV High Pressure Gas Filled (HPGF) circuit.
ITC Holdings, Thermal Rating Project – Detroit, MI (Senior Engineer: 2014 – 2016) The majority of ITC's UG transmission assets were acquired from Detroit Edison and the documentation supporting the thermal ratings of these lines was insufficient to support NERC Audits. In addition, the ratings appeared to be inconsistent with the current International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60287 rating standards. To address this Mr. Martin evaluated each cable circuit and calculated new
TRCcompanies.com 681
Kevin G. Martin, PE
thermal ratings for the line. These ratings were calculated to the IEC 60827 standard using CYMCAP software. In addition, Mr. Martin created a ratings procedure for ITC to document procedures and assumptions for calculating the ratings in a repeatable manner.
ITC Holdings, XLPE Cable Fault – Detroit, MI (Senior Engineer: 2016) A splice on an XLPE cable system failed after being in service for 17 years. Mr. Martin was responsible for developing and coordinating the repair plan. When the splice failed, it allowed water to penetrate to the conductor and Mr. Martin determined that the cables would need to be replaced to the adjacent manholes. ITC did not have enough cable in inventory to support this replacement, so Mr. Martin coordinated with other utilities to find cable to allow for the repair, as well as with the cable supplier to install the new cable and required joints. Mr. Martin traveled to the cable factory where the failed splice was dissected to determine root cause of the failure.
ITC Holdings, Temple Substation – Detroit, MI (Senior Engineer: 2014 – 2015) The scope of this project was to loop-in an existing HPGF pipe type cable into a new substation. Mr. Martin provided technical requirements’ and oversight to the AE firm to design the loop in connections. Mr. Martin also developed design guides during this project to ensure consistency and minimize required spare inventory on future projects.
Public Service Electric & Gas, North East Grid Reliability Project – South Plainfield, NJ (Project Role: 2011 – 2014) Mr. Martin served as PSE&G’s owner’s engineer for the electrical design of four new 230 kV underground transmission lines utilizing rapid circulation and forced cooling to increase circuit capacity as well as several substation XLPE connections. The assignment involved detailed review of field investigations and routes, system design, fiber communication, construction plans, specifications, and construction operations.
Public Service Electric & Gas, 138 kV Pipe Cable Reconductoring Project – South Plainfield, NJ (Project Role: 2011 – 2013) Mr. Martin served as PSE&G’s electrical engineer for the complete reconductoring of a 3.5 mile and a 6.6-mile, 138 kV, underground transmission lines to correct the negative effects of cable Thermal Mechanical Movement (TMM) and increase the circuit capacity. Included in this project was the installation of full hydraulic stop joints to reduce the risk of environmental disturbance at several river crossings.
Public Service Electric & Gas, Cable Condition Assessment – South Plainfield, NJ (Project Role: 2011 – 2012) Mr. Martin supported the cable condition assessment program for PSE&G’s underground transmission system. This included Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA) in pipe-type cable dielectric fluid as well as x-ray analysis of cable splices. Mr. Martin also evaluated the effects of damaging conditions on the life of the cable system, including loss of fluid pressure and fire damage to stainless steel conduit. He examined failures for root cause analysis and lessons learned and created reconductoring project justifications for investment evaluation.
2 682
Kevin G. Martin, PE
Public Service Electric & Gas, Bayonne Third Circuit – South Plainfield, NJ (Project Role: 2011 – 2012) Mr. Martin provided engineering support to the design and build of a new 138 kV HPFF underground transmission circuit. Mr. Martin developed thermal envelop design software for PSE&G and evaluated soil thermal resistivity conditions along the route to complete the trench design. He also supported the creation of the contractor bid packages, as well as performed ampacity, and impedance calculations for the new circuit
SPECIALIZED TRAINING IEEE Power System Engineering I (ETAP) Transmission Line Lightning Protection & Grounding Sheath Bonding for Transmission and Distribution Cable Systems SF6 Circuit Breaker Installation, Operation and Maintenance Doble Insulation and Power Factor Theory Circuit Breaker Installation, Operation and Maintenance OHSA 30 Hour Construction Training Confined Space Competent Person Red Cross CPR / First Aid
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Member of CIGRE Council on Large Electric Systems Member of IEEE Power and Energy Society (PES) Member of IEEE Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Society Member of IEEE PES Insulated Conductor Committee
3 683
George Mohan, PE, PTOE 684 Project Traffic Engineer
George Mohan, PE, PTOE brings 15 years of experience in traffic engineering including signing design, pavement marking design, traffic signals, highway lighting, and maintenance of traffic where brings expertise in state and local design and plan production standards. In addition to his traffic design experience, George is also experienced in traffic operations analysis, corridor progression analysis, safety studies, interchange modification/justification studies, traffic impact studies, crash analysis, traffic signal and turn lane warrant analysis and traffic data collection. George is responsible for leading complex traffic design tasks when working on roadway improvement projects and frequently leads the development of traffic studies. His engineering analysis and design software knowledge includes SignCAD, HCS, Synchro/SimTraffic, MicroStation, GEOPAK, and AutoCAD. EXPERIENCE Professional Summary: 15 years of traffic experience. Areas of Expertise: Traffic Engineering, Traffic Studies CREDENTIALS PROJECT EXPERIENCE Education: B.S., Civil Engineering, High River Solar Energy Center – Montgomery County, New York (2019) – TRC is currently Cleveland State University, evaluating transportation and traffic operational impacts that the High River Solar Energy Center 2004 project will have on the adjacent transportation system. The High River Collector Substation will be built to collect roughly 90MW of PV solar power located in upstate New York and transmit to Professional a nearby 115kV interconnection point. Coordination with the New York State DOT was Registrations/Certifications/ completed to determine existing roadway ADT and to obtain existing accident history in the area Training: to complete Exhibit 25: Effects on Transportation. The exhibit evaluates existing transportation Professional Engineer, Ohio conditions, develops site trips for peak construction activities, distributes trips onto the local Professional Traffic roadway system and evaluates operational performance along two-lane highway, multi-lane Operations Engineer highway, and basic freeway segments within the project influence area for both existing Ohio Traffic Academy: conditions and peak construction conditions. The exhibit will also evaluate safety, coordinate Safety Studies, 2014 with local law enforcement and school district, and develop worker routing to the proposed site. Interchange Studies, 2015 East Point Solar Energy Center – Schoharie County, New York (2019) – TRC is currently Maintenance of Traffic, 2015 evaluating transportation and traffic operational impacts that the East Point Solar Energy Center Highway Lighting, 2015 project will have on the adjacent transportation system. The East Point Collector Substation will Traffic Signals, 2016 be built to collect roughly 50MW of PV solar power located in upstate New York and transmit to FHWA Training: a nearby 69kV interconnection point. Coordination with the New York State DOT was completed Road Safety Audits, 2015 to determine existing roadway ADT and to obtain existing accident history in the area to Signalized Intersection complete Exhibit 25: Effects on Transportation. The exhibit evaluates existing transportation Workshop, 2016 conditions, develops site trips for peak construction activities, distributes trips onto the local roadway system and evaluates operational performance along two-lane highway, multi-lane Holophane Lighting Training: highway, and basic freeway segments within the project influence area for both existing Advanced Roadway Lighting conditions and peak construction conditions. The exhibit will also evaluate safety, coordinate Seminar, 2015 with local law enforcement and school district, and develop worker routing to the proposed site. Computer Lighting Calculations, 2015 Commonwealth LNG Project – Traffic Impact Study – Cameron Parish, Louisiana (2019) – TRC was retained to perform a traffic impact study for the Commonwealth LNG natural gas Ohio LTAP Training: facility and pipeline in Southwestern Louisiana. A combination of collected traffic data and Traffic Signs and Pavement existing ADT data from LaDOTD was used to develop the Design Hour Volume. Methodology Markings, 2015 from the Highway Capacity Manual was then used in developing the LOS at the proposed site HSM Focused Training driveways and adjacent street using HCS7 software. After determining the peak construction HSM Freeway Training workforce, construction trips were added to the existing traffic volumes to generate Peak Reducing Roadway Construction Design Hour Volumes. These traffic volumes were evaluated using the same Departure Crashes, 2015 conditions as the existing data utilizing either a two-lane or unsignalized intersection capacity ADA Self-Evaluations/ analysis. The two sets of data were then compared to determine mitigation techniques to be Transition Plans & Overview used and recommendations to the client. of Elements of PROWAG, 2016
1382 West Ninth Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH, USA, 44113 TRCcompanies.com Tel: 216.598.6797 Email: [email protected]
George Mohan, PE, PTOE 685 Project Traffic Engineer
PROJECT EXPERIENCE (Cont’d)
Midship – Traffic Management Study – VAR, Oklahoma (2018) – TRC was retained to perform a traffic management study for the Midship pipeline being installed in Western Oklahoma. Using traffic counts provided by Oklahoma DOT, the existing ADT was used to develop the Design Hour Volume. Methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual was then used in developing the LOS for 22 selected locations along the pipeline under existing conditions using HCS7 software. After determining the peak construction workforce, construction trips were added to the existing traffic volumes to generate Peak Construction Design Hour Volumes. These traffic volumes were evaluated using the same conditions as the existing data utilizing either a two-lane or multi-lane highway capacity analysis. The two sets of data were then comparted to determine mitigation techniques to be used and recommendations to the client. Ohio Department of Transportation, VAR-STW Safety Studies (2018-2 CMT), – MED-3-16.22-17.29 Safety Study – Medina, OH (2018) – TRC assisted in providing a combined safety, operational, and signal timing study for Medina SR 3 (Weymouth Road) from Foskett Road/Remsen Road to W. 130th Street. The study identified short-term and long-term safety and operational benefits in the area by looking at both signal timing and safety. TRC was responsible for capacity analysis using Highway Capacity Software (HCS), turn lane warrants and storage length calculations, signal warrant analysis, cost estimates, and the Modeling portion of the Signal Timing task. Ohio Department of Transportation, VAR-STW Safety Studies (No. 2018-2 (CMT), 2018-3 (Lanham), 2018-4 (LJB) & 2019-1 (Mead & Hunt)) – TRC is currently providing various traffic and safety engineering services on three statewide safety study task order agreements. These task order agreements support ODOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program which works to improve safety by implementing improvements at high-crash and severe-crash locations. Engineering work tasks include crash scrubbing, development of collision diagrams, signal warrant analysis, queuing analysis, intersection and freeway capacity analysis including microsimulation, signal timing recommendations and implementation, countermeasure development and cost estimating. Crashes and countermeasures are evaluated based on HSM predictive methods which calculate predicted crash frequencies for an existing facility and predict crash frequencies for proposed conditions. Traffic and collision data are collected and evaluated through the use of ODOT’s Transportation Information Management System (TIMS), GIS Crash Analysis Tool (GCAT), Economic Crash Analysis Tool (ECAT) and ODOT’s Crash Analysis Module (CAM) tool. Ohio Department of Transportation, VAR-STW Safety Studies (2018-2 CMT), – CUY-71-2.65 Interchange Operation Study – Strongsville, OH (2018) – TRC provided an Interchange Operation Study (IOS) at the I-71/SR 82 interchange. The IOS evaluated lane configuration changes on southbound I-71 between the Ohio Turnpike (I-80) interchange and the SR 82 (Royalton Road) interchange. Configuration changes included: modifying the southbound I-71 exit ramp to westbound SR 82 from a Type I (single lane) exit to a Type III (two lanes with 1 drop lane and 1 option lane) exit; forming an auxiliary lane connecting the SB I-71 entrance ramp from I-80 to the exit ramp to westbound SR 82; and reallocating the existing pavement width to accommodate a 4-lane section (3through lanes + 1 auxiliary lane) by reducing the widths of 3 through lanes on I-71 to 11-foot lanes. TRC used HCS to analyze all the freeway sections and intersection. A Synchro model was created to evaluate queuing along I-71 southbound exit ramp to westbound SR 82 and provide recommended turn lane lengths at the intersection. TRC prepared the IOS report per ODOT’s Office of Roadway Engineering’s studies guidance. Ohio Department of Transportation, IR 75/SR 129 Interchange Modification Study - Butler County, OH (Traffic Engineer: 2017 - 2018). Responsible for preparing an IMS at the I-75/SR 129-Liberty Way interchange. The study limits extended to the I- 75/Tylersville Road interchange to the south and I-75/SR 63 interchange to the north. Changes to the interchange involved extending SR 129 to the east and connecting to Liberty Way, removing existing ramp connections between SR 129 and Liberty Way, and adding capacity to signalized intersections. Project required coordination with OKI to develop weave volumes consistent with certified traffic projections. HCS was used for freeway and intersection analysis. Synchro was used to compare the results with a coordinated system. Ohio Department of Transportation – District 7, SR 41 Corridor Study – Springfield, OH (Traffic Engineer: 2017). EMH&T provided a corridor study for SR 41 from Ridge Road/Titus Road to the Springfield corp limit near Lawnview Avenue. The purpose of this study was to decrease congestion and reduce incidents in the SR 41 corridor study area. The corridor study included crash analysis, speed zone study, geometric analysis, and traffic operations analysis. As a result of the analysis, the following improvements were suggested: restore signal system operations and run coordination signal timings, improve turn radii at SR 41/Ridge Road/Titus Road including signal replacement, add a signalized overlap at SR 41/Ridge Road/Titus Road, and relocating the Laybourne Road to SR 41 connection. Grove City, Borror Road Site Traffic Impact Study - Grove City, OH (Traffic Engineer: 2017). Responsible for preparing a traffic impact study for Grove City. This study analyzed the impacts of a new residential site, Meadow Grove North which is located on the north side of Borror Road and east of Buckeye Parkway. The proposed development includes 175 single family homes as well as 44 condominiums. Capacity analysis was performed at 6 intersections using Synchro 9. Traffic analyses also included signal warrant, turn lane warrant, and turn lane storage lengths.
1382 West Ninth Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH, USA, 44113 TRCcompanies.com Tel: 216.598.6797 Email: [email protected] 686 687
Robert D. O’Neal, CCM, INCE Board Certified
Managing Principal
EDUCATION Mr. O’Neal is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and is INCE Board M.S., Atmospheric Science, Colorado State Certified. He has more than 30 years of experience in the areas of University community noise impact assessments, meteorological data B.A., Engineering Science, Dartmouth College collection and analyses, and air quality modeling. Mr. O’Neal’s noise impact evaluation experience includes design and PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION implementation of sound level measurement programs nationwide, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, #578 modeling of future impacts, conceptual mitigation analyses, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Board compliance testing, and expert witness testimony. He has also Certified directed and reviewed shadow flicker studies for wind energy PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS projects. American Meteorological Society His expert witness testimony experience includes state and local Institute of Noise Control Engineers (INCE), boards, courts of law, and adjudicatory hearings. Specifically, Rob Board Certified Member, Board of Directors (2014-2016) has testified before the MA Energy Facilities Siting Board, Maine Board of Environmental Protection, Vermont Superior Court, NH Acoustical Society of America Site Evaluation Committee, NY DEC Administrative Law Judge, SD Public Utilities Commission, 42nd District Court of Texas, MA Land Court, Environmental Review Tribunals (Ontario, Canada), and Boards of County Commissioners.
Rob is a nationally recognized acoustics expert in the wind energy field having performed noise impact assessments in over 25 states across the U.S. and Canada.
Mr. O’Neal is active on siting and environmental committees associated with the wind and materials handling industries. He has presented the results of wind turbine low frequency noise and infrasound research at major conferences and peer-reviewed scientific journals. He was invited by the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to serve as a technical expert on the Wind Noise Technical Advisory Group (WNTAG). In addition, Rob has been an invited speaker at conferences on a variety of noise and meteorological topics.
EPSILON ASSOCIATES INC. Resume/O’Neal 978-897-7100 688
ROBERT D. O’NEAL, CCM, INCE BD. CERT. PAGE 2 OF 7
RELEVANT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
♦ Apex Clean Energy – Galloo Island Wind, Jefferson County, NY. Mr. O’Neal developed an extensive sound level measurement and modeling program for a proposed 110-megawatt (MW) wind farm on an island in Lake Ontario. In addition to the technical noise studies, Epsilon provided input and response to comments for the Preliminary Scoping Statement and Stipulations as part of the Article 10 permitting process. The results will be presented as expert witness testimony during the NYS Public Service Board public hearings.
♦ Apex Clean Energy – Lighthouse Wind, Orleans & Niagara Counties, NY. Mr. O’Neal developed an extensive sound level measurement and modeling program for a proposed 200-megawatt (MW) wind farm in western NY. In addition to the technical noise studies, Epsilon provided input and response to comments for the Preliminary Scoping Statement and Stipulations as part of the Article 10 permitting process. The results will be presented as expert witness testimony during the NYS Public Service Board public hearings.
♦ Avangrid Renewables– Deer River Wind, Lewis & Jefferson County, NY. Mr. O’Neal developed an extensive sound level measurement and modeling program for a proposed 100-megawatt (MW) wind farm in the Tug Hill Plateau region of NY. In addition to the noise studies, Epsilon provided technical support as part of the Article 10 permitting process.
♦ Avangrid Renewables– Mad River Wind, Oswego & Jefferson County, NY. Mr. O’Neal developed an extensive sound level measurement and modeling program for a proposed 350-megawatt (MW) wind farm in the Tug Hill Plateau region of NY. In addition to the noise studies, Epsilon provided technical support as part of the Article 10 permitting process.
♦ Avangrid Renewables– North Ridge Wind, St. Lawrence County, NY. Mr. O’Neal developed an extensive sound level measurement and modeling program for a proposed 100-megawatt (MW) wind farm in northern NY. In addition to the noise studies, Epsilon provided technical support as part of the Article 10 permitting process.
♦ Iberdrola Renewables – Groton Wind, Groton, NH. Developed an extensive sound level measurement and modeling program for a proposed 48 MW wind farm near Plymouth, NH. Concurrent sound level data and meteorological data were collected and analyzed. The results were presented as expert witness testimony at community open houses and during the Site Evaluation Committee public hearings. Post-construction sound monitoring was conducted to confirm compliance with the permit conditions.
♦ NextEra Energy Resources – Eight Point Wind, Steuben County, NY. Mr. O’Neal developed an extensive sound level measurement and modeling program for a proposed 102-megawatt (MW) wind farm in the southern tier of NY. In addition to the noise studies, Epsilon provided technical support as part of the Article 10 permitting process.
♦ Massachusetts Clean Energy Center – Research Study on Wind Turbine Acoustics. The study includes measuring sound emissions from a variety of operating wind turbines in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Fieldwork includes measuring both the level and quality of sound emissions from
EPSILON ASSOCIATES INC. Resume/O’Neal 978-897-7100 689
ROBERT D. O’NEAL, CCM, INCE BD. CERT. PAGE 3 OF 7
operating wind turbines under various wind regimes and topography. To better understand how wind speed and wind direction vary over the turbine height, meteorological data are collected using on-site meteorological towers and LiDAR systems. Acoustical data are measured at various distances from the wind turbines and include broadband, one-third octave band, low frequency and infrasound, and interior/exterior sound levels.
♦ Confidential Client – Wind Energy Project, VT. Reviewed materials prepared by an opposing expert in anticipation of litigation due to noise from a wind energy project. Provided expert noise testimony before the Vermont Public Service Board on behalf of wind energy’s legal counsel as part of a Technical Hearing.
♦ Juwi Wind – Peru Wind Energy, Peru, MA. Mr. O’Neal developed an extensive sound level measurement and modeling program for a proposed wind farm in western MA. In addition to the noise studies, Mr. O’Neal provided expert witness testimony as part of the local permitting process.
♦ Eolian Renewable Energy -- Antrim Wind, Antrim, NH. Developed an extensive sound level measurement and modeling program for a proposed 30 MW wind farm in Antrim, NH. Concurrent sound level data and meteorological data were collected and analyzed. The results were presented as expert witness testimony at community open houses and during the NH Site Evaluation Committee public hearings.
♦ NextEra Energy Resources – Lee-DeKalb Wind Farm, Lee & DeKalb County, IL. Developed and executed a sound level compliance measurement program for a 218 MW wind farm in Illinois. Concurrent sound level data and meteorological data were collected and analyzed.
♦ FPL Energy – Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center, Taylor County, TX. Developed and executed an extensive sound level measurement program for a 735 MW wind farm in Taylor County, TX. Concurrent sound level data, meteorological data, and wind turbine power output data were collected and analyzed. The results were used in legal proceedings as part of expert witness testimony in the case.
♦ FPL Energy – Wolf Ridge Wind Farm, Cooke County, TX. Developed and executed an extensive sound level measurement and modeling program for a proposed wind farm in Cooke County, TX. Concurrent sound level data and meteorological data were collected and analyzed. The results were used in legal proceedings as part of expert witness testimony in the case.
♦ John Deere Renewables –Michigan Thumb I Wind Farm, Huron County, MI. Developed and executed a long-term sound level measurement program for an existing 69 MW wind farm in Michigan to determine compliance with the local noise ordinance. Concurrent sound level data and meteorological data were collected and analyzed.
♦ NextEra Energy Resources (formerly FPL Energy) – Low Frequency & Infrasound Study, TX. Developed and executed a sound level measurement program as part of a scientific study to determine low frequency and infrasound levels from two types of wind turbines. Both interior and exterior data were compared to independent impact criteria for audibility, vibration, rattle, and annoyance. The study results were published in the peer-reviewed Noise Control Engineering Journal.
EPSILON ASSOCIATES INC. Resume/O’Neal 978-897-7100 690
ROBERT D. O’NEAL, CCM, INCE BD. CERT. PAGE 4 OF 7
♦ NextEra Energy Resources (formerly FPL Energy) – Ashtabula Wind Farm, Barnes County, ND. Developed and executed a sound level measurement program for an existing wind farm in North Dakota in response to noise complaints. Concurrent sound level data and meteorological data were collected and analyzed.
♦ Gamesa Energy – Barton Chapel Wind Farm, Jack County, TX. Developed an extensive sound level measurement and modeling program for a proposed 120 MW wind farm in Jack County, TX. Concurrent sound level data and meteorological data were collected and analyzed. The results were used in legal proceedings as part of expert witness testimony in the case.
♦ Con Edison Development – Campbell County Wind, Campbell County, SD. Mr. O’Neal conducted post-construction sound level measurements for a 93-megawatt (MW) wind farm in SD.
♦ Babcock & Brown – Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm, Portage, PA. Developed and executed a sound level measurement program for an 80 MW wind farm in Cambria and Blair Counties, PA. Concurrent sound level data, meteorological data, and wind turbine power output data were collected and analyzed. The results were used to demonstrate compliance with the noise standard of the Development Agreement with the local Township.
♦ State of New Hampshire, Office of the Attorney General -- Lempster Mountain Wind Power Project, Lempster, NH. Performed an independent review of a proposed 24 MW wind turbine farm. The applicant’s noise impact analysis was evaluated and comments provided to the State of NH.
EXPERT TESTIMONY EXPERIENCE
Expert witness before NY DPS & DEC Administrative Law Judges on noise issues for a 125 MW wind energy facility (2019). Case #16-F-0559.
Expert witness before the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, on noise and shadow flicker for Dakota Range I and Dakota Range II Energy Facility Permit, Pierre, SD (2018). Case #EL18-003.
Expert witness before the North Dakota Senate Subcommittee of Energy and Natural Resources, Draft law on Sound Levels from Wind Energy Facilities, Bismarck, ND, NextEra Energy Resources, LLC (2017).
Expert witness before the Maine Board of Environmental Protection, on noise issues for the Juniper Ridge Landfill expansion, Old Town, ME (2016). Case #S-020700-WD-BI-N and #L-19015-TG-D-N.
Expert witness before the Board of Commissioners, Chowan and Perquimans Counties, NC, on blade and ice drop for Timbermill Wind Conditional Use Permit (2016).
Expert witness before the Environmental Review Tribunal (via skype), Ontario, Canada on noise issues for wpd White Pines Wind, Prince Edward County, Ontario [Case ERT 15-071, Alliance to Protect Prince Edward Co. v. Director, Ministry of the Environment] (2015).
Expert witness before the Jackson Township Board of Supervisors, Cambria County, PA on noise issues for a 980 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle power generation plant (2015).
EPSILON ASSOCIATES INC. Resume/O’Neal 978-897-7100 691
ROBERT D. O’NEAL, CCM, INCE BD. CERT. PAGE 5 OF 7
Expert witness before the Environmental Review Tribunal, Ontario, Canada on noise issues for Grey Highlands Clean Energy GP Corp., Grey Highlands, Ontario [Case ERT 15-026, Fohr v. Director, Ministry of the Environment] (2015).
Expert witness in Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division, Docket No. 179-10-10; on noise issues for an aggregate extraction and crushing operation, McCullough Crushing, Calais, VT (2015).
Expert witness before the Environmental Review Tribunal, Ontario, Canada on noise issues for Grey Highlands Zero Emission People Wind Farm, Grey Highlands, Ontario [Case ERT 15-011, Dingeldein v. Director, Ministry of the Environment] (2015).
Prepared witness statement for the Environmental Review Tribunal, Ontario, Canada on noise issues for Niagara Region Wind Corporation, Haldimand County, Ontario [Case ERT 14-096, Mothers Against Wind Turbines, Inc. v. Director, Ministry of the Environment] (2015).
Expert witness before the Environmental Review Tribunal, Ontario, Canada on noise issues for SP Armow Wind Ontario GP Inc., Kincardine, Ontario [Case ERT 13-124 to 13-125, Kroeplin v. Director, Ministry of the Environment] (2014).
Expert witness before the Environmental Review Tribunal, Ontario, Canada on noise issues for K2 Wind Ontario, Inc., Ashfield-Colbourne-Wawanosh, Ontario [Case ERT 13-097 to 13-098, Drennan v. Director, Ministry of the Environment] (2013).
Expert witness before the Environmental Review Tribunal, Ontario, Canada on noise issues for Dufferin Wind Power, Melancthon, Ontario [Case ERT 13-070 to 13-075, Bovaird v. Director, Ministry of the Environment] (2013).
Expert witness before the NH Site Evaluation Committee on noise and shadow flicker issues for the 30 MW Antrim Wind Project (2012; 2016) Docket No. 2015-02 and Docket No. 2012-01; 48 MW Groton Wind project (2010) Docket No. 2010-01.
Expert witness before the MA Energy Facilities Siting Board on noise issues for: 18-mile underground electric transmission line and substation project in the Boston Metropolitan area (2004-2005); Billerica Energy Center power plant (2007); Brockton Clean Energy (2008-2009), West Medway II power plant (2015), Woburn-Wakefield electric transmission line (2016), National Grid gas pipeline—Lowell/Tewksbury (2018), Vineyard Wind (2018).
Expert witness in Vermont Act 250 Land Use proceedings on noise issues for a proposed sand and gravel excavation site at Okemo Mountain (2007). Permit No. 2S1122.
Expert witness in the 42nd District Court of Texas on noise issues for a 735 MW wind turbine farm (2006).
Expert witness before NY DEC Administrative Law Judge on noise issues for a hard rock quarry facility (1997), two sand and gravel excavation sites (2001; 2003), and a cogeneration power plant (2003).
Expert witness for site assignment hearings on noise issues from solid waste transfer stations in Lowell, MA (1998); Marshfield, MA (1999); Holliston, MA (2004); Oxford, MA (2006).
EPSILON ASSOCIATES INC. Resume/O’Neal 978-897-7100 692
ROBERT D. O’NEAL, CCM, INCE BD. CERT. PAGE 6 OF 7
Expert witness in Massachusetts Land Court on noise issues for a proposed sand and gravel pit (1991), a proposed cross-dock distribution center (2002), and an existing concrete batch plant (2005).
Expert witness in Vermont Act 250 Land Use process for air quality impacts at ski areas (1991; 1992; 1997).
Expert witness before MA DEP Administrative Law Judge for an asphalt plant in Boston (1996).
Expert witness before municipal boards on issues of air pollution and noise impacts from local industries (many years).
Invited specialty speaker on noise impact assessments for Boston University’s Masters of Urban Planning degree program (1994; 1996).
PUBLICATIONS
O’Neal, R.D., Hellweg, Jr., R.D. and R. M. Lampeter, 2011. Low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines. Noise Control Engineering Journal, 59 (2), 135-157.
O’Neal, R.D., and R.M. Lampeter, 2007: Sound Defense for a Wind Turbine Farm. North American Windpower, Zackin Publications, Volume 4, Number 4, May 2007.
O’Neal, R.D., 1991: Predicting potential sound levels: A case study in an urban area. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 41, 1355-1359.
McKee, T.B. and R.D. O’Neal, 1989: The role of valley geometry and energy budget in the formation of nocturnal valley winds. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 28, 445-456.
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
O’Neal, R.D., 2019. Environmental Aspects of Renewables Workshop. Electric Power Research Institute, Chicago, IL.
Kaliski, K., Bastasch, M., O’Neal R.D., 2018. Regulating and predicting wind turbine sound in the U.S. Presented at INTER-NOISE 2018, Chicago, IL
O’Neal, R.D., 2017. Sound level impact studies for wind energy in NY State. Acoustical Society of America Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Kaliski, K., O’Neal, R.D., et al 2016. Massachusetts Research Study on Wind Turbine Acoustics: Over view and Conclusions. NOISE-CON 2016, Providence, RI.
O’Neal, R.D., 2014. Wind Energy Sound Monitoring Under High Wind Shear Conditions. NOISE-CON 2014, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
O’Neal, R.D. Lampeter, R.M., Emil, C.B. and B.A. Gallant, 2012. Evaluating and controlling noise from a metal shredder system. Presented at INTER-NOISE 2012, NY, NY.
EPSILON ASSOCIATES INC. Resume/O’Neal 978-897-7100 693
ROBERT D. O’NEAL, CCM, INCE BD. CERT. PAGE 7 OF 7
O’Neal, R.D., 2011. Wind Turbine sound Levels: The Michigan I, Huron County, MI Study. Presented at Great Lakes Wind Collaborative 4th Annual Meeting, Ypsilanti, MI.
O’Neal, R.D., Hellweg, Jr., R.D. and R. M. Lampeter, 2011. Low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines. Presented at WINDPOWER 2011, Anaheim, CA.
O’Neal, R.D., Hellweg, Jr., R.D. and R. M. Lampeter, 2010. Low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines – a status update. NOISE-CON 2010, Baltimore, MD.
O’Neal, R.D., 2010. Noise control evaluation for a concrete batch plant. NOISE-CON 2010, Baltimore, MD.
O’Neal, R.D., and R.M. Lampeter, 2009: Nuisance noise and the defense of a wind farm. INTER-NOISE 2009, Ottawa, Canada, August 23-26, 2009.
O’Neal, R.D., and R.M. Lampeter, 2009: Sound from Wind Turbines: A Key Factor in Siting a Wind Farm. 12th Annual Energy & Environment Conference – EUEC 2009, Phoenix, AZ, February 2, 2009.
EPSILON ASSOCIATES INC. Resume/O’Neal 978-897-7100 694 695
Diane E. Reilly
EDUCATION M.A., Economics, University of Georgia B.A., Economics and Spanish, Furman University
AREAS OF EXPERTISE Ms. Diane E. Reilly has technical experience in the following general areas: Economic Impact Modeling for Solar and Wind Energy Projects FERC Hydroelectric Licensing & Compliance Economic/Socioeconomic Studies Recreation Use Studies Environmental Justice Analysis Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Ms. Reilly has over 20 years of environmental consulting. She is experienced in providing economic modeling and analyses for the permitting of wind and solar power projects. She also evaluates socioeconomic and recreation issues for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the areas of hydropower licensing and license compliance. Ms. Reilly provides analyses of socioeconomic, recreational, and land use impacts for Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs).
Solar, Wind, and Natural Gas Permitting
Danskammer Energy, Danskammer Energy Center—Newburgh, New York (Economist: 2019) Ms. Reilly is evaluating the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed repowering of the existing 532 MW Danskammer generating facility with a state-of-the-art natural gas-fired combined cycle power generation facility. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) natural gas model will be used to analyze the Project’s expected impacts on jobs, earnings, and output.
NextEra Energy Resources, East Point and High River Solar Projects—New York (Economist: 2018-2019) Ms. Reilly is calculating economic impacts of the proposed solar power projects during the projects’ construction phases and the operation and maintenance phases using the JEDI wind model. For the projects, she will be evaluating effects in terms of jobs, earnings, and output. Ms. Reilly is also providing demographic, housing, and employment analyses for the project area and evaluating Environmental Justice issues. The projects will culminate in Exhibits for the Article10 filing with New York State.
NextEra Energy Resources, Solar Power Projects— Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island (Economist: 2018) Ms. Reilly evaluated the economic effects of multiple proposed solar power projects using the JEDI solar voltaic model. The effort included calculating impacts in terms of jobs, earnings, and output for the construction phase and the operation and maintenance phase.
TRCcompanies.com 696 Diane Reilly
NextEra Energy Resources, Eight Point Wind Energy Center—Greenwood and West Union, New York (Economist: 2017-2019) For the Eight Point Wind Energy Center, Ms. Reilly calculated the economic impacts of the proposed wind energy center during the project’s construction phase and the operation and maintenance phase using the JEDI wind model. Ms. Reilly evaluated potential impacts effects in terms of jobs, earnings, and output. She provided demographic, housing, and employment analyses for the project area. Ms. Reilly also developed the Environmental Justice analysis. The analyses were presented as Exhibits for the Article 10 filing with New York State. Ms. Reilly provided expert testimony and ongoing support as part of the Rebuttal Panel.
NextEra Energy Resources, Wind Energy Projects—Moosehead Lake Region, Maine (Economist: 2018) Ms. Reilly evaluated the economic effects of two proposed wind energy centers in the Moosehead Lake Region of Maine using the JEDI wind model. The analysis calculated impacts in terms of jobs, earnings, and output for the construction phase and the operation and maintenance phase.
NextEra Energy Resources, Bronco Plains Power Projects —Colorado (Economist: 2017) Ms. Reilly evaluated the economic effects of two proposed wind projects and associated transmission lines and two proposed solar power projects. The project also required Ms. Reilly to model jobs, earnings, and output for projects using the JEDI wind, solar voltaic, and transmission line models.
TransCanada Energy, Ltd., Kibby Wind Power Project—Maine (Economist: 2006-2007) Ms. Reilly determined recreational usage within the Kibby Wind Power Project Study Area for TransCanada Energy’s 132-megawatt wind power generating facility in the Boundary Mountains of Western Maine. The recreation study involved determining recreational usage levels, activity types, and user-perceived impacts of the proposed project on recreation. The Project, which has now been completed, is the largest wind power project in New England.
Hydropower Projects
Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, Mongaup River Projects—Sullivan County, New York (Economist: 2018-2019) Ms. Reilly is developing recreation use estimates by activity type and season for three hydropower projects on the Mongaup River in New York. She is also evaluating the results of a year-long user perception survey. As part of the project, she previously analyzed whitewater boating on two reaches of the Mongaup River.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Rock Island State Park —Rock Island, Tennessee (Economist: 2018) For TVA, Ms. Reilly evaluated the anticipated socioeconomic effects of a proposed road construction project and the renovation of an historic mill into lodging and a restaurant. The project involved calculating direct impacts in terms of jobs, earnings, and output for the construction phase and the operation and maintenance phase. Ms. Reilly addressed potential recreation-related spending associated with the proposed inn and restaurant. She also analyzed area demographic, housing, and employment.
2 697 Diane Reilly
New York Power Authority, Blenheim-Gilboa Pumped Storage Project—Blenheim and Gilboa, New York (Technical Lead, Economics: 2012-2017) Ms. Reilly served as technical lead for the socioeconomic issues related to the relicensing of NYPA’s 1,160 MW Blenheim-Gilboa Pumped Storage Power Project. She authored the socioeconomic portion of the Pre-Application Document, the Socioeconomic Study, and portions of the Draft License Application. As the technical lead, Ms. Reilly managed the REMI analysis and participated in public meetings. Her recreation efforts include analyzing recreation use, activity data, and recreation user survey data.
FirstLight, Turners Falls/Northfield Mountain Hydropower Projects—Northfield and Turners Falls, MA (Economist: 2015-2017) For the Turners Falls/Northfield Mountain Projects, Ms. Reilly developed seasonal and annual recreational use, recreation use by activity type, and future demands at each recreation site. She also analyzed capacity use by recreation site. Ms. Reilly supported the development of the relicense application and FERC Form 80s.
Exelon Power, Conowingo Project and Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project—Pennsylvania and Maryland (Economist: 2011—2015) Ms. Reilly provided recreation analysis to support Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) during its FERC Form 80 filings and the relicensing process for its 573 MW Conowingo Project and its 800 MW Muddy Run Storage Project, with a total of 21 formal recreation sites. Ms. Reilly estimated specific use level, activity types, and capacity information for each of the projects’ recreation facilities included in the study. The project also required forecasting future recreation demand and capacity by recreation site.
Georgia Power Company, Bartletts Ferry Hydropower Project—Georgia and Alabama (Recreation Technical Lead: 2008—2009) Ms. Reilly was the technical lead for recreation during the FERC relicensing of Georgia Power's 173-MW Bartletts Ferry Project on the Chattahoochee River along the Georgia/Alabama border. The Project includes eight recreation sites along 156 miles of shoreline. Ms. Reilly calculated existing and future recreational demands and activity patterns from data collected during the FERC-approved recreation study. The resulting recreation study report served as the basis for the recreation portion of the license application.
Georgia Power Company, Morgan Falls Hydropower Project—Georgia (Recreation Technical Lead: 2005—2008) Ms. Reilly served as the technical lead for recreation and socioeconomics during the FERC relicensing of Georgia Power's 16.8 MW Morgan Falls Project located in metropolitan Atlanta. The Project was one of the first to use the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP). Ms. Reilly developed the recreational use characterization for the project and the population and recreation demand projections. She also addressed future capacity issues, evaluating the need for additional facilities.
New York Power Authority, Niagara Power Project—Niagara Falls, NY (Technical Lead, Economics: 2002-2005) Ms. Reilly assisted in the development of the Scope of Services, managed the REMI modeling, and authored sections of the socioeconomic report for the relicensing of the Niagara Power Project (2,755 MW). The project required the development of a new license application and a settlement structure to meet the needs of NYPA and the more than 100 interested parties.
3 698 Diane Reilly
EXPERT TESTIMONY Provided deposition testimony on behalf of Eight Point Wind. LLC in its Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need pursuant to Article 10 to construct a wind energy project, (Case 16-F-0062) New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment. November 2017. Provided Rebuttal Panel Testimony. February 2019.
Provided deposition testimony on behalf of Eight Point Wind. LLC in its Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need pursuant to Article VII to construct and operate a 16.5-mile 115KV transmission line. (Case 18-T-0202) New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment. March 2018.
4 699
700
Mr. Ross has more than 23 years of experience in the profession of Landscape Architecture. His background is diversified, encompassing the wide variety of responsibilities incorporated into this field. He has a working knowledge and understanding of land development and construction document production. This primary focus involves a range of responsibilities including but not limited to: Site analysis, field scoping views, and formal survey requests Due Diligence Reports Conceptual Design and Exhibit Presentations with Client. Prime and/or Sub‐consultant interaction Initial utility coordination Preliminary/Pre‐Final coordination and design of Land Development Plan Sets
Production of Specification Packages Michael J. Ross RLA ASLA Project quantities and cost estimates Final project coordination and design of Land Development and Construction Document Plan Sets How will your expertise be All aspects of Permitting Approvals including: E&S/NPDES, HOP, PHMC, Zoning, utilized for TRC projects? Planning, and SALDO Having over 20 years of experience Upfront Bid Document preparation within the profession of Landscape Review and Approval of contractor submittals. Architecture has provided me with Site inspection and final approval. a background that is broad and diverse in nature which allows me CREDENTIALS to adapt to a variety of projects, Education perform various tasks, and has given me the ability to confidently B.S., Landscape Architecture, The Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA, 1995 address unknown and/or Professional Registrations/Certifications/Training: unforeseen challenges that may Pennsylvania Registered Landscape Architect License No. LA002697 arise during the design phase of West Virginia Registered Landscape Architect License No. 416 any project. Colorado Registered Landscape Architect License No. LA1362 I strongly believe that the discipline North Carolina Registered Landscape Architect License No. 2096 of Landscape Architecture can play Maryland DNR Forest Conservation Qualified Professional an important role and be an important component in any Memberships/Associations: project, as the pure nature of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) profession promotes collaboration Counsel of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB) between professionals and EXPERIENCE interacts with all aspects of the Professional Summary: Over 23 years‐ Areas of Expertise: design process in some form or All aspects of the Land Development Submission process another and thereby compliments the other disciplines and talents Civil Site Plan Development and what they contribute to the Site Analysis, Field Scoping Views, and Formal Survey Requests project, as a whole, for our clients. Due Diligence Reports and Utility Coordination Conceptual Design and Exhibit Presentations for Client The inherent interaction and collaboration between other Prime and/or Sub‐Consultant Interaction and Consultation disciplines and talents over the LEED Certified and Sustainable project site design years has provided me with strong Master planning, Estate planning, and Streetscaping coordination and communications Hardscape and Planting design/implementation skills that allows me to work well All aspects of Permitting Approvals including: E&S/NPDES, HOP, PHMC, Zoning, with others and effectively Planning, and SALDO contribute to team efforts Design/build implementation and processes and Phased planning/design whenever asked. Estimating project quantities and costs relating to construction materials and labor Project management and coordination with general and/or subcontractors throughout the construction process Final project completion, site inspections and approval Program Manager for project site Visual Simulation Efforts Conservation, Reforestation, and Afforestation Efforts
4900 Ritter Road, Suite 240, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 www.trccompanies.com Tel: 717.287.0961 Email: [email protected]
701
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
TRC SOLAR PROJECS: 2017‐2019
Landscape Architect responsible for the overall coordination and implementation of appropriate design elements for Land Development Submission and Approval Processes on solar fields throughout the New England and Mid‐Atlantic States. Responsibilities include preparation of Landscaping Plans, Planting Schedules, Planting Details, various BMPs, Seeding Mixes, and Notes. Additional responsibilities include Program Management of various site visualization simulation efforts.
TRC MISCELLANEOUS PROJECS:
Dominion Energy, Reforestation/Afforestation Efforts, Charles County, MD ‐ Project Landscape Architect in the overall coordination and design for site remediation, reforestation, and afforestation efforts for a 17‐acre project site. Tasks included coordination with Client, Project Management, and Environmental Team. Recommend the implementation of specific tree plantings according to Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Charles County, and FERC regulatory agencies. Generate Landscape Plans, appropriate Details, Planting Schedules, Planting Calculations, and Landscaping Notes for FERC approval. Coordinate and Assist Pm and team with RFP, Pre‐Bid, and project site inspection needs.
McCarthy Tree Replacement and Estimates of Probable Costs, Washingtonville, NY ‐ Project Landscape Architect in the overall coordination and presentation of Analysis Report and Estimates of Probable Costs for tree replacements on project site. Tasks included coordination with Client, Project Management, and Environmental Team to provide/generate a descriptive Analysis Report identifying cost values assigned to existing woodland forest to be cleared and removed. Additional tasks include: evaluating tree survey data, utilizing GIS and LiDAR capabilities to assume existing tree canopy coverage, providing/assigning/calculating tree costs and labor rates, and generating a report for public presentation.
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, Site Restoration, Burlington/Gloucester Counties, NJ ‐ Project Landscape Architect in the overall coordination and design for site remediation and exit strategy efforts of a 19‐acre contaminated site. Tasks included coordination with environmental and engineering design teams. Recommending the implementation of specific BMPs. Generating Landscape Plans, appropriate Details, Planting Schedules, and Landscaping Notes for NJ DEP permit approval. 2017
Colonial Pipeline Dig Site 34‐37, Delaware County, PA ‐ Project Landscape Architect in the overall coordination and design for Erosion and Sediment Control efforts of a pipeline maintenance work site. Tasks included coordination with environmental and engineering design teams. Recommending the implementation of specific BMPs. Generating Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, appropriate Details, Notes for PA DEP permit approval. 2017
Harvard Press Redevelopment, Essex County, NJ ‐ Project Landscape Architect in overall coordination of the project Redevelopment, Minor Subdivision, and Site Plan. Tasks included coordination efforts with Project Management and design team. Implementing appropriate design elements and generate a Revised Plan Set that addresses comments for Land Development Submission and Approval. 2017‐2018
Lambertville and Penn East Compressor Stations, Hunterdon County, NJ ‐ Project Landscape Architect in overall coordination of project Stormwater and Erosion Control design efforts. Tasks included strong coordination efforts with
4900 Ritter Road, Suite 240, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 www.trccompanies.com Tel: 717.287.0961 Email: [email protected]
702
Project Management and design team. Implementation of two retention and detention basins for stormwater quality and control. Generate an appropriate Landscape Plan Set with appropriate planting and seed mixes, planting schedules, details, and notes to address the requirements of the NJ DEP permit approval process. 2017‐2018
Eight Point Wind Turbine Farm, Steuben County, NY ‐ Panel member participant for a Visual Impact Assessment of a Wind Energy Center located in southcentral New York State. Tasks included strong coordination efforts with Project Management and strong participation efforts in the visualization assessment and rating system required by the NY State Article 10 Permitting Approval Process. 2017
SMUD – Sacramento Municipal Utility District Franklin Boulevard Substation, Sacramento County, CA ‐ Project Landscape Architect responsible for overall coordination and implementation of Landscaping and Irrigation Plans for a new Electrical Substation. Tasks included strong coordination efforts with Project Management throughout the design process. Generating Landscaping Plans, Details, Planting Schedules, and Notes to satisfy the Permitting Approval Process. Generating and Estimate of Probable Costs. 2017‐2018
Boston Harborwalk/K Street Pedestrian Trail Connector, The City of Boston, MA ‐ Project Landscape Architect responsible for the conceptual design and layout for a trail connector project within the Boston Harborwalk pedestrian trail system. Tasks included overall coordination and implementation of the conceptual design and Site Plan layout, Client interaction and strong coordination efforts with Project Management throughout the design process. Generating a Plan Set with Site Renderings and Visualizations, Details, Section Elevations, and Notes to satisfy the Permitting Approval Process with the MASS DEP. Generating and Estimate of Probable Costs. 2018
CSX Baltimore Demolition Project, The City of Baltimore, MD ‐ Project Landscape Architect responsible for the overall production and coordination of generating a Demolition Plan Set for the razing of a structure owned by CSX Railroad Corporation located within the city limits of Baltimore. Tasks included utility coordination, Demolition Plan Set production with and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Details, and Notes, and strong coordination efforts with the City of Baltimore to satisfy the Permitting Approval Process. 2017‐2018
Senior Designer/Landscape Architect‐ Gibson‐Thomas Engineering Co., Inc.
CEDA COG/PennDOT District 2‐0, SR 0022/322 Commuter Parking Feasibility Study, Juniata County, PA ‐ Perform a Commuter Analysis, determine the required parking facility size, and coordinate Site recommendations to CEDA COG and PennDOT District 2‐0 for a New Commuter Parking Facility in Juniata County. Additional tasks included: Coordination with local and state government agencies. Generate and distribute windshield surveys for data collection purposes. Determine future growth factors. Generate Study Maps and Sketches, Data Matrix and Tables, and Cost estimates for submission to CEDA COG and PennDOT District 2‐0. Conduct Project Kick‐Off, Status, and Recommendation Meetings. Coordinate with local property owners, business owners, and stakeholders. Conduct a Real‐Estate search for potential properties that could accommodate the New Commuter Parking Facility. Review and consider areas for storm water management and local Zoning and SALDO requirements. Generate and Estimate of Probable Costs. 2010‐2011
PennDOT District 5‐0, SR 1002, Section 01B, Pottsville Street Bridge Over Mill Creek, Borough of Port Carbon, Schuylkill County, PA ‐ Assist in generating Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Plans and Narrative to gain permit approval for bridge reconstruction. Additional tasks included: coordination with Adams county Conservation District,
4900 Ritter Road, Suite 240, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 www.trccompanies.com Tel: 717.287.0961 Email: [email protected]
703
propose various Best Management Practice (BMP) solutions, generate a construction sequence, and provide appropriate notes, charts, and construction details for plan submission and approval. 2012‐2013
PennDOT District 8‐0, SR 0034, Section 037, Carlisle Road Bridge Over Quaker Run, Menallen Township, Adams County, PA ‐ Assist in generating Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Plans and Narrative to gain permit approval for bridge reconstruction. Additional tasks included: coordination with Adams County Conservation District, propose various Best Management Practice (BMP) solutions, generate a construction sequence, and provide appropriate notes, charts, and construction details for plan submission and approval. 2012‐2013
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Access Ramp Design Improvements Milepost 238, Lower Allen Township Cumberland County, PA ‐ Design various layouts for emergency access ramps on and off the Pennsylvania Turnpike at the Lisburn Road bridge structure overpass. Perform zoning, SALDO, and deed research to obtain necessary survey and site distance requirements. Incorporate LIDAR survey into plan set. Generate estimate of probable costs. Generate grading plans and alignment cross sections and identify required right‐of‐way needed for proposed access ramps and mainline widening. 2012‐2013
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Bituminous Overlay Between Milepost 345.75 and 351.75 in Montgomery and Bucks Counties, PA ‐ Assist in the overall coordination and design of a bituminous overlay project. Additional tasks included: Generate a comprehensive plan set with numerous Section Elevations, Details, and Tabulations. Identify and incorporate all utilities into the plan set. Generate Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plans, Gore Area Striping Plans, and Cost Estimates for submission. 2012‐2013
Project Landscape Architect‐ BL Companies
LeTort Regional Authority Trail and Urban Greenway Feasibility Study, Cumberland County, PA ‐ Project Landscape Architect assisting in the overall coordination, design, and layout of a trail and urban greenway system within four local municipalities in Cumberland County that would stem from the internationally famous trout stream‐ The LeTort Spring Run. Tasks included coordination with local and state government agencies including PENNDOT, The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Cumberland County Planning Commission, DEP, and DCNR. Participation in numerous public meetings and presentations. Generating Study Maps, Section Elevations, Details and Cost Estimates to submit to the LeTort Regional Authority. 2007‐2008
LeTort Regional Authority Trail and Urban Greenway Conceptual Construction Documents for funding submission, Cumberland County, PA ‐ Project Landscape Architect in the overall coordination and design of Conceptual Construction Documents used by the LeTort Regional Authority for presentation and submission to obtain various grant funding opportunities. Tasks included GPS data collection to station the trail alignments. Generation Construction Documents. Proposed various BMP solutions throughout the Trail and Urban Greenway. 2007‐2008
Gettysburg College Athletic Facility, Adams County, PA ‐ Project Landscape Architect in the overall coordination and design of a newly renovated and LEED Accredited Athletic Facility. Tasks included coordination with college officials and complete design team. Generating Landscape Plans and hardscape details for Land Development approval. Generating Construction Document plans for submittal and bidding purposes. 2007‐2008
Gettysburg College Sustainable Parking Lot, Adams County, PA ‐ Project Landscape Architect in the overall coordination
4900 Ritter Road, Suite 240, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 www.trccompanies.com Tel: 717.287.0961 Email: [email protected]
704
and design of a new sustainable parking lot facility that utilized CU Engineered Soil enabling the harvest and storage of on‐site and off‐site stormwater runoff. Tasks included coordination with college officials. Generating Land Development plans for submission and municipal approval. 2007‐2008
Chalfont Gateway Shopping Center, Montgomery County, PA ‐ Project Landscape Architect in the overall coordination and design of a new Gateway Shopping Center including a bank, pharmacy, office buildings, retail buildings, and a Malvern School for Children. Tasks included: Initial site layout of proposed building structures. Landscape design and layout for Land Development submission and approval. 2006‐2008
Princeton Junction Retail Center, Mercer County, NJ ‐ Project Landscape Architect in the overall coordination and design of a new Retail Shopping Center including a restaurant, pharmacy, retail shops, and a coffee shop. Tasks included: Initial site layout of proposed building structures. Design of outdoor court and eating areas. Landscape design and layout for Land Development submission and approval. 2008‐2009
In Addition: Mr. Ross has been involved in numerous commercial projects at BL Companies that required full Land Development approval and Construction Document preparation for bidding and construction purposes. 2006‐2009
Landscape Designer‐ DCNR Bureau of Facility Design and Construction
Hick’s Run Elk Viewing Site, Cameron County, PA‐ Project manager/designer in the overall coordination and design of one in a series of elk/wildlife viewing sites that were incorporated into the overall Pennsylvania Wilds Program. 2004‐ 2006
Skippack Golf Course Parking Lot Renovations, Montgomery County, PA ‐ Project manager/designer in the overall coordination and design renovation of a 108‐space parking lot. Numerous BMP design elements played a significant role in the NPDES Permit approval process. 2003‐2005
Pine Creek Rail Trail Phase IV, Tioga County, PA ‐ Project manager/designer in the overall coordination and design of the final phase of a 57.8‐mile rail trail. The trail runs through the Pennsylvania Grand Canyon and is rated by USA TODAY as one of the top 10 places to take a bike tour. 2003‐2006
Lehigh George Park Improvements, Luzerne and Carbon Counties, PA ‐ Project Coordinator and Representative for DCNR, acting as the primary point of contact for the Consultant in advising and assisting in the overall design process for park improvements including a new vehicular access, white water boat launch areas, and a main street bicycle/pedestrian route. 2004‐2005
Presque Isle Site layout for Amphitheater structure, Erie County, PA ‐ Project manager/designer in the overall design and coordination of the site layout and design of a new amphitheater at the Tom Ridge Education Center. 2003‐2004
Lackawanna State Park Office Addition, Lackawanna County, PA ‐ Project Landscape designer in the overall coordination and site design/layout of a park office addition. Design elements incorporated to meet LEED Certification goals. 2004‐2005
Hyner Run/View State Park, Clinton County, PA ‐ Project manager/designer for Phase II which involved the rehab of approximately 7 miles of state park road. 2003‐2004
4900 Ritter Road, Suite 240, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 www.trccompanies.com Tel: 717.287.0961 Email: [email protected]
705
Landscape Designer‐ The RBA Group
Chester Valley Trail Extension, Montgomery County, PA ‐ Project landscape designer working with a team of bicycle/pedestrian experts designing 8 miles of bikeway through traffic‐congested communities within the county. 2002‐ 2003
French Creek Trail and Greenway Project, Chester County, PA ‐ Project landscape designer assisting in overall coordination and design of the project. Tasks performed included initial utility, site layout and grading, quantity and cost tabulations, and product specification. 2002‐2003
AES Ironwood Park, Lebanon County, PA ‐ Project team member for a 19‐acre park renovation project assisting the AES Ironwood Foundation to provide a high‐quality park for the local communities. 2002‐2003
OTHER RELATED EXPERIENCE
Include: Master planning, Estate planning, Hardscape and Planting design/implementation, and phased planning/design. Most of my projects involved design/build implementation and processes and was primarily focused within upper‐end residential sites. I oversaw the implementation of all aspects of his projects: Beginning with client interaction and conceptual design processes, estimating project quantities and costs relating to construction materials and labor, project management and coordination with general and/or subcontractors throughout the construction process, to final project completion and site inspections and approval. A primary emphasis of design/build construction and hardscape implementation was a significant part of my overall performance skills.
4900 Ritter Road, Suite 240, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 www.trccompanies.com Tel: 717.287.0961 Email: [email protected] 706 707
TIMOTHY R. SARA, RPA
EDUCATION M.A., Anthropology, Hunter College, City University of New York, 1994 B.A., Anthropology and Geography, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1984
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS Register of Professional Archaeologists (1995 – Present)
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Sara is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with 34 years of professional experience in cultural resources management and historic preservation planning. Over the course of amassing his experience he has designed and directed surveys and excavations of historic and prehistoric archaeological resources in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest, and Caribbean. He has also obtained a thorough knowledge of Section 110 and Section 106 and of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended (NHPA) and applying the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility criteria to cultural resources. Mr. Sara has received honors and awards for both his academic and professional studies.
Mr. Sara serves as Program Manager, Archaeology and Office Practice Leader for TRC’s Lanham, Maryland office with responsibility for all business functions of the office as well as quality control and staff management. He is the Principal Investigator on a series of proposed electrical generating and transmission projects in Albany, Chenango, Greene, Orange, Rensselaer, Steuben, Suffolk, and Ulster counties, New York. Mr. Sara has also served as Principal Investigator on a series of solar energy development projects in Gloucester and Hunterdon counties, New Jersey. Mr. Sara coordinates project reviews on a regular basis with SHPO staff members in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic and has an excellent knowledge of the archaeology of these regions.
As a professional in the field of cultural resources management, Mr. Sara has also worked directly with other environmental conservation program areas implemented by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). He has served as a key member of overall environmental planning teams, working with other environmental professionals including soil scientists, wetlands specialists, biologists, and hazardous waste managers. He has been a contributing author on more than 100 Environmental Assessments (EAs) and/or Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and principal or contributing author to more than 300 cultural resources management reports. Mr. Sara has a broad knowledge of cultural resource management principles and practices, archaeological survey, evaluation, and data recovery methodologies, and presentation of research results within Federal and state agency, academic, and public sector frameworks. His areas of expertise include: Northeastern Historical and Prehistoric Archaeology Cultural Resource Permitting for Energy Development Projects Survey and Resource Evaluation Project Management for Cultural Resources Studies Environmental Impact Assessment and Studies Public Outreach and Exhibit Services
TRCcompanies.com 708 Timothy R. Sara, RPA
NextEra Excelsior Solar Energy Center Project, Phase IA Archaeological Study, Genesee County, New York (Principal Investigator/Project Manager 2019). Prepared research design and directed all aspects of archaeological background research associated with solar energy development project in western New York. Contributing author of report submitted to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, and New York State Historic Preservation Office. Prepared Exhibit 20 (Cultural Resources) for Article X New York State Public Service Commission environmental documentation.
NextEra Trelina Solar Energy Center Project, Phase IA Archaeological Study, Seneca County, New York (Principal Investigator/Project Manager 2019). Prepared research design and directed all aspects of archaeological background research associated with solar energy development project in western New York. Contributing author of report submitted to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, and New York State Historic Preservation Office. Prepared Exhibit 20 (Cultural Resources) for Article X New York State Public Service Commission environmental documentation.
NextEra Watkins Glen Solar Energy Center Project, Phase IA Archaeological Study, Schuyler County, New York (Principal Investigator/Project Manager 2019). Prepared research design and directed all aspects of archaeological background research associated with solar energy development project in eastern New York. Contributing author of report submitted to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, and New York State Historic Preservation Office. Prepared Exhibit 20 (Cultural Resources) for Article X New York State Public Service Commission environmental documentation.
NextEra East Point Solar Energy Center Project, Phase IA and IB Archaeological Studies, Schoharie County, New York (Principal Investigator/Project Manager 2018 - 2019). Prepared research design and directed all aspects of archaeological background and field research associated with solar energy development project in eastern New York. Contributing author of report submitted to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, and New York State Historic Preservation Office. Prepared Exhibit 20 (Cultural Resources) for Article X New York State Public Service Commission environmental documentation.
NextEra High River Solar Energy Center Project, Phase IA and IB Archaeological Studies, Montgomery County, New York (Principal Investigator/Project Manager 2018 - 2019). Prepared research design and directed all aspects of archaeological background and field research associated with solar energy development project in eastern New York. Contributing author of report submitted to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, and New York State Historic Preservation Office. Prepared Exhibit 20 (Cultural Resources) for Article X New York State Public Service Commission environmental documentation.
Public Service Enterprise Group Long Island LLC, Multiple Repeater Site Projects, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York (Principal Investigator/Project Manager (2018). Mr. Sara directed background research and evaluated archaeological sensitivity for 18 proposed communication tower locations across Long Island. On behalf of PESG, he also prepared consultation
2 709 Timothy R. Sara, RPA
letters to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and fifteen Native American Tribes soliciting their concurrence for no effect to archaeological resources. The work was conducted in accordance with the New York State Guidelines, State Environmental Quality Review Act requirements, and the Federal Communications Commission Nationwide Programmatic Agreement. The OPRHP and Tribes subsequently concurred with all 18 no adverse effects recommendations.
Eight Point Wind Energy Center, Steuben County, New York (Project Manager/Principal Investigator 2016 - 2019). Prepared research design and directed all aspects of archaeological background and field research associated with wind energy development project in central New York. Contributing author of report submitted to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, and New York State Historic Preservation Office. Prepared Exhibit 20 (Cultural Resources) for Article X New York State PSC environmental documentation.
Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Sites 28HU566 and 28HU567 and Historic Architecture Studies of the Edward Fox House and Fox/Phillips/Pittenger House in the Frenchtown III Solar Park, Hunterdon County, New Jersey, (Project Manager/Principal Investigator 2013-14). Directed all aspects of archaeological research in support of solar park development. The work was conducted for Con Edison Development, Valhalla, NY under Subcontract to Whitman, Cranbury, New Jersey. Contributing author of technical report and public outreach program in preparation for the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office.
Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project (No. 2485) and Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project (No. 1889), Franklin County, Massachusetts and Cheshire County, New Hampshire, and Windham County, Vermont (2013-2019). (Project Manager/Principal Investigator 2013- present). Directed Phase IA archival and Phase IB and Phase II field investigations as part of environmental impact studies required for 30-year license renewal. Principal author of reports submitted to FirstLight Power Resources and the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont SHPOs.
Dunkirk Natural Gas Pipeline Project, Phase I Archaeological Survey, Chautauqua County, New York (Project Manager/Principal Investigator 2014-2015). Directed all aspects of Phase I archaeological study for proposed 11 miles of new 16-inch buried pipeline to transport natural gas from the Tennessee Gas Transmission Pipeline to the Dunkirk Generating Station. Principal author of project report and Article VII documentation submitted to Dunkirk Gas Corporation and the NY SHPO.
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC (Senior Archaeologist 2013-14). Conducted background research and prepared Cultural Resources section of Draft SEIS for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit (No. NY-0004472), as required by New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. Submitted to Entergy Services, Inc., Jackson, Mississippi.
3 710 Timothy R. Sara, RPA
Mantua Grove Solar Energy Project, Gloucester County, New Jersey, Phase I and II Archaeological Studies (Project Manager/Principal Investigator 2009-2010) Prepared research design and supervised all aspects of field and laboratory research in support of proposed photovoltaic solar array in southern New Jersey. Conducted Phase II National Register eligibility evaluations of two multicomponent sites (28GL417 and 28GL418). Principal author of project reports submitted to SunPower Corporation and the New Jersey State Museum.
Paradise Solar Energy Project, Gloucester County New Jersey; Phase I and II Archaeological Studies (Project Manager/Principal Investigator 2009-2010) Prepared research design and supervised all aspects of field and laboratory research in support of a proposed photovoltaic solar array in southern New Jersey. Conducted Phase II National Register eligibility evaluations of prehistoric site 28GL415. Principal author of project reports submitted to Paradise Solar, LLC (NextEra) and the New Jersey State Museum.
Caithness Long Island Energy Center II, Phase I Archaeological Survey, Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York (Project Manager/Principal Investigator 2013) Directed all aspects of Phase I archaeological study for proposed natural gas fired power facility in Town of Brookhaven. Principal author of project report and Environmental Impact Statement submitted to Caithness Long Island II, LLC and state and municipal review agencies.
NYSEG Corning Valley Upgrade Project, Towns of Erwin and Campbell, Steuben County, New York Phase I Archaeological Survey (Project Manager/Principal Investigator 2009-10) Prepared research design and oversaw all aspects of archival research, field and laboratory research in support of modernization of a 9-mile electrical transmission corridor and substations. Principal author of project report submitted to New York State Electric and Gas and the New York Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation.
Eastern System Upgrade Project, Orange, Sullivan, Delaware, and Rockland Counties, New York, Phase I Archaeological Investigation (Project Manager/Principal Investigator 2015-16) Oversaw all aspects of archaeological background and field research associated with proposed 7.3-mile natural gas pipeline construction project in southern New York. Contributing author of the technical report to be submitted to FERC and Millennium Pipeline Company.
CPV Valley Energy Center and Transmission Corridors, Archaeological Studies, Town of Wawayanda, Orange County, New York (Project Manager/Principal Investigator 2008-2015) Prepared research design and oversaw all aspects of field and laboratory research in support a proposed gas-fired 630MW power plant. Principal author of project report and Environmental Impact Statement submitted to CPV Valley, LLC and state and municipal review agencies.
Section 106 Oversight for USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service, New York (Principal Investigator and Project Manager) Mr. Sara managed a year-long program for conducting Initial Project Reviews, Field Inspections, and Phase 1 surveys for all planned NRCS conservation projects throughout New York State. He directed a project team of historians, project archaeologists, and GIS specialists in executing Section 106 compliance review process on behalf of the NRCS and OPRHP (NY SHPO).
4 711 Timothy R. Sara, RPA
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Society for American Archaeology New York Archaeological Council
5 712
Jim Shea, PE, PTOE 713 Project Traffic Engineer
Jim T. Shea, PE, PTOE serves as Project Manager/Transportation Engineer and brings experience in a variety of preliminary engineering studies, including traffic impact studies, corridor alternative studies, interchange modification studies, safety studies, road diets, and circulation studies. He has a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer and has considerable experience in traffic analysis using HCS and corridor modeling and simulation using Synchro. In addition to his traffic study experience, Mr. Shea has served as project engineer on numerous roadway reconstruction, resurfacing, and reconfiguration projects with design experience, including horizontal and vertical alignments, drainage, waterworks, traffic control, and signal design. KEY PROJECT EXPERIENCE High River Solar Energy Center – Montgomery County, New York (2019) – TRC is currently evaluating transportation and traffic operational impacts that the High River Solar Energy Center project will have on the adjacent transportation system. The High River Collector Substation will be built to collect roughly 90MW of PV solar power located in upstate New York and transmit to a nearby 115kV interconnection point. Coordination with the New York State DOT was CREDENTIALS completed to determine existing roadway ADT and to obtain existing accident history in the area to complete Exhibit 25: Effects on Transportation. The exhibit evaluates existing transportation Education: conditions, develops site trips for peak construction activities, distributes trips onto the local M.S., Civil Engineering, roadway system and evaluates operational performance along two-lane highway, multi-lane Cleveland State University, highway, and basic freeway segments within the project influence area for both existing 2013 conditions and peak construction conditions. The exhibit will also evaluate safety, coordinate B.S., Civil Engineering, with local law enforcement and school district, and develop worker routing to the proposed site. Cleveland State University, 2007 East Point Solar Energy Center – Schoharie County, New York (2019) – TRC is currently evaluating transportation and traffic operational impacts that the East Point Solar Energy Center Professional Registrations / project will have on the adjacent transportation system. The East Point Collector Substation will Certifications: be built to collect roughly 50MW of PV solar power located in upstate New York and transmit to Professional Traffic a nearby 69kV interconnection point. Coordination with the New York State DOT was completed Operations Engineer, 2013 to determine existing roadway ADT and to obtain existing accident history in the area to Land Surveyor Intern, OH, complete Exhibit 25: Effects on Transportation. The exhibit evaluates existing transportation 2012 conditions, develops site trips for peak construction activities, distributes trips onto the local Professional Engineer, OH, roadway system and evaluates operational performance along two-lane highway, multi-lane 2011 highway, and basic freeway segments within the project influence area for both existing Training: conditions and peak construction conditions. The exhibit will also evaluate safety, coordinate IMSA Traffic Signal with local law enforcement and school district, and develop worker routing to the proposed site. Technician Level II Commonwealth LNG Project – Traffic Impact Study – Cameron Parish, Louisiana (2019) NHI Designing for – TRC was retained to perform a traffic impact study for the Commonwealth LNG natural gas Pedestrian Safety facility and pipeline in Southwestern Louisiana. A combination of collected traffic data and NHI Bicycle Facility Design existing ADT data from LaDOTD was used to develop the Design Hour Volume. Methodology NHI Alternative from the Highway Capacity Manual was then used in developing the LOS at the proposed site Intersections and driveways and adjacent street using HCS7 software. After determining the peak construction Interchanges workforce, construction trips were added to the existing traffic volumes to generate Peak NHI Intersection Safety Construction Design Hour Volumes. These traffic volumes were evaluated using the same ODOT Safety Studies conditions as the existing data utilizing either a two-lane or unsignalized intersection capacity Training analysis. The two sets of data were then compared to determine mitigation techniques to be ODOT Traffic Academy – used and recommendations to the client. Traffic Signals ODOT Traffic Academy – Driftwood LNG Terminal Facilities – Traffic Impact Study Review – Calcasieu Parish, Signing and Pavement Louisiana (2017) – TRC served as a third-party contractor supporting the FERC in the Markings preparation of an EIS (Docket No. PF16-6, CP17-117, and CP17-118) for the Driftwood Project, ODOT Traffic Academy – a proposed LNG liquefaction and export facility and natural gas pipeline project on the Calcasieu Maintenance of Traffic Channel. The proposed project consisted of a 26-MTPA LNG liquefaction facility, berths for ODOT Traffic Academy – three LNG carriers, a material offloading facility, and approximately 96-mile-long, single 36- Interchange Studies through 48-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas from existing pipeline systems to the ODOT Highway Safety LNG terminal facilities. TRC was responsible for the review of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Manual Focused Training developed to evaluate the impacts of the proposed facilities construction workforce of over 5,000 workers on the adjacent roadway system. The study included intersection operational performance analysis at various park and ride locations as well as at the proposed site.
1382 West Ninth Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH, USA, 44113 TRCcompanies.com Tel: 216.505.8579 Email: [email protected]
Jim Shea, PE, PTOE 714 Project Traffic Engineer
PROJECT EXPERIENCE (Cont’d) Eight Point Wind Energy Center – Effects on Transportation – Allegany and Steuben Counties, New York (2016 – 2017) – TRC evaluated transportation and traffic operational impacts of the Eight Point Wind Energy Center project on the adjacent transportation system. The project consisted of constructing over 30 wind turbines in Allegany and Steuben Counties, New York. Coordination with New York State DOT was completed to determine existing roadway ADT and to obtain existing accident history in the area in order to complete Exhibit 25: Effects on Transportation. The exhibit evaluated existing transportation conditions, developed site trips for peak construction activities, distributed tips onto the local roadway system and evaluated operational performance along two-lane highway segments within the project influence area for both existing conditions and peak construction conditions. The exhibit also evaluated safety, coordinated with local law enforcement, coordinated with local schools and developed worker routings to each proposed site. Ohio Department of Transportation, VAR-STW Safety Studies (No. 2018-2 (CMT), 2018-3 (Lanham), 2018-4 (LJB) & 2019-1 (Mead & Hunt)) – TRC is currently providing various traffic and safety engineering services on three statewide safety study task order agreements. These task order agreements support ODOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program which works to improve safety by implementing improvements at high-crash and severe-crash locations. Engineering work tasks include crash scrubbing, development of collision diagrams, signal warrant analysis, queuing analysis, intersection and freeway capacity analysis including microsimulation, signal timing recommendations, countermeasure development and cost estimating. Crashes and countermeasures are evaluated based on HSM predictive methods which calculate predicted crash frequencies for an existing facility and predict crash frequencies for proposed conditions. Traffic and collision data are collected and evaluated through the use of ODOT’s Transportation Information Management System (TIMS), GIS Crash Analysis Tool (GCAT), Economic Crash Analysis Tool (ECAT) and ODOT’s Crash Analysis Module (CAM) tool. Ohio Department of Transportation, VAR-STW Safety Studies (2018-3 Lanham), FRA-71-18.02- 20.28 Safety Study – Columbus, OH (2018) – TRC assisted in providing safety analysis along the I-71 corridor stretching from the I-670 interchange north to the East 17th Avenue interchange. TRC was responsible for scrubbing crash data, providing a hand log for corrections and developing crash diagrams for the segment of I-71 from I-670 to just north of East 5th Avenue. Additionally, TRC assisted with the development of the study by developing detailed cost estimates, plan view layouts and critical cross-sections for short, medium, and long-term countermeasures that included variable speed limit signs and pavement marking upgrades (short-term), installation of additional dynamic message signs to warn traffic of congestion (medium-term) and the potential for an additional lane of capacity or hard shoulder running (long-term). Ohio Department of Transportation, VAR-STW Safety Studies (2018-3 Lanham), FRA-33-22.90 Safety Study – Columbus, OH (2018) – TRC assisted in the geometric review for at the US 33/SR 104 interchange including ramp geometry to Winchester Pike, Refugee Road and James Road. Geometric review included documentation of all horizontal curve data, superelevation data and vertical curve data. With this information TRC was able to provide a comparison of posted speed limits to maximum speed limits based on the geometry. This review also allowed for a comparison of mainline speeds to ramp speeds to determine if the geometry was contributing to accidents. Ohio Department of Transportation, VAR-STW Safety Studies (2018-2 CMT), – MED-3-16.22-17.29 Safety Study – Medina, OH (2018) – TRC assisted in providing a combined safety, operational, and signal timing study for Medina SR 3 (Weymouth Road) from Foskett Road/Remsen Road to W. 130th Street. The study identified short-term and long-term safety and operational benefits in the area by looking at both signal timing and safety. TRC was responsible for capacity analysis using Highway Capacity Software (HCS), turn lane warrants and storage length calculations, signal warrant analysis, cost estimates, and the Modeling portion of the Signal Timing task. Ohio Department of Transportation, VAR-STW Safety Studies (2018-2 CMT), – CUY-71-2.65 Interchange Operation Study – Strongsville, OH (2018) – TRC provided an Interchange Operation Study (IOS) at the I-71/SR 82 interchange. The IOS evaluated lane configuration changes on southbound I-71 between the Ohio Turnpike (I-80) interchange and the SR 82 (Royalton Road) interchange. Configuration changes included: modifying the southbound I-71 exit ramp to westbound SR 82 from a Type I (single lane) exit to a Type III (two lanes with 1 drop lane and 1 option lane) exit; forming an auxiliary lane connecting the SB I- 71 entrance ramp from I-80 to the exit ramp to westbound SR 82; and reallocating the existing pavement width to accommodate a 4-lane section (3 through lanes + 1 auxiliary lane) by reducing the widths of 3 through lanes on I-71 to 11-foot lanes. TRC used Highway Capacity Software (HCS) to analyze all the freeway sections and intersection. A Synchro model was also created to evaluate queuing along I-71 southbound exit ramp to westbound SR 82 and provide recommended turn lane lengths at the intersection. TRC also prepared the IOS report per ODOT’s Office of Roadway Engineering’s studies guidance. ODOT – District 7, CLA-72-6.70/SHE-75-8.53 – Clark and Shelby Counties, OH (Project Engineer: 2017) – Provided traffic engineering and related services for traffic control upgrades at two interstate interchanges. The recently reconstructed IR 75/SR 29 interchange required the installation of traffic signals at both the NB and SB ramp intersections to accommodate additional turning lanes. The IR 70/SR 72 interchange was identified within ODOT’s Safety Program for improvements to reduce crashes and improve mobility. Improvements included signal installation at the WB exit ramp and pavement marking revisions along SR 72 to provide an add lane for the existing EB loop exit ramp. Jim served as the project engineer responsible for the development of two separate plan sets on a fast-track, 4-month design schedule so that District 7 could sell the project on time. Both projects were bid under budget and experienced limited change orders during construction.
1382 West Ninth Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH, USA, 44113 TRCcompanies.com Tel: 216.505.8579 Email: [email protected] 715 716
PETER G. TROTTIER, EI
EDUCATION B.S., Architectural Engineering Technology, Wentworth Institute of Technology, 1989
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS Engineering Intern, Massachusetts (#18717)
AREAS OF EXPERTISE Mr. Peter Trottier, EI, has experience in the following general areas: Planning Studies Preliminary & Conceptual Design Construction Specifications Detailed Engineering Design Spill Prevention, Control & Countermeasure Plans (SPCC) Site Layout and Grading Licensing & Permitting Water Management Permitting
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Trottier has over 28 years of extensive experience in state and local permitting, site planning/layout, grading, stormwater management and erosion control design, sanitary sewer design, potable water system design and permitting for a number of projects in Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida. Mr. Trottier currently serves as Senior Civil Engineer for the Civil Engineering Group.
FREEPOINT SOLAR, Coxsackie Solar Project, Coxsackie NY (Project Engineer: 2018) Mr. Trottier served as the project engineer responsible for the site grading, stormwater management design, erosion control and State permitting for the 5MW solar array in Coxsackie NY.
AVANGRID, NECEC Project, Kennebec River Crossing, West Forks, ME (Project Engineer: 2018) Mr. Trottier served as the project engineer responsible for the site grading, stormwater management design, erosion control and State permitting for the two HDD Termination stations.
Central Maine Power, Detroit Substation, Detroit, ME (Project Engineer: 2016-2017) Mr. Trottier served as the project engineer responsible for the site grading, stormwater
TRCcompanies.com 717 Peter Trottier, EI
management design, erosion control and State permitting for the 115/34 kV substation expansion.
Central Maine Power, Meadow Road Substation, West Rockport, ME (Project Engineer: 2014-2015) Mr. Trottier served as the project engineer responsible for the site grading, stormwater management design, erosion control and State permitting for the 34/12 kV substation expansion.
National Grid, Tewksbury Substation No. 22A 345/115 kV GIS Substation, MA (Project Engineer: 2014) As the civil engineer for this multi-phase project, Mr. Trottier was responsible for State permitting, site grading, and stormwater utility design for the Tewksbury Substation project.
Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. Station 251 (Project Engineer: 2012-2013) Provided site/civil and storm water management design and erosion control for a 115kV substation in Brighton, New York.
Central Maine Power, Berwick Reinforcement Project - Phase III, Substation and Transmission Line Improvements 2011 (Project Engineer: 2011) Mr. Trottier served as the project engineer responsible for producing and coordination of the RFP document for two new 34 kV substations and 12.5 miles of transmission line.
Central Maine Power, Lakewood Substation Expansion 2011 (Project Engineer: 2011) Mr. Trottier served as the project engineer responsible for producing and coordination of the RFP document for the 115 kV Lakewood Substation expansion project.
Central Maine Power, 2011 Permitting Projects, for Starks, Park, Bishop, and Meadow Substations (Project Engineer: 2011) Mr. Trottier served as the project engineer responsible for the stormwater management design, erosion control and State permitting for the four substation sites throughout Maine.
Oakfield Wind Power Project Amendment 106 MW Wind Farm: Oakfield, ME (Project Engineer: 2009-2010) Mr. Trottier served as the project engineer for the Oakfield Wind Power Project Amendment, which includes the development of a permit-level design for a 46 turbine, 106 MW wind farm located in the forested mountains and hills of Northern Maine. TRC’s scope of work included the civil design of the ridge-top turbine sites, with approximately 2 718 Peter Trottier, EI
20 miles of crane and access roads, 31 miles of 34.5 kV collector system including two miles of an underground collector, a 34.5 to 115 kV substation, 60 miles of 115 kV transmission system, and site design for the Operation and Maintenance facility. Mr. Trottier completed the pre- and post-development stormwater runoff analysis, designed the stormwater management plan for the project, and assisted with the access and ridge road design and the project erosion control plans.
Central Maine Power, Maine Power Reliability Program, Transmission and Substation Improvement Project, ME (Project Engineer: 2008-2009) Mr. Trottier served as the project civil engineer responsible for the stormwater management design, erosion control and State permitting for the 13 substation sites throughout Maine.
National Grid, Wakefield Junction 345/115 kV GIS Substation, MA (Project Engineer: 2008) As the civil engineer for this multi-phase project, Mr. Trottier was responsible for the site grading, potable water, sanitary sewer and stormwater utility design for the on the Wakefield Junction Substation project.
Florida Power and Light Company, Broward Substation Facility Relocation Feasibility Project - Broward County, FL (Lead Civil Engineer: 2006-2007) Mr. Trottier served as the lead civil engineer for the substation site planning and transmission line corridor layout for multiple alternatives as part of the feasibility study. He provided state and local permitting research and environmental support for the project.
Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, Phase IV Expansion Project (Project Engineer 2006-2007) Mr. Trottier was lead civil engineer responsible for providing the site grading and layout, stormwater management design and state permitting for five natural gas compression stations sites throughout Maine.
Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Project Engineer: 2005-2006) Provided site and stormwater management design and erosion control for the expansion of several substations for the Rochester Transmission project located in and around Rochester, New York.
PREVIOUS WORK EXPERIEENCE Wilson Miller – Naples Florida (Project Engineer: 1990-2004)
Pete was responsible for surface water management master planning, state and local permitting, utility master planning and site grading design for an upscale residential communities and commercial projects throughout Collier and Lee counties. 3 719 Peter Trottier, EI
PRESENTATIONS Trottier, Peter, “Got Runoff? Stormwater Management & Grading Design for Substations,” ECUI Electrical Transmission and Substations: Civil and Structural Engineering Conference, Denver, CO, December 2013
4 720 721
BRIANNE A. TYLOCK
EDUCATION B.S., Electrical Engineering Technology; Minor, Environmental Studies, Rochester Institute of Technology, 2015
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS OSHA 30 Hour, (#36-601454566), 2017
AREAS OF EXPERTISE Mrs. Brianne A. Tylock, technical experience in the following general areas: SCADA Prefabrication Planning Building Management Systems Solar Site Plans Solar Electrical Drawings Solar Installation Programming Warehouse Management Customer Service
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mrs. Tylock has four years of solar specific experience in the renewable industry. Her qualifications include a vast focus on renewables; from the distribution side, purchasing and inspecting materials, as well as building vendor relations, to the design and permitting side, drawing up electrical drawings and site plans, going to town meetings for permits, writing grants proposals, and even solar installs. Mrs. Tylock’s background includes a focus on Residential, Commercial, and Utility scale solar, with projects ranging from 3kW to 80MW. She currently serves in the capacity of Electrical Engineer with a renewable focus for the Engineering Group in the Power Division.
Walden Green Energy, Potter Solar, 35MW PJM Interconnection Support (February 2019) Mrs. Tylock served as the lead engineer for the development and design of an electrical one-line drawing to support the PJM queue in Pennsylvania. Together with the electrical drawing, a preliminary layout and PVsyst report were generated for this 35MW site. The layout focused on an initial look at the site to determine approximate array locations based on setbacks from roads, residential properties, and the ROW that runs through the property. It also showed an approximate boundary for any necessary clearing of trees on the property. The PVsyst report was generated to reflect the same inter-row spacing and general layout of modules as were placed in the layout. Further production optimization will be evaluated and reflected in future applications.
SolAmerica Energy, Legacy Community Sites, 2MW ABP Interconnection Support (December 2018 – February 2019) Mrs. Tylock served as the lead electrical engineer for the development and design of fourteen electrical one-line drawings with corresponding site layouts to support the Adjustable Block Program in Illinois. Each electrical drawing was PE stamped and in regulation with the appropriate utility requirements at the
TRCcompanies.com 722 Brianne A. Tylock
corresponding POI. Preliminary layouts and PVsyst reports of each of the fourteen 2MW AC sites were developed and optimized in accordance with previously developed SUP buildable area limitations. Each individual layout focused on an optimizing the array locations and tracker positions, sizing and positioning strings and panelboards for install ease, setbacks from roads, residential properties, property lines, wetlands, and archeological sites, and shading analysis for clearing considerations. In addition, all electrical equipment, inverters, electrical equipment pads, and site access roads, utility overhead lines, and POI were specified. A PVsyst report was generated to reflect each of the system layouts, and was used to determine modifications in spacing and array location based on the system losses and shading details, which the software develops. ibV Energy Partners, Henry County Alabama Solar, 80MW RFP Interconnection Support (October 2018) Mrs. Tylock served as the lead engineer for the support of a quick turn-around PV RFP for an 80MW site in Henry County, Alabama. The design required the development of an electrical one-line drawing to support the interconnection and assistance in gathering information for future Interconnection Application development. A preliminary layout and PVsyst report were also generated for this 80MW site, focusing on an initial look at the site to determine approximate array locations based on setbacks from roads, property lines, and the pre-determined wetlands. The PVsyst report was generated to reflect the same inter-row spacing of modules as were placed in the layout.
Olivewood Energy Developments / Granite Apollo, Miscellaneous Solar Feasibility Studies (September 2018 – Present) Mrs. Tylock serves on a team of engineers who assess the feasibility of various NH PV sites. The sites range from 10MW to 50MW, and the assessments cover the analysis of POI availability, existing substation equipment and current generation on the line, and interconnecting cost estimates. Interconnection Pre-Applications are developed by the team and submitted to the utility or ISO NE for official assessment of the determined interconnection line for projects that are determined worthy of pursuing. Mrs. Tylock and TRC’s engineering team has progressed some of these feasibility studies to Interconnection Application support and Electrical One-Line Drawing development.
O’Connell Electric / Rochester Solar Technologies – Victor, NY (Solar System Design Engineer: 2016 – 2018) Mrs. Tylock served as the Solar Design Engineer at Rochester Solar Technologies for 2 years. Her primary role in this position was to develop solar PV three-line electrical drawings and site plans for all residential and commercial projects. This work included stringing all inverters, measuring conduit runs and wire for prefabrication work, voltage drops, checking proper weight distribution, product counts and purchases, accurate panel count proposals, rapid shutdown compliance to the NEC and setback compliance to each individual town code.
Other hats worn by Mrs. Tylock at RST included: Creating large ground mount templates to submit to the utility (distributed generation applications) and to NYSERDA for incentive applications for quick turn-around purposes. Working with towns for permitting and going to town hall meetings to present proposals. Writing grants and feasibility requests for customers to help provide financial assistance and gain access to additional incentive money, including two battery storage applications.
2 723 Brianne A. Tylock
Doing significant research into SCADA developments and curtailment options and helping to program a PLC to perform the building management functions required to curtail the system. Taking customer service calls in the office and accompanying the team to marketing events to perform community outreach, talk with customers, and gain exposure to the company.
VP Supply Corp, Renewable Division – Rochester, NY (Head of Purchasing, Warehousing, Inventory Control, and Logistics: 2015-2016) As head of purchasing, Mrs. Tylock maintained vendor relations and consulted with vendors for pricing and other product related information. She also placed orders with vendors and ensured accurate order confirmation, shipment, and delivery. Other duties consisted of the following: Inspected product deliveries for damage and accurate counts. Received products into system and ensured that products were stored within the warehouse properly and safely. Reconciled any discrepancies with shipments internally and externally. Organized warehouse to become more efficient and reliable. This included recounts of all products, determining old stock and utilizing the space available. All products, once organized, were given locations, which were then entered into the system so that anyone – not just the warehouse crew – would be able to find any part. Coordinated with sales staff to schedule deliveries to meet customer demands. Picked and pulled orders when assistance was needed or a deadline needed to be met. As needed, took orders over the phone and filed paperwork when other sales team members were busy or unavailable. Frequently checked inventory and placed purchase orders as needed to maintain adequate stock to meet customer demands.
Sustainable Energy Developments – Ontario, NY (Internship: 2015) Mrs. Tylock completed her final semester of co-op with SED and was asked to stay on through the summer after school ended. During this internship, she got her first look into renewables, getting to do many tasks for the company, including the following: Assisted sales in contacting leads, setting up appointments, creating preliminary analysis tools, CRM’s, and creating commercial lead lists. - Work required discussions with potential clients and explanation of the process of adding solar power to the customer’s site. In addition, spreadsheets were created todetermine the estimated potential cost and size of the required photovoltaic system based on the discussion with the client as well as Google Earth site review. Contacted all Solarize leads to discuss the program, answer questions, and schedule site visits. - Required analysis of site and collection of information about the potential system in order to hand over to the sales team so they would have all information necessary for their scheduled site visit. Worked with Operations team on design tasks, including: - NYSERDA applications - interconnection packets - Residential and small commercial site plans - Gathering parcel information and designing aerial layouts with setbacks - 3-line diagrams Experience in the field installing residential photovoltaic systems.
3 724 Brianne A. Tylock
Worked with a team to plan, design, and write up a feasibility RFP for NYSERDA. - Personal tasks included writing initial draft, creating the site layouts, organizing and leading meetings to discuss next steps, reviewing future drafts to be sure all requirements were met, and maintaining contact with utility for support. Researched business models, microgrid solutions, zero net energy systems, etc. and presented the results to the CEO. Gathered, organized, and assembled USDA REAP Grant Applications, and construction books. Created, updated, and maintained a PV construction schedule for both field and sales use.
Iberdrola USA (RG&E) – Rochester, NY (Co-Op: 2013) Mrs. Tylock completed her first Co-Op with the local utility Rochester Gas & Electric in the summer on 2013 and was asked to extend the internship through the Fall semester. In this position, she performed fault simulations, installed reclosers, reviewed photovoltaic systems and updated databases and elementary diagrams.
SPECIALIZED TRAINING Completion of a number of NABCEP hours for courses in: - AP Systems - SMA Sunnyboy Products - SMA Tripower - SMA Power+ - SMA Core1 - Solectria - SonnenBatterie Installation - QuickMount PV - Ecolibrium - Canadian Solar - Hanwa Q Cells - Helioscope 2-week Site Prep and Installation of a Vanadium Redox Flow Battery
4 725 726
HEATHER A. VAILLANT, LEED AP, CPESC
EDUCATION M.A., Applied Ecology, Stony Brook University, 2004 B.S., Biology and Environmental Studies, William Smith College, 2002
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS LEED Accredited Professional Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (#7321)
AREAS OF EXPERTISE Environmental Permitting Wetland Delineation Wildlife Habitat Evaluations Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Surveys
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Ms. Vaillant has over 14 years of experience and progressive responsibility in environmental consulting. She currently serves as a Project Manager, managing projects from the proposal stage to project completion, including client coordination, staffing, and oversight of project schedule and budget. Her qualifications include experience delineating and assessing wetland systems, assisting clients with permit issuance at the state, local, and federal levels, environmental inspection of construction projects, and working with technical programs required for data collection and presentation. Ms. Vaillant’s background includes service to public and private-sector clientele.
National Grid, Lasher Road Substation – Saratoga County, NY (Project Manager: 2015 – Present) Ms. Vaillant serves as the Project Manager for the preparation of an Article VII Amendment Application for the construction of a new transmission switching station and distribution substation in Saratoga County, NY. Ms. Vaillant oversaw the preparation of application materials for submission to the New York State Public Service Commission (NYSPSC). She is currently managing Environmental Monitoring services during project construction.
National Grid, Spier Falls-Rotterdam New 115kV Transmission Project – Saratoga and Schenectady Counties, NY (Wetland Scientist & Assistant Compliance Manager: 2010 – 2014; Project Manager: 2014 – Present) Ms. Vaillant was responsible for wetland delineations and invasive plant species inventory along approximately 35 miles of an existing electrical transmission right-of-way. She prepared the Environmental Management and Construction Plan (EM&CP) in support of the project’s Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need pursuant to Article VII of the New York Public Service Law. Ms. Vaillant also prepared an application for eligibility and coverage under the Nationwide Permit program of Clean Water Act Section 404 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. She was responsible for coordinating and tracking permit compliance. Ms. Vaillant is currently managing post-construction studies.
TRCcompanies.com 727 Heather A. Vaillant, LEED AP, CPESC
Confidential Solar Developer – Multiple Counties, NY (Project Manager: 2016 - present) Ms. Vaillant serves as the Project Manager for the wetland delineations, rare species consultations, desktop fatal flaw analysis, and identification of required permits for the potential development of solar array sites throughout NY.
Confidential Solar Developer – Greene County, NY (Project Manager: 2018 - present) Ms. Vaillant serves as the Project Manager for SEQRA permitting and agency and local consultations for the potential development of solar array sites in Greene County, NY. Ms. Vaillant is also responsible for the preparation of an Incidental Take Permit application for potential impacts to state-listed endangered and threatened species.
Confidential Client, 101.8 MW Article 10 Wind Project – Steuben County, NY (EM&CP Lead: 2019) Ms. Vaillant is responsible for the preparation of an EM&CP for a 115 kV transmission line associated with an Article 10 wind project. Ms. Vaillant is overseeing preparation of the EM&CP document, including associated Best Management Practices.
Anbaric Transmission, Vermont Green Line Project – Beekmantown, NY to New Haven, VT (Scientist: 2015) The Vermont Green Line Project is a high voltage direct current (HVDC) 400 MW electric power transmission system running from Beekmantown, New York to New Haven, Vermont. The project includes a HVDC underwater cable to be buried in the lakebed of Lake Champlain, a terrestrial HVDC underground cable, and two converter stations. Ms. Vaillant was responsible for the preparation of the project description, terrestrial vegetation and wildlife, summary of impacts, and cumulative impacts components of Exhibit 4 of the Article VII Application for the New York components of the project.
Confidential Solar Developer – Dutchess County, NY (Project Manager: 2015 – 2016) Ms. Vaillant served as the Project Manager for the environmental permitting for a proposed solar development. Ms. Vaillant is responsible for overseeing wetland delineation, preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form and permitting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and state and federal agency consultations.
Confidential Solar Developer – Multiple Counties, NY (Project Manager: 2016 - present) Ms. Vaillant serves as the Project Manager for the wetland delineations, rare species consultations, desktop fatal flaw analysis, and identification of required permits for the potential development of seven solar array sites throughout NY.
Confidential Solar Developer – Multiple Counties, NY (Project Manager: 2016 - present) Ms. Vaillant serves as the Project Manager for desktop fatal flaw analysis, identification of required permits, and agency and local consultations for the potential development of solar array sites throughout NY.
National Grid, Conductor Clearance Refurbishment Projects – Multiple Counties, NY (Project Manager: 2013 – 2018) Ms. Vaillant serves as the Project Manager on Conductor Clearance Refurbishment (CCR) Projects in eastern and central New York. Ms. Vaillant oversees the development of Part 102 reports for submission to the Public Service Commission under 16 NYCRR Part 102, SWPPPs, notifications for work subject to
2 728 Heather A. Vaillant, LEED AP, CPESC
the NYSDEC General Permit under the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), and Adirondack Park Agency permits for the projects.
National Grid, Electric Transmission and Sub-Transmission Maintenance Projects – Multiple Counties, NY (Project Manager: 2012 – present) As Project Manager, Ms. Vaillant oversees wetland delineation and construction access layouts, the development of SWPPPs, and NYSDEC General Permit under the ECL for electric transmission and sub- transmission line maintenance projects. She also manages the agency consultations for these projects.
Transmission Developers, Inc., Champlain Hudson Power Express HVDC Transmission Project – NY (Wetland Scientist: 2009 – 2012) Ms. Vaillant has had several roles as part of the project team for environmental permitting of the innovative Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) project, which includes approximately 90 miles of proposed underground cable along existing railroad rights-of-way and 244 miles of submarine cable. Ms. Vaillant was responsible for wetland delineations, GPS mapping, and natural community evaluations along existing railroad rights-of-way for the proposed underground transmission cables. In addition, Ms. Vaillant was the lead scientist for conducting surveys for potential habitat for the endangered karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) and butterfly presence/absence surveys in accordance with NYDEC and USFWS survey protocol.
Ms. Vaillant prepared a wetland delineation report to support the project’s Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need pursuant to Article VII of the New York Public Service Law and Army Corps of Engineers permit application. In addition, Ms. Vaillant conducted research at the New York Office of General Services to determine existing utility crossings of waterbodies and assisted in the development of Best Management Practices in support of the Article VII application.
BSC Group, Inc., Environmental Planner: 2005 – 2009 Ms. Vaillant was responsible for preparing permit applications for residential, commercial, recreational, utility, and infrastructure projects. Project responsibilities also included representing clients at public hearings for local and state permits and delineating wetlands using the methodologies set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Manual and the Massachusetts Wetland Delineation Methodology. Ms. Vaillant served as the Project Manager for single-family home, utility, and restoration projects. Ms. Vaillant also conducted stormwater/SWPPP inspections during the construction phase of several projects.
3 729
730
Nancy Vlahos has over 15 years of experience and progressive responsibility in environmental consulting working on a variety of scientific and regulatory projects in the environmental field, including New York State SEQRA review, state and federal permitting and compliance, wildlife impact analyses and SWPPP development and inspection. Her qualifications include extensive hands-on planning, site inspections, permitting, and project management. Ms. Vlahos’ background includes extensive service to public and private-sector clientele. She currently serves in the capacity of Project Manager for the Planning, Permitting and Licensing Division where she is managing the licensing and permitting efforts for numerous community-scale solar developments and supports several Article 10 projects in New York State. She has been assisting with completion and compilation of the Article 10 Application, coordination for review and submittal of the application to applicable agencies. CREDENTIALS
Nancy Vlahos Education: Project Manager • M.S., Environmental Science, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 1999 • B.S., Chemistry, Purchase College, 1994
Professional Registrations/Certifications/Training: • GP-0-15-002 Erosion & Sediment Control (2017) EXPERIENCE Professional Summary: • 20 years of experience Areas of Expertise: • NYS Article 10 Permitting • NYS Article VII Permitting • Project Management • Environmental Permitting • Zoning and Land Use Regulations • Agency Consultation • Environmental Assessments • State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) • Environmental Impact Statements • Stormwater Permitting and Compliance • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans • Stormwater Inspections PROJECT EXPERIENCE NextEra Energy Resources, Trelina 80 MW Solar Energy Center, Article 10 Project located in Waterloo, NY (Assistant Project Manager: 2018 – Present) Ms. Vlahos assists with the project management of the Trelina Solar Energy Center Article 10 Project in New York State. Tasks include oversight of data collection, including field surveys (wetland delineations, noise monitoring, visual photo collection, archaeological surveys, breeding bird surveys, etc.), preparation of Public Scoping Statements (PSSs), and local coordination and guidance on environmental requirements in New York State. Coordinates for review and submittal of documents to applicable agencies, and coordination with the client regarding project status and budget.
Confidential Client, 200 MW Wind Power Generation, Article 10 Project located in Burke, NY (Assistant Project Manager: 2018 – Present) Ms. Vlahos assists with the project management of a 200 MW Wind Energy Article 10 Project in New York State. Tasks include preparation of Public Involvement Plan (PIP), and local coordination and guidance on environmental requirements in New York State. Coordination of review and submittal of documents to applicable agencies, and coordination with the client regarding project status and budget.
ForeFront Power, LLC, Multiple Projects – NY (Project Manager: 2018 – Present) Ms. Vlahos is responsible for the project management of multiple community-scale solar
10 Maxwell Drive, Suite 200, Clifton Park, NY, 12010 TRCcompanies.com Tel: 518.366.3127 Email: [email protected]
731
development projects, primarily in New York. She manages projects from the proposal stage to project completion, including client coordination, staffing, and oversight of project schedule and budget. She oversees the preparation of wetland and waterbody delineation reports, SWPPPs, Limited NEPA/SEQR Reports, agency consultations, and evaluating the feasibility and suitability of the Projects.
Cypress Creek Renewables, LLC, Multiple Projects – NY (Project Manager: 2018 – Present) Ms. Vlahos is responsible for the project management of multiple community-scale solar development projects, primarily in New York. She manages projects from the proposal stage to project completion, including client coordination, staffing, and oversight of project schedule and budget. She oversees the preparation of wetland and waterbody delineation reports, SWPPPs, Limited NEPA/SEQR Reports, agency consultations, and evaluating the feasibility and suitability of the Projects.
E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, Stillwater Battery Energy Storage, Stillwater, NY (Project Manager: 2018) For this project, Ms. Vlahos oversaw coordination of local permits and state water quality permits for a battery energy storage system in Saratoga County, NY. She coordinated with civil engineering contractors to address local site plan and special use permit requirements. She provided quality review for the local and state permit applications for a timely submittal to the local planning board.
National Grid, Various Rebuild/Removal/New Construction Projects – Multiple Locations (Environmental Scientist: 2018 – Present) Ms. Vlahos assists with the environmental due diligence and permitting on multiple National Grid projects of varying scale and scope. She assists with writing agency consultation letters, Article VII Exhibits, Environmental Assessment Reports, Wetland Delineation Reports, USACE Section 10 Pre-Construction Notifications, Part 102 Reports, SWPPPs, and APA Major Permit Applications when required.
Town of Malta Stormwater Management Officer / Senior Planner – NY (2011 – 2013) Ms. Vlahos managed the Town of Malta’s MS4 Program, conducted stormwater inspections and responded to stormwater complaints. She also completed and filed annual MS4 Reports. As the Town’s Senior Planner, she met with applicants and reviewed and prepared site plan, special use, and subdivision reviews for development applications. She staffed monthly Planning Board meetings and performed field inspections to verify that development complied with approved plans.
The Chazen Companies, Senior Planner – NY (2002 – 2009) As Senior Planner, Ms. Vlahos managed multiple large NYS SEQR reviews for land development projects within budgetary and time restrictions. She was involved in the preparation and review of EAF, EIS, FEIS and Findings Statements. She provided quality review to supporting drawings, figures, memos, and documents. Created Public Scoping Documents and related media presentations, attended scoping meetings, and regularly interacted with regulatory agencies. She regularly presented on behalf of applicants at Planning Board meetings and served as the Planning Consultant to local municipalities. Her responsibilities included managing staff schedules and workload and recruiting and training new hires.
10 Maxwell Drive, Suite 200, Clifton Park, NY, 12010 TRCcompanies.com Tel: 518.366.3127 Email: [email protected]
732
BEFORE THE NEW YORK BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Case 17-F-0597 – Application of High River Energy Center, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article 10 of the Public Service Law for Construction of a Solar Electric Generating Facility Located in the Town of Florida, Montgomery County.
REBUTTAL PANEL TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF HIGH RIVER ENERGY CENTER, LLC
Panel Witnesses:
Keddy Chandran William Boer Judith Bartos Heather Vaillant Daniel Marieni Rick Coles
Dated: August 21, 2020
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 733
1 Q. Members of the Panel, please state your names, business affiliations, your role in
2 preparing and sponsoring this Rebuttal Testimony, and whether you previously sponsored
in this proceeding. 3 testimony in this proceeding.
4 A. My name is Keddy Chandran. I am employed by NextEra Energy Resources, LLC. I am
5 the Director for Development, including the Project Director for High River Energy
6 Center, LLC (“High River” or the “Applicant”). I helped supervise the preparation of
7 this Rebuttal Testimony. This Rebuttal Testimony engages the direct testimony filed by
8 the Citizens for Responsible Solar Farm Placement Panel (“Citizens”) and the Direct
9 Testimony of Stephen B. Le Fevre, filed on behalf of the Town of Florida and Citizens.
10 It also addresses certain recommendations in the Direct Prepared Testimony of Staff
11 Panel in Support of Settlement filed by the Department of Public Service (“DPS”) Staff.
12 I previously submitted testimony in this proceeding as a member of the High River Pre-
13 Filed Direct Panel Testimony that was part of the Article 10 Application.
Will the next Rebuttal Panel Member respond? 14 Q. Will the next Rebuttal Panel Member respond?
15 A. My name is William Boer. I am employed by NextEra Energy Resources, LLC as the
16 Environmental Services Project Manager. I helped support the preparation of the land
17 use, glare, and vegetative screening aspects of this Rebuttal Testimony. I previously
18 submitted testimony in this proceeding as a member of the High River Pre-Filed Direct
19 Panel Testimony that was part of the Article 10 Application
mem ber introduce herself? 20 Q. Will the next Rebuttal Panel member introduce herself?
21 A. My name is Judith Bartos. I am employed by TRC Companies Inc. (“TRC”), the
22 consultant to the Applicant in this proceeding. I helped support the portions of the
23 Rebuttal Testimony related to potential visibility of the Project from various viewpoints,
1
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 734
1 glare, and the proposed vegetative screening that is included in the Project design. I
2 previously submitted testimony in this proceeding as a member of the High River Pre-
3 Filed Direct Panel Testimony that was part of the Article 10 Application.
4 Q. Will the next member of the Rebuttal Panel introduce herself?
5 A. My name is Heather Vaillant. I am employed with TRC as a Senior Project Manager. I
6 helped support the preparation of the land use, agricultural, and other environmental
7 aspects of this Rebuttal Testimony. I previously submitted testimony in this proceeding
8 as a member of the High River Pre-Filed Direct Panel Testimony that was part of the
9 Article 10 Application.
10 Q. Will the next member of the Panel introduce himself?
11 A My name is Daniel Marieni. My position at NextEra Energy Resources, LLC is Project
12 Engineer for the Engineering and Construction Department on behalf of NextEra Energy
13 Resources, LLC. I helped support the preparation of the engineering and construction
14 aspects of this Rebuttal Testimony. I previously submitted testimony in this proceeding
15 as a member of the High River Pre-Filed Direct Panel Testimony that was part of the
16 Article 10 Application.
introduce himself? 17 Q. Will the last member of the Panel introduce himself?
18 A. My name is Rick Coles, I am employed by Capitol Airspace Group. Capitol Airspace
19 Group (“Capitol Airspace”) is an aviation consulting firm that provides analytical,
20 strategic, and advocacy services to airports, communities, and commercial developers.
21 Capitol Airspace and its principals have been providing airspace and air traffic consulting
22 services since 1999. The company has worked in excess of 2,000 projects and handled
23 over 50,000 Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) airspace cases. Capitol Airspace
2
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 735
1 has been providing solar glint and glare analysis and consultation support since 2014.
2 The company has fifteen full-time employees and three part-time contractors who have
3 expertise in the areas of airspace analysis, air traffic control procedures development,
4 obstruction evaluation, and solar glint/glare. The company’s offices are located in
5 Alexandria, Virginia. Capitol Airspace conducts solar glint and glare studies utilizing the
6 Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (“SGHAT”) developed by Sandia National
7 Laboratories. These studies are performed in order to identify glint and/or glare
8 occurrence that may impact a pilot or air traffic controller’s ability to perform his or her
9 job. Analyses are conducted in accordance with FAA’s Interim Policy: FAA Review of
10 Solar Energy System Projects on Federal Obligated Airports (78FR63276). Studies may
11 also include glint/glare impacts to non-aviation observers such as motorists, people in
12 houses and buildings, or other areas adjacent to but outside of the airport environment.
13 Mr. Coles has 36 years of experience in ATC operations and system
modernization. 14 modernization.
15 He began his aviation career as a systems engineer assigned to the Host computer
16 system for Martin Marietta (Lockheed Martin) in 1984 as a part of the System
17 Engineering and Integration Contract (SEI) in Washington, D.C. After contract award of
18 the Host contract to the IBM Corporation in 1985, he was asked to relocate to the
19 William J. Hughes Technical Center located in Pomona, N.J. to provide test management
20 support for the SEI to include implementation at the 20 Enroute control centers. Mr.
21 Coles continued at the William J. Hughes Technical Center for the next 11 years with
22 increasing responsibility, including the position of site manager for the SEI, managing 65
3
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 736
1 engineers and supporting a myriad of FAA projects in various degrees of design and
completion. 2 completion.
3 Mr. Coles returned to Washington, D.C. in 1996 and has continued to provide
4 support to FAA programs as a system engineer and a senior manager in the Washington,
5 D.C. area based aviation consulting firms. Prior to joining Capitol Airspace, he was the
6 Vice President for Technical Services for Robinson Aviation (“RVA”), Inc. and was
7 responsible for overseeing all engineering design for programs that involved navigational
8 aids, visual aids and tower communication programs for various airports nationally and
9 internationally. At Capitol Airspace, Mr. Coles is the lead project manager for solar glint
10 and glare analyses and reports. He has completed over 80 glint and glare reports for
11 clients in support of efforts to obtain federal, state, and local municipal approvals prior to
12 permitting.
13 Citizens for Responsible Solar Farm Placement Panel
14 Q. Please address the testimony filed by Citizens.
15 A. Citizens presented a panel of two residents of the Town of Florida and one resident of the
16 Town of Amsterdam. None of the Panel members presented any expert credentials for
17 the matters to which they testify.
18 Q. What are the topics presented in the Citizens’ direct testimony?
19 A. The topics addressed are as follows:
- Arguments about the Article 10 Process; 20 - Arguments about the Article 10 Process;
21 - Disagreement with State Law and Goals Concerning Renewable Energy Siting;
22 - Potential Risk of Wildfires;
sk of Tornadoes; 23 - Potential Risk of Tornadoes;
4
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 737
1 - Potential Visual Impacts;
2 - Potential Glare Impacts;
3 - Waivers of Local Laws; and
Hours 4 - Construction Work Days and Hours
5 Article 10 Process Arguments
6 Q. Please address Citizens’ first contention.
7 A. Citizens is concerned that potential impacts from solar facilities “were not sufficiently
8 evaluated during the drafting of the Article 10 regulations” (p. 13, ll. 12–17). It never
9 points, however, to a specific regulation that fails to capture the potential impacts of a
10 proposed solar facility. To the contrary, the Article 10 regulations are extremely detailed.
11 This was recognized by the Siting Board’s Confirming Order, Issued and Effective June
12 30, 2020, confirming the One Board Member Order of the Chair, dated April 3, 2020. In
13 the latter Order, it is stated that the Article 10 regulations “are quite expansive” (Case 17-
14 F-0597, High River Energy Center, LLC, Order Granting Interlocutory Relief (Apr. 3,
15 2020), at 5). Citizens, however, states it does not agree with the conclusions in this Order
16 (p. 14, l. 7). It similarly disagrees with the compliance determination issued by the Chair,
17 asserting that Citizens did not have enough time to review the Updated Information for
18 Alternative Layout filed by the Applicant in May 2020 (p. 14, ll. 10–14). It never
19 identifies one issue, however, for which it argues with any specificity, that it needed more
20 than the next two months to prepare its direct testimony. As explained later in this
21 Rebuttal Testimony, the Alternative Layout was pursued to minimize impacts even
22 further, thereby becoming the Proposed Layout supported by the three state agency
5
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 738
1 parties and the Applicant, and described in the Certificate Conditions (Certificate
2 Condition 58).
3 Citizens has propounded more discovery of the Applicant, including on the
4 Updated Information for Alternative Layout, than all of the other parties in this case put
5 together, to which all were responded to on time by the Applicant (see Exhibit (“Exh.”)
6 HRR-1, attached hereto, which contains the Applicant’s responses to the discovery of the
7 Town, DPS, and Citizens IR-19 and IR-20. Citizens’ Exh. CP-1 contains the Applicant’s
8 responses to Citizens IR 1-18). Counsel advises that these arguments have previously
9 been made to the Examiners and were rejected in the Ruling on Schedule, issued July 1,
10 2020. Citizens failed to seek interlocutory review of that Ruling from the Siting Board.
11 Citizens (together with the Town), moved to postpone and stay the adopted schedule in
12 the case on July 10, 2020, citing amongst other assertions, this same general argument.
13 That motion was also denied by the Examiners (Case 17-F-0597, supra, Ruling on
14 Motion to Stay the Litigation Schedule (Aug. 13, 2020), at 1). Accordingly, its assertions
15 about not having sufficient time to prepare direct testimony are not credible in our view.
16 Q. Please address Citizens next argument on process.
17 A. Citizens argues that publishing a notice inviting comments on the proposed stipulations
18 would have provided an opportunity to members of the public of which “Citizens is
19 aware of who heard about the proposed siting but were not aware of opportunities to
20 comment in this case” (p. 16, ll. 17–19). Citizens does not identify these people. As
21 relief, Citizens requests that the Board address all the issues raised by it its direct
22 testimony (p. 16, ll. 22–23, p. 17, l. 1). This Rebuttal Testimony addresses the relevant
23 and material assertions raised by Citizens. Their testimony, however, fails to cite the
6
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 739
1 multiple opportunities the public was made aware of the Project, including: four open
2 houses; two informational forums and two public statement hearings conducted by DPS;
3 mailings to hundreds of residents advertising the Project and DPS websites, both of
4 which invite public comment; newspaper notices in three newspapers and mailers to the
5 Stakeholder List of the Preliminary Scoping Statement filing, with an invitation to
6 comment; mailer notices to the Stakeholder List concerning the commencement of the
7 Stipulation Settlement Process with an invitation to participate; and newspaper and
8 mailer notices about the filing of the Application. The Applicant also went beyond the
9 requirements in 16 NYCRR Part 3.9 when it served the August 28, 2019 Notice of
10 Submission of Proposed Stipulations on the 1) Master Stakeholder List, 2) the DMM
11 party list, 3) the depositories, 4) also posted it on its website, and 5) the Notice was also
12 posted on DMM after being approved by the Examiners. A month later, notice of the
13 Application was published in three newspapers, and again served widely on the statutory
14 parties as well as the Master Stakeholder List.
15 Citizens’ argument is not credible because it is particularly self-serving. Citizens
16 never identifies these “uninformed” members of the public, how many, where they were
17 located, whether they received other Project notices, whether they were informed by
18 others of the Project, how they might have been prejudiced, whether Citizens informed
19 them of the Project in their recruiting efforts for their opposition to the Project or that the
20 public could always post comments on the DPS DMM project site under the Public
21 Comment tab, or call the Project toll-free number or post comments on the Project
22 website. Citizens participated in the Stipulation settlement process, did not sign them,
23 and filed comments opposing them. Counsel advises that no party has complained that
7
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 740
1 the Applicant is attempting to argue that a stipulation should be enforced against a non-
2 signatory to the Stipulations, and we are not attempting to do so, so there is no prejudice
3 to any person from allegedly not having received sufficient notice of the Project.
4 Q. Before you address the other topics raised by Citizens, can you address some of the
5 observations made by the individual members of the Panel in the beginning of their
6 testimony?
7 A. Yes, the remarks provide context for some of the positions taken in the balance of the
8 testimony. Mr. Puran states that he built his house on land abandoned for 25 years and is
9 located “on a much higher topographic elevation than where the panels will be located”
10 (p. 4, ll. 10–12) and that when he built his house there was no indication that a solar
11 generating facility would be located nearby (p. 4, ll. 18–21). He does not address
12 whether his expectations were reasonable; building at an elevated location likely prevents
13 screening views of many new structures unless easements or other property rights are
14 secured to maintain his desired viewshed. Apparently, Mr. Puran did not secure these
15 rights. Similarly, Mr. Michalski, who lives in the Town of Amsterdam, across from the
16 Mohawk River about two miles from the Project, is also located at an elevated location
17 but says nothing about, what we believe to be, the unreasonable expectation that his
18 viewshed should not be disturbed forever (p. 6, ll. 16–23, p. 7, ll. 1). Mr. Slezak is also at
19 an elevated location in the Town of Florida but says nothing about whether his
20 expectation that the viewshed will not change is reasonable (p. 7, ll. 12–16). In fact, Mr.
21 Slezak states that he intends to change the viewshed; he seeks to “sub-divide and sell
22 some of my land for residential purposes” (p. 7, ll. 18–23). Although his testimony
23 addresses potential property values, in contravention of the Board’s Confirming Order
8
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 741
1 excluding those issues, he does not discuss the possibility of land, owned by others, in his
2 viewshed being sold off for all sorts of purposes, whether it be permitted uses such as
3 housing, accessory uses, and buildings; or by special permit, such as public utility
4 facilities, radio, TV or wireless towers, rooming houses, adult oriented businesses; or,
5 whether a variance could become available to build a commercial or industrial facility.
6 There are no guarantees.
7 Q. Does Mr. Slezak address the potential use of agricultural lands for the Project?
8 A. Yes, he says that he “does not believe agricultural lands should be used for any other
9 purposes than what God has given it to us for” (p. 10, ll. 10–13). He appears to criticize
10 the participating landowner farmers leasing their land to the Project to supplement their
11 farm income, arguing that “[f]arming is a profitable business but you have to be ready to
12 work hard to be successful” (p. 11, ll. 1–2). He also says that “[t]he Town of Florida is a
13 farming community, let’s preserve that!” (p. 11, ll. 14–15). But, in the same testimony he
14 appears ready to subdivide agricultural land for his own profit and says nothing about
15 requiring a restrictive covenant from his would-be purchasers that would require
16 preserving the lots he sells solely for farming.
17 State Renewable Energy Policies
18 Q. Citizens argue that utility-scale solar “are more aptly placed in commercial or industrial
19 zones or on lands such as capped landfills, decommissioned power plants, former mining
20 areas and brownfield sites” (p. 17, ll. 14–19). Did they submit any studies evaluating the
21 availability of such sites?
22 A. No. Nor did they submit a study explaining how the New York State statutory targets of
23 70% (not 50%, as stated by Citizens (p. 17, ll. 6–9)) of electricity to be generated in 2030
9
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 742
1 come from renewable sources and that by 2040 electric generation be carbon free, could
2 be achieved by the site limitation they propose. The New York State Energy Research &
3 Development Authority (“NYSERDA”) solicitations for utility-scale renewable projects
4 contain no such restriction nor do the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act
5 (“Climate Act”), the State Energy Plan, Article 10, the State Environmental Quality
6 Review Act, or the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth the and Community Benefit
7 Act (“Accelerated Renewables Act”) impose such restrictions. In fact, the June 18, 2020
8 Whitepaper, prepared by the DPS and NYSERDA in Case 15-E-0302 , recommends that
9 NYSERDA should be authorized to increase their annual procurement of renewable
10 energy credits by 40% through 2026 in order to achieve the Climate Act targets (p. 26).
11 Citizens’ goal to maintain “the lifestyle of the nearby residents and the character of the
12 community in which they live” (p. 17, l. 23, p. 18, ll. 1–2) is addressed by the balancing
13 of interests in Article 10—i.e., the balance between the requirement to avoid or minimize
14 significant adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable with the
15 requirement to determine that a proposed project is consistent with the State Energy Plan,
16 is a beneficial capacity addition to the State, is consistent with the Climate Act, and is not
17 inconsistent with achieving the statutory targets for the reduction greenhouse gas
18 emissions. Moreover the Accelerated Renewables Act effectively addressed Citizens’
19 concerns by having a six-month deadline for permit approval for a renewable energy
20 facility if it is proposed to be sited in the type of locations Citizens prefer (Executive Law
21 § 94-c (5)(f)). Recently, NYSERDA issued a Request For Information for build-ready,
22 utility scale renewables, to be located at such sites, together with continuing its well-
10
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 743
1 established practice of issuing unrestricted Request for Proposals for projects to be built
2 anywhere in the State, including on agricultural lands (Exh. HRR-2).
3 Potential Risk of Wildfires
4 Q. At p. 19, ll. 7–9, Citizens state that it “is extremely concerned that leaving brush and
5 mowing clippings on-site will produce fuel for wildfires,” and that having the Applicant’s
6 Renewable Operations Control Center (“ROCC”) in Florida first contact the Project Site
7 Leader before emergency responders are contacted, is an extensive process (p. 20, ll. 21–
23, p. 21, l. 1). Please respond. 8 23, p. 21, l. 1). Please respond.
9 A. At the outset, Citizens presents no facts suggesting that there is an unusual “wildfire” risk
10 in the Project Area. Second, they present no evidence of any local restriction on leaving
11 brush and mowing clippings onsite by the farmers (the majority of the Project Area is
12 presently used for hay production and/or pasture) and other landowners in the Town. The
13 fenced area of the Project that will be maintained is approximately 582.5acres. There are
14 approximately 4,942 parcels in Agricultural Districts in Montgomery County and 642
15 parcels in Agricultural Districts in the Town of Florida. Mr. Slezak farms over 300 acres
16 (p. 7, l. 12–13). Presumably, these farmers are using tractors and other heavy equipment
17 that also pose the daily risk of short circuits or fuel spills that could be subsequently
ignited by sparks or other means. 18 ignited by sparks or other means.
19 We have also reviewed the New York State Department of Environmental
20 Conservation (“NYSDEC”) “Map of Wildfires as Reported by NYS Forest Rangers and
21 Fire Departments, Wildfires per Square Mile 2003-2017 (Feb. 2018)” for the occurrence
22 of wildfires in eastern Montgomery County. Over the last 14 years there have been no
11
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 744
1 fires over 100 acres within Montgomery County or any adjacent county
2 (https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/68333.html).
3 Furthermore, over that same 14-year duration, only 26 incidents of fires over 100
4 acres have occurred. Specific to Montgomery County, there have been 1.4 to 3.4
5 wildfires per square mile within the 410 square mile area of the County from 2003 to
6 2017. Specific to Montgomery County, there have been 0.4 to 3.4 wildfires per square
7 mile within the 410 square mile area of the County from 2003 to 2017. Taking the 0.91
8 square miles (582.5 acres) of area inside the Project fence line as a percentage of the
9 overall area of Montgomery County utilized in NYSDEC’s mapping, that would amount
10 to a risk of 0.026 to 0.221 wildfires at the Project Area over a 14 year timeframe.
11 Q. Please review what measures the Applicant is taking to prevent, detect, and control the
12 risk of fire?
13 A. As Citizens states in its testimony, the Applicant addressed this inquiry in the Response
14 to Citizens IR-6 (Exh. CP-1 at 20–231). As stated in the Response, if a fire occurred
15 within the array area, the Project Site Leader would be alerted by the ROCC that an
16 anomaly is occurring in the solar arrays and the appropriate emergency responders and
17 local fire departments would be alerted immediately thereafter by the Project Site Leader
18 if the source of the anomaly is determined to a fire. The Project will be monitored 7 days
19 a week, 24 hours a day, and alarms will go off at the ROCC if an anomaly occurs (Exh.
20 CP-1 at 22). If an alarm is triggered, to address the Citizens concern, the Applicant is
21 willing to work with the local first responders to ascertain the best and most expeditious
22 means for notifying them. It should be noted that NEER implements a Wildfire
1 Citizens’ Exh. CP-1 is not paginated; the page numbers used herein refer to Citizens’ Exh. CP-1 PDF page numbers. 12
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 745
1 Mitigation Plan for all its projects nationwide, originally formulated to anticipate events
2 such as those that took place recently in the State of California. Part of the Wildfire
3 Mitigation Plan is to send the Site Leaders for each solar project around the country
4 monthly and daily weather assessments for the risk of wildfires. Coupled with real-time
5 alerts of system anomalies from the ROCC, the Project Site Leader will be fully engaged
there is a heightened risk for a wildfire. 6 on days where there is a heightened risk for a wildfire.
7 Q. Did the Applicant prepare a Preliminary Emergency Response Plan (“ERP”) that
addresses, amongst other risks, fires? 8 addresses, amongst other risks, fires?
9 A. Yes, it was presented in Appendix 18-2 of the Application. In addition to steps that will
10 be taken by the Project Site Leader once a fire is detected, it includes training for local
11 responders by High River (App. Appendix 18-2 at 6). This is important because if a local
12 member of the public observes smoke or other evidence of a potential fire, they are free
13 to call the local first responders for assistance. The first responders, having been trained
14 to react to any potential emergencies at the Project, will respond as they would for any
15 local fire alert, and also coordinate with the Project Site Leader to assure the safety of the
16 first responders. Accordingly, the Project provides additional layers of alertness and
17 preparedness compared to what exists in the Project Area today. The Project Site Leader
18 will be backed up by the ROCC monitoring systems and the NEER Wildfire Mitigation
19 Plan weather monitoring on a monthly and daily basis. Finally, the Final Emergency
20 Response Plan is required to be submitted for review and approval as a Compliance
(Certificate Condition 52). 21 Filing (Certificate Condition 52).
22 Note, however, that the risk of fire from a solar facility is extremely low and the
23 risk of spread is also very low (App. Exh. 18 at 7). The solar field itself has no
13
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 746
1 substantial fuel source to support a fire as the panels are primarily metal and glass (Id.).
2 Vegetation beneath the panels will be maintained to a height of less than 2–3 feet (Id.).
3 The inverter units and pad mount transformers contain no hazardous materials, (typically
4 only mineral oils) (Id.). In the unlikely event that a piece of equipment did catch fire, the
5 lack of fuel in the solar field prevents the fire from spreading (Id.). If a fire occurred in
6 an inverter, it would be self-contained, as the inverter concrete pads are kept clear of
7 vegetation. In addition, the Application presents its Preliminary Quality Assurance and
8 Control Plan (“QAQC Plan”), required by Exhibit 12, which provides in relevant part that
9 electrical support personnel will be responsible for “the coordination and monitoring of
10 electrical contractor’s work” and “of all electrical and ground testing of the solar panels
11 and inverters” (App. Exh. 12 at 3). The Plan provides top to bottom oversight of the
12 proper installation and testing of equipment (see App. Appendix 12-1 at 16; see also
13 Certificate Condition 50 (requiring the final QAQC Plan be submitted as a Compliance
14 Filing)). The Project will also be required to comply with the New York State Uniform
15 Fire Prevention and Building Code and the substantive provisions of any applicable local
16 electrical code (Certificate Condition 29). The solar panels and inverters will be required
17 to have satisfied international design standards, including a third-party certification
ition 26). 18 (Certificate Condition 26).
19 Considering these preemptive and exacting regulatory requirements, and the fact
20 that the Applicant has a pecuniary and contractual interest in keeping its Project
21 operational, we believe the Project adds no additional risk of wildfires than what already
22 exists now. The Project’s operation is likely to be more proactive and protective of
23 minimizing the risk of fire than the risks existing farming operations pose now on a daily
14
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 747
1 basis. Citizens acknowledges that existing risk in IR-6, subpart 7, where it states that a
2 fire could start “from, for example, farm equipment” (Exh. CP-1 at 21).
3 Potential Risk of Tornadoes
4 Q. At p. 21, ll. 8–23 and p. 22, ll. 1–3, Citizens states it is very concerned that the Project
5 will put local residents in “danger from flying debris . . . that can be ripped up in the
6 event of a tornado.” It also appears to assume that solar components will be placed
7 throughout a “1,425 acre Project Area” (p. 21, l. 22). No recommendation is provided
8 other than the Board should consider this “potential serious danger to residents” (p. 22, ll.
3–5). Please respond. 9 3–5). Please respond.
10 A. First, the fenced area of the Project, including all solar components will be 582.5 acres,
11 an area about 40% of that mistakenly asserted by Citizens Next, Citizens simply cites its
12 statement in IR-13 that two tornadoes touched down in 2002 and 2011, alleging the
13 respective windspeeds (Exh. CP-1 at 51). The IR provides no source for the alleged wind
14 speeds nor does the direct testimony specify the source. The fact is that tornados are
15 assigned a classification that includes a range of estimated wind speeds, but there is no
actual measurement of the speeds within the tornado. 16 actual measurement of the speeds within the tornado.
17 Accordingly, Citizens selected the upper end of the range for each category of the
18 two tornadoes. Our research indicates that there have been 8 tornado events in
19 Montgomery County between April 1950 to April 2020 that fall within the two categories
20 cited by Citizens. Seven tornadoes were Category F0 (65-85 mph) and one was F1 (86-
21 110 mph) in strength. The Town of Florida 2002 Category F0 tornado, a tornado in the
22 category which comprises the bulk of the tornados in the last 70 years, was described as
23 “weak” (see Steve LaPointe, Florida, NY Tornado, 18 Years Ago Today, WRGB Albany
15
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 748
1 (June 16, 2020), https://cbs6albany.com/weather/weather-extra/florida-ny-tornado-18-
2 years-ago-today). It is unknown if the other tornado cited by Citizens reached the upper
3 range of the category as Citizens alleges. The overall probability for a tornado to occur
4 in the county, however, is very low. There has been a total of 473 tornado events in New
5 York State in the last 70 years, so Montgomery County makes up 1.9% of the tornados in
6 the State.
7 The NYS Hazard Mitigation Plan does not identify Montgomery County or the
8 Town of Florida as a high-risk county or high-risk municipality (NYS Hazard Mitigation
9 Plan, NYS Dep’t of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (2019),
https://mitigateny.availabs.org/hazards/tornado). 10 https://mitigateny.availabs.org/hazards/tornado).
11 In addition, according to the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Montgomery
12 County area is not a high tornado risk (NYS Hazard Mitigation Plan, NYS Dep’t of
Hom eland Security and Emergency Services (2011), 13 Homeland Security and Emergency Services (2011),
14 http://www.dhses.ny.gov/recovery/mitigation/archive/documents/2011/3.6-Tornado-
15 2011.pdf at Fig. 3-102).
16 In response to Citizens IR-13, the Applicant explained that it will comply with the
17 New York State Building Code, which does not specifically address the “tornados” upon
18 which Citizens dwells, but it does address expected wind speeds by area (Exh. CP-1 at
19 51–52). Citizens testimony, accordingly, does not present the complete response to its IR
which also stated the following: 20 which also stated the following:
21 In accordance with the Building Code of New York State, wind
22 loads will be determined in accordance with Chapters 26 to 30 of
23 ASCE 7, set forth by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
16
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 749
1 The wind speeds used for calculation of design wind loads on the
racking system and foundations will be 2 solar panels, panel racking system and foundations will be
3 determined from wind hazard map, Figure 26.5-1C per Section
4 26.5.1 of ASCE 7-10 and regional climatic data per Section 26.5.3
-10 (Exh. CP-1 at 52). 5 of ASCE 7-10 (Exh. CP-1 at 52).
6 Assuming every structure in the Town of Florida complies with the State Building
7 Code, they will be designed based upon wind loads determined from the applicable wind
8 hazard map and regional climatic data. Furthermore, the Figure 26.5-1C wind hazard
9 map is a national map recognized by the American Society of Civil Engineers that
10 indicates basic design wind speeds for buildings and structures that correspond to
11 approximately a 15 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. This map indicates a
12 nominal 3-second gust design wind speed of 105 miles per hour at the Project location.
13 Additionally, the wind speed design for the Project may be refined by performing a site-
14 specific wind study based on regional climatic data per Section 26.6.3 of ASCE 7-10.
15 Citizens allegation that we are ignoring tornado-like wind speeds is, therefore, false.
16 What should be kept in mind is that Project components will be anchored and
17 secured, whereas residences and businesses throughout the Town and County could very
18 well have outdoor equipment, furniture, and the like that are not secured and could turn
19 into the very flying debris that concerns Citizens. Accordingly, given the extremely low
20 risk of the occurrence of tornados, combined with the exacting wind loading
21 requirements of the State Building Code, there is no measurable incremental risk posed
by the Project to nearby residences from potential tornados.22 by the Project to nearby residences from potential tornados.22
17
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 750
1 Potential Visibility of the Project
2 Q. Citizens asserts that the Project will destroy the viewshed of the residents of the Town
. 9–14). Do you agree? 3 and the Town of Amsterdam (p. 24, ll. 9–14). Do you agree?
4 A. No, we do not. Citizens first argues that it could not find answers about proposed tree
5 clearing on the proposed Project layout as updated in the February 2020 Supplement and
6 in the May 2020 Informational Updates, specifically the substitution of the Envision
7 Dairy parcel for parcel 88.-1-11 (p. 26, ll. 2–15). It appears that, because it could not find
8 this information, it recommends that the Siting Board “disallow any tree clearing in the
9 Project Area that would have otherwise provided natural vegetative screening for any
10 residence of either the Town of Florida or the Town of Amsterdam” (p. 27, ll. 1–6). It
11 should be noted that the Town of Amsterdam has not been an active party in this
proceeding. 12 proceeding.
Can you clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding? 13 Q. Can you clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding?
14 A. We will attempt to do so. In its response to Citizens IR-10, the Applicant stated that it
15 proposes to clear 65 acres of trees of which 23.2 acres is proposed to be used to locate
16 solar panels (Exh. CP-1 at 42). That means the Applicant is preserving about 205 acres
of the 270 existing acres of trees in the Project Area. 17 of the 270 existing acres of trees in the Project Area.
18 Nearly all tree clearing is located within the interior of the Project Area (where
19 the solar arrays are proposed), and areas adjacent to the proposed perimeter fencing, and
20 not along the Project Area boundaries (see Supplement to App., Attachment C). Thus, to
21 address Citizen’s concern, no trees that would otherwise screen the Project at its
22 perimeter will be removed. The existing areas of trees along the Project boundaries will
23 not be cleared and will serve as natural vegetative screening during operation of the
18
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 751
1 Project. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing over 25,500 linear feet of new
2 vegetative landscape buffers to provide further screening (see Updated Information
3 Concerning Alternative Layout (“Alternative Layout Update”), at Attachment B).
4 As to Citizens’ concern that the Applicant was providing “non-answers” and
5 “refused” to answer questions (see p. 26, ll. 12–19), those accusations are inaccurate.
6 At the time of the Applicant’s responses to Citizens IR-7, -12 and -17, the design
7 for the Updated Layout was not yet finalized, and therefore an exact answer could not be
8 provided. However, the requested information was included in the May 26, 2020 filing
9 (see Alternative Layout Update, Attachment A, Preliminary Drawings Part 2 of 3). As
10 depicted on Sheet C.405 “Tree Clearing Plan – 6” of the site plan drawings, no tree
11 clearing is proposed within 125 feet of the boundary line of tax parcel 88.-1-11, the
12 property owned by Envision Dairy LLC (Id. at Sheet C.405). Therefore, existing
13 vegetative screening will remain and be supplemented with proposed landscaping as
14 depicted on the Landscape Screening Plans for the Project as updated in May 2020.
15 Q. Citizens next contends that siting panels at the Envision Dairy parcel will make the
16 Project visible to eight parcels along Bulls Head Road and “possibly thousands of
17 residents in the City of Amsterdam” (p. 28, ll. 16–22). Is the statement accurate?
18 A. No, it is not. As explained in the response to Citizens IR-8 (Exh. CP-1 at 36), the
19 relocation of panels to the Envision Dairy parcel helps avoid construction on steep slopes,
20 which in turn helps minimize stormwater runoff to neighboring properties, a concern
21 voiced in the Citizens/Town testimony of Mr. Le Fevre (p. 3, ll. 20–22). It also reduces
22 visibility of the Project from Interstate 90, which is closest to the Town of Amsterdam.
23 Furthermore, by relocating the panels from Parcels 73.-1-28.1 and 89.-1-8.11 to Parcel
19
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 752
1 88.-1-11, visibility of the Project from the most densely populated area, at the intersection
2 of Pattersonville Road and Bulls Head Road, has been reduced significantly. Parcels 73.-
3 1-28.1 and 89.-1-8.11 originally had setbacks from parcel boundaries proposed of only 80
4 feet and 14 feet, respectively. The Alternative Layout now relocates panels off of these
5 parcels (in the area of Pattersonville Road and Bulls Head Road) and on to the Envision
6 Dairy Parcel 88.-1-11 (along Thayer Road) where a 200-foot minimum setback from
7 parcel boundaries is proposed.
8 We will address the allegations about views from the City and Town of Amsterdam later
9 in this Rebuttal Testimony.
10 Q. Please provide some general comments about the photographs and simulations presented
-4. 11 by Citizens in Citizens Exh. CP-4.
12 A. Citizens failed to present the two people that took the photographs and prepared the
13 simulations as witnesses. Accordingly, there is no witness sponsoring them for the
14 evidentiary record. As to their credentials, no information is provided as to their prior
15 experience producing simulations in an Article VII, X, or 10 proceeding, or comparable
16 adjudicatory proceeding, that have withstood regulatory scrutiny by adversarial parties,
17 administrative law judges or a body charged with making decisions on contested energy
18 infrastructure. No curriculum vitae are provided for either witness. There was no
19 discussion on methodology used to take the photographs nor to produce the simulations
20 provided by the Citizens Panel. There is no indication on what software was used. There
21 is no discussion as to whether these two individuals ever considered the Visual Impact
22 Assessment (“VIA”), required by the Article 10 regulations, and presented in the
23 Application, when they took the photographs and prepared the simulations.
20
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 753
1 The visual impact assessment team at TRC was led by High River witness Judith
2 Bartos, a member of this Rebuttal Panel, and also a member of the Applicant’s Pre-filed
3 Direct Panel Testimony, submitted with the Article 10 application. The direct testimony
4 presents her curriculum vitae and an explanation of her Article 10 and VII and related
5 work experience taking photographs and preparing simulations and otherwise working
6 with the Board’s Exhibit 24 regulations and implementing the visual Stipulation (No. 24).
7 Q. Is the methodology used to prepare the simulations for all the submittals by the Applicant
8 time-tested in New York State?
9 A. Yes, and in different regulatory venues. Ms. Bartos has been a Senior Geographic
10 Information System (“GIS”) analyst since 2001 using ESRI ArcMap software and related
11 modules. She has been producing visual simulations, (and VIAs), since 2005 using a
12 visualization software called Autodesk 3ds Max (also formerly called Studio Viz),
13 combined with GIS analysis that assists with the simulations. Simulations produced by
14 Ms. Bartos or the team under her supervision have been submitted to New York State for
15 regulatory review under Article 10, Article VII, or the SEQRA process for numerous
16 other projects for the last 15 years. All of the simulations for these former projects have
17 undergone scrutiny by various departments, agencies, and third party reviewing. Based
18 on her experience with reviewing agencies in the mid 2000’s, she developed a technical
19 methodology that is defensible on the witness stand with respect to accuracy. It is also
20 important to note that the software that was used to produce the simulations is an industry
21 standard visualization software. This is a software that generally other consultants use
22 for simulations of renewable energy projects in their Article 10 submittals.
21
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 754
1 Q. Did the Citizens Panel offer any criticism of the methodology used by the Applicant to
produce the simulations? 2 produce the simulations?
3 A. No. Nor did they criticize or comment on the simulations that High River presented from
4 the viewpoints representing the locations near where Citizens took their photographs.
5 Q. Please summarize the arguments presented by Citizens based upon the simulations they
6 have prepared?
7 A. Citizens argues that 50-foot trees in an existing hedge row will provide minimal, but not
8 total, screening of the Project from Mr. Puran’s residence (p. 30, l. 21). A similar
9 argument is made for the Vandetta’s and the two Slezak residences (pp. 31-33). With
10 respect to simulations from the elevated positions from the Town of Amsterdam, the
11 “impossible to screen argument” is also presented. As noted earlier in the Citizens’
12 testimony, and addressed by this Rebuttal Testimony, these residents chose to live at
13 elevated locations, so the reasonable expectation is that nothing can totally screen
14 development in their viewsheds. They certainly cannot be arguing that the rights of other
15 landowners to use their property within the confines of the law should be denied. Their
16 stance in their testimony also implies that these residents are somehow entitled to
17 exercise zero tolerance for any change to which they may object in their respective
18 viewsheds. That entitlement or expectation is unreasonable in our view and is not
19 required by Article 10. Potential impacts only need to be avoided or minimized to the
20 maximum extent practicable, not eliminated entirely, and then they are balanced with the
21 renewable, economic, and other benefits of the Project. Indeed, at p. 32, l. 18, Citizens
22 repeats the very revealing statement that “the Slezak’s own over 300 acres of land which
23 they might want to subdivide and sell at some point.” Who knows what would be built
22
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 755
1 there and whose viewshed it might affect? The conclusion to be drawn is that Mr. Slezak
2 can dictate what the viewshed for his neighbors might be, but landowners seeking to
3 supplement their income by leasing their land for renewable energy development cannot.
4 Q. Ms. Bartos, do you believe the visual representations presented by the Citizens’
5 simulations are accurate, thereby allowing them to be relied upon in this proceeding?
6 A. No, I do not. Citizens Direct Testimony does not discuss methodology and I am relying
7 on the Citizens Response to interrogatory HR-2, dated August 14, 2020 (Exh. HRR-1 at
8 26) which states that Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Photoshop software was used to
9 produce the simulations. Because this methodology and software was used, all of the
10 Citizens simulations can be considered untrustworthy with respect to accurate depictions
11 of the Project. Using these programs, these simulations are akin to “eyeballing it” and
12 fitting a picture of panels that are “pasted” into the image based on a “best-guess.”
13 Photoshop and Illustrator are not GIS based programs that take geographically derived
14 data and place it accurately in a real-world x,y,z coordinate system such as New York
15 State Plane Feet East. Nor do these programs “build 3d objects” from the ground up
16 according to scale within a designated coordinate system and compute them to an
17 accurate size and scale sized based on distance that allows objects to be placed in the
18 photo with certainty. Currently, there are no consultants working on New York based
19 projects that I can think of that would submit simulations under the Article 10 process
20 using Photoshop and Illustrator and expect them to be accurate or defensible. Upon
21 review, there also appears to be a series of errors and inconsistencies that were made that
distort, inadvertently or not, the predicted views. 22 distort, inadvertently or not, the predicted views.
23
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 756
1 First it appears that the Project Layout was not closely examined and adhered to.
2 Citizens HR-2 Response (c) states “[g]iven that maximum coverage would be desired by
3 solar installers for efficient use of land and highest production per square foot, exact
4 panel size to be installed was not needed. Solar fields look nearly seamless, excluding
5 peripheral viewpoints to the solar panel plane” (Exh. HRR-1 at 26–27). This very
6 general assumption is not correct. The Citizens simulations show in some cases panels
7 placed where they are not proposed by the Applicant. For example, for the photos across
8 the Mohawk River to the north, namely Picture 1 and 2 for 1205 Touareuna Road, Picture
9 1 for 274 Swart Hill Road, Pictures 1 and 2 for 258 Swart Hill Road, and roadside Picture
10 1 from Swart Hill Road, the Citizens simulations appear to “fill” the entire fields with
11 panels (CP-4 at 21–32). When compared to the proposed Layout, this is not the case (see
12 VIA Update for Alternative Layout, Attachment 1). While yes, “maximum coverage
13 would be desired by solar installers,” there are other factors that make this blanket
14 assumption untenable. According to the Applicant’s Proposed Layout, there are spaces
15 and breaks occurring in areas across the hillside where panels will not be due to steep
16 slopes and property setbacks. One of numerous examples I note is that the panels will
17 not directly wrap around the peninsula of trees embedded in the field nor extend to the
18 boundaries at the leftmost (eastern) field for these simulations north of the Mohawk River
19 as they are depicted in the Citizens simulations.
20 Second, for the Swart Hill, Touareuna Road and Krutz Road simulations the
21 panels in view are facing the wrong direction. These roads are north of the Project and
22 the panels in the simulations are facing north. These simulations are not correct, and
23 panels should be facing south in the opposite direction where you will not see the panel
24
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 757
1 faces as such. Again, the proposed Layout does not appear to have been consulted nor
2 basic solar principles considered, as according to the plan these are proposed fixed panels
3 in the view, and they face south. From a solar efficiency standpoint, solar panels would
4 not be facing in a northerly direction. Accordingly, the visual representation of the
5 Project then for this group of simulations north of the Mohawk River is inaccurate and
misleading. 6 misleading.
7 Third, at least at the Swart Hill, Touareuna, and Krutz Road locations, the size of
8 each panel square in the arrays do not appear accurate and are overly larger than what is
9 proposed. Citizens response to HR-2 Response (c) states “[g]iven that maximum
10 coverage would be desired by solar installers for efficient use of land and highest
11 production per square foot, exact panel size to be installed was not needed” (Exh. HRR-1
12 at 26–27). And in Citizens’ HR-2 Responses (d) and (e), it is stated that “[p]anels were
13 approximately placed within photos using landmarks in field photos to delineate the
14 perimeters of the solar fields. Using distance indicators, such as trees, houses, etc.,
15 panels were sized proportionately to the surrounding elements” (Exh. HRR-1 at 27).
16 Exact panel and array size built to proposed specifications is indeed needed and a proper
17 visualization software is needed to set up a 3D environment which replicates photo
18 conditions and camera settings in order to scale them accurately at distance. This is also
19 combined with input data such as GPS locations, terrain elevations, and camera focal
20 lengths along with a 3D model of Project arrays built to scale. “Eyeballing it” against
21 houses or trees and scaling the size according to “feel” within a non-coordinate or non-
22 GIS based graphics program is not adequate, with too much room for error.
25
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 758
1 One can easily see in the Citizens simulations that there are individual solar panel
2 “squares” that are larger than foreground houses. Of course, realistically, solar panels are
3 much smaller than houses. Citizens HR-2 Response (b) states “Array Modules were built
4 to replicate standalone pole mounted solar panels, most commonly used in commercial
5 applications” (Exh. HRR-1 at 26). This statement reveals that neither the VIA, the panels
6 nor the tracking system details in Appendix 2.1 in the Article 10 Application appear to
7 have been examined where information on how to build the modules, including their
8 proposed height above ground, is available. These fundamental discrepancies undermine
9 the probative value and credibility of all the Citizens simulations. For example, overly-
10 sized panels appear for 937 Bulls Head Road, Picture 1 as well (see CP-4 at 12). In this
11 simulation there are panels that appear to be the same size as adjacent mature trees in the
-field. 12 mid-field.
13 Fourth, the arrays in the Swart Hill and Touareuna Road simulations do not
14 appear as if they have been placed on the hillside terrain correctly, possibly making them
15 appear higher and more visible than they actually are. Looking at this group of
16 simulation calls into question the height of the arrays in relation to trees or surrounding
17 landscape in any of the simulations. For example, in the simulations for 258 Swart Hill
18 Road Pictures 1 and 2, the panels do not appear as if they have been placed so that they
19 follow the elevation contour changes across the land but are placed in a solid, fixed
20 straight horizontal shape across the hill regardless of where any landscape features might
21 occur (see CP-4 at 28, 30). The response to HR-2, however, does not state that terrain-
22 based data was used (such as LiDAR elevation data), or that terrain matching
23 methodologies were used, to assist in placing the Project on the ground surface.
26
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 759
1 Fifth, I have stated above that the panels are facing the wrong direction and in
2 addition appear to be overly sized in relation to the landscape for the Swart Hill and
3 Touareuna Road locations. In addition, the look of the panels depicted in the simulations
4 is incorrect. The prominent gray edges of the panels show a very thick, bright frame edge
5 around every single panel and gives the appearance of a bright checkerboard and visually
6 cluttered pattern across the landscape. Some of the frames are observed to be as thick as
7 tree trunks that are visible in the photo. These simulations are again visually misleading.
8 Frame edges around the proposed Jinko Eagle solar panels are approximately 1 to 2
9 inches. One to two-inches will not be visible as such at 1.5 to 2.0 miles away. In fact,
10 diminished quality of panel frames is demonstrated by a photo in Citizens own Exhibit
11 CP-5 Glare Impacts. Picture 1 of CP-5 shows solar panels at an existing solar facility
12 along Route 30. The location of this photo was identified on a map and was determined
13 to be approximately 460 feet from the viewer. Even in the Citizens example of an
14 existing solar array at 460 feet away, thick bright frame edges are not visible, indicating
15 the misrepresentation the panels depicted in just about all of the CP-4 simulations at
. 16 distance.
17 Q. Can you add anything about the predicted views from these locations?
18 A. Even if the Citizens simulations were credible, the views from the Town of Amsterdam at
19 their selected locations are distant. Project arrays visible in the simulation views are
20 between 1.5 and 2.6 miles away. The view shown from Touareuna Road (CP-4 at 23), is
21 partially screened by existing vegetation. The views from Swart Hill Road (CP-4 at 25,
22 29, 31), show an undulating terrain, with vegetation and buildings existing throughout the
23 distant views. Lastly, from Kurtz Road (CP-4 at 34), which is not a governmental-
27
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 760
1 designated scenic viewpoint, utility poles, wires and traffic signs clutter the view. One
2 would have to twist and/or duck to see a portion of the Project, that is about 1.4 miles
. 3 away from this location.
4 Q. Please address the Citizen’s simulations from 859, 1005 and 937 Bulls Head Road, as well
simulation from the Slezak property on Mohr Road. 5 as the simulation from the Slezak property on Mohr Road.
6 A. Simulations 3 and 4 of the panels at 859 Bulls Head Road in the adjacent field are not
7 correct and the panels are facing in the wrong direction. The arrays in the simulations are
8 depicted, incorrectly, as fully facing the viewer to the west. These are fixed panels
9 proposed in the adjacent field which should face south. Also, in Picture 1 at 859 Bulls
10 Head Road, there are solar panels that cover the barn in the background which is not
11 correct as the barn will remain in place adjacent to the solar arrays (CP-4 at 2). In most
12 of the simulations the panels appear to be floating in air and no racking system can be
13 seen. This incongruity, caused by the rough generalities applied through the use of
14 Photoshop and Illustrator software, in addition to no apparent use of terrain data or
15 visualization software, terrain matching methodologies, indicates that the panels have a
16 high potential of being incorrectly elevated, thereby accentuating their potential visibility
17 and prominence in the Citizens simulations. The solar arrays are sited in Picture 1 are
18 approximately 565 feet from 859 Bulls Head Road. I noted earlier that the panels
19 simulated at 937 Bulls Head Road in some areas appear as large as adjacent mature trees,
20 thereby exaggerating their visibility as well. The views from 937 and 1005 Bulls head
21 Road are also distant views, approximately 1890 and 1320 feet away, respectively, to the
22 nearest Project arrays. As I assume that the same Photoshop methodology was used for
23 all the simulations, they would all suffer some level of inaccuracy such as overly
28
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 761
1 elevated, exaggerated bright frame edges or grossly oversized panels in addition to
2 several facing in the wrong direction. They simply are not reliable representations of
3 what the Project would look like from representative viewpoints, the standard in the
Article 10 regulations. 4 Article 10 regulations.
5 Q. What do the simulations, performed and submitted by the Applicant, show at the
6 representative viewpoints at or near the locations selected by Citizens?
7 A. Several simulations that were produced for the Project in the Article 10 Application
8 and/or VIA updates are near the Citizens locations of concern at Swart Hill Road and
9 Bulls Head Road. The representative simulation by the Applicant for Swart Hill Road in
10 the VIA is VP26 and is near several of the Citizens simulation and residence locations.
11 VP26 (Exh. HRR-3) is approximately 230 feet from the Martuscello residence at 258
12 Swart Hill Road and 210 feet from the McDonald residence at 274 Swart Hill Road. One
13 can see the comparison between simulations. The arrays in view in the Application VP26
14 simulation are not as prominent and show panels that are between 1.5 and 2.1 miles away
15 that are sized and scaled accurately within the landscape. Panel sizes are not higher than,
16 nor as large or larger than foreground buildings or nearby trees. The arrays correctly face
17 south, not northerly as in the Citizens simulations; therefore, we are seeing the back of
18 the panels with no checkerboarded panel faces as seen in the Citizens simulations. We
19 are also seeing arrays located at their actual proposed locations according to the Proposed
20 Layout and per the methodology described in the Response to Citizens IR-20 (Exh. HRR-
21 1 at 9–15).
22 Q. What other differences from the Citizens “simulations” are there?
29
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 762
1 A. As shown in VP26, the entire field is not proposed to be entirely packed with arrays, as
2 Citizens did, and there is space between array groupings. In several sections within the
3 hillside fields they are offset quite some distance from known property boundaries and
4 existing tree rows as seen in VP26. Not all portions of a site can be used for arrays. The
5 site (and the field in view) was designed to maximize setbacks and avoid areas with steep
6 slopes as well as minimize tree clearing. As a result, the Project does not dominate the
7 hillside such as they do in the Citizens simulations and instead shows a much more
8 subdued visual effect. As noted in Section 10.2.1.3 of the Application VIA, the level of
9 discernible detail is low and there is no horizon line interrupted for the proposed
10 conditions (App. Appendix 24-1 at 46). The placement of the panels in geometric
11 arrangement as well as providing gaps within the arrays is similar to and mimics the
12 existing field-forest pattern and line. Contrast ratings are required by the Article 10
13 regulations. It rates the visual change between existing and proposed conditions of a
14 Project. Mostly due to distance and the way the Project integrates with the hillside, VP26
15 was found to have one of the lower ratings assigned (average rating of 11), where
16 panelists rated visual contrasts as moderately weak (rating scale 9 is weak, 18 is
moderate, and 27 is strong). 17 moderate, and 27 is strong).
18 Q. Please address the next representative viewpoint where the Applicant performed
19 simulations.
20 A. The representative simulation that is on Bulls Head Road is VP27 in the May 2020 VIA
21 Update (Exh. HRR-3). VP27 was obtained from the public roadway as close as possible
22 to the residence at #859. The photo viewpoint was taken 730 feet south of the 859 Bulls
23 Head Road Puran residence and is also 212 feet east and representative of the Karen
30
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 763
1 Slezak residence at 843 Bulls Head Road. A direct comparison cannot be made between
2 VP27 and the Citizens simulations that appear to be in the back property of Mr. Puran
3 because they are in different locations.
What does VP27 show? 4 Q. What does VP27 show?
5 A. Section 6.1.1.1 of the May 2020 Update summarizes the view for VP27 as it appears
6 from the road. For the proposed fixed arrays that are in the view the size and scale of the
7 Project has a small low-profile appearance in comparison to the trees that surround the
8 field with a horizontal linear flow that conforms to the topography. There are no
9 proposed vertical elements from the Project that interrupt the horizon line. Contrast that
10 the Project provides is a lateral breadth of color change from light to dark. The color
11 contrast is apparent against the field color itself and changes the look of the middle
12 ground. However, the new color is fairly compatible against the existing trees that the
13 panels are visually set against. Contrast ratings for existing and proposed conditions
14 were applied to the May 2020 Update. While VP27 is an updated simulation, panelist
15 opinion on the rating did not change from the previous contrast ratings in the Application
16 when the Project formerly had tracker arrays in the view. The contrast rating for VP27
17 location then, resulted in an average rating of 11.2 and is considered moderately weak
18 within the rating scale of 0 to 27. Data on the raw panelist rating forms indicate that for
19 VP27, the contrasts are attributed to color and form against existing conditions yet are
20 somewhat mitigated by the placement of the panels against the existing forested areas.
21 Q. Please address the next representative viewpoint.
22 A. VP28 as seen in the May 2020 Update can be considered a representative simulation for
23 the Mark Slezak residence at 937 Bulls Head Road and for the VanDetta residence at
31
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 764
1 1005 Bulls Head Road (Exh. HRR-3). VP28 lies almost equidistant between the Slezak
2 and VanDetta house locations; it is 827 feet east of Mr. Slezak and 953 feet west from
3 Mr. VanDetta. VP28 would be comparable to the character of the view each house
4 location would likely experience in terms of size, scale, and placement of the Project
5 within the forested area, as all views would be looking north to fixed and tracker arrays.
6 The nearest arrays in the view of VP28 and the Slezak and VanDetta residences are 8-
7 foot fixed arrays in the foreground that face south while there are both tracker and fixed
8 tracker arrays behind them. VP28 also has comparable distances to the Project at the two
9 house locations. VP28 is 0.3 miles (1584 feet) from the Project while Mr. Slezak is
10 approximately 0.38 miles (2006 feet) from the Project while Mr. VanDetta is 0.27 miles
11 (1426 feet) away. Section 6.1.1.2 in the May 2020 Update describes the proposed Project
12 similarly, as with VP27 in that the size and scale of the Project has a small low-profile
13 appearance in comparison to the trees that surround the field with a horizontal shape that
14 conforms to the topography. There are no proposed vertical elements from the Project
15 that interrupt the horizon line. The Project provides a lateral breadth of color change
16 from light to dark. The level of discernible detail is low. Contrast ratings as required for
17 existing and proposed conditions were also applied to VP28 in the May 2020 Update.
18 While VP28 is an updated simulation, like VP27 the panelist opinion on the Project
19 contrast rating did not change from the previous rating in the Application when the
20 Project formerly had tracker arrays in the view. The contrast rating for VP28 location
21 was given an average rating of 12.1 and is considered moderately weak within the rating
22 scale of 0 to 27. Data on the raw panelist rating forms indicate that for VP28 the
23 contrasts are attributed to color and form against existing conditions but much of the
32
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 765
1 Project is nestled against existing forest and do not show much discernible detail at the
2 viewer distance.
3 Q. Are there any representative viewpoints near David Slezak’s property?
4 A. Simulation VP15c of the Application is located on Mohr Road west of lot 89.-1-7 (see
5 Exh. HRR-3). This lot is currently open undeveloped land owned by Mr. Slezak. VP15c
6 was obtained from the public roadway. This viewpoint is looking west towards the
7 Project that is approximately 437 feet away and Mr. Slezak’s lot is behind the viewer. In
8 the vicinity of VP15c as seen in the foreground, there is an approximate 1850-foot stretch
9 of roadside vegetation that lines the western side of Mohr Road between the viewer and
10 the arrays that the Project has utilized as a screening buffer. The viewer is looking
11 through a gap in this vegetation and as the simulation indicates, not all views in close
12 proximity are full-on views (App. Appendix 24-1 at 46). Although the (fixed) panels are
13 visible through the gap and partial views of panels on the hill can be seen, much of the
14 Project is behind the vegetation. The contrast rating for VP15c location was given an
15 average rating of 14.4 and is considered a moderate visual change within the rating scale
16 of 0 to 27. As taken from the raw rating forms, a couple of panelists commented that
17 this section of the array field presented in this view fits relatively well into the existing
18 landscape where the Project works with the existing terrain and that the foreground
19 roadside vegetation helps to temper the scale contrast.
20 Q. At p. 36, l. 5, Citizens, without performing their own viewshed analysis, or even relying
21 upon the analyses submitted by the Applicant, and relying on one picture they took from
22 Mr. Puran’s residence, states that it “shows a small section of the properties in the city of
23 Amsterdam that will have their viewshed destroyed” Do you agree?
33
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 766
1 A. No. This is an exaggeration, both with the photo example on page 35 of CP-4 and the
2 statement itself. The photograph is a highly zoomed-in view of the City of Amsterdam
3 from 859 Bulls Head Road which is not where the Project is located, and therefore is
4 misleading. It shows that some of the residents in the City of Amsterdam have a view of
5 the 859 Bulls Head Road residence. Citizens response to HR-1, dated August 14, 2020,
6 indicates this photo was also taken 18 feet above the ground surface, with a camera lens
7 setting of 135 mm, resulting in a very high zoom level which suggests the view is from
8 either an outside deck or possibly an upper story window (Exh. HRR-1 at 21).
9 The City of Amsterdam is approximately 3 miles away and not as close as the
10 zoomed-in Picture 1 indicates. The City of Amsterdam viewshed would not be
11 destroyed. The Project would occupy a very small sector of a 360 degree viewshed
12 around vantage points from the City 3 miles away. Furthermore, any visibility of the
13 Project from the City is not in isolation. The residents will also have much larger urban
14 and visually cluttered city elements at closer proximity occupying their view and which
15 likely pose far more and prominent focal points than views of something in the landscape
16 3 miles away; and, because of distance, the visual acuity of the Project will be diminished
17 because of the low level of perceived detail and low-profile arrays, unlike the proximal
18 urban city elements that will be occupying the view of city residents. If the closest
19 foreground trees in the photo are indeed the tree row at the edge of the 859 Bulls Head
20 Road property, then the Project is likely in the field in the mid-ground approximately
21 ranging 20 to 65 feet lower in elevation as the land slopes down, than that where the
22 photo was taken. The Citizens assertion, therefore, is not credible.
34
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 767
1 Q. Citizens make a similar statement about the viewshed of the residents of the Town of
2 Florida and Town of Amsterdam being destroyed by the Project (p. 24, l. 9). Please
respond. 3 respond.
4 A. This characterization is also inaccurate. The study area as described in the May 2020
5 Visual Impact Assessment Update has a 5-mile radius around the Project fence line
6 which translates to 111.5 square miles. This study area includes nearly all of these two
7 towns as seen in Figure 1 of the VIA. Table 1 of the VIA calculated the percent
8 predicted visibility and shows that out of 111.5 square miles, approximately 3.4% of the
9 land area has predicted visibility of the Project. Table 1 further breaks down predicted
10 visibility by Distance Zone; Zone 1 being 0-0.5 miles, Zone 2 being 0.5 to 2 miles, and
11 Zone 3, 2.0 to 5.0 miles. The Town of Florida falls in all three zones while the Town of
12 Amsterdam falls within Zones 2 and 3. The predicted visibility of the Project Area
13 within 0.5 miles is 33%. This makes sense as much of the land area is comprised of the
14 Project and there are more proximal views. However, visibility outside of 0.5 miles
15 drops to less than 2.7%. Furthermore, Table 3 isolates out the predicted visibility for
16 developed land (includes residential), which is only 0.13% in the entire study area. This
17 does not indicate a destruction of the viewshed for the residents of the Town of Florida
18 and Amsterdam. Figures 1 and 2 in the VIA, that show the locations of predicted
19 visibility in relation to these two towns, bears this out. The Project will not restrict or
20 interfere with the daily activities, or the enjoyment thereof, by the residents. Citizens
statement should be totally disregarded.21 statement should be totally disregarded.21
35
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 768
1 Potential Glare Impacts
2 Q. At pp. 37–38, Citizens declares that the Town will be in charge of enforcing the glare
requirement in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. Please respond. 3 requirement in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. Please respond.
4 A. Citizens mischaracterizes how the Applicant addressed the following provision in an
5 application for a special use permit from the Town of Florida: “[t]he materials used for
6 the Solar Energy System shall not be conducive to glare from beyond the lot’s boundary
7 line (Article VIII Section 45.5C.2.(h)). The Town argues that High River did not request
8 the Board to refuse to apply this provision to the Project. This again is an incomplete
9 characterization of what the Applicant has stated. What Citizens fails to state is how the
10 Applicant addressed this provision in the Application: “[t]he Project will comply with the
11 substantive standards as identified in this Section subject to the Article 10 Certificate
12 Conditions” (App. Exh. 31 at 29). That means that the relevant certificate conditions
13 apply to glare and only the Board can enforce them. Pursuant to the Article 10
14 regulations, the Applicant has not requested the Board to delegate this authority to the
Town. 15 Town.
16 If, however, Citizens or the Town presses this argument, then the Applicant is
17 requesting herein that the Board refuse to apply this provision because it is procedural in
18 nature. There are no quantitative limits or standards with which to comply. Rather, it is a
19 standard that would require the Town to exercise judgment and engage in a deliberative
20 process over its interpretation and the compliance therewith. There are many subjective
21 judgments to be made by the Town concerning whether the materials composing the solar
22 panels are in fact “conducive to glare visible from beyond the lot’s boundary lines.” For
23 example, conducive is not defined, how much glare is not defined, how many hours
36
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 769
1 during the day is not defined, and how far beyond the boundary lines is not defined.
2 Glare is also defined in the local law in non-quantitative terms. Glare is defined as “the
3 effect produced by light intensity sufficient to cause annoyance, discomfort or loss in
4 visual performance and visibility” (Article III, Section 4). There are no measures of
5 annoyance, discomfort or loss in visual performance or visibility in the definition. Again,
6 compliance would be subject to the deliberative process before the Town, a local
procedure that is supplanted by Article 10 in our view. 7 procedure that is supplanted by Article 10 in our view.
8 Q. Assuming the Examiners and then the Board believe this is a “substantive” requirement,
9 is the Applicant hereby requesting the Board to elect not to apply it to the Project?
10 A. Yes. While, as discussed in the Application, Supplement, discovery responses, and the
11 May 2020 Update filed by High River in this proceeding, potential effects from glare are
12 minimal, likely greatly overstated by the model used to predict glare, and have been
13 minimized through proposed vegetative buffers. Citizens is advocating a strict
14 interpretation of the provision so it is uncertain how the Town would apply the provision.
15 Accordingly, because it is technologically impossible to eliminate all glare from the
16 Project, as shown by the modeling, however overstated, and because of the overriding
17 needs of consumers to have solar facilities built to combat GHG emissions (see generally,
18 App. Exh. 10, 31 (discussing the needs of consumers to have the State Energy Plan,
19 Climate Act and Clean Energy Standard implemented)), we are hereby requesting the
20 Board elect not to apply this provision, if it finds it to be a substantive requirement,
because its unreasonably burdensome. 21 because its unreasonably burdensome.
22 Q. At pp. 39–40, Citizens argues that “potentially thousands of residents” could be affected
23 by glare. Is this statement accurate?
37
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 770
1 A. No, it is not for the reasons we will present below. Because Citizens only presents very
2 general and incomplete observations about the results of the Applicant’s glare study, we
3 will provide more details. Note that Citizens did not provide its own glare study of the
4 Project.
5 The Applicant conducted a detailed glare assessment in order to assess the
6 potential for glare at residences and local roadways within the vicinity of the Project
7 Area. The analysis was prepared by Capitol Airspace utilizing the SGHAT. This model
8 was agreed to by the Signatory Parties to be used in the Stipulations (Stipulation 24(b)
9 (9)). The results of the analysis conform to, and are in accordance with, the FAA’s
10 interim policy for Solar Energy System Projects on Federally Obligated Airports (78 FR
11 63271, October, 2013), although this policy is only applicable for projects proposing to
12 install solar panels at federally funded airports. SGHAT is a very conservative tool in
13 that: glare analyses do not account for physical obstructions between reflectors and
14 receptors (this includes buildings, tree cover, and geographic obstructions); the glare
15 analysis assumes clear, sunny skies for 365 days of the year and does not take into
16 account meteorological conditions that would nullify predicted glare such as clouds, rain
17 or snow; and, although only a portion of a modeled array may have the potential to
18 produce glare, the results are provided as if the receptor has visibility of the entire array.
19 Q. Please provide an example of how conservative the model’s results are.
20 A. An example of the conservatism of the SGHAT model is displayed at residential
21 observation point OP-21, the residence at which the Citizen’s testimony points out the
22 possibility of “as much as 56.6 hours of glare per year” annually (p. 40, l. 4). As
23 described above, SGHAT does not account for physical obstructions between a receptor
38
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 771
1 and the proposed solar array and even if only a portion of the array is visible, the results
2 indicate glare is predicted. Exh. HRR-4 is a figure from the Update to Glint and Glare
3 Analysis, presented in the May 2020 Updated Information (DMM Item # 96) entitled
4 “Predicted Glare at Observation Point OP-21”. The image on the left side of Exh. HRR-4
5 is from the SGHAT output data and indicates that glare is predicted from the southern
6 portion of the proposed array. The image on the right side is an aerial photograph that
7 depicts the residence, the proposed solar arrays, landscaping, and an existing forested
8 area to remain (Exh. HRR-4). Exh. HRR-4 clearly indicates that that the portion of the
9 array with the potential for glare is nearly fully screened by an existing forested area that
10 will remain during Project operation. Furthermore, the Applicant is proposing landscape
11 screening to provide additional visual mitigation. So, while the SGHAT results
12 conservatively indicate the potential for glare at a particular residence, further analysis
13 demonstrates that the potential for glare is minimal and any potential impacts have been
14 minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
15 Q. Are there any applicable State or local quantitative standards regulating glare?
16 A. No. As indicated in the aforementioned Update to Glint and Glare Analysis, there are no
17 applicable quantitative standards for glare. Panels are designed to absorb sunlight and
18 will be treated with anti-reflective coatings that will absorb and transmit light rather than
19 reflect it. In general, solar panels are less reflective than window glass or water surfaces
20 (New York Solar Guidebook for Local Governments, NYSERDA (July 2019) at 160) and
21 any reflected light from solar panels will have a significantly lower intensity than glare
22 from direct sunlight (CleanEnergyResults: Questions & Answers Ground-Mounted Solar
23 Photovoltaic Systems, Mass. Department of Energy Resources (2015) at 22). While there
39
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 772
1 is no quantitative standard for glare, scientific literature suggests that doubling the annual
2 30-hour shadow flicker standard (adopted by the Siting Board applicable to wind
3 facilities) could be used as a benchmark, i.e., 60 hours per year. Additionally, if glint and
4 glare is predicted for a surrounding dwelling for longer than 60 minutes per day, for three
5 or more months of the year, then the impact should be considered significant with respect
6 to residential amenity and, in this scenario, mitigation should be implemented (see Danny
7 Scrivener et al., Solar Photovoltaic Development – Glint and Glare Guidance,
8 PagerPower (Oct. 2018) at 49). The Town’s position seems to assume that any glare,
9 however negligible or limited in duration, or unlikely to be seen because it will only
10 occur from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. or 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., is unacceptable.
11 Q. Based upon the results of the Update to the Glint and Glare Analysis, were these
12 recommended quantitative guidelines violated by the Project?
13 A. No, they were not. The results of the Applicant’s glare analysis indicate there are no
14 instances of predicted glare for longer than 60 minutes per day for three or more months.
15 Additionally, there are no instances of glare for greater than 60 hours annually (May
16 2020 Update, Attachment D). Furthermore, 30 of the 35 array areas assessed in the
17 analysis have either no potential for glare or the potential for glare less than 30 hours
18 (1,800 minutes) annually. Accordingly, there is no significant glare impacts, as a result
19 of the Project. As a conservative measure, in order to further reduce any potential
20 impacts as a result of glare and to limit views of the facility, visual mitigation in the form
21 of landscape screening (over 25,500 linear feet of new vegetative landscape buffers) is
proposed throughout the Project Area. 22 proposed throughout the Project Area.
23 Q. With that background, will thousands of people be affected by glare as Citizens alleges?
40
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 773
1 A. No. The Citizen’s testimony indicates that there is the potential for glare to impact
2 “thousands of residents” (p. 40, ll. 5–6) and that the “effects of glare that could affect
3 potentially thousands of residents who are in direct line-of-sight of the proposed solar
4 generating facility” (p. 40, ll. 15–18). “Affect” is not defined anywhere in its testimony.
5 More importantly, as documented in the May 2020 Update, Attachment C (DMM item #
6 96), there is minimal expected visibility (3.4%) within the overall 5-mile visual study
7 area. There is existing topography and many tree groups surrounding the Project that will
8 block views. As expected, the highest percentage of visibility will occur within one-half
9 mile of the Project Area. Based upon a sensitive receptor survey prepared for the
10 Application, approximately 160 residences are located within 0.5 miles of the Project
11 Area and approximately 320 residences are located within one mile. Accordingly, the
12 Project does not have the potential to impact thousands of residents.
13 Q. Is glare expected from the solar panel racking system?
14 A. No. The racking systems will use galvanized steel or the equivalent, so glare is not
15 expected. Further, there does not appear to be any available literature indicating
16 problems associated with glare from racking systems.
17 Q. Can you please provide comment on what was presented by Citizens to represent glare
18 impacts in their Exhibits CP-4 and CP-5?
19 A. For simulations (Exh. CP-4) south of the Mohawk River, there is a halo and/or
20 appearance of haze that appears in each of the simulations. The inclusion of the presence
21 of the halo and haze in these simulations is entirely incorrect and is an artifact that is
22 deliberately and artificially constructed and placed in the simulations by the preparer of
23 the simulations. It has been placed there undoubtedly for dramatic effect. Where and
41
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 774
1 what is the supporting analyses with resultant parameter data that allowed the simulation
2 preparer to choose what these hypothetical glare effects should look like? None is
3 presented in the Citizens’ testimony. Just because a halo or haze option is available in a
4 software parameter does not mean that this phenomenon will occur in real life and that
5 the simulation preparer should choose to use it. How were these decisions made to depict
6 the most accurate outcome? How did the operator know whether or how much haze to
7 put in the air, where to put it, how much transparency it should have, or that it would
8 even occur at all? How did the operator know how intense to make the halo or how large
9 a radius it should be or that it should exist at all? How did the operator know how much
10 reflectivity to apply to the panels and in what shape it should appear?
11 Even in Picture 1 of Exhibit CP-5, there is absolutely no halo or haze produced by
12 any panel reflection in Citizens’ photo glare example of the existing Route 30 solar
13 panels, complete with the depiction of a bright sun high in the sky on a clear sunny day.
14 There appears to be light rays, but it is from the sun visible in the photo, not from any
15 solar panel. Even the sun in this photo does not have the type of halos or haze emanating
16 from it, such as those misrepresented in the Citizens’ simulations.
17 Q. Was an air quality expert consulted as to the reasonableness of the halo appearing at ground
18 level?
19 A. Yes, Ms. Bartos consulted with TRC’s air quality expert who has an extensive
20 meteorological optics background with over 40 years of experience with this subject
21 matter who states that glare, halo, and ghost glare spots would not be associated with
22 solar panels. They instead appear to simulate photographic lens glare artifacts, which
42
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 775
1 clearly would not appear to the human observer. Ms. Bartos had him review the glare
aspects of Exhibits CP-4 and this is what he concludes: 2 aspects of Exhibits CP-4 and this is what he concludes:
3 Upon review of Exhibit CP-4 “after” pictures, I immediately noticed the
4 inclusion of a halo around a bright spot, which would appear to represent a
5 reflection of the sun off of the solar panels. Atmospheric halos are caused
6 by light reflecting off of, or refracting through the edges of flat ice crystals
7 that are settling in layers and only occur very high in the atmosphere
8 (15,000 to 30,000 feet above ground). Since the observer and solar array
9 are both at ground level, a halo would never be seen around a reflection
10 off of a solar array. The inclusion of a halo in these simulations is simply
11 bad science and a misrepresentation of the potential visual impact.
12 Furthermore, upon review of Exhibit CP-4, the “after” pictures
13 simulations include “aperture ghosts”, which are the multiple spots of
14 brighter areas that fade off towards the right of the “after” simulations.
15 Aperture ghosts seen in photographic images are entirely due to internal
16 reflections of light on the multiple lens surfaces within a camera lens. The
17 human eye does not have multiple lens surfaces and human observers
18 simply do not see aperture ghosts as depicted in CP-4. This is a
19 significant technical deficiency added to the “after” simulations apparently
20 to mislead the public regarding the visual perception of any potential glare
21 from the solar array.
22 Q. Please address the depiction of glare by Citizens from the Town of Amsterdam.
43
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 776
1 A. The depiction of glare as seen in the Exhibit CP-4 simulations north of the Mohawk
2 River including all views from Swart Hill, Toureuna, and Krutz Roads are all grossly
3 incorrect and severely misrepresented. As mentioned previously, the panels in these
4 simulations are facing northerly in the wrong direction. The panels should be facing
5 south, and they are not. This negates the glare concerns expressed by the Citizens Panel
for residents on these roads. 6 for residents on these roads.
7 Q. Please comment on the evening glare examples provided by Citizens.
8 A. There will be no glare from the Project after the sun sets. The evening glare examples
9 presented by Citizens in Exhibit CP-5, provided as 1205 Touareuna Road Picture 2, and
10 258 Swart Hill Road Picture 3, are also misleading. They do not represent any prediction
11 of glare that could occur as a result of the Project. It merely shows that there is evening
12 glare off a resident’s window that has no anti-glare coating, not from a ground-mounted
13 solar project. The house location and source of glare is located outside of the Project
14 boundary extents (and nearly 125 feet higher), where solar arrays are not even proposed.
15 Furthermore, it is estimated that this reflection must be coming off from a western
16 window angled toward the western setting sun, and not from any window facing north.
17 As I have previously discussed, the panels will face south away from the viewer and so
18 any attempt to compare this north or western facing window reflection to the effects of a
19 south facing Project is baseless. In addition, does the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture of
20 the camera settings truly represent the real character of the window reflection? Various
21 settings can produce differing results in low light or night conditions and can be altered to
22 produce varying results. For example, a longer shutter speed and lower aperture f-stop
23 setting will allow more light over a greater amount of time thereby increasing the size of
44
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 777
1 the window glow. There could also be lens flare occurring. Lens flare refers to a
2 phenomenon wherein light is scattered or flared in a lens system, often in response to a
3 bright light. This happens through light scattered by the imaging mechanism itself, for
4 example through internal reflection and forward scatter from material imperfections in
5 the lens.
6 Q. Can you comment on the photograph Mr. Puran says he took of the existing solar facility
on Route 30 in the Town of Florida? 7 on Route 30 in the Town of Florida?
8 A. There is no information presented by Citizens as to whether the panels were made of anti-
9 reflective material as the Applicant proposes for the Project, the tilt angle of the panels,
10 the camera settings for the photograph, or whether or not a glare study was performed to
11 assess the potential for impacts prior to the project’s construction from the location where
12 the photograph was taken. This picture was previously presented to the Applicant for
13 comment in Citizens IR-12 (see CP-1 at 49). Our response is again presented here.
14 Although commenting upon a picture of another solar array, without any information on
15 the quality of the photo image or camera used, nor a substantiated basis as to time,
16 distance and the type of modules, nor their angle being provided is entirely hypothetical,
17 it does appear that the source of glare in the photo is the sun. The receptor (in this case
18 the photographer), is directly facing the sun and the panels appear to show a reflection
19 that is similar to water or windows in a house or commercial building.
20 We stand by that response especially considering that Citizens presented none of
21 the missing information noted in the response and Citizens failed to dispute that the glare
22 in the picture is from the sun, not the panels. The results of the Applicant’s glare
23 analyses, as described earlier, indicate that the potential for glare at the assessed
45
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 778
1 observation points resulting from the proposed solar modules is minimal, is below the
2 proposed quantitative limits, and where present only occurs approximately at the hours of
3 6:00 a.m. or 6:00 p.m. for fixed arrays, (refer to the tables labeled as “Annual Predicted
4 Glare Occurrence” provided in the Forge Solar analysis results included in App.
5 Appendix 24-2; see also, May 2020 Update at Attachment D) At these times, the sun is
6 low in the sky and located east and west of the south-facing fixed arrays. The results of
7 the analysis also indicate that there is no potential for glare at noon when the sun is high
8 in the sky and directly shining on the south-facing fixed arrays. The picture, therefore, is
9 misleading and is of no probative value for predicting glare from the Project.
10 Setbacks
11 Q. What is the Town of Florida’s Local Law #1 2019 Solar Ordinance’s setback provision?
12 A. Section 3.C.2.A of the Town’s solar ordinance states in relevant part that a solar energy
13 system shall be set back at least 500 feet from all parcel boundary lines.
14 Q. Did the Applicant request that the Board not apply this setback because it is unreasonably
15 burdensome?
16 A. Yes. As explained in Exhibit 31 of the Application, High River has requested that the
17 Siting Board elect not to apply the 500-foot minimum setback from a parcel’s boundary
18 lines because the restriction would make the Project technologically impossible,
19 impracticable, or unreasonable for all necessary Project components to be installed. The
20 Project must have a generating capacity of 90 MW to meet its obligations under its
21 contract awarded by NYSERDA for the 2017 Renewable Energy Standard Solicitation.
22 An area of approximately 491 acres is required within the 1,425-acre Project Area to site
46
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 779
1 the number of solar panels and supporting components of the Project necessary to reach
2 this generating capacity.
3 The Application also explained that the Board should elect to refuse to apply the
4 local setback restriction because of the urgent needs of consumers to have greenhouse gas
5 emissions reduced through the goals, targets, and strategies put forth in the Climate Act,
6 CES, and SEP. DPS Staff in their direct testimony supports this request (p. 68, ll. 20–21,
7 p. 69, ll. 1–20). Citizens, however, did not address this demonstration, that the setback is
8 unreasonably burdensome, in any specificity.
Please explain how High River designed the proposed setback? 9 Q. Please explain how High River designed the proposed setback?
10 A. High River designed the Project layout to provide maximum setbacks near clusters of
11 adjacent residential uses. Where the Project abuts existing, undeveloped agricultural
12 areas, smaller setbacks were used to increase the setback near residential uses.
13 Certificate Condition 58 presents the details of the setbacks from specific parcels.
14 All solar arrays are a minimum of 200 feet from any residence (Certificate Condition
15 58(c), (e)–(f)). A minimum setback of 200 feet is proposed along Pattersonville Road
16 and Bulls Head Road where there are multiple homes, including some of the members of
17 Citizens. The setback to Mr. Puran’s residence is 565 feet, to Karen Slezak’s residence is
18 1,070feet and to David Slezak’s residence is 985 feet from the solar arrays. A minimum
19 200-foot setback, actually closer to 250 feet from the arrays, is maintained from all public
roads. 20 roads.
21 Q. Notwithstanding the setbacks greater than 200 feet described above, Citizens’ claim they
22 are “terrified” by the Applicant’s waiver request, and that they have no knowledge of
23 other utility-scale generating facilities being sited 200 feet from residential parcels’
47
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 780
1 boundary lines. (p. 43, ll. 20–23, p. 44, l. 1). Can you provide some context concerning
2 the Town of Florida 500-foot setback to other town solar laws in the region?
3 A. The Town’s setback requirement for solar facilities is far beyond municipalities’ siting
4 requirements in several other ongoing Article 10 proceedings, which generally require a
5 100 to 200-foot setback from residential structures.2
6 Q. Is the Town of Florida’s 500-foot setback requirement disproportionate to residential
setbacks in solar ordinances adopted in the region? 7 setbacks in solar ordinances adopted in the region?
8 A. Yes. The Applicant has researched local solar laws from towns surrounding the Project
9 in Montgomery, Schenectady, and Schoharie counties. The list of towns is as follows:
10 Canajoharie, Minden, Mohawk, St. Johnsville, Duanesburg, Princetown, Rotterdam,
11 Schoharie, Fulton, Summit, Esperance, Sharon, and Mayfield. Of the 13 towns that have
12 solar laws that state setbacks, the distances range from 50 to 200 feet, with nine of those
13 laws requiring a setback distance of only 50 to 100 feet. The Applicant, therefore, has
14 exceeded the setback requirement that is the most common for the region. A 500-foot
15 setback requirement is disproportionate to the requirements set by the surrounding towns
16 and effectively prohibits utility scale solar from being developed in the Town. To this
17 point, the Town’s Zoning Ordinance effective January 20, 2015 (last amended May 23,
18 2016) included a 200-foot setback from any property line at the time of the filing of the
19 Preliminary Scoping Statement in this proceeding. After the High River project was
20 announced, the Town then later amended it, increasing the setback to 500 feet,
21 presumably to block utility scale solar projects.
2 Case 17-F-0182, Mohawk Solar LLC, App. Exh. 31 (June 5, 2019), at tbl. 31-2; Case 17-F-0655, Riverhead Solar 2, LLC, App. Exh. 31 (June 29, 2020), at tbl. 31-1; 16-F-0559, Morris Ridge Solar, App. Exh. 31 (July 1, 2020), at tbl. 31-2. 48
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 781
1 Construction Work Days and Hours
2 Q. Please address Citizens’ contention regarding proposed construction days and hours.
3 A. In its testimony, Citizens argues that the Applicant’s proposed construction work window
4 of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, is “wholly inconsiderate and highly
5 problematic” (p. 45, ll. 9–13). This proposed construction work window was provided in
6 High River’s February 18, 2020 Supplement to the Application on page 19. High River
7 has since agreed to shorten this construction work window to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
8 Monday through Saturday, in Certificate Condition 83. Citizens asserts that Project
9 construction should be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. High
10 River’s construction work window, based upon Board precedent, is actually more
11 protective of the community then Citizens proposal, and it is necessary to complete the
Project on schedule. 12 Project on schedule.
13 Previous Board decisions have, at minimum, allowed a 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
14 construction work window Monday through Saturday, with several projects allowing an
15 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. window on Sundays and/or national holidays.3 In Baron Winds,
16 LLC, the Board determined that a local law that would shorten the project’s construction
17 window from its proposed 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday, window, was
3 See Case 16-F-0267, Atlantic Wind LLC, Order Granting Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need, With Conditions (June 30, 2020), at Certificate Condition 77; Case 17-F-0282, Alle-Catt Wind Energy LLC, Order Granting Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need, With Conditions (June 3, 2020), at Certificate Condition 82; Case 16-F-0205, Canisteo Wind Energy LLC, Order Granting Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need, With Conditions (Mar. 13, 2020), at Certificate Condition 82; Case 16-F-0559, Bluestone Wind, LLC, Order Granting Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need, With Conditions (Dec. 16, 2019), at Certificate Condition 89; Case 16-F-0328, Number Three Wind LLC, Order Granting Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need, With Conditions (Nov. 12, 2019), at Certificate Condition 83; Case 15-F-0122, Baron Winds, LLC, Order Granting Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need, With Conditions (Sep. 12, 2019) (“Baron Winds Order”), at Certificate Condition 82; Case 16-F-0062, Eight Point Wind, LLC, Order Granting Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need, With Conditions (Aug. 20, 2019), at Certificate Condition 120; Case 14-F-0490, Cassadaga Wind LLC, Order Granting Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need, With Conditions (Jan. 17, 2018), at Certificate Condition 131. 49
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 782
1 unreasonably burdensome because potential burdens—including construction delays,
2 increased cost, and delays in benefits associated with a renewable energy facility—
3 outweighed the benefits of noise and traffic management.4 High River’s proposed
4 construction work window is well within the range of what has been approved by the
5 Board in previous orders. Further, this work window is necessary for High River to
6 complete the Project within its expected timeline. Stricter limitations would prolong
7 construction, to the detriment of the community, and also unnecessarily increase Project
costs. 8 costs.
9 Q. Citizens also argues that residents will be negatively impacted by pre-construction
10 activities that will begin “very early each day long before” 7:00 a.m. so that construction
11 can commence on time (p. 45, ll. 13–19). How does the Applicant respond?
12 A. The Signatory Parties agreed that crews should be allowed to conduct pre- and post-
13 workday meetings outside of the construction work window because these activities do
14 not create disturbing levels of noise (Certificate Condition 83). Construction work hour
15 limits, however, would apply to all construction-related activities, including delivery and
16 unloading of materials, maintenance, and repairs of construction equipment at outdoor
17 locations (Id.).
18 Further, if construction activities must occur outside of this construction work
19 hour window, High River will notify the Town, the Environmental Monitor, and DPS
20 Staff (Certificate Condition 84). Notice of planned additional work hours also will be
21 provided to residents who may be affected, and appropriate measures will be taken to
22 avoid, minimize, and mitigate negative impacts that may result because of the additional
4 Baron Winds Order at 153–154. 50
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 783
1 work hours (Certificate Condition 84(a)). During Project construction, High River will
2 implement the series of noise abatement measures-listed in Exhibit 19, for which no party
took issue as to their effectiveness (App. Exh. 19 at 16). 3 took issue as to their effectiveness (App. Exh. 19 at 16).
4 Department of Public Service Staff Direct Testimony
5 Q. Please address the DPS Staff recommendations.
6 A. DPS Staff supports the adoption of the Certificate Conditions “without exception” (p. 26,
7 l. 6, p. 28, l. 1). They testify that based upon the current record, the Board may make the
8 findings and determinations required to issue an Article 10 certificate for the Project as
9 proposed in the filings by the Applicant, and as conditioned by the Certificate Conditions.
10 There is one topic where they request an update and another topic where they are
11 proposing an interpretation to a Certificate Condition that requires clarification by the
Applicant. 12 Applicant.
13 Q. Please address DPS Staff’s requests concerning the Phase 1B Archeological Report for
14 the Envision Dairy parcel (p. 62, ll. 1–21).
15 A. Because of the pandemic-related restrictions, the Phase 1B field survey was delayed. It
16 has now been performed and the Report has been submitted to DPS, as they have
17 testified. They recommended that it be uploaded to the Cultural Resource Information
18 Service (“CRIS”), and that has already been done. DPS Staff also recommended that it
19 be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer for review, and that has been done,
20 and attached hereto is the SHPO’s determination that no additional archeological work
21 needs to be done because no archeological sites were identified (Exh. HRR-5).
22 Q. Please address the Historical Architectural Survey Report that was performed for the
23 same parcel.
51
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 784
1 A. DPS Staff requests that the Report be submitted to SHPO, (p. 65, l. 21, p. 66, ll. 1–3)
2 which the Applicant did. We contacted SHPO to see if they could expedite their review
3 and we were told their determination would be issued around the time this testimony is
4 due. The Report recommends that there will be no effects from the potential visibility of
5 the Project on any historical structures. When SHPO issues their determination, the
6 Applicant will file it in the proceeding and consult with DPS Staff. Certificate Condition
7 74 already addresses mitigation for potential effects found by SHPO on historical
8 resources, as noted by DPS Staff (p. 67, ll. 1–7).
9 Q. Please address the clarification required for Certificate Condition 60(g).
10 A. As noted above, DPS Staff supports the signed Certificate Conditions without exception.
11 At p. 58 of their testimony, they recommend that the specific proposal made by the
12 Applicant in the Application, “to provide supplemental landscape buffers on directly
13 abutting landowner’s properties,” (App. Exh. 31 at 9) should be interpreted “to apply to
14 residences experiencing solar glare, as well as for minimization of visibility of Facility
15 visibility generally” (p. 58, ll. 2–12). The aforementioned reference from the Application
16 in Certificate Condition 60(g) only applies, however, by its specific wording in the
17 Application, to “directly abutting landowners” who registered complaints about potential
18 visibility issues. The wording in the DPS Staff testimony is extremely vague, as it simply
19 says “residences”, and then expands the scope of the Certificate Condition to glare
20 complaints. The expansion to glare complaints is, in our view, a proposed change to the
21 signed Certificate Conditions and contrary to the DPS Staff testimony saying the
22 Certificate Conditions should be adopted without exception. Furthermore, we, however,
23 are not sure if DPS Staff meant to expand this condition to any residence, anywhere, in
52
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 785
1 any town or city, who has any view of the Project. That unlimited scope would make no
2 sense and perhaps the wording of the testimony simply needed to be more specific. This
3 proposed change also would be contrary to the DPS Staff conclusions supporting the VIA
4 and the proposed vegetative buffer mitigation. If, however, this is not simply a
5 semantical issue and it is DPS’ intent to expand without any limitations the wording in
6 Certificate Condition 60(g), the Applicant cannot agree to that proposed change of the
7 Condition as it would be totally illogical and unreasonable. Nor is there testimony
8 presented by DPS Staff supporting this unrealistic condition. If, however, DPS meant to
9 include glare complaints from directly abutting residences within the complaint
10 resolution process, that exceed the quantitative standards discussed earlier, the Applicant
11 would agree to entertain those complaints in that process. If the complaints are
12 meritorious according to the procedures in the Complaint Resolution Plan, the Applicant
13 would provide mitigation such as one-time vegetative buffers or window treatments such
as blinds or drapes. 14 as blinds or drapes.
15 Direct Testimony of Stephen B. Le Fevre, Senior Managing Hydrogeologist on
16 Behalf of The Town of Florida and Citizens for Responsible Solar Farm Placement
17 Local Laws
18 Q. Please address the recommendations of Mr. Le Fevre.
19 A. At the outset, Mr. Le Fevre does not indicate that he reviewed the Certificate Conditions
20 for the preparation of his testimony although both his clients participated in the
settlement negotiations (p .2, l. 20). 21 settlement negotiations (p .2, l. 20).
22 Q. Please address Mr. Le Fevre’s first argument.
53
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 786
1 A. At p. 4, l. 5, he quotes the Town Policy Statement explaining its adoption of the 2019
2 Solar Law amendment. It clearly says the Town seeks to limit the size of large-scale
3 solar facilities, that is, greater than 5 MWs. Obviously, the Town’s 2019 Solar law was
4 designed to exclude utility scale projects. When the Project was proposed, it was
5 designed to comply with the substantive provisions of the local laws in effect at that time
153). 6 (Preliminary Scoping Statement at 153).
7 Moreover, he incorrectly assumes that the non-quantitative factors listed in the
8 Policy Statement are “substantive” even though they are simply policy statements and
9 compliance with them would be at the discretion of the Town, a subjective, deliberative
10 permitting process that is embedded in the Town’s permitting processes, supplanted by
11 Article 10. He then lists certain provisions with which he says the Project does not
comply. 12 comply.
13 Q. Is there anything new that he raises of which the Applicant was not aware?
14 A. No, he lists procedural provisions which Exhibit 31 of the Application says are
15 supplanted by Article 10 and lists substantive provisions for which the Applicant
16 requested that the Siting Board refuse to apply to the Project as unreasonably
17 burdensome. He incorrectly classifies procedural provisions as substantive, similar to
18 what he did with the factors in the Town Policy Statement discussed above.
19 Q. Please address his arguments.
20 A. At p. 5, Mr. Le Fevre quotes from the 2019 Solar Law. The provisions concerning
21 adequate screening (p. 5, l. 1) are requirements of a Town special permit application,
22 containing no quantitative standards with which to comply, with successful compliance
54
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 787
1 left to the subjective discretion of the Town Board. As explained above, this is
2 deliberative, decision making permit process, supplanted by Article 10.
3 He quotes the Solar Law zoning restriction (p .5, l. 24) for which the Applicant
4 requested in Exhibit 31 of the Application that the Board refuse to apply (App. Exh. 31 at
5 2, 25). Mr. Le Fevre’s quotes the supplanted Town and Town Board procedures required
6 for a special permit. He fails to critique the demonstration of unreasonably burdensome
made by High River, as contained in Exhibit 31. 7 made by High River, as contained in Exhibit 31.
8 Similarly, he quotes the 500 foot-set back provision in the 2019 Solar Law (p. 5, l.
9 35), the 5 MW cap (p. 6, l. 1) the 25-acre limitation on any farmed lot, the lot coverage
10 restrictions, and the 5-acre limit on the use of prime agricultural soils. The Applicant
11 also requested the Board to refuse to apply these local restrictions in Exhibit 31 (App.
12 Exh. 31 at 5, 26–27, 29). DPS staff supported the requests and Mr. Le Fevre did not
13 critique the demonstrations made in Exhibit 31 that they are unreasonably burdensome.
14 We addressed above the arguments made by Citizens with respect to the Town’s very
15 subjective review of potential glare and the Applicant’s explicit commitment to abide the
Board’s issued certificate conditions in that regard. 16 Board’s issued certificate conditions in that regard.
ent about farmland. 17 Q. Please address Mr. Le Fevre’s argument about farmland.
18 A. As noted above, the Applicant requested a waiver from the Board concerning the Town
19 25-acre limit on a farmed parcel for a large-scale solar facility. That demonstration was
20 not addressed by Mr. Le Fevre. Instead, he recommends that the Applicant proceed
21 through the Town special permit process, which is supplanted by Article 10 (p. 7, l. 20).
22 If it fails to comply, Mr. Le Fevre recommends that the Applicant continue on within the
23 supplanted special permit process and seek variances from the Town Zoning Board of
55
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 788
1 Appeals, another supplanted local permitting procedure. On advice of counsel, these
2 processes have no force or effect of law for an Article 10 Application. If they did,
3 municipalities around the state would be able to delay or stop renewable projects, in
4 contravention of Article 10, the SEP, the Clean Energy Standard and the Climate Act.
5 Q. Please summarize how the Applicant is proposing to avoid or minimize impacts to
agricultural land, including prime farmland. 6 agricultural land, including prime farmland.
7 A. Impacts to prime farmland were avoided or minimized through the technology selected
8 and the siting of the Project. The solar panels selected were chosen because they are one
9 of the most efficient models available for large scale solar generation facilities in the
10 renewable energy market. While the solar panel arrays are primarily sited on agricultural
11 lands within the Project Area, the proposed solar panels will be mounted on racking
12 systems supported by driven posts and result in minimal ground disturbance since no
13 excavation will be required for their installation. Of the overall 1,425-acre Project Area
14 assessed, only approximately 491.4 acres (34.5 percent) will be physically occupied, but
15 not necessarily impacted, by Project Components within a fenced area of approximately
16 582.5 acres. There are a series of Certificate Conditions that require measures to avoid or
17 minimize impacts to Prime Farmland, including, amongst others, the retention of an
18 Environmental Monitor during construction (Certificate Condition 80), the submission of
19 an Agricultural Area Plan (Certificate Condition 40), site restoration consistent with
20 specified AGM Guidelines to the maximum extent practicable (Certificate Condition
21 51(g)), the submission of an Invasive Species Management Control Plan as a compliance
22 Filing (Certificate Condition 70), and construction of the Project consistent with the
56
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 789
1 specified AGM Guidelines, including consultation with AGM where alternative
Condition 87). 2 measures may be required (Certificate Condition 87).
3 Array areas were sited outside of areas of Prime Farmland to the maximum extent
4 practicable. Collection lines within agricultural land will be located underground to
5 minimize impacts to agricultural land. Newly proposed access routes were sited in areas
6 that are not actively used by the participating landowner farmers to the maximum extent
7 practicable. Additionally, the Applicant coordinated with participating landowners
8 during the siting process so that their existing farming operations would not be impacted
9 on portions of the Project Area that are not to be used for solar arrays. As discussed in
10 Exhibit 9 of the Application, examples include the creation of a ‘cattle path’ from an
11 existing barn through the proposed arrays to a pasture area and revisions to the Project’s
12 perimeter fencing and arrays to minimize fragmentation of surrounding hayfields to allow
continued agricultural use during Project operation. 13 continued agricultural use during Project operation.
14 Within the Project Area, only 2.2 acres (0.3 percent) of land to be disturbed by
15 construction and/or operation of the Project is classified as Prime Farmland. The
disturbance on Prime Farmland is categorized in the table below: 16 disturbance on Prime Farmland is categorized in the table below:
Component Acres of Disturbance within Prime Farmland Access road 1.57 Array posts 0.02 Collector 0.13 Fence 0.11 Grading 0.11 Inverters 0.02 Laydown area 0.19 Riprap 0.02 Sedimentation basin 0.03 Total 2.2 17 57
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 790
1 Impacts to productive farmland, consisting of agricultural lands comprised of soil
2 groups 1-45 are also minimized. Based on the review by the Department of Agricultural
3 and Markets (“AGM”),6 approximately 46 acres (8.7 percent) of the 528 acres of
4 agricultural impact will occur on areas classified in soil groups 1-4. AGM Response to
5 Citizens IR-19 AGM policy considers siting that limits the conversion of agricultural
6 lands by 10% or less on soil groups 1-4 to be acceptable (Exh. HRR-1 at 11).
7 Potable Water Supply
Fevre’s next contention. 8 Q. Please address Mr. Le Fevre’s next contention.
9 A. Mr. Le Fevre acknowledges that based upon NYSDEC records, there are no wells within
10 the Project area (p. 9, l. 23). There are 11 wells within 2000 feet of the Project
11 boundaries. He apparently assumes, incorrectly, that all 154 water well surveys that were
12 distributed to landowners within 2000 feet of the Project boundaries, were distributed to
13 residences with wells. In fact, they were distributed to landowners within 2000 feet not
14 knowing if they had wells, and only 30 wells outside the Project Area were identified.
15 Thus, rather than the 11 wells reported by NYSDEC, there are now reported 30 wells
16 within 2000 feet of the Project Area. He criticizes the Applicant for redacting the private,
17 specific characteristics of each reported well but fails to note that his clients could have
18 obtained this confidential information under the Protective Order issued in this
19 proceeding. He does not explain what he would do with the information if his clients
20 used the approved procedures to secure it. He alleges that the Application fails to explain
5 2020 NEW YORK AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSIFICATION – MONTGOMERY (Jan. 2020), https://agriculture.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/01/masterlistofagriculturalsoils_0.pdf.
58
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 791
1 what impacts the Project construction activities may have on these off-site wells (p. 10, l.
11). 2 11).
3 Q. Please address this argument.
4 A. First, there will not be any construction activities outside of the Project Area or on
5 adjacent parcels, where the reported wells are located. As indicated on page 7 of Exhibit
6 23 of the Application, the results of the private well survey show an average depth of
7 wells to be 170 feet. Construction activity for the Project will be much closer to the
8 surface. The standard embedment for the solar panel racking is 5–10 feet and collection
9 lines will be buried approximately 4-6 feet below grade. This minimal ground
10 disturbance will not impact wells that are located much farther beneath the surface.
11 Additionally, contrary to Mr. Le Fevre’s allegation, the map provided in Response to
12 DPS IR-5 shows the parcels that did respond to the well survey and indicated that their
13 property contained as well (Exh. HRR-1 at 35). As there will not be any construction
14 activities outside of the Project Area, the properties indicated on the map will not be
15 affected. The Applicant is coordinating with participating landowners that indicated their
16 properties contain wells, to ensure their wells are avoided during Project construction.
17 Q. Is there a Certificate Condition that addresses the activities in the field during construction
18 to assure the integrity of these off-site wells?
ition 90 provides as follows: 19 A. Yes. Certificate Condition 90 provides as follows:
20 (a) Pier and post driving activities shall be prohibited within 100 feet of any
existing, active potable water supply well; 21 existing, active potable water supply well;
59
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 792
1 (b) If required, blasting shall be prohibited within 500 feet of any known
2 existing, active water supply well or water supply intake on a non-
participating property; 3 participating property;
4 (c) The Certificate Holder shall engage a qualified third party to perform pre-
5 and postconstruction testing of the potability of water wells within the below
6 specified distances of construction disturbance before commencement of
7 civil construction and after completion of construction to ensure the wells
8 are not impacted provided Certificate Holder is granted access by the
property owner: 9 property owner:
10 (i) collection lines or access roads within 100 feet of an existing, active
11 potable water supply well on a non-participating parcel;
12 (ii) pier or post installations within 200 feet of an existing, active potable
water supply well on a non-participating parcel; and 13 water supply well on a non-participating parcel; and
14 (iii) HDD operations within 500 feet of an existing, active potable water
15 supply well on a non-participating parcel; and
16 (iv) blasting within 1,000 feet of an existing, active water supply well on a
nonparticipating parcel. 17 nonparticipating parcel.
18 Q. Can you explain the origin, as you understand it, of this Condition?
19 A. Yes, we believe it was proposed by the New York State Department of Health in another
20 solar Article 10 proceeding and the Applicant decided to comply with it in this case as
21 well. This is an example of Mr. Le Fevre apparently not addressing the Certificate
Conditions as part of his recommendations.22 Conditions as part of his recommendations.22
60
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 793
1 Spill Prevention, Containment and Control Plan
2 Q. What is Mr. Le Fevre’s argument about inadvertent equipment fuel spills during
3 construction.
4 A. Mr. Le Fevre criticizes the Applicant for not having “sufficient knowledge or
5 understanding” (p. 11, l. 6) of a federal Spill Prevention, Containment and
6 Countermeasure Plan, which is inapplicable to the Project. The Application inadvertently
7 substituted the word “Countermeasure” for “Control”. This inconsequential point aside,
8 High River will be submitting a Spill Prevention, Containment and Control Plan (“SPC”)
9 containing avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. The SPC plan required for
10 the Project, is contained in Certificate Condition 72, and other conditions contain spill
11 prevention and response measures as well (Certificate Conditions 73, 85, 105, 107, 123
12 and 124(a)). It is our understanding that an SPC Plan is required by DPS and NYSDEC
13 as part of Article 10, as well as for Article VII projects.
14 Per Certificate Condition 72, the SPC will contain measures to minimize the
15 potential for unintended releases of petroleum and other hazardous chemicals during
16 Facility construction and operation. It will be submitted for review in a Compliance
17 Filing. The SPC Plan will apply to all construction activities and contain procedures for
18 loading and unloading of fuel and oil, discharge or drainage controls, procedures in the
19 event of discharge discovery, a discharge response procedure, a list of spill response
20 equipment to be maintained on-site (including a fire extinguisher, shovel, tank patch kit,
21 and oil), and be in place well before the commencement of construction spill reporting
22 information. Any spills will be reported in accordance with State and/or federal
61
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 794
1 regulations. Accordingly, with the oversight of the state agencies, spill prevention
2 measures have been adopted.
3 Road Use Agreements
4 Q. Mr. Le Fevre recommends that Road Use Agreements with the Town and County be
5 negotiated during the course of these proceedings and be in place well before the
6 commencement of construction. Please respond.
7 A. The Applicant shares the goal of entering into these agreements as soon as possible. We
8 have approached the Town in this regard. As to timing, we cannot control the timing,
9 efforts, strategies, nor the agendas of the other parties at the negotiating table. We hope
10 that the agreements will be finalized expeditiously, and the Applicant will undertake
good faith efforts on its part to consummate the transactions 11 good faith efforts on its part to consummate the transactions
12 Stormwater
13 Q. Mr. Le Fevre questions the effectiveness of the Applicant’s stormwater management
14 approach on steeply-sloping areas, citing potential impacts to adjacent properties (p. 13, l.
6). Please respond. 15 6). Please respond.
16 A. He never states what is deficient about the stormwater measures proposed by the
17 Applicant and endorsed by the three state agencies. He concludes by asking what
18 measures will be retained by the Applicant post-construction to manage any stormwater
19 issues.
20 Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the maximum extent practicable
21 and increases in stormwater runoff will be minimal, as Project construction will result in
22 limited addition of impervious surface. Therefore, no significant changes to the rate or
23 volume of stormwater runoff are anticipated as a result of Project operations. However,
62
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 795
1 in response to Mr. Le Fevre’s concern, precautionary post-construction, Best
2 Management Practices (“BMPs”) will be installed and maintained according to the
3 Project-specific NYSDEC approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”)
4 for the Project per applicable regulations. This requirement is contained in Certificate
Condition 118(e). 5 Condition 118(e).
6 The Application included a Preliminary SWPPP, which will be amended to
7 include site-specific post-construction stormwater practices for the Final SWPPP. The
8 Final SWPPP will detail the proposed post-construction stormwater practices which will
9 be utilized to treat and control runoff from the Project per the requirements of the General
10 Permit. The post-construction stormwater control practices will provide water quality
11 volume treatment, runoff reduction, and will control the volume and rate of the
12 stormwater runoff. The stormwater design will employ, amongst other measures, green
13 infrastructure practices such as reduction in clearing and grading and utilizing open
14 spaces. The proposed post-construction stormwater practices will be designed in
15 accordance with the requirements of the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
16 General Permit for Stormwater Discharges (GP-0-20-001), New York State Standards
17 and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (“Blue Book”), the New York State
18 Stormwater Management Design Manual (“SMDM”), and the Maryland “Stormwater
19 Design Guidance – Solar Panel Installations” (per NYSDEC’s request). The NYSEC-
20 accepted SWPPP will be filed with the Secretary as an Information Report. Certificate
21 Condition 41. Mr. Le Fevre never addressed these requirements.
22 During construction, an Environmental Monitor will be onsite daily and will be
23 responsible for monitoring compliance with Project permits and approvals, including the
63
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 796
1 requirements of GP-0-20-001 (Certificate Condition 80). In addition, the Environmental
2 Monitor will perform inspections as required by GP-0-20-001. DPS will have oversight
authority pursuant to Certificate Conditions 17,80(a) and (80(d). 3 authority pursuant to Certificate Conditions 17,80(a) and (80(d).
4 Q. Will proposed grading on steep slopes be conducted in accordance with New York
standards? 5 standards?
6 A. Yes, land grading will be conducted in accordance with the Blue Book. During
7 construction, surface water will be diverted from the face of all cut and/or fill slopes to
8 minimize impacts to water quality and reduce the volume of flow across the disturbed
9 slope, as required in the Blue Book. In addition, benches may be used to decrease the
10 velocity of runoff over the disturbed slope. Where grading occurs near property lines,
11 appropriate BMPs would be implemented to protect adjacent properties from
12 sedimentation and erosion. The disturbed slopes will be vegetated or structurally
stabilized in compliance with the Blue Book. 13 stabilized in compliance with the Blue Book.
14 Q. Will stormwater features be maintained for the entire duration of the project?
15 A. Yes. Permanent structural erosion and sediment control practices and post-construction
16 stormwater management practices will be maintained for the duration of the Project. As
17 part of the Final SWPPP, a Post-Construction Operation and Maintenance (“O&M”)
18 Manual for Stormwater Management Facilities (“Stormwater O&M Manual”) will be
19 developed. The Stormwater O&M Manual will outline the proper maintenance and
20 operation of stormwater management facilities, including the inspection and maintenance
21 schedule, to ensure that the facilities operate as designed, remain free of sediment, debris,
22 and potential pollutants, and do not result in adverse downstream impacts to
23 environmentally sensitive areas. The Stormwater O&M Manual will identify the owner
64
Case 17-F-0597 High River Rebuttal Panel Testimony 797
1 and party(ies) responsible for maintenance of the stormwater management facilities. The
2 Stormwater O&M Manual will be included in the Final SWPPP and will be submitted as
3 an Information Report. – Post-construction BMPs will likely include meadow grass
4 (vegetated filter) and filtration basins at critical locations. The meadow grass will be
5 below the array and will act as a vegetated filter to treat stormwater that flows over it.
6 The filtration basins will be located in each drainage area to provide enough treatment for
7 the proposed stormwater and to provide runoff rate reduction. The filtration basins will
8 require sand to be imported for the bottom of the basin to provide treatment and there will
9 be drain tile 2’ below the basin bottom to capture the treated water and outlet through the
10 proposed outlet structure. A riprap overflow will be required for each basin to protect the
11 slopes from the concentrated flows leaving the basin during stormwater events. Thus,
12 Mr. Le Fevre’s questions about post-construction stormwater protections is addressed.
13 Q. Does this conclude your rebuttal testimony at this time?
, it does. 14 A. Yes, it does.
65
798
1 9-24-2020 - High River Energy Center, LLC - 17-F-0597
2 I, HOWARD HUBBARD, do hereby certify that the foregoing
3 was reported by me, in the cause, at the time and place,
4 as stated in the caption hereto, at Page 1 hereof; that
5 the foregoing typewritten transcription consisting of
6 pages 213 through 404, is a true record of all
7 proceedings had at the hearing.
8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
9 subscribed my name, this the 28TH day of September, 2020.
10
11
12 HOWARD HUBBARD, Reporter
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25