Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWinergy Power NYS DEC . WNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One G c \'-' r 'S . C{) M,~ Stony Brook University "f-I NY')., , 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, New York 11790 - 3409 \j Phone: (631) 444-0365 . FAX: (631) 444-0360 Website: www.dec.state.ny.us rrrr .. ~ ~ Alexander B. Grannis Commissioner August 13, 2007 .-- i.,.r"" Richard Tomer, Chief Regulatory Branch D.S.Army Corps of Engineers New York District 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1937 Jacob Javits Federal Building New York, NY 10278-0090 -', , ",..~" .---' . \ " (,,:,.: ," ',', ^,,1 r> ~ .11 , \ \ \ \ \ J , ., .,r' Re: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice NAN-2005-00367-WMI DEC # 1-4738-01255/00010 Winergy Power LLC ,- ",> ~.... -" ~, ~~., " '.. Dear Mr. Tomer: The New York State Departrnent of Environmental Conservation (Departrnent) is in receipt oftheiJ.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CaE) Public Notice issued June 12,2007, which had the deadline for comments extended to August 13, 2007. The notice states that the applicant, Winergy Power, LLC (Winergy), has requested Departrnent of Army authorization to construct an Offshore Wind Park in Gardiner's Bay, 0.28 miles (1500 feet) off-shore of Plum Island and 2.1 miles off-shore of Orient Point, Southold. The Wind Park would consist of either two or three wind turbine generators using a combination of monopoles and a jack-up barge. Submarine cables are proposed between the wind turbines, and from the turbines to Orient Point. The Departrnent has reviewed the information and documents provided by Winergy that were referenced in our July 12, 2007 letter. As that letter indicates, Staff became aware of these materials during a conference call on July 11,2007, with Winergy, Staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NYS Department of State, NYS Office of General Services, and the CaE to discuss this project. Our specific comments on this material are provided in the attachment to this letter, but the Departrnent must emphasize that there are serious problems with the lack of specific studies conducted for this project, and several errors in the assumptions made concerning the impacts of this project which must be addressed. For example: . The Departrnent disagrees with the assertions that visual surveys coupled with post-construction surveys are sufficient to determine the potential impact of this project. At a minimum, the Departrnent recommends pre-construction studies that Page 1 of 4 include but would not necessarily be limited to the use of marine radar and bat acoustical monitoring during all nights of spring and fall migration, and visual surveys conducted at various times throughout the year and under various weather conditions. . The Department has serious concerns that the potential impact of wind turbines and associated facilities near the habitats of federally and state listed species needs to be considered in a much more thorough manner than has currently been done by Winergy. . A post-construction mortality study plan should also be developed in consultation with the Department and USFWS. . The Department recommends conducting a breeding bird survey for the area around the location where the transmission cable will cross land to estimate any potential effects the beach disturbance may have on birds such as the piping plover . The behavior of birds during migration along European shores is likely to be quite different from that of birds breeding on islands in New York, and contrary to Supplemental ESA review (Changes to Addendum 1) for avian issues, the piping plover is not found in Europe . The collision risk for bats at off-shore wind turbines is currently unknown, not low or remote as Winergy claims . On page 9 of the 9/11/06 response to the COE, Winergy states that they conducted research on a bat colony in an old fort on Plum Island, and found that bats did not move more than 500 yards from the colony site, yet in other documents states "No hazards are expected to bats, since no bats have been observed on nearby Plum Island. " . The statement on page 3 of the 9/11/06 response to the COE, that Osprey "...avoid areas of human activity. ", is incorrect as evidenced by Ospreys that nest on poles in marinas and along boat channels, and on the lighttowers in ball fields and at the Shoreham Nuclear Powerplant . The statement on page 5 of the 9/11/06 response to the COE that "The proposed project would not be in the direct-line flyway between the nesting colony on Great Gull Island and Plum Gut, where they are known to feed." is incorrect. The proposed tower sites # I &#2 will be very nearly in direct line between Great Gull Island and the foraging area off Pine Point on Plum Island. Hundreds of terns commute along the south side of Plum Island between Great Gull and the foraging areas between Orient and Plum Island. Hundreds of Common and Roseate Terns also have been seen loafing and courting at Pine Point. Page 2 of 4 In general, Winergy stresses that they are proposing a research, development and demonstration project for examining the impacts of offshore wind development, yet there is little interest expressed in conducting any pre-construction monitoring so that they would have a baseline for comparing to post-construction studies. The very site that they have proposed is going to seriously limit the applicability of any data they collect to any sort of true offshore (>3 miles) application of wind power development. The biological community is very different inshore compared to offshore. The birds are different and are likely to be found at different altitudes. For example, Terns are much more common inshore than offshore. In addition, the fact that the project is so close to shore also raises the likelihood that passerines and other nocturnal migrants would be passing through the rotor swept zone. This is because the birds are more likely to be ascending and descending at dusk and dawn in areaS close to shore. As darkness falls the birds take flight from stopover areas (i.e. potentially landforms such as Plum Island, Gardiner's Point Island and Great Gull Island) and at dawn they descend back to the ground. The use of Plum Island as a stopover area for migrating birds needs to be explored. The avian visual study conducted at the mariculture facility over portions of two years (1999 to 2000) does provide some anecdotal evidence of what species are present. However, it completely lacks any documentation of methodology and/or observer experience or effort. The data appears to indicate that only birds in the immediate vicinity of the net pens were recorded, and most gulls/terns recorded are noted to be sitting on the structure or on the netting. The study also has significant seasonal gaps with no data at all for the spring or July. The February 2007 avian metastudy does a good job of identifying the data needs, but does not outline any plans to actually collect that data. The metastudy also completely ignores the presence of Piping Plover nesting areas in the vicinity of the project. Further, the description of the radar study needs is telling. The radar data would be of great help in identifying the altitudes of nocturnal migrants as they pass over the project site and thus is assessing the risks within the rotor-swept zone. The meta-study does suggest conducting radar studies post- construction when there will be a structure they can easily attach the radar to. This would provide good information, but without pre-construction data, there will be nothing to compare the data to when looking for impacts. The same will hold true for post-construction visual surveys. It is also important to note that there are other projects plarmed for this same area by the sponsor. Up until July 13, 2007, the applicant proposed to operate a fishfarm, shellfish aquaculture and wind energy facility at the same 200 acre site. They proposed to grow summer flounder (Paralichthvs dentatus), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis), in addition to a proposed shellfish aquaculture operation. On July 13,2007, the applicant submitted a written request to withdraw, without prejudice, the finfish proposal from the overall action. However, at this time, the Department considers there to be three potential projects on the site, and finds that many of the possible impacts are related. Consequently, the potential for environmental impacts has increased. Impacts, particularly synergistic impacts from all three related proposals must be evaluated and considered. For example, there is a real possibility as described in the documents provided by Winergy that the tower bases will cause an increase in the amount of baitfish in the area, thus attracting the terns and other birds to the windfarm area increasing the likelihood of collisions. Page 3 of 4 The Alternatives Analvsis Summary seems to ignore the fact that the Plum Island site falls within an Important Bird Area (IBA), but the IBA criteria is then used to rule out other sites. Winergy also uses the fact that a site-specific Section 7 Endangered Species Assessment has been completed as a rating criteria to favor the lease site. However, after adjusting for those criteria, the leased site is no longer a clear favorite compared to several other sites such as the Long Island Sound which is ruled out based on complicated jurisdictional issues. The jurisdictional issues are not a likely impediment if the project is located in state waters. As an example, the north side of Orient Point would be a much better site with regards to tern impacts. In conclusion, the Department provides the comments in this letter, and must emphasize that the comments provided to Winergy in letters dated December 2, 2005 and June 30, 2006, have still not been adequately addressed. These letters are also attached and should be included in our comments on this Notice. As indicated in those earlier letters, some of the information from the Mariculture Final Environmental Impact Statement may be applicable to this proposed project, but that fact does not relieve Winergy from the obligation of fullv eXDlorinl! the potential impacts of this new and substantially different project. In many wind project proposals, a significant amount of effort is typically spent on studies to provide baseline data on use of the project area by birds, bats, and any rare, threatened or endangered species, and this should certainly be the case in this unique area that is so rich with natural resources. If you have any questions or would like discuss further, please contact me at (631) 444- 0302. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely; ~t,9W-- Kevin Kispert Project Manager cc: M. Miller, USACOE T. Sullivan, USFWS D. Rusanowsky, NMFS L.Knutson, USEP A K. Garland, DHS Lt. Andrea Logman, USCG-LIS J. Saintcross, NYSERDA D. May, NYSDPS A. Bauder, NYSOGS R. Madlin, NYSDOS R. Pierpont, NYSOPRHP M. Terry, Town of South old NYSDEC Review tearn Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT Visual Bird Survey The visual bird counts done at the site are inadequate for the purpose of providing a detailed characterization of the bird species diversity and density within the proposed project area. Few distinctions are made to identifY birds beyond general groupings of "tern" or "gull." Given the known presence of listed species such as least, common, and roseate terns in the area, identifYing individuals to species during visual surveys is very important. It is unclear whether days that have no data entered into a given column were days on which no surveys were conducted, or if surveys were conducted and no birds were seen and recorded. Major data gaps exist in this study, as no surveys were conducted during the winter or spring, and only one month in 1999 in early sununer. Furthermore, there is no information provided regarding the skill level or number of observers performing the surveys, time of day or weather conditions during the surveys, or any other methodology used. Avian Meta-Study by E&E Executive Summary No supporting data or references are provided for generalized statements made regarding the existing knowledge of how birds and bats interact with off-shore turbines. It is stated that pre-construction studies need only consist of visual surveys, and that post-construction surveys will effectively determine the impact of off-shore wind turbines on birds in the area. DEC disagrees with this and recommends pre-construction studies consisting of the use of marine radar and bat acoustical monitoring during all nights of spring and fall migration, and visual surveys conducted at various times throughout the year and under various weather conditions. These types of surveys will more thoroughly estimate the temporal and spatial use of the site by birds and bats. A post-construction mortality study plan should also be developed in consultation with DEC. Section 1.3.1: Regional Avian Overview, page 1-3 It is stated that waterbirds, including shorebirds, migrate primarily between September to mid-November in the fall. Many species of shorebirds begin their southward migration in late July and early August and continue into November. It should also be noted that the fall migration of at least one raptor species, the state endangered golden eagle, extends through November and December. Section 1.3.2: Important Bird Areas, page 1-5 This sections describes Plum Island and the surrounding islands and waters as designated Important Bird Areas that are particularly critical for roseate, least, and common terns, piping Page I of 5 plovers, osprey, and many species of waterfowl and wading birds. DEC recommends against the construction of a wind energy facility in close proximity to such critical nesting and foraging areas for large concentrations of a diversity of bird species. Section 1.3.7.2: Winergy Visual Survey, page 1-9 It is stated in this section that a visual bird survey was undertaken as part of a post- construction study for the mariculture project that is located at the same site as the proposed wind energy project. This contradicts the assertion on the July II, 2007 phone call that the visual bird survey was initiated as a pre-construction study for the construction of wind turbines. The visual surveys were inadequate in both intensity and duration, and were done more than 6 years ago. Section 2: Review of Off-Shore Wind Bird Studies Though a few studies have been done in the past several years at proposed and existing off-shore wind projects in Europe, there is still not enough information available to make accurate comparisons between sites, and especially not between continental bird populations. Providing data from studies on sea ducks and migrant songbirds in Europe does not adequately quantifY the activities of breeding and foraging terns, shorebirds, raptors, and other birds off an island in New York. . Section 3.2.1.3: Migratory Species, page 3-4 The behavior of songbirds as they migrate over open water has not been extensively studied. Using nocturnal radar data collected on land may not appropriately represent the altitudes and passage rates of birds over the water. DEC recommends an off-shore marine radar be used during spring and fall migration periods to characterize the passage rates, flight heights, and flight directions of birds and bats over the project area. The statement that little is known about the occurrence and movements of bats over open water is true. However, the statement that it is anticipated that few local or migratory bats will be present in the project site cannot be supported by this lack of data. Based on current knowledge, the collision risk for bats at off- shore wind turbines is currently unknown, not low or remote. Section 4.1: Types of Pre-Construction Bird Studies, page 4-1 This section provides a list of methods used to study birds and bats at proposed wind project sites located on-and off-shore. No mention is made of acoustical monitoring for birds, nighttime visual surveys done using infrared lights and goggles, or mist netting. These techniques are used for onshore projects and, with the exception of mist netting, could also be utilized for off-shore projects. Section 4.2.1.3: Onshore Marine RADAR Study, page 4-3 DEC disagrees with the statement that "it is anticipated that an onshore marine radar study would provide similar data to what is already known about passerine migration in general" and that further studies "would not provide substantial data to determine the potential impacts of the project." DEC does not consider the use of radar to study birds and bats for an off-shore wind development to be "extreme." Page 2 of 5 Section 4.2.1.5: NEXRAD Radar Study, page 4-4 Although NEXRAD cannot provide site specific information about the altitude, precise passage rates, or species composition of targets passing over the project site, it can give a good estimate on general target movements as they relate to specific weather events, and could be utilized as a tool during pre-construction studies at this project site. Section 4.2.1.7: Breeding Bird Surveys, page 4-4 DEC recommends conducting a breeding bird survey for the area around the location where the transmission cable will cross land to estimate any potential effects the beach disturbance may have on birds such as the piping plover. Section 4.2.1.8: Migratory Surveys, page 4-4 DEC agrees that the visual component of migratory surveys would best be done by boat. However, in order for the surveys to be considered relevant to species that migrate through the project site, they must be conducted in the seasons appropriate to the species of interest. Most songbirds, for instance, migrate between mid-April and the end of May and from mid-August to early October. As none of the visual surveys were done in the spring, and no radar surveys were done at all, the spring season has yet to be studied to any extent at this project site. Section 4.2.1.9: Acoustical Monitoring (For Bats), page 4-5 DEC disagrees with the assertion that acoustical monitoring for bats is unwarranted at the project site. Because few, if any, surveys have ever been done for bats over water, it cannot stated with certainty that bats are not likely to be adversely affected by off-shore wind turbines. Attachment 1: Analysis of Protected and Managed Species Relationships with Aquaculture Activities Discussion of Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Concerns, pages 3-4 It is unclear how the last sentence ofthe second paragraph on page 3 fits into the context of the discussion: "There is some Trout farming bird interaction problems in Idaho as well." This should be clarified or deleted from the text. The first paragraph on page 4 states that "In general, the species from piping plover to common and least terns tend to stay in the nearshore zone rarely fishing more than a kilometer offshore." The visual surveys conducted in 1999-2000 recorded at least 107 terns flying near and loafing on the pen nets. A thoroughly detailed visual study of bird use of the site needs to be conducted in order to estimate what potential impacts exist to birds from the construction of wind turbines in the area. Competing Use Concerns Obviated by Lease Terms, page 4 It is stated that Winergy's lease of the fish farm area "includes exclusion of other activities at the site, including dragging by commercial fishermen". DEC staff do not concur with this interpretation the water column lease that Winergy currently holds can exclude others Page 3 of 5 from the lease site because this area is still considered State lands for all other purposes. ESA Effects Table and Responses Effects Table-Avian Species: Roseate Tern and Piping Plover DEe considers a distance of 3.5 miles from nesting bird colonies on Great Gull Island, and one half mile from the foraging areas at Plum Gut to be in very close proximity to the proposed turbine locations. The potential impact of wind turbines nearby the habitats of federally and state listed species needs to be considered much more thoroughly than has currently been done by Winergy. The cable crossing at Orient Point beach was not mentioned when discussing the mitigative actions for impacts on piping plovers. It is stated on the first page of the document 5-ESA responses.pdfthat in Europe, "the placement of wind turbines in avian migratory corridors and habitats has either no or insignificant impacts on bird populations," and that "by extension, the installation of three wind turbines in the small area near Plum Island will prove to be a benign, or even positive, addition to the...avian environments." Firstly, Gardiners Bay is not only used during migration, but for nesting and foraging by a host of bird species, some of which are state and federally listed as threatened or endangered. The behavior of birds during migration along European shores is likely to be quite different from that of birds breeding on islands in New York. Secondly, not nearly enough data has been collected at the proposed project area to support any statements about the potential impacts of wind turbines on birds off the shore of Plum Island. The section discussing bats on page 9 states that a small colony of bats reside on Plum Island, and that "Winergy Power research revealed that the bats rarely ventured more than 500 yards from their colony," and the turbines will pose no hazard to the bats from this colony. No data has been provided to support any of these statements. Executive Summary Addressing All Topics Discussed in the Teleconference of July 11, 2007, dated August 8, 2007 Section B-3: Bird and Bat Analysis Summary, page 11 The first paragraph of this section states that the proposed project is not within an Important Bird Area (IBA). However, the nearest turbine is only 1500 feet from Plum Island, which is an IBA, and the cable connection to the substation is proposed to occur across Orient Point, also an IBA. lt is also stated that, "No hazards are expected to bats, since no bats have been observed on nearby Plum Island." This directly contradicts the claim that Winergy conducted research on a bat colony in an old fort on Plum Island, and found that bats did not move more than 500 yards from the colony site. Whether a bat colony exists on Plum Island needs to be confirmed. Several mentions are made regarding Winergy's intention to "sponsor research on Page 4 of 5 avian/offshore wind turbine interactions during the operation of the project." A detailed post- construction mortality study and behavioral monitoring work plan should be developed in consultation with DEe and USFWS prior to the construction of the project. Page 5 of 5 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, 4th Floor 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-1750 Phone: (518) 402-9167 . FAX: (518) 402-9168 Website: www.dec.state.ny.us ~ ~ ~ Denise M. Sheehan Commissioner NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION December 2, 2005 Dennis 1. Quaranta, President Winergy Power LLC 640 Montauk Highway Shirley, NY 11967 Re: Winergy Power Wind Park: Former Mariculture site Three, 3.6 MW Wind turbines Plum Island, Gardiners Bay DEe # 1-4738-01255/00010 Dear Mr. Quaranta: The New York Sate Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) staff have performed an initial review of the information and materials submitted in support of the above application. These materials include the Joint Application for Permit form, a document labeled Permit Application 2005-00367, and a document labeled Appendices for permit 2005-00367. The project involves the construction of a wind park consisting of three, 3.6 MW wind turbines and a connecting 3.2 kV electric transmission line. The transmission line is proposed to run along the shore of Plum Island and connect into an existing electric line that presently runs from Plum Island to Orient Point Long Island. This line as described does not meet the threshold ( Major electric transmission facilities are lines with a design capacity of 100 kV2 or more extending for at least 10 miles, or 125 kV and over, extending a distance of one mile or more) to be certified under Article VII of Public Service Law, and will be subject to State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) and other applicable regulations. The wind farm and the transmission cable will be collectively known as the project. The application requests a permit for a duration of ten years during which time, the applicant maintains that various government agencies, university researchers and other research, educational and political organizations will be accommodated for studies they wish to pursue, such as fish species characterizations and counts, bird migration and population monitoring, educational tours, wind turbine technology development, resource monitoring, assessment and analysis, materials testing and analysis, computational fluid dynamics, meteorological and oceanographic studies, and possibly homeland security activities, among others as yet undefined. The application states further that the facility will also be used for evaluating the coupling of Page I of 3 offshore wind energy conversion with mariculture and potentially with other ocean energy technologies. As you may be aware, one of the initial steps in the SEQR process is to establish the appropriate lead agency. Accordingly, the application materials must provide sufficient information to determine which agencies are "involved agencies" meaning, the agencies with the jurisdiction to fund or approve a given action. Enclosed please find a copy of the EAF that was submitted with the Winergy application. Please carefully review and correct the highlighted! annotated areas especially the sections on the site description (endangered species, scenic views), project description (blasting), and approvals required (DEC approvals should be listed, and this site is within an area where Suffolk County has rights concerning the leasing for shellfish aquaculture). The corrected EAF should be returned along with the additional information that is required (see last paragraph below) to conduct a coordinated review and establish the lead agency. Please be aware that additional information, as described in part in the attachment to this letter, will be required before the lead agency can make a determination of significance pursuant to SEQR. Staff's initial review of the materials provided has triggered concern for the potential impacts of many aspects of this project, and for the lack of project-specific information in the application materials that have been provided. The application appears to have drawn heavily from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Mariculture project, but staff must emphasize that there are dramatic differences between an aquaculture project and a wind park. While some of the information from the Mariculture FEIS may be applicable to the proposed project, that fact does not relieve Winergy from the obligation of fully exploring the potential impacts of this new and substantially different project. In many wind project proposals, a significant amount of effort has been spent on studies to provide baseline data on use of the project area by birds, bats, and any rare, threatened or endangered species. This is often done well in advance of the actual filing of any required applications. However, there is no mention of any such studies in the four pages of Appendix XIII (Hazards to Avian Populations). Please read the attached comments carefully and be aware that these issues and perhaps others will need to be addressed fully in order to satisfy SEQR requirements. DEC recognizes the importance of describing other aspects of the environment such as aesthetic and cultural resources, and the need and scope for a full environmental review of those, and other impacts, would be better addressed by the resource agencies responsible for their protection. Also attached is a letter in which DEC provided comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) on another off-shore wind project. That letter urged the COE to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement, and indicated that impacts to natural resources need to be scoped out in the EIS process. In addition, you should consult the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) website for additional information about wind development. The NYSERDA Wind Energy Tool Kit (bttp://www.poweplaturally.orglPrograms/Wind/toolkit.asp) may be especially useful. Although this tool kit is not a policy, regulatory manual, or collection of guidelines, it provides much useful information about the process for siting wind energy facilities in localities in this state including all the considerations that go into the decision- making effort. An example of some of the topics are as follows: Page 2 of 3 . Birds and Bats: Potential Impacts and Survey Techniques . Other Potential Environmental Impacts . Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts . Wind Farm Construction . GAO Report: Impacts on Wildlife and Government Responsibilities for Regulating Development and Protecting Wildlife . Environmental Compliance During Wind Farm Construction One component of the toolkit entitled The Role of Government Agencies in the Approval Process, is attached for your information. . Upon receipt of a revised EAF and supporting documentation, and a revised site plan that provides the distance of project components from the shoreline/mean high water, we can continue processing your application and commence a coordinated review to determine the lead agency. However, as you may be aware, the application can not be considered complete until the lead agency has been provided with the information it needs to make it's determination of significance for the purposes ofSEQR, and has made that determination. If you have any questions, please contact me at (518) 402-9161. Sincerely, /s/ Kevin Kispert Project Manager cc: M. Miller, USACOE T. Sullivan, USFWS D. Rusanowsky, NMFS L.Knutson, USEP A Lt. Andrea Logman, USCG-LIS J. Saintcross, NYSERDA D. May, NYSDPS A. Bauder, NYSOGS S. Resler, NYSDOS R. Pierpont, NYSOPRHP M. Terry, Town of South old NYSDEC Review team Page 3 of 3 Attachment Birds DEC staff have serious concerns for the potential negative impacts that this project could have on both resident and migratory birds. Contrary to statements made in Appendix XIII of the application, staff indicate the currents and shoals in the project area as well as its proximity to Plum Island, Gardiner's Pint Island and Great Gull Island, make it a prime foraging area for numerous species of seabirds such as ospreys, terns, gannets, loons, gulls, etc. The area is also a wintering area for seaducks, and serves as a migratory funnel for migrating birds. The site is in fact in a major fall raptor migrational corridor, especially for accipiters (Sharp-shinned Hawk, Cooper's Hawk, and Northern Goshawk) and falcons (including the peregrine falcon, kestrel, and merlin). This fact underscores the area's importance to migratory songbirds which the raptors are following. Plum Island serves as a potential stop over or resting area for migrating birds, supports nesting osprey, and the shoreline supports nesting piping plovers, nesting American Oystercatcher, nesting Great Egrets, and loafing terns. Staff indicate the site is a major foraging area for Osprey that nest on Plum Island, and a major foraging area for common terns and roseate terns that nest on Gardiner's Point Island and Great Gull Island. To provide an idea of the number of birds that utilize this area, it is important to be aware that the common tern colony on Great Gull Island is the largest colony in New York state and one of the largest in the US. The roseate tern colony at Great Gull Island is the second largest colony in the US. Staff are concerned that the proposed project site is directly in the flight path ofterns foraging in Plum gut and returning to Great Gull Island. Several hundred terns are commonly seen at a time foraging and loafing in the area of Pine Point of Plum Island. Appendix VII of the application indicates that the bases for the wind turbines will introduce a vertical dimension in the project area which may provide a small increase in the fish population and that an increased food supply can only have a beneficial impact on any species population. However, if the wind farm structures do function as a reef to some degree and increase or concentrate the fish population around them, this may attract foraging birds directly into the wind farm. DEC staff recognize that, in general, bird migration occurs over a broad front with bird flight densities varying slightly due to such factors as weather, the timing of migration, species composition and geographic features of the state. Migrating raptors migrate exclusively during the day, but most of the songbirds, however, migrate during the evening. However, without the use of special sampling equipment the true magnitude of evening migration is not realized, especially in areas where land forms (plum Island, Gardiner's Point Island and Great Gull Island) tend to concentrate these movements. The use of marine radar equipment has been shown to be very effective at assessing these nocturnal migrations Typical altitudes expressed in the literature are usually site specific and are attributed to the behavior of all types of birds that are likely to pass over a given point during their migration Recent studies in New York State conducted from sunset through sunrise, which captures bird Page I of 3 behaviors throughout the nighttime migration period have shown that flight altitudes depend on the time of night. Birds are susceptible to turbine blade strikes as the ascend and descend at dusk and dawn. As darkness falls the birds take flight from stopover areas and at dawn they descend back to the ground DEC staff strongly urge that Winergy establish baseline information for avian species including the types of species using the project area and the number of birds. Details regarding the type of use (nesting, foraging, loafing, transitory, etc) and patterns of use should be included in the baseline analysis. Rare, threatened, and endangered species including the piping plover, roseate tern should be included in the baseline information. The studies should include the results of a radar ornithology study conducted at the project site to determine, at a minimum, the . passage rate and flight altitudes of those birds/bats that migrate through the project area. Given the importance of the project area to avian resources, the Department recommends at least two years of data be collected for the project including meteorological information (fog, rain, snow, cloud cover, etc) taken during the sampling events. That data should include year round observations and marine radar data that capture the spring and fall migrations and use of the project area during the summer and winter seasons as well. Department staff are willing to provide assistance to the project sponsor to develop the appropriate study parameters that will provide sufficient information to evaluate the impacts of this project. Bats It is not evident that any studies or data on bats, including any information on specific populations or use of the project area during migration, has been conducted or provided to DEC. The statement made on page 12 of the Application (Section D, Project Specifics # 13) "Since bats do not travel over water, the Winergy Project demonstration will pose no hazard to bats", is provided without the benefit of any apparent supporting documentation. Staff are aware of numerous published references of bats landing on ships well offshore which would clearly indicate that bats travel over water. Department staff have concerns that bats using or traveling through the project area during spring and fall migrations may be adversely affected by the project due to the project's proximity to Plum Island. Studies should be conducted to determine the potential for this site to be used as a spring and/or fall migration route by bats. If bats are found to be present and will be adversely impacted by the project, appropriate mitigation strategies will need to be evaluated. Marine Mammals Staff advise that there is a seal haul-out on the shoreline directly north of the proposed site. The project sponsor needs to assess the project's impacts on marine mammals and sea turtles. The brief discussion in Appendix VI of harbor seals with respect to mariculture activities has little relevance to the current project. Shellfish and Finfish DEC staff indicate that the project site is within an area where Suffolk County has rights concerning leasing for shellfish aquaculture, and that a trawl fishery is located off of Plum Island. These issues and others associated with the impacts of the proposed project on shellfish Page 2 of 3 and finfish resources need to be fully addressed. Appendix VI (Essential Fish Habitat) references studies conducted in 1994, which can provide some useful information about the project area. However, this entire section has virtually no discussion of the impact of the current project on shellfish and finfish resources. Benthos and Sediments The potential impacts to benthic organisms and their environment will need to be explored. The EFH survey conducted in 1994 for the Mariculture project provides information on the species composition in the project area, but could not obviously evaluate the impacts of the current project, or provide information along the proposed cable route. Sediment chemistry data along the cable route will need to be provided. It is not evident that the proposed cable route for the wind project was included in the study area described in the Mariculture FEIS. Additionally, more information is required to describe the cable-burying plow. It is not described as a jet plow, but the steep-sided trench shown in Figure X-2 is more typical of a plow with hydraulic jets than a strictly mechanical plow. Please indicate whether it's the same type of plow device that was used to install the existing cable between Plum Island and Orient Point. Visual Resources The application should be supported by a fully developed visual analysis conducted pursuant to the DEC Program Policy, Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts (DEP-OO-2). The application should state which of the 15 resource categories listed in section V (A) of the policy may be impacted by the project, and should also provide the specific resources under each category. Following such procedure, a comprehensive visual analysis offacility visibility should be prepared, based on definition oflandscape characteristics,. landscape similarity zones, impacted viewpoint selection, user group definition and characterization, forecast of future conditions, analysis of seasonal variation and comparison of alternate project sites and scales. Since a wind farm represents a large landscape alteration, the assessment should examine an area greater than 5 miles from the turbines ifthere are any potential sensitive receptors as described in section V (B) of the DEC Program Policy. Cultural and Archeoloeical Resources Winergy should consult the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) at (518)237-8643 concerning the identification of important cultural and historic resources in the project area. You would then work with the OPRHP to identify the potential impacts, and ensure the necessary avoidance and/or mitigation of those impacts occurs. Pursuant to the Uniform Procedures regulations found at 6 NYCRR Part 621.3(a)(7), the DEC can not consider the Winergy application complete until all the necessary surveys have been conducted and the OPRHP has determined the impact of the project on properties listed or eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. Page 3 of 3 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, 4th Floor 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-1750 Phone: (518) 402-9167 . FAX: (518) 402-9168 Website: www.dec.state.ny.us ~ -... ~ Denise M. Sheehan Commissioner June 30, 2006 Dennis J. Quaranta, President Winergy Power LLC 640 Montauk Highway Shirley, NY 11967 Re: Winergy Power Wind Park: Former Mariculture site Three, 3.6 MW Wind turbines Plum Island, Gardiners Bay DEe # 1-4738-01255/00010 Dear Mr. Quaranta: The Department is in receipt of your February 9, 2006 letter discussing the need for avian studies prior to installation of wind turbines in the project location. In this letter, Winergy states their belief that baseline studies cannot predict the likelihood of interactions between birds and the proposed turbines, and the impacts will be determined once the windfarm is erected. Winergy does state that a bird characterization is needed to depict diversity and proposes to use existing data sources to provide that information. The letter then continues on to state that because bird populations in the project area fluctuate from year to year, " no single or even several years counts of birds in the region will provide data useful for predicting potential impacts from the presence of wind turbines at the proposed project site.". It concludes by expressing an intent to assess the impact of wind turbines on avian populations after the project is in place. As Department staff indicated in our December 2, 2005 letter and during the February 2, 2006 conference call, baseline information for avian species (Le. species diversity and abundance) is only a oortion of the information that should be collected prior to construction. It is essential to determine how birds are using the site during the various seasons and climatological conditions in order to begin assessing the potential impacts of the proposed project. The avian studies should include the results of a radar ornithology study conducted at the project site to determine, at a minimum, the passage rate and flight altitudes of those birds/bats that migrate through the project area. Given the importance ofthe project area to avian resources, the Department recommends at least two years of data be collected for the project including meteorological information (fog, rain, snow, cloud cover, etc) taken during the sampling events. That data should include year round observations and marine radar data that capture the spring and fall migrations and use of the project area during the summer and winter seasons as well. Page I of 2 Since your February 9, 2006 letter does not mention potential impacts to bats, I must emphasize that Department staff have concerns that bats using or traveling through the project area during spring and fall migrations may be adversely affected by the project due to the project's proximity to Plum Island. Studies should be conducted to determine the potential for this site to be used as a spring and/or fall migration route by bats. If bats are found to be present and will be adversely impacted by the project, appropriate mitigation strategies will need to be evaluated. In conclusion, Department staff again offer to provide assistance to Winergy to develop the appropriate study parameters that will serve to provide sufficient information to evaluate the impacts of this project. However, staff clearly do not agree that is appropriate to begin assessing the projects impacts after construction. Post construction monitoring is an essential element in determining the impacts of the project, but the preconstruction studies are essential to determine whether the project should be constructed in the first place, and to provide the option for mitigation of negative impacts. Therefore, staff have determined that the preconstruction bird and bats studies are essential to determine the potential impacts of this project pursuant to SEQR. Although a lead agency has not yet been established for this project, as you are aware, this application can not be considered complete until a determination of significance for the purposes of SEQR has been made. If you have any questions, please contact me at (518) 402-9161. Sincerely, /s/ Kevin Kispert Project Manager cc: T. Sullivan, USFWS DC Review Team Page 2 of 2