Scope of study for Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Re: Scope of Study for Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
I am writing to comment on the scope of study for the DEIS that will be prepared for the Babcock and Brown (B&B) industrial wind turbine project in the towns of Ripley and Westfield. Specifically, I shall be commenting on the “Work Plan for Bird and Bat Studies at the proposed Ripley-Westfield Wind Farm, Chautauqua County New York” (hereafter refereed to as the “Work Plan”).
My credentials for commenting include the following:
50 years of birding experience
Chairman, Conservation and Education Committee of the Hawk Migration Association of North America (HMANA)
Vice chairman, HMANA Board of Directors
Coordinator, official counter and reporter, Ripley Hawk Watch
Recently retired Director of Planning for Chautauqua County following a 25-year career in planning and administration for Chautauqua County including extensive experience working with the SEQRA process and SEQRA documents
There are serious intrinsic problems with commenting on the proposed “Work Plan” for this current project. The B&B project is being proposed within a known migratory flyway, near nesting and wintering concentrations of raptors (including American Bald Eagles), and includes an Important Bird Area (IBA) as designated by the New York State Audubon. The importance of the migratory raptor flyway has been documented by decades of data collected by the Ripley Hawk Watch and submitted to HMANA and its raptor population index project. Data for the last six years is available on the Internet at www.hawkcount.org. B&B has claimed that the project has been moved inland somewhat and therefore should be less of a risk to migrating raptors. The proposed project in its current configuration still includes areas where the Ripley Hawk Watch has documented significant raptor migration. Furthermore, during certain weather conditions the main migration probably passes well south of the Ripley Hawk Watch sites, and some years the migration could be significant through the project area.
The documented use of the area by nesting, wintering and migrating raptors, some of special conservation interest, should a priori have ruled out this area for an industrial wind turbine project. Therefore, the scoping document and the DEIS that develops from it both seem rather beside the point: why do we need to waste resources on further studies when it is already known that the proposed location for the project is inappropriate?
The second intrinsic difficulty with commenting on the “Work Plan” document lies in the ambiguity of the proposed project: we know neither where the turbines will be located, how big they will be, or how many of them there will be. Among other problems, can optimal locations of monitoring sites be determined if it’s not known where the turbines will be built?
The third intrinsic difficulty with commenting on the “Work Plan” lies in the fact that a major portion of the study appears to have bee completed at this point, with no input from local experts and questionable input from state and federal agencies. It’s highly improper to complete or even begin major portions of a study before the study parameters are agreed to.
A fourth intrinsic difficulty lies in the fact that apparently a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment was completed by either Curry and Kerlinger (“Work Plan,” p 1-2) or Kerlinger and Guarnaccia (“Work Plan,” p. 5-1). The confusion about the Phase I study makes it very difficult to review the “Work Plan,” which should have been developed in the context of the Phase I study. The Kerlinger and Guarnaccia study appears not to be available at this time: has it been completed? The Cury and Kerlinger study that was found was not, as the “Work Plan” indicated, “completed…for this report” (“Work Plan,” p. 1-2), but rather for areas along the Lake Erie shore in Ohio. The lead agencies must require that the Phase I Study be made available for the review of the proposed work plan and the comment period extended accordingly.
Aside from these intrinsic problems, there are a number of other issues with the work plan that need to be addressed.
Independence of Researchers
Especially in light of the disturbing conflict of interest exhibited by the environmental consultants for the last project proposed in this area, the lead agencies must require clear assurances of the independence of the environmental consultants preparing the “Work Plan.” No provision for the assurance of this independence is made in the work plan. Further, in order to be considered valid science, both the proposal for the work plan and the work plan itself should be peer-reviewed. The proposed work plan makes no provision for this. The lead agencies must require peer-review of the proposed work plan and the completed work plan.
Adequate Duration of Study
Because knowledge of raptor migration and other behavior patterns is incomplete and raptor monitoring demonstrates high year-to-year variability in numbers of migrants at most sites, the lead agencies must require at least three years of pre-construction study data for raptors, data specifically designed to assess risk from specific turbine locations and heights. Multi-year pre-construction studies of raptor behavior should not be limited to migration issues but should be comprehensive and include rigorous studies of wintering and nesting raptors. Currently, the study proposes only one year of data. Nesting and wintering study protocols (four days of windshield studies in the winter!) are woefully inadequate. (Does everyone know what the consultants are talking about when they say “windshield study?”) The lead agencies must require nesting and winter surveys that document nesting and wintering patterns of avian activity in the project area, not simply the existence of birds: this is especially true for species of special environmental interest (e.g., American Bald Eagles). The description of avian behavior patterns in the previous work done by the consultant in the proposed project area was based on assumptions (in fact, discredited assumptions), not careful observation: careful observation of behavior patterns entails much more than four windshield surveys of the area during winter months.
The seasonal start of data collection also could miss a major portion of the Golden Eagle migration, as well as other raptor species, such as Red-tailed Hawks. There is good reason to believe that the Golden Eagle migration might pass south of the Ripley Hawk Watch sites. Since many of the proposed locations of the current project are in that area, collection of data should begin on or before March 1st, not March 15th, in order to determine use of the area by migrating Golden Eagles and other raptors. Observation locations should be developed to best assess Golden Eagle use of the area.
Inappropriate study times
Study days for the spring migration data collection have been inappropriately identified as “days of preferable raptor migration weather (little or no precipitation, warmer than average temperatures, and light or southerly winds) to the extent possible.” These are not the conditions most likely to cause flights through the proposed project’s location or at altitudes where migrants would be most at risk from the proposed project: the lead agencies should require that study parameters be developed in conjunction with location migration experts so that useful and appropriate information is collected.
Appropriate consultation with federal and state agencies
Although the draft scoping document indicates consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in preparation of the “Work plan,” significant contributions from these agencies are not apparent in the “Work Plan” itself. Because of the lengthy and unfavorable state and federal agency reviews of the previous bird and bat studies performed by the consultants, the lead agencies should require that the “Work Plan” document any consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NYSDEC or other agencies, clearly indicating what recommendations from those agencies were incorporated into the “Work Plan.” Care must be taken by the lead agencies to actively seek comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NYSDEC on the proposed “Work Plan,” even after the formal SEQRA comment period has closed.
Availability of study data and documents
The lead agencies must require assurances in the “Work Plan” or elsewhere in the scoping document that data and studies be available for public scrutiny.
“Work Plan” analysis of data
The last bird and bat study performed by the consultant used discredited kill data and strange analytic methodologies based on studies performed thousands of miles away dealing with different species, different migration patterns, different climate and different geography than found in the area of the proposed B&B project. The proposed “Work Plan” is silent on the methods that will be used to determine risk in the consultant’s new venture. The lead agencies must require that the “Work Plan” stipulate how collected data will be evaluated and analyzed to determine risk to wildlife. Since the current proposed “Work Plan” is silent on these considerations, it must be considered substantively incomplete. The comment period should be extended to allow comment on the analytic methodologies once those methodologies have been made available for public scrutiny. Those methodologies also should be peer-reviewed.
Purposes of Work Plan
Two principle purposes of the “Work Plan” are to evaluate risk and prepare baselines for post-construction mortality monitoring. As indicated above, it is difficult to comment on how well the “Work Plan” will evaluate risk if the methodologies it will employ are not specified. It is also difficult to comment on how well the “Work Plan” will prepare for post-construction monitoring if specifics of the post-construction monitoring program are not available. The scoping documents refers to the consistency of the “Work Plan” with the draft NYS “Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects.” This is not adequate detail for understanding how the post-construction monitoring will be performed. New York State draft guidelines also are seriously deficient in their treatment of post-construction monitoring, especially for raptors. For example, protocols for mortality monitoring in the NYS guidelines, including searcher efficiency and scavenging rates, focus on night-time migration (songbirds and others) and do not specify separate strategies for monitoring mortality rates for day-time migrants (raptors and others). The lead agencies must require that the “Work Plan” include clear and specific details of its analytic methodology, including post-construction monitoring strategies. Without them, the “Work Plan” is substantively incomplete.
Quality of the “Work Plan”
The proposed “Work Plan” is difficult to evaluate because of lapses in clarity, literacy and accuracy. Apparent confusion about the Phase I study, as discussed above, is one example of the problem. Another example of this problem can be found in Fig. 3-1: in this figure additional raptor survey locations are identified as “BWT,” “BWL,” “BWR,” “PR,” “SH,” and “JR.” Nowhere are these designations explained. The Ripley Hawk Watch sites are also misidentified and located improperly.
The burden of the lead agency is a daunting one. Ripley and Westfield are to be commended for taking on this responsibility. If either towns require clarification of my comments or any further information from me, I would be happy to do my best to comply with such requests. Thank you for your attention to my comments above.
By Gil Randell
Village Of Mayville Resident
4 September 2008
The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's effort to advance understanding of the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development. For more information, click here.
Blog it:
Tags: Wind power, Wind energy
|
