[ posts only (not attachments) ]


View titles only
(by date)
List all documents, ordered…

By Title

By Author

View PDF, DOC, PPT, and XLS files on line

Add NWW documents to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

News Watch

Selected Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Resource Documents: New Hampshire (8 items)

RSSNew Hampshire

Unless indicated otherwise, documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are shared here to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate. • The copyrights reside with the sources indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations.

Real-time wind production — various regions

Author:  National Wind Watch

World: Current electricity production and consumption of “low-carbon” and “renewable” electricity – click an area for details

Europe: Quarter-hour load, generation, exchange – click on sample graph for other countries

Nordpool: Current production by source type in the Nordic power system (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Denmark)

Nordpool: Current power flow in the Nordic power system

West Denmark: Electricity prices, consumption, and production today, every 5 minutes

France: Quarter-hour consumption and production

France: Current, weekly, monthly, yearly demand and production

Germany: Quarter-hour net electricity generation

Germany: Quarter-hour wind production in EnBW control area (Baden-Württemberg)

Great Britain: Last 24 hours of generation by fuel type, every 5 minutes

Great Britain: Current, weekly, monthly, yearly demand and production

Ireland: Daily quarter-hour wind generation and system demand

Ireland: Quarter-hour system demand and fuel mix

Portugal: Real-time wind power generation (previous days) and total power generation (wind is included under “special status”)

Spain: 10-minute demand and generation share

Australia: Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO, southern and eastern Australia): 5-minute and up to past year regional generation and fuel mix

Australia: AEMO grid (National Electricity Market): 5- and 30-minute aregional generation and fuel mix

Alberta: Monthly wind power forecast vs. actual comparison reports

Ontario: Latest hour of generation

Ontario: Daily hourly generation (scroll to bottom of table for wind plant)

Ontario: Hourly generation and other power data

Northwestern USA: Previous week, real-time 5-minute wind generation, Bonneville Power Administration
BPA load and wind generation

California: Daily hourly production, CAISO [click here to download complete report (PDF) from previous day.]
CAISO: yesterday's renewables production

Midwest ISO fuel mix

New England fuel mix (ISO-NE)

Barnstable, Massachusetts: hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly production and consumption of a 100-kW turbine since June 1, 2011 (100% daily generation would be 2,400 kWh)

Scituate, Massachusetts: hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly production and consumption of a 1.5-MW turbine since March 30, 2012 (100% daily generation would be 36,000 kWh)

Mark Richey Woodworking, Newburyport, Massachusetts: hourly, daily, monthly production of a 600-kW turbine since June 2009 (100% daily generation would be 14,400 kWh)

University of Delaware, Newark: current power output (kW) of 2,000-kW turbine

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  March 17, 2009
Environment, Filings, New Hampshire, Noise, Regulations, Siting, WildlifePrint storyE-mail story

Letters from N.H. Audubon Society to Site Evaluation Committee and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Author:  Audubon Society of New Hampshire

February 27, 2009

Thomas S. Burack, Chairman
Site Evaluation Committee
N.H. Department of Environmental Services
29 Hazen Drive
Concord. NH 03301
Re: Application of Granite Reliable Power, LLC, Docket No. 2008-04

Dear Chairman Burack,

The Audubon Society of New Hampshire is a statewide non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of wildlife and habitat throughout New Hampshire. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the application of Granite Reliable Power, LLC for a certificate for site and facility for a wind energy installation in Coos County (Docket 2008-04). In the interests of full disclosure, our staff biologists conducted breeding bird surveys at the project site in contract with Noble Environmental Power during the summer of 2007. A clause in the contract specifically reserved our right to comment on the proposed project once the application was submitted.

New Hampshire Audubon supports appropriately sited wind turbines as one component of New Hampshire’s renewable energy portfolio. We consider appropriate siting to include avoidance of substantial impacts to sensitive habitats and species of conservation concern. The turbines on Dixville Peak, northern Owlhead Mountain, and especially on Mt. Kelsey fail to meet these criteria.

High elevation spruce-fir forests occur from approximately 2500 ft to approximately 3500 ft elevation in New Hampshire’s White Mountains and North Country. While the lower limit of these forests varies with aspect and soil conditions and exists as a transition zone rather than a sharp boundary, 2700 ft is commonly considered a reasonable elevation limit for management guidelines. (We note, however, that the U.S. Forest Service uses 2500 ft. for such purposes.) High-elevation spruce-fir forests are adapted to survive harsh growing conditions. Compared to forests at lower elevations, these sites have shallower, more nutrient-poor soils, higher levels of precipitation, stronger winds, colder temperatures, more frequent exposure to ice damage, and shorter growing seasons. These conditions result in low tree species diversity, very slow growth rates, and high mortality rates. The shallow soils, steep slopes, and high precipitation also create a high risk of erosion when vegetation is removed. It is these conditions that qualify high elevation spruce-fir forests as sensitive habitat, and that led the State of New Hampshire to engage industrial forest landowners of high-elevation spruce-fir forests in special management agreements to protect this unique resource by limiting harvest levels.

Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) includes all land above 2700 ft. elevation within the Mountain Area Protection Subdistrict, where land uses are regulated to “preserve the natural equilibrium of vegetation, geology, slope, soil, and climate in order to reduce danger to public health and safety posed by unstable mountain areas, to protect water quality, and to protect mountain areas for their scenic values and recreational opportunities.” LURC has twice denied the request of Maine Mountain Power to rezone land on Black Nubble Mountain from Mountain Area Protection to Planned Development Subdistrict in order to construct a wind farm there, based, in part on the high ecological value of the high elevation lands and the proposed project’s alteration of a “particularly sensitive area.” These concerns and justifications apply equally to high-elevation lands in New Hampshire.

While many of the road miles required for this project follow existing logging roads and skid trails, forestry roads exist primarily at elevations below 2700 feet, since harvesting is neither economical nor sustainable above this elevation. The impacts of road construction along these high ridgelines will extend far beyond the footprint of the openings. The extensive linear openings in the forest canopy will expose the adjacent forest to increased wind, resulting in significant and progressive blowdown. In addition, road construction at the higher elevations is likely to require significant terrain alteration, including use of explosives, in an area of high erosion risk and fragile soils. Standard road construction in such areas involves minimizing grades with numerous switchbacks. This approach would require more extensive clearing and terrain alteration, while straighter roads would greatly increase erosion risk both during and after construction. There is no minimal-damage strategy for constructing these roads.

In addition to being highly sensitive habitat, the high-elevation forests on Dixville Peak and Mt. Kelsey support several species of conservation concern in the state and region, including American Marten, Bicknell’s Thrush, and possibly American Three-Toed Woodpecker. Turbine placement above 2700 ft. will result in direct habitat loss and additional habitat degradation for these species.

The American Three-Toed Woodpecker was common in the spruce-fir forests of New Hampshire’s White Mountains and North Country prior to extensive harvesting in the late 1800s. This woodpecker and its Eurasian equivalent are now considered species of conservation concern in both the eastern and western hemispheres. American Three-Toed Woodpeckers require large areas of natural spruce-fir forest, and occupy home ranges of nearly 400 ha [988 acres]. Progressive harvesting of large-diameter spruce and fir trees over the course of the twentieth century has left few areas of suitable habitat large enough to support breeding pairs. We acknowledge that our surveys did not definitively document the presence of this woodpecker in the project area. However, habitat conditions at the locations on Mt. Kelsey where potential encounters occurred strongly suggest this species rather than the similar Black-Backed Woodpecker, which favors younger, more open spruce-fir forest. American Three-Toed Woodpeckers were documented during the 1980s in an extensive stand of spruce-fir forest in the Phillips Brook valley, which has since been harvested. Mt. Kelsey is the closest area of suitable habitat, lending further credence to the likelihood of the species’ current presence there.

Studies in Quebec indicate that these woodpeckers favor interior forest, and respond to the presence of clearcuts up to 262 ft [80 m] from the forest edge. By bisecting the extensive high elevation spruce-fir forest at the northern end of the project area, turbines above 2700 feet will reduce suitable habitat for this species well beyond the footprint of the proposed development.

High-elevation spruce-fir forests of northeastern North America provide the only breeding habitat available to the Bicknell’s Thrush, which has the smallest breeding range of any North American bird. For this reason, habitat loss has more significant implications for this bird than for more widely distributed species. While this thrush spends most of its time foraging below the forest canopy, the males perform evening courtship flights which would take them into the rotor-swept zone and increase the risk of mortality.

Impacts of turbine noise on wildlife are essentially unknown. Mechanical noise from turbines is minimal, dissipates rapidly with increasing distance from the source, and is unlikely to impact wildlife behavior. Aerodynamic noise, which varies with the ratio of blade tip speed to wind speed, can be transmitted over considerable distances; sound waves from multiple turbines can combine to amplify the sound in the area of intersection (so noise is greater at a distance from the turbines than along the turbine string itself); and sound waves can bounce off neighboring mountains in unpredictable ways, increasing noise levels in unpredictable locations. The potential for interference with predator-prey relationships and vocal communication of birds during courtship and breeding indicate a need for additional investigation at existing wind energy facilities before this project moves forward.

New York, Pennsylvania, and Iberdrola Renewables, among others, have prepared guidelines for pre- and post-construction bird and bat studies. We strongly urge that the SEC review these documents and consider adopting appropriate guidelines to standardize required wildlife studies for wind energy proposals in New Hampshire.

We also strongly recommend that the SEC adopt siting guidelines for New Hampshire wind energy facilities to guide developers to environmentally appropriate sites for development of this energy source. he proposed guidelines prepared by the ad hoc Wind Energy Facility Siting Guidelines Working Group and delivered to the State of NH Energy Policy Commission (EPC) Wind Siting Subcommittee in May 2007 provide a good starting place for consideration.

In view of the above, we strongly urge the SEC to:

  • Deny a license for proposed turbines located above 2700 ft. elevation.
  • Adopt siting guidelines for wind energy facilities in New Hampshire,
  • Develop standardized guidelines for pre- and post-construction wildlife studies at wind energy facilities in New Hampshire.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Michael J. Bartlett

[[[[ ]]]]

February 27, 2009

Mr. Richard Roach
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
696 Virginia Road
Concord, MA 01742

Dear Mr. Roach,

… We strongly encourage the Corps of Engineers to require an Environmental Impact Statement as part of the Section 404 permitting process for this proposed project. The permit application states that there will be 58 acres of impact above 2700 ft. elevation. This level of impact alone is reason for concern. However, to date there has been no comprehensive geotechnical analysis for the routes of proposed roads at these elevations. The soils and topography of these areas suggest that significant terrain alteration will be needed to construct these roads. Fulfillment of curve radius and grade requirements will involve significant cuts and fills, including blasting. These terrain alterations will lead to as yet unidentified impacts to both surface and groundwater hydrology.

The December 2008 testimony of Dr. George Mariani highlights the significant increases in projected acreage of land disturbance and wetlands impacts from the initial SEC application in July to various October permit applications. We believe that actual acreages of proposed impacts have not been adequately assessed to date, and are likely to exceed current projections. Dr. Mariani’s testimony also outlines a number of measures to improve the plan for water quality protection and to monitor its implementation. We strongly urge that the Corps consider these recommendations, including pre-construction baseline surveys, as conditions of any Section 404 permit for this project.

Testimony of Dr. Gary R. Sanford details wetland impacts associated with proposed high elevation turbines and expresses concerns about the overall net loss of wetland values associated with this project. We urge the Corps to take these concerns seriously in evaluating the Section 404 permit application. Dr. Sanford’s supplemental testimony of February 2009 outlines opportunities to reduce wetlands impacts, including steeper side slopes and use of hard engineering measures. Such measures demand a close analysis by your agency to assess their appropriateness in this setting and the attendant environmental impacts of these mitigation measures.

In summary, the Audubon Society of New Hampshire holds significant concerns regarding wetlands and water quality impacts of the proposed Coos County wind energy project. We strongly urge the Corps to require an Environmental Impact Statement that fully documents the areas and associated depths of blasting required; the complete footprint of the project’s roads, including side slopes; and a comprehensive analysis of ground and surface water impacts.

Michael J. Bartlett

[[[[ ]]]]

Download original document: “Letter from N.H. Audubon Society to Site Evaluation Committee

Download original document: “Letter from N.H. Audubon Society to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Bookmark and Share

Date added:  January 31, 2009
Filings, New Hampshire, WildlifePrint storyE-mail story

N.H. Fish and Game Dept. testimony on Granite Reliable Power Windpark, Coos Cty.

Author:  Staats, Will; and Kelly, Jillian

Testimony of Will Staats and Jillian Kelly on behalf of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department

December 2008

The Fish and Game Department has concerns regarding impacts on a number of species of wildlife that depend on or use the rare and unique high elevation forested habitat this project is located within.

Q. What is the State’s responsibility in reviewing a project of this nature?

The Fish and Game Department is the sole state agency that has been tasked with the protection and management of the state’s wildlife. See RSA 206:10. Additionally, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department is authorized to review this project and offer comments pursuant to RSA 212-A: 9. RSA 212-A: 9 states that “All other state departments and agencies shall take such action as is reasonable and prudent to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of such species or result in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the executive director to be critical.”

Although critical habitat has not been defined or designated for any species in New Hampshire, the high elevation forested habitats within the project area have been identified as core American marten (state threatened species) habitat in NH (Exhibit 1 (Kelly 2005)). Habitats found within the project area, specifically on Dixville Peak and Mt. Kelsey, are especially critical to marten due to their location on the landscape and the extensive amount of suitable habitat found at these locations. For these reasons, the habitats found in these areas would meet any definition or designation criteria that would be developed by the Department.

Q. What is unique about high elevation habitat?

High elevation lands have long been recognized by our Department as a critical component of the landscape and provide unique habitat features for a variety of wildlife, which include state and federally listed species. The forest cover on these lands is characterized by a high percentage of spruce and fir. New Hampshire Fish and Game’s Wildlife Action Plan contains a section devoted exclusively to High Elevation Spruce-Fir Forest. This profile asserts that these forests offer some of the last blocks of large, remote contiguous blocks of spruce-fir habitat. In addition, this profile outlines the rarity of this habitat, accounting for only about 4% of the state’s land area and this habitat type supports sixty-six vertebrate species. Under the proposed project, significant portions of high elevation habitat will be greatly impacted.

At elevations of 2700 feet and higher, spruce and fir forest dominate the species composition along the ridgelines and upper slopes of these higher mountains. The remaining forest type is composed of mixed wood stands in the transition zones. Both spruce-fir and mixed wood at these elevations can provide complex forest stand structure, including larger diameter cavity trees, snags and large woody debris for wildlife. Mountain ash is found interspersed among these stands, providing an important soft mast food source for many species of wildlife ranging from the American marten to black bear.

High elevation forests are subject to natural disturbances that result in a variety of tree size classes and stand distribution. Patches of blown down trees as a result of, “fir waves” and insect or wind events, create small openings and dense early successional spruce and fir. These areas provide ideal habitat for lynx or Bicknell’s thrush, while dead and dying trees create habitat conditions suitable for three-toed woodpeckers and provide den sites or feeding opportunities for marten.

Q. What involvement have you and your Department had regarding the long-term management or protection of high elevation lands in New Hampshire?

Due to the value and high sensitivity of these habitats, the NH Fish and Game Department has initiated and/or participates in two levels of involvement in the management of high elevation lands. The Coos County Unincorporated Towns Planning Board has designated these areas as a Protected District (PD), which is defined as an “area where development would jeopardize significant natural, recreational, and or historic resources”. Areas above 2700 feet in this case are defined as PD6 zones, which include steep slopes and high elevations. The specific purpose of the PD6 zone is to: “regulate certain land use activities in mountain areas in order to preserve the natural equilibrium of vegetation, geology, slope, soil and climate in order to reduce danger to public health and safety posed by unstable mountain areas, to protect water quality, and to preserve mountain areas for their scenic values and recreational opportunities.” Due to their designation as a PD6 zone, any activities at these elevations must acquire a permit from the Coos County Planning Board. Historically, the Board has relied on NH Fish and Game to review and comment on these permit applications.

The second level of involvement involves a High Elevation Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), initiated by NH Fish and Game and others, which set out to protect the values of high elevation habitats. In a collaborative effort involving nearly all of the large landowners in northern NH, the MOU allows logging but provides guidelines and specific goals for forest size class distribution above 2700 ft. This document also makes recommendations on road building and the timing of harvesting activities.

Will Staats was chair of the scientific sub-committee on developing best management practices for high elevation areas, deer yards, riparian areas and other wildlife habitats for the Forestry Laws Recodification Roundtable. It was the consensus of this group that no timber harvest was the most effective strategy to safeguard the natural resource attributes at these elevations. Recognizing that landowners had a desire to harvest some timber from these areas, this subcommittee initiated the high elevation MOU, which represents a compromise to achieve some protection of this habitat.

Q. What kinds of human activity occur currently at these elevations?

Due to the inaccessibility of these high elevation forests in New Hampshire, many of the mountains north of the White Mountains see little disturbance by human activity. This area is unlike the remainder of northern New Hampshire, where there [are] a multitude of logging roads found at lower elevations, providing humans access to much of the landscape. In fact most of the high elevation summits in Northern New Hampshire have no organized high elevation hiking trails. Human activity is limited to occasional hunters and peak baggers. Recognizing that there already exists many miles of hiking trails in the White Mountain National Forest, concerns about concentrated human activity in these sensitive areas have prompted our Department to recommend organized hiking trails be moved out of high elevation forests, if possible. As an example, during the development of the Coos Trail we worked with trail designers to keep the trail off ridgelines above 2700 feet to the extent possible. Logging operations at these areas represent the majority of disturbance and these occur very infrequently, perhaps every 80 to a hundred years, due to the slow growth of trees on these sites.

Q. How would you characterize the human activity on the ridgelines slated for this project?

Like most of the high elevation ridgelines in Coos County, there is very little activity on the ridges that have been targeted for turbine erection. In all likelihood, fewer than a dozen people visit the summits of some of these ridges over the year and some summits are not visited by people in consecutive years. We base this assessment in part by entries recorded into journals located in containers placed at the top of mountains 3000 feet and higher by AMC and other peak baggers. Dixville Peak would be the exception due to the trail leading to its summit. This gets frequent snowmobile traffic during the winter months.

We strongly disagree with the statement “wildlife at the site have adapted to an environment with frequent disturbances and changing conditions and are accustomed to management activities and vehicle traffic?” (Page 27 of the Gravel testimony)

While the above statement may be true for some species and habitats at lower elevations on the GMO and Bayroot properties, this is not the case within the high elevation habitats bisected by the proposed project. On both properties these areas remain the last remote, largely undisturbed areas where management activities and vehicle traffic are essentially non-existent.

If this development moves forward as proposed, there will be human activity far more frequent then these areas have ever experienced before. We also believe it will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to limit human access to these ridgelines once developed with an extensive road system. This increased human activity has the potential to alter wildlife movements, breeding and feeding behaviors and may create a zone of avoidance extending out some distance from the project footprint.

Q. How do these high elevation areas relate to the landscape as a whole on the Phillips Brook area?

In the project area, Kelsey and Dixville peaks comprise the two larger patches of high elevation forest (1667 acres on Mt. Kelsey and 1873 acres on Dixville Peak). Of these, Mt. Kelsey is the least disturbed in recent history. According to the 2001 Granit Land cover layer, approximately 846 acres of Mt. Kelsey is classified as the spruce and fir forest type, with the remaining acreage above 2700 feet classified as mixed wood, while over 900 high elevation acres are classified as spruce and fir on Dixville Peak. Tree ring counts of tree growth on newly cut fir stumps at the meteorological (met) tower location on Mt. Kelsey, indicated that these trees were between 80 and one hundred years of age. Existing forest stands on Kelsey include a variety of size classes, including larger diameter red spruce, balsam fir; as well as, dense thickets of sapling and pole sized spruce and fir. Ledge outcrops and boulders on this mountain are additional features beneficial to wildlife.

On the Phillips Brook GMO property, lower elevation forests have been harvested aggressively. The ice storm of 1998 prompted heavy harvesting to salvage damaged trees in a number of these harvest areas. Thus, the high elevation forests represent some of the last intact older aged forest stands in the area. Mt. Kelsey as an example is a large block of forest that has not seen any recent harvest above 2700 feet in elevation. The same could be said for Dixville Peak, as well.

Q. Does the current landowner have a permit to harvest timber above 2700 feet on Mt. Kelsey?

It is true that there is a current permit to harvest timber on this mountain that we have reviewed and approved in a letter to the Coos County Planning Board. We looked at this area twice with the forester during 2008, in an effort to design a cutting plan that would work to protect habitat on the mountain. The cutting prescription outlined for this permit details a set of conditions, including no timber harvest above 3000 feet.

Q. What significance do the high elevation areas on the GMO property have to the greater Northern New Hampshire landscape?

In the context of the northern New Hampshire landscape, Mt. Kelsey, and Dixville Peak both represent large areas of high elevation land and significant habitat patches of spruce and fir. As a comparison, two high elevation areas including the summits of Rice and Cave Mountains to the north of the project area, have only 350 acres classified as the spruce and fir forest type combined.

The impacts of recent timber harvest on high elevation lands is clearly demonstrated in the recent publication entitled “North Country Timber Harvest Trends Survey” produced by the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. This Landsat analysis of timber harvest in 41 north country municipalities revealed the following:” One unexpected finding of this project is that considerable timber harvest has been occurring above 2700 “during all three periods.”… And continues, “Generally, about 6100 acres or 27% of private land above 2700’ has been harvested since 1988. “ The report adds,” satellite data show significant areas have been predominantly cleared since 1992.” Despite protective efforts in the last decade as a result of the high elevation MOU, timber harvests in some instances have reduced spruce and fir forests on ridgelines to narrow corridors of older aged, relatively undisturbed high elevation forests. Recent heavy timber harvest on Mt. Kelsey for example, extends to the 2700- foot elevation with harvests slated above 2700 feet in the near future. Given the slow recovery of forest stands at these high elevations, it may be decades before many of these acres provide viable habitat for wildlife species of concern. Thus, the remaining lightly disturbed patches on the project area represents some of the best remaining habitat capable of supporting viable populations of marten, three toed wood pecker and Bicknell’s thrush.

Will Staats has personally supervised timber harvests at high elevations as an industrial forester. It is his assertion that these harvests can result in damage to the terrain in these fragile areas that is long lasting. Road building and excavated skid trails are extremely intrusive, necessitating considerable earth moving and steep road cuts. Erosion to the thin soils can be extreme. He has witnessed the length of time trees have taken to recolonize a site after heavy timber harvest and feels it can be much longer than at lower elevations.

Q. Could you describe for us in general terms the impacts of this proposal on wildlife?

Impacts by this project can be characterized as impacts on habitat and impacts to individual animals or their populations. As described in the GRP High Elevation Mitigation plan, total impact to lands above 2700 feet, as described by the applicant is estimated at 58 acres. NH Fish and Game acknowledges that while only 58 acres of habitat will be directly affected through clearing or road building above 2700 feet, the impact of this project is far greater. The project bisects the remaining parcels of high elevation habitat, and as a result, severely compromises the integrity and value of all the high elevation management areas in the project. Therefore, New Hampshire Fish and Game asserts that the full impact of this project extends to all the high elevation lands (3747 acres, as recorded by the applicant) found on the four high elevation ridgelines slated for development.

Impacts to individual wildlife and the potential to influence population viability are more difficult to quantify with this project because no similar project of this magnitude has ever occurred in New Hampshire, or anywhere in New England at such high elevations. Accordingly, literature on the direct and indirect impacts of these turbine strings and associated infrastructure is scarce.

While the proposed wind energy project has the potential to impact numerous wildlife species and their habitats, we will focus specific concerns for species that were identified in New Hampshire’s Wildlife Action Plan, as “species in greatest need of conservation” or species that are typically of concern when reviewing a large-scale wind energy development. Two of these species, the American marten and the American three-toed woodpecker, are state-listed threatened species, and one, the Canada lynx, is a federally listed threatened species.

Q. Could you describe the impacts of this project to the American marten?

High elevation habitats are extremely important to marten in the project area due to increased snow depths, unique soil composition, inclement weather and infrequent logging. Each of these factors has dramatically impacted tree species composition and more importantly microhabitat features such as coarse woody debris and prey availability (Exhibit 1 (Kelly 2005)). American marten in the northeast can be found in forests dominated by mixed coniferous; as well as, deciduous stands as long as they contain complex horizontal and vertical structure. In New Hampshire, this type of habitat is most common and most extensive at elevations above 2700 feet.

High elevation habitats found in the project area are considered part of core marten habitat in New Hampshire (Exhibit 1 (Kelly 2005)). Marten occurrence in this area has likely significantly contributed to marten re-colonization in New Hampshire and continues to serve as important core marten habitat. Occurrence records for marten are most numerous just north of the proposed project area. Yet marten occurrence has been documented in the project area as early as the 1980’s (Exhibit 1 (Kelly 2005)).

Marten are exceptionally sensitive to low levels of fragmentation. Fragmentation results in increased isolation and decreases habitat suitability and stability. Marten have been documented in lower densities, in areas bisected by roads and associated with human activity.

Finally, while not well documented, it is very likely that the noise associated with the turbines will impact the use of a much larger area by marten. Therefore, forest fragmentation, habitat loss and disturbance could contribute to an exponential decline of marten in the project area.

Forest fragmentation and habitat use by marten has been extensively studied. Many of the statements above are supported by that research, as well as by Kelly 2005.

Q. Are there some areas in the project area slated for development that has greater significance to marten then others?

Dixville Peak and the habitats above 2700’ around this peak are important core habitat; as well as, providing an important linkage to facilitate marten movement across the landscape in New Hampshire. Based on the probability of marten occurrence maps (Exhibit 1 (Kelly 2005)), this mountain complex is the natural connecting feature between high elevation habitats to the north and the ridgeline to the south. The primary corridor for marten would extend off of Dixville along the Nash Stream/GMO boundary south. Dixville Peak is also the largest contiguous block in the proposed project area. The total area above 2700 feet is 1843 acres. Marten presence was documented on Dixville Peak as early as the 1980s. In general the habitat on Dixville Peak is composed of smaller diameter spruce/fir than that found on Mt. Kelsey. It would appear that compared to Kelsey, the habitat on Dixville has less complex horizontal and vertical diversity, yet it still has all the attributes needed to be considered good marten habitat.

Mount Kelsey is the second largest contiguous block of high elevation habitat in the project area with 1463 acres on Kelsey, directly adjacent to another 184 acres located on Owlhead Mountain. There appears to be extensive forest stands that have the complexity, which is ideal for marten on Kelsey. With the exception of tree cutting for the placement of the two met towers, no recent timber harvest has occurred on the mountain above 2700 feet. On site visits, marten sign was extensive (i.e. scat and tracks). As a result, the Department considers Mount Kelsey the best marten habitat within the project area.

Q. What are your concerns regarding Canada lynx in the area?

In the Northeast, important lynx habitat is highly associated with increased snow depths and prey availability. High elevation habitats have been identified as some of the most important areas for lynx in the state. As a result, NH Fish and Game is concerned that any net loss of habitat and fragmenting features, will limit future lynx distribution. Lynx are potentially pioneering back into the state with confirmed reports of lynx tracks in northern New Hampshire; as well as, northern Vermont in recent years. During the winter of 2008, NH Fish and Game received anecdotal reports of lynx tracks observed in the Phillips Brook drainage. No lynx tracks were detected on the track surveys performed by the applicant. As a result, we would recommend that the applicant conduct directed searches for this species.

Our field reconnaissance reveals that snowshoe hare, a major prey species of lynx, are found commonly in the spruce and fir forests of the higher elevations. We found this to be true on visits to Mt. Kelsey in the winter of 2008. Human activity, infrastructure on the ridgeline and the operation of turbines could dissuade lynx from frequenting this previously relatively undisturbed habitat. The presence of this infrastructure on the ridgeline may prevent lynx from occupying this habitat and serve as a deterrent to movement through this landscape to other similar habitats.

Q. Do you have concerns regarding the effect this development may have on Bicknell’s thrush found on the project area?

Bicknell’s thrush can only be found breeding in the balsam fir-dominated forests on high elevation mountain slopes of the northeastern United States and lower elevation forests, further north in the Canadian Maritime Provinces. As a result, their habitat is very patchy and isolated, making the species very vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation. In addition, 45% of the potential habitat for this species in the world is found in New Hampshire. Therefore, NH Fish and Game has a global responsibility for this species, and we share New Hampshire Audubon’s concern for Bicknell’s thrush and agree with their report done for the Applicant, which states: “The restricted breeding range and limited extent of its specialized habitat makes the Bicknell’s thrush one of the most vulnerable bird species breeding on the project area,” The report continues stating: “reduction and fragmentation of the limited habitat may have long term negative impacts on local and regional populations of this species.” According to recent data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey Bicknell’s have already disappeared from Dixville Notch to the north of the project area. One recent report has suggested that should this decline continue this species could be endangered within a few decades.

We believe this project will result in a net loss of Bicknell’s habitat in this project area. By the applicants’ own admission, 58 acres above 2700 feet will be removed as a result of construction and road building. It is our opinion that the fragmenting effect of this road at these elevations will pose a risk to this bird species. Given that this development is unprecedented at these elevations, we can only speculate at what the disturbance of human activity, turbine operation and noise might be to the ability of the Bicknell’s thrush to live on these ridgelines. These birds are currently living in this habitat because the conditions are suitable for its life requirements. It is our opinion that to introduce this level of development into this ecosystem is not compatible with the long- term health and viability of this species. Given the extremely limited global distribution of this species, we cannot afford to take any chances with this extremely rare bird species.

Q. Do you have concerns about the effects of this project on the American three-toed woodpecker?

In New Hampshire, the American three-toed woodpecker is listed as threatened, and as a result, is profiled in the Wildlife Action Plan. Three-toed woodpeckers are primarily found within high elevation habitats in New Hampshire, due to the higher abundance of dead and dying trees utilized by this species. Data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) suggests a significant annual decrease in the population. In New Hampshire, according to the Atlas of Breeding Birds, there was a possible occurrence of a three-toed woodpecker in the Phillips Brook drainage in Millsfield. Audubon’s breeding bird surveys conducted for the applicant indicated potential detections in 4 locations on Mt. Kelsey. Extensive logging is cited in the Wildlife Action Plan as contributing to the loss of habitat for this species. Again, any net loss of high elevation habitat has the potential to significantly impact this species in NH. The NH Fish and Game Department, therefore concurs with Audubon’s report to the applicant that classifies American three-toed woodpecker as: “one of the most vulnerable bird species on the project area”, especially due to their use of habitat structure associated with high elevation areas.

Q. What is your opinion of the mitigation package proposed by the applicant?

The proposed buffer zone surrounding the roads and project footprint is not in our opinion, appropriate or adequate mitigation. As has been stated, the impacts of the project extend to the entire zone above 2700 feet, well beyond the project footprint. Therefore, the 500′ buffer on each side of the fragmenting features is likely the area that will sustain the greatest impact from the project and therefore, has the lowest value of all high elevation lands in the area for mitigation.

Q. In your opinion will this Project have an unreasonable adverse effect on the natural environment, more particularly threatened and rare species and other wildlife communities?

Yes. For the reasons put forth in this testimony, we believe the project will have an unreasonable adverse effect on the natural environment, in particular the high elevation forest ecosystem and the wildlife that rely on it. We believe that this project will fragment limited and sensitive high elevation habitat, which is a rare component of New Hampshire‘s forested ecosystem and is critical habitat for American marten, Canada lynx, Bicknell’s thrush and the American three- toed- woodpecker. We feel that in their current condition, Mt. Kelsey and Dixville Peak are blocks of relatively undisturbed habitat, which are important both locally and regionally. This project has the potential to reduce the carrying capacity of these habitats for these species by eliminating habitat and negatively influencing wildlife behavior and their use of these areas. We do not agree with the testimony of Adam Gravel and Steven Pelletier where they state, “Consequently no adverse effects resulting from the Project to the local marten population is anticipated.” We believe this project has the potential to render unsuitable much, if not all, of the best marten habitat on the project area, or reduce the value of this habitat for these state-listed animals. The project will displace these animals and adversely influence the ability of these high elevation ridgelines to serve as corridors for marten and Canada lynx expansion. We feel that the impacts of this project will be long lasting and far more intrusive than an occasional logging operation, which might occur on a limited portion of these high elevation areas. In addition, it is our opinion that the long-term viability of the Bicknell’s thrush population is tenuous enough that it cannot afford any further permanent habitat loss or encroachment. Our Department has a long history of protecting high elevation habitat and remains convinced that it is in the best long-term interest of the wildlife resource and the public to vigorously protect these areas. As proposed, the project will have a severe and unmitigated adverse effect on the natural environment.

Download original document: “N.H. Fish and Game Dept. testimony on Granite Reliable Power Windpark, Coos Cty.

Bookmark and Share

Flaws in and Solutions to Integrating Renewable Energy Resources in New England

Author:  Short, William

What were the original goals of state RPS programs and RGGI [Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative]?

• The generation of energy either from new renewable or “threaten” existing renewable generation.

• The reduction of Greenhouse Gas emissions.

• Note the Absence of Qualifications.

What are the principal causes of the need to integrate renewables?

State Renewable Portfolio Standards –

• One MWh of Renewable Energy equals one Renewable Energy Certificate (“REC”).

• With no locational, time-of-day or time-of-year adjustments.

• Total focus on energy with no consideration of the reliability value or locational aspects of renewable generation.

Regional Greenhouse Program –

• Equal focus on renewable projects regardless of location or time of operation.

What are the principal results of the failure to integrate properly renewables?

The results –

• Transmission lines to nowhere.

• Encouraging unreliable, uncommitted renewable generation.

• Need for back-up generation and storage.

What is incrementally satisfying New England RPS programs?

• Empty Renewables – those renewables which provide limited capacity values.

• Nowhere Renewables – those renewables which require significant transmission upgrade costs to be borne by ratepayers.

• Worthless Renewables – those renewables which provide no long-term value to New England consumers and retain the ability to participate in their out-of-region RPS programs on a moment’s notice.

What is not incrementally satisfying New England RPS programs?

• Local Renewables. Example, solar energy and off-shore wind.

• Reliable Renewables. Example, landfill gas and biomass.

• Committed Renewables. Example, resources committed to ISO-NE capacity market.

What are the other principal flaws of state renewable energy programs?

Other material flaws –

• A binary market.

• No price support (floor) mechanism.

• Alternative Compliance Payment not related to Value of the Renewable Generation.

What should be the public policy for the integration of renewables and correcting flaws in RPS policy?

A sound public policy that:

• Values more renewable sources built closer to load (the locational argument).

• Values these sources more if they generate during on-peak hours (the time-of-day argument).

• Values these sources more if they generate during on-season hours (the time-of-season argument).

• Requires that these sources be committed to deliver all of their energy and capacity to New England customers (the capacity argument).

• Sets a Floor Price for REC equal to the lower of Alternative Compliance Price or the Value Produced by the Renewable Generation (the price taker argument).

What should be solutions to the integration of renewables?

The solutions –

• Locational, Time-of-Day, Time-of- Season Adjusted and Committed Capacity Renewable Energy Certificates. What are the solutions for state renewable energy programs?

• An unlimited requirement for renewable energy based upon a payment equal to the lesser of the value of REC (for the hour or period of the year in question) or the Alternative Compliance Price.

• A Central Buyer of RECs who purchases any and all RECs under the preceding condition.

What is the value of renewable energy generation to the public?

• The NYISO/NYSERDA wind study found that wind generation (primarily off-peak generation) would lower all energy prices by $1.80/MWh. Assuming a 6% RPS requirement, this value implies a price suppression value accruing to the wind generator of $30.00/MWh.

• ISO-NE’s RSP-06 found that price taker generation (base load) would lower all energy prices by $4.41/MWh. Assuming a 5.9% RPS requirement, this value implies an approximate price suppression value accruing to the price taker generation of $75.00/MWh.

• An analysis of the RSP06 data indicates that the price suppression results are not the same for all hours. This analysis indicates that the price suppression values are worth approximately –

– $300-360/MWh for super on-peak hours (Monday-Friday, noon to six p.m. in the summer months and Monday-Friday, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the winter months).
– $90-120/MWh for all other on-peak hours.
– $30-40/MWh for all off-peak hours.

• An analysis of the RSP06 data also indicates that the price suppression values in on-peak hours exceed an Alternative Compliance Price of approximately $60.00/REC. Thus, the more RECs purchased during these hours, the lower the price of energy to the ratepayer even when the cost of the RECs are included. For the other hours, when the price suppression is less than the ACP, it will be necessary to lower the payments to the renewable generator in order to create ratepayer savings.

• Since the public benefit exceeds the cost to the public, a Central Buyer scheme (similar to that of NYSERDA) should be implemented to ensure that the ratepayer receives the maximum amount of renewable energy that is cost effective.

Normalizing these values, produces the following REC values from this renewable generation:

• Three RECs for each MWh of super on-peak hour energy produced (Monday-Friday, noon to six p.m. in the summer months and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the winter months).

• One and one-half RECs for each MWh of energy produced during all other on-peak hours.

• One-third REC for each MWh of energy produced during all off-peak hours.

How does this compare with what we have now in New England?

• Presently, a 1 MW generator operating at 100 % capacity factor makes 8,760 MWh and 8,760 RECs.

• As proposed, that same generator operating under identical conditions would make the same MWh and same RECs, but with REC production focused on the on-peak periods:

1,950 RECs during the super on-peak hours (650 hours);
5,265 RECs during the balance of the on-peak hours (3,510 hours);
1,545 RECs during the off-peak hours (4,600 hours).

What are the locational adjustment factors for renewable energy generation?

• Generation built closer to load has lower congestion and marginal loss.

• Generation built closer to load will require less transmission improvements.

• Generation built closer to the host state of the RPS will produce greater economic impact, jobs, property tax, electric infrastructure to the host state than generation built further way.

Using these factors, what would be reasonable locational adjustment factors for Renewable Generation qualified for the Massachusetts RPS?

• Massachusetts – no discount.
• Adjacent New England state to Massachusetts – 5% discount.
• Two states away from Massachusetts but still in New England – 10% discount.
• Eastern New York – 20% discount.
• Western New York and Canada – 30% discount.

Combining these two ideas, what are the values for a renewable generator’s RECs under central procurement for the Mass RPS?

• Massachusetts – $180/MWh on super on-peak REC, $90/MWh all other on-peak REC and $20/MWh for off-peak REC.

• Adjacent NE State – $171/MWh on super on-peak REC, $85.50/MWh all other on-peak REC and $19/MWh for off-peak REC.

• Maine – $162/MWh on super on-peak REC, $81.00/MWh all other on-peak REC and $18/MWh for off-peak REC.

• Eastern New York – $144/MWh on super on-peak REC, $72.00/MWh all other on-peak REC and $16/MWh for off-peak REC.

• Western New York and Canada – $126/MWh on super on-peak REC, $63/MWh all other on-peak REC and $14/MWh for off-peak REC.

What would be the outcomes if these policy changes were implemented?

• RECs would be adjusted for their time-of-day, time-of-year and locational values.

• Central Buyer concept would stabilize the REC market and provide a better structure to permit long-term financing.

• RECs would always produce value to the ratepayer greater than the cost to the ratepayer.

• Lowest energy prices for ratepayers (with the savings largely paid for by fossil and nuclear generators) What would be the outcomes if these policy changes were implemented?

• Transmission lines to nowhere would not be built.

• Storage projects for off-season, off-peak energy would not be needed.

• Back-up generation for unreliable or uncommitted renewable capacity would not be constructed.

• With less transmission requirements, less stress on the environment.

William P. Short, III, Consultant, November 18, 2008

Download original document: “Flaws in and Solutions to Integrating Renewable Energy Resources in New England

Bookmark and Share

« Later Documents

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.