Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 - Feb 10 2025 - PUBLIC_RedactedRichard Fon John A. Tegeder, R.A. Chairman Director of Planning TOWN OF YORKTOWN PLANNING BOARD Albert. A. Capellini Community and Cultural Center, 1974 Commerce Street, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598, Phone: (914) 962-6565, Fax: (914) 962-3986 PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA ALBERT A. CAPELLINI COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER 1974 Commerce Street, Nutrition Center, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Crompond / Croton Heights / Huntersville / Jefferson Valley / Kitchawan / Mohegan Lake / Shrub Oak / Sparkle Lake / Teatown / Yorktown / Yorktown Heights February 10, 2025 7:00 PM 1. Correspondence 2. Meeting Minutes – January 27, 2025 REGULAR SESSION 3. Envirogreen Associates Public Hearing Location: 15.16-1-30 & 31; 1833 & 1875 East Main Street Contact: Site Design Consultants Description: Proposed amendment to the site plan previously approved by Resolution #21-22 dated September 27, 2022. The applicant is proposing two smaller buildings, one being 6,284 sq. ft. and the second being 4,100 sq. ft. in place of the approved 13,278 sq. ft. building. WORK SESSION 4. Lamp Subdivision Discussion Minor Subdivision Location: 70.08-1-8; 357 Crow Hill Road Contact: Zarin & Steinmetz Description: Proposed 2-lot subdivision of a 4.463-acre lot in the R1-80 zone. 5. ZBA Referral #41/24 Teatown Campus Renovation Location: 69.14-1-5, 7; 1600 Spring Valley Road Contact: DTS Provident Description: Variance request regarding mandatory sprinkler system requirements for a proposed one-story, 5,920 sq. ft. education building to be located north of the Teatown Nature Center. 6. ZBA Referral #35/24 - Poggioreale Discussion Site Plan and Special Use Permit Location: 26.20-2-3; 2829 Crompond Road Contact: Vincent & Christina Poggioreale Description: Proposed Day Care Center/Preschool on a 33,403 SF lot in the R1-80 zone. 7. RIC Development Battery Storage Discussion Site Plan and Special Use Permit Location: 16.11-1-60; 3666 Old Yorktown Road Contact: RIC Development, LLC Description: Proposed 5 MW battery energy storage system on a 4.4-acre property in the C-2/R1-20 zone. 8. Town Board Referral Amending Chapter 300 – Battery Energy Storage Systems Description: Proposed amendments to remove Tier 2 battery storage systems from all zoning districts in the town of Yorktown. Last revised: February 6, 2025 Correspondence Minutes Envirogreen Associates Public Hearing PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF YORKTOWN RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDED SITE PLAN, STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN, AND WETLAND PERMIT FOR ENVIROGREEN ASSOCIATES, INC. RESOLUTION NUMBER: #__-__ DATE: _________ On motion of _____, seconded by _____, and unanimously voted in favor by _____, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS in accordance with the Planning Board's Land Development Regulations, Town of Yorktown Town Code Chapter 195, adopted February 4, 1969 and as amended, a formal application for the approval of a site plan titled “Envirogreen Associates Inc.,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated, September 13, 2021, and last revised January 16, 2025 was submitted to the Planning Board on behalf of Richard Cipriani (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”); and WHEREAS the property owned by the Applicant is located at 1851 East Main Street, Yorktown Heights, also known as Section 15.16, Block 1, Lots 30 & 31 on the Town of Yorktown Tax Map (hereinafter referred to as “the Property”), and the applicant has represented to this board that they are the lawful owners of the land within said site plan; and WHEREAS pursuant to SEQRA: 1. The action has been identified as an Unlisted action. 2. The Planning Board has been declared lead agency on September 27, 2019. 3. A negative declaration has been adopted on September 23, 2019 on the basis of a Full EAF dated November 14, 2017. WHEREAS following review by the NYS DEC, the Applicant submitted a revised site plan application and Full EAF dated June 18, 2021 on June 30, 2021; and WHEREAS pursuant to SEQRA, the Planning Board hereby adopts a revised Negative Declaration on September 27, 2021 based on a revised Full EAF dated June 18, 2021; and WHEREAS the Applicant has submitted as part of his application the following maps and documents: Site Plans 1. A drawing, Sheet 1 of 13, titled “Site Plan,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 10, 2021, and last revised January 16, 2025; and 2. A drawing, Sheet 2 of 13, titled “Amended Site Layout Plan,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated September 19, 2024, and last revised January 16, 2025; and Envirogreen Associates Inc. Resolution #__-__ Site Plan Approval Page 2 of 6 3. A drawing, Sheet 3 of 13, titled “E&SC Plan,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated November 6, 2017, and last revised January 16, 2025; and 4. A drawing, Sheet 4 of 13, titled “Ex Cond,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 10, 2021, and last revised January 16, 2025; and 5. A drawing, Sheet 5 of 13, titled “Improvement Plan,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 10, 2021, and last revised January 16, 2025; and 6. A drawing, Sheet 6 of 13, titled “Landscape Plan,” prepared by Frank Giuliano – Landscape Architect, dated November 6, 2017, and last revised January 16, 2025; and 7. A drawing, Sheet 7 of 13, titled “Lighting Plan,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated November 6, 2017, and last revised January 16, 2025; and 8. A drawing, Sheet 8 of 13, titled “Profiles,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated November 6, 2017, and last revised January 16, 2025; and 9. A drawing, Sheet 9 of 13, titled “Notes,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 10, 2021, and last revised January 16, 2025; and 10. A drawing, Sheet 10 of 13, titled “E&SC Notes,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 10, 2021, and last revised January 16, 2025; and 11. A drawing, Sheet 11 of 13, titled “Site Details,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 10, 2021, and last revised January 16, 2025; and 12. A drawing, Sheet 12 of 13, titled “Utility Details,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 10, 2021, and last revised January 16, 2025; and 13. A drawing, Sheet 13 of 13, titled “Stormwater Details,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 10, 2021, and last revised January 16, 2025; and 14. A drawing, titled “Wetland Enhancement/Restoration Area,” prepared by Tim Miller Associates/Wetland Mitigation Inc., and dated June 21, 2021; and Architectural Plans 15. A drawing, Sheet 1 of 2, titled “Floor Plan & Elevations,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, and dated January 10, 2025; and 16. A drawing, Sheet 2 of 2, titled “Floor Plans & Elevations,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, and dated January 10, 2025; and 17. A drawing, Sheet A.0, titled “Conceptual Design,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, and dated January 10, 2025; and Additional Documents & Reports 18. A report, titled “Traffic Impact Study,” prepared by Maser Consulting, P.A., dated and last revised March 31, 2016; and 19. A report titled, “Stormwater Management Plan prepared for Envirogreen Associates, Inc.,” prepared by Site Design Consultants, and dated June 2021; and WHEREAS the proposed architectural concept plans have been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Architecture & Community Appearance (ABACA) and are acceptable to the Board provided a review of the final proposed plans are submitted for review and comment once Envirogreen Associates Inc. Resolution #__-__ Site Plan Approval Page 3 of 6 tenants are selected, as stated in their memo dated September 13, 2021; and WHEREAS the ABACA reviewed the amended site plan and issued a memo dated February 6, 2025; and WHEREAS all signage shown on the building elevation is for example only and no sign areas or details are approved in this resolution; and WHEREAS as per Section §300-21C(12)(A)[1] Stores or Shops for conduct of retail business is an allowed use in the C-3 (Commercial Limited District); and WHEREAS pursuant to Section §300-182A(3)(a) of the Town of Yorktown Town Code, the applicant has provided four (4) parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area thereby requiring a total of 95 parking spaces where 108 are shown on the site plan; and WHEREAS the Applicant is also showing an additional 26 parking spaces that could be constructed should the required parking increase due to a restaurant use occupying a portion of the proposed building; and WHEREAS the Applicant has offered to construct an access from an adjacent parcel known as Section 15.16, Block 1, Lot 32 on the Town of Yorktown Tax Map to the Property in order to facilitate the elimination of left turns from the existing curb cut on Route 6 for Lot 32; and WHEREAS Lot 32 has constructed an access through the rear of their property to traffic from both developments may exit to the traffic signal at Lakeland Street and Route 6; and WHEREAS the Planning Board has referred this application to the following boards and agencies and has received and considered reports of the following: Boards & Agencies Report Date ABACA 04/26/21, 05/10/21, 09/13/21, 2/6/2025 Building Inspector 08/10/15, 06/22/15 Conservation Board 06/26/17, 12/17/15, 10/08/15, 08/07/15, 04/22/21, 07/08/21 Environmental Consultant 01/22/16 Fire Inspector 10/02/15, 06/23/17 Planning Department 06/19/17, 01/22/16, 10/14/15, 09/14/15 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 10/21/16, 9/13/2023 Town Engineer 06/23/17 Yorktown Water Department 11/22/17 NYS Parks, Rec, Historic Preservation 08/13/15 NYS DOT 11/02/15 Envirogreen Associates Inc. Resolution #__-__ Site Plan Approval Page 4 of 6 NYS DEC 10/27/15, 10/23/15, 12/20/2021, Westchester County Planning Board 10/13/15 WHEREAS the requirements of this Board's Land Development Regulations, Town Code Chapter 195, have been met; and WHEREAS a Public Hearing was held in accordance with §195-39(B)(2) of the Yorktown Town Code on said site plan application at the Town Hall in Yorktown Heights, New York commencing and closing on February 10, 2025; and WHEREAS the Applicant worked with the NYSDEC in order to obtain their approval for a proposed plan however approvals were not granted and after a significant amount of time the Applicant submitted revised plans eliminating intrusion into the wetland and therefore the Planning Board determined to hold a new set of hearings and a Public Informational Hearing was held in accordance with §195-39(B)(1) of the Yorktown Town Code on the said revised site plan application via Zoom video conferencing commencing and closing on March 22, 2021; WHEREAS having reviewed all current site plans, building plans, environmental plans and reports, comments and reports from Town professional staff, the public, and other interested and involved agencies associated with the application before it; and having conducted a public hearing held in accordance with §195-39(B)(2) of the Yorktown Town Code on the said site plan application commencing on August 9, 2021, and continuing and closing on September 13, 2021 at Town Hall in Yorktown Heights, New York; WHEREAS having reviewed all current site plans, building plans, environmental plans and reports, comments and reports from Town professional staff, the public, and other interested and involved agencies associated with the application before it; and having conducted a public hearing held in accordance with §195-39(B)(2) of the Yorktown Town Code on the said site plan application commencing on August 9, 2021, and continuing and closing on February 10, 2025 at Town Hall in Yorktown Heights, New York; BE IT NOW RESOLVED that the application of Richard Cipriani for the approval of a site plan titled “Envirogreen Associates Inc.” as prepared by Site Design Consultants, dated February 10, 2021, and last revised January 16, 2025, be approved subject to the modifications and conditions listed below, and that the Chairman of this Board be and hereby is authorized to endorse this Board's approval of said plan upon compliance by the applicant with such modifications and requirements as noted below: Modify plans to show: 1. Add detail to the Lighting Plan (sheet 5) showing the base of the freestanding fixtures. Envirogreen Associates Inc. Resolution #__-__ Site Plan Approval Page 5 of 6 2. Show location for freestanding sign(s). 3. Label the land banked parking spaces on the site plan. Additional requirements prior to signature by the Planning Board Chairman: 1. Submission of a Final Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan acceptable to the Town Engineer. 2. Submission of fees as per town requirements in the form of separate checks made payable to the Town of Yorktown: General Development $2,240.00 3. Submission of inspection fees and security, in a form satisfactory to the Town Attorney, to the Engineering Department as required by the Town Engineer. Fees to be determined after Planning Board approval and a complete final set of drawings are submitted to the Town Engineer. Additional requirements: 4. The Applicant must return to the ABACA for review and recommendation to the Planning Board prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 5. Sign permit applications must be submitted to the Building Inspector for all regulated signs to be placed on the site. 6. Proposed plan must comply with all current applicable ADA standards. 7. Applicant must obtain all necessary permits from outside agencies. 8. Upon completion of the project, the Applicant must submit an as-built survey, on paper and in digital AutoCAD DWG readable format, showing all improvements on the site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, all new lighting installed on the site must comply with the standards as set forth in Chapter 200 Lighting that requires all free-standing and wall-mounted luminaires shall be fully shielded light fixtures; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Applicant shall keep the Planning Department informed of field changes during construction to determine whether amendments to the approved site Envirogreen Associates Inc. Resolution #__-__ Site Plan Approval Page 6 of 6 plan are required; and RESOLVED, the Applicant must notify the Planning Department if the installation of any exterior utility boxes or structures not shown on the approved site plan are required to be installed to ensure the proper screening of these structures on the site; and RESOLVED, if a restaurant tenant is proposed on the site, the Applicant must return to the Planning Board to determine whether any portion of the land banked parking area is required to be constructed; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Town Code Chapter 178 and Chapter 248, the application of Richard Cipriani for the approval of a Wetland and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Permit #WP-FSWPP-T-063-15 is approved subject to the conditions listed therein; and RESOLVED, Permit #WP-FSWPP-T-063-15 shall not be valid until it has been signed by the Chairman of this Board; RESOLVED the Applicant will retain an independent third-party Environmental Systems Planner, a “Qualified Inspector” as defined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity, to supervise and be present during the construction of the erosion control measures, and which Environmental Systems Planner will provide bi-weekly inspection reports regarding the status of erosion control measures to the approval authority via the Environmental Inspector and the Planning Department throughout construction; and RESOLVED the Applicant must notify the Planning Board in writing stating the name of the Environmental Systems Planner or Firm that will be completing the bi-weekly inspection reports and shall notify the Planning Board in writing if this Planner or Firm changes; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that unless a building permit has been issued by _____, or a time extension has been granted by the Planning Board, this approval will be null and void. F:\Office\WordPerfect\Current_Projects\Envirogreen Associates - 15.16-1-30, 31\Resolutions\Draft Resolutions\DRAFT Envirogreen Resolution - 2025-02-07.docx John A. Tegeder, R.A. Ed Lachterman Director of Planning Town Supervisor TOWN OF YORKTOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT Albert A. Capellini Community and Cultural Center, 1974 Commerce Street, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598, Phone (914) 962-6565, Fax (914) 962-3986 Crompond / Croton Heights / Huntersville / Jefferson Valley / Kitchawan / Mohegan Lake / Shrub Oak / Sparkle Lake / Teatown / Yorktown / Yorktown Heights To: Planning Board From: Planning Department Date: February 7, 2025 Subject: Lamp Minor Subdivision SBL: 70.08-1-8 ____________________________________________________________________________________ The Planning Department has reviewed the current submission and has the following comments: 1. The Applicant must submit an MS4 permit application for both stormwater and tree permits. Tree removal plans should also be submitted to the Planning Board for review. 2. Per the Building Inspector memo dated September 27, 2025, the road shall be 20 feet wide for the first 500 feet of length and increase to 26 feet for the remaining length. Please show dimensions for the entirety of the driveway. 3. The Applicant must obtain variances from Yorktown Zoning Code frontage requirements and N.Y. Town Law Section 280-a from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Respectfully submitted, Ian Richey Assistant Planner cc: Applicant ZBA Ref. Teatown Campus Renovation Richard Fon John A. Tegeder, R.A. Chairperson Director of Planning TOWN OF YORKTOWN PLANNING BOARD Albert A. Capellini Community and Cultural Center, 1974 Commerce Street, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598, Phone (914) 962-6565, Fax (914) 962-3986 Crompond / Croton Heights / Huntersville / Jefferson Valley / Kitchawan / Mohegan Lake / Shrub Oak / Sparkle Lake / Teatown / Yorktown / Yorktown Heights To: Zoning Board of Appeals From: Planning Board Date: January 22, 2024 Subject: ZBA Referral #41/24 SBL: 69.14-1-5 & 7 ____________________________________________________________________________________ At its meeting on January 13, 2025, the Planning Board discussed the Teatown Lake Reservation’s variance request regarding mandatory sprinkler system requirements. The Planning Board requested that the applicant submit the following for review: 1. Determine the optimal location for the dry hydrant on Spring Valley Road. 2. Explain how emergency response vehicles will access the new building in the event of a fire. Where they will enter the property, how they will access the building, how they will leave to refill water, etc. 3. Provide a construction detail for the proposed paved/gravel path that will connect the bus loop to the new education building. Show the improved path on the site plan as well. 4. Provide a complete list of all fire prevention/emergency response practices and how they meet or exceed both state and local code requirements. The Planning Board respectfully requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant it more time to review the requested information prior to forming its opinion on the sprinkler variance. Respectfully submitted, Ian Richey Assistant Planner cc: Applicant Teatown’s mission is to inspire our community to lifelong environmental stewardship January 9, 2025 Mr. Edward Kolisz Assistant Building and Fire Inspector Bureau of Fire Prevention 363 Underhill Avenue Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Re: Teatown Lake Reservation — Campus Renovation Dear Mr. Kolisz: We greatly appreciate the time afforded to our team for discussion of the Sprinkler mandate of Ch 130-2-E as it relates to our project at Teatown Lake Reservation. Below is a summary of key points issued in previous memos as well as discussed during our three meetings thus far on the fire safety measures incorporated into the design of the Education Building and why the project is unique: • The Education Center is a single-story, 5,920-sf building. • The building structure is non-combustible steel and concrete. • All exposed building materials are class A - fire resistant with little or no flame spread or smoke development, far exceeding NYS Interior finish classification requirements. • All interior wall assemblies meet a minimum 1-hr fire resistance rating, and the walls between classrooms meet a 2-hr fire resistance rating (the duration that a wall can withstand and contain a fire), exceeding NYS code which requires no fire resistance rating for this building use, size, and construction type. • All rooms except the restroom and mechanical room have a direct means of exterior egress in addition to the two primary entrances to the building, i.e. two means of egress from each room, exceeding code requirements. • The building includes a fire alarm system that both alerts occupants and notifies the local fire department. • Fire extinguishers are located near primary entrances and within each occupiable room. Extinguishers and emergency signage and lighting will be inspected and maintained by Hudson Valley Fire Safety Inc. • All building materials and features meet and, in most cases, exceed the requirements of the New York State Building Codes. • The building is to be used for educational purposes, primarily programming led by Teatown educators, with no habitation or overnight public use. • No fuel or similar combustible fluids will be stored in or near the building. • Teatown staff undergoes periodic training on the use of extinguishers, fire drills, and emergency safety measures. Additionally, the project site poses the following unique conditions: • There is no municipal water access. • Accessing the lake water would require trenching through ledge rock and a healthy stand of trees. • Introduction of a diesel fire pump would require the introduction of a diesel fuel tank (there are no fossil fuels otherwise planned for the Education Center, in part to limit the presence of combustible materials), as well as an ~8,000 gallon water tank. The efficacy of these measures will depend on the reliability of equipment and their maintenance. In conclusion, The Education Center’s passive fire safety measures meet the intent of Yorktown’s more stringent regulations, exceeding NYS code. The project’s passively safe design, modest size, daytime educational use, and site present unique conditions that merit consideration as a special case. In addition, Teatown is committed to introducing a dry hydrant in a location approved by the Fire Bureau that would not only aid fire fighters in responding to a fire at the Education Building and other Teatown buildings, but would also serve the community. Very truly yours, Alan Sorkin Managing Director cc: A. Tung D. Riesel E. Bunge A. Morgan R. Steinberg January 29, 2025 Chairman Richard Fon and Members of the Planning Board Town of Yorktown 1974 Commerce Street, Room 222 Yorktown Heights, New York 10598 Re: Teatown Lake Reservation – Site Plan, Special Use Permit and Associated Applications Parcels 69.14-1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8 and 1-8.1 1600 Spring Valley Road Dear Chairman Fon and Members of the Planning Board: On behalf of the Teatown Lake Reservation (Teatown or Applicant), we are pleased to provide the following information in response to the requests in the Planning Board’s January 22, 2025 memorandum to the Yorktown Zoning Board of Appeals. 1. Determine the optimal location for the dry hydrant on Spring Valley Road. a. The Applicant shall continue to work with the Fire Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to determine the preferred location for installation of the dry hydrant which shall be used to service not only Teatown but the community at large. Based on a preliminary windshield survey conducted with Chief Liberatore, a location along Spring Valley Road approximately 0.4 miles west of the Nature Center is being considered. Refer to attached Figure No. DH-1, Proposed Dry Hydrant Location Plan for the approximate location of the proposed dry hydrant installation. Benefits of the area include the following: i. Proximity to the lake with the least change in elevation for the fire pump. ii. Adequate water depths based upon a bathymetric survey conducted of the lake. (refer also to attached Figure No. DH-1.) iii. Adequate sight distance for a stopped tanker truck filling its water tank. 2. Explain how emergency response vehicles will access the new building in the event of a fire. Where they will enter the property, how they will access the building, how they will leave to refill water, etc. a. Emergency service vehicles will have direct access to the new Education Center via Blinn Road and the new Fire Access Road/Bus Loop to be constructed from the Chairman Fon and Members of the Planning Board January 29, 2025 Re: Teatown Lake Reservation Page 2 existing Blinn Road Parking Lot to the tear drop entry circle at the top of the hill. The In accordance with the Fire Code the Fire Access Road is designed to meet the 20’ minimum width required to permit the passing of two emergency service vehicles should it be necessary during firefighting operations. Provisions have also been made for an approximate 125’ extension of the Fire Access Road to allow an emergency service vehicle to drive alongside the north half/main entry of the new Education Center building. 3. Provide a construction detail for the proposed paved/gravel path that will connect the bus loop to the new education building. Show the improved path on the site plan as well. a. Please find attached a construction detail for the proposed paved/stabilized path that will provide emergency vehicle access from the new Fire Access Road/Bus Loop to the front of the new Education Building. Refer to the attached sketch titled Fire Access Plan. Also attached is Drawing SP-10.02, Emergency Vehicle Maneuvering Plan showing how a fire vehicle can access the new Education Building from the Fire Access Road/Bus Loop. 4. Provide a complete list of all fire prevention/emergency response practices and how they meet or exceed both state and local code requirements. a. Emergency response practices & access: Refer to response to Planning Board items 1-3 above. b. Primary Structure: The Education Center is proposed as construction type II-B, unprotected, non-combustible (per NYS BC 602.2) with a primary structure of composite concrete on steel roof deck supported by steel columns and beams. c. Building area: As a 5,920sf building, the Education Center is less than half the 12,000sf area maximum area for non-sprinklered Group E occupancy buildings. d. Building Use: The building is to be used for education purposes, primarily programming led by Teatown educators, with no habitation or overnight use. e. Occupant Load: The total occupant load of the Education Center enclosed area is 185 persons (297 persons including occupiable roof space), which is less than the allowable occupant load of a non-sprinklered building of 300 persons. f. Fire Resistance - Assemblies: There are no fire-resistance rating requirements for building elements (per NYS BC Table 601). However, the interior gypsum wall assemblies in the Education Center have a 1-hour fire resistance rating, except at the partitions separating Classrooms 2 & 3, where the assembly has a 2-hr fire resistance rating (per UL testing: U419). g. Fire Resistance - Materials: All exposed building materials are class A - fire resistant with little or no flame spread or smoke development, far exceeding NYS Interior finish classification requirements which require class C materials (per BC Table 803.13). Chairman Fon and Members of the Planning Board January 29, 2025 Re: Teatown Lake Reservation Page 3 h. Emergency Egress / Exit: All rooms in the Education Center except the restroom and mechanical room have a direct means of exterior exit. In addition, note the following: i. The building includes two primary egress exits at opposites ends of the building. ii. Each classroom / multipurpose space includes a minimum of two means of egress, exceeding code which allows for a single exit based on occupant load and travel distance (per NYS BC Table 1006.2.1). iii. Each classroom incudes an egress compliant swing door that exits directly outside to the west. iv. The interior egress door from each classroom provides access to the two primary exits and a third egress from the multipurpose space that is connected and open to the circulation space. v. In addition to the two means of egress, each classroom / multipurpose space also includes at least one large, 6’ wide sliding glass door. vi. The storage / office space, located adjacent to the main entrance, includes an operable casement window that meets NYS BC 1030 Emergency Escape and Rescue requirements. i. Egress Width: The provided exits far surpass the minimum code requirement for egress width. In addition, note the following: i. The proposed building includes two primary entrances located on opposite sides of the building, and four additional secondary exits. ii. In total these egress doors provide a total width of 256”, which could support egress for 1,280 persons (0.2” per occupant). iii. In reality, the total proposed occupancy of the Education Center is 185 persons, requiring only 37” total width at egress doors. j. Fire Extinguishers: The furthest point from the nearest extinguisher is under 50’. In addition, note the following: i. Two fire extinguisher cabinets are proposed to be located in highly visible areas near each primary exit door. ii. Additionally, a fire extinguisher will also be provided with each classroom. k. Fire Alarm: The Education Building is protected by a manual addressable fire alarm system that activates an occupant notification system throughout the building and central station communications to the local fire department. In addition, note the following: i. Manual pull stations are located within 5’ of each egress door, and smoke detectors are ceiling mounted in all common and public spaces, classrooms, and the mechanical room. Chairman Fon and Members of the Planning Board January 29, 2025 Re: Teatown Lake Reservation Page 4 ii. Combination horn/strobe units are mounted in all common and public areas, classrooms, and employee work areas, and strobes are mounted in all other spaces. l. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage system: An Emergency Responder Radio Coverage system (ERRCS) is also provided per NYS BC Section 918. The fire alarm control panel and ERRCS amplifier are located with the Mechanical Room near the main entrance. m. Fire Safety Maintenance & Continued Compliance: Teatown’s safety and fire prevention measures are regulated and inspected annually by the Westchester County Board of Health. To ensure compliance, Teatown contracts with Hudson Valley Fire Inc. to inspect and repair all safety/fire exit signage, emergency lighting, and fire extinguishers throughout the campus. Additionally, more detailed information relative to the above is available in submissions made to the Fire Prevention Bureau on 11/21/24 and 1/6/25 and the Zoning Board on 12/5/24. Copies of those submissions were sent to the Planning Board at the time of each submission for review and can be resubmitted if necessary. We look forward to continuing the review of the ZBA referral related to the Teatown Lake Reservation campus renovation applications with you at the Planning Board’s February 10th meeting. Very truly yours, DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLP Mark Gratz, P.E. Senior Associate Enclosures cc: Alan Sorkin D. Riesel E. Bunge G. Wittwer-Laird E. Kolisz ZBA Ref. Poggioreale Richard Fon John A. Tegeder, R.A. Chairperson Director of Planning TOWN OF YORKTOWN PLANNING BOARD Albert A. Capellini Community and Cultural Center, 1974 Commerce Street, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598, Phone (914) 962-6565, Fax (914) 962-3986 Crompond / Croton Heights / Huntersville / Jefferson Valley / Kitchawan / Mohegan Lake / Shrub Oak / Sparkle Lake / Teatown / Yorktown / Yorktown Heights To: Zoning Board of Appeals From: Planning Board Date: December 11, 2024 Subject: ZBA Referral #35/24 SBL: 26.20-2-3 ____________________________________________________________________________________ At its meeting on December 9, 2024, the Planning Board discussed the subject referral. The majority of the parcel is located within the wetland buffer and in turn would require a thorough site plan review in order to mitigate potential impacts. With that said, the Board respectfully requests that it can act as lead agency in order to undergo a thorough site plan review process. Additional information will need to be submitted. The following is based on the drawings submitted at the Planning Board meeting on Monday December 9, 2024 (attached). Requested Materials 1. Applicant should submit a narrative describing business operations. Including but not limited to number of employees, number of children, hours of operation, pick up and drop off methods, etc. 2. A wetland delineation and report must be submitted and then verified by the Town’s wetland consultant. 3. A wetland mitigation plan will be required to mitigate the disturbance within the wetland buffer. 4. Provide a landscaping plan. 5. Provide a lighting plan. 6. Trees should be inventoried using the Planning Department Tree Worksheet. 7. Traffic will be reviewed by the Town’s traffic consultant. 8. Will require review from the NYCDEP. Site Plan Modifications 1. Side yard setback dimension should be moved to the north-eastern corner of the existing building, which is the closest to the property line. 2. Show municipal water & sewer connections. 3. Label adjacent property owners. 4. Show free standing sign location if one is to be proposed. 5. Revise retaining wall detail to show retaining wall and railing. Respectfully submitted, Ian Richey Town Planner cc: Applicant Town Engineer SP-033PHOTO SHEET - EXISTINGCONDITIONSSheet TitleB&V CONTRACTINGENTERPRISES, INC.Project TitleDescription DatePhasePage ofSeal & SignatureScaleRevisionsINITIAL SCHEMATIC DESIGNDrawn byChecked byDateDrawing NumberProject NumberProject KeyAS SHOWNPROPOSED DAYCARECENTER2829 CROMPOND ROAD,YORKTOWN HEIGHTSNY 10598TGGS2-4-2025P-5228-2024Structural/Civil EngineerSorkin Engineering Services, PC208 Anderson ParkwayCedar Grove, NJ 07009p. 973.727.40638AOWNERFOR INITIAL REVIEW 8/8/24ATTN: MR VINCENT POGGIOREALE1025 SAW MILL RIVER ROAD, 2ND FLOORYONKERS, NY 10710BFOR REVIEW 11/25/24CUPD. PER COMMENTS 1/9/25DUPD. PER COMMENTS 2/4/25ROADSIDE VIEW1SP-3DATE: EARLY 2023EXISTING DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE2SP-3DATE: EARLY 2023FRONT VIEW3SP-3DATE: LATE 2023REAR VIEW4SP-3DATE: LATE 2023 UP370 SQ.FT10 TODDLEROFFICE175 SQ.FT445 SQ.FTINFANTS145 SQ.FTBREAK ROOMUPEXISTING RESIDNECEBREEZEWAY375 SQ.FT40'-0"50'-0"12'-6"24'-6"DNDN255 SQ.FT7 KIDS370 SQ.FT10 KIDS240 SQ.FT6 KIDS370 SQ.FT10 KIDS40'-0"50'-0"EXISTING RESIDNECEBREEZEWAYBELOWSP-044INTERIOR DAYCARELAYOUTSSheet TitleB&V CONTRACTINGENTERPRISES, INC.Project TitleDescription DatePhasePage ofSeal & SignatureScaleRevisionsINITIAL SCHEMATIC DESIGNDrawn byChecked byDateDrawing NumberProject NumberProject KeyAS SHOWNPROPOSED DAYCARECENTER2829 CROMPOND ROAD,YORKTOWN HEIGHTSNY 10598TGGS2-4-2025P-5228-2024Structural/Civil EngineerSorkin Engineering Services, PC208 Anderson ParkwayCedar Grove, NJ 07009p. 973.727.40638AOWNERFOR INITIAL REVIEW 8/8/24ATTN: MR VINCENT POGGIOREALE1025 SAW MILL RIVER ROAD, 2ND FLOORYONKERS, NY 10710BFOR REVIEW 11/25/24CUPD. PER COMMENTS 1/9/25DUPD. PER COMMENTS 2/4/25PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR LAYOUT - SCHEMATIC1SP-404'8'SCALE: 1"=4'2'PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR LAYOUT - SCHEMATIC2SP-404'8'SCALE: 1"=4'2'NOTE:FURTHER BUILDING DOCUMENTATION (INCLUDING CONSTRUCTIONCODE INFO, INTERIOR LAYOUT INFO, HVAC/MEP INFO, ETC.) TO BEPROVIDED IN SUBSEQUENT SETS.INTERIOR LAYOUTS PROVIDED BY MK STUDIO. RIC Development Battery Storage DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW YORK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING 26 FEDERAL PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10278-0090 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: Permit Application Number NAN-2024-01062-WJO by Yorktown ESS, LLC Yorktown ESS, LLC Alexa Marinos 17 State Street, Suite 2320 New York, NY 10004 Dear Ms. Marinos: On January 10, 2024, the New York District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, received a request for Department of the Army jurisdictional determination for a project involving the following: Construct a battery energy storage system (BESS) with six (6) units of 2XL batteries. Equipment will be mounted on a single foundation pad and will include transformers, meter, and switchgear. The project is located near the Shrub Oak Brook waterway, in the Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York. On August 16, 2024, a pre-application meeting was held with the agent and the project was changed to avoid the wetlands and waters on site. Our review of this information, along with the previously submitted jurisdictional determination request, indicates that since the proposed work does not appear to include dredging or construction activities in or over any navigable waters of the United States, the placement of any dredged or fill material in any waters of the United States (including coastal or inland wetlands) or the accomplishment of any work affecting the course, location, condition or capacity of such areas, a Department of the Army permit, in accordance with 33 CFR 320-330, will not be required provided the proposed work is executed in accordance with the referenced material. Care should be taken so that any fill or construction materials, including debris, do not enter the waterway to become a drift or pollution hazard. You are to contact appropriate state and local government officials to ensure that the subject work is performed in compliance with their requirements. In order for us to better serve you, please complete our Customer Service Survey located at https://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Customer-Survey/. November 19, 2024 - 2 - If any questions should arise concerning this matter, please contact Alexis Johnson, of my staff, at (917) 790-8013. Sincerely, Rosita Miranda Chief, Metro NY/NJ Section GENERAL CONDITIONS – PLEASE READ WHAT YOU ARE SIGNING FOR: 1. The permittee is responsible for maintaining an active application. If no activity occurs within a six (6) month period, as measured from the date of application, the application will become null and void. Applications fees are non-refundable. 2. The Town of Yorktown reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke this permit at any time after due notice when: a. Scope of the project is exceeded or a violation of any condition of the permit or provision of the law pertinent regulations are found; or b. Permit was obtained by misrepresentation or failure to disclose relevant facts; or c. Newly discovered information or significant physical changes are discovered. 3. The permittee is responsible for keeping the permit active by requesting renewal from the Approval Authority. Any supplemental information that may be required by the Approval Authority, including forms and fees, must be submitted 30 days prior to the expiration date. The expiration date is one year from the date the bond is paid to the Engineering Department. In accordance with Chapter 178 of the Town Code, Freshwater Wetlands, Section 178-16 -Expiration of a Permit. Renewal fee for an additional year is $150. 4. This permit shall not be construed as conveying to the applicant any right to trespass upon private lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work or as authorizing the impairment of any right, title or interest in real or personal property held or vested in person not party to this permit. 5. The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, easements and right-of- way, which may be required. 6. Any modification of this permit granted by the Approval Authority must be in writing and attached hereto. 7. Granting of this permit does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of obtaining any other permission, consent or approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, N.Y.C. Department of Environmental Protection, N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation or local government, which may be required. ___________________________________ PRINT NAME ___________________________________ ______________________________ SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE Must be original signature. Digital signatures not accepted. 3 Andrew Welch Page 13 of 13 e. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district Yes No which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? If Yes: i.Nature of historic/archaeological resource: Archaeological Site Historic Building or District ii.Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ f. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for Yes No archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? g. Have additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? Yes No If Yes: i. Describe possible resource(s): _______________________________________________________________________________ ii.Basis for identification: ___________________________________________________________________________________ h. Yes No Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: i.Identify resource: _________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Distance between project and resource: _____________________ miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Yes No Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: i.Identify the name of the river and its designation: ________________________________________________________________ ii.Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? Yes No F. Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G. Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name ___________________________________ Date_______________________________________ Signature________________________________________________ Title_______________________________________ 4 4 Taconic State Parkway The Taconic State Pkwy is associated with events that have made a signficiant contribution to the broad patterns of history. 4 4 Taconic State Parkway Scenic Byway >1 4 Jonathan Rappe January 22 2025 PRINT FORM Authorized Sole Signatory Yorktown ESS Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I: Supplemental Information 3666 Old Yorktown Road, Shrub Oak, NY 10588 Tax Parcel ID: 16.11-1-60 January 2025 Submitted by: Yorktown ESS, LLC c/o RIC Development, LLC 17 State Street, Suite 2320 New York, NY 10004 Yorktown ESS Project Full Environmental Assessment Form—Part I Supplement Yorktown ESS Project The following information supplements the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1 to assist the Lead Agency’s project understanding and completion of the Full EAF Parts 2 and 3. Yorktown ESS, LLC is proposing to develop a battery energy storage system (BESS) within a 0.66-acre portion of the 4.40-acre parcel located at 3666 Old Yorktown Road in the Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York, tax parcel ID: 16.11-1-60. FEAF Part I Clarification: 1. Impact on Land: The proposed Project will involve construction on, or physical alteration of the land surface within the proposed site. However, no moderate or large impacts are anticipated. Minor disturbance of the land will be conducted in order to install the system and access the site. This includes grading at the site for preparation of the work area, but due to the site being primarily flat grading is proposed to be minor and limited to the limits of disturbance depicted on the site plans. Blasting will not occur. When the project reaches the end of its useful life and is decommissioned, as ensured by a bond posted by the Applicant with the Town, the land will be restored to its original condition with project components removed. 2. Impact on Geological Features: The proposed Project will not result in the modification or destruction of or inhibit access to any unique or unusual landforms within the Project site, e.g., caves, cliffs, dunes, minerals, fossils, etc. 3. Impacts on Surface Water: The proposed Project will not affect wetlands or other surface water bodies, e.g., streams, ponds, rivers, or lakes. Two (2) wetland areas and one (1) stream were delineated within the Project area, totaling about 0.65 acres of wetland within the parcel. Of these delineated features, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) confirmed jurisdiction of the northernmost wetland, and thus work within this wetland and the 100-foot adjacent area are prohibited. As such, these wetlands and stream features have been excluded from the proposed development area, though minor work for the gravel access road are proposed to occur within the 100-foot adjacent area. The wetland has been avoided and work is proposed to be limited to the existing road that is located within the adjacent area. Yorktown ESS Project Full Environmental Assessment Form—Part I Supplement The Project will not increase stormwater runoff at the site. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the maximum extent practicable and minimal impervious surfaces are proposed. As such, no changes to the rate or volume of stormwater runoff are expected from the Project’s operations. Nonetheless, appropriate precautionary, post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be installed and maintained according to the Project-specific, NYSDEC- approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). BMPs include erosion and sediment control methods, such as vegetative and structural sediment control measures, construction phasing, disturbance limits, installation of silt screen and a construction entrance, waste management spill prevention, and routine site inspection and maintenance. Additional measures and details will be provided in the SWPPP. 4. Impacts on Groundwater: The proposed action will not result in new or additional use of groundwater. The Project site was identified to be within the boundary of a Principal Aquifer. According to the NYSDEC’s “Unconsolidated Aquifers 250K Upstate NY” dataset, the Project site is located within an unconsolidated aquifer, which are those aquifers that consist of gravel and sand and may yield large supplies of waters to wells in the area. According to this dataset, the unconsolidated aquifer that the site is located within the boundary of is a Lacustrine or Eolian aquifer, yields likely less than 10 gallons per minute of water, and is not a Primary Aquifer. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Lacustrine or Eolian deposits consist of fine to medium sand and probably yield less than 10 gal/min. Though this Project is located within such boundaries, the proposed work does not store or use any hazardous chemicals onsite. Potential impacts to groundwater would be most likely to occur due to firefighting water in the event of a fire. In consideration of this, the selected system that will be utilized, the Tesla Megapack 2XL, was selected because it has gone through rigorous third-party testing and is designed with numerous safety components to minimize the risk of fire to the maximum extent possible. These safety measures include, but are not limited to, deflagration control systems, Battery Management System (BMS), fire detection, site controller and monitoring, fire suppression systems, and electrical fault protection devices. In addition, these systems have undergone rigorous testing, including UL 6540A Large-Scale Fire Testing, fire protection engineering analyses, internal fire testing and modeling, heat flux analysis, and more. With these safety considerations in mind, the chance of fire Yorktown ESS Project Full Environmental Assessment Form—Part I Supplement is significantly minimized, significantly minimizing the potential for groundwater contamination. 5. Impact on Flooding: The parcel in which the proposed Project is located is contained within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 366119C0029F (effective date: 9/28/2007), which indicates that a portion of the parcel is located within the Regulatory Floodway at the northernmost portion of the parcel and the 1% annual chance flood boundary. A copy of the FIRMette depicting the Project site and these boundaries have been included in this application. According to FEMA, the Regulatory Floodway consists of the channel of the river, which in this case is Shrub Oak Brook to the north of the parcel, and the adjacent land area that is to be protected from development in order to allow for the discharge of the base flood without increasing surface water elevation. This Project has been designed to avoid the Regulatory Floodway and ensure that impacts to this boundary have been completely avoided. As such, no work is proposed to occur within the Regulatory Floodway. However, minimal work is proposed within the AE Zone (the 1% annual chance flood), which includes work on the existing road to improve it and maintain permanent access to the site. A floodplain development permit will be obtained prior to any work being conducted at the site, along with ample consideration to ensure that changes to the existing grade and elevations are minimized to the maximum extent practicable and that all requirements of the Town of Yorktown’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance are met. As a result, impacts to the lands subject to flooding are expected to be minimal. 6. Impact on Air: The proposed action will not include a State regulated air emission source or have other air emissions beyond the temporary exhaust of construction or maintenance vehicles and the occasional lawn mower. 7. Impact on Plants and Animals: The proposed action will not result in substantial loss of flora or fauna. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) notes that the site is within the vicinity of the State and Federally endangered Northern Long- eared Bat and Indiana Bat. Provided that any tree clearing at this site is conducted within the winter months to ensure bats are not roosting in trees, this concern is addressed. In addition, any forested portions within the parcel have been excluded from the Project area, further ensuring minimal impact to either bat species. The USFWS also noted the potential for the proposed endangered Tricolored Bat to be found within the vicinity of the Project site. This species is Yorktown ESS Project Full Environmental Assessment Form—Part I Supplement not currently listed by the USFWS, but is a species of concern, nonetheless. Tricolored Bat roost in trees during the spring, summer, and fall, and are typically found in caves and mines during the winter. The Yorktown ESS site does not contain appropriate habitat for wintering Tricolored Bats, and like the Northern Long-eared Bat and Indiana Bat, provided any tree clearing at the Project site is conducted within winter months, this concern is addressed. It is also noted that the Project is not expected to require major tree clearing to complete construction of the proposed. The USFWS also noted the potential for Monarch Butterfly populations to be found within the vicinity of the Project site. This species is a candidate species and is not currently listed by the USFWS, but it is also a species of concern. Impacts to this species are expected to be positive in nature, given the intent to plant pollinator-friendly species. Other, more common wildlife species are expected to adapt to the presence of the BESS facility with relative ease. There are no plants of concern thought to be present at this site, and pesticides and herbicides will not be used throughout the life of the Project. To reduce potential impacts from invasive species, construction will require specific controls, such as washing of equipment and the quick establishment of vegetation within disturbed areas, in order to reduce the potential for any invasive species to enter the site. Based on the above, the Project will not result in any significant adverse impacts to plants and animals. 8. Impact on Agricultural Resources: The proposed Project will not have an adverse impact on agricultural resources. The Project is not sited within agricultural land, nor within an Agricultural District. As such, impacts to agricultural resources is not expected as a result of this Project. 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources: The land use of the proposed Project is not in sharp contrast to current land use patterns between the proposed Project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. The Project is located adjacent to the Taconic State Parkway, which is a designated New York State Scenic Byway. According to the NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), the Taconic State Parkway was designed by Gilmore Clarke in order to offer scenic vistas of the Hudson Highlands, Catskills, and Taconic regions, with features throughout designed to be aesthetically pleasing. In consideration of this, ample vegetative screening has been proposed to ensure that the Project is of little to no visual concern from this byway. The land use of the proposed is compatible with current land use patterns, as evidenced by the fact that is an allowable use within the Town. Yorktown ESS Project Full Environmental Assessment Form—Part I Supplement 10. Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources: The proposed Project will not adversely impact any historic or archaeological resources. As noted above, the Project site is located adjacent to the aesthetically and historically significant Taconic State Parkway. The Taconic State Parkway was listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 2005. According to the details provided on the NYS Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS), the Taconic State Parkway is “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history,” and “embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.” The NRHP Nomination Form describes the entirety of the Parkway in detail, explaining the various connections the Parkway makes to all areas of the State, as well as defining the parkway as “a limited-access scenic pleasure drive.” In consideration of this, vegetative screening and ample setbacks are proposed to ensure that the Project is of little to no visual concern. In addition, consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has been initiated. 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation: The proposed action will not result in a loss of recreational opportunities, nor will it result in a reduction of open space resources, as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas: The proposed Project site is not located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area (CEA). 13. Impact on Transportation: The proposed Project will not result in a change to existing transportation systems. The Project will generate very minimal traffic, as operation of the system is fully automated and does not require regular onsite supervision or manual operation. After construction, facility visits will be conducted an estimated four times annually for equipment inspections and maintenance. Parking will be restricted to on-site within designated parking areas. The expected timeline for construction is approximately 2-3 months. During this relatively short period, there will be construction vehicles entering and exiting the site during daylight hours, primarily at the start and end of the workday, at which time the contractor will provide flagmen if deemed appropriate. Yorktown ESS Project Full Environmental Assessment Form—Part I Supplement 14. Impact on Energy: The proposed action will not cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. Impacts on energy are in support of the State energy plan and considered positive in nature. 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light: The proposed action will result in only a minor, temporary increase in noise during construction. It will not result in any increase in odors, nor outdoor lighting. The Project will not produce noise that will substantially impact neighboring properties. According to studies conducted on these systems, the noise level produced during operation is dependent upon the internal thermal cooling mechanism. Overall, the system generates very little noise, but when the cooling fans are operating noise levels may increase to around 70 decibels at about 1-meter from the system, which is equivalent to the noise produced from a standard washing machine. During construction, louder noise will be generated by heavy equipment. This noise will be comparable to that of the nearby Taconic State Parkway. 16. Impact on Human Health: The proposed action will not have any adverse impact on human health. There are no hazardous substances maintained on site or exposed to the environment. Use of pesticides or herbicides are not proposed. The selected systems to be installed, the Tesla Megapack 2XL, were chosen for the proposed Project due to the fact that these systems are designed with safety as the top priority. According to the Safety Overview, features to make the product safe have been included throughout the entirety of the product’s lifecycle, from transit and installation to operation and maintenance, through to decommissioning. These systems have been put through rigorous testing at every level to ensure that ample safety measures have been included. Safety measures include, but are not limited to, individual inspection and testing of each lithium-ion cell prior to assembly, every battery module including individually- fused cells and dedicated power electronics that isolate the batteries from the common DC bus, the modules arrive pre-installed, every battery module includes a built-in isolated DC-DC converter and active fuse to provide an extra layer of protection and allows for multiple levels of isolation, all features are controlled by a dedicated Battery Management System ensuring all cells operate within approved limits, parallel battery module architecture to provide redundant safety control, dedicated deflagration vents in the enclosure’s roof, a Customer Interface Bay that is a touch-safe bay located at the center of the enclosure, and a weatherproof steel enclosure rated to IP66 (NEMA 4) to provide protection against extreme environmental, chemical, and physical exposure. Among other safety Yorktown ESS Project Full Environmental Assessment Form—Part I Supplement measures, this system is also subjected to rigorous testing standards, such as UL 1973 and IEC 62619 to ensure that all battery modules are resistant to single cell thermal runaway propagation, which virtually eliminates the likelihood of a thermal event originating from an internal product failure. In the unlikely event of a fire, these systems have been designed to ensure that all hazards are easily managed at the site-level by standard fire service response equipment. Additionally, the system has been designed with the abovementioned deflagration vents, which vents all hazards upwards, ensuring that response personnel and other exposures are not directly exposed to these hazards. 17. Consistency with Community Plans: The proposed Project is consistent with adopted land use plans. The Project, which is defined as a Tier 2 Battery Energy Storage System, has been designed to be fully compliant with all provisions of the Town of Yorktown’s Battery Energy Storage System Law. 18. Consistency with Community Character: The proposed Project is consistent with the existing community character. The Project will also be screened from view to ensure that it will not be of visual concern within the community. The Project will not eliminate or replace any existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic or cultural importance to the community. It will not create a demand for additional community resources, nor will it displace any affordable or other housing. The Project will not interfere with the enjoyment of any designated public resources. Yorktown ESS Yorktown ESS is a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) being developed consistent with New York State policy. The project is led by RIC Development, LLC on behalf of Yorktown ESS, LLC. It is located at 3666 Old Yorktown Rd in Shrub Oak, a property zoned partially commercial and partially residential, with the primary use being residential. The landowners currently occupy the home on the property. The total parcel size is over four acres. The project will utilize six Tesla Megapack 2XL units, designed to discharge a total of 20,000 kWh over a four-hour period. The system will be connected to ConEd via an underground line. The facility is approximately 8,000 square feet and is enclosed with a seven-foot tall fence. The facility is strategically located away from the property line to avoid impacting wetlands and flood zones. The project is behind the house that is along Old Yorktown Road. The remaining borders of the property are wooded areas, a pond, and the Taconic Parkway. In this way the project is designed to avoid impacts to neighboring homes and other uses. An existing driveway entrance will be used, and improvements will be made to the road while maintaining a pervious surface. The batteries are designed for outdoor installation. They are in cabinet-style enclosures and do not include any spaces that can be occupied by personnel. The battery enclosures will be mounted on concrete pads as will associated transformer and switchgear. An underground cable will be installed to parallel the access driveway to connect to the utility distribution system via a new manhole at the edge of Old Yorktown Road. A full safety analysis has been conducted by a consultant to ensure compliance and safety. The application includes an Emergency Response Plan, a Hazard Mitigation Analysis, and a Code Compliance Narrative. The information contained in the application demonstrates that the project can comply with regulations, is safe, and will not have a noticeable impact on the community. The facility requires no buildings and will not be occupied during operation. The facility will be remotely monitored for performance and safety. Local officials and first responders will be provided with contact information to reach someone 24 hours a day. Response to Bureau of Fire Prevention Memorandum dated October 17, 2024 1. The access road shall be designed and built according the New York State Fire Code Section 503 and have an approved fire apparatus turn-around. The design has been modified accordingly and we believe it meets the criteria. 2. The Bureau would like to see the emergency action plans for the proposed facility and would like an access road maintenance plan that includes snow removal. An emergency response plan is attached to this application. Snow removal is accepted as the responsibility of the project owner/operator. 3. The Bureau is concerned that the facility is located in close proximity to wetlands and a floodway and the access road is in that floodway. They are also concerned about run-o? from any fire­fighting operation would contaminate the waterway. The project is located as to avoid impacts to wetlands and floodway. The emergency response plan details how the facility is equipped to deal with incidents and the proper techniques that will avoid risk of contamination. 4. The Bureau is concerned about the facility’s proximity to two main roadways and many residences. The facility is located a safe distance from the residence on property (over 100 feet) and is not located near any other residences or buildings. The setback from the closes battery to Old Yorktown Road is 175 feet. Any incident with these types of systems could lead to these homes being evacuated and the roadways shut down for days. The emergency response plan does not recommend any evacuations. 5. The Lake Mohegan Fire District has information that there is an in-home daycare being operated at 3666 Old Yorktown Road and is concerned about its safety being in close proximity to this facility. The property owner has indicated that there is no intention to have be any in-home daycare at their residence once the energy storage facility is constructed. 6. The Fire District would like a fire hydrant placed on the facility side of the street by the proposed access road. As indicated in the ERP, the primary use of water in the event of an incident would be defensive tactics of applying water to nearby exposures when necessary. However, under certain conditions it might be desirable to use a fog pattern to limit smoke from traveling in an unwanted direction. Our expert analysis assumed that the two closest hydrants would be su2icient for such uses. Although, if the town and fire department believe it is necessary to add a hydrant closer to the project, we will support that e2ort. 7. Overall, the Bureau does not support this project in the proposed location. The additional information that has been submitted in this application, including the expert analysis, should be su2icient to reconsider this position. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Name Yorktown Energy Storage System (ESS) Project HMA Project No. 24-20571 Prepared For RIC Development LLC 17 State Street, Suite 2320 New York, NY 10004 Revision No. Rev. 0 Date of Issue 01/15/2025 Revision History Prepared By: Shawn Morris Consultant Shawn.morris@energyresponsegroup.com Reviewed By: Nick Petrakis, P.E. Director of Engineering nick.petrakis@energyresponsegroup.com Revision No. Date of Issue Substance of Change Prepared By Reviewed By Rev. 0 01/15/2025 Draft issue S. Morris N. Petrakis IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This document conveys the results of research, investigations, intellectual property development, experience, and analysis to provide opinions, recommendations, explanations, and service offerings, and quotations from Energy Safety Response Group LLC. This document is not meant to serve as professional and credentialed engineering, legal, technical, or emergency response judgment, should not be used in place of consultation with such appropriate professionals, and you should seek the advice of such appropriate professionals regarding such issues as required. Further, the contents of this document are in no way meant to address specific circumstances, and the contents are not meant to be exhaustive and do not address every potential scenario associated with the subject matter of the document. Site and circumstance-specific factors and real-time judgment and reason may significantly impact some of the subject matter conveyed in this document. Additional resources and actions, which may be beyond the scope of this document, may be required to address your specific issues. Additionally, laws, ordinances, regulatory standards, and best practices related to the contents of this document are subject to change or modification from time to time. It is your responsibility to educate yourself as to any such change or modification. This document is provided “as is”. Energy Safety Response Group LLC, to the fullest extent permitted by law, disclaims all warranties, either express or implied, statutory or otherwise, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, non-infringement, and fitness for particular purpose. In no event shall Energy Safety Response Group LLC or its owners, officers, or employees be liable for any liability, loss, injury, or risk (including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, punitive damages, special damages, personal injury, wrongful death, lost profits, or other damages) which are incurred or suffered as a direct or indirect result of the use of any of the material, advice, guidance, or information contained in this document, whether based on warranty, contract, tort, or any other legal theory and whether or not Energy Safety Response Group LLC or any of its owners, officers, or employees are advised of the possibility of such damages. Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Applicable Codes and Standards .............................................................................. 7 1.3 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................. 8 2. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 10 2.1 Site Overview ............................................................................................................ 10 2.2 Nearby Exposures .................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Fire Department Access ........................................................................................... 12 2.4 Fire Department Water Supply ................................................................................ 12 3. ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ..................................................... 13 3.1 Megapack 2 XL Overview ......................................................................................... 13 3.2 Fire Safety Features ................................................................................................. 16 3.2.1 Deflagration Control System ....................................................................................... 16 3.2.2 Battery Management System (BMS) ........................................................................... 17 3.2.3 Fire Detection .............................................................................................................. 17 3.2.4 Site Controller and Monitoring ..................................................................................... 17 3.2.5 Fire Suppression Systems .......................................................................................... 18 3.2.6 Electrical Fault Protection Devices .............................................................................. 18 4. HAZARD MITIGATION ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 18 4.1 HMA Methodology .................................................................................................... 18 4.2 Relevant Supporting Information ............................................................................ 19 4.2.1 UL 9540A Large-Scale Fire Testing ............................................................................ 19 4.2.2 Tesla Megapack 2 / 2XL: Fire Protection Engineering Analysis .................................. 22 4.2.3 Tesla Megapack 2 / 2XL: Internal Fire Testing and Modeling ..................................... 23 4.2.5 Failure Criteria and Thresholds ................................................................................... 26 4.2.6 Sensitive Exposures .................................................................................................... 28 4.2.7 Heat Flux Plots and Conclusions ................................................................................ 28 4.2.8 Emergency Response Guide ...................................................................................... 29 4.3 Primary Consequences of ESS Failure and Mitigative Barriers ........................... 30 4.4 Fault Condition Analysis .......................................................................................... 32 4.4.1 Thermal Runaway Condition ....................................................................................... 34 4.4.2 Failure of an Energy Storage Management System ................................................... 35 Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 5 4.4.3 Failure of a required protection system including but not limited to ventilation or exhaust system. required smoke detection, fire detection, fire extinguishing, or gas detection system. ........................................................................................................ 37 4.5 Analysis Approval .................................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX A – DETAILED HMA DIAGRAMS AND BARRIER DESCRIPTIONS ....... 40 APPENDIX B – HMA METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 45 APPENDIX C – REFERENCED CODES AND STANDARDS ...................................... 47 Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 6 Table of Figures Figure 1 - 3666 Old Yorktown Rd, Pre-Development Aerial View .............................................. 11 Figure 2 – Updated 30% Site Plan ............................................................................................. 11 Figure 3 - Megapack 2 XL Internal Architecture ......................................................................... 14 Figure 4 - Battery Module ........................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5 - Tesla Megapack 2 XL ................................................................................................ 15 Figure 6 - Example Bowtie Diagram ........................................................................................... 19 Figure 7 - Cell Level Testing – Flexible Film Heater Installation ................................................ 20 Figure 8 - Cell Level Testing – Flexible Film Heater Installation ................................................ 20 Figure 9 - Highlights of Module Testing ...................................................................................... 21 Figure 10 - Heat Flux Time Graphs ............................................................................................ 26 Figure 11 - Heat Flux Plots ......................................................................................................... 29 Figure 12 - Primary Consequence Diagram ............................................................................... 30 Figure 13 - Thermal Runaway Condition Diagram ..................................................................... 35 Figure 14 - Failure of an Energy Storage Management System Diagram .................................. 36 Figure 15 - Failure of Smoke Detection, Fire Detection, Fire Suppression, or Gas Detection System Diagram ......................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 16 - All Fault Conditions .................................................................................................. 40 Figure 17 - Thermal Runaway Condition .................................................................................... 41 Figure 18 - Failure of an Energy Storage Management System ................................................ 42 Figure 19 - Failure of a Required Smoke Detection, Fire Detection, Fire Suppression, or Gas Detection System ....................................................................................................................... 43 Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 7 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Energy Safety Response Group (ESRG) has been retained by RIC Development LLC to perform a site-specific Hazard Mitigation Analysis (HMA) for the proposed Yorktown Energy Storage System (ESS) Project in Shrub Oak, New York. The proposed installation will utilize the Tesla Megapack 2 XL stationary battery storage system. This report summarizes the findings of the HMA in accordance with the presently adopted 2020 Fire Code of New York State (FCNYS) adapted from the 2018 edition of International Fire Code. Additionally, this report refers to NFPA 855, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems (2023 Edition). Though not yet adopted by the state of New York, this most current industry standard has been recommended for adoption by the New York State Interagency Fire Safety Working Group. This HMA can be utilized to assess the anticipated overall effectiveness of protective barriers in place to mitigate the consequences of a battery-related failure. The analysis was performed based on the current documentation available at the time of the report. 1.2 Applicable Codes and Standards The following codes and standards are assessed and referenced in this this document: § 2020 Fire Code of New York State (FCNYS) o The 2020 Fire Code of New York State is a derivative work of the 2018 edition of the International Fire Code (IFC) published by the International Code Council (ICC). § 2023 NFPA 855: Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems. o This standard applies to the design, construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of stationary energy storage systems (ESS). o ESS code language in the IFC and other NFPA documents is largely harmonized from NFPA 855, especially Section 1206 dealing with electrical energy storage systems. The 2020 FCNYS does not prescriptively require an HMA, also known as a failure modes and effects (FMEA) analysis to be provided for the Yorktown BESS as all the following conditions are met: 1. The energy storage system technology is specifically identified in FCNYS Table 1206.1 2. The installation is not in a room, building or enclosed area 3. The Megapack is not a walk-in style enclosure NFPA 855 (2023) has two separate provisions that may make an HMA compulsory for the Yorktown BESS. 4.4.1 requires “A hazard mitigation analysis shall be provided to the AHJ for review and approval where any of the following conditions are present” Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 8 … (4) Where required by the AHJ to address a potential hazard with an ESS installation that is not addressed by an existing requirement. (6) Where required for outdoor lithium-ion battery ESS systems in accordance with 9.5.2.1. 9.5.2.1 A HMA shall be required for lithium-ion ESS that exceed 600kWh for outdoor installations…. As indicated in NFPA 855 (2023): 4.4.2.2 only single failures modes shall be considered for each of the following modes: 1. A thermal runaway or mechanical failure condition in a single ESS unit 2. Failure of an energy storage management system or protection system that is not covered by the product listing failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) 3. Failure of a required protection system including but not limited to, ventilation (HVAC), exhaust ventilation, smoke detection, fire detection, fire suppression, or gas detection Per NFPA 855 (2023): 4.4.3, the AHJ shall be permitted to approve the hazardous mitigation analysis as documentation of the safety of the ESS installation provided the consequences of the analysis demonstrate the following: 1) Fires will be contained within unoccupied ESS rooms for the minimum duration of the fire resistance rating specified in 9.6.4 2) Fires and products of combustion will not prevent occupants from evacuating to a safe location 3) Deflagration hazards will be addressed by an explosion control or other system 1.3 Summary of Findings Based on review of documentation provided by RIC Development LLC, ESRG finds that adequate protections are provided for the fault conditions listed under NFPA 855: 4.4.2.1, as well as for analysis approval requirements under NFPA 855 (2023): 4.4.3 Key findings include: § The Tesla Megapack 2 XL is equipped with several protection systems (e.g., deflagration control system consisting of overpressure vents and sparker system, BMS control, electrical shutdowns and disconnects, etc.) that are anticipated to effectively manage all applicable fault conditions required under NFPA 855 (2023): 4.4.2.1 Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 11 Figure 1 - 3666 Old Yorktown Rd, Pre-Development Aerial View Figure 2 – Updated 30% Site Plan Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 14 Figure 3 - Megapack 2 XL Internal Architecture Figure 4 - Battery Module Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 15 Figure 5 - Tesla Megapack 2 XL For more information on the Tesla Megapack 2 XL, please refer to official product documentation provided by Tesla. Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 16 3.2 Fire Safety Features The Tesla Megapack 2 XL is equipped with several fire safety features designed to mitigate the propagation of a battery failure or prevent the failure from occurring altogether. These protections are aligned with the requirements of the Fire Code of New York State (2020), and NFPA 855 (2023). 3.2.1 Deflagration Control System Each Megapack 2 XL is provided with an integral and proprietary explosion mitigation system (deflagration control). This explosion mitigation system is comprised of numerous pressure-sensitive (overpressure) vents located at the top of the Megapack and a sparker system. These components work in conjunction with each other to ignite any flammable gases that could be generated within the unit during a failure event. The Megapack 2 XL is provided with twenty-six (26) overpressure vents and twelve (12) sparkers. Any overpressures generated from the ignition of flammable gases within the unit will be relieved via the nearest pressure-sensitive vents and routed upwards, protecting the Megapack’s structural integrity and preventing any hazardous pressure buildup within. The sparkers are located throughout the Megapack at various heights and continuously operate to ensure that any flammable gas buildup is ignited early – limiting the concentration of flammable gas within the unit and activating the pressure-sensitive vents to create a natural ventilation pathway to the exterior. The sparker system is always on and has up to seven independent power source delivery pathways from three distinct power sources: the grid, external power supply, and the battery modules themselves. The sparker system will remain operational even during loss of grid power or if an external shutdown is triggered for the battery equipment. If an event were to occur under these conditions, the sparker system and corresponding overpressure vents would still operate as described. If the Tesla Megapack is not yet connected to the grid, and no external power source is provided, the Megapack will draw power from its own battery modules. In these situations, the power supply to the sparker system will be maintained until the battery modules reach 0% state of charge. The Megapack 2XL has an energy capacity of 3916.8 kWh at 100% state-of-charge (SOC) and the sparker system only draws up to 8 watts. This means the Megapack 2XL can sit idle for at least a year, disconnected from the grid, at 30% SOC and still power the sparker system internally via only the battery modules. The presence of the internal sparker system and other layers of protection drastically minimizes but cannot fully eliminate the possibility of an overpressure incident during a failure or fire event. First responders should exercise caution and always include that possible risk when developing their Incident Action Plans and Incident Safety Plans. Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 17 3.2.2 Battery Management System (BMS) An integrated Battery Management System (BMS) monitors key datapoints such as voltage, current, and state of charge (SOC) of battery cells, in addition to providing control of corrective and protective actions in response to any abnormal conditions. Each battery module is equipped with a dedicated BMS, with a Megapack-level bus controller supervising output of all modules at the AC bus level. Critical BMS sensing parameters include battery module over / under voltage, cell string over / under voltage, battery module over temperature, temperature signal loss, and battery module over current. In the event of any abnormal conditions, the BMS will generally first raise an information warning, and then trigger a corresponding corrective action should certain levels be reached. 3.2.3 Fire Detection The Tesla Megapack does not have an internal smoke or fire detection system or one that is integral to its design, construction or installation. The FCNYS, NFPA 1 and NFPA 855 only prescriptively require smoke or fire detection when ESS installations are in buildings, structures, rooms, indoor areas, within parking garages or on rooftop installations. This proposed installation does meet any of these classifications. Additionally, the International Fire Code (2021 and 2024) requires smoke or fire detection within walk-in units containing electrochemical ESS. The Tesla Megapack does not meet the definition of a “walk-in unit”. These model codes do not preclude revision, omission or addition during the local code adoption process. In its commentary the NFPA advises that very early warning smoke detection systems can provide an earlier indication of a potential fire within an ESS. Additionally, Tesla documentation advises that when required by local code, fire detection is recommended at the site level with the use of a third-party thermal imaging cameras that can capture both early signs of thermal runaway in the Megapack, as well as other non-battery equipment fires on site. RIC Development LLC has indicated its intention to install a UV/IR or equivalent fire detection system on the Yorktown ESS site. Final details of this system will be part of the plan review process and are subject to approval by the AHJ. 3.2.4 Site Controller and Monitoring The Tesla Site Controller provides a single point of interface for the utility, network operator, or customer SCADA systems to control and monitor the entire energy storage site. It hosts the control algorithm that dictates the charge and discharge functions of the battery system units, aggregating real-time information and using the information to optimize the commands sent to each individual Megapack unit. The Megapack 2 XL is supported by Tesla’s 24/7 Operations Center, which is designed to support the global fleet of energy storage products. In conjunction with local operation Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 18 centers, the Megapack 2 XL has 24/7 remote monitoring, diagnostics, and troubleshooting capabilities. In the event of an emergency, this information may be made available to a Subject Matter Expert (SME) holder responsible for the system to inform emergency response personnel. 3.2.5 Fire Suppression Systems NFPA 1 (2021) and NFPA 855 (2020) both require fire control and suppression systems to be provided in certain installation conditions for BESS. The requirement exists for ESS located in walk-in enclosures on rooftops or in open parking garages. Additionally, requirements exist for other than walk-in units in open parking structures not open above to the sky. All components of the Tesla Megapack 2 XL are housed in a cabinet-style enclosure, with access for maintenance provided via enclosure doors that cannot be physically entered by any person. The installation codes and standards, thus, would not consider the Tesla Megapack 2 XL to be a walk-in container, occupied building, or structure as defined by the FCYNYS (2020) and NFPA 855 (2023). The Tesla Megapack 2 XL does not rely on any external or internal fire suppression systems to mitigate cascading thermal runaway. Additional full-scale testing and subsequent fire modeling has indicated that the Megapack’s passive construction provides a robust thermal resistance from the impacts of an adjacent Megapack during a large-scale failure. 3.2.6 Electrical Fault Protection Devices Multiple levels of passive and active electrical protection are provided for the Megapack 2 XL. At the battery module level, overcurrent protection is provided for each module in the form of single-use fusible links, providing interruption of overcurrent in the battery module in the case of an abnormal electrical event. Inverter modules, which are installed at each of the battery modules, are equipped with both DC protection via a high-speed pyrotechnic fuse for passive or active isolation of the battery module, as well as a dedicated AC contactor and AC fuses should an abnormal electrical event occur at the inverter module on the AC side of the circuit. Additionally, the Megapack 2 XL is equipped with a DC ground fault detection system and AC circuit breaker with ground fault trip settings for distribution system protection. 4. HAZARD MITIGATION ANALYSIS 4.1 HMA Methodology ESRG utilizes the bowtie methodology for hazard and risk assessments, as is described in ISO/IEC 31010: B.21, as it allows for in-depth analysis of individual mitigative barriers and serves as a strong tool for visualizing the chronological pathway of threats leading to critical hazard Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 19 events, and ultimately to greater potential consequences, as depicted in the figure below. This simple diagrammatic way of describing and analyzing the pathways of a risk from hazards to outcomes can be considered a combination of the logic of a fault tree analyzing the cause of an event and an event tree analyzing the consequences. Figure 6 - Example Bowtie Diagram Each fault condition per NFPA 855 (2023) assessed in Sections 4.4.1 – 4.4.4 below is accompanied by a corresponding bowtie diagram indicating critical threat and consequence pathways and the mitigative barriers between them. As the most critical risk posed by lithium-ion battery cells comes from the propagation of thermal runaway from a failing cell (or multiple cells) to surrounding cells, this serves as the primary critical hazard for the subsequent failure scenarios. In addition to main barriers for fault conditions on the threat side of the diagram, the consequence barriers on the right side of the diagram (e.g., explosion protection and emergency response plan) also contribute added layers of safety on top of the main threat barriers shown. It is important to note that the barriers on the left side, along a threat path, are intended to keep the threat from becoming a thermal runaway, while the barriers on the right side, along the consequence pathway, are intended to keep that single thermal runaway from evolving into one of the more severe consequences such as fire spread beyond containment, off-gassing leading to explosion, or fire spread beyond containment. For more on the methodology and relevant terminology, see Appendix B of this report. 4.2 Relevant Supporting Information 4.2.1 UL 9540A Large-Scale Fire Testing UL 9540A (4th Edition) testing was performed for the constituent cell and module levels of the Tesla Megapack 2 XL. Unit level testing results from the Megapack 2 can be applied to the Megapack 2 XL (Section 4.2.2). Cell Level Test Report Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 20 UL 9540A (4th Edition) cell level testing was performed on the Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Ltd. (CATL) 3.22V, 157.2Ah lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery cell at UL LLC (Changzhou) Quality Technical Service Co., LTD. in December of 20211. Thermal runaway was initiated via film strip heater. As the performance criteria per UL 9540A Clause 7.7 and Figure 1.1 were not met, module level testing was required. Module Level Test Report UL 9540A (4th Edition) module level testing was performed on the Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Ltd. (CATL) MP2 360.64Vdc, 156Ah battery module at TÜV SÜD SW Rail Transportation Technology (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. in December of 2021 and repeated in May of 20222. Thermal runaway was initiated via film strip heaters installed on both wide side surfaces of each cell, similar to the cell level test. In the module level test, however, two cells were heated simultaneously to force multiple cells into thermal runaway at the same time. Thermal runaway propagated from the initiating cells to all cells within the MP2/2XL tray (module). Sparks and flying debris were observed, however, there were no explosive discharges of gases. Gases generated from the cell were identified as flammable, but there was no detection of toxic gases that are sometimes associated with lithium-ion 1UL(Changzhou) Quality Technical Service Co., LTD Unit Test Report UL9540A Test Method For Evaluating Thermal Runaway Fire Propagation in Battery Energy Storage Systems (AACD) Project #: 4790294261 September, 2022. 2 Fire & Risk Alliance Fire Protection Engineering and UL 9540A Interpretation Report. Tesla Megapack 2 XL. April, 2024. Figure 8 - Cell Level Testing – Flexible Film Heater Installation Figure 7 - Cell Level Testing – Flexible Film Heater Installation Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 22 A full review of unit level testing was provided by Fire & Risk Alliance, as is briefly summarized below. 4.2.2 Tesla Megapack 2 / 2XL: Fire Protection Engineering Analysis A fire protection engineering analysis and UL 9540A unit level fire test analysis report was generated by Fire & Risk Alliance, which includes review of the Megapack 2 and Megapack 2 XL construction, design, fire safety features, and large-scale fire test data. A summary of key takeaways is provided below. Key takeaways from the report include: § The MP2XL design is almost identical to the MP2 other than being greater in length to accommodate the additional battery modules. Given the limited module propagation observed during UL 9540A unit level testing of the MP2 (seven cells went into thermal runaway), the behavior is expected to be no different with the MP2XL. As such, a stand-alone UL9540A unit level fire test for the MP2XL was not performed. The UL 9540A unit level fire test results, described above for the MP2, can be applied to the MP2XL. a. Similarly, after reviewing the MP2 unit level fire test results and comparing the MP2 and MP2XL to one another, TÜV determined the MP2 UL 9540A unit level fire test results can be applied to the MP2XL and an additional UL 9540A unit level fire test for the MP2XL was not required for its listing. § The largest variant of the Megapack 2 was tested at a worst-case scenario (i.e., 100% SOC with BMS and TMS disabled) to the UL 9540A unit level fire test method in which six cells within a battery module of the initiating Megapack 2 unit were forced into thermal runaway. Thermal runaway propagated to a seventh cell but did not propagate any further. No propagation to adjacent battery modules or target Megapack units occurred. § All unit level performance criteria outlined in 9540A, Table 9.1 for outdoor, ground- mounted ESS were met, therefore installation level testing was not required. Specifically, these results include: a. No flaming was observed outside of the unit. b. Surface temperatures of battery modules within the target units did not exceed the temperature at which thermally initiated cell venting occurs. The maximum temperatures recorded at the battery modules of the adjacent cabinets were 13.8°C and 13.2°C, which are significantly below the temperature at which cell venting occurs (174°C). c. Surface temperatures of exposures 5 ft (1.52 m) to the side and 8 ft (2.44 m) in front of the initiating unit did not exceed 97°C (175°F) above ambient. The maximum external surface temperatures recorded at the instrumented wall 5 ft to the side was 25.9°C (78.6°F), with a temperature rise above ambient of 5.5°C (9.9°F). The maximum external surface temperatures recorded at the Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 23 front target, 8 ft directly in front of the initiating unit, was 16.8°C with a temperature rise above ambient of 5.5°C. These temperatures are significantly below the maximum permitted temperature rise above ambient of 97°C (175°F). d. Explosion hazards including, but not limited to, observations of a deflagration, projectiles, flying debris, detonation, or other explosive discharge of gases were not observed. e. Heat flux did not exceed 1.3 kW/m2. The maximum heat flux recorded was 0.0000016 W/m2, which was the sensor installed on the front target cabinet and was the ambient heat flux the sensor was exposed to throughout the test. § A maximum surface temperature of 16.8°C was measured on the front target Megapack 2 unit installed 8 ft in front of the initiating Megapack 2 unit, and 13.8°C and 13.2°C at the battery modules of the adjacent unit. Based on cell venting and thermal runaway temperatures from the 9540A cell level test report (174°C and 239°C, respectively), propagation to the battery modules within a unit at clearances of 8 ft is not possible. § Smaller capacity MP2 / 2XL cabinets, populated with less than nineteen battery modules, would be expected to perform similarly given they are designed and constructed substantially similar (with the same cells, battery modules, fire safety features, etc.) than the larger capacity 3,100 kWh MP2 cabinet tested and described in the Fire & Risk Alliance report. § None of the fire detectors activated during the fire test (two multi-spectrum IR flame detectors and two thermal imagers), which is expected, as no flaming was observed outside of the cabinet during the test. However, previous testing on the Tesla Megapack 1 units demonstrated that multi-spectrum IR flame detectors can detect a fire should flames exit the cabinet through the roof. § An internal fire suppression system or an external fire suppression system is not required to stop propagating thermal runaway from cell to cell, module to module, or MP2 / 2XL cabinet to cabinet when near simultaneous failure of up to six cells occurs within the same battery module. § Manual fire suppression (hose lines) is not required to stop propagating thermal runaway and the spread of fire from a MP2 / 2XL cabinet to adjacent MP2 / 2XL cabinets installed 6 in (150 mm) behind and to the sides when a near simultaneous failure of up to six cells occurs within the same battery module. 4.2.3 Tesla Megapack 2 / 2XL: Internal Fire Testing and Modeling 4.2.3.1 Destructive Unit Level Testing Voluntary destructive unit level testing was conducted by Tesla on a representative and fully populated Megapack 2 XL. This destructive fire testing utilized a more aggressive approach than what is required by the UL 9540A test method to force the system into a Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 24 more severe cascading thermal runaway event. This destructive test was conducted to demonstrate the Megapack 2 / 2XL’s ability to fail in a safe manner, even in the extreme event of a catastrophic failure within an entire battery module. Additionally, the destructive testing further validated the design of the Megapack 2 / 2XL proprietary explosion mitigation system. This testing was conducted at the Northern Nevada Research Center on May 19th, 2022. The test utilized film heaters to simultaneously heat forty-eight (48) cells within a module, creating a severe failure scenario that is well beyond what is contemplated by the UL 9540A test method. The goal of this testing was to assess the risk of a large-scale fire resulting from an initiating Megapack 2 / 2XL during a thermal runaway event propagating to an adjacent Megapack 2 / 2XL. The results of this testing show some key takeaways, as detailed in the Fire & Risk Alliance report: • Thermal runaway propagated from the initiating cells to all the cells in the initiating tray. • A thermal event occurred, likely initiated by the ignition of flammable gases by the sparker system. An overpressure vent installed above the initiating battery module opened and was visually confirmed through video. The cabinet doors immediately adjacent to the initiating battery module remained closed. No hazardous pressure waves, debris, shrapnel, or pieces of the cabinet were ejected. • After approximately 10 minutes of smoking, a sustained fire began within the initiating battery module. The fire spread to the adjacent battery bays until reaching the CIB and stopped. The fire only burned half of the cabinet. • Fire spread from battery bay to battery bay was a slow progressing event. In total, visible flames were observed for 6 hours and 40 minutes while the four battery bays (bays 7-10) burned, as shown in Figure 3 of the Fire & Risk Alliance report. • Maximum flame heights were observed to be 11.5 ft (3.5 m) from ground to the top of the flame, 2.5 ft (0.75 m) above the top of the cabinet and had a base (a width) of 3.3 ft (1 m) during peak flame intensity. This peak flame intensity occurred approximately 60-90 minutes after initial flaming was observed. • An analysis of the pressure profile inside the cabinet during the test demonstrated the operation of the explosion control system, as shown in Figure 19 of the Fisher report. Pressure inside the cabinet increased to nearly 11 kPa (1.60 psi) until the deflagration vent opened and the pressure diminished. The overpressure vents are designed to operate at approximately 12 kPa (1.74 psi), or 2.5 times below the cabinet’s strength of 30 kPa (4.35 psi). 4.2.3.2 Fire Modeling – Propagation Model Subsequent fire propagation modeling was conducted to assess the fire propagation risk to adjacent Megapack 2 / 2XL units during a more severe event such as what was observed during the internal destructive testing referenced in Section 4.2.3.1. This fire Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 25 propagation model showed that due to the robustness of the system design, it is unlikely that a fire from an initiating Megapack 2 / 2XL would propagate to an adjacent Megapack 2 / 2XL, even during worst-case scenario wind conditions. The modeling assessed two scenarios – a non-flaming event and the impact of heat transfer on a target Megapack 2 / 2XL as well as a flaming event and the impact of radiative heat transfer on a target Megapack 2 / 2XL installed per Tesla's recommendations. 4.2.3.3 Products of Combustion - Unit Level Testing Tesla conducted additional internal unit level testing to obtain and analyze the products of combustion from a failing Megapack 2 unit. The products of combustion were collected at locations 20 ft upwind and 5 ft downwind from the initiating unit to assess airborne contaminants which may be present during an incident. Subsequent third-party analysis concluded that no traces of mercury were present over the entire 2.5-hour test duration. Hydrogen fluoride (HF) was detected at values of 0.10 and 0.12 parts per million (ppm) in the two sampling locations over the course of the test – far below accepted NIOSH immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) value of 30 ppm for HF. These results can be extrapolated to the Megapack 2 XL, as TUV indicated in the UL 9540A unit report that the testing performed on the Megapack 2 is considered “harsher with higher gas concentrations, and fundamental engineering analysis for the Megapack 2 XL shows comparable behavior as worst case.” 4.2.4 Tesla Megapack 2 / 2XL: Heat Flux Analysis The fire propagation modeling was conducted to assess the fire propagation risk to adjacent Megapack 2 / 2XL units during a more severe event. As mentioned in the report, the heat flux model was utilized to also determine the estimated heat fluxes at distances further from the Megapack 2 / 2XL cabinet. These values can be utilized to analyze the risk of flame spread to exposures in proximity to the Megapack 2 / 2XL installation. The peak heat flux values were utilized for this analysis, utilizing the higher values that are expected at the front of the Megapack 2 / 2XL. For conservativeness, it is assumed that the higher heat flux values (front) are experienced at all orientations from the Megapack 2 / 2XL. Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 26 Figure 10 - Heat Flux Time Graphs The heat flux values are estimated (and rounded up for conservativeness) from the peak values of the chart and are prescribed as the following discrete values: • Approximately 9.5 kW/m2 at 8ft (radius) from the Megapack 2 / 2XL • Approximately 7.5 kW/m2 at 10ft (radius) from the Megapack 2 / 2XL • Approximately 2.5 kW/m2 at 28ft (radius) from the Megapack 2 / 2XL • Approximately 0.5 kW/m2 at 50ft (radius) from the Megapack 2 / 2XL • Approximately 0.1 kW/m2 at 100ft (radius) from the Megapack 2 / 2XL 4.2.5 Failure Criteria and Thresholds There are several reference sources detailing examples of heat flux and the effects of heat flux exposure. In Table 4 - Examples of Heat Flux (NIST) below, NIST provides representative examples of different heat flux measurements. Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 27 Table 4 - Examples of Heat Flux (NIST) In a conservative manner, the maximum acceptable heat flux shall not exceed 2.5 kW / m2 where first responders are expected to stage for an extended duration of time. Similarly, the Society of Fire Protection Engineer’s Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering identifies a heat flux exposure to skin of 2.5 kW / m2 as the tenability limit. It is expected that exposure to heat flux measurements below this level can be tolerated for at least several minutes. This would allow time for people – without personal protective equipment – to egress to a safe location. The CUNY UL 9540A data utilization guidelines reference the SFPE Handbook for radiant heat flux measurements and their observed effects Table 5 - Effects of Heat Flux Exposure. As indicated, a critical heat flux of 12.5 kW/m2 can be utilized as a failure threshold to assess the threshold for the potential ignition of combustibles. Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 28 4.2.6 Sensitive Exposures The Tesla Megapack units will be sited outdoors at grade level and the separation distances between enclosures within the secured facility meet or exceed the manufacturer’s recommended separation distances. A single-family residence on the same property sits approximately 118’ to the west of the closest battery enclosure. The fence of an in-ground pool sits approximately 71’ to the north-west of the closest battery enclosure. All battery enclosures are at least 30’ from the south-eastern property boundary which borders the Taconic State Parkway. A NYSDEC wetland sits to the north-east of the site over 120’ from the nearest battery enclosure. 4.2.7 Heat Flux Plots and Conclusions The discrete heat flux values and distances indicated in 4.2.4 are superimposed into the site layout, as detailed in There are no exposures, construction, or combustible materials located within the 8-foot and 10-foot hazard boundary that may be exposed to significant heat flux that could lead to ignition of combustibles during an event. All other exposures, including adjacent construction, are not located within heat flux boundaries of concern. Table 5 - Effects of Heat Flux Exposure Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 30 4.3 Primary Consequences of ESS Failure and Mitigative Barriers The dynamics of lithium-ion ESS failures are extremely complex, and the pathway of failure events may vary widely based on system design, mitigative approaches utilized, and even small changes in environmental or situational conditions. However, the primary consequences stemming from a propagating lithium-ion battery failure largely fall into several specific hazard scenarios, as depicted in the diagram and associated table below (though other scenarios not listed may certainly also occur). These primary consequences serve as the basis for the consequence side of most of the fault condition diagrams in the following sections of this report. While not explicitly detailed in the simplified diagram below, the criticality and effectiveness of the barriers may vary based on the associated threat or consequence pathway. For example, a water- based suppression system may be more critical to prevent cell or module combustion from spreading and ultimately leading to fire spread beyond containment, than it is for preventing off- gassing within the enclosure, potentially leading to explosion. Similarly, the same water-based suppression system may be more effective for mitigating spread of fire throughout the system than it is for reducing risk of explosion. Figure 12 - Primary Consequence Diagram Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 33 Table 7 - Summary of Fault Condition Analysis Compliance Requirement Comments 1. Thermal runaway or mechanical failure in a single unit. Several passive and active measures are implemented to reduce the potential of a thermal runaway event from occurring including BMS control and active cooling to internal components. Battery modules and cells have been listed to UL 1973 and UL 1642. Should a thermal runaway event occur, additional mitigative measures are provided to prevent further propagation of failure throughout the system (see Section 4.3 above for list of all consequence barriers). 2. Failure of an energy storage management system. In the event of a failure of the module-level BMS, the Megapack-level BMS (which may be considered “ESMS”) shall isolate affected modules, mitigating against further propagation of failure across the system. Should a failure of the Megapack-level BMS occur, each module is equipped with a dedicated BMS to provide corrective actions in case of detection of abnormal operation outside of set parameters. To further isolate any failure stemming from a failure of the energy storage management system, passive and active electrical fault protections are provided at multiple levels, as described in Section 3.2.6 above. 3. Failure of a required protection system including but not limited to ventilation or exhaust system. required smoke detection, fire detection, fire extinguishing, or gas detection system. The Megapack 2 XL does not utilize a system to exhaust flammable gases, as lithium-ion batteries do not release flammable gas during normal operations. Flammable gases generated during abnormal operations are mitigated by the Megapack 2 XL’s proprietary explosion mitigation system. The Tesla Megapack 2 XL does not rely on a dedicated smoke detection, fire detection, or gas detection system for safe operation or to mitigate the effects of thermal runaway. A site level fire detection system is proposed by RIC Development LLC. Data from the BMS may be communicated to the Subject Matter Expert (SME) to provide guidance to the fire department in case of emergency. The Megapack 2 XL does not rely on an integrated fire suppression system (such as internal water-based or Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 34 gas-phase suppression system) to mitigate the hazards associated with propagating thermal runaway. Destructive fire testing and subsequent fire modeling has shown that the robust passive thermal protection of the Megapack 2 XL design will prevent an unlikely fire from cascading to an adjacent Megapack from the initiating system. Furthermore, UL 9540A unit level testing indicated that no flaming occurred and that no propagation of heat from the initiating unit to adjacent units / modules reached levels capable of initiating cell venting or thermal runaway. 4.4.1 Thermal Runaway Condition Thermal runaway, as defined per NFPA 855 (2020): 3.3.26, is the condition when an electro-chemical cell increases its temperature through self-heating in an uncontrollable fashion and progresses when the cell’s heat generation is at a higher rate than it can dissipate, potentially leading to off-gassing, fire, or explosion. The cause of a thermal runaway event can range from a manufacturing defect in the cell, external impact, exposure to dangerously high temperatures, or a multitude of controls and electrical failures. Furthermore, a thermal runaway event in a single cell can propagate to nearby cells, thus creating a cascading runaway event across battery modules and racks, leading to more heat generation, fire, off gassing, and increased potential for a deflagration event. The Tesla Megapack 2 XL is equipped with several passive and active mitigations such as BMS control and an active thermal management system for cooling of internal components to reduce the potential of a thermal runaway event from occurring, as is depicted on the threat side of the diagram below. Threat scenarios accounted for include single-cell thermal runaway, multi-cell thermal runaway, and internal defect or failure not resulting in thermal runaway, leading to the primary hazard event (propagating cell failure leading to off-gassing or fire). Should thermal runaway occur within a battery module, a number of key barriers are provided to mitigate against propagation of failure throughout the system leading to more severe consequences, which are described in detail in Section 4.3 of this report above. Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 39 familiarization for local responding fire stations may further increase the strength of this barrier. 4.5 Analysis Approval Per NFPA 855 (2023): 4.4.3, Analysis Approval, the AHJ shall be permitted to approve the hazard mitigation analysis as documentation of the safety of the ESS installation provided the consequences of the analysis demonstrate the following: 1) Fires will be contained within unoccupied ESS rooms for the minimum duration of the fire-resistance-rated walls identified in 9.6.4. 2) Fires and products of combustion will not prevent occupants from evacuating to a safe location. 3) Deflagration hazards will be addressed by an explosion control or other system. Table 11 - Summary of Analysis Approval Compliance Requirement Comments 1. Fires will be contained within unoccupied ESS rooms for the minimum duration of the fire-resistance-rated walls identified in 9.6.4. Not applicable. The Megapack 2 XL is intended for outdoor ground-mounted installations only and shall not be installed within any ESS rooms or structures. 2. Fires and products of combustion will not prevent occupants from evacuating to a safe location. Compliant. Additional testing and third-party analysis performed on products of combustion from the Megapack 2 / 2XL, at locations of 20 ft upwind and 5 ft downwind, conclude no traces of mercury or 27 different metals tested for. HF was detected at values of 0.10 and 0.12 ppm over the course of the test – far below the accepted NIOSH immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) value of 30 ppm for HF. 3. Deflagration hazards will be addressed by an explosion control or other system. Compliant The Megapack 2 XL is equipped with deflagration protection in the form of pressure-sensitive vents and sparker system designed to ignite any flammable gases and release in a controlled manner before they are allowed to accumulate and create an explosive atmosphere within the enclosure. APPENDIX A – DETAILED HMA DIAGRAMS AND BARRIER DESCRIPTIONS Figure 16 - All Fault Conditions Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 41 Figure 17 - Thermal Runaway Condition Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 42 Figure 18 - Failure of an Energy Storage Management System APPENDIX B – HMA METHODOLOGY This appendix serves as a supplemental write up for the overall Hazard Mitigation Analysis (HMA) and provides additional context on the bowtie methodology used, as well as key definitions and concepts. ESRG utilizes the bowtie methodology for hazard and risk assessments, as is described in ISO/IEC 31010: B.21, as it allows for in-depth analysis of individual mitigative barriers and serves as a strong tool for visualizing the chronological pathway of threats leading to critical hazard events, and ultimately to greater potential consequences, as depicted in the figure below. This simple diagrammatic way of describing and analyzing the pathways of a risk from hazards to outcomes can be considered a combination of the logic of a fault tree analyzing the cause of an event and an event tree analyzing the consequences. The strength of the bowtie approach comes from its visual nature which shows a single risk or consequence and all the barriers in place to stop it without the need for complex, numerical tables for threat pathways. On the left side are the threats, which are failures, events, or other actions which all result in a single, common hazard event in the center. For our model, many of these threats are the requirements of the fire code such as an unexpected thermal runaway. § Hazard Event / Top Event The hazard (or “top”) event – depicted as the center point in the middle of the bowtie diagram – represents a deviation from the desired state during normal operations (in this case, a thermal runaway or cell failure event), at which point control is lost over the hazard and more severe consequences ensue. This event happens before major damage has occurred, and while it is still possible to prevent further damage. § Threats There may be several factors that cause a top event. In the bowtie methodology, these are called threats. Each threat itself has the ability to cause the top event. Examples of threats are hazardous temperature conditions, BMS failure, and water damage from condensation, each leading to cell failure (the top event for many of the bowtie diagrams for lithium-ion ESS failures). Threats may not necessarily address a fully involved system fire or severe explosion, but rather smaller, precursor events which could lead to these catastrophic consequences. Some threats occur without any intervention, such as defect propagation or weather-related events, while others represent operational errors (either human or system-induced). At times, threats may also be consequences of even earlier- Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 46 stage threats, spawning a new bowtie model that includes the threat at the center point or right side of the new bowtie. The diagrams included in this analysis include careful selection and placement of each of the elements to best capture the perspective of system owners and operators responsible for ensuring safe operation. § Consequences Consequences are the results of a threat pathway reaching and exceeding its top event. For the models included in this analysis, the top events were selected as the event in which proactive protections give way to reactive measures mostly related to fire protection systems and direct response. As the top event then is defined as either “cell failure” or propagating cell failure, the consequences in the models described assume a condition exists in which flammable gas is being released into the system or a fire is burning within the system. Consequence pathways include barriers that may help to manage or prevent the consequence event. Threat pathways are often consequence pathways from a separate hazard assessment, as is the case with thermal runaway. In other words, thermal runaway may result from many different threats at the end of a separate hazard pathway (if not properly mitigated) and may also be the threat that could result in several other consequences. The included models identify a set of common consequences representing areas of key concern to utilities, energy storage system operators, and first responders. § Barriers To control risks, mitigative “barriers” are placed to prevent propagation of failure events across the system. A barrier can be any measure taken that act against an undesirable force or intention in order to maintain a desired state. Barriers can be included as proactive threat barriers or reactive consequence barriers. Each barrier in these models is indicative of a concept that may include a single approach or may consist of a complex series of combined measures. Similarly, the analysis may not include barriers required to prevent the threats at the far left of the diagram (which would be placed even further left) to ensure the models do not extend infinitely. However, the incorporation of these variables into site-specific safety evaluations may provide additional benefit. This list does not contain all possible solutions, and, in some designs, these barriers may not exist at all. Many of the same barriers apply to several threats. Barriers may mitigate hazards or consequences in a variety of ways. For example, common barriers to thermal runaway include active electrical monitoring and controls, redundant failure detection, and even passive electrical safeties (such as over-current protection devices and inherent impedances). Should these systems fail to detect the threat, shutdown the system, or otherwise prevent thermal runaway from occurring, the hazard may persist. Yorktown ESS, Shrub Oak, NY | Hazard Mitigation Analysis 47 APPENDIX C – REFERENCED CODES AND STANDARDS § 2020 Fire Code of New York State (FCNYS) § 2023 NFPA 855: Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems § NFPA 1 Fire Code, 2024 Edition § NFPA 68 Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2023 Edition § NFPA 69 Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2019 Edition § NFPA 70 National Electric Code, 2023 Edition § NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2022 Edition § UL 1741 Standard for Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection Equipment for Use with Distributed Energy Resources, 2016 Edition § UL 1973 Standard for Batteries for Use in Light Electric Rail (LER) Applications and Stationary Applications, 2016 Edition § UL 9540 Standard for Energy Storage Systems and Equipment, 2020 Edition § UL 9540A Test Method for Evaluating Thermal Runaway Fire Propagation in Battery Energy Storage Systems, 2019 Edition YORKTOWN ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM 2020 Fire Code of New York State (FCNYS) and 2023 NFPA 855 Code Compliance Narrative Summary This document serves as a code compliance narrative for the Yorktown energy storage system (ESS) project to be located in Shrub Oak, New York. Energy Safety Response Group, LLC 8350 US Highway 23 North Delaware, OH 43015 www.energyresponsegroup.com 1-833-SAFE-ESS Prepared For: RIC Development LLC 17 State Street, Suite 2320 New York, NY 10004 Yorktown ESS Code Compliance Narrative – RIC Development LLC 2 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background RIC Development LLC has retained Energy Safety Response Group to perform a code compliance summary of the Yorktown energy storage system (ESS) to be located in Shrub Oak, New York. This report provides a narrative of code compliance with the following applicable codes and standards adopted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction: 1.2 Applicable Codes and Standards The following codes and standards are assessed in this this document: § 2020 Fire Code of New York State (FCNYS) o The 2020 Fire Code of New York State is a derivative work of the 2018 edition of the International Fire Code (IFC) published by the International Code Council (ICC) § 2023 NFPA 855: Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems. o This standard applies to the design, construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of stationary energy storage systems (ESS). o ESS code language in the IFC and other NFPA documents is largely harmonized from NFPA 855, especially Section 1206 dealing with electrical energy storage systems. o While the 2023 version of NFPA 855 is not yet adopted by the FCNYS, it represents the most up-to-date industry standards. Additional supporting codes, standards, or other documents that may inform this report include: § NFPA 1 Fire Code, 2024 Edition § NFPA 68 Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2023 Edition § NFPA 69 Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2019 Edition § NFPA 70 National Electric Code, 2023 Edition § NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2022 Edition § UL 1741 Standard for Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection Equipment for Use with Distributed Energy Resources, 2016 Edition § UL 1973 Standard for Batteries for Use in Light Electric Rail (LER) Applications and Stationary Applications, 2016 Edition § UL 9540 Standard for Energy Storage Systems and Equipment, 2020 Edition Yorktown ESS Code Compliance Narrative – RIC Development LLC 3 § UL 9540A Test Method for Evaluating Thermal Runaway Fire Propagation in Battery Energy Storage Systems, 2019 Edition 1.3 Summary of Findings Based on information provided by RIC Development LLC, ESRG notes the following: § Compliance with FCNYS Section 1206.2 through 1206.17.7.7 is required as the energy storage system threshold quantity is greater than 20kWh. (2020 FCNYS 1206.1) § The proposed ESS can be classified as an outdoor installation as per the requirements of the 2020 FCNYS Section 1206 and NFPA 855. (2020 FCNYS 1206.15) § The proposed ESS does not meet the classification criteria of a remote outdoor installation. (2020 FCNYS 1206.15) § The proposed ESS does not require an approved automatic smoke detection system or radiant energy-sensing fire detection system complying with Section 907 as: o It is not installed in a room nor indoor area. o It is not a walk-in style energy storage system. o It is not installed in a parking garage nor rooftop. (FCNYS 1206.12.4) o While not prescriptively required by code, RIC Development LLC has indicated their intention to include a fire detection system as part of this project. A UV/IR or substantially equivalent fire detection technology will be installed and maintained on the Yorktown ESS site. § The proposed ESS does not require an automatic fire suppression system as: o It is not installed in a room nor building. o It is not a walk-in style energy storage system. (FCNYS 1206.12.5) § The proposed ESS does not require explosion control as: o It is not installed in a room. o It is not a walk-in style energy storage system. (FCNYS 1206.13.3) o While not prescriptively required, the Tesla Megapack 2 XL is provided with a proprietary explosion control approach that has been validated by fire and explosion testing as well as an engineering evaluation. Yorktown ESS Code Compliance Narrative – RIC Development LLC 4 2 ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS AND SITE DESCRIPTIONS 2.1 Tesla Megapack 2 XL The Tesla Megapack 2 XL is a modular, fully integrated, AC-coupled battery energy storage system (BESS or ESS). The Megapack 2 XL is a design evolution of Megapack 2 and leverages the same core technology platform (cells, vents, sparker system, etc.). The Megapack 2 and 2 XL utilizes lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery cells provided by CATL. The Megapack 2 XL and constituent components are tested and certified to UL 9540, UL 1642, UL 1973, IEC 62619, and IEC 62933-5-2. UL 9540A (4th Edition) large-scale fire testing was performed at the cell, module, and Unit level (Installation level testing was not required, as all unit level performance criteria were met). Each cabinet-style enclosure is fully populated and cannot be physically entered for any reason (i.e., is not a walk-in enclosure). Figure 1 - Typical Tesla Megapack 2XL ESS Unit Yorktown ESS Code Compliance Narrative – RIC Development LLC 5 2.2 Site Description The Yorktown ESS facility is located at 3666 Old Yorktown Rd, Shrub Oak, NY. Shrub Oak is an unincorporated hamlet and census-designated place located in the town of Yorktown in Westchester County, New York. The 4.3-acre lot is in a commercial hamlet center (C-2) and one- family residential (R1-20) zoning classified area. Fire department access to the site is provided via a 15’ wide driveway and 20’ wide gate on the east side of Old Yorktown Rd, just north of the Taconic State Parkway. The site will consist of six (6) Tesla Megapack 2 XL enclosures as shown in Figure 1, providing a total of 5 MW/ 20 MWh of energy storage power and capacity, respectively. The BESS is bordered by a 7’ chain link fence with a 4’ stacked stone wall in some areas. A single-family residence with exterior in-ground pool sits on the property, west of the BESS. The site is bordered on the south by the Taconic State Parkway. A NYSDEC wetland sits to the north- east of the site. Fire department access to the Yorktown ESS is provided by a 15’ wide access road leading to a 20’ wide gate. The entire enclosure is surrounded by a 7’ chain link fence. Figure 2 - Tesla Megapack 2 XL Typical Cross Section Yorktown ESS Code Compliance Narrative – RIC Development LLC 7 3 New York State Fire Code (NYSFC) 2020 – Section 1206 – Electrical Energy Storage Systems 3.1 Code Compliance Summary The following section provides a summary of compliance with primary sections of the New York State Fire Code (NYSFC) 2020 – Section §1206 - Electrical Energy Storage Systems, with a focus on sections related to BESS safety and protection systems. Compliance requirements are noted as “Compliant”, “Not Compliant”, “Compliance Pending”, ”Compliance Anticipated”, “Exceeds Requirements”, or “Not Applicable”. §1206 requirements are described in greater detail in Sections 3.2 – 3.4 of this report. Items which are outside the scope of this report are not included in the summary table. Table 1 - Code Compliance Summary Table Section Compliance Requirement Compliance §1206.2 Applicability §1206.2.1 Electrical wiring and equipment Compliance Anticipated: Refer to electrical drawings and project documents §1206.2.2 Mixed system installation Not Applicable: A mixed system is not proposed §1206.4 Construction documents Compliant: Required information provided with permit application §1206.5 Hazard mitigation analysis Not Applicable: An HMA not prescriptively required §1206.6 Large-scale fire test Compliant: Proposed ESS is tested to UL 9540A §1206.9 Commissioning, decommissioning, operation and maintenance §1206.9.1 Commissioning Compliance Anticipated: Commissioning plan to be provided §1206.9.2 Operation and maintenance manual Compliance Anticipated: O&M manual to be provided and available onsite §1206.9.3 Decommissioning Compliance Anticipated: Decommissioning plan to be provided §1206.10 Equipment §1206.10.1 Energy storage system listings Compliant: Proposed ESS is listed in with UL 9540 §1206.10.2 Equipment listing Compliant: Chargers, inverters and ESS covered as part of the UL 9540 listing §1206.10.3 Utility interactive systems Compliant: Inverters to be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 1741 Yorktown ESS Code Compliance Narrative – RIC Development LLC 8 §1206.10.4 Energy storage management system Compliant: ESS module has dedicated Battery Management System (BMS) §1206.10.5 Enclosures Compliant: ESS enclosure is made of noncombustible construction §1206.10.6 Repairs Compliance anticipated §1206.10.7 Retrofits Not Applicable: There is no existing energy storage system §1206.10.8 Replacements Not Applicable: There is no existing energy storage system §1206.10.9 Reused and repurposed equipment Not Applicable. There is no existing energy storage system §1206.11 General installations requirements §1206.11.1 Electrical disconnects Compliant: AC circuit breaker located in Customer Interface Bay §1206.11.2 Working clearances Compliant: NFPA 70 Access and working space provided §1206.11.3 Fire-resistance- rated construction Not applicable: ESS located outdoors §1206.11.4 Seismic and structural design Not applicable: ESS located outdoors §1206.11.5 Vehicle impact protection Compliant: Site enclosed by security fence §1206.11.6 Combustible storage Not Applicable: ESS located outdoors §1206.11.7 Toxic and highly toxic gases Not Applicable: ESS does not generate toxic gas during charging, discharging and normal use §1206.11.8 Signage Compliant: Signage provided on system cabinets §1206.11.9 Security of installations Compliant: Security fence and landscaping provided §1206.11.10 Occupied work center Not Applicable: ESS not located in a work center §1206.11.11 Open rack installations Not Applicable: ESS located outdoors §1206.11.12 Walk-in units Not Applicable: ESS unit is not a walk-in §1206.12.1 Size and separation Compliant: Exception #2 permits larger capacities and smaller Yorktown ESS Code Compliance Narrative – RIC Development LLC 9 §1206.12 Electrochemical energy storage system protection separation distances based on UL 9540a testing §1206.12.2 Maximum allowable quantities Not Applicable: ESS located outdoors §1206.12.3 Elevation Not Applicable: ESS located outdoors at grade level §1206.12.4 Fire detection Exceeds Requirements: While smoke and fire detection is not prescriptively required as ESS is installed outdoors and is unenclosed, a fire detection system is proposed for the site. §1206.12.5 Fire suppression systems Compliant: Fire suppression is not required as ESS is installed outdoors and is unenclosed §1206.12.6 Maximum enclosure size Not Applicable: Proposed ESS is not a walk-in §1206.12.7 Vegetation control Compliance Anticipated §1206.12.8 Means of egress separation Compliant: No means of egress within 10 feet of ESS installation §1206.13 Electrochemical energy storage system technology specific protection §1206.13.1 Exhaust ventilation Not Applicable: Exhaust ventilation is not required for cabinet style ESS enclosure. §1206.13.2 Spill control and neutralization Not Applicable: Spill control and neutralization not required per Table 1206.13 §1206.13.3 Explosion control Not Applicable: Explosion control not required for cabinet style non- enterable ESS enclosure §1206.13.4 Safety caps Not Applicable: Safety caps not required per Table 1206.3 §1206.13.5 Thermal runaway Compliant: Thermal runaway is prevented, detected and minimized by the BMS and has been evaluated with the battery as part of the evaluation to UL 1973 §1206.14 Indoor installations §1206.14.1 - §1206.14.4 Not Applicable: ESS located outdoors §1206.15 Outdoor installations §1206.15.1 Remote outdoor installations Not Applicable: Proposed installation does not qualify as a “remote installation” Yorktown ESS Code Compliance Narrative – RIC Development LLC 10 §1206.15.2 Installations near exposures Compliant: Proposed installation qualifies as an “installation near exposures” §1206.15.3 Clearance to exposures Compliant: ESS installation > 10 feet from all listed exposure categories §1206.15.4 Exterior wall installations Not Applicable: Proposed installation does not qualify as an exterior wall installation §1206.16 Special installations §1206.16.1 - §1206.16.6 Not applicable: Proposed installation does not satisfy the definition of a “Special installation” §1206.17 Mobile energy storage system equipment and operations §1206.17.1-§1206.17.7 Not applicable: Proposed installation does not satisfy the definition of a “Mobile energy storage system” §1206.18 Energy storage systems in Group R-3, and R-4 occupancies §1206.18.1-§1206.18.11 Not applicable: Proposed installation is not in a Group R-3 nor R-4 occupancy 3.2 Hazard Mitigation Analysis (§1206.5) §1206.5, a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) or other approved hazard mitigation analysis shall be provided under any of the following conditions: 1. Where energy storage system technologies not specifically identified in Table 1206.1 are provided 2. More than one energy storage system technology is provided in a room or enclosed area. 3. Where allowed as a basis for increasing maximum allowable quantities in Section 1206.12.2 Ø NOT APPLICABLE: A Hazard mitigation analysis is not required for the proposed ESS installation under the 2020 NYSFC. Lithium-ion batteries are specifically identified in Table 1206.1. The proposed installation does not combine different energy storage system technologies. 1206.12.2 designates maximum allowable quantities “within rooms, area and walk-in energy storage system units.” This proposed installation is not located within a room, fire area, or within a building. The proposed ESS is not a walk-in energy storage system. 3.3 Size and Separation (§1206.12.1) §1206.12.1, Electrochemical energy storage systems shall be segregated into stationary groups not exceeding 50 kWh each. Each group shall be separated a minimum 3 feet from other groups and from walls in the storage room or area. Exception: Yorktown ESS Code Compliance Narrative – RIC Development LLC 11 #2) Larger capacities or smaller separation distances shall be permitted based on large scale fire testing complying with Section 1206.6 Ø Compliant: The Tesla Megapack 2 XL unit exceeds the 50-kWh threshold, however, UL 9540A large-scale fire and fault condition testing was conducted to validate system design and separation distances. Exception #2 applies. 3.4 Maximum Allowable Quantities (§1206.12.2) §1206.12.2: Fire areas within rooms, areas and walk-in energy storage systems units containing electrochemical energy storage systems shall not exceed the maximum allowable quantities in Table 1206.12. Table 1206.12 states that the maximum allowable quantities (MAQs) for lithium- ion battery technologies are 600 kWh. Ø NOT APPLICABLE: The installation is not located within a room, fire area or within a building. The Megapack is not a walk-in style ESS unit. Some interpretations will determine that the outdoor systems that exceed the 600-kWh quantity will still require an HMA. 3.5 Energy Storage System Listings (§1206.10.1) §1206.10.1 Energy storage system listings. Energy storage systems shall be listed in accordance with UL 9540 or approved equivalent. Ø Compliant: The Tesla Megapack is listed to UL 9540 3.6 Energy Storage Management System (§1206.10.4) §1206.10.4 Where required by the energy storage system listing an approved energy storage management system shall be provided that monitors and balances cell voltages, currents and temperatures within the manufacturer’s specifications. The system shall disconnect electrical connections to the energy storage system or otherwise place it in a safe condition if potentially hazardous temperatures or other conditions such as short circuits, over voltage or under voltage are detected. Ø Compliant: Documentation indicates that the Megapack is supported by Tesla’s Network Operations Center, which provides 24/7 remote monitoring, diagnostics, and troubleshooting capabilities. Yorktown ESS Code Compliance Narrative – RIC Development LLC 15 1 REFERENCES § 2020 Fire Code of New York State (FCNYS) § 2023 NFPA 855: Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems § NFPA 1 Fire Code, 2024 Edition § NFPA 68 Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2023 Edition § NFPA 69 Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2019 Edition § NFPA 70 National Electric Code, 2023 Edition § NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2022 Edition § UL 1741 Standard for Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection Equipment for Use with Distributed Energy Resources, 2016 Edition § UL 1973 Standard for Batteries for Use in Light Electric Rail (LER) Applications and Stationary Applications, 2016 Edition § UL 9540 Standard for Energy Storage Systems and Equipment, 2020 Edition § UL 9540A Test Method for Evaluating Thermal Runaway Fire Propagation in Battery Energy Storage Systems, 2019 Edition WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS DELINEATION REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF SHRUB OAK, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK This page intentionally left blank. WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS DELINEATION REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF SHRUB OAK, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK Table of Contents 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 2 METHODS .......................................................................................................................1 2.1 AGENCY RESOURCE INFORMATION................................................................................ 1 2.2 FIELD DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................... 2 3 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................2 3.1 AGENCY RESOURCES INFORMATION .............................................................................. 2 3.2 SURFACE WATERS ............................................................................................................ 4 3.3 WETLANDS ........................................................................................................................ 4 4 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................5 Appendices Appendix A- Site Figures Appendix B- Wetland and Surface Water Delineation Plans Appendix C- Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix D- Wetland and Surface Water Photographs WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS DELINEATION REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF SHRUB OAK, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK December 2023 Page 1 of 6 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION McFarland-Johnson, Inc. (MJ) was retained by RIC Development, LLC. (RIC) to provide professional wetland and surface water delineation services for their Yorktown Site (Site) located at 3666 Old Yorktown Road, Shrub Oak, NY 10588, in the Town of Yorktown, Westchester County. (Appendix A- Figure 1). This Wetlands and Surface Waters Delineation Report has been prepared to document the wetland and surface water boundaries located within Tax Parcel ID: 16.11-1-60. The project study area (PSA) encompasses the entire approximately 4.57-acre parcel as shown on the attached site figures (Appendix A) and Wetland Delineation Plan (Appendix B). 2 METHODS 2.1 AGENCY RESOURCE INFORMATION Prior to the field delineations of the PSA, aerial photographs and various mapping resources were reviewed, including the following: a) Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map (Yorktown USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle) (Appendix A- Figure 1); b) Aerial Location Map (Appendix A- Figure 2); c) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Regulated Surface Waters and Wetlands Map (Appendix A- Figure 3); d) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map (Appendix A- Figure 4); e) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodplain Map (Appendix A- Figure 5; and WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS DELINEATION REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK December 2023 Page 2 of 6 f) Web Soil Survey Map provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (Appendix A- Figure 6). 2.2 FIELD DATA COLLECTION The wetland and surface water delineations of the 4.57-acre PSA were completed by MJ on October 25, 2023. The wetland delineation was conducted through field investigations of vegetation, soils and hydrology in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) protocols outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 USACE Manual), and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Regional Supplement), dated February 2012. The USACE ordinary high water (OHW) and NYSDEC mean high water (MHW) marks for any surface waters located within the PSA were field delineated in accordance with the definitional criteria as presented in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 328 (33 CFR 328), and the procedures outlined in Title 6 of the Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York, Part 608, Use and Protection of Waters (6 NYCRR 608). The wetland and surface water boundaries were recorded using a hand-held Trimble Nomad GPS unit. USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms were recorded to the document the wetlands (Appendix C). Representative photographs of the wetlands were also collected (Appendix D). Further descriptions on the field criteria and methods used to identify wetlands within the PSA are described in the subsequent subsections. 3 RESULTS 3.1 AGENCY RESOURCES INFORMATION Review of the USGS topographic mapping shows a stream resource and wetland along the northern boundary of the PSA. These resources are in between a large wetland complex to the east and a brook flowing into a pond or lake feature to the northwest. The site is relatively flat with an average elevation of 420’ Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) and gently slopes toward the south of the property. WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS DELINEATION REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK December 2023 Page 5 of 6 Wetland A Wetland A is an approximate 0.21-acre palustrine emergent wetland (PEM) located in the northeast section of the PSA. Dominant species in this wetland included silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), common reed (Phragmites australis), and narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia). Silky dogwood and common reed have wetland indicator statuses of Facultative Wetland (FACW) in the USACE Northcentral and Northeast Wetland Region (NCNE). Narrowleaf cattail has a wetland indicator status of Obligate (OBL) in the NCNE. Wetland A appears to be isolated as no inlet, outlet, or other surficial hydrological connections were noted. Wetland B Wetland B is an approximate 0.44-acre palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB) wetland located along the northern boundary of the PSA. Dominant species in this wetland included narrowleaf cattail. Narrowleaf cattail has a facultative wetland indicator status of Obligate (OBL) in the NCNE. Wetland B appears to be a portion of NYSDEC FWW A-49. It is also an impounded portion of Stream 1. 4 SUMMARY Based on agency resources review and field surveys, MJ presents the following interpretations on the wetlands and waterways delineated within the 4.57-acre PSA. • Wetland A (0.21-acre) is a PEM wetland located within the northeast section of the PSA. Wetland A appears isolated. • Wetland B (0.44-acre) is a PUB wetland along the northern border of the PSA and is associated with Stream 1 and NYSDEC FWW A-49. • Stream 1 is identified as Shrub Oak Brook. Shrub Oak Brook flows into Peekskill Hollow Creek. Peekskill Hollow Creek discharges to the Hudson River, a TNW WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS DELINEATION REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK December 2023 Page 6 of 6 under Section 10 of the RHA of 1899, at Peekskill Bay approximately 6-miles southwest of the PSA. The wetland boundaries presented in this report and accompanying drawings are as determined by MJ and dependent upon review by the NYSDEC and or USACE for an official determination should permits be required. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High W ater Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: RIC Yorktown ESS Yorktown 2023-10-25 RIC Energy LLC NY UPL 1 Corinne Steinmuller YORKTOWN Flat None 0-2 MLL 42.821299 -74.064614 NAD83 Leicester loam 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) UPL 1 30 Picea glauca 25 Y FACU 2 Thuja occidentalis 10 Y FACW 5 40.00 35.0 0.00 0.00 15 12.00 24.00 30.00 90.00 40.00 160.00 75.0015.00 97.00 349.00 3.6 0 5 Clematis virginiana 30 Y FAC Trifolium repens 15 Y FACU Daucus carota 15 Y UPL Laportea canadensis 2 N FACW 62.0 30 4 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: UPL 1 0-4 10YR 4/2 100 L 4-8 10YR 5/3 100 C M L 8-15 10YR 5/8 100 L 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High W ater Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: RIC Yorktown ESS Yorktown 2023-10-25 RIC Energy LLC NY UPL A Corinne Steinmuller YORKTOWN Flat None 0-2 MLL 42.821299 -74.064614 NAD83 Leicester loam 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) UPL A 30 Tilia americana 25 Y FACU 0 4 0.00 25.0 0.00 0.00 15 2.00 4.00 10.00 30.00 70.00 280.00 75.0015.00 97.00 389.00 4.01 0 5 Taraxacum officinale 30 Y FACU Trifolium repens 15 Y FACU Daucus carota 15 Y UPL Clematis virginiana 10 N FAC Laportea canadensis 2 N FACW 72.0 30 4 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: UPL A 0-8 10YR 4/4 100 L 8-12 10YR 5/4 100 C M L 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High W ater Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: RIC Yorktown ESS Yorktown 2023-10-25 RIC Energy LLC NY UPL B Corinne Steinmuller YORKTOWN Flat None 0-2 MLL 42.821299 -74.064614 NAD83 Leicester loam 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) UPL B 30 Sambucus Canadensis 10 Y FACU 0 4 0.00 10.0 0.00 0.00 15 0.00 0.00 10.00 30.00 50.00 200.00 75.0015.00 75.00 305.00 4.07 0 5 Galium aparine 25 Y FACU Trifolium repens 15 Y FACU Daucus carota 15 Y UPL Clematis virginiana 10 N FAC 65.0 30 4 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: UPL B 0-5 10YR 4/4 100 L 5-12 10YR 5/4 100 C M L 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High W ater Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: RIC Yorktown ESS Yorktown 2023-10-25 RIC Energy LLC NY Wet A Corinne Steinmuller YORKTOWN Flat None 0-2 MLL 41.33 N -73.819 W NAD83 Leicester loam PSS 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 0 4 0 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Wet A 30 3 3 100.00 0 15.00 15.00 15 65.00 130.00 0.00Cornus amomum Y50 FACW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 80.00 145.00 1.81 4 450.0 45 Phragmites australis 15 Y FACW Typha angustifolia 15 Y OBL 30.0 30 4 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Wet A 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 L 4-8 10YR 3/1 95 7.5YR 6/8 5 C M L 8-20 10YR 5/1 85 10YR 5/8 5 C M CL 2.5YR 5/8 10 C M CL 4 4 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High W ater Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: RIC Yorktown ESS Yorktown 2023-10-25 RIC Energy LLC NY Wet B Corinne Steinmuller YORKTOWN Dip Concave 0-2 MLL 41.329 N -73.819 W NAD83 Leicester loam PUB 4 4 4 44 4 Soils not sampled due to water depth - open water pond 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 12 0 4 0 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Wet B 30 1 1 100.00 0 30.00 30.00 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 30.00 30.00 1.0 4 40 45 Typha angustifolia 30 Y OBL 30.0 30 4 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Wet B 4 ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PORTION OF PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK This page intentionally left blank. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PORTION OF PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK Table of Contents 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................1 2 AGENCY RESOURCE INFORMATION ...................................................................1 3 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................2 4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................8 Appendices Appendix A- Site Figures Appendix B- Agency Resource Documentation Appendix C- Site Photographs ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PORTION OF PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK February 2024 Page 1 of 9 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND McFarland-Johnson, Inc. (MJ) was retained by Yorktown ESS, LLC. to provide an ecological and habitat assessment for their Yorktown Site (Site) located at 3666 Old Yorktown Road, Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York (Appendix A- Figure 1). This Ecological and Habitat Assessment Report has been prepared to document the dominant ecological communities and habitats located within a portion of Tax Parcel 16.11-1-60. The project study area (PSA) encompasses approximately 4.57-acres of the 10.33-acre parcel as shown on the attached site figures (Appendix A). This report is limited in scope to desktop review and preliminary site scre ening for State and federally listed rare, threatened, and endangered species reported in the vicinity of the PSA, as well as documenting current wildlife activity and dominant ecological communities in the PSA. A site visit was performed by a qualified MJ biologist on October 25, 2023, to confirm ecological community types and presence or absence of appropriate habitat for state and federal listed species as well as document general wildlife usage. 2 AGENCY RESOURCE INFORMATION RIC Development, LLC, provided the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) Environmental Resource Mapper (ERM) screening and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) documentation for review. Review of the ERM, dated January 22, 2024, did not show the potential presence of listed species in the vicinity of the PSA. The ERM documents are available for review in Appendix B (Agency Resource Documentation). The USFWS IPaC tool reported two listed species that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the PSA, the State and federally listed endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (Appendix B). In addition, the ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PORTION OF PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK February 2024 Page 2 of 9 Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), a candidate species, was noted as having the potential to occur within the vicinity of the PSA. While not regulated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) are listed in the IPaC as they are federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 3 RESULTS 3.1 Ecological Community Types The dominant ecological communities present within the PSA were identified based on best fit associations with those ecological communities described in the NYNHP’s publication Ecological Communities of New York State, Second Edition (Edinger et al. 2014). This publication further assigns State Conservation Ranks based on the rarity of these ecological communities within New York. In instances where the ecological community is determined to be intermediate of specific rankings, both are assigned. The classification rankings and descriptions follow. • S1 – Typically 5 or fewer occurrences, very few remaining individuals, acres, or miles of stream, or some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable in New York State. • S2 – Typically 6 to 20 occurrences, few remaining individuals, acres, or miles of stream, or factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable in New York State. • S3 – Typically 21 to 100 occurrences, limited acreage, or miles of stream in New York State. • S4 – Apparently secure in New York State. • S5 – Demonstrably secure in New York State. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PORTION OF PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK February 2024 Page 3 of 9 A general ecological community map has been created based on field observations during the site visit and is available for review as Figure 3 in Appendix A. Site photographs are available for review in Appendix C. 3.1.2 Aquatic Ecological Communities MJ prepared a Wetland and Surface Waters Delineation Report dated December 2023. One stream and two wetlands, identified as Wetland A and Wetland B respectively, comprising a total of 0.65 acres, were identified within the PSA. The identified aquatic communities are best described as Rocky Headwater Stream, Impounded Marsh, and Shallow Emergent Marsh (Edinger et al. 2014). Rocky Headwater Stream Rocky Headwater Stream is defined as “the aquatic community of a small- to medium- sized perennial rocky stream typically with a moderate to steep gradient, and cold water that flows over eroded bedrock, boulders, and/or cobbles in the area where a stream system originates. These streams usually have poorly defined meanders (i.e., low sinuosity) and occur in confined landscapes. These streams are typically shallow, narrow, have a relatively small low flow discharge, and usually represent a network of mostly 1st and 2ndorder stream segments (sensu Strahler 1957), although larger rocky headwater streams may be 3rd order.” Stream 1 (Shrub Oak Brook) is located along the northern boundary of the PSA and is approximately 770-linear feet. A portion of this stream is impounded by a low head dam. This portion is further discussed under Impounded Marsh below. The stream was approximately 100 feet across at the location of the impoundment and 15 feet across below the low head dam. Water depth varied from 4 inches below the dam to approximately 3 feet within the impounded area. Stream substrate consisted of silt and cobble/boulder. Rocky Headwater Stream is ranked S4 in New York State (Edinger et al. 2014). Shallow Emergent Marsh This community is specifically defined as “a marsh meadow community that occurs on mineral soil or deep muck soils (rather than true peat), that are permanently saturated ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PORTION OF PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK February 2024 Page 4 of 9 and seasonally flooded. This marsh is better drained than a deep emergent marsh; water depths may range from 15 cm to 1 m (6 in to 3.3 ft) during flood stages, but the water level usually drops by mid to late summer and the substrate is exposed during an average year. This is a very broadly defined type that includes several distinct variants and many intermediates.” Wetland A is an approximate 0.21-acre palustrine emergent wetland (PEM) located in the northeast section of the PSA. Dominant species in this wetland included silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), common reed (Phragmites australis), and narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia). Shallow Emergent Marsh is ranked S5 in New York State (Edinger et al. 2014). Impounded Marsh An Impounded Marsh is “a marsh (with less than 50% cover of trees) in which the water levels have been artificially manipulated or modified, often for the purpose of improving waterfowl habitat. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) may become dominant when water levels are low.” Wetland B is an approximate 0.44-acre palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB) wetland located along the northern boundary of the PSA. Dominant species in this wetland included narrowleaf cattail. This wetland is the impounded portion of Stream 1. Impounded Marsh is considered Cultural Unranked in New York State (Edinger et al. 2014). 3.1.2 Terrestrial Ecological Communities The dominant terrestrial ecological communities identified within the PSA are best described as Mowed Lawn with Trees, Interior of Non-Agricultural Building, Interior of Barn/Agriculture Building, and Paved Road/Path. In accordance with the NYNHP’s publication Ecological Communities of New York State, Second Edition. Mowed Lawn with Trees This community is defined as “residential, recreational, or commercial land in which the groundcover is dominated by clipped grasses and forbs, and it is shaded by at least 30% cover of trees. Ornamental and/or native shrubs may be present, usually with less than 50% cover.” The majority of the PSA consists of mowed and maintained lawn with scattered landscape trees, shading approximately 30% of the property. This community ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PORTION OF PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK February 2024 Page 5 of 9 type is considered a Cultural Unranked ecological community in New York State (Edinger et al. 2014). Interior of Non-Agricultural Building This community is considered “the interior spaces of a house, garage, commercial building, or industrial building that is used primarily by people for living space, work space, or storage space.” Three structures, including a residence and two outbuildings used for storage, are located on the property. This community type is considered a Cultural Unranked ecological community in New York State (Edinger et al. 2014). Interior of Barn/Agricultural Building This community consists of “the interior spaces of a barn or other agricultural building which provides shelter for livestock or storage space for agricultural products (hay, straw, silage, etc.).” A barn area for fowl, including various species of domesticated chickens and ducks is located in the southeastern portion of the PSA. This community type is considered a Cultural Unranked ecological community in New York State (Edinger et al. 2014). Paved Road/Path Pave Road/Path is “a road or pathway that is paved with asphalt, concrete, brick, stone, etc. There may be sparse vegetation rooted in cracks in the paved surface.” A driveway that services the residence and allows for partial access to the remainder of the property is located along the southwest border of the PSA. This community type is considered a Cultural Unranked ecological community in New York State (Edinger et al. 2014). ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PORTION OF PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK February 2024 Page 6 of 9 3.2 Wildlife Assessment 3.2.1 State and Federally listed Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species Indiana and Northern Long-eared Bats Both bat species are insectivorous species that typically hibernate in caves or mines in the winter months and rely primarily on forested landscapes for roosting and foraging during the summer months. Roost trees are selected based o n their position in the landscape and ability to provide cracks or crevices in which to roost. No suitable hibernacula were noted on site, but suitable foraging and summer roosting habitat for both bat species is present within the PSA, including trees larger than three-inches diameter at breast height (DBH). These trees are scattered along the property boundary as well as through the central portion of the property. It is recommended that any potential tree removal occur within the inactive season, from November 1st to March 31st, while the bats overwinter in hibernacula. The implementation of the seasonal restriction on tree removal should minimize or eliminate potential effects on both bat species. The IPaC Determination Keys for both species were utilized and resulted in a “no effect” concurrence letter for the northern long-eared bat and a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” concurrence letter for the Indiana bat, negating the need for further coordination with USFWS in regards to these species. However, it is of note that should species updates or project changes occur, (including the need of permitting from a federal agency), the project will need to re -evaluate coordination with the USFWS. Monarch Butterfly The potential presence of monarch butterfly within and adjacent the PSA is limited to the breeding and migration periods, typically mid-May to late-September. According to the USFWS, during the breeding season, monarch butterflies lay their eggs on their obligate host plants, primarily milkweed species and allies (Asclepias spp.). During both the breeding and migration periods, the monarch butterfly requires a diversity of nectar species. No milkweed or other nectaring species were noted on site, however, flowerbeds are located in front of the residence and likely include nectaring species. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PORTION OF PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK February 2024 Page 7 of 9 The monarch butterfly is a candidate species and not yet listed or proposed for listing under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Candidate species do not receive formal federal protection and “Effect Determinations” for the monarch butterfly are not currently required under the ESA. Bald and Golden Eagles While these species are not afforded protection under the ESA, they remain federally protected under BGEPA and the MBTA. The bald eagle is considered a threatened species in New York, and the golden eagle is listed as endangered. Protective regulations include a restriction of activity within 660-feet (0.215 mile) of an active bald eagle nest. No known nesting sites were reported by NYNHP near the PSA. The area surrounding the PSA was assessed in all directions to identify any unknown bald eagle nests or potential bald eagle nesting sites. The bald eagle typically nests in riparian areas in the tallest trees in the landscape, often in white pines (Pinus strobus). Nests are utilized for many years. No suitable nesting sites were identified within the PSA or within 660-ft of the PSA boundary. The golden eagle is known as a purely migratory species that utilizes forage areas in New York during spring and fall migrations. Known as an upland preferring species, the golden eagle forages in open areas such as tundra and grasslands. No such habitat was identified within or near the PSA. Given the lack of suitable nesting or foraging habitat within or near the PSA, it is not anticipated that this proposed project will negatively impact either eagle species. 3.2.2 General Wildlife Species No obvious wildlife signs were observed with the exception of several used unidentified bird nests in trees along the periphery of the property. Species sighted and heard during the site visit included eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), American red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), American goldfinch (Spinus tristis), and black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus). Given the ecological communities within the PSA, there is the potential for a variety of other common species such as American robin (Turdus migratorius), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), green frog (Lithobates clamitans), American toad (Bufo americanus), common garter snake ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PORTION OF PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK February 2024 Page 8 of 9 (Thamnophis sirtalis), and various small rodent species (moles, voles, shrews, and mice) to utilize or transit the PSA. 4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The PSA consists primarily of Rocky Headwater Stream (S4), Shallow Emergent Marsh (S5), Impounded Marsh (Cultural Unranked), Mowed Land with Trees (Cultural Unranked), Non-Agricultural Building (Cultural Unranked), Barn/Agricultural Building, and Paved Road/Path (Cultural Unranked) (Edinger et al. 2014). There are no habitats located within the project area that are designated as “critical habitat” for any state or federally listed threatened or endangered species, or species of special concern. The identified dominant ecological communities within the PSA provide limited foraging, nesting, and shelter habitat for a variety of common wildlife species. Ecological community types outside of the PSA demonstrate the same or similar habitat, as well as more wildlife preferential community types. • It is recommended that any potential tree removal occur during the inactive season for the Indiana and northern long-eared bats, November 1st to March 31st. A No Effect consistency letter was generated through IPaC for the northern long - eared bat and a Not Likely to Adversely Affect consistency letter was generated for the Indiana bat; however, should any project element change, federal permitting be required, or species updates occur, coordination with USFWS should be revisited. • No suitable nesting or foraging areas were noted for the bald or golden eagle. It is not anticipated that either species will be impacted by this project. • The area of battery storage is minimal and would not inhibit the remainder of the property as potential habitat for smaller species of certain birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. It is not anticipated species such as white-tailed deer or wild turkey populations will be negatively impacted by the project. • No important wildlife corridors were identified during the general habitat assessment. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT YORKTOWN ESS PORTION OF PARCEL ID: 16.11-1-60 TOWN OF YORKTOWN, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK February 2024 Page 9 of 9 References: Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M. Olivero (editors). 2014. Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke’s Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 1/22/24, 10 25 AM Environmental Resource Mapper 1/3 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Division of Fish and Wildlife, New York Heritage Program 625 Broadway, Fih Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4757 Phone: (518) 402-8935 | Fax: (518) 402-8925 www.dec.ny.gov 01/22/2024 The aached report from the Environmental Resource Mapper includes informaon from the New York Natural Heritage Program database with respect to the locaon indicated on the map below. This leer, together with the aached report from the Environmental Resource Mapper, is equivalent to, and carries the same validity, as a leer from the New York Natural Heritage Program, including for projects where a Natural Heritage leer is required. If your locaon of interest does not fall within an area covered by the Rare Plants and Rare Animals layer or in the Significant Natural Communies layer, then New York Natural Heritage has no records to report in the vicinity of your project site. Subming a project screening request to NY Natural Heritage is not necessary. If the aached report lists that your locaon of interest is in the vicinity of state-listed animals, including state-listed bats, please consult the EAF Mapper to obtain a list of the species involved. (You do not have to be filling out an Environmental Assessment Form in order to use the EAF Mapper). Then consult the appropriate NYSDEC Regional Office for informaon on any project requirements or permit condions. If the aached report lists unlisted animals, rare plants, or significant natural communies, and if you would like more informaon on these, please submit a project screening request to New York Natural Heritage. For more informaon, please see the DEC webpage Request Natural Heritage Informaon for Project Screening. The absence of data does not necessarily mean that rare or state-listed species, significant natural communies, or other significant habitats do not exist on or adjacent to the proposed site. Rather, NYNHP files currently do not contain informaon that indicates their presence. For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted. NYNHP cannot provide a definive statement on the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural communies. Depending on the nature of the project and the condions at the project site, further informaon from on-site surveys or other resources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological resources from a proposed project. This response applies only to known occurrences of rare or state-listed animals and plants, significant natural communies, and other significant habitats maintained in the NYNHP database. New York Natural Heritage Program hps://www.nynhp.org/. January 22, 2024 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE New York Ecological Services Field Office 3817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045-9385 Phone: (607) 753-9334 Fax: (607) 753-9699 Email Address: fw5es_nyfo@fws.gov In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2023-0131194 Project Name: Yorktown ESS Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through IPaC by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) Project code: 2023-0131194 01/22/2024   2 of 11 (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ endangered-species-consultation-handbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see Migratory Bird Permit | What We Do | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov). The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds. In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservation- migratory-birds. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Note: IPaC has provided all available attachments because this project is in multiple field office jurisdictions. Project code: 2023-0131194 01/22/2024   3 of 11 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Attachment(s): Official Species List USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries Bald & Golden Eagles Migratory Birds Wetlands OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: New York Ecological Services Field Office 3817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045-9385 (607) 753-9334 This project's location is within the jurisdiction of multiple offices. However, only one species list document will be provided for all offices. The species and critical habitats in this document reflect the aggregation of those that fall in each of the affiliated office's jurisdiction. Other offices affiliated with the project: Long Island Ecological Services Field Office 340 Smith Road Shirley, NY 11967-2258 (631) 286-0485 Project code: 2023-0131194 01/22/2024   5 of 11 1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. MAMMALS NAME STATUS Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949 Endangered Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045 Endangered INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. 1 Project code: 2023-0131194 01/22/2024   6 of 11 1. 2. 3. USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS AND FISH HATCHERIES Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) There are bald and/or golden eagles in your project area. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Sep 1 to Aug 31 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. 1 2 3 Project code: 2023-0131194 01/22/2024   8 of 11 1. 2. 3. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Sep 1 to Aug 31 Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399 Breeds May 15 to Oct 10 Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus practicus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10645 Breeds Apr 10 to Jul 31 Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9643 Breeds May 20 to Aug 10 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9406 Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25 Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9513 Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9478 Breeds elsewhere Project code: 2023-0131194 01/22/2024   11 of 11 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Private Entity Name:Alexa Marinos Address:85 Broad Street Address Line 2:28th Floor City:New York State:NY Zip:10004 Email amarinos@ric.energy Phone:9177931237 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION Lead Agency:Yorktown town September 20, 2023 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Assistant Regional Director-Ecological Services 5600 American Blvd. West Bloomington, MN 55437-1458 Phone: (612) 713-5350 Fax: (612) 713-5292 In Reply Refer To: Project code: 2023-0131194 Project Name: Yorktown ESS Federal Action Agency (if applicable): Subject:Record of project representative’s no effect determination for 'Yorktown ESS' Dear Alexa Marinos: This letter records your determination using the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on September 20, 2023, for 'Yorktown ESS' (here forward, Project). This project has been assigned Project Code 2023-0131194 and all future correspondence should clearly reference this number. Please carefully review this letter. Ensuring Accurate Determinations When Using IPaC The Service developed the IPaC system and associated species’ determination keys in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and based on a standing analysis. All information submitted by the Project proponent into IPaC must accurately represent the full scope and details of the Project. Failure to accurately represent or implement the Project as detailed in IPaC or the Northern Long-eared Bat Rangewide Determination Key (Dkey), invalidates this letter. Answers to certain questions in the DKey commit the project proponent to implementation of conservation measures that must be followed for the ESA determination to remain valid. Determination for the Northern Long-Eared Bat Based upon your IPaC submission and a standing analysis, your project has reached the determination of “No Effect” on the northern long-eared bat. To make a no effect determination, the full scope of the proposed project implementation (action) should not have any effects (either positive or negative), to a federally listed species or designated critical habitat. Effects of the action are all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action. A 09/20/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099958   2    ▪ ▪ consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action. (See §  402.17). Under Section 7 of the ESA, if a federal action agency makes a no effect determination, no consultation with the Service is required (ESA §7). If a proposed Federal action may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, formal consultation is required except when the Service concurs, in writing, that a proposed action "is not likely to adversely affect" listed species or designated critical habitat [50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR§402.13]. Other Species and Critical Habitat that May be Present in the Action Area The IPaC-assisted determination for the northern long-eared bat does not apply to the following ESA-protected species and/or critical habitat that also may occur in your Action area: Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis Endangered Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may affect the animal species listed above and, if so, how they may be affected. Next Steps Based upon your IPaC submission, your project has reached the determination of “No Effect” on the northern long-eared bat. If there are no updates on listed species, no further consultation/ coordination for this project is required with respect to the northern long-eared bat. However, the Service recommends that project proponents re-evaluate the Project in IPaC if: 1) the scope, timing, duration, or location of the Project changes (includes any project changes or amendments); 2) new information reveals the Project may impact (positively or negatively) federally listed species or designated critical habitat; or 3) a new species is listed, or critical habitat designated. If any of the above conditions occurs, additional coordination with the Service should take place to ensure compliance with the Act. If you have any questions regarding this letter or need further assistance, please contact the Assistant Regional Director-Ecological Services and reference Project Code 2023-0131194 associated with this Project. 09/20/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099958   4    1. 2. DETERMINATION KEY RESULT Based on the information you provided, you have determined that the Proposed Action will have no effect on the Endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Therefore, no consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required for those species. QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW Does the proposed project include, or is it reasonably certain to cause, intentional take of the northern long-eared bat or any other listed species? Note: Intentional take is defined as take that is the intended result of a project. Intentional take could refer to research, direct species management, surveys, and/or studies that include intentional handling/encountering, harassment, collection, or capturing of any individual of a federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed species? No The proposed action does not intersect an area where the northern long-eared bat is likely to occur, based on the information available to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as of the most recent update of this key. If you have data that indicates that northern long-eared bats are likely to be present in the action area, answer "NO" and continue through the key. Do you want to make a no effect determination? Yes 09/20/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099958   5    PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE 09/20/2023 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099958   6    IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Private Entity Name:Alexa Marinos Address:85 Broad Street Address Line 2:28th Floor City:New York State:NY Zip:10004 Email amarinos@ric.energy Phone:9177931237 January 26, 2024 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Assistant Regional Director-Ecological Services 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035-9589 Phone: (413) 253-8304 Fax: (413) 253-8293 In Reply Refer To: Project code: 2023-0131194 Project Name: Yorktown ESS Federal Nexus: yes Federal Action Agency (if applicable): Yorktown town Subject:Technical assistance for 'Yorktown ESS' Dear Alexa Marinos: This letter records your determination using the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on January 26, 2024, for “Yorktown ESS” (here forward, Project). This project has been assigned Project Code 2023-0131194 and all future correspondence should clearly reference this number. The Service developed the IPaC system and associated species’ determination keys in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and based on a standing analysis. All information submitted by the Project proponent into the IPaC must accurately represent the full scope and details of the Project. Failure to accurately represent or implement the Project as detailed in IPaC or the Northeast Determination Key (Dkey), invalidates this letter. Answers to certain questions in the DKey commit the project proponent to implementation of conservation measures that must be followed for the ESA determination to remain valid. To make a no effect determination, the full scope of the proposed project implementation (action) should not have any effects (either positive or negative effect(s)), to a federally listed species or designated critical habitat. Effects of the action are all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action. (See § 402.17). Under Section 7 of the ESA, if a federal action agency makes a no effect determination, no further consultation with, or concurrence from, the Service is required (ESA §7). If a proposed Federal action may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, formal consultation is required (except when the Service concurs, in writing, that a Project code: 2023-0131194 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099069 01/26/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 06/21/2023  2 of 12 ▪ ▪ proposed action "is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA)" listed species or designated critical habitat [50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR§402.13]). The IPaC results indicated the following species is (are) potentially present in your project area and, based on your responses to the Service’s Northeast DKey, you determined the proposed Project will have the following effect determinations: Species Listing Status Determination Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)Endangered NLAA Conclusion Coordination with the Service is not complete. The project has a federal nexus (e.g., funds, permits); however, you are not the federal action agency. Therefore, the ESA consultation status is incomplete and no project activities on any portion of the parcel should occur until consultation between the Service and the Federal action agency (or designated non-federal representative), is completed. Section 7 consultation is not complete until the federal action agency submits a determination of effects, and the Service concurs with the federal action agency's determination. Please provide this technical assistance letter to the lead federal action agency or its designated non-federal representative with a request for its review. As the federal agency deems appropriate, they should submit their determination of effects to the appropriate Ecological Services Field Office. The lead federal action agency or designated non- federal representative can log into IPaC system using their agency email account and click "Search by record locator" to find this Project using 235-132099069. In addition to the species listed above, the following species and/or critical habitats may also occur in your project area and are not covered by this conclusion: Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Endangered If no changes occur with the Project or there are no updates on listed species, no further consultation/coordination for this project is required for the species identified above. However, the Service recommends that project proponents re-evaluate the Project in IPaC if: 1) the scope, timing, duration, or location of the Project changes (includes any project changes or amendments); 2) new information reveals the Project may impact (positively or negatively) federally listed species or designated critical habitat; or 3) a new species is listed, or critical habitat designated. If any of the above conditions occurs, additional consultation with the Service should take place before project implements any changes which are final or commits additional resources. Please Note: If the Action may impact bald or golden eagles, additional coordination with the Service under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (54 Stat. 250, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668a-d) by the prospective permittee may be required. Please contact the Migratory Birds Project code: 2023-0131194 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099069 01/26/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 06/21/2023  3 of 12 Permit Office, (413) 253-8643, or PermitsR5MB@fws.gov, with any questions regarding potential impacts to Eagles. If you have any questions regarding this letter or need further assistance, please contact the Assistant Regional Director-Ecological Services and reference the Project Code associated with this Project. Project code: 2023-0131194 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099069 01/26/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 06/21/2023  5 of 12 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW As a representative of this project, do you agree that all items submitted represent the complete scope of the project details and you will answer questions truthfully? Yes Does the proposed project include, or is it reasonably certain to cause, intentional take of listed species? Note: This question could refer to research, direct species management, surveys, and/or studies that include intentional handling/encountering, harassment, collection, or capturing of any individual of a federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species. No Is the action authorized, permitted, licensed, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency in whole or in part? Yes Is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) the lead agency for this project? No Are you including in this analysis all impacts to federally listed species that may result from the entirety of the project (not just the activities under federal jurisdiction)? Note: If there are project activities that will impact listed species that are considered to be outside of the jurisdiction of the federal action agency submitting this key, contact your local Ecological Services Field Office to determine whether it is appropriate to use this key. If your Ecological Services Field Office agrees that impacts to listed species that are outside the federal action agency's jurisdiction will be addressed through a separate process, you can answer yes to this question and continue through the key. Yes Are you the lead federal action agency or designated non-federal representative requesting concurrence on behalf of the lead Federal Action Agency? No Is the lead federal action agency the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Federal Communications Commission (FCC)? No Is the lead federal action agency the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)? No Will the proposed project involve the use of herbicide where listed species are present? No Are there any caves or anthropogenic features suitable for hibernating or roosting bats within the area expected to be impacted by the project? No Project code: 2023-0131194 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099069 01/26/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 06/21/2023  6 of 12 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Does any component of the project associated with this action include structures that may pose a collision risk to birds (e.g., land-based or offshore wind turbines, communication towers, high voltage transmission lines, any type of towers with or without guy wires)? Note: For federal actions, answer ‘yes’ if the construction or operation of wind power facilities is either (1) part of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for a federal agency action (federal permit, funding, etc.). No Does any component of the project associated with this action include structures that may pose a collision risk to bats (e.g., land-based wind turbines)? Note: For federal actions, answer ‘yes’ if the construction or operation of wind power facilities is either (1) part of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for a federal agency action (federal permit, funding, etc.). No Will the proposed project result in permanent changes to water quantity in a stream or temporary changes that would be sufficient to result in impacts to listed species? For example, will the proposed project include any activities that would alter stream flow, such as water withdrawal, hydropower energy production, impoundments, intake structures, diversion structures, and/or turbines? Projects that include temporary and limited water reductions that will not displace listed species or appreciably change water availability for listed species (e.g. listed species will experience no changes to feeding, breeding or sheltering) can answer "No". Note: This question refers only to the amount of water present in a stream, other water quality factors, including sedimentation and turbidity, will be addressed in following questions. No Will the proposed project affect wetlands where listed species are present? This includes, for example, project activities within wetlands, project activities within 300 feet of wetlands that may have impacts on wetlands, water withdrawals and/or discharge of contaminants (even with a NPDES). Yes Will the proposed project activities (including upland project activities) occur within 0.125 miles of the water's edge of a stream or tributary of a stream where listed species may be present? Yes Will the proposed project directly affect a streambed (below ordinary high water mark (OHWM)) of the stream or tributary where listed species may be present? No Will the proposed project bore underneath (directional bore or horizontal directional drill) a stream where listed species may be present? No Project code: 2023-0131194 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099069 01/26/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 06/21/2023  7 of 12 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Will the proposed project involve a new point source discharge into a stream or change an existing point source discharge (e.g., outfalls; leachate ponds) where listed species may be present? No Will the proposed project involve the removal of excess sediment or debris, dredging or in- stream gravel mining where listed species may be present? No Will the proposed project involve the creation of a new water-borne contaminant source where listed species may be present? Note New water-borne contaminant sources occur through improper storage, usage, or creation of chemicals. For example: leachate ponds and pits containing chemicals that are not NSF/ANSI 60 compliant have contaminated waterways. Sedimentation will be addressed in a separate question. No Will the proposed project involve perennial stream loss, in a stream of tributary of a stream where listed species may be present, that would require an individual permit under 404 of the Clean Water Act? No Will the proposed project involve blasting where listed species may be present? No Will the proposed project include activities that could negatively affect fish movement temporarily or permanently (including fish stocking, harvesting, or creation of barriers to fish passage). No Will the proposed project involve earth moving that could cause erosion and sedimentation, and/or contamination along a stream or tributary of a stream where listed species may be present? Note: Answer "Yes" to this question if erosion and sediment control measures will be used to protect the stream. Yes Will earth moving activities result in sediment being introduced to streams or tributaries of streams where listed species may be present through activities such as, but not limited to, valley fills, large-scale vegetation removal, and/or change in site topography? No Will the proposed project involve vegetation removal within 200 feet of a perennial stream bank where aquatic listed species may be present? No Project code: 2023-0131194 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099069 01/26/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 06/21/2023  8 of 12 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Will erosion and sedimentation control Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with applicable state and/or Federal permits, be applied to the project? If BMPs have been provided by and/or coordinated with and approved by the appropriate Ecological Services Field Office, answer "Yes" to this question. Yes Is the project being funded, lead, or managed in whole or in part by U.S Fish and Wildlife Restoration and Recovery Program (e.g., Partners, Coastal, Fisheries, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration, Refuges)? No [Semantic] Does the project intersect the Virginia big-eared bat critical habitat? Automatically answered No [Semantic] Does the project intersect the Indiana bat AOI? Automatically answered Yes Is the action area within 0.5 mile radius of any known hibernacula (caves or mines) openings or underground features? Note: If you are unsure, contact the appropriate Ecological Services Field Office before continuing through the key. No Are trees present within the action area? Note: If there are trees within the action area that are of a sufficient size to be potential roosts for bats (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥5 inches dbh (12.7 centimeter), answer "Yes". If you are unsure, answer “Yes.” Or refer to Appendix A of the Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern Long-Eared Bat Survey Guidelines for definitions and an assessment form that will assist you in determining if suitable habitat is present within your project's action area. Suitable summer habitat for Indiana bat consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures. This includes forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥5 inches dbh (12.7 centimeter) that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or hollows), as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Individual trees may be considered suitable habitat when they exhibit the characteristics of a potential roost tree and are located within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of other forested/wooded habitat Yes Is the action area within known occupied Indiana bat habitat? Known occupied Indiana bat habitat includes established conservation buffers (10-mile buffer around Phase 1 or Phase 2 hibernacula, 5-mile buffer around Phase 3 or Phase 4 hibernacula; 5-mile buffer around Indiana bat captures or detections; 2.5-mile buffer around known roosts). No Project code: 2023-0131194 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099069 01/26/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 06/21/2023  9 of 12 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Has a presence/probable absence bat survey following the Service’s Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern long-eared Bat Survey Guidelines been conducted within the action area? No Does the project involve removal or modification of a human-made structure (barn, house, or other building) known or suspected to contain roosting bats? Note: Most maintenance and general human disturbance in and around structures will not affect Indiana bats as bats roosting in human structures are adjusted to a certain level of routine noise and are generally expected to roost away from areas with excessive disturbance. Answer ‘no’ if the proposed action will not include disturbance to human structures known or suspected to contain roosting bats or if the structure does not offer suitable roosting habitat for northern long-eared bats. If unsure, answer ‘yes.’ No Does the project include removal/modification of an existing bridge or culvert? No Will the project include tree cutting, other means of knocking down or bringing down trees, or tree trimming? Yes Does the project include emergency cutting or trimming of hazard trees in order to remove an imminent threat to human safety or property? No Will the proposed project result in the removal of any known or potential Indiana bat roost trees? Note: Suitable Indiana bat roost trees are live trees and/or snags ≥5 inches dbh that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities. No Will the project result in the use of prescribed fire? No Will the proposed project involve blasting within Indiana bat suitable habitat? No Does the project include temporary or permanent lighting of roadway(s), facility(ies), and/ or parking lot(s)? No [Semantic] Does the project intersect the Indiana bat critical habitat? Automatically answered No [Semantic] Does the project intersect the candy darter critical habitat? Automatically answered No Project code: 2023-0131194 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099069 01/26/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 06/21/2023  10 of 12 45. 46. 47. 48. [Semantic] Does the project intersect the diamond darter critical habitat? Automatically answered No [Semantic] Does the project intersect the Big Sandy crayfish critical habitat? Automatically answered No [Hidden Semantic] Does the project intersect the Guyandotte River crayfish critical habitat? Automatically answered No Do you have any other documents that you want to include with this submission? No Project code: 2023-0131194 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099069 01/26/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 06/21/2023  11 of 12 1. 2. 3. PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE Approximately how many acres of trees would the proposed project remove? 0.1 Approximately how many total acres of disturbance are within the disturbance/ construction limits of the proposed project? 0.3 Briefly describe the habitat within the construction/disturbance limits of the project site. Residential and commercial land uses, adjacent to the Taconic State Parkway. Project code: 2023-0131194 IPaC Record Locator: 235-132099069 01/26/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 06/21/2023  12 of 12 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Private Entity Name:Alexa Marinos Address:85 Broad Street Address Line 2:28th Floor City:New York State:NY Zip:10004 Email amarinos@ric.energy Phone:9177931237 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION Lead Agency:Yorktown town 16 August 2024 Mr. Andrew Welch RIC Energy 85 Broad Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10004 Re: Geotechnical Engineering Letter Report 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, NY 10588 Langan Project No.: 190108301 Dear Mr. Welch: This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering study for the proposed development located at 3666 Old Yorktown Road in the Town of Yorktown, New York. The purposes of this study were to explore subsurface conditions, evaluate feasible foundation options, and develop geotechnical recommendations. Services were performed in accordance with our proposal dated 11 April 2024 (authorized 12 June 2024). Our approach and recommendations were developed considering the following: 1. Proposed concept plan entitled “Site Plan – General Layout” prepared by Ric Energy dated 15 February 2024; 2. Elevations and survey information obtained from a plan titled “Boundary & Topographic Survey” prepared by Langan dated 21 May 2024, which references the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88); and, 3. Equipment information included in “Megapack – Designing for O&M Access” by Tesla. Changes to design schemes must be reviewed by Langan for impacts on our recommendations. SITE DESCRIPTION An existing site summary is provided below and is shown on Figure 1. • Location: 3666 Old Yorktown Road in Town of Yorktown, New York • Size: Site is about 4.5 acres, proposed development battery area is about 7,500 square feet (SF) at the southeast part of the site. Geotechnical Engineering Letter Report 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, NY 10588 Langan Project No.: 190108301 16 August 2024 Page 2 of 13 • Current use: Residential property with a two-story residential home, a one-story garage, various outdoor sheds, and an outdoor swimming pool. A pond is located along the northern property line. • Existing Topography: Grades within the proposed development area generally slope up from about el +421 in the north to about el +425 in the south. • Surrounding Properties: o North – Shrub Oak Brook, a pond, and wooded areas beyond; o South – Wooded areas and Old Yorktown Road and Taconic State Parkway beyond; o East – Wooded areas and Taconic State Parkway beyond; and, o West – Old Yorktown Road. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed development consists of a commercial battery energy storage system (BESS) accessed from Old Yorktown Road. The proposed BESS site will be an about 7,500 SF fenced-in area and include the following: • Tesla Megapack 2XL battery storage containers: six about 30-foot by 6-foot battery storage containers; • Transformers: Two about 9-foot by 9-foot transformers; • Site access: A 20-foot-wide gravel access road from Old Yorktown Road; and • Other associated site features are anticipated to include electrical lines site fencing. Based on the parameters provided by Tesla, there is a dead load of 44,970 pounds and 56,000 pounds for light and standard megapacks, respectively. Based on the provided loading, we assume a uniform bearing pressure on the order of 300 to 500 pounds per square foot (psf) to support the storage containers. Transformer weights were not provided, but we assume similar bearing pressures can be used to support the transformer pads. Site grades are expected to remain generally consistent with the existing grades. We anticipate minor grading changes up to about one foot may be necessary to create level areas for the equipment pads and for the access roadway. REVIEW OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION Regional Geology The 1989 “Surficial Geologic Map of New York: Lower Hudson Sheet” and the 1970 “Geologic Map of New York: Lower Hudson Sheet” (Figure 2) indicates the overburden material is till. The Bedrock Geology map (Figure 3) indicates the site consists of biotite-quartz-plagioclase gneiss. Geotechnical Engineering Letter Report 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, NY 10588 Langan Project No.: 190108301 16 August 2024 Page 3 of 13 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Map We reviewed the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Westchester County published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Maps No. 36119C0029F, with an effective date of 28 September 2007. The FIRM (Figure 4) indicates multiple flood zones at the site. At the northern property line is Zone AE - hatched, “regulatory floodway” associated with the Shrub Oak Brook. Directly to the south of the floodway occupying the middle half of the site is Zone AE - shaded, “areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood” and Zone X – shaded, “areas of 0.2% annual chance of flood” with a base flood elevation of about el +422.3. The southern part of the site is in Zone X – unshaded, “areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.” The proposed BESS area lies within the Zone X – unshaded and Zone AE – shaded areas. The access driveway and underground BESS circuit line runs through the Zone AE hatched “regulatory floodway” area. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Four borings (LB-01 through LB-04) were advanced on 8 July 2024 by General Borings, Inc. under Langan’s full-time observation. The borings were advanced with a track-mounted rig using hollow-stem auger drilling techniques. Borings were terminated at about 22 feet below existing grades (between about el +400 and +401). Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values1 were documented, and soil samples were generally obtained continuously to a depth of 12 feet and every 5 feet thereafter. Disturbed soil samples were obtained using a standard 2-inch-outer-diameter split-spoon sampler driven by a 140-pound safety or automatic hammer in accordance with ASTM D1586, Standard Penetration Test. Recovered soil samples were visually examined and classified in the field in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Soil classifications, N -values, and other field observations were recorded on our field logs, included in Ap pendix A. Laboratory Testing Selected samples were sent to a certified laboratory testing to confirm visual classifications, determine the index properties (physical and mechanical). Three grain-size analyses, four moisture content determinations, and one composite corrosion suite consisting of pH, soluble chloride, sulfate content, sulfide content, and redox potential tests were performed. Laboratory testing results are included in Appendix B. 1 The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is an in-situ testing technique used to infer soil density and consistency . The SPT N-value is defined as the number of blows required to drive a 2-inch-diameter split-barrel sampler 12 inches after an initial penetration of 6- inches using a 140-pound hammer falling freely from 30 inches. Geotechnical Engineering Letter Report 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, NY 10588 Langan Project No.: 190108301 16 August 2024 Page 4 of 13 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions generally consist of a surficial layer of topsoil underlain by layers of fill, sand, and glacial till. Groundwater was encountered about 2 to 5 feet below existing grades during the exploration (between about el +419 and +421). Bedrock was not encountered during our exploration. A detailed description of the subsurface materials encountered is provided below in order of increasing depth. Surficial Materials – A surficial layer of topsoil about 3 inches thick was encountered at all boring locations. Fill – Below the topsoil, an about 3- to 5-foot-thick layer of fill was encountered in all the borings. The fill is generally composed of brown silty fine to medium sand with varying proportions of fine gravel and roots. SPT N-values were not recorded as the top five feet was excavated by hand for utility clearance. Laboratory testing of samples within the fill reported a fines content between about 53 and 55% and a moisture content between about 20 and 24%. The fill layer in generally classified as silty sand and sandy silt (SM/ML) in accordance with the USCS. Sand – Below the fill, an about 4 - to 10-foot-thick layer of native sand was encountered in all borings (top of sand between about el +416.5 and +420). The sand is generally composed of light brown to brown fine to medium sand with varying proportions of silt and fine gravel. SPT N- values within the sand layer typically varied from about 8 blows per foot (bpf) to 26 bpf. Note that one split spoon refusal was encountered (less than 6 inches of penetration over 100 blows) within the sands. Split spoon refusal within the sand layer is likely the result of obstructions (i.e. gravel or cobbles) blocking the sampler. Laboratory testing of samples within the sand reported a fines content of about 7 and 21% and a moisture content of about 14 and 22%. The sand layer is generally classified as poorly graded sand with silt and silty sand (SP-SM/SM) in accordance with the USCS. Glacial Till – Below the sand, an about 9- to 13-foot-thick layer of glacial till was encountered (top of glacial till between about el +408.5 and +413). The glacial till is generally composed of brown to grayish brown fine to coarse sand with varying proportions of gravel and silt. SPT N -values within the glacial till typically varied between about 28 to 57 bpf. The glacial till layer is generally classified as poorly graded sand, silty sand or gravelly sand (SP/SM/GP) in accordance with the USCS. Groundwater – Groundwater was encountered in all the borings during our subsurface exploration from depths of about 2 to 5 feet below existing grades (between about el +419 to +421). Groundwater should be expected to fluctuate with seasonal variation, utility breaks, precipitation, and construction activities. Geotechnical Engineering Letter Report 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, NY 10588 Langan Project No.: 190108301 16 August 2024 Page 5 of 13 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Seismic Design This section presents the results of our seismic design recommendations for use per the 2020 New York State Building Code (NYSBC), which incorporates the International Building Code (IBC) 2018 with published amendments provided by State building officials. We have considered the soil conditions encountered in the borings to be consistent and representative of the soil conditions in the top 100 feet of soil at this site. The soil conditions found in the borings were used to determine site class and recommend ations. We recommend using the following design parameters as defined by the NYSBC and IBC: • Site Class: Site Class D – Stiff Soil Profile • Design Spectral Response Accelerations: SDS = 0.287 g and SD1 = 0.096 g The structural engineer is responsible for confirming the appropriate use group, occupancy category, and final Seismic Design Category (SDC) for the proposed structures. Subsurface materials below the foundations are typically dense soils and therefore it is our opinion that the site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction as defined in Section 1803.5.12 of the NYSBC. Design Groundwater Elevation Groundwater was encountered at shallow depths, between about 2 to 5 feet below existing grades (between about el +419 to +421). Additionally, part of the proposed development lies within mapped flood zones, and therefore we recommend the structures be de signed for a design flood elevation of the FEMA base flood elevation plus 1 foot, or el + 423.3 (see Figure 4). The proposed structures, roadways, and utilities should be designed considering the design flood elevation and account for potential buoyant forces and scour considerations. The structures should be designed in accordance with American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 24 “Flood Resistant Design and Construction” requirements in mapped flood zones. Foundation Evaluation and Discussion The proposed BESS may be constructed using shallow foundations or a thickened slab-on-grade as outlined below. Geotechnical Engineering Letter Report 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, NY 10588 Langan Project No.: 190108301 16 August 2024 Page 6 of 13 Shallow Foundations (Option 1) Shallow foundations are feasible to support the proposed dead loads of the equipment pads. The proposed equipment can be supported on shallow foundations bearing on structural fill , natural sands or glacial till using an allowable bearing pressure of 3 kips per square foot (ksf). The existing topsoil and fill materials are not suitable for foundation support, and i f encountered at the proposed bottom of footing elevation, should be over -excavated to natural soils and replaced with compacted structural fill in accordance with the Geotechnical Construction Considerations below . All exterior footings should be constructed 42 inches or deeper below the lowest adjacent grade for frost protection. Isolated column footings should have a minimum dimension of 3 feet and strip footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet even if smaller dimensions can be justified using the recommended allowable bearing pressure. Foundations should not be located so that one foundation is within the zone of influence of an adjacent foundation element. The zone of influence is taken as a 1H:1V projection extending outward and downward from the edge of the foundation. For mass concrete poured directly against approved subgrade materials, the following coefficient of sliding friction values can be used and are per the New York State Building Code: • 0.25 – Compacted, approved soil subgrade, and • 0.35 – Minimum of 6-inch-thick layer of compacted clean stone aggregate on top of the approved, compacted soil subgrade. Thickened Slab-on-Grade (Option 2) The proposed equipment pads can be supported on a thickened slab-on-grade (i.e., turndown slab or monolithic slab) using an allowable bearing pressure up to 1 kip per square foot (ksf) for bearing on natural sand, glacial till, structural fill or improved existing fill. Some slab movement is anticipated during freeze-thaw cycles and should be accounted for by using flexible utility connections in the design if the anticipated movement is acceptable. Alternatively, the slab edges may extend 42 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for frost protection and eliminate the need for flexible connections. The thickened slab must be designed and constructed in accordance with the latest version of the ASCE Standard 32 “Design and Construction of Frost- Protected Shallow Foundations.” The design groundwater elevation should also be considered for the design of thickened slabs-on-grade. A 6-inch-thick layer of gravel (¾-inch clean crushed stone, sand, etc.) overlain by an extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam meeting the compressive strength for the bearing stated above, should be placed prior to constructing the thickened slab -on-grade. A preliminary design using an Air Freezing Index (AFI) of 900°F-days, and Mean Annual Temperature (MAT) of 52°F yields a ground Geotechnical Engineering Letter Report 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, NY 10588 Langan Project No.: 190108301 16 August 2024 Page 7 of 13 insulation width (Dg) of 27 inches beyond the edge of the slab, assuming the slab is 6 inches thick at the center and edges extend an embedment depth (De) of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The corresponding XPS should be a minimum of 1-inch-thick with a minimum R-value of 4.0 per inch. The space between the XPS and slab should be filled with 12-inches of non-frost susceptible fill (i.e., ¾-inch clean crushed stone, gravel, etc.). A generalized design and construction detail for the frost-protected slab is provided in Image 1. The design should be refined when the concrete slab thickness and reinforcement has been designed by the structural engineer and slab elevation is determined. Image 1: Generalized Design and Construction for Unheated Frost -Protected Slab (NAHB Research Center, Inc.2). In general, the surficial material and fill should be removed to the bottom of the thickened slab section, or the bottom of the gravel/sand bedding layer (see Image 1). The thickened slab section should bear on natural sands, glacial till, structural fill or improved existing fill. If existing fill materials are encountered at the bottom of the thickened slab section, the fill should be compacted with at least a 1-ton double drum vibratory roller prior to placing any slab, structural fill, or geofoam materials. Areas observed to yield should be addressed in accordance with the Construction Considerations section of this report. If over-excavation is necessary, the excavation should be backfilled with maximum 12-inch-inch thick lifts of structural fill, compacted to 95% Modified Proctor. Proper drainage, positive grading, and design groundwater considerdations around the thickened slab-on-grade must be provided to minimize movement potential during freeze -thaw cycles and divert water away from slabs. Differential movement could be caused by 1) non -uniform, significant wetting of the subsurface material, 2) the development frost heave due to moist frost - 2 “Revised Builder’s Guide to Frost Protected Shallow Foundations ” (2004) by NAHB Research Center, Inc. https://www.homeinnovation.com/~/media/Files/Reports/Revised -Builders-Guide-to-Frost-Protected-Shallow-Foundations.pdf Geotechnical Engineering Letter Report 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, NY 10588 Langan Project No.: 190108301 16 August 2024 Page 8 of 13 susceptible soil, and 3) scouring effects (i.e., wash away of soil due to runoff from the slab) around the edges of the slab. Settlement Following the foundations recommendations above, total settlement of the structure s are estimated to be about 1 inch or less and differential settlement across the slabs to be about ½ inch or less, provided the bearing pressures recommended here are used and the subgrade preparation work described here is performed. The majority of the settlement is expected to take place during construction. Gravel Access Road The proposed gravel access road is likely limited to periodic maintenance vehicles following construction. All vegetation and surficial material should be removed from within the proposed access roadway to expose a firm subgrade prior to placement of gravel surface materials. The roadway subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the Subgrade Preparation section of this report. A geogrid such as Mirafi RS280i, or equivalent, should be placed o ver the subgrade materials (existing soils or approved fill materials), and overlain with the roadway surface material to help distribute vehicular loads and minimize rutting over time. The roadway surface should be constructed from a minimum 8-inch-thick layer of No. 2 crushed stone4 gradation or equivalent. We note that the stone roadway surface may require regular maintenance, with additional stone placement and regrading following potential rutting and long-term settlement, etc. to maintain access to the site. Corrosion Recommendations Corrosion potential was evaluated by performing the following tests on one composite sample: pH, oxidation-reduction potential (redox), soluble sulfate, sulfides, and soluble chlorides. A summary of the results is shown in Table 1. All sample material were taken below the topsoil layer, but in the upper 5 feet of the subsurface materials. 4 Size designation per the New York State Department of Transportation Geotechnical Engineering Letter Report 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, NY 10588 Langan Project No.: 190108301 16 August 2024 Page 10 of 13 neighboring buildings, nearby structures or utilities, including the existing utilities and trees that are to remain. Protection of these elements should be provided as necessary. Before beginning grading or placing fill, any miscellaneous trash, debris, o r other unsuitable materials should be removed from the site. Subgrade Preparation All footing and utility-trench subgrades, except rock subgrades, should be proofrolled with six overlapping coverages of a double -drum 1-ton walk-behind vibratory roller. All slab or frost- protected slab subgrade areas should be proofrolled with six overlapping coverages of a vibratory drum roller having a minimum static drum weight of 10 tons or the double drum roller noted above. Soft areas identified during proofrolling should be excavated and replaced with approved structural fill as described in the Excavation, Fill, Placement and Compaction Criteria section. The actual extent of necessary removal and replacement should be determined by a qualified Langan geotechnical engineer. Care should be taken when proofrolling near any existing underground utilities that are to remain. Soil footing subgrades should be excavated level and if any cobbles or boulders are encountered at the footing subgrade level such that a relatively level subgrade is not achieved, the cobbles or boulders should be removed and replaced with compacted struc tural fill, compacted ¾-inch crushed stone, or lean concrete. All soil subgrades for footings or slabs should be compacted to the project specified compaction criteria. Steps should be taken by the contractor to control and remove surface -water runoff and precipitation. When soil is wet and subjected to construction traffic, previously acceptable subgrades can soften and become unacceptable. A smooth drum roller should be used to seal the surface and provide for better drainage. We also recommend crowning or sloping the subgrade to provide positive drainage off the subgrades. If foundations are not poured in a timely manner, the subgrade should be protected with a lean concrete mud mat to protect the footing subgrades. Excavation, Fill, Placement, and Compaction Criteria Excavation through the fill and the underlying sands and glacial till can likely be performed using conventional earthmoving equipment (e.g., backhoes, excavators, dozers, etc.). Excavations made for footings and utilities should be conducted to minimize disturbance to the subgrade (i.e., backhoe with a smooth-edge bucket). All excavations should be properly sloped or braced and conform with applicable OSHA regulations including, but not limited to, temporary shoring, trench boxes, temporary rock stabilization, or proper benching or both. Geotechnical Engineering Letter Report 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, NY 10588 Langan Project No.: 190108301 16 August 2024 Page 11 of 13 The following types of fill can be used. Structural Fill – Structural fill should be well-graded sand and gravel having a maximum particle size of 3 inches and no more than 10% passing the No. 200 sieve. Additionally, the structural fill should be free of organics, clay, roots, concrete, other non -soil constituents, and other deleterious or compressible materials. Any approved imported structural fill should be “clean fill” free of hazardous substances and meeting all local, state, and federal regulations. Material Reuse – The contractor may reuse the on-site fill, natural sand or glacial till as structural fill provided the soils meet the requirements for structural fill outlined above and is approved by the environmental engineer. Note that samples obtained within the fill and sand have reported fines contents (passing the #200 sieve) of up to 55% and may be sensitive to moisture. The overall amount of soil that can be reused will be dependent on the amount of fines present within the soil, the time of year the earthwork is carried out (e.g., potentially inclement weather), and the earthwork contractor’s ability to stage, aerate and process the material to facilitate placement and compaction. General Fill – On-site soils not meeting the requirements for structural fill can be used as general fill for site landscape and other nonstructural areas (e.g., landscaped areas) if environmentally suitable for reuse . The fill and silt layers may be used as general fill, if required. Compaction Criteria – All fill should be placed in uniform 12-inch-thick loose lifts and compacted. Fill in landscaped areas should be compacted to 90% of its maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM D1557; all other fill should be compacted to at least 95%. In restricted areas where only hand-operated compactors can be used, the maximum lift thickness should be limited to 8 inches. The appropriate water content at the time of compaction should be plus or minus 2% points of optimum as determined by the laboratory compaction tests of proposed fill. No backfill should be placed on areas where free water is standing or on frozen subsoil areas. Temporary Groundwater Control Dewatering from surface water and groundwater will likely be necessary during construction. Water infiltration to the foundation , slab, and utiltity excavation and during construction can likely be controlled using gravity-fed sump pumps via gravel trenches or sumps assisted with collector trenches; however, the final dewatering measures required must be evaluated and designed by the contractor. Design and performance of dewatering systems are contractor’s responsibility. Geotechnical Engineering Letter Report 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, NY 10588 Langan Project No.: 190108301 16 August 2024 Page 12 of 13 Care should be taken to ensure that drainage is provided during all phases of excavation work. The dewatering measures implemented should adequately dewater all foundation -related excavations, including removal and replacement, such that compaction of footing subgrades is feasible. Environmental pretreatment of groundwater, if necessary, is beyond the scope of this study. Collected water should be discharged in accordance with applicable regulations. SERVICES DURING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE During final design, Langan should be retained to consult with the design team as geotechnical questions arise. Technical specifications and design drawings should incorporate our recommendations. When authorized, we will assist the design team in preparin g specification sections related to geotechnical issues such as earthwork, shallow foundations, backfill, underpinning, and excavation support. Langan should also, when authorized, review the project plans and contractor submittals relating to materials and construction procedures for geotechnical work to confirm the designs incorporate the intent of our recommendations. Langan has explored and interpreted the site subsurface conditions and developed the foundation design recommendations contained here and is therefore best suited to perform quality - assurance observation and testing of geotechnical-related work during construction. The work requiring quality-assurance confirmation or special inspections per the Building Code includes, but is not limited to, earthwork, shallow foundations, backfill, underpinning, and excavation support. Recognizing that construction observation is the final stage of geotechnical design, quality - assurance observation during construction by Langan is necessary to confirm the design assumptions and design elements, to maintain our continuity of responsibilit y on this project, and allow us to make changes to our recommendations, as necessary. The foundation system and general geotechnical construction methods recommended herein are predicated upon Langan’s assisting with the final design and providing construc tion observation services for the owner. If Langan is not retained for these services, we cannot assume the role of geotechnical engineer of record, and the entity providing the final design and construction observation services must serve as the engineer of record. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations provided in this report result from our interpretation of the geotechnical conditions existing at the site inferred from a limited number of borings. Actual subsurface conditions may vary. Recommendations provided are dependent upon one another and no recommendation should be followed independent of the others. Any proposed changes in structures (size, load, utility connections, etc.) or their locations should be brought to Langan’s Geotechnical Engineering Letter Report 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, NY 10588 Langan Project No.: 190108301 16 August 2024 Page 13 of 13 attention as soon as possible so that we can determine whether such changes affect our recommendations. Information on subsurface strata shown on the logs represent conditions encountered only at the locations indicated and at the time of our exploration. If different conditions are encountered during construction, they should immediately be brought to Langan’s attention for evaluation, because they may affect our recommendations. This report has been prepared to assist the owner and the owner’s design team in the design process and is only applicable to the design of the specific project identified. The information in this report cannot be used or depended on by engineers or contractors involved in evaluations or designs of facilities (including underpinning, grouting, stabilization, etc.) on adjacent properties beyond the limits of that which is the specific subject of this report. Environmental issues (such as permitting or potentially contaminated soil and groundwater) are outside the scope of this study and should be addressed in a separate evaluation. CLOSING We have appreciated being of service on this project and look forward to working with you to successfully complete this project. Sincerely, Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Geology, D.P.C. Taylor Dalling, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Clayton Patterson, P.E. Associate OAC:TSD/CAP/MF /CZ Enclosure(s): Figure 1 Site Location Figure 2 Surficial Geology Figure 3 Bedrock Geology Figure 4 Effective FEMA Firm Figure 5 Boring Location Plan Appendix A Langan Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Testing Results \\langan.com\data\WPW\data3\190108301\Project Data\_Discipline\Geotechnical\Reports\2024-08-06_190108301 - Yorktown Geo Report.docx FIGURES APPENDIX A LANGAN BORING LOGS APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS Page 1 of 2 GEOTESTING EXPRESS INCORPORATED 125 NAGOG PARK ACTON MA 01720-3451 USA Analysis No. Report Date Date Sampled Date Received Where Sampled Sampled By TS-A2412036 30 July 2024 26 July 2024 29 July 2024 Acton, MA USA Client This is to attest that we have examined: Soil: Project: Yorktown Battery Energy Storage; Site Location: Yorktown, NY; Job Number: GTX-319501 When examined to the applicable requirements of: ASTM D 512-12* “Standard Test Methods for Chloride Ion in Water” Method B ASTM D 516-16 “Standard Test Method for Sulfate Ion in Water” Standard Methods-2017 Part 4000 “Inorganic Nonmetallic Constituents” 4500-S2- Sulfide ASTM G 200-20 “Standard Test Method for Measurement of Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) of Soil” Results: ASTM D 512 - Chloride Method B Sample Results Minimum Detection Limit ppm (mg/kg) %1 Composite 1 28. 0.0028 10. -— -0 – 71’ NOTE: 1Percent by weight after drying and prepared as per the Standard. *Withdrawn 2021 without Replacement ASTM D 516 – Sulfates (Soluble) Sample Results Minimum Detection Limit ppm (mg/kg) %1 Composite 1 < 10. < 0.0010 10. -— -0 – 71’ NOTE: 1Percent by weight after drying and prepared as per the Standard. SM 4500-S2- Sulfide (Soluble) Sample Results Minimum Detection Limit ppb (µg/kg) %1 Composite 1 820. 0.000082 10. -— -0 – 71’ PO Box 572455 / Salt Lake City UT 84157-2455 / USA TEL +1 801 262 2448 ∙ FAX +1 801 262 9870 ∙ www.TEi-TS.com Analysis TS-A2412036 GeoTesting Express, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Report Date: 30 July 2024 © 2024 by Testing Engineers International, Inc. CAVEAT: This certificate may not be reproduced except in full, without the expressed written consent of TEi-Testing Services, LLC. Note: The values in this certificate are the values obtained under standard test conditions as report ed in the appropriate Report of Test and thus may be used for purposes of demonstrating compliance or for comparison with other units tested under the same standard. The results do not indicate the function of the sample(s) under nonstandard or field conditions. Statement of Risk: Client understands and agrees that declarations of conformity are made by directly comparing the measurement results against the test limits given in the standa rd without consideration to factors that may contribute to measurement uncertainty and accepts the shared risk that arises from this approach. This certificate gives the characteristics of the sample(s) submitted for testing only. It does not and may not be used to certify the characteristics of the product, nor to imply that the product in general meets the requirements of any standard, nor its acceptability in the marketplace. TEi stylized lettering and logo are registered trademarks and use is by contract and/or written permission only. USEPA Laboratory ID UT00930 TEi-Testing Services is a wholly owned LLC of Testing Engineers International, Inc. 3455 South 500 West Salt Lake City, UT 84115-4234 USA TEL: +1 801 262 2448 FAX: +1 801 262 9870 NOTE: 1Percent by weight after drying and prepared as per the Standard. ASTM G 200 – Reduction Oxidation Potential (REDOX) Sample Results Minimum Detection Limit Composite 1 164.1 @ 23.0 ºC 0.1mV -— -0 – 71’ NOTE: Prepared as per the Standard. END OF ANALYSIS USEPA Laboratory ID UT00930 EVALUATION OF SITE SOUND EMISSIONS PROPOSED YORKTOWN BESS Town of Yorktown, New York Prepared for: Langan Prepared by: Benjamin C. Mueller, P.E. bmueller@acousticalconsultant.com Reviewed by: Joseph Quagraine jquagraine@acousticalconsultant.com Date: 24 January 2025 OAA File: 4877A Evaluation of Site Sound Emissions Yorktown BESS, Town of Yorktown, NY 24 January 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 SITE AND VICINITY ..................................................................................... 2 CRITERIA ..................................................................................................... 4 MODELLING OF SOUND EMISSIONS ........................................................ 5 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................... 7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 8 Evaluation of Site Sound Emissions Yorktown BESS, Town of Yorktown, NY 24 January 2025 Page 1 INTRODUCTION Ostergaard Acoustical Associates (OAA) carried out a variety of tasks in order to assist Langan with analysis of sound emitted by a proposed battery energy storage system (BESS) facility in Yorktown, New York. The project is referred to as Yorktown BESS in this report. Tasks include a review of the site plan drawings showing the site layout, locations of onsite buildings and equipment, and site property lines; review of typical transformer and equipment sound level ratings; and modeling of future sound emissions from the planned equipment to the surrounding areas. Tasks for OAA were overseen by Benjamin C. Mueller P.E., with assistance from OAA staff. The representative at Langan coordinating the project is Christina M. Zolezi, P.E. This report presents our findings and is suitable for submission to municipal boards. The onsite equipment is expected to generate noise when operating. The purpose of this sound study is to analyze future site sound emissions, compare these to regulatory limits, and consider the acoustical impact to nearby receptors, especially during the nighttime hours. Note that all field measurements and acoustical modelling for this professional acoustical evaluation relied on analyses in octave frequency bands. However, in the interest of providing a concise report of findings, results in this report are provided using the most common metric of environmental sound, the A-weighted sound level. Full acoustical data in octave bands for all measurements and modelling are available upon request; these octave band data are consistent with the findings presented within this report. Evaluation of Site Sound Emissions Yorktown BESS, Town of Yorktown, NY 24 January 2025 Page 2 SITE AND VICINITY The project site is located north of the intersection of Old Yorktown Road and the Taconic State Parkway in the Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York. The triangular site currently accommodates a daycare center in the western portion and small farm in the norther portion. We understand that the childcare use will become a residence and that the farm will remain. The project will accommodate a small portion of the site in the southeast corner of the property. In addition to the mixed uses, the site also spans two zones. The farm and northeast half of the site are in the R1-20, One-Family Residential, district. The daycare/residence is in the C-2, Commercial Hamlet Center, district. The proposed BESS development will straddle this zone line. Bordering the site to the north is woodland in the O, Office, district and commercial uses fronting on Barger Street in the C-2 and C-4, Commercial General, districts. Along the entire eastern border of the site is the Taconic State Parkway. Residences fronting on Wildwood Street are beyond in the R1-20 district. Of note is that there is a large sound barrier separating these residences from the parkway. West of the site is Old Yorktown Road; across this street are single - family residences fronting on Union Road in the R1-20 district. Given the proximity to the parkway, the area is expected to be dominated by highway traffic flow sound at all hours of the day. The site and vicinity are shown in Figure 1, which is based on aerial imagery obtained from Google Earth Pro software. Figure 1 also shows the approximate property line and project area Plans call for the development of a rectangular portion of the site to contain battery energy storage containers, transformers, and associated electrical equipment. A total of six Tesla Megapack XL BESS units are proposed. There will also be two small transformers and a switchgear enclosure. The BESS units produce sound from a variety of sources including cooling fans and equipment, dehumidifiers, and inverters. The transformers do not have cooling fans but will produce a low level “hum”. The switchgear is not expected to produce sound. A perimeter fence will be located around the site. A retraining wall is needed to provide level grading for the equipment; this wall has no impact on BESS sound emissions. Onsite equipment that produces sound is considered steady in nature, however it will cycle along with power demands. This acoustical analysis considers the scenario where all equipment is operating simultaneously, to evaluate the highest possible sound levels produced by the site. Evaluation of Site Sound Emissions Yorktown BESS, Town of Yorktown, NY 24 January 2025 Page 3 Figure 1 — Aerial photo showing existing conditions at the Yorktown BESS site, Yorktown, NY. The property line is outlined in red. Project area shown in white. Evaluation of Site Sound Emissions Yorktown BESS, Town of Yorktown, NY 24 January 2025 Page 4 CRITERIA When developing a site of this type, it is appropriate to consider how sound from the facility will likely be received, especially by noise-sensitive receptors. Sound produced by the site should be evaluated and compared to applicable regulatory limits and noise guidelines. The Town of Yorktown regulates noise under Chapter 216: Peace and Good Order. Section 216- 2 prescribes specific noise limits, depending on the source and receptor category, to minimize the potential for noise disturbance. Sound measured at a residential property that is produced by a commercial or industrial property cannot exceed 70 dB(A) during the daytime hours of 0700 -to- 2300, and 50 dB(A) between complementary night hours. Limits for commercial and industrial properties are held to 70 dB(A) regardless of the time of day. Because there are multiple uses on the same property, OAA has assumed that these limits are not applicable to the on-site residence or farm, however they were used as a guideline for the sound study and applied as a project goal for the on-site residence. No applicable noise regulations were found for Westchester County. Research indicates that there is no New York State noise code that regulates site sound emissions. However, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has guidelines for assessing and mitigating noise impacts. The DEC policy Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts1 provides guidance for analyzing and minimizing the acoustical impact based on the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) review process. These guidelines call for the comparison of the expected site sound emissions to the average ambient sound level. The DEC states that an increase in equivalent (average) ambient sound level by 0-to-3 dB is not expected to have any appreciable effect on receptors, while an increase of 3 -to-6 dB is tolerable but may have potential for an adverse noise impact only in cases where the most noise sensitive of receptors are present. Increases of more than 6 dB require closer scrutiny and increases of 10 dB deserve consideration of avoidance and mitigation measures in most cases. While an ambient sound survey was proposed as part of this sound study, weather conditions have not been conducive to this effort, and as a result ambient data are not available at the time of this report. This is not critical for multiple reasons. First is that the Town has established noise limits which are designed to protect the public. Second is that given the proximity to the parkway, experience shows that a sound survey would indicate sound levels more permissive than what is required by the Town noise code. Hence, compliance with the Town noise code will support a DEC conclusion that the site will not have any negative acoustical impact. Should an ambient sound survey be able to be carried out, and results conflict with this assumption, the soun d study will be modified to adjust for this. 1 https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/noise2000.pdf Evaluation of Site Sound Emissions Yorktown BESS, Town of Yorktown, NY 24 January 2025 Page 5 MODELING OF SOUND EMISSIONS Acoustical modelling software, specifically CadnaA, was used to create and analyze site sound emissions. The model considers relevant parameters between the noise source and receptor positions of interest to predict how sound will propagate. In addition to distance attenuation, the model accounts for the effects of terrain, various types of ground cover, shielding by structure s, and reflections from buildings. Elevation information exterior to the site was obtained from New York State Geographic Information Systems Resources and was incorporated into the model. Model results show only the sound emissions of the site, which are directly comparable to the Town noise code limits; ambient sound is not included in the model. Based on experience with similar equipment, the Tesla Megapack XL units were estimated to each have a sound power level of 89 dB(A), re 1 picowatt. For the two electrical transformers, based on the NEMA2 TR1 standard3 and methods given in “Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide”, Edison Electric Institute, Second Edition, 1984, estimate octave band sound power level spectra and overall levels were calculated. Site transformers were conservatively assumed to have a NEMA rating of 60 dB. Given the transformer dimensions, calculations show that the site transformers have an overall sound power level of 75 dB(A) re 1 picowatt. Transformer noise is characterized by tonal humming at 2x, 4x, etc. the line frequency of 60 Hz (i.e. 120 Hz, 240 Hz, etc.). In the model, buildings, BESS containers, transformers and other solid structures are white. Roadways are visualized using a white box with dashed lines but are not modelled as sound sources. The site property line is outlined in red, while elevation contour lines are teal. The existing 15-foot-tall concrete parkway sound barrier is represented as a light blue line. North is pointing up in the model. The acoustical model shows the results graphically as A-weighted sound level contours, in 1 dB increments, and tabulates the summed A-weighted sound levels at six discrete locations typifying nearby residential receptors. Sound level contours are at an ear height elevation, 5 feet above grade. Receptor A through F are at the upper-story façade of nearby residences, 15 feet above grade. Figure 2 shows the modeled worst-case A-weighted sound level emissions for the battery energy storage system facility equipment discussed above, with all equipment operating. 2 NEMA is an abbreviation for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 3 NEMA Standards Publication No. TR 1-1993 (R2000), “Transformers, Regulators, and Reactors”. National Electric Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA. Evaluation of Site Sound Emissions Yorktown BESS, Town of Yorktown, NY 24 January 2025 Page 6 Figure 2 — Model of future site sound emissions with all equipment ON. Colored contours are A-weighted sound emissions 5 feet above grade. Receptors A through F are 15 feet above grade. Evaluation of Site Sound Emissions Yorktown BESS, Town of Yorktown, NY 24 January 2025 Page 7 Predicted sound emissions from the site are in the range of 37-to-43 dB(A) at off-site residential receptors. This fully complies with the Yorktown residential nighttime noise code limit of 50 dB(A) by a wide margin. There is also full compliance at all commercial receptors as levels of 70 dB(A) are only seen close-in to the equipment. While not specifically scrutinized in the model, the gray contour line, which represents 50 dB(A), just reaches the on-site residential use. Hence, there is compliance at this location regardless of noise code applicability. Given results of this magnitude, the margin of compliance with local noise limits, and the expectation that parkway sound emissions will be higher than model results and help to mask BESS sound emissions, there are no acoustical concerns with this project. The project complies with all applicable noise regulations and will not have any negative acoustical impact on the area. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS While construction conditions are temporary in nature, it is worth discussing considerations to minimize the acoustical impact of this activity. The Town of Yorktown addresses construction noise under §216-2.B(4) which essentially exempts construction noise between 0700 and 2000 hours on weekdays and between 1000 and 1700 hours on weekends or legal holidays. Time specifics do vary slightly depending on the day but were summarized above to be concise. This acts as an administrative control measure by limiting construction only during certain, less sensitive, daytime hours. It is worth noting that earth moving equipment used during the civil construction phase of the project could be close to off-site receptors temporarily. Construction equipment such as bulldozers, front end loaders, and dump trucks can typically produce maximum sound levels of 80 dB(A) at 50 feet. At assumed distances of at least 300 feet from nearby off-site receptors, maximum construction activity sound levels would be in the mid-60s on the A-weighted scale. Levels of this magnitude are expected to rival local vehicle traffic sound levels for pedestrians on sidewalks and are not expected to elicit noise complaints or impact the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Further, construction sound levels at this distance would typically fall below the Yorktown daytime noise code limit of 70 dB(A). To minimize receptor exposure to construction noise during this phase, consider the following construction mitigation measures: ❑ Limit all heavy equipment operation to non-noise-sensitive daytime hours and follow allowable Town construction hours. Evaluation of Site Sound Emissions Yorktown BESS, Town of Yorktown, NY 24 January 2025 Page 8 ❑ If possible, limit the amount of equipment operating near one receptor at a given time. Avoid exposing any one receptor to high sound levels for an extended period of time. ❑ Place stationary equipment such as generators, compressors, and office trailers away from receptors. ❑ Avoid having construction parking or laydown areas nearby receptors. ❑ Coordinate any high sound level construction activities with Town representatives and provide advance notice to residences as feasible. Specific noise issues can be individually evaluated for tailored noise mitigation recommendations should traditional methods above not be sufficient. CONCLUSION Plans call for the development of a battery energy storage system facility in the Town of Yorktown, New York. There are residences in the vicinity; hence, the focus of this analysis was on these potentially noise-sensitive receptors. There are Yorktown code limits that are applicable to the site and appropriate to protect nearby residences. While an ambient sound level survey was not carried out at this time, based on experience, parkway traffic flow sound is expected to regularly exceed the Town nighttime noise code limit of 50 dB(A). Hence, compliance with the Town nighttime noise code limit would ensure there will be no negative acoustical impact per DEC guidelines. Although it is assumed that code limits would not apply to the mixed uses on the same parcel as the project, they were used as a project goal for the on-site residence. Analyses show that distance and topography will sufficiently attenuate site noise to not exceed 50 dB(A) at all nearby residences. Limits are also met at the on-site residence. The project fully complies with the Town of Yorktown noise requirements. Because of this, and that the prevailing ambient sound level is expected to be higher than code limits, OAA concludes that there is no negative acoustical impact per DEC guidelines. Based on the foregoing, the findings in this report support and conclude that the project will not create any significant adverse sound impacts and is appropriate for this site. DECOMMISSIONING PLAN for Yorktown Energy Storage System 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, New York Prepared For: RIC Development, LLC 17 State Street, Suite 2320 New York, NY 10004 Prepared By: Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Geology, D.P.C. One North Broadway, Suite 910 White Plains, New York 10601 June 23, 2025 Project No.: 190108301 Yorktown Energy Storage System Page i 3666 Old Yorktown Road June 23, 2025 Town of Yorktown, New York Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ........................................................................... 1 2 Project Summary ............................................................................... 1 3 Decommissioning Plan ...................................................................... 1 3.1 Conditions for Decommissioning ......................................................................... 1 3.2 Notification and Schedule .................................................................................... 2 4 Decommissioning Activities ............................................................... 2 4.1 Dismantling Battery Units, Electrical Equipment and Foundations ....................... 3 4.2 Dismantling Driveways ........................................................................................ 3 4.3 Other Components .............................................................................................. 3 5 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan .................................................... 3 5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures ............................................................. 3 5.2 Pollution Prevention Controls ............................................................................... 4 5.3 Inspections and Maintenance .............................................................................. 5 6 Waste Disposal .................................................................................. 5 7 Restoration of Land ........................................................................... 5 8 Emergency Response and Communications Plans ............................ 5 9 Permit and Approvals ......................................................................... 6 10 Decommissioning Cost Estimate ....................................................... 6 Appendices Appendix A: Decommissioning Cost Estimate Yorktown Energy Storage System Page 1 3666 Old Yorktown Road June 23, 2025 Town of Yorktown, New York 1 Executive Summary This Decommissioning Plan (the “Plan”) outlines the means and methods to decommission the Yorktown Energy Storage System project (the “Project”) in the event that the Project’s land lease expires or is terminated, the Project cannot be completed, or at the end of the Project’s useful life. This Plan intends to outline the steps which will be followed by the Applicant to remove the system, dispose of or recycle its components, and restore the land to its pre-construction condition. The following items are addresssed in this Plan: · Defining the conditions upon which decommissioning will be initiated. · Procedure for removal of all non-utility owned equipment, conduit, structures, fencing, roads, and foundations. · Procedures for restoration of property to pre-construction conditions. · Timeframe for completion of decommissioning activities. · Opinion of probable costs.1 The goal of decommissioning is to provide safe and efficient removal of all battery energy storage system facility components, and restoring the site to conditions as close to pre-construction characteristics as possible including restoration of native vegetation, habitat, or land use. The same safety protocols that are used during construction will be used during decommissioning. 2 Project Summary The Applicant, RIC Development, LLC, is proposing to construct a 5 MW battery energy storage system located at 3666 Old Yorktown Road in the Town of Yorktown. The property is currently developed and zoned as residential/commercial. The property is bounded by undeveloped property to the north, Taconic State Parkway to the east and south, and Old Yorktown Road to the west. The Project consists of battery energy storage system, inverter/transformer power conversion systems, foundation pads and footings for equipment, electrical cabling and conduits, perimeter fencing, and fire suppression systems. Access to the property is provided by an existing driveway from Old Yorktown Road. 3 Decommissioning Plan 3.1 Conditions for Decommissioning The Plan will be implemented in the event of any of the following conditions: · The land lease expires or is terminated; or 1 The opinion of probable costs of decommissioning and restoration are based on the preparer’s experience for similar facilities. Yorktown Energy Storage System Page 2 3666 Old Yorktown Road June 23, 2025 Town of Yorktown, New York · The battery energy storage system has been abandoned and/or is non-operational for a period of 12 consecutive months as determined by the Owner/Operator or Zoning Officer. Periods during which the facility is not operational for maintenance, repair, or due to catastrophic events beyond the Applicant’s control (e.g., floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, inclement weather, or sabotage) shall not trigger the decommissioning requirement. The Applicant will work diligently with the Town and property owner in the event of a potential abandonment condition to either return the facility to full operating status or trigger decommissioning restoration activities. 3.2 Notification and Schedule Decommissioning shall begin immediately after one of the conditions for decommissioning has occurred. The Applicant shall provide written notice to the Towns and adjacent property owner(s) no less than 30 days prior to commencement of decommissioning activity. The notice is to include a preliminary timeline of decommissioning activities prior to the start of decommissioning and restoration activities. The Applicant, or its agent, will obtain any necessary federal, state, or local permits required to complete the decommissioning and site restoration activities described herein. Removal of the equipment and reclamation will take approximately 3 to 6 months. This timeline may be extended if there is a delay beyond the control of Applicant including, but not limited to, inclement weather conditions, planting requirements, equipment failure, or the availability of equipment or personnel to support decommissioning. This timeline will also be dependent upon appropriate seasons for final site restoration. It is anticipated that decommissioning planning (notification to Town, securing permits and approvals) would begin in late winter to early spring, to allow demolition and restoration to take place during summer and fall months. 4 Decommissioning Activities The site activity impacts will be similar to the construction phase, but in reverse sequence. The site activities will include the following: · Creation of temporary work areas (i.e., laydown areas) for disassembling the battery energy storage system and loading onto trucks. Gravel will be placed on a clear, level area that is accessible. · Installation of erosion and sediment control measures, like those used during construction, which will be maintained by the trained contractor. · Equipment will include, at a minimum: o The use of cranes to remove the battery energy storage containers, inverters, and transformers. o The use of trucks for removal of batteries, battery energy storage containers, inverters, and transformers. · The gravel will be removed and replaced with clean soil. Driveways may be left in-place and intact based on the property owner’s option. In these situations, items to remain will be addressed through individual lease agreements with landowners prior to the start of decommissioning. Yorktown Energy Storage System Page 3 3666 Old Yorktown Road June 23, 2025 Town of Yorktown, New York 4.1 Dismantling Battery Units, Electrical Equipment and Foundations Decommissioning of electrical devices, equipment and wiring/cabling will be conducted in accordance with local, municipal, state, and federal standards and guidelines. Electrical decommissioning will include obtaining the required permits and following procedures before de- energizing, isolating, and disconnecting electrical devices, equipment, and wiring/cabling. Decommissioning will require dismantling and removal of the electrical equipment, including inverters, transformers, underground cables and line, and the prefabricated inverter enclosures. The equipment will be disconnected and transported off-site by truck. The concrete foundations and support pads will be broken up by mechanical equipment (backhoe-hydraulic hammer/shovel, jackhammer), loaded onto dump trucks and removed from the site; and smaller pre-cast concrete support pads will be removed intact by cranes and loaded onto trucks for reuse or be broken up and hauled away by dump trucks. Prior to removal of the transformers, the oil will be pumped into a separate industry approved disposal container and sealed to prevent any spill during storage and/or transportation. Equipment and material may be salvaged for resale or scrap value depending on the market conditions. 4.2 Dismantling Driveways The gravel may be removed or left in place at the property owner’s request. If removed, the gravel will be placed in dump trucks to haul the aggregate to a recycling facility or approved disposal facility. The underlying subsoil, if exhibiting significant compaction will then be aerated using a tractor with disk attachment to restore the soil structure and aerate the soil. Clean topsoil would be replaced over this area, from where it may have been temporarily stored elsewhere on- site by dump truck, to match the surrounding grade. Depending upon the time of year and the planned use of the land, the area will be returned to its pre-construction condition. 4.3 Other Components Unless retained for other purposes, and at the request of the property owners, removal of other facility components from the site will be completed, including but not limited to surface drains, culverts, and fencing. Anything deemed usable shall be recovered and reused. Other remaining components will be considered as waste and managed according to federal, provincial, and municipal requirements. For safety and security, the security fence will be the final component dismantled and removed from the site. 5 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Temporary erosion and sediment control measures to be used during decommissioning construction generally include the following: · Stabilized construction access. · Dust control. Yorktown Energy Storage System Page 4 3666 Old Yorktown Road June 23, 2025 Town of Yorktown, New York · Temporary soil stockpiles. · Silt fencing. · Temporary seeding. Once decommissioning is completed, disturbed areas shall be final seeded within 14 days after completion of the land disturbing activities. Final site stabilization is achieved when soil- disturbing activities have been completed and a uniform, perennial vegetative cover with a density of 80 percent has been established or equivalent stabilization measures (such as the use of mulches or geotextiles) have been employed on the disturbed unpaved areas and areas not covered by permanent structures. 5.2 Pollution Prevention Controls Good housekeeping practices are designed to maintain a clean and orderly work environment. Good housekeeping measures shall be maintained throughout the construction process by those parties involved with the direct care and development of the site. The following measures shall be implemented to control the possible exposure of harmful substances and materials to stormwater runoff: 1. Soil stockpile locations shall be located away from storm drainage, water bodies or watercourses and surrounded with adequate erosion and sediment control measures. Soil stockpile locations shall be exposed no longer than 14 days before seeding. 2. Equipment maintenance areas shall be protected from stormwater flows and shall be supplied with appropriate waste receptacles for spent chemicals, solvents, oils, greases, gasoline, and any pollutants that might contaminate the surrounding habitat or water supply. Equipment wash-down zones shall be within areas draining to sediment control devices. 3. The use of detergents for large-scale (e.g., vehicles, buildings, pavement surfaces) washing is prohibited. 4. Material storage locations and facilities (e.g., covered storage areas, storage sheds) shall be on-site and shall be stored according to the manufacturer’s standards in a dedicated staging area. Chemicals, paints, solvents, fertilizers, and other toxic material shall be stored in waterproof containers. Runoff containing such materials shall be collected, removed from the site, treated, and disposed of at an approved solid waste or chemical disposal facility. 5. Hazardous spills shall be immediately contained to prevent pollutants from entering the surrounding habitat or water supply. Spill Kits shall be provided on site and shall be displayed in a prominent location for ease of access and use. Spills greater than 5 gallons shall be reported to the NYSDEC Response Unit at 1-800-457-7362. In addition, a record of the incidents or notifications shall be documented and attached to the SWPPP. 6. Portable sanitary waste facilities shall be provided on site for workers and shall be properly maintained. 7. Dumpsters or debris containers shall be on site and shall be of adequate size to manage respective materials. Regular collection and disposal of wastes must occur as required. 8. Non-stormwater components of site discharge shall be clean water. Water used for construction, which discharges from the site, must originate from a public water supply or approved private well. Water used for construction that does not originate from an approved public supply must not discharge from the site. Yorktown Energy Storage System Page 5 3666 Old Yorktown Road June 23, 2025 Town of Yorktown, New York 9. Discharges from dewatering activities, including discharges from dewatering trenches and excavations, shall be managed by appropriate control measures. 5.3 Inspections and Maintenance The trained contractor must inspect the erosion and sediment control practices and pollution- prevention measures to verify that they are being maintained in effective operating condition. The inspections will be performed daily in the active work area. If deficiencies are identified, the contractor will begin implementing corrective actions within one business day and must complete the corrective actions by the end of the day. 6 Waste Disposal As discussed above, the waste generated by the installation, operation and decommissioning of the Project is minimal, and there are no toxic residues. Any wastes generated will be disposed of according to standards of the day with the emphasis of recycling materials whenever possible. Batteries would be recycled at a specialized recycling plant. 7 Restoration of Land The project area will be restored by: · Site cleanup. · Any excavation and/or trenching caused by the removal of building or equipment foundations, rack supports, and underground electrical cables will be backfilled with the appropriate material and leveled to match the ground surface. · Driveways may be removed or left in place at the property owner’s request. If removed, the areas will be filled with suitable sub-grade material, leveled and restored to pre- existing conditions. · Any compacted ground will be tilled, mixed with suitable sub-grade materials, and leveled. · All disturbed areas will be seeded. · Following restoration, remove all construction debris from the site. 8 Emergency Response and Communications Plans Prior to initiating any decommissioning activities, Yorktown Energy Storage System will notify the local authorities, the public, and relevant government agencies of their intent to decommission The Project. Copies of a detailed emergency response plan, developed in conjunction with the local emergency services, will be distributed to the local municipality prior to the commencement of operations. A plan specific to The Project will be developed during the construction phase of this project and will be applicable to both the operations and decommissioning phases of The Project. During decommissioning, Yorktown Energy Storage System will coordinate with the local authority, the public and others as required to provide them with information about the ongoing activities. Besides regular direct/indirect communication, a sign will be posted at the gate of the facility which will include Yorktown Energy Storage System’s contact information (telephone number, e-mail and mailing address) should the public have any questions, inquiries or Yorktown Energy Storage System Page 6 3666 Old Yorktown Road June 23, 2025 Town of Yorktown, New York complaints. Inquiries will be directed to Yorktown Energy Storage System’s primary contact person who will respond to the inquiry accordingly. Inquiries will be logged electronically with the following information: date of question, inquiry or complaint, name, phone number, email address of the individual, response, date of response, and any follow-up issues. 9 Permit and Approvals Decommissioning activities are not expected to disturb one or more acres of land. It is anticipated that the decommissioning will require a Building or Demolition permit obtained from Town of Yorktown. 10 Decommissioning Cost Estimate The estimated opinion of probable gross decommissioning costs for the Project is provided in Appendix A. This opinion of probable costs has been created based on the preparing engineer’s experience for similarly-sized energy facilities, and available cost reference manuals at the time of preparation. It is possible that the final design of the facility may change the configuration, layout, or listed quantities of items included in the estimate. Should the Project, site configuration, or listed quantities change during final design or over the life of the Project, the cost estimate and financial assurance will be updated. \\langan.com\data\WPW\data3\190108301\Project Data\_Discipline\Site Civil\Reports\2025-01-23 decomm report\2025-01-23 Yorktown Decommissioning Plan.docx Yorktown Energy Storage System 3666 Old Yorktown Road Town of Yorktown, New York Appendix A: Decommissioning Cost Estimate ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS YORKTOWN ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM Town of Yorktown, New York Langan Project No. 190108301 January 22, 2025 QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST I. DISASSEMBLY & DISPOSAL 1.0 Overhead and Management Removal Activities 1.00 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 2.0 Transformer(s) with foundations 2 EA 1,710.00$ 3,420.00$ 3.0 Battery Storage Container(s) with foundations 6 EA 1,995.00$ 11,970.00$ 4.0 Fence 349 LF 3.90$ 1,361.10$ 5.0 Gravel Access Yard & Drive 556 CY 18.00$ 10,010.00$ 6.0 Batteries 1.00 LS 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ SUBTOTAL 66,761.10$ II. SITE RESTORATION 1.0 Re-Seeding (fenced area only)0.2 AC 1,500.00$ 300.00$ 2.0 Re-Grading (gravel area & road)556 CY 4.00$ 2,224.44$ SUBTOTAL 2,524.44$ III. SALVAGE 1.0 Transformer(s)2 EA.823.00$ 1,650.00$ 2.0 Battery Storage Container(s)24 Ton 610.00$ 14,930.00$ 3.0 Fence 5,364 LBS.0.07$ 375.48$ SUBTOTAL 16,955.48$ IV. NET DECOMMISSIONING COSTS Disassembly, Disposal & Site Restoration 69,285.54$ Disassembly, Disposal & Site Restoration (25 years @ 2% inflation rate)113,670.28$ Salvage Value (25 years)16,955.48$ Net Decommissioning Costs 96,714.80$ DESCRIPTION OF ITEM \\langan.com\data\WPW\data3\190108301\Project Data\_Discipline\Site Civil\Cost Estimates\decomm\2025-01-22 Yorktown BESS Decomm Estimate.xlsx Page 1 of 2 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS YORKTOWN ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM Town of Yorktown, New York Langan Project No. 190108301 January 22, 2025 NOTES: ASSUMPTIONS/EXCLUSIONS: Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Geology, D.P.C. Michael Finan, PE, LEED-AP Date Principal/VP 4. Line item #IV assumes a 2% annual increase in labor costs over a 25-year period. 2. Line item #I.4.0 includes removal of fence and all appurtenances, including but not limited to footings, and posts. 3. Line item #I.6.0 includes removal, packaging prepared for shipping and transportation of the batteries. The technology supplier includes battery recycling as part of the purchase contract. 1. This Engineer's estimate is based on a set of plans titled "Site Plan/Special Use Permit Review Drawings for Yorktown Energy Storage System", prepared by Langan, last revised 1/10/2025. 2. This Engineer’s estimate represents an opinion of the probable costs of construction, within a reasonable degree of certainty. It is based on our experience and qualifications as an engineer and shall be deemed to represent our opinion and judgment. This estimate does not guarantee the cost of labor, material, or equipment, nor the means, methods and procedures of the Contractor's work as determined by the Contractor and/or Owner, nor the competitive bidding submissions. This estimate cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual costs will be the same as or within any specific percentage of this estimate of probable construction cost. 3. It is a violation of the NYS Education Law Article 145 for any person, unless he is acting under the direction of a licensed Professional Engineer, to alter this item in any way. 1. This estimate does not include permit/application fees or potential environmental remediation costs. \\langan.com\data\WPW\data3\190108301\Project Data\_Discipline\Site Civil\Cost Estimates\decomm\2025-01-22 Yorktown BESS Decomm Estimate.xlsx Page 2 of 2 1/23/2025 TB Ref. Chapter 300 – Battery Energy Storage Systms (1) (a) [1] [2] [3] [4] (2) (1) (2) (3) (4) (a) (b) A system consisting of electrochemical storage batteries, battery chargers, controls, power conditioning systems and associated electrical equipment, assembled together, capable of storing energy in order to supply electrical energy at a future time, not to include a stand-alone twelve-volt car battery or an electric motor vehicle. A battery energy storage system is classified as a Tier 1 or Tier 2 battery energy storage system as follows: Tier 1 battery energy storage systems have an aggregate energy capacity less than or equal to 600 kWh and, if in a room or enclosed area, consist of only a single energy storage system technology. Battery energy storage systems for one- to two-family residential dwellings within or outside the structure with an aggregate energy capacity that shall not exceed: Forty kWh within utility closets and storage or utility spaces. Eighty kWh in attached or detached garages and detached accessory structures. Eighty kWh on exterior walls. Eighty kWh outdoors on the ground. Tier 2 battery energy storage systems have an aggregate energy capacity greater than 600 kWh or are comprised of more than one storage battery technology in a room or enclosed area. CELL The basic electrochemical unit, characterized by an anode and a cathode, used to receive, store, and deliver electrical energy. COMMISSIONING A systematic process that provides documented confirmation that a battery energy storage system functions according to the intended design criteria and complies with applicable code requirements. DEDICATED-USE BUILDING A building that is built for the primary intention of housing battery energy storage system equipment and is classified as Group F-1 occupancy as defined in the International Building Code. It is constructed in accordance with the Uniform Code, and it complies with the following: The building's only permitted primary use is for battery energy storage, energy generation, and other electrical grid-related operations. No other occupancy types are permitted in the building. Occupants in the rooms and areas containing battery-energy storage systems are limited to personnel that operate, maintain, service, test, and repair the battery energy storage system and other energy systems. Administrative and support personnel are permitted in incidental-use areas within the buildings that do not contain battery energy storage system, provided the following: The areas do not occupy more than 10% of the building area of the story in which they are located. A means of egress is provided from the incidental-use areas to a public way that does not require occupants to traverse through areas containing battery energy storage systems or other energy systems. DWELLING UNIT A building or portion thereof or immobile house trailer, which is used, occupied or maintained as living quarters for one family only and providing complete housekeeping facilities; except 2/7/25, 3:03 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Battery energy storage systems. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=36677504 2/9 that for specialized housing as provided for in RSP Districts, living quarters may consist of sleeping accommodations only, plus individual bathrooms, such dwelling unit having one full kitchen only, free access within the dwelling unit on all floors, one main entrance and only one meter each for gas, electricity and water. ENERGY CODE The New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code adopted pursuant to Article 11 of the Energy Law, as currently in effect and as hereafter amended from time to time. FIRE CODE The fire code section of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code adopted pursuant to Article 18 of the Executive Law, as currently in effect and as hereafter amended from time to time. NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TESTING LABORATORY (NRTL) A U.S. Department of Labor designation recognizing a private sector organization to perform certification for certain products to ensure that they meet the requirements of both the construction and general industry OSHA electrical standards. NEC National Electric Code. NFPA National Fire Protection Association. NONDEDICATED-USE BUILDING All buildings that contain a battery energy storage system and do not comply with the dedicated-use building requirements, including all other occupancy types such as, but not limited to, commercial, industrial, offices, and multifamily housing. NONPARTICIPATING PROPERTY Any property that is not a participating property. NONPARTICIPATING RESIDENCE Any residence located on nonparticipating property. OCCUPIED COMMUNITY BUILDING Any building in Occupancy Group A, B, E, I, R, as defined in the International Building Code, including but not limited to schools, colleges, day-care facilities, hospitals, correctional facilities, public libraries, theaters, stadiums, apartments, hotels, and houses of worship. PARTICIPATING PROPERTY A battery energy storage system host property or any real property that is the subject of an agreement that provides for the payment of monetary compensation to the landowner from the battery energy storage system owner (or affiliate) regardless of whether any part of a battery energy storage system is constructed on the property. SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA The land area covered by the floodwaters of the base flood is the special flood hazard area (SFHA) on NFIP maps. The SFHA is the area where the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP's) floodplain management regulations must be enforced and the area where the mandatory purchase of flood insurance applies. UL Underwriters Laboratory, an accredited standards developer in the United States. UNIFORM CODE 2/7/25, 3:03 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Battery energy storage systems. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=36677504 3/9 D. (1) (2) E. (1) (2) (3) F. G. (1) (a) (b) (c) (2) The New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code adopted pursuant to Article 18 of the Executive Law, as currently in effect and as hereafter amended from time to time. Applicability. The requirements of this section shall apply to all batter energy storage systems permitted, installed, or modified in the Town after the effective date of this section, excluding general maintenance and repair. Battery energy storage systems constructed or installed prior to the effective date of this section shall not be required to meet the requirements of this section. Modifications to, retrofits or replacements of an existing battery energy storage system that increase the total battery energy storage system designed discharge duration or power rating shall be subject to this section. General requirements. A building permit and an electrical permit shall be required for installation of all battery energy storage systems. Issuance of special permits and approvals by the Planning Board shall include review pursuant to §§ 300-28 through 300-37 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Yorktown and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQRA). All battery energy storage systems, all dedicated use buildings, and all other buildings or structures that contain or are otherwise associated with a battery energy storage system and subject to the Uniform Code and/or the Energy Code shall be designed, erected, and installed in accordance with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Code, all applicable provisions of the Energy Code, and all applicable provisions of the codes, regulations, and industry standards as referenced in the Uniform Code, the Energy Code, and the Town Code. Permitting requirements for Tier 1 battery energy storage systems. Tier 1 battery energy storage systems shall be permitted in all zoning districts and shall be subject to the general requirements set forth above. Permitting requirements for Tier 2 battery energy storage systems. Tier 2 battery energy storage systems are permitted through the issuance of a special use permit within all zoning districts, and subject to the Uniform Code and site plan application requirements set forth in this section. Applications for the installation of Tier 2 battery energy storage system shall: Address all matters listed in this section, including, but not necessarily limited to, compliance with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Code and all applicable provisions of the Energy Code and matters relating to the proposed battery energy storage system and floodplain, utility lines and electrical circuitry, signage, lighting, vegetation and tree- cutting, noise, decommissioning, site plan and development, special use and development, ownership changes, safety, permit time frame and abandonment. The Planning Board may require additional information pursuant to requirements in Chapter 195, Land Development, and Chapter 300, Zoning, of the Code of the Town of Yorktown. Subject to a public hearing to hear all comments for and against the application pursuant to Town Law § 274-b and Chapter 205 of the Code of the Town of Yorktown. Be referred to the County Planning Department pursuant to General Municipal Law § 239- m if required and referred to interested and involved agencies pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8, of the Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQRA). Floodplain. Battery energy storage systems are prohibited in designated floodplains and flood zones. 2/7/25, 3:03 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Battery energy storage systems. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=36677504 4/9 (3) (4) (a) (b) (5) (6) (7) (8) (a) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Utility lines and electrical circuitry. All on-site utility lines shall be placed underground to the extent feasible and as permitted by the serving utility, with the exception of the main service connection at the utility company right-of-way and any new interconnection equipment, including without limitation any poles, with new easements and right-of-way. Signage. Signage shall be in compliance with ANSI Z535 and shall include the type of technology associated with the battery energy storage systems, any special hazards associated, the type of suppression system installed in the area of battery energy storage systems, and twenty-four-hour emergency contact information, including reach-back phone number. As required by the NEC, disconnect and other emergency shutoff information shall be clearly displayed on a light-reflective surface. A clearly visible warning sign concerning voltage shall be placed at the base of all pad-mounted transformers and substations. Lighting. Lighting of the battery energy storage systems shall be limited to that minimally required for safety and operational purposes and shall be reasonably shielded and downcast from abutting properties. Vegetation and tree cutting. Areas within 20 feet on each side of Tier 2 battery energy storage systems shall be cleared of combustible vegetation and other combustible growth. Single specimens of trees, shrubbery, or cultivated ground cover, such as green grass, ivy, succulents, or similar plants used as ground covers shall be permitted to be exempt, provided that they do not form a means of readily transmitting fire. Noise. The one-hour average noise generated from the battery energy storage systems, components, and associated ancillary equipment shall not exceed a noise level of 60 dBA as measured at the outside wall of any nonparticipating residence and occupied community building. Applicants may submit equipment and component manufacturers' noise ratings to demonstrate compliance. The applicant may be required to provide operating sound pressure level measurements from a reasonable number of sampled locations at the perimeter of the battery energy storage system to demonstrate compliance with this standard. Decommissioning. Decommissioning plan. The applicant shall submit a decommissioning plan developed in accordance with the Uniform Code, containing a narrative description of the activities to be accomplished for removing the energy storage system from service, and from the facility in which it is located. The decommissioning plan shall also include: A narrative description of the activities to be accomplished, including who will perform that activity and at what point in time, for complete physical removal of all battery energy storage system components, structures, equipment, security barriers, and transmission lines from the site; Disposal of all solid and hazardous waste in accordance with local, state, and federal waste disposal regulations; The anticipated life of the battery energy storage system; The estimated decommissioning costs and how said estimate was determined; The method of ensuring that funds will be available for decommissioning and restoration; The method that the decommissioning cost will be kept current; The manner in which the battery energy storage system will be decommissioned, and the site restored, including a description of how any changes to the surrounding areas and other systems adjacent to the battery energy storage system, such as, but not limited to, structural elements, building penetrations, means of egress, and required 2/7/25, 3:03 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Battery energy storage systems. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=36677504 5/9 [8] (b) (9) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) [1] [2] (i) fire detection suppression systems, will be protected during decommissioning and confirmed as being acceptable after the system is removed; and A listing of any contingencies for removing an intact operational energy storage system from service, and for removing an energy storage system from service that has been damaged by a fire or other event. Decommissioning fund. The applicant, or successors, shall continuously maintain a fund or bond payable to the Town, in a form approved by the Town, for the removal of the battery energy storage system, in an amount to be determined by the Town, for the period of the life of the facility. This fund may consist of a letter of credit from a State of New York licensed financial institution. All costs of the financial security shall be borne by the applicant. Site plan application. Tier 2 battery energy storage systems shall require site plan approval. Any site plan application shall include the following information: Property lines and physical features, including roads, for the project site. Proposed changes to the landscape of the site, grading, vegetation clearing and planting, exterior lighting, and screening vegetation or structures. A one- or three-line electrical diagram detailing the battery energy storage system layout, associated components, and electrical interconnection methods, with all National Electrical Code compliant disconnects and over current devices. A preliminary equipment specification sheet that documents the proposed battery energy storage system components, inverters and associated electrical equipment that are to be installed. A final equipment specification sheet shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. Name, address, and contact information of proposed or potential system installer and the owner and/or operator of the battery energy storage system. Such information of the final system installer shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. Name, address, phone number, and signature of the project applicant, as well as all the property owners, demonstrating their consent to the application and the use of the property for the battery energy storage system. Zoning district designation for the parcel(s) of land comprising the project site. Commissioning plan. Such plan shall document and verify that the system and its associated controls and safety systems are in proper working condition per requirements set forth in the Uniform Code. Where commissioning is required by the Uniform Code, battery energy storage system commissioning shall be conducted by a New York State (NYS) licensed professional engineer after the installation is complete but prior to final inspection and approval. A corrective action plan shall be developed for any open or continuing issues that are allowed to be continued after commissioning. A report describing the results of the system commissioning and including the results of the initial acceptance testing required in the Uniform Code shall be provided to the Planning Board prior to final inspection and approval and maintained at an approved on-site location. Energy storage system commissioning shall not be required for lead-acid and nickel- cadmium battery systems at facilities under the exclusive control of communications utilities that comply with NFPA 76 and operate at less than 50 VAC and 60 VDC. Fire safety compliance plan. Such plan shall document and verify that the system and its associated controls and safety systems are in compliance with the Uniform Code. 2/7/25, 3:03 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Battery energy storage systems. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=36677504 6/9 (j) (k) (l) (m) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (10) (a) System and property operation and maintenance manual. Such plan shall describe continuing battery energy storage system maintenance and property upkeep, as well as design, construction, installation, testing and commissioning information and shall meet all requirements set forth in the Uniform Code. Erosion and sediment control and stormwater management plans prepared to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation standards, if applicable, and to such standards as may be established by the Planning Board. Prior to the issuance of the building permit or final approval by the Planning Board, but not required as part of the application, engineering documents must be signed and sealed by a NYS licensed professional engineer. An emergency operations plan. A copy of the approved emergency operations plan shall be given to the system owner, the local fire department, and local fire code official. A permanent copy shall also be placed in an approved location to be accessible to facility personnel, fire code officials, and emergency responders. The emergency operations plan shall include the following information: Procedures for safe shutdown, de-energizing, or isolation of equipment and systems under emergency conditions to reduce the risk of fire, electric shock, and personal injuries, and for safe start-up following cessation of emergency conditions. Procedures for inspection and testing of associated alarms, interlocks, and controls. Procedures to be followed in response to notifications from the battery energy storage management system, when provided, that could signify potentially dangerous conditions, including shutting down equipment, summoning service and repair personnel, and providing agreed upon notification to fire department personnel for potentially hazardous conditions in the event of a system failure. Emergency procedures to be followed in case of fire, explosion, release of liquids or vapors, damage to critical moving parts, or other potentially dangerous conditions. Procedures can include sounding the alarm, notifying the fire department, evacuating personnel, de-energizing equipment, and controlling and extinguishing the fire. Procedures must follow all applicable local, state and national codes. Response considerations similar to a safety data sheet (SDS) that will address response safety concerns and extinguishment when an SDS is not required. Procedures for dealing with battery energy storage system equipment damaged in a fire or other emergency event, including maintaining contact information for personnel qualified to safely remove damaged battery energy storage system equipment from the facility. Other procedures as determined necessary by the Town to provide for the safety of occupants, neighboring properties, and emergency responders. Procedures and schedules for conducting drills of these procedures and for training local first responders on the contents of the plan and appropriate response procedures. The Planning Board may require additional information not specifically contained herein that would be necessary to provide to the greatest extent practicable, maximum protection of the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Special use permit standards. Lot size. Tier 2 battery energy storage systems shall be located on lots with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. 2/7/25, 3:03 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Battery energy storage systems. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=36677504 7/9 (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (11) H. (1) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Lot coverage. Lot coverage shall not exceed 15% of the area of the lot or 33,000 square feet, whichever is less. "Lot coverage" shall mean the area formed by the outermost perimeter of the footprint of all of the equipment and battery storage units, including the clearance spaces between the individual equipment. Setbacks. Tier 2 battery energy storage systems shall comply with the setback requirements of the underlying zoning district for principal structures, provided that adequate screening can be accomplished within the allotted setback. The Planning Board may determine that the setback be increased to accommodate such required screening. Height. Tier 2 battery energy storage systems shall not exceed 15 feet in height, unless part of a larger structure housing a main use as allowed in the underlying zoning district. Fencing requirements. Tier 2 battery energy storage systems, including all mechanical equipment, shall be enclosed by a seven-foot-high fence with a self-locking gate to prevent unauthorized access unless housed in a dedicated-use building and not interfering with ventilation or exhaust ports. Type and design of fencing shall be determined by the Planning Board. Screening and visibility. A Tier 2 battery energy storage system shall be fully screened from adjacent residential properties, streets or roads on which it fronts or is visible from, and any other views, which the Planning Board determines is necessary. Views from adjacent commercial properties shall be minimized to the extent reasonably practicable and screened from streets or roads on which it fronts. Screening and buffering may be accomplished using architectural features, earth berms, landscaping, or other screening methods that will harmonize with the character of the property and surrounding area and not interfere with ventilation or exhaust ports. Ownership changes. If the owner of the battery energy storage system changes or the owner of the property changes, the special use permit shall remain in effect, provided that the successor owner or operator assumes in writing all of the obligations of the special use permit, site plan approval, and decommissioning plan. A new owner or operator of the battery energy storage system shall notify the Building Inspector of such change in ownership or operator within 30 days of the ownership change. A new owner or operator must provide such notification to the Building Inspector in writing. The special use permit and all other local approvals for the battery energy storage system would be void if a new owner or operator fails to provide written notification to the Building Inspector in the required time frame. Reinstatement of a void special use permit will be subject to the same review and approval processes for new applications under this section. Safety. System certification. Battery energy storage systems and equipment shall be listed by a nationally recognized testing laboratory to UL 9540 or CAN 9540 (Standard for Battery Energy Storage Systems and Equipment). The systems shall comply with the following codes and regulations along with all other applicable local, state, and national codes for installation, operation, and emergency procedures: UL 1973 (Standard for Batteries for Use in Stationary, Vehicle Auxiliary Power and Light Electric Rail Applications). UL 1642 (Standard for Lithium Batteries). UL 1741 or UL 62109 (inverters and power converters). Certified under the applicable electrical, building, and fire prevention codes as required. Alternatively, field evaluation by an approved testing laboratory for compliance with UL 9540 and applicable codes, regulations and safety standards may be used to meet system certification requirements. 2/7/25, 3:03 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Battery energy storage systems. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=36677504 8/9 (f) (2) (3) I. (1) (2) J. K. L. NFPA 855, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems, 2020 Edition. Site access. Battery energy storage systems shall be maintained in good working order and in accordance with industry standards. Site access shall be maintained, including snow removal, in accordance with the conditions and parameters set forth in the special use permit, building permit, or electrical permit, and notwithstanding any provisions therein, at a level acceptable to the local fire department and, if the Tier 2 battery energy storage system is located in an ambulance district, the local ambulance corps. All battery energy storage systems must undergo regular inspections at intervals specified in the plans and documents approved under this section. Battery energy storage systems, components, and associated ancillary equipment shall have required working space clearances, and electrical circuitry shall be within weatherproof enclosures marked with the environmental rating suitable for the type of exposure in compliance with NFPA 70. Permit time frame and abandonment. The special use permit and site plan approval for a battery energy storage system shall be valid for a period of 24 months, provided that a building permit is issued for construction and construction is commenced. In the event construction is not completed in accordance with the final site plan, as may have been amended and approved, as required by the Planning Board, within 24 months after approval, the applicant or the Town may extend the time to complete construction for 180 days. If the owner and/or operator fails to perform substantial construction after 36 months, the approvals shall expire. The battery energy storage system shall be considered abandoned when it ceases to operate consistently for more than one year. If the owner and/or operator fails to comply with decommissioning upon any abandonment, the Town may, at its discretion, utilize the available bond and/or security for the removal of a Tier 2 battery energy storage system and restoration of the site in accordance with the decommissioning plan. Enforcement. Any violation of this battery energy storage system section shall be subject to the same enforcement requirements, including the civil and criminal penalties, provided for in the zoning or land use regulations of Town. Severability. The invalidity or unenforceability of any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, provision, or phrase of the aforementioned sections, as declared by the valid judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, provision, or phrase, which shall remain in full force and effect. Conflicts with other provisions of this Chapter 300, Zoning. Any provision of this section that conflicts with other provisions of this chapter take precedence and shall be enforceable as it pertains to uses under this section only. 2/7/25, 3:03 PM Town of Yorktown, NY Battery energy storage systems. https://ecode360.com/print/YO1560?guid=36677504 9/9 TOWN OF YORKTOWN TOWN BOARD Resolved, the Town Clerk is authorized to refer out to appropriate agencies for their review and/or recommendation a proposed local law amending Chapter 300 entitled “ZONING,” regarding Battery Energy Storage Systems. Further Resolved, the Town Board declares its intent to act as Lead Agency. We are transmitting the following referral for your review and recommendations and ask that you respond back to the Town Clerk by February 21, 2025. TO: Westchester County File Planning Department / Board Town Clerk Dept. of Public Works ABACA Dept. of Health Building Inspector Parks & Recreation Community Housing Board Environmental Facilities Conservation Board Soil & Water Fire: Lake Mohegan Yorktown New York State Highway Dept. DEC New Paltz (Region III) Open Space Committee DOT Planning Dept. / Board (6) Parks & Recreation Police Dept. Public Safety Committee NYC DEP Recreation Commission Army Corp. of Engineers School District: Yorktown Bordering Municipality Lakeland Town of Cortlandt Town Attorney Town of Ossining Town Board Town of Somers Town Engineer Town of Putnam Valley Tree Conservation Advisory Committee Water Department HV Gateway Chamber of Commerce Wetlands Inspector Other Yorktown Land Trust Other – Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: DIANA L. QUAST, YORKTOWN TOWN CLERK, MASTER MUNICIPAL CLERK SUBJECT: We are transmitting the following: Proposed Local Law amending Chapter 300 – Battery Energy Storage Systems, and EAF DATE: January 15, 2025 Application/Petition Report Drawings Permit Application EAF SEQRA Scope EAF Addendum Other – Proposed Local Law FOR YOUR: Information Review Comment 1 A LOCAL LAW to amend Chapter 300 of the Code of the Town of Yorktown entitled “ZONING” Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Yorktown as follows: Section I. Statement of Authority. This local law is authorized by the New York State Constitution, the provisions of the New York Municipal Home Rule Law, the relevant provisions of the Town Law of the State of New York, the laws of the Town of Yorktown and the general police power vested with the Town of Yorktown to promote the health, safety and welfare of all residents and property owners in the Town. Section II. Section 300-81.5 of the Code of the Town of Yorktown is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 300 of the Code of the Town of Yorktown is hereby amended by adding the following new section 300-11(J): § 300-11(J). Battery energy storage systems. A. Authority. This Battery Energy Storage System Law is adopted pursuant to Article IX of the New York State Constitution, § 2(c)(6) and (10), New York Statute of Local Governments, § 10, Subdivisions 1 and 7, §§ 261 through 263 of the Town Law, and § 10 of the Municipal Home Rule of the State of New York, which authorize the Town to adopt zoning provisions that advance and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. B. Statement of purpose. This Battery Energy Storage System Law is adopted to advance and protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the Town by creating regulations for the installation and use of battery energy storage systems, with the following objectives: (1) To provide a regulatory scheme for the designation of properties suitable for the location, construction and operation of battery energy storage systems; (2) To protect the health, welfare, safety, and quality of life for the general public; (3) To ensure compatible land uses in the vicinity of the areas affected by battery energy storage systems; (4) To mitigate the impacts of battery energy storage systems on environmental resources such as important agricultural lands, forests, wildlife and other protected resources; and (5) To create synergy between battery energy storage system development and other stated goals of the community pursuant to Yorktown's Comprehensive Plan. C. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the meanings 2 indicated: ANSI — American National Standards Institute. BATTERY — A single cell or a group of cells connected together electrically in series, in parallel, or a combination of both, which can charge, discharge, and store energy electrochemically. For the purposes of this section, batteries utilized in consumer products are excluded from these requirements. BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM — An electronic system that protects storage batteries from operating outside their safe operating parameters and disconnects electrical power to the energy storage system or places it in a safe condition if potentially hazardous temperatures or other conditions are detected. The system generates an alarm and trouble signal for off normal conditions. BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM — A system consisting of electrochemical storage batteries, battery chargers, controls, power conditioning systems and associated electrical equipment, assembled together, capable of storing energy in order to supply electrical energy at a future time, not to include a stand-alone twelve-volt car battery or an electric motor vehicle. A battery energy storage system is classified as a Tier 1 or Tier 2 battery energy storage system as follows: (1) Tier 1 battery energy storage systems have an aggregate energy capacity less than or equal to 80 kWh and, if in a room or enclosed area, consist of only a single energy storage system technology. (a) Battery energy storage systems for one- to two-family residential dwellings within or outside the structure with an aggregate energy capacity that shall not exceed: [1] Forty kWh within utility closets and storage or utility spaces. [2] Eighty kWh in attached or detached garages and detached accessory structures. [3] Eighty kWh on exterior walls. [4] Eighty kWh outdoors on the ground. (2) Tier 2 battery energy storage systems have an aggregate energy capacity greater than 80 kWh or are comprised of more than one storage battery technology in a room or enclosed area. CELL — The basic electrochemical unit, characterized by an anode and a cathode, used to receive, store, and deliver electrical energy. COMMISSIONING — A systematic process that provides documented confirmation that a battery energy storage system functions according to the intended design criteria and complies with applicable code requirements. DEDICATED-USE BUILDING — A building that is built for the primary intention of housing battery energy storage system equipment and is classified as Group F-1 occupancy as defined in the International Building Code. It is constructed in accordance with the Uniform Code, and it complies with the following: 3 (1) The building's only permitted primary use is for battery energy storage, energy generation, and other electrical grid-related operations. (2) No other occupancy types are permitted in the building. (3) Occupants in the rooms and areas containing battery-energy storage systems are limited to personnel that operate, maintain, service, test, and repair the battery energy storage system and other energy systems. (4) Administrative and support personnel are permitted in incidental-use areas within the buildings that do not contain battery energy storage system, provided the following: (a) The areas do not occupy more than 10% of the building area of the story in which they are located. (b) A means of egress is provided from the incidental-use areas to a public way that does not require occupants to traverse through areas containing battery energy storage systems or other energy systems. DWELLING UNIT — A building or portion thereof or immobile house trailer, which is used, occupied or maintained as living quarters for one family only and providing complete housekeeping facilities; except that for specialized housing as provided for in RSP Districts, living quarters may consist of sleeping accommodations only, plus individual bathrooms, such dwelling unit having one full kitchen only, free access within the dwelling unit on all floors, one main entrance and only one meter each for gas, electricity and water. ENERGY CODE — The New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code adopted pursuant to Article 11 of the Energy Law, as currently in effect and as hereafter amended from time to time. FIRE CODE — The fire code section of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code adopted pursuant to Article 18 of the Executive Law, as currently in effect and as hereafter amended from time to time. NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TESTING LABORATORY (NRTL) — A U.S. Department of Labor designation recognizing a private sector organization to perform certification for certain products to ensure that they meet the requirements of both the construction and general industry OSHA electrical standards. NEC — National Electric Code. NFPA — National Fire Protection Association. NONDEDICATED-USE BUILDING — All buildings that contain a battery energy storage system and do not comply with the dedicated-use building requirements, including all other occupancy types such as, but not limited to, commercial, industrial, offices, and multifamily housing. NONPARTICIPATING PROPERTY — Any property that is not a participating property. NONPARTICIPATING RESIDENCE — Any residence located on nonparticipating property. 4 OCCUPIED COMMUNITY BUILDING — Any building in Occupancy Group A, B, E, I, R, as defined in the International Building Code, including but not limited to schools, colleges, day-care facilities, hospitals, correctional facilities, public libraries, theaters, stadiums, apartments, hotels, and houses of worship. PARTICIPATING PROPERTY — A battery energy storage system host property or any real property that is the subject of an agreement that provides for the payment of monetary compensation to the landowner from the battery energy storage system owner (or affiliate) regardless of whether any part of a battery energy storage system is constructed on the property. SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA — The land area covered by the floodwaters of the base flood is the special flood hazard area (SFHA) on NFIP maps. The SFHA is the area where the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP's) floodplain management regulations must be enforced and the area where the mandatory purchase of flood insurance applies. UL — Underwriters Laboratory, an accredited standards developer in the United States. UNIFORM CODE — The New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code adopted pursuant to Article 18 of the Executive Law, as currently in effect and as hereafter amended from time to time. D. Applicability. (1) The requirements of this section shall apply to all batter energy storage systems permitted, installed, or modified in the Town after the effective date of this section, excluding general maintenance and repair. Battery energy storage systems constructed or installed prior to the effective date of this section shall not be required to meet the requirements of this section. (2) Modifications to, retrofits or replacements of an existing battery energy storage system that increase the total battery energy storage system designed discharge duration or power rating shall be subject to this section. E. General requirements. (1) A building permit and an electrical permit shall be required for installation of all battery energy storage systems. (2) All battery energy storage systems, all dedicated use buildings, and all other buildings or structures that contain or are otherwise associated with a battery energy storage system and subject to the Uniform Code and/or the Energy Code shall be designed, erected, and installed in accordance with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Code, all applicable provisions of the Energy Code, and all applicable provisions of the codes, regulations, and industry standards as referenced in the Uniform Code, the Energy Code, and the Town Code. F. Permitting requirements for Tier 1 battery energy storage systems. Tier 1 battery energy storage systems shall be permitted in all zoning districts, shall be authorized through the issuance of a building permit, and shall be subject to the general requirements set forth above. 5 G. Tier 2 battery energy storage systems are prohibited within all zoning districts in the Town of Yorktown. H. Safety. (1) System certification. Battery energy storage systems and equipment shall be listed by a nationally recognized testing laboratory to UL 9540 or CAN 9540 (Standard for Battery Energy Storage Systems and Equipment). The systems shall comply with the following codes and regulations along with all other applicable local, state, and national codes for installation, operation, and emergency procedures: (a) UL 1973 (Standard for Batteries for Use in Stationary, Vehicle Auxiliary Power and Light Electric Rail Applications). (b) UL 1642 (Standard for Lithium Batteries). (c) UL 1741 or UL 62109 (inverters and power converters). (d) Certified under the applicable electrical, building, and fire prevention codes as required. (e) Alternatively, field evaluation by an approved testing laboratory for compliance with UL 9540 and applicable codes, regulations and safety standards may be used to meet system certification requirements. (f) NFPA 855, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems, 2020 Edition. (2) Site access. Battery energy storage systems shall be maintained in good working order and in accordance with industry standards. Site access shall be maintained, including snow removal, in accordance with the conditions and parameters set forth in the building permit, or electrical permit, and notwithstanding any provisions therein, at a level acceptable to the local fire department and the local ambulance corps. All battery energy storage systems must undergo regular inspections at intervals specified in the plans and documents approved under this section. (3) Battery energy storage systems, components, and associated ancillary equipment shall have required working space clearances, and electrical circuitry shall be within weatherproof enclosures marked with the environmental rating suitable for the type of exposure in compliance with NFPA 70. I. Permit time frame and abandonment. (1) The approval for a battery energy storage system shall be valid for a period of 12 months, provided that a building permit is issued for construction and construction is commenced. (2) The battery energy storage system shall be considered abandoned when it ceases to operate consistently for more than one year. J. Enforcement. Any violation of this battery energy storage system section shall be subject 6 to the same enforcement requirements, including the civil and criminal penalties, provided for in the zoning or land use regulations of Town. K. Severability. The invalidity or unenforceability of any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, provision, or phrase of the aforementioned sections, as declared by the valid judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, provision, or phrase, which shall remain in full force and effect. L. Conflicts with other provisions of this Chapter 300, Zoning. Any provision of this section that conflicts with other provisions of this chapter take precedence and shall be enforceable as it pertains to uses under this section only. Section III. Severability. If any clause, sentence, phrase, paragraph or any part of this local law shall for any reason be adjudicated finally by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this local law, but shall be confined in its operation and effect to the clause, sentence, phrase, paragraph or part thereof, directly involved in the controversy or action in which such judgment shall have been rendered. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that the remainder of this local law would have been adopted had any such provisions been excluded. Section IV. Repeal All ordinances, local laws and parts thereof inconsistent with this Local Law are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency. Section V. Effective Date. This local law shall become effective upon filing in the office of the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law.