Orleans wind-power panel starts with 5 members

By JAEGUN LEE
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2008

LAFARGEVILLLE — The town of Orleans plans to create a Citizens Wind Committee in January, but with fewer members than anticipated.

Town Supervisor Donna J. Chatterton said the committee will start with five members. The town was initially looking for up to nine residents to serve on the proposed wind committee that would help the Town Council make informed decisions regarding wind development.

 Continue reading via this link to the Watertown Times

Put residents first when drafting wind law - letter

Watertown Daily Times | Put residents first when drafting wind law

MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2008
Both developers of wind farms in the town of Cape Vincent have asked for a quick conclusion to the wind law committee's work. Well, what a surprise. The developers thought that the town had been bought and paid for and now that the town fathers are giving the appearance of concern toward the citizens they serve, the developers are becoming impatient.

The article in the Dec. 21 Sunday Times said that representatives from Acciona talked to Supervisor Thomas Rienbeck the day after the last wind law committee meeting expressing concern about time frames.
Continue reading via this link

22 wind turbines complete in project

By JAEGUN LEE

TIMES STAFF WRITER

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2008

WOLFE ISLAND — Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. has erected 22 wind turbines at the 86-turbine Wolfe Island Wind Farm so far and the completion of the project is only three months away.

Lindsey Moen, communications coordinator of Canadian Hydro Developers Inc., said the construction work for the $450-million, 197.8-megawatt wind farm project has slowed through the holidays, but major activities will resume after Jan. 5.

The wind farm is scheduled to be completed by March 31, Ms. Moen said.

Continue reading via this link

Wolfe Island 22 wind turbines complete in project

22 wind turbines complete in project
By JAEGUN LEE
TIMES STAFF WRITER
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2008
WOLFE ISLAND — Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. has erected 22 wind turbines at the 86-turbine Wolfe Island Wind Farm so far and the completion of the project is only three months away.

Lindsey Moen, communications coordinator of Canadian Hydro Developers Inc., said the construction work for the $450-million, 197.8-megawatt wind farm project has slowed through the holidays, but major activities will resume after Jan. 5.

The wind farm is scheduled to be completed by March 31, Ms. Moen said.


Link here to original

Open wind committee meetings to public ~ Letter

Open wind committee meetings to public
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2008

As someone who's attended most of Clayton's town board meetings for a couple of years, I'd like to comment on public participation rules and the wind committee.

I agree there's need for a public meeting format that facilitates normal town business, while giving the public opportunities to speak on agenda items and/or anything else. After reading the written rules and some conversations, I see nothing that prohibits me from speaking to the board on any issue, alleviating my initial reservations. The time limits are short but seem flexible. Thus, the rules appear fair enough, and the format might benefit public participation.

 Continue
 Open wind committee meetings to public

Developers Push For Wind Farm Rules

CAPE VINCENT ZONING:
Acciona, BP call for quick decision on siting law so they can get to work on plans
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2008

CAPE VINCENT — Both developers of wind farms in the town have asked for a quick conclusion to the wind law committee's work.

After the committee met Thursday afternoon, representatives from Acciona talked to Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck. He said Friday that they expressed concern about the time frame remaining on the development of a zoning law that will govern turbine siting.
~~
Continue reading
Acciona, BP call for quick decision on siting law so they can get to work on plans

Wind panel to meet secretly

Wind panel to meet secretly

By JAEGUN LEE
TIMES STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2008

CLAYTON — The newly formed Wind Law Review Committee will meet in secret for several months before it makes recommendations to the Town Council regarding wind turbine noise and setbacks.

The 10-member committee plans to hold its first meeting in January. The group will gather community input and also discuss potential health risks related to wind farms.
~~~
Continue reading
Wind panel to meet secretly

JCIDA asked to hurry uniform wind PILOTs

JCIDA asked to hurry uniform wind PILOTs
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2008

A local wind power developer asked for speed from the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency on creating a uniform tax-exempt policy.

"The need for a uniform policy is great," said BP Alternative Energy representative John S. Harris, attorney with McKenna Long and Aldridge, Albany. "It certainly allows BP to make a business decision to move forward. We are willing to engage in dialogue on what makes sense."
~~~~~

Continue reading
JCIDA asked to hurry uniform wind PILOTs

Cape meeting to discuss municipal wind farms

TIMES STAFF WRITER
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2008

Link here
CAPE VINCENT — A group of landowners interested in publicly owned wind farms is hosting an informational meeting on municipal wind projects.

The forum will be from 1 to 3 p.m. Dec. 13 at the Cape Vincent Recreation Park, 602 S. James St.

"It will give us another perspective," said Hester M. Chase.

MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT CAPE VINCENT'S WIND TURBINE PLANS ~ Letter

This letter by Noel Bonvouloir was posted in the Watertown Daily Times Letters from the people   Nov 28, 2008.
In response to this letter, Harvey White wrote a rebuttal letter to the Watertown Times.
~~~~~

After the flip-flop decision by the Cape Vincent committee to move the setback of the wind towers, I started to notice the way things are apparently handled in this small town.
The committee set up by the town supervisor is to set acceptable noise levels and setbacks. The chairman of the committee is also the town supervisor. He then appoints other town and village officers along with property owners receiving towers and one or two outsiders.
I asked some questions from some members on why the switch from one week to the next about the setback in the agricultural district. I got comments like, "It's all swamp out there and it's useless land." I even saw them mentioned in the papers. Also, that it's agricultural land and that's what it is going to be used for.


Continue reading via this link to the [WDT archives]

Low-frequency noise linked to heart attacks

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2008

In an Oct. 9 letter to the Watertown Daily Times, I presented an article from the European Heart Journal authored by Dr. Stefan Willich et al. that suggested low-frequency noise may be related to heart attacks and that women seemed disproportionately at risk.

Dawn M. Munk of Three Mile Bay responded to my letter by bringing to our attention a critique by Dr. Wolfgang Babish (Oct. 25). Dr. Babish found fault with the way Dr. Willich's group had managed their data and took issue with the suggestion that noise affected women to a greater extent than men. In the meantime, Dr. Babish published a study suggesting men are at greater risk of heart attacks related to noise than women (Epidemiology, volume 16, 33-44, 2005). [Watertown Times]

Hammond anti-wind-law group growing

Hammond anti-wind-law group growing

TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2008

HAMMOND — A group in Hammond aimed at overturning the recent wind farm law has been growing steadily in numbers and influence.

Concerned Residents of Hammond, which began in late October after the town enacted a law regarding the creation of wind farms, has grown from 25 to 70 members.
~~
 Continue reading

Hammond anti-wind-law group growing

Wind panel sets noise-level protocol

By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2008

CAPE VINCENT — The town wind law committee created to produce a zoning amendment to deal with wind farms added a sound measurement protocol and changed setbacks from roads during its meeting Thursday afternoon.

The sound protocol came from recommendations from the acoustical engineering firm Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass., based on a wind development zoning law written for the Association of Towns and rules for noise studies written by Cape Vincent resident Clifford P. Schneider.

 Continue reading via this link to the Watertown Times

Clayton, Orleans organizing wind law committees

Clayton, Orleans organizing wind law committees
By JAEGUN LEE
TIMES STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2008

Link here

CLAYTON — Two towns involved in the proposed 62-turbine Horse Creek Wind Farm, Clayton and Orleans, will create separate committees to gather community input for a possible wind law.

The town of Clayton will soon form a 10-member "Wind Law Review Committee" to craft a local law setting noise limits for wind turbines and establish setbacks for wind farms.

 Link here

Put brakes on Hammond wind law~ letter

Put brakes on Hammond wind law


WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2008

On Oct. 28, the Hammond town board passed the Hammond Wind Law, which will allow wind companies to erect 600-foot wind turbines in a large swath encompassing Hammond from the St. Lawrence River to Black Lake.

The Concerned Residents of Hammond (CROH) is apprehensive about this law for a number of reasons. Currently, the law states that a wind turbine has to be at least 1,500 feet from a home or school. This is roughly a quarter mile, and whoever lives or works this close to a turbine is going to have to deal with a lot of noise. There is also the annoyance of the flicker effect. As the blade rotates, it throws shadows. People living and working near the turbines will have to deal with the flickering shadows on a regular basis.


Continue ~ Put brakes on Hammond wind law

Amend Clayton's wind-power zoning law ~ letter

Watertown Daily Times Amend Clayton's wind-power zoning law

Amend Clayton's wind-power zoning law
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2008


Two years ago, the Clayton Town Council approved Local Law Number One. This law defines the requirements for siting wind-generating facilities within the township's boundaries. As with all zoning laws, siting requirements are provided to protect the public health and safety and the environment, and address other concerns, including aesthetics.

Over the past two years, much has been learned about operational characteristics of these giant wind-generation machines that requires a re-examination of this weak, ineffective zoning law. Specifically, the state Department of Environmental Conservation has a guideline recommending a sound increase of no more than 6 dBa (decibels) above existing levels at property lines closest to the generators. The Clayton zoning law allows noise levels up to 50 dBa with setbacks of 1,250 feet from off-site residences, hospitals, churches and public libraries, irrespective of boundaries. Given our very quiet residual ambient, which is typically in the range of 20-35 dBa, our 50 dBa represents untenable noise inside residences and other public locations.


Continue reading
 Watertown Daily Times Amend Clayton's wind-power zoning law

NYS DEPT of Health & Their position on Wind Turbine siting

November 7, 2008
The New York state Department of Health Gives Their opinion Wind Turbines and human health...




Here is a link to the document How-to guide to criteria for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks from sound

Just add water

Just add water

By NANCY MADSEN

TIMES STAFF WRITER

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2008

ELLISBURG — The concrete-based, glass-lined water tower under construction here is only the fourth in Jefferson County.

The others are in Antwerp and Cape Vincent, and one is being built on Route 3 in the town of Watertown.

“It’s the latest in tank technology,” said Kris D. Dimmick, vice president at Bernier, Carr and Associates, Watertown. “The actual water bowl has been around for the last 30 or 40 years, but the manufacturer’s ability to put it on a concrete pedestal is the new wrinkle.”

 Continue reading Just add water

Panel seeking specifics on noise

Panel seeking specifics on noise
CAPE WIND ZONING: Group to ask engineers to evaluate gauging of turbine decibels
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2008

CAPE VINCENT — Members of the committee formed to produce a zoning amendment to deal with wind farms want specifics.

During a meeting Thursday afternoon, the committee agreed to ask the acoustical engineering firm Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass., to evaluate the noise-measuring methods in different laws. That firm panned Hessler Associates' ambient noise study in BP Alternative Energy's draft environmental impact statement for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm.
 Panel seeking specifics on noise

continue reading

Political battle brews over fate of Lee Memorial Hospital

Political battle brews over fate of Lee Memorial Hospital

by Carol Thompson

A letter sent to Senator Darrel Aubertine by Oswego County Legislator Louella LeClair has evoked a response from the Aubertine campaign suggesting that Ms. LeClair is part of the David Renzi campaign team.

Legislator LeClair, who represents the City of Fulton’s District 25, sent a letter to Aubertine Oct. 29 claiming he has misled the community with his political advertisements in which he states that he saved the A.L. Lee Memorial Hospital from closure. She followed her letter with an Oct. 30 press release that she issued herself.

 continue

Political battle brews over fate of Lee Memorial Hospital

New York Wind ethics code created

Watertown Daily Times | Wind ethics code created

Wind ethics code created
CUOMO'S IDEA:
Aim is to prevent improper dealings
By TOM WANAMAKER
TIMES ALBANY CORRESPONDENT


FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31,

ALBANY — In the wake of numerous complaints over potentially unethical activity, the state attorney general has created a voluntary Wind Industry Ethics Code for wind power developers and municipal officials In a Thursday press conference at the state Capitol, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo called the code an "institutional resolution" to investigations into the activities of two wind developers alleged to have engaged in improper dealings with local officials and anticompetitive practices. TWO COMPANIES SIGN ON "This is going to be an ongoing policy issue," Mr. Cuomo said. "We're doing the right thing for these companies and New York. We want to see these companies succeed.

 Title link to original

DARREL AUBERTINE ~ Conflicts ~ "THE LETTER"~

Paul Riede Published: Syracuse.com
Friday, October 31, 2008, 5:01 AM Updated: Friday, October 31, 2008, 9:44 AM

Attack adds we'd like to forget

Every campaign season has its memorable political commercials -- that is, commercials you'd like to forget, but just can't. This year's most memorable spots might be the ones sponsored by Republican David Renzi and Democrat Sen. Darrel Aubertine in the 48th State Senate District.

This newspaper endorsed Renzi on Oct. 19, but it certainly doesn't endorse the negative, misleading television ad he began running a few days later. With creepy music in the background, the ad shows a photo of Aubertine with piles of cash being stacked up in front of him. It says Aubertine "wrote a letter asking town board members to compromise their ethics."

 link Attack adds we'd like to forget

Fiscal crisis hasn't hurt most NNY wind farm development

Watertown Daily Times | Fiscal crisis hasn't hurt By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2008
most NNY wind farm deve

Most local wind development companies said they're sheltered from the credit market turmoil that is rocking alternative energy development.

The industry is facing investment problems and falling oil and natural gas prices, the New York Times reported Oct. 21. And the Malone Telegram has reported Noble Environmental Power suspended construction of a 14-turbine wind farm in Bellmont until July or August.

 Continue reading via this link

Wind turbines continue to surface

Wind turbines continue to surface
Posting Date: 10-29-2008

Carol Thompson
Link here
by Carol Thompson

Democrat State Senator Darrel Aubertine and his Republican opponent David Renzi have been embroiled in a heated campaign for the 48th District seat, and one of the latest salvos is the Renzi campaign citing a letter that they claim documents ethical issues they have been attributing to Aubertine.

In a letter dated June 15, 2006, Aubertine wrote to the Cape Vincent Town Board that he did not perceive it to be a conflict-of-interest for board members to vote on a contract in which they, or their family members, had evident financial interest. They are said to have had a contract with a wind-turbine company that intended to place turbines in the Town of Cape Vincent, Aubertine’s hometown.

'Wind' Letter Raises New Questions on Aubertine Ethics

Renzi Campaign Media Release

Renzi: 'Wind' Letter Raises New Questions on Aubertine Ethics
Senator tried to influence local vote on project that adds to his financial gain, Renzi campaign claims
WATERTOWN, N.Y., Oct. 22 — The Dave Renzi for State Senate campaign today released a letter written by his opponent that raises new and even more alarming questions about whether Darrel Aubertine has again ignored ethics laws, and put his personal profit before his duty as a public official.

The June 15, 2006 letter, sent by Aubertine to members of the Cape Vincent Town Board, urges officials to ignore ethics laws, and cast votes on a wind power measure, even though at least two of the five board members had a personal stake in the outcome of the vote.

“While some may feel that these elected officials should abstain from voting on this matter, my belief is that they should not … I feel it is ethically proper that in this case all board members should vote on the issue at hand.”

The “issue at hand” involved an effort by some board members that would have restricted where wind turbines could be built. Aubertine has had a secret contract since at least 2004 to build as many as 10 wind towers on land he owns. Aubertine told the Syracuse Post-Standard that the contracts could be worth up to $100,000 a year.

Two months before sending the letter, on April 12, 2006, Aubertine insisted in another news interview, that he had “deliberately stayed out of the local discussion on the project,” because of conflict of interest concerns.

“This letter raises serious questions about Darrel Aubertine’s willingness to bend and ignore ethics laws that interfere with his ability to make money for himself,” said Renzi for Senate campaign manager John J. Morgia. “It directly contradicts well-understood laws that prohibit elected officials from voting on matters that benefit them, as well as his own professed concerns about conflicts of interests and his public commitment to stay out of these local decisions.”

Within weeks of Aubertine’s letter, the Jefferson County Board of Ethics told the Town Board – in two separate opinions (Nos. 06-01 and 06-02) – that it was improper for members with interest in wind power to vote on the project – the exact opposite position as that taken by Aubertine.

“The ethics law concerning conflicts of interest and using your public position for personal gain is clear, but Darrel Aubertine has continually broken it, telling us one thing and doing another,” Morgia said.

“These questions demand answers, because voters deserve to know whose interests their Senator is trying to represent – ours or his own.”

While Aubertine’s letter to the Cape Vincent Town Board has raised ethical questions, it is interesting that he has not sent a similar letter to officials in the St. Lawrence County town of Hammond, where identical issues have been raised – and Aubertine does not have a personal financial stake. In that case, two board members with direct interests have recused themselves from wind power decisions, but Aubertine has not weighed in on that controversy.

Aubertine’s letter to the Cape Vincent Town Board is located on the sidebar of this blog

Wind turbines not hazardous to health

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2008

In a recent letter to this paper, Cape Vincent resident Dr. Ralph Janicki attempts to scare the citizens of this community by inferring that wind turbines somehow pose a risk to public health by drawing a comparison to a German study examining whether proximity to automobile traffic increases the incidence of heart attacks.

What Dr. Janicki conveniently omits from his letter is the fact that the study's conclusions have been seriously questioned by the scientists who actually carried out the sound assessments. In a letter to the European Heart Journal dated 1/31/06 in response to publication of the study referenced by Dr. Janicki, Wolfgang Babisch, et al., wrote: [Watertown Times]

Watertown Daily Times | Aubertine ~ Campaign ads, mailers misleading

Watertown Daily Times Campaign ads, mailers misleading

By JUDE SEYMOUR
TIMES STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
Excerpts~
State Senate candidates are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The latest round of mailers and television ads from both sides aren't faring well under scrutiny.

A Democratic State Committee mailer in residents' mailboxes this week distorts the facts about Republican David A. Renzi's state pension. And Mr. Renzi is misrepresenting state Sen. Darrel J. Aubertine's obligations to the state after hiring his sister. He's also using outdated information to mislead voters about what Mr. Aubertine, D-Cape Vincent, stands to receive from a private wind power contract.

 link to original Watertown Daily Times Campaign ads, mailers misleading

Acciona: only one turbine slated for Aubertine land

CAPE VINCENT — A wind energy company that is proposing a commercial wind farm in Cape Vincent may not build as many turbines on state Sen. Darrel J. Aubertine's land as the lawmaker originally thought. Continue.. .

Cape rethinks turbine areas

Watertown Daily Times Cape rethinks turbine areas

MORE LAND EYED: Zoning committee now looks to include entire town ag district
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2008

CAPE VINCENT — The members of the committee formed to produce a zoning amendment to deal with wind farms changed their minds about boundaries for the area in which turbines would be allowed.

About three weeks ago, the committee tentatively agreed to set Route 6 as the western boundary for a wind overlay district. But Wednesday afternoon, the committee decided that the entire agricultural-residential district should allow turbines.

Continue reading
Watertown Daily Times Cape rethinks turbine areas
 

RE: Cavanaugh & Tocci Acoustic sound report ~ Clayton

10/15/08

RE: Cavanaugh & Tocci Acoustic sound report is attached


Since Town of Clayton’s public hearing (only one) held May 2007, residents have complained that the noise levels in the local law 2007 are too high and not in accordance with the NYS DEC guidelines on noise standards assessing and mitigating noise impacts. ECCO over the following months showed proof to the town of the intolerable levels of noise impacts residents will face during hours of sleep in the Clayton noise analysis CH2MHILL performed by PPM Energy. It is clear to all that the local law No 1 of 2007 for wind facilities in the Town of Clayton’s noise level needs to be corrected to safe levels for the residents.

On November 25, 2007 due to letters and concerns addressed by residents on the noise concern, the Town of Clayton planning board chair Mr. Baril hired the acoustic firm of Cavanaugh & Tocci Acoustics to review Clayton’s CH2MHILL noise report for the industrial wind project. Town Supervisor informed residents at town meetings that when the report is back they would consider changes to the Local Law. Mr. Tocci completed this report 2/15/08 but the town would not accept it. Why? They said the report was too technical for the planning board to understand. Keep in mind the town retained the services of two engineers from Bernier & Carr Associates to help them in situations such as this. In fairness to the members of the planning board, they had no say in the decision not accepting the document. It was the decisions of the planning board chair and other members of the local government. Much discussion went back and forth. Finally, at the request of town supervisor for a simple brief “executive summary” to the original document Mr. Tocci complied on August 25, 2008. Mr. Baril accepted the “executive summary” only and authorized the planning board members to have a copy on 10/1/08.

The executive summary references the original report of 2/15/08. The reasons for denial of the original are unclear. The planning board members do not understand the reluctance either because they have attempted over past months of wanting to review the local law and noise impacts and proceed with the recommendations to the council to change the law. Town supervisor has told residents that the planning board must make the recommendations for change of the local law to the council first. The town states they will not review the change until the Tocci report is accepted.

Residents are perplexed why are they reluctant to have the planning board receive the original. Why is it that even without the Tocci report proof that levels of noise from the turbines in the wind district is excessive the town continues to give the residents a difficult time and fail to take no action upon their request?

On 10/8/08 residents went to the Town of Clayton council meeting to find out why. 1. Why is the original report by Tocci being denied into the town records? 2. When is the Town of Clayton going to amend the local law on sound impacts to guidelines by NYS DEC?

Answer: 1. the town of Clayton released the original Tocci report BUT did not accept it into “record” for both the planning board and the town council to use for consideration to adopt changes to the local law. Both reports are attached to this email for you to read; original and executive summary. Read the original. Do you feel our planning board with the help of professional engineers cannot comprehend the results? Do you find that the Tocci report indicates that residents living in the wind district for the wind project face high intolerable levels of noise impacts?

2. After all of this back and forth and putting residents off month after month and telling us that the local law would be considered for change depending upon the results of the acoustic consultant and when the report is received the town would then consider the residents request for changing the sound levels in the local law. Now the town supervisor on 10/8/08 states there will be no changes to the local law until PPM Energy (wind farm) reinstates the project. Oh yes I forgot town supervisor it is a lot of work, you need a public hearing etc etc we will wait until the project is reinstated. This is wrong. It could be a whole year before PPM reinstates the SEQR/application process. Suppose PPM Energy decides not to reinstate the application? This leaves the door open for another developer to submit an application. Residents will still face the same problem we now have.
The Local Law is supposed to provide to protection for the residents in the township. It has nothing to do with a wind developer’s application.

Enjoy the report. You will be enlightened.
It has been a difficult process for residents here in Clayton’s wind project in dealing with our local government. We have known from the time we received our copies of the DGEIS in April 2007 we faced this problem. It is has been a long and difficult road in our climb to get the local law amended and it looks like it will be even further. The problem should never have been their in the first place. The law was written to accommodate PPM Energy not to protect the taxpayers in the wind district. ECCO members feel this is not right.


Link here to read Clayton Turbine noise report

Clayton Town Council Meeting : 10/08/08 Recap

Clayton Town Council Meeting held last evening: 10/08/08

ECCO along with other residents attended the Clayton town council meeting and there is good news to report and bad news to report.

The original Noise report given to the Town of Clayton by Tocci & Cavanaugh Acoustic firm dated February 15, 2008 has been released to the public within the past 48 hours!!!

We would not have known the report had been made available to the public if residents had not brought up the discussion on the Tocci & Cavanaugh original sound report. Town Supervisor Taylor said to listen very carefully to him: IF you FOIL to the Town Clerk for a specific document of request you will receive that document. We were all confused what does he mean. Mr. Justin Taylor did not come out and specifically state that the Tocci and Cavanaugh original report is available by FOIL. We all were confused because this week FOIL requests for the report had been denied.

The BAD news: Residents had questions asking the Town to discuss amending the Local Law No 1 of 2007 for wind facilities in the Town of Clayton. Residents since November 2007 have asked and written this council to amend the local law on the sound level and the setbacks. Residents were told by supervisor Taylor at a Town meeting when Tocci & Cavanaugh Acoustic were retained, that when their report is returned the town then would consider residents request for amendments. Supervisor Taylor also has stated that when the council receives a recommendation from the planning board for amendments to the local law the town council would consider the recommended changes. This is no longer the case.

Town supervisor Taylor informed residents several times this evening “there will be NO consideration for changes from the council on the Local Law until the process restarts (PPM reinstates the wind farm application)!!!!! Since November 2007 the council has continued to fail in implementing any action on their part from request by residents and it is clear that they will continue their stand. This is wrong. The local law is NOT part of the application by PPM Energy. Residents did their best to bring out discussion on this. The council controls the local law and only they can amend it. There was no response from the council. Just supervisor Taylor repeating himself there will be no consideration by council to amend the local law until PPM reactivates their application and the wind farm moves forward. The uncertainty of our future may go on for a long time. PPM Energy may never reinstate this project. Other wind developers can offer their applications for their proposed project for the town.

It has been 11 long months for residents/taxpayers of this community who have appealed to this council to change to the local law to safe noise levels impacts from turbines. Taxpayers are asking this council to change present local law noise levels to the levels consistent with NYS DEC guidelines. There is nothing hard to understand about this. NYS DEC is a very reputable agency of our state.

Unsigned

Horse Creek wind farm: Noise report cover-up

http://www.windaction.org/faqs/18291Horse Creek wind farm: Noise report cover-up(Posted October 7, 2008) PPM Energy's Horse Creek Wind Farm proposal, now suspended while NY State officials evaluate the potential high bat mortality from the turbines, is the center of a sobering debate concerning preconstruction sound study reports. The proposed project consists of sixty-two industrial wind turbines spanning the towns of Clayton and Orleans in upstate New York. Over 1000 residents reside within the project's proposed footprint.
In January 2007, shortly after the Town of Clayton adopted its Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance (Local Law 1) governing placement of turbines in the town, PPM released its Noise Analysis report on the project prepared by Global engineering giant CH2M HILL. The report's summary states: "The facilities steady state noise levels are predicted to comply with the Town of Clayton's Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance limit of 50 dBA at offsite residences." It further adds "the facilities noise level may exceed the existing levels by 6 dBA at lower wind speeds but maintains compliance with the Town of Clayton's Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance limit of 50 dBA". New York State guidelines suggest that sound level increases over existing background should not exceed 6 dBA.

Serious and substantial complaints filed by Clayton residents regarding possible excessive and harmful noise impacts from the turbines prompted the Planning Board to hire acoustic engineering firm Cavanaugh Tocci Associates (CTA) of Sudbury MA to evaluate the CH2M HILL report. CTA was specifically requested to "re-evaluate noise impact per NYSDEC guidelines and Town of Clayton Local Law 1 2007 Wind Energy Facilities".

The completed CTA report was received by Clayton officials, Town Supervisor Justin Taylor and Planning Board Chairman Roland Baril, on or around February 15, 2008 but never released to other Planning Board members or the public. Apparently, CTA's report was deemed "too complicated" for review. Three Freedom of Information requests were filed with the town, including one from the local newspaper, and all were denied. Clayton Supervisor Mr. Taylor announced through the Town's engineering consultants Bernier & Carr Associates that CTA's report was sent back with the request that an executive summary be provided to help explain CTA's findings. CTA complied and delivered a 2-page summary on August 25. This summary was again held by Taylor and Baril.

During the Oct 1 regular meeting of the Clayton Planning Board, Planning Board Chairman Baril informed the attending residents as well as the Planning Board that it was the recommendation of Bernier & Carr Associates that CTA's report again be refused as too technical for public review and that CTA's executive summary would be the ONLY document released to other Board members. Taxpayers were welcome to a copy of the summary via a Freedom of Information request submitted to the Clayton Town Clerk.

According to the CTA executive summary, there are serious problems with the methodology employed by CH2M HILL in conducting its noise analysis whereby estimated background sound levels were overestimated. CTA also makes clear that participating property owners, those who've entered into lease agreements with PPM, should update their real estate deeds to reflect noise easements. CTA is clear that noise emanating from the turbines, even if compliant with Clayton's Local Law 1, will affect future property owners who might occupy a dwelling.

The problem of Wind Turbine noise is becoming more pronounced as turbines are built close to where people live. Windaction.org is tracking noise issues in numerous locations including Mars Hill, ME, Lowville, NY, Brownsville, WI, McLean County, IL, and Blair County and Meyersdale, PA, in the UK and Canada. In each of these cases, the question of noise was either never raised prior to the towers being erected or the residents were informed there would be no issue. It's remarkable the lengths PPM and some Clayton officials are going to just to avoid the question. Denying a problem exists in the face of growing evidence is unproductive and will ultimately harm the wind industry and its proponents.

Update: At Clayton's town board meeting on Oct 8, Supervisor Justin Taylor announced the CTA report would now be released to the public.

Upstate can't afford new NYPA director

Upstate can't afford new NYPA director


By GEORGE J. MARLIN SPECIAL TO THE TIMES WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2008 I was a Long Island Power Authority ratepayer during Richie Kessel's time running that agency. Richard Kessel is the old-time, career Long Island pol elected by a 4-2 vote as the New York Power Authority CEO last week after Gov. David Paterson placed two pro-Kessel votes on the NYPA Board to ensure his election. Understandably, local elected officials were cool to this bizarre announcement although the downstate delegation welcomed Kessel to the post.

 If his past is a guide, lobbyists all over the state are cheering Kessel's election. During his time at LIPA, Kessel used public money to hire and pay lobbyists of both parties — those close to then-Gov. George Pataki, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. This to represent a state entity on state issues before the state Legislature.

 Link to original  Upstate can't afford new NYPA director

Boundaries agreed to for Cape wind turbines

By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2008
CAPE VINCENT — The boundary for the wind turbine overlay district is set tentatively as Route 6 to the west and the riverfront district to the north.

The town's wind zoning amendment committee agreed to those boundaries at its meeting Thursday afternoon.

The riverfront district extends 1,000 feet south of the centerline of Route 12E from the Cape Vincent village boundary to the border with the town of Clayton. The lakefront district is excluded under the Route 6 boundary, as is a section of agricultural district land west of Route 6.

 Continue reading via this link

Session offers wind pros, cons

T.I. CENTRAL MEETING: Speakers focus on issues of electric grid, setbacks, noise
Session offers wind pros, cons
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2008

CLAYTON — The electric grid, noise and setbacks were the main topics covered at an information session Thursday night at the Thousand Islands High School auditorium.

The speakers were Steven C. Sullivan, managing director of GEOS Global and consultant to BP Alternative Energy; John Droz, scientist and environmental activist from Brantingham Lake, and Paul E. Carr, engineering professor at Cornell University, Ithaca, and a founder of Bernier, Carr & Associates.

 Continue reading via this link
T.I. CENTRAL MEETING: Speakers focus on issues of electric grid, setbacks, noise

Renzi, Aubertine clash in debate

Renzi, senator clash in debate


By COREY FRAM

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008


OGDENSBURG — Messages of experience and reform clashed at Tuesday's debate between the candidates for the 48th state Senate District seat.

Sen. Darrel J. Aubertine frequently reminded the approximately 100 gathered in City Hall of his more than five years' experience in state government and said the knowledge gained will help him better serve the district that includes Jefferson, St. Lawrence and Oswego counties. Republican David A. Renzi, Watertown, cast himself as the Albany outsider, repeating phrases such as reform and political courage, saying he is not beholden to special interests and attacking the senator's voting record.

 Continue reading via this link  Renzi, senator clash in debate

Wind projects WDT Editorial

Watertown Daily Times | Wind projects

State needs to assume more oversight
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2008


State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo is investigating allegations that wind power companies improperly influenced local officials in Franklin County to secure permission to build wind turbines. He is also examining whether certain companies colluded to divvy up land and thus avoid bidding against each other.

Conflict-of-interest questions have been raised in Cape Vincent, where some officials have contracts with wind power companies to build turbines on their land.

 Continue reading via this link  Watertown Daily Times | Wind projects

Lyme Council to appeal ruling against wind law: Supreme Court judge ruled town improperly voided citizens petitions

By Nancy Madsen
Times Staff Writer

Watertown Daily Times

11 September 2008

LYME — At its meeting Wednesday night, the Town Council decided to appeal a judge’s ruling that knocked down its wind energy facility law.

After an executive session that lasted nearly an hour, the council voted 5-0 to appeal state Supreme Court Judge Hugh A. Gilbert’s Aug. 21 decision to side with 10 property owners who said that the council acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” when it rejected a petition protesting the adoption of a local law regulating the siting of wind turbines.

 Link to original

We will pay for these windmills in many ways ~ Letter to the Editor

Watertown Daily Times | We will pay for these windmills in many ways

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2008
I read with interest the article about the Development Authority of the North Country (DANC) and the production of electricity from the production of methane gas. One thing is certain, the garbage is never going to go away and neither will the methane gas. One well-known fact: the wind does not blow 24 hours a day, but the methane gas is produced 100 percent of the time. I'm sure the landfills will receive tax incentives to utilize this gas and that tax money will stay right here.

We all complain about our jobs being outsourced to other countries. Well guess what, your tax dollar is being outsourced to these foreign countries for the windmills. National Grid is an English company and how many other countries own us?

Continue reading
 Watertown Daily Times | We will pay for these windmills in many ways

Wind panel corrects errors

Wind panel corrects errors
No turbines will be allowed in lakefront, riverfront districts
By NANCY MADSEN
WaterTown daily times

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2008

CAPE VINCENT — There will be no wind turbines in the riverfront and lakefront districts.

Town Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck began the wind law committee's meeting on Thursday afternoon by clearing up some mistakes and misconceptions about the draft amendment to the zoning law.

"No one was ever interested in it being in anywhere but the agricultural-residential district," he said.



Continue reading  WaterTown daily times

Watertown Daily Times | Need for tax breaks vexing

Watertown Daily Times | Need for tax breaks vexing
Subsidy opponents say taxpayer cash going to the rich
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SUNDAY, AUGUST 31, 2008


Money doesn't grow on trees, but it may grow on windmills.

The developers of the four proposed wind farms in Jefferson County could capitalize on tax breaks and incentives at the federal, state and local levels through their projects. Opponents say the subsidies take taxpayer money and give it to those who already are rich.

"It's the taxpayers and electric customers that are taken to the cleaners," said Glenn R. Schleede, a widely known wind power opponent who has worked for electric utilities and the federal Office of Management and Budget.

 continue reading at this link---Watertown Daily Times | Need for tax breaks vexing

BP says Court ruling comes too late~ zoning law too restrictive

WWNY TV 7
filed: August 26, 2008

A court victory for wind farm advocates in the town of Lyme has apparently come too late to save a proposed wind farm project.

British Petroleum Alternative Energy, which had hoped to build turbines in the town, halted plans after council members passed a zoning law that BP found to be too restrictive.

The advocacy group Voters for Wind sued the town and won.

While the case was being decided in state supreme court, BP went ahead with its plans to build 95 turbines in the town of Cape Vincent.

“We do need to move forward and so we are moving forward with our plans in the town of Cape Vincent. I think it would be tough for them (Lyme officials) to come up with something that we could work with within the time line of our current project. But, for some future project, it’s certainly possible,” said Jim Madden of BP.

If BP or another wind farm developer approaches the town in the future, officials will need to address the zoning issues.

The zoning law originally passed with a three to two vote.

According to the judge’s ruling, if town officials want to pass the zoning law again, they will legally need one more vote for a majority of four to one.

The town could also appeal the ruling or go back to the drawing board.

“I think we need to be fair. We need to do what’s best for everyone in the town, so I’m hoping that we can find a fair and happy medium,” said Town Supervisor Scott Aubertine.

The town board is expected to discuss the issue at its next meeting September 10.

WWNY TV 7

25 August 2008

Clayton~ Town keeping mum on noise report

Watertown Daily Times | Town keeping mum on noise report


HORSE CREEK WIND FARM: Clayton, refusing requests to see findings, says document too preliminary
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2008


CLAYTON — Town officials have refused to let residents see a report evaluating the noise study done for Horse Creek Wind Farm.

The officials claim the report, by Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, an acoustic engineering firm in Sudbury, Mass., is too complicated and preliminary to be released.

 Continue reading at this link---Watertown Daily Times | Town keeping mum on noise report

Judge slams Lyme on turbine law

A report posted by Channel 7 WNYTV news (no longer accessable)

a group of local residents known as “Voters for Wind” filed a protest challenging the ordinance under section 265 of the New York Town Law. Under the law, when a written protest is filed, a supermajority vote (75%) is required to pass such an ordinance. Because no supermajority vote occured, the Voters for Wind challenged the decision of the Town Council in an Article 78 proceeding in the state’s Supreme Court (New York’s trial court).The Town Council had refused to take the written protest into account as some land owners’ signatures were not present and it considered others ineligible.
Judge slams Lyme on turbine law

Judge slams Lyme on turbine law
By BRIAN KELLY
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 2008


CHAUMONT — A state Supreme Court judge has ruled the Lyme Town Council acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it rejected 10 property owners' petition protesting the adoption of a local law regulating the siting of wind turbines.

Judge Hugh A. Gilbert also declared Thursday the town law adopted May 6, which, among other things, required a minimum setback of 4,500 feet from the high-water marks of Lake Ontario and the Chaumont River, is invalid.

 Continue reading via this link

Cape's proposed wind law unveiled

Cape's proposed wind law unveiled
SETBACKS LISTED: Date has not been set for committee to meet
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008

CAPE VINCENT — The town released the preliminary zoning law amendment for wind energy facilities this week.

Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said Wednesday that the committee appointed by the board has not yet found a date to meet.

 Continue reading via this link to the Watertown Times

Cape Vincent to air turbine zoning plan

COMMITTEE FORMED:
Both sides of wind farm debate represented on panel studying draft law
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 2008

CAPE VINCENT — The Town Council will release a preliminary zoning law regulating placement of wind turbines on its Web site as early as Monday.

The council, meeting Thursday, also appointed an eight-member committee to examine the draft and make recommendations on the setback and noise requirements. The members are town Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck, Michael J. Bourcy of the Jefferson County Planning Department, Councilman Mickey W. Orvis, town Planning Board Vice Chairman Thomas D. Ingersoll, Planning Board member George A. Mingle, village Trustee Robert G. Doud, Urban C. Hirschey of the Wind Power Ethics Group and Beth A. White of Voters for Wind.

Continue reading
Both sides of wind farm debate represented on panel studying draft law

EZ changes limit future benefits

Watertown Daily Times Wind power
SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 2008


The financial boon from the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County is undeniable. Millions of dollars have flowed to the county, school districts and towns hosting the 195 turbines.

The governments have used the tax windfall responsibly to reduce or stabilize taxes or invest in long-deferred projects. The towns of Harrisburg and Martinsburg, which are home to most of the turbines, have used part of their funds to lower tax rates and establish capital reserve accounts.

 Link here to original --http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20080809/OPINION01/74276025/Wind+power

Combined ~ British Petroleum and Acciona Spain ~ Turbine Map ~ Cape Vincent

This Is What British Petroleum and
Acciona Spain
have planned for Cape Vincent's future
191, 450 ft. tall industrial turbines

Probing Wind Farms: Burgeoning, vital industry must be kept free of taint | Syracuse Post Standard Editorial

Probing Wind Farms: Burgeoning, vital industry must be kept free of taint | syracuse.com

Friday, August 01, 2008, 5:02 AM

Every wind-generating power company in New York needs to come under closer scrutiny.

There is just too much public money at stake. An aggressive watchdog is needed to make sense of the complicated deals they make, to protect taxpayers and to monitor the conduct of public officials whose decisions can yield wind generators millions of dollars.

That's why a state attorney general's investigation of two wind-power companies is so important -- and why a critical, independent eye should be kept on the rest of the industry.


 Title link to original

BP Alternative Energy released an image of proposed sites for wind turbines and power lines for the Cape Vincent Wind Project;

BP Alternative Energy today released an image of proposed sites for wind turbines and power lines for the Cape Vincent Wind Project; however, the public may get a better view early next week when BP plans to post the image on its Web site, BP project manager James H. Madden said.

While the map is preliminary, he said, it represents a large move forward in the project process.

The proposed turbines, overlayed on a U.S. Geological Survey map with outdated road names, were spread around the town along red power lines. Their locations were bounded on the southeast by the Lyme town line, on the northwest by wetlands, and elsewhere by a proximity to Lake Ontario and other waterways.

Madden said the company plans to use an updated map as soon as possible.

Sites of 95 wind turbines are unveiled By ~ BP

FEW MINDS CHANGE: 100 people attend Cape Vincent meeting
By RACHAEL HANLEY
Watertown Daily Times
TIMES STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2008

CAPE VINCENT — BP Alternative Energy revealed the setting of 95 turbines for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm on Wednesday with a room full of displays, two large maps and a speaker who heartily endorsed wind power.

The evening at Cape Vincent Recreation Park on South James Street drew more than 100 people and lasted just over three hours, with the majority of that time devoted to conversations between residents and BP representatives.

 Continue reading here Watertown Daily Times

Whiteman Osterman & Hanna~ Cape Vincent Conflict Opinion

This is the opinion rendered in July of 2008, by Whiteman Osterman & Hanna in
RE: Cape Vincents conflicted officials

WOH Conflict Opinion Cape Vincent

Lyme wind law based on subjective survey

FRIDAY, JULY 18, 2008

To the Editor

The Lyme Town Board recently passed a very restrictive wind zoning law. They claim their restrictions were based on the will of the people as shown by the wind survey. The person who formulated most of the questions and tallied the results has based his findings on very subjective questions and drawn his own conclusions about what the answers meant.

For example, the questions about setbacks from the waterfront or from hamlet and village had the following choices: 1,500 feet, 3,000 feet, 4,500 feet or "not near the water, hamlet or village." At last half the respondents checked "not near." Some people also checked one of the other choices. The individual who tallied these results concluded that all people who checked "not near" meant more than 4,500 feet.[Watertown Times]

STATEWIDE-Attorney General Andrew Cuomo launches Investigation into Wind Developments

July-18-2008

Cuomo investigating alleged 'dirty tricks' in local windmill projects

STATEWIDE—State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo launches an investigation aimed at two out of state companies developing wind farms in Lackawanna and across New York .[1]


"We've had a number of complaints from counties all over the state, from Franklin all the way over to Erie," said John Milgrim, spokesman for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Franklin County District Attorney Derek Champagne was among "DAs from eight counties, public officials and citizens" who bombarded Albany with complaints about Noble and Massachusetts-based First Wind, formerly known as UPC Wind, he said. Subpoenas were served on both companies Tuesday, seeking an assortment of documents pertaining to agreements and easements obtained from property owners and public officials.[7] Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says the investigation was launched against First Wind, formerly UPC Wind, which developed the Steel Winds turbine, and Noble Environmental Power after complaints made by residents and public officials alike.[8] Back in May, wind-farm opponents pressed the state Attorney General's Office for an investigation into allegations of false claims, filing false instruments, bribery of public officials, larceny and fraud. Those accused by Cohocton Wind Watch of illegal actions are the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, SCIDA Executive Director James Sherron, town and planning board members in several towns including Cohocton and Prattsburgh, and wind developers EcoGen and First Wind. Allegations by citizens' group include: the wind developers knowingly provided and submitted false statements and false instruments for permits and during environmental studies; the developers improperly influenced public officials through cash bribes, lucrative lease terms, bogus real estate transactions, purchase of personal property and contingent real estate purchase offers; developers seeking leases for wind turbine sites or easements for access roads and transmission lines have lied to convince landowners to sign away their rights.[9]

Overview of subpoenas issued

The subpoenas issued Tuesday were for all documents related to benefits conferred to an individual or entity in connection with wind farms; all agreements, easements or contracts regarding placement of wind turbines; agreements between wind companies that could indicate anti-competitive practices; and anything pertaining to payments or benefits received from local, state or federal agencies, according to Cuomo's office.[4] The subpoenas also seek all agreements on the placement of wind turbines, any non-compete clauses, and any payments to or benefits received from local, state or federal agencies.[3]


First Wind has three operational wind farms and 48 others in development across the country, according to its Web site. [9] Wind farm opponents were thrilled by the news that Cuomo's office is looking into the two developers. "We're ecstatic that is finally listening to what New York State taxpayers have been saying: that this is nothing but a total rip-off of the taxpayer," said Judy Hall, a member of Cohocton Wind Watch, which is fighting a First Wind wind farm in its community. Hall complained that communities aren't made aware of proposed wind farms until they're already approved and accused local leaders and developers of striking under-the-table deals to get the projects approved.[4] First Wind, which has several wind power generation projects in upstate, and Noble Environmental Power, which has projects in Western New York, are being looked at by Cuomo for possible anti-competitive practices.[2]

Noble Environmental Power has wind farm projects in Allegany, Chatauqua, and Wyoming Counties.[8] Chester, Connecticut-based Noble Environmental is operating three wind farms and five in development in Clinton, Franklin, Allegany, Chautauqua and Wyoming counties.[6]

First Wind has wind farms in development in Steuben, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming counties in New York.[6] First Wind, according to Cuomo, have been developing wind farms in Erie County and has wind farms in development in Steuben, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming counties.[3] First Wind has three operational wind farms and 48 others under development across the United States and in Steuben, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming counties.[7] First Wind built the Steel Winds project along Lake Erie in the city of Lackawanna and has wind farms in development in Steuben, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming (GenWY Wind) counties.[1]

the use of wind power, like all renewable energy sources, "The use of wind power, like all renewable energy sources, should be encouraged to help clean our air and end our reliance on fossil fuels," Cuomo said in a statement. "However, public integrity remains a top priority of my office and if dirty tricks are used to facilitate even clean-energy projects, my office will put a stop to it," he said.[4] In a written statement, Cuomo said the use of wind power is encouraged. He added that if dirty tricks are involved, his office will intervene. [5]



SOURCES

1. Wind farm deals under investigation - Business First of Buffalo:
2. Wind farm developers being investigated by state attorney general: Home: The Buffalo News
3. Cuomo investigates wind companies | PoughkeepsieJournal.com | Poughkeepsie Journal
4. Cuomo investigating alleged 'dirty tricks' in local windmill projects: City & Region: The Buffalo News
5. wbfo Newsroom

6. Wind-energy Companies Face Investigation
7. The Press Republican - Noble wind-energy firm under investigation
8. WBEN 930 : NYS Investigates Steel Winds Developer
9. Wind companies being investigated - Rochester, NY - MPNnow
draft

Voters For Wind ~ File Lawsuit ~ Against the Town Board Over a Recently Adopted Zoning Law.

filed: July 11, 2008

WWNY TV 7 Link not available they have removed the story

The future of wind power in the Jefferson County town of Lyme could ultimately be decided by a judge.

A group that supports wind farm development has filed a lawsuit against the town board over a recently adopted zoning law.

Ten members of Voters for Wind filed the legal challenge in State Supreme Court.

The group claims the town board adopted a zoning law concerning wind turbines that’s “too restrictive and does not adequately allow for the orderly development of wind energy facilities”.

The zoning requires wind turbines to be at least 4,500 feet away from the waterfront and the villages of Chaumont and Three Mile Bay.

Members of Voters for Wind say developers can’t work within those constraints.

“I feel they have their own agenda. They have been very anti wind from the beginning,” said Voters for Wind vice president Dawn Munk.

In the lawsuit, Voters for Wind says the board failed to recognize their protest petition.

The group says because a petition was presented, the town board needed to have a 75 percent majority vote to pass the zoning ordinance.

The board adopted the law by a 3 — 2 margin, a 60 percent majority.

Town Supervisor Scott Aubertine, a member of the town board, was one of the two people who voted against the ordinance.

“Once the state makes their ruling, I hope this would be the end of it once and for all and we’d go do what we have to do. If we have to start over again, well we’ll try to find something that perhaps pleases everyone,” said Aubertine.

Voters for Wind claims the board rejected the protest petition without legal basis.

The town said the group didn’t have the necessary signatures to be valid.

The lawsuit seeks to make the zoning law invalid.

The State Supreme Court’s decision is due July 31, the same day the town’s moratorium on wind power development will run out.

Read the news release from Voters for Wind

Parcel owners act against Lyme

By BRIAN KELLY

TIMES STAFF WRITER

THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2008

CHAUMONT — Ten town of Lyme property owners have brought an Article 78 proceeding against the Town Council, claiming it improperly rejected a petition protesting the adoption of a local law regulating the siting of wind turbines.

The owners group is asking a state Supreme Court judge to declare that its protest petition valid and that a local law adopted subsequent to the board's rejection of the petition be declared invalid, according to documents filed Monday at the Jefferson County clerk's office.[Watertown Times]

Measuring Background Noise During Nights With Stable Atmospheris Conditions_Internoise Schneider ~ 2009

In response to sound studies from commercial wind developers, a series of background noise surveys were conducted , in Cape Vincent, NY between May and July 2008. The survey approach included sampling at night under stable atmospheric conditions and systematically selecting monitoring stations at 1.6 km intervals.

Measuring Background Noise During Nights With Stable Atmospheric Conditions_InterNoise 2009 ~ Schneider

Speaker outlines wind power 'myths'

 link to story Watertown Daily Times Speaker outlines wind power 'myths'

CAPE PRESENTATION: Ecologist says wind not best answer to global warming, pollution, oil dependency
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 2008


CAPE VINCENT — The attraction of wind power is based on some myths.

That's what D. Daniel Boone, an ecologist and natural resources policy analyst from Bowie, Md., told members of the Wind Power Ethics Group and the public at a presentation Friday evening.

While global warming is used as a reason for supporting wind turbine development, Mr. Boone said, "I'm convinced they're not the best way of dealing with this issue."

Cape Vincent Wind critics appeal ruling

 link to story Watertown Daily Times | Wind critics appeal ruling

Wind critics appeal ruling
CAPE PROJECT: Judge said documents couldn't be included with an earlier appeal
By BRIAN KELLY
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 2008

CAPE VINCENT — The Wind Power Ethics Group has appealed a state Supreme Court judge's ruling that three documents cannot be included in the record of an earlier appeal regarding dismissal of the group's Article 78 proceeding against the town's Zoning Board of Appeals.

The citizens organization that opposes large-scale wind power development brought an Article 78 suit in March 2007 against the ZBA, claiming it incorrectly classified industrial wind turbines as utilities. Judge Hugh A. Gilbert dismissed the petition in August, ruling the classification was correct under existing zoning law.

Iberdrola admits bat concerns affected decision

Iberdrola admits bat concerns affected decision
CLAYTON WIND FARM: Company keeps options open at 'good wind site'
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, JUNE 21, 2008

CLAYTON — Iberdrola Renewables is considering options for Horse Creek Wind Farm about two weeks after it told the Clayton Planning Board it was suspending its application.

While the company insists it was an internal decision, its representative did admit that the nearby Indiana bat population was a consideration. Indiana bats are an endangered species and there is a hibernation spot near the proposed wind project.

 Continue reading via this link

Dec Hosts Galloo Island Wind Turbine Meeting

Updated 06/18/2008 06:56 AM
DEC hosts Galloo Island wind turbine meeting
click link above for video ~
By: Brian Dwyer


SACKETS HARBOR, N.Y. -- The plan calls for 90 wind towers just to be placed on Galloo Island, just miles off the Western shore of Jefferson County on Lake Ontario.

Before anything can start, the state DEC office needs to prepare a final Environmental Impact Statement, showing what effect the wind farm would have on the island. That's why they hosted meetings Tuesday for the public to offer their opinions.

 Continue reading via this link

Horse creek ~ Wind project held up by bats

Wind project held up by bats

HORSE CREEK: Fish & Wildlife asks delay as it studies 'white nose' die-off
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, JUNE 7, 2008

CLAYTON — Indiana bats are holding up Horse Creek Wind Farm.

The proposed 62-turbine wind farm in Clayton, as well as the proposed 65-turbine St. Lawrence and 140-turbine Cape Vincent wind farms in Cape Vincent, may be affected by the thousands of Indiana bats that have died because of "white nose syndrome." The syndrome kills bats and leaves a white fungus around the bats' mouths.

William M. Moore, director of development for Iberdrola Renewables, said the company is waiting on Horse Creek while the impact of white nose syndrome on bats is understood. Indiana bats are on federal and state endangered species lists.

 Continue reading via this link

Wind Farm Development Gets Easier In Jefferson County

The Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency is creating a tax exemption policy to help municipalities develop PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) programs with wind farm developers.

The IDA says its role is to help local governments work through the deals, saying that it will not tell municipalities how to utilize money they receive from developers.

Also, the IDA said it would not tell municipalities how much money they should be receiving and only wants to develop a template to simplify the process of building wind farms.

“We’re not interested in trying to enforce anything in that area. That’s entirely up to them,” said Don Alexander, representing the IDA.


Alexandra Field WWNY TV 7 reporting

Attorney general to host forum in city on June 17

SUNDAY, JUNE 1, 2008
Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo is coming to Watertown on June 17 to host a community forum.
In a recent letter to local leaders, Mr. Cuomo said he wants to discuss "priority issues, such as environmental protection, health care, consumer protection, civil rights, workers rights and student lending."
The attorney general and his staff also will answer questions from audience members. Food and refreshments will be served.
The forum will be at 7 p.m. at Case Middle School, 1237 Washington St. Mr. Cuomo asks people who plan to attend to let his office know by calling 448-4814 or e-mailing it at communityaffairs@oag.state.ny.us.

Lyme council OKs strict zoning law for wind turbines

 link to story Lyme council OKs strict zoning law for wind turbines

May 7, 2008
By Nancy Madsen
Times Staff Writer
Watertown Daily Times

The Lyme Town Council approved a strict zoning law for wind development that one developer said will make industrial turbine development virtually impossible.

The approval was on a 3-2 vote at a special meeting Tuesday night.

Before the vote, the council received a report from the assessors that invalidated a protest petition from wind development supporters that would have required four votes for passage of the law.

Lyme extends moratorium on wind

By Nancy Madsen

Times Staff Writer

Watertown Daily Times

18 April 2008

Lyme extends moratorium on wind

Three months more: Move will give seasonal residents a chance to obtain information, share opinions

The Lyme Town Council voted unanimously to extend the town’s moratorium on industrial wind development for a third time at a special meeting Thursday night.

 Continue reading via this link

Wind farm Supporters blast lyme survey

By Nancy Madsen
Times Staff Writer

Watertown Daily Times

14 April 2008


‘Worth nothing’: Questions concerning distance of turbines from waterfront, village are criticized

LYME — In August, the Lyme Planning Board asked residents to fill out a survey to help them write a zoning law amendment for wind turbines. Now questions on that survey are being challenged as not valid.

Two questions on the survey ask residents how far from the waterfront, village of Chaumont and hamlets turbines should be placed. Their options were: 1,500 feet, 3,000 feet, 4,500 feet and “Turbines should not be near the waterfront” or “Turbines should not be near any area of population such as a hamlet and/or village.”

 Continue reading via this link

Lyme ~Supervisor Aubertine ~ requests wind law revisions

Supervisor requests wind law revisions
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008
CHAUMONT ― Pleas from Lyme landowners have pushed town Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine to seek reduced setback requirements for the proposed zoning law amendment.

Mr. Aubertine asked Town Council and Planning Board members to consider his alternative proposal during a work session on the proposed zoning law amendment Tuesday night.
He said he had heard from several landowners who wanted turbines on their land, but fell within the proposed 4,500-foot setback from Lake Ontario, the Chaumont River, the village of Chaumont and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay.

 Continue reading via this link

Wind company's actions give rise to questions ~ Letter to the Editor

Watertown Daily Times | Wind company's actions give rise to questions

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008

I read the letter from by Paul C. Mason, Cape Vincent, "Uninformed Cape wind foes spread rumors." I may not have visited the office of the St. Lawrence Wind Farm, but I have attended their informational meetings and presentation of their Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Cape Vincent Planning Board (which was incomplete) as well as the meetings held by BP and the presentation of their DEIS, which was also incomplete. I presented questions to each of the companies via the board and spoke to the companies' reps at their informational gatherings taking the time to read their pamphlets and praises. So I did have direct dialog with all companies and reps concerned.

I do not consider myself an expert, but I do care about where I am living and what is happening to Cape Vincent. Members of the Wind Power Ethics Group are intelligent people who are aware of how these companies are using the almighty dollar to get what they want.

These are the same companies who came into our town and spoke to people and told them they were not to discuss their offers with anyone else. A gag order was given by these companies to all people who were willing to and did sign contracts. Many of the townspeople were never aware of the closed door ethics that were going on.

It is amazing. Mr. Mason states people who either do not want these massive beasts in their backyards or may want them but at a decent distance from their homes have not offered solutions for generating electricity. What bothers me is that people who are getting paid to have these windmills on their properties never brought their options to save energy to the Planning Board table either. They never spoke out until they realized it was not going to be a cakewalk for the companies to get these wind turbines where they wanted them.

When townspeople started to question how many, how big and where they were going to be placed, that is when everything got ugly. So now we are a town divided. Whose fault is that? Maybe it was the way it was done when they sneak behind closed doors. Maybe because it is a subject that divides families and friends. You cannot blame anyone who asks questions of these companies, after all the people who signed away the rights to their land for 20 to 30 years have lost their rights to question anything or anyone. So that leaves me. I still have all of my rights, and I intend to use them.

Mariana Reinhart

Cape Vincent

Towns seek atypical PILOT deals

Towns seek atypical PILOT deals
HOST-COMMUNITY AGREEMENTS: Municipalities, not schools, would get largest share of wind farm pie
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2008


Town officials convinced that wind farms are coming to Jefferson County are jockeying to see if they can divert millions of dollars in potential tax revenue to their governments and away from school districts, which generally would receive the majority of taxes raised from the creation of each turbine.

In an average payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) agreement, school districts can expect to receive from 50 percent to 60 percent of property taxes from any given property owner. Jefferson County would receive the next-highest amount and towns would get the least.

 Link to original

Wind power rules closer ~ Lyme Wind project ~

Wind power rules closer

LYME PROJECT: Town, planning boards agree on turbine setbacks, some other issues
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 2008

CHAUMONT — No additional setbacks will be required around the Ashland Flats State Wildlife Management Area or Chaumont Barrens Preserve by
by the proposed Lyme wind power development zoning law amendment, the Lyme Planning Board and Town Council agreed at a joint work session Thursday night.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation and the Nature Conservancy, which owns the preserve, could ask for additional setbacks from turbines. "There are no DEC blanket setbacks," Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine said.

  Link here to original

Galloo~ March 18 meeting to address wind power transmission line issues

Newsreel -- Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Posting Date: 03-12-2008
The Valley News Online
March 18 meeting to address wind power transmission line issues

Landowners from Oswego and Jefferson counties will be able to learn more about a proposed new electrical transmission line at an informational meeting from 7 to 9 p.m. Tuesday, March 18 at the H. Douglas Barclay Courthouse, Broad Street, Pulaski.

The meeting, which is open to the public, is hosted by the Oswego County Legislature, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Oswego County, and the Oswego County Soil and Water Conservation District.

 Contuinue reading here The Valley News Online

Galloo~Meeting to be held Tuesday on wind-turbine project

Meeting to be held Tuesday on wind-turbine project
Posting Date: 03-15-2008

Carol Thompson
  link to story  The Valley News~
by Carol Thompson

Interested residents will have the opportunity Tuesday to learn more about a proposed wind turbine project in Jefferson County that will impact residents in Oswego County.

The project, proposed for Galloo Island, located in the Jefferson County Town of Hounsfield, would require power lines to come ashore off Lake Ontario in Henderson and travel south through Oswego County to Parish.

DEC~ Comment Letter ~ BP~ SEQR ~ Cape Vincent Wind Power Project

Alexander B. Grannis
Commissioner DEC

February 29, 2008

Mr. Richard Edsall, Chairman
Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board
1964 NYS Route 12 E
PO Box 680
Cape Vincent, New York 13618

Re: State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)
Cape Vincent Wind Power Project
BP Alternative Energy
Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, Jefferson County

Dear Mr. Edsall:

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Power Project, Towns of Cape Vincent & Lyme, Jefferson County, New York, December 7, 2007, prepared by Environmental Resources Management (ERM). The project sponsor, BP Alternative Energy, proposes construction and operation of an approximately 210 megawatt (MW) wind power project consisting of up to 140 wind turbines with a nameplate capacity of 1.5 MW to 2.5 MW, construction of approximately 18 miles of gravel access roads, installation of 18 miles of electric collection line, construction of an operations & maintenance (O&M) center on a 5-acre site, construction of a collection substation on a 3-acre site, and a 115kV transmission line to the existing electrical substation in the Town of Lyme. The project includes 2-3 meteorological (met) towers to be spaced across the project area, and temporary ancillary construction facilities, including two concrete batch plants, and cleared areas for equipment laydown, construction parking and construction management trailers.

DEC's review of the DEIS has found serious deficiencies in terms of the proposed project scope, location of proposed project components, characterization of natural resources in the project development area, assessment of potential environmental impacts, and discussion of mitigation options. Additionally, the intention to defer completion of the proposed project layout, basic resource studies and other development plans until the Final Environmental Impact Statement


FEIS), or later, limits meaningful review and comment on the proposed action by involved agencies and the public, and does not allow for a full public discussion of reasonable alternatives. Review of the DEIS shows that at least 21 plans, studies or reports necessary to adequately assess the potential environmental impacts of the project have been deferred to the FEIS or later. Several of these are important for DEC's consideration of permit applications that are anticipated to be required for construction of the project. These include a detailed map of the turbine array and project components, turbine specifications, wetland delineations, transportation study and routing plan, final visual analysis, archeology and architectural surveys, Indiana bat survey, Blanding's turtle trapping study, stormwater and erosion control plans, including a survey of karst features, and an environmental monitoring plan. Further, the DEIS does not anticipate that a number of items recommended by DEC in comments on the Draft Public Scoping Document will be discussed even in the FEIS, including source location(s) for aggregate materials, an environmental restoration plan, an operations & maintenance plan, a compensatory wetland mitigation plan, an invasive species control plan, or a plan for offsets to impacts to visual and historic resources.

DEC strongly recommends that a Supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) be prepared to include more complete data pertaining to these resources, in order that involved agencies and the public have the opportunity to comment on potential impacts to these resources. As an involved agency under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), DEC must make findings based on the record in the FEIS prior to approval of any agency permits that may be required for project construction. A complete EIS record is critical to the DEC, and without it the Department will have limited ability to make the required findings as an involved agency.

DEC provided comments on the DEIS Draft Scoping Document, dated August 13, 2007 in a letter to the Planning Board dated September 14, 2007. The Draft Scoping Document proposed the EIS process "will take place in two phases. In the first phase, wider corridors of potential impact throughout the Project will be studied" and "will be presented in the Draft EIS." Then, following a "more detailed turbine plan which will specify the final placement of turbines, roads, a substation, electrical interconnects, transmission line, and a permanent maintenance facility…a revised Draft EIS will be prepared…" (Draft Scoping Document, page 2). In comments on the Draft Scoping Document, DEC stated that, "SEQR regulations at 617.9(a)(7) provide an existing process for the lead agency to require a supplemental EIS, subject to the full set of procedural requirements for the DEIS." In order to ensure that all phases of the DEIS process allow for ample review by involved agencies and the public, DEC further recommended that "…a formal scoping process be conducted again prior to preparation of a SDEIS, in order that the full range of issues of concern to involved and interested parties can be addressed." DEC is disappointed that the Final Public Scoping Document, dated October 8, 2007, fails to include the "revised" DEIS, and defaults to a schedule that defers a full discussion of project details and potential impacts to the FEIS.

The following comments on the DEIS represent DEC's concerns for the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Power Project specifically and for cumulative impacts on the region from all proposed wind power projects in the general area. These comments include recommendations for further discussion of these issues in the SDEIS.
-2-

Project Description.
The DEIS states that "BP Alternative Energy will determine final placement of the turbines and roads once it has completed its analysis of the wind resource and wetland and archeological surveys" (DEIS pages E-2, 6). It is also stated that the final turbine layout is dependent on the type of turbine selected. "Once a final decision is made on the turbines to be used, siting of individual turbines, as well as the associated roads and electrical collection system, will be performed. These detailed maps will be included in the FEIS" (DEIS page 20). Additionally, the DEIS states that, "The FEIS will include the drawings, specifications and power curves of the turbines" (DEIS pages 6, 10).

Other project components include: A concrete batch plant (up to 10 acres), Project substation (3 acres), operations & maintenance (O&M) facility (5 acres), and construction staging and laydown areas (DEIS page 8). In addition, the DEIS states that the project scope will include two central parking areas at each end of the project and 3 acres cleared for site construction management trailers and parking (DEIS page 15). Other than an approximate substation location (Figure 1.1-3), and an indication that the substation is expected to be "along the abandoned railroad bed between Rosiere and the Lyme town line" (DEIS page 7), there is no information in the DEIS regarding the location of any other project components. The project description also states that "2-3 meteorological towers will be spaced across the project area" at the completion of the project. The DEIS provides no additional information regarding the type or location of these towers.

DEC recommends that the SDEIS include proposed specifications and locations for all of the project components above, or if a decision regarding choice of turbine model has not been finalized, the potential arrays for the configuration of the wind turbine placement. This should include a map for the location most likely to be used for turbine placement based on the turbine size and types available. For example, if the smaller 1.2 – 1.5 MW turbines are going to be used and 140 turbines are needed for the project, then a map showing the potential locations for the 140 turbine array should be included in the SDEIS. Likewise, if the Project requires 100 of the 1.65 MW turbines then a map show the potential location of the 100 turbines should be included in the SDEIS. The Project boundary, turbine placement array, concrete turbine pads or footprints, routes of transmission lines, roads requiring construction upgrades, project substations, and any other constructed buildings such as maintenance facilities should be included. These maps should also be made available in an electronic format such as shapefiles, coverages, geodatabases, and/or geometric networks, to facilitate review of project impacts by involved agencies and the public.

Project Alternatives.

This section of the DEIS includes criteria for project site selection (DEIS Section 1.3.1) and project alternatives evaluated (DEIS Section 1.3.2). DEC guidance provides that the alternatives described should include those that avoid or reduce adverse impacts identified in the environmental review of the proposed action (e.g., can these impacts be avoided or reduced by reducing the project scale, re-configuring or re-locating project components?) While the DEIS adequately discusses the factors that make the project development area conducive to a utility-scale wind power project, the lack of any detail in the project scope precludes meaningful discussion of alternatives, as there is no

-3-

"project" to compare alternatives to. SEQR regulations at 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v) states, " The description and evaluation of each alternative should be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed."[1] The project description in this DEIS fails to do this.

DEC recommends that the SDEIS include a proposed project layout that includes specifications and locations of all proposed project components sufficient to permit a reasonable comparison of alternatives. Details to include in these evaluations should include the factors that led to the specific turbine layout for each alternative, such as wind resource evaluation, turbine spacing and/or orientation, wind turbine model selection, site constraints (setback requirements, avoidance of wetlands, landowner preference, etc.), access road and interconnect design considerations, and avoidance of identified adverse environmental impacts (e.g., archeological sites). The range of alternatives may also include, as appropriate, alternative sites, technology, scale or magnitude, design, timing, use, and types of action.

DEIS Section 1.3.2, Project Alternatives Evaluated, again includes a discussion of factors that are used in planning a wind power project, but no specific alternatives are described other than that the project is sized to be a 210 MW project. In the discussion of project size alternatives (DEIS page 20), the DEIS states that "a significant reduction in the Project's generating capacity would jeopardize its financial viability" and, "Some smaller wind energy projects that have been built have only been made possible because of large financial grants." These statements are not accompanied by any supporting data or references. DEC has reviewed a variety of wind power projects in New York State, including those with fewer than 20 turbines to those with more than 200. While DEC does not seek details regarding the financial structure of a project sponsor, a statement dismissing an alternate project scale on the basis of financial hardship requires better supporting rationale.

The Alternative Project Design section (DEIS pages 21-22) states, "Impacts on wetlands will result from some stream crossing and some unavoidable wetland areas that are crossed by roads and/or collection lines. It is unlikely that the project layout will be able to eliminate all impacts to wetlands, since complete avoidance would likely result in the need for increased impacts due to additional lengths of roads and trenching for electrical interconnects…" Again, this conclusion cannot be verified, or alternatives evaluated, in the absence of a specific proposed project layout, and an alternative project layout that shows maximum avoidance of wetlands.

Project Site Geology and Topography.

This section states that depth to bedrock in the project development area varies from exposed at the surface to an estimated maximum of 7 meters below ground surface, and the depth to bedrock in much of the study area is generally less than two meters (DEIS page 28). With the typical foundation anticipated for the wind turbines in this project extending to a depth of 10 feet below ground, or placed on top of and anchored into bedrock (DEIS page 6), it can be expected that a substantial number of the proposed turbines will interface with bedrock. The project area is underlain by Kirkland Limestone, Rockland Limestone, and Chaumont Limestone. All three bedrock formations exposed in the study area are regularly fractured by joints, with solution enlarged joints


of up to 30 centimeters in the Chaumont formation at the extreme northeastern part of the study area (DEIS page 29). The DEIS states further in Section 2.4.5, Drainage Features, that detailed mapping of solution-enlarged joints that may represent conduits for surface water flow will be gathered and presented in the FEIS (DEIS page 38). Further, in DEIS Section 2.5.1, Ground Water, it states that detailed geologic and ground water investigations will be conducted prior to construction to determine site-specific features including direction of ground water flow and depth to ground water, and fracture type, orientation, distribution and geometry (DEIS page 40).

DEC recommends that a more complete discussion of karst features be included in the SDEIS. The location of bedrock fractures and sinkholes should be shown relative to proposed project activities. Where carbonate rocks are exposed at land surface, solution features create karst topography, characterized by little surface drainage as well as by sinkholes, blind valleys and sinking streams. Because water enters the carbonate rocks rapidly through sinkholes and other large openings, any contaminants in the water can rapidly enter and spread through the aquifers.[2]

The SDEIS should also include maps and a summarization of soil types at each turbine location, including hydric and prime farmland soils. An estimate of the potential areas which may be impacted from the construction of the project components should also be incorporated into the SDEIS by including maps and information from the Jefferson County soil survey and the USDA SSURGO databases. This will allow a more accurate assessment and review for the identification of slopes exceeding 15%. Maps produced from this assessment should be included in the SDEIS.

DEC recommends that a plan be prepared that specifies procedures for conducting detailed subsurface investigations at turbine site locations and other project components that may interface with limestone/karst features. The plan should be prepared by an engineering firm with expertise and experience in developing construction projects in karst areas. The plan should specify actions to be taken if karst features are identified or suspected, including further investigation (e.g., dye testing), turbine re-location, determination of the effects of blasting, or engineering construction controls.

In addition, a detailed construction plan needs to be developed to incorporate stringent containment of construction materials, particularly concrete slurry. This would include such practices as the use of watertight forms, silt/stormwater fencing, controlled concrete truck washout areas, and covered storage of equipment and construction chemicals. Engineering specifications to describe these proposed practices need to be detailed in this plan.

The DEIS recognizes that additional impacts may result from spills of petroleum and other chemicals during construction and operation of the project, and that implementation of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared to comply with the SPDES Stormwater General Permit for Construction Activities should prevent or minimize spill incidents and


maximize control and cleanup of any of these incidents (DEIS page 44). DEC will review the SWPPP prepared for the project to ensure that plans for site characterization, project construction and construction monitoring have been included and adequately address these concerns.

Surface Water.

Three streams in the project development area are designated "navigable water," and therefore protected under Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law. These include portions of Kent's Creek, Three Mile Creek, and the Chaumont River (DEIS page 43). DEC recommends that the SDEIS include a map showing proposed project components in relation to regulated portions of these water bodies. A DEC permit is required for any project component that will disturb the bed or banks of these streams.

Wetlands.

The DEIS states that wetlands in the project development area were identified by a desktop assessment involving review of National Wetland Inventory (NWI), DEC wetland maps, and other mapping sources (DEIS Section 2.7.1.1), and through field reconnaissance resulting in approximate wetland boundaries (DEIS Section 2.7.1.2). Approximately 77 % of the wetlands within the project development area are classified as palustrine forested wetlands (DEIS page 56). DEIS Section 2.8, Wetlands Impacts, reiterates that the configuration for the wind turbine array is not complete at this time, but that the project "is being designed to avoid permanent impacts on wetlands" (DEIS page 57). As stated previously, in the absence of a proposed project component layout, showing turbine locations, access roads, electrical interconnects, and other project components, there is no way to meaningfully comment on this conclusion. This section further states that there "…may be turbine locations which, while upland, require access that will necessitate wetland crossings. Impacts to these wetlands will be short-term and followed by restoration of the affected areas, as recommended by local, state and federal wetland authorities."

Projects that propose to disturb regulated wetland areas, buffer areas and protected streams require permits from DEC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). DEC wetland permit regulations at 6 NYCRR 663.2(z) define a "regulated activity" as any form of draining, dredging, excavation, or mining, either directly or indirectly; any form of dumping or filling, either directly or indirectly; erecting any structures, constructing roads, driving pilings, or placing any other obstructions whether or not changing the ebb and flow of the water; any form of pollution, including but not limited to installing a septic tank, running a sewer outfall, discharging sewage treatment effluent or other liquefied wastes into or so as to drain into a wetland; or any other activity which substantially impairs any of the several functions or benefits of wetlands which are set forth in section 24-0105 of the (Freshwater Wetlands) Act. These activities are subject to regulation whether or not they occur upon the wetland itself, if they impinge upon or otherwise substantially affect the wetland and are located within the adjacent area.

-6-
Before DEC can consider a permit application, wetland delineations prepared for the project must be verified by agency staff. DEC jurisdiction and resulting acreage impacts may vary based on DEC verification of wetland delineations. It is DEC policy that wetland impacts are not permitted, even with mitigation, until other alternatives have been explored, including avoidance, minimize or reduction of impacts. Generally applicants are required to: 1) Examine alternative project designs that avoid and reduce impacts to wetlands; 2) Develop plans to create or improve wetlands or wetland functions to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands; 3) Demonstrate overriding economic and social needs for the project that outweigh the environmental costs of impacts on the wetlands. These factors need to be thoroughly discussed in the SDEIS.

DEC recommends that the SDEIS include wetland delineation reports for any areas that would be impacted by project construction, including project components as described above, and road improvements necessary to deliver project materials, such as road widening, increasing turn radii, and modifications to culverts, both within the project development area, and along delivery routes identified in a transportation plan. Additionally, the SDEIS would appropriately include discussion of how the proposed project will accomplish wetland avoidance and impact minimization. As stated in DEC's comments on the DEIS Draft Scoping Document, this discussion would include alternative project designs that were examined to avoid and reduce impacts to wetlands, and demonstrate overriding economic and social needs for the project that outweigh the environmental costs of impacts on the wetlands.

The distinction between "temporary" and "permanent" wetland impact needs to be clarified in the SDEIS, keeping in mind that simple re‑grading to pre‑construction contours following excavation in a wetland area may not be enough to restore the full function of the existing wetland area, and therefore would be a permanent rather than a temporary impact. Additionally, DEC considers the clearing of a forested wetland to be maintained as a non-forested wetland (such as the corridor of an overhead or underground interconnect line) to be a permanent impact, even if there is no fill, drainage or other physical disturbance of the wetland. This could be a significant impact in the project development area (including the transmission line), as forested and shrub-scrub wetlands are the dominant wetland type (DEIS page 57) and construction of the transmission line anticipates that forested wetland will be permanently impacted due to clearing (DEIS page 58). The DEIS statement that "all efforts will be taken to avoid temporary impact to forested and scrub-shrub wetlands" (DEIS page 58) is insufficient to adequately describe wetland impact minimization and allow for meaningful comment. All permanent impacts, including those described above, must be factored into the total area of wetland impacts for which permits and mitigation are required.

The SDEIS should discuss the control of invasive species to minimize the spread of invasive propagules throughout the project development area, and particularly in regulated wetland and stream areas. The DEIS includes no consideration of invasive species issues as recommended by DEC in comments on the DEIS Draft Scoping Document. The discussion should include measures to ensure no net increase in the areal coverage of invasive species in the

-7-

project development area. Post-construction monitoring and periodic management, including invasives control and re-planting of preferred indigenous species to ensure survival should also be included in the discussion. An Invasive Species Control Plan will be a requirement of any permits issued by DEC.

DEIS Section 2.8.3, Mitigation Measures, fails to include any activities that can be described as mitigation. This section states that "access roads and electrical interconnects may all be re-routed to varying degrees in order to avoid or minimize the impacts to sensitive or protected wetland features" and "a complete wetland delineation will be conducted" and "additional re-routing may take place based upon these further delineations" (DEIS page 59). For unavoidable construction within wetlands, the only remedy offered is "best management practices" and "training of construction staff" (DEIS page 59). If unavoidable wetland impacts are expected to result from project construction activities, the SDEIS must describe the location, type and areal extent of impacts anticipated from each project component, options under consideration for compensatory mitigation that conform to DEC wetland mitigation guidelines[3], and proposed locations for wetland mitigation areas. Proposed wetland mitigation sites need to be included as a project component.

Mitigation to offset permitted permanent impacts to wetlands must be developed in consultation with DEC and USACE. Mitigation activities must be conducted concurrently with other construction activities; not after other construction activities have been completed. For any proposed wetland compensatory mitigation sites, the anticipated legal mechanism to secure long term access and management of the property should be discussed (e.g., ownership, permanent easement, transfer to third-party conservancy organization). For DEC permits, the structure of this agreement will be required to be in a form acceptable to the Department.

Terrestrial Ecology.

DEIS Section 2.9.1.2, Vegetation: Rare Plant Species and Vegetation Communities of Ecological Significance, states that, “the project boundary has been expanded from the boundary described in the initial consultation letters provided to NYSDEC, the NYNHP, and the USFWS regarding threatened and endangered species and communities of ecological significance” (DEIS page 61). This expanded boundary should be provided, and any unique communities, or rare, threatened, or endangered species that are included in that boundary be identified in the SDEIS.

Table 2.9-1 (DEIS page 61) does not include a state listed threatened plant species known to occur in the area, the troublesome sedge (Carex molesta). The table and all other textual references to listed plant species should be corrected to include this species in the SDEIS.

DEIS Section 2.9.2.3, Wildlife: Wildlife Communities of Ecological Significance, Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area, states that a 2,037 acre state wildlife management area (WMA) is located adjacent to the Project Area and contains both wetland and upland

habitats (DEIS page 72). The SDEIS should include a map depicting the WMA and the habitat types therein with relation to the current project boundary, turbine locations, roads, transmission corridor(s) and other aspects of the proposed project.

The Waterfowl Winter Concentration Areas section states that, “there are no federal or state-listed rare, threatened or endangered species that occur in the Fox Island-Grenadier Island Shoals...” (DEIS page 72). Although the Natural Heritage Program’s database is a valuable resource for identifying the presence of unique communities and rare, threatened and endangered species, the absence of a record is not conclusive evidence that such a community or species does not exist in a particular area. The SDEIS should include results of ecological surveys that may provide evidence of rare, threatened or endangered species, or ecological communities that were previously unrecorded. It should also be mentioned in this section that state listed species such as the endangered black tern (Chlidonias niger) are known to occur in the Wilson Bay Marsh, which is located within the project area.

DEIS SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Section 2.10, Terrestrial Ecology: Impacts--Project Components, reiterates that the configuration of the wind turbine array is not complete at this time, but the project is being designed to minimize permanent impacts to threatened and endangered (T&E) species or significant ecological habitats (DEIS page 73). It is also stated that temporary impacts to these resources are likely to occur during construction, and that these areas will undergo restoration as recommended by DEC. The SDEIS should include a full discussion of the terrestrial ecology investigation and show where impacts may occur along the proposed project layout. Actions that will be taken during construction to avoid or minimize habitat disturbance or impacts to T&E species should also be discussed. Finally, activities to restore habitat areas following construction should be described, including measures to ensure that preferred indigenous species are successfully re-established in disturbed areas. DEC Fish & Wildlife staff should continue to be consulted as appropriate to provide guidance on development and implementation of these activities.

The DEIS states in SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Section 2.10.2.1, General Impacts on Vegetation and Wildlife, that less disturbance-tolerant species common to upland forests may experience permanent displacement from areas developed by the project. Although recognizing that this may result in population stress and possibly minor decreases in local wildlife populations, this impact is not expected to significantly affect the viability of any wildlife species” (DEIS page 75). This conclusion is not supported by any data or reference. The SDEIS should provide a fuller discussion of this potential impact, citing habitat survey reports prepared for the project, and an analysis of how the proposed project would affect the species identified. The discussion should also note that less common species found in the project development area that are not tolerant of disturbance could also be permanently displaced, and subject to the same stresses as more common species when seeking suitable habitat and available mates. No references are given to support the assumption that bird species will reestablish perches in the project area, that most species will repopulate the project area after construction is complete, and that the effects of the project on the availability of food, mates, and migration corridors will be minor. Although the degree of any population decreases to wildlife species caused by this project cannot be
-9-

determined at this time, the cumulative effect of several proposed wind projects in the region may have an adverse impact on one or more species that winter, breed, or migrate through the project area. This should be included as a component of the cumulative impact analysis.

In DEIS, Section 2.10.2.2, Threatened and Endangered Plant Species and Significant Ecological Habitats, it is stated that, “project facilities would not be sited in, or require permanent modification to” any of four significant ecological plant communities or five state-listed plant species (DEIS page 76). This should be revised to reference six state-listed species, including troublesome sedge (Carex molesta), as stated above. This section needs to be further clarified in the SDEIS to describe any temporary modifications or impacts that may occur to these resources; not only permanent modifications and impacts.

The DEIS indicates that results of a preliminary Blanding's turtle survey determined that potentially suitable habitat exists in and around the project development area, and that the largest potential impact on populations would likely occur during the construction phase (DEIS page 76). DEIS Section 2.10.3, Mitigation Measures, states that once an array plan is proposed, a complete wetland delineation and Blanding's turtle assessment will be conducted (DEIS page 77). Several construction-related activities are listed as mitigation (e.g., a trapping program to determine the presence of Blanding's turtles at Wetland B), but the list does not include the type of mitigation that DEC considers most effective in reducing losses from construction during the nesting season, which occurs prior to July 1. DEC recommends that SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1springtime construction activities in areas where Blanding's turtles may potentially be impacted be delayed until after July 1 to avoid adverse impacts to turtles moving across the landscape during nesting season. The SDEIS needs to include the results of proposed subsequent studies (trapping program, habitat assessment), the proposed project layout, a full discussion of where impacts to this species may occur, and a more complete discussion of mitigation options, including DEC's recommendation to delay construction where these impacts are determined likely to occur.

Avian and Bat Resources.

DEIS Section 2.11: Avian Resources, Environmental Setting, discusses the Point Peninsula and Perch River Important Bird Areas (IBA) and the Ashland Flats Bird Conservation Area (BCA) located within and adjacent to the project area. These areas are significant to a number of listed bird species that breed, winter, and migrate through the region. In addition to the species mentioned, long-eared owl and northern shrike should be included as regularly using the grassland and wetland habitats that encompass the project area.

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The Study Protocol and Consultation section discusses the one-year pre-construction protocol used to study bird and bat resources in the vicinity of the project area and states it was “approved” by DEC (DEIS page 79). It should be clarified that DEC does not have approval authority over avian and bat study protocols. DEC provides recommendations in consultation with project sponsors to develop protocols that provide data to characterize existing use of the project development area (including airspace) by birds and bats. DEC has not determined that the proposed first year of studies at this site are the only set of studies that may need to be conducted. DEC did agree that the proposed protocol for taking a first-year look at the bird and

-10-

bat resources of the area was valid, and based on results of these studies, may make recommendations for additional studies. It should be noted that since the time of our comments on the Draft Scoping Document, DEC has released for public review proposed Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects.[4] The SDEIS should include reference to conformance with these guidelines.

DEIS SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Section 2.11.1.1: Fall and Spring Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey, states that, “The nocturnal marine radar survey is designed to characterize migration over the Project Area and determine the relative magnitude of the migration in comparison to other sites” (DEIS page 79). Although this is true, radar is also important for measuring the density and altitude of birds and bats at a particular location, which is important in estimating the impact that a particular project may have. It is also stated in this section that, “The percentage of avian and bat migrants that flew through the zone of risk (the rotor swept area) was low, averaging eight percent in the fall and 14 percent in the spring.” Compared with data collected at other proposed wind energy projects in New York, the percentage of animals flying in the rotor swept area at Cape Vincent is not low, but about average. Passage rates were below the state average in spring and above the state average in fall (Table 1: Publicly Available Radar Results for Proposed Wind Sites in New York). The second paragraph of DEIS Section 2.11.1.2: Fall and Spring Raptor Migration Survey, states that, “typical raptor species for central New York were observed.” This is an ambiguous conclusion; the species that are considered “typical” should be identified here. Additionally, Cape Vincent and western Jefferson County are generally not considered to be a part of “central” New York. These statements need further clarification in the SDEIS.

The second paragraph of SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Section 2.11.1.3: Breeding Bird Survey, states that the breeding bird surveys indicates the site does “not appear to have any large or unusual populations of breeding resident birds.” DEC disagrees with this statement. The grassland and wetland habitats in the Cape Vincent area are known to harbor the largest breeding population of threatened Henslow’s sparrows in the state, as well as northern harriers, upland sandpipers, grasshopper sparrows, vesper sparrows, horned larks, numerous species of waterfowl and marsh birds, and endangered short-eared owls have been seen in the region during the breeding season. Due to the presence of numerous state listed species in and surrounding the project area, and the pending finalization of the exact location of most project components, including turbines, roads, and transmission lines, DEC recommends an additional breeding bird survey be conducted to target listed species and their potential nesting locations, and results reported in the SDEIS. Having more specific data on where Henslow's sparrows, grasshopper sparrows, bobolinks, northern harriers, and other grassland birds may be nesting within the project boundary will be very helpful in appropriately siting various aspects of the project to minimize adverse impacts to these species. To determine the impact of wind development in such critical habitat on these and other species of grassland-dependent birds, it is necessary to conduct a minimum of three years of post-construction studies, including daily ground searches, habitat displacement/habituation surveys, and breeding bird surveys. The SDEIS should include discussion of a post-construction monitoring plan that includes protocols to study displacement of breeding birds.

DEIS SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Section 2.12.3: Potential Impacts to Bats, discusses results of AnaBat surveys at the met tower and at a riparian location. At the met tower location, bat activity suggests that operation of the project might result in lower mortality rates than average for a wind project; and at the riparian location, bat activity predicts mortality rates similar or higher than those experienced at wind projects in West Virginia or Tennessee. Although these predictions are based on some identified correlation between bat acoustical activity and mortality rates, predicting risk to migratory and breeding bats using acoustic monitoring is limited in its utility and results are conflicting (DEIS page 84). It has been suggested that bats are attracted to turbines, and even areas where pre-construction acoustical surveys indicated low use of the area by bats had unexpectedly high mortality rates.[5] The presence of endangered Indiana bats within the project area could result in direct or indirect mortality to this species. To evaluate the impact this project will have on bats in the region, a minimum of three years of post-construction studies should be conducted and include daily ground searches and extensive acoustical monitoring. The SDEIS should include discussion of a post-construction monitoring plan that includes protocols to study bat mortality.

DEIS SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Section 2.12.5: Comparison with Other Wind Projects–Raptor Migration Surveys, states that on-site surveys at the Cape Vincent Project Area “were initiated late in the season and only four counts were conducted” (DEIS page 85). With so few survey days, and less than 21 hours of observations made during both spring seasons, it is not likely that the survey captured the full extent of raptor migration in the area. Additionally, although surveys at this location may have recorded “less traffic than the known hawk watch sites in New York,” the number of raptors per hour observed at this site was much higher than what has been reported at other proposed wind projects in the state (Table 2: Publicly Available Raptor Migration Data for Proposed Wind Sites in NYS). When evaluating the potential impact a specific project might have on migrating raptors, the results of on-site surveys need to be put into context with observations from other potential wind development areas, not just locations known for their high concentration of raptors. This further analysis should be discussed in an SDEIS.

Cape Vincent’s coastal location at the confluence of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, and the expansive grassland and wetland habitats, concentrate raptors in the vicinity of the proposed wind project in greater numbers than has been seen elsewhere in the state at wind projects located further from the shoreline. Although it is stated that, “based on the spring and fall raptor surveys, it is difficult to conclude the magnitude of spring and fall migration at the Project Area,” for the reasons stated above, it is likely that the Cape Vincent area has a higher concentration of raptors migrating through, especially in spring, than any other proposed wind development site in the state. DEC recommends an additional year (spring and fall) of raptor migration surveys be conducted to better quantify the extent and timing of birds moving through the area. Surveys should take place weekly starting in mid-March until the end of May to cover the spring migration period, and from the beginning of September until the end of November to

cover the fall migration period. Post-construction studies should take place for a minimum of three years at the Cape Vincent Wind Project. In addition to ground searches, visual surveys should be conducted during spring and fall migration seasons to evaluate how birds react to the turbines as they move through the area.

In DEIS Section 3.0: Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts, habitat fragmentation should be included as an identified unavoidable impact caused by the presence of many turbines spread out on the landscape, in addition to fatalities of birds and bats caused by direct collision with the turbines. This is a very important issue surrounding wind energy development, especially in the Cape Vincent area, where this indirect impact has the potential to result in significant effects on wintering raptors and grassland nesting birds.

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Appendix F: Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Power Project.

The sixth paragraph of the Executive Summary incorrectly identifies Henslow’s sparrow and northern harrier as New York State species of special concern (Appendix F, page ii). These birds are both considered NYS threatened species. The SDEIS should include this correction.

DEC disagrees with the statement in the ninth paragraph that, “based on the topography and landform of the Jefferson County area, there is little to concentrate raptor movement though the study area” (Appendix F, page iii). As mentioned above, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River are major influences on migrating raptors, especially in the spring as birds are moving north. Raptors will not fly over large bodies of water, preferring to utilize thermal updrafts of warm air over land to soar long distances with little energy expenditure. It is unclear what area is being compared in the statement, “the study results appear to indicate that migrant raptors are more dispersed when they pass through the proposed project area region.” More dispersed than where? The entirety of western Jefferson County is shoreline, and large numbers of birds move through the area during spring and fall migrations, as well as overwinter in the expansive grasslands along the coast.

In addition to the information reported in the Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey (Appendix F, page iii), the range of recorded passage rates and flight heights should be provided on a nightly and seasonal basis. Knowing maximum and minimum values for these parameters, in addition to the means and medians, will provide a clearer picture of how animals are using the airspace over the radar unit.

With a different location of the radar unit for the spring and fall sampling seasons, it is difficult to determine how much of the difference in recorded passage rates and flight heights is due to differences between the spring and fall, and how much is a result of differences between the coastal (and more northerly) site and the more inland (and southerly) site. Collection radar data at two separate locations adds uncertainty to the reliability of the estimation of nocturnal bird and bat movement through the project area. Although the results from this radar survey may not support the hypothesis that migrants concentrate along the shoreline, caution should be used when making conclusions based on this data set. Variables such the proximity to the coast line, habitat surrounding the radar, dates sampled, amount of time sampled each night, yearly variation, and weather trends/conditions all effect the resultant numbers of birds and bats detected at a site.

-13-

Raptor Migration Surveys–Results and Discussion.

The list of raptor species in the second paragraph and in Appendix F, Table 1 does not include the endangered short-eared owl, yet this species is present in Appendix F, Table 2. If short-eared owls were observed during diurnal raptor migration surveys, information on how many individuals were seen, the date(s) of observation(s), the location(s) of the sightings, and any other relevant observations should be included in the report. The information presented in Appendix F, Table 2 should be calculated for each season separately, rather than combining one fall and two spring seasons of data. Information such as exposure indices and the percentages of birds flying below maximum turbine height may vary between spring and fall and from one year to the next. This would be better portrayed for each season independently.

As mentioned previously in this letter, the comparison of raptor migration data collected at Cape Vincent should not only be compared with local hawk watch sites, but also with data from other proposed wind development projects. Recording fewer birds at a proposed project site than what are seen at established hawk watches is not necessarily indicative of a low potential impact from turbines at the wind site. Evaluating potential wind projects in context with each other is important when determining likely impact to birds and bats.

Breeding Bird Surveys.

Several common species and some state listed species were observed on the breeding bird surveys. Western Jefferson County harbors the largest population of breeding Henslow’s sparrows in the northeast.[6] The potential for habitat fragmentation and avoidance of otherwise suitable nesting areas due to the presence of turbines on the landscape could adversely impact Henslow’s sparrows, northern harriers, and other grassland-dependant species. To reduce the potential for construction-related impacts, pre-construction surveys should be conducted to identify nesting habitat for these species. In those areas where it is determined that significant impacts would likely occur from construction activities, these activities should be minimized during the nesting season, from mid-May through July. A minimum of three years of post-construction surveys should be conducted to evaluate the impact turbines have on breeding birds. Along with ground searches, surveys should be done to determine the degree and duration of displacement and habituation of breeding birds in the vicinity of the project area. The SDEIS should discuss plans for these recommended studies and construction scheduling.

Winter Waterfowl and Raptor Surveys--Results and Discussion.

Appendix F, Table 8 includes two individual short-eared owls observed during fixed point surveys, though Appendix F, Figure 17 does not show the location from which these birds were seen. The text also mentions that six raptor species were recorded, yet only red-tailed hawk, rough-legged hawk, American kestrel and northern harrier are portrayed in Appendix F, Figure 17 and Appendix F, Table 7. These discrepancies should be clarified.

Although the DEIS does not discuss the presence of short-eared owls on the site, they are known to winter in the area, sometimes in large numbers. Data collected by DEC in the winter 2006-2007 recorded at least 17 short-eared owls in five separate roost locations, one within the project area and four within 1.3 miles or less of the project area. Short-eared owls typically roost on the ground during the day and may begin actively flying and hunting in early evening. The survey methods used for the winter waterfowl and raptor surveys were inadequate for targeting this species, with observations made too early in the day and not enough survey days conducted to fully estimate the number of owls.

Post-construction Monitoring.

Plans for a post-construction monitoring survey should be developed prior to the start of construction of the project. Post-construction should take place for a minimum of three years after the start of project operation and include daily ground searches, scavenger removal tests, searcher efficiency tests, bat acoustical monitoring, breeding bird displacement/habituation surveys, and raptor migration surveys. The use of radar during post-construction studies may be recommended to further quantify the impact turbines are having on birds and bats using the area. Details of the post-construction monitoring survey should be discussed with DEC and USFWS to develop a plan agreeable to all parties. A discussion of this issue needs to be included in the SDEIS.

Visual resources.

DEIS Section 2.14 describes the Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) conducted for the project. The study area for the VRA extends to a five-mile radius from the outermost turbines, in accordance with DEC Visual Policy (DEIS page 91). Consideration is also given to resources of high cultural or scenic importance located beyond the five-mile radius, as recommended by DEC. Visual mapping was conducted on a "hypothetical" layout of 86 Vestas 1.65 MW turbines. Since these turbines were distributed over the entire study area, the VRA was able to establish whether turbines would be visible to affected visual resources, even if a larger turbine array (up to 140 turbines) would result in a larger number of turbines ultimately being visible (DEIS page 92). The vegetated viewshed analysis prepared for the VRA (Appendix G, Figure 2) indicates that one or more proposed turbines would potentially be visible from approximately 77 percent of the five-mile study area (DEIS page 92). This includes portions of the Villages of Cape Vincent and Chaumont, the hamlet of Three Mile Bay, many shoreline areas throughout the study area (DEIS page 93), 44 resources of Statewide Significance, and approximately 20.6 miles of the 22.8 portion of the Seaway Trail (NYS Route 12E) that traverses the five-mile study area (DEIS page 108).

The DEIS fails to provide an adequate assessment of the potential impacts to the receptors identified above. The DEIS references a portion of DEC Visual Policy (Section V(C), Significance), noting that the policy defines a significant aesthetic impact as one "that may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or one that impairs the character or quality of such a place." The DEC Visual Policy is further referenced where it states, "Proposed large facilities by themselves should not be a trigger for a declaration

-15-

of significance. Instead, a project by virtue of its siting in visual proximity to an inventoried resource may lead staff to conclude that there may be a significant impact" (DEIS page 108). On the basis of this reference, the DEIS concludes, "it is reasonable to conclude that simple visibility of the proposed wind farm (albeit a large facility) from any of these affected resources of statewide significance does not result in detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of the place or structure; nor will the Project cause the diminishment of public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or impair the character or quality of such a place" (DEIS page 109). This conclusion is unsupported by any analysis of the "character or quality" of the identified visual resources, or the siting of proposed project components "in visual proximity" to them. In referencing Section V(C) of the DEC Visual Policy, the final sentence in the section was left out, which states, "Staff must verify the potential significance of the impact using the qualities of the resource and the juxtaposition (using viewshed and or line-of-sight profiles) of the proposal as the guide for the determination."[7] In DEC's comments on the DEIS Draft Scoping Document, it is stated, "a complete analysis of visual impacts to specific affected resources is necessary to characterize the nature and extent of visual impacts to specific sensitive receptors." The DEIS
fails to provide the level of analysis necessary to "verify the potential significance of the impact using the qualities of the resource and the juxtaposition…of the proposal" to the resource in accordance with the DEC Visual Policy. This needs to be rectified in the SDEIS by the inclusion of site-specific analyses of individual visual resources to determine whether the visual character or quality of each resource may be impacted by the introduction of the proposed visual elements.

Additionally, as recommended in DEC's comments on the DEIS Draft Scoping Document, the list of affected visual resources should include state and national register eligible properties that may be sensitive visual receptors within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) identified by the survey for historic buildings (Public Scoping Document, October 8, 2007, page C-2).

DEIS Section 2.14.10, Mitigation Measures, includes a range of direct mitigation options as recommended in DEC's comments on the Draft Scoping Document, including some repositioning of turbines to reduce impacts to "specific high value resources" (DEIS page 110) and screening of some receptors through "strategic planting of vegetation" (DEIS page 111). On the basis of the impact determinations made in the site-specific impact analyses recommended above, options available for direct mitigation of impacts to specific visual resources should be presented in the SDEIS. This is consistent with DEC Visual Policy, referenced in DEC's comments on the Draft Scoping Document, which states, "if all mitigation options available from the menu are considered, applied where appropriate, and those applied are cost-effective, it can be considered that visual impacts have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable." However, the DEIS fails to include discussion of offsets as recommended in DEC's comments on the Draft Scoping Document, which state, "Where it is determined that direct mitigation is not practicable, specific options available for employing offsets should be identified and described, or if specific opportunities for employing offsets have not been identified, criteria that will be used to select offset-funded activities should be described." This discussion should be included the SDEIS.

Cultural Resources.

DEIS Section 2.29 includes a discussion of cultural resources in the project area and the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for visual impacts to historic resources. Because the potential visual impacts to historic resources are closely linked to the visual assessment referenced above, DEC's comments regarding identification of sensitive receptors, impact assessment and mitigation also apply here. In the Final Public Scoping Document, October 8, 2007, it states that cultural resources reviews would be conducted in accordance with Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) guidelines and results summarized in the DEIS (Public Scoping Document, page 17). Appendix C of the Public Scoping Document includes Cultural Resources Assessment Methodology, and includes Phase 1A and 1B archeological surveys, and a survey for historic buildings (Public Scoping Document, pages C-1, C-2). The DEIS includes only the results of a Phase 1A archeology survey, and states that the results of the Phase 1B survey and historical structures and properties survey will be included in the FEIS. DEC recommends that these survey reports be included in the SDEIS, as well as results of consultation with OPRHP regarding assessment of impacts. As discussed above, the list of affected visual resources should include state and national register eligible properties that may be sensitive visual receptors.

Section 2.30.4, Mitigation Measures, describes options for mitigation of impacts to historical resources that are essentially the same as those described in the visual assessment section, including screening and relocation (DEIS page 163). As stated above in the visual assessment section, these direct mitigation options need to be more fully described in the SDEIS, together with a discussion regarding the application of offsets to address residual impacts, following a detailed analysis of impacts to specific resources.

Cumulative Impacts.

DEIS Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts and Benefits, does not provide an adequate assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of several hundred turbines along the eastern shore of Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River on birds and bats. The SDEIS should include a thorough analysis of the cumulative impacts of wind development around the eastern end of Lake Ontario for migrating, breeding and wintering birds; and bats. Proposed projects in the region include this 140-turbine Cape Vincent Wind Power Project, the 96-turbine St. Lawrence Wind Power Project, the 62-turbine Horse Creek-Clayton Wind Project, and the 77-turbine Galloo Island Project, all in Jefferson County; the Wolfe Island Wind Power Project, in Ontario, Canada; the 39-turbine Roaring Brook Wind Power Project, and the operational 195-turbine Maple Ridge Wind Power Project in Lewis County. Each of these projects has publicly available information on bird and bat movements, habitat use, and estimated mortality rates within their respective project areas that should be taken into consideration when evaluating the contribution of the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project to the total impact of wind energy development in the region.

DEIS Section 6.2, Impacts on Avian and Bat Species, discusses the concern that a semi-continuous swath of turbines in the region, resulting from construction of multiple wind power projects, may make it difficult for migrating birds to bypass any given project without the being
-17-
at risk from collision with another wind project. The DEIS states that concern is "unlikely" given that "migrating birds fly at altitudes well above the top of a wind turbine blade." Nonetheless, the DEIS states that the project sponsor "will continue to gather data on this possible impact" (DEIS page 171). The conclusion that this concern is "unlikely" is not supported by existing data. DEC agrees that additional research is necessary to characterize this concern.

Additional issues.

DEC's comments on the Draft Scoping Document included recommendations that the DEIS include discussion of site restoration activities to be conducted at the conclusion of project construction, a discussion of an operations & maintenance plan describing environmental considerations to be included in the ongoing maintenance of the facility, and an environmental monitoring plan to ensure that project construction proceeds in accordance with regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the environmental review. None of these issues are discussed in any detail in the DEIS, and should be more fully described in the SDEIS.

In conclusion, DEC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIS for this project. We look forward to continuing to work with the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board as Lead Agency throughout the remainder of the SEQR and permit review processes. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (518) 486-9955.

Sincerely,
/s/
Stephen Tomasik
Project Manager

att: Table 1: Publicly Available Radar Results for Proposed Wind Sites in New York
Map: Proposed and Existing Wind Farms in New York with Public Radar Data
Table 2: Publicly Available Raptor Migration Data for Proposed Wind Sites in NYS
Map: Proposed and Existing Wind Farms in New York with Public Raptor Migration Data

cc: J. Madden, BP Alternative Energy
T. Rienbeck, Supervisor, Town of Cape Vincent
M. Gebo, Hrabchak Gebo & Langone
L. Ambeau, NYSDEC Region 6
A. Davis, NYS DPS
M. Brower, Ag. & Mkts.
T. Sullivan, USFWS
J. Bonafide, OPRHP
M. Crawford, USACE
E. Boysen, Ontario MNR
DEC Review Team
-18-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] 617: State Environmental Quality Review, Available: http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4490.html#18098 [29 Feb. 2008].

-4-
[2] U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Aquifer Basics. ONLINE. 2005. Available: http://capp.water.usgs.gov/aquiferBasics/carbrock.html [29 Feb. 2008].

-5-
[3] New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Freshwater Wetlands Regulation Guidelines on Compensatory Mitigation. ONLINE. 29 Oct. 1993. Available: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/wetlmit.pdf [29 Feb. 2008].

-8-
[4] New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects. ONLINE. Dec. 2007. Available: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/drwindguide1207.pdf [29 Feb. 2008].

-11-

[5] Arnett, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J.K. Fieldler, B.L. Hamilton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R. Koford, C.P. Nicholson, T.J. O’Connell, M.D. Piorkowski, R.D. Tankersley, Jr. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):61-78.

-12-
[6] New York Natural Heritage Program. 2008. Online Conservation Guide for Ammodramus henslowii. ONLINE. Available: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=7106. [29 Feb. 2008].

-14-
[7] New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts. ONLINE. 31 Jul. 200. DEP-00-2. Available: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/visual2000.pdf [29 Feb. 2008].

-16-