ST - Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comment Summary

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WINDPOWER PROJECT

TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK
Table 3-2
Saint Lawrence Windpower Project SDEIS Comment Summary
Agency/
Source ID1 Comment ID Commenter Comment Summary
Organization
The USFWS has reviewed the SDEIS and may provide further comments
1 1 USFWS Stilwell, David pursuant to the MBTA, BGEPA, CWA, or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as applicable. Further consultation pursuant to the ESA is warranted
and is ongoing.
The additional data gathered by the project sponsor has answered some of
1 2 USFWS Stilwell, David our questions and concerns. However, we believe that insufficient
information still exists to predict potential impacts to wildlife.
Our previous comments on the project's ability to reduce greenhouse gases
1 3 USFWS Stilwell, David were not adequately addressed. We requested data which shows that the
project will offset emissions produced at fossil fuel burning plants, but none
was provided.
According to the SDEIS, there will be five meteorological towers eventually
located in the project area and all will by guyed for support. As stated
1 4 USFWS Stilwell, David before, we recommend that no guy wires should be used on the towers as
they have been known to be flight hazards for wildlife. Instead, monopole or
self-supporting towers should be installed.
Transmission line overhead crossing of the Chaumont River should be
accomplished using directional drilling under the river to limit impacts to
wildlife using the river corridor. Also, we commend the project sponsor for
1 5 USFWS Stilwell, David minimizing habitat impacts by choosing a route that primarily follows an
abandoned railroad and water line right-of-way. We recommend that tree
clearing along the ROW to reduce risk of damage to OH lines be kept to a
minimum amount necessary.
Based on wetland delineation report, it appears Turbine 3 is in wetland W-
1 6 USFWS Stilwell, David 22; however, the permanent impact associated with this area is listed as a
road impact on Table 3-6. Determine if this is an error. We recommend that
no turbines be placed in wetlands.
We recommend project design should be reviewed to eliminate clearing of
1 7 USFWS Stilwell, David 0.34 acres of forested wetland, if feasible. While compensatory mitigation
plans have not been finalized, project sponsor is not proposing mitigation
3-50
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
for clearing of forested wetlands. We consider that this impact is
permanent, and accordingly, mitigation should be provided.
The SDEIS, p3-47, indicates that breeding bats are not highly susceptible
to mortality from wind turbines. We caution that insufficient data has been
collected at wind energy projects in the eastern US to draw conclusions
1 8 USFWS Stilwell, David about the effects of turbines on local populations. However, it is true that
most bat fatalities have been found during the fall migratory period,
primarily because that is when turbine areas have been searched for
carcasses.
The SDEIS mentions White Nose Syndrome (WNS) as an affliction killing
bats but does not include a discussion of the cumulative effects of WNS
and other sources of mortality on bats, such as wind turbines. While the text
acknowledges that little brown bats have been most affected by WNS, it
1 9 USFWS Stilwell, David does not mention that this species was also among the most killed at
nearby Maple Ridge wind project last year. Since little brown bats are the
most numerous species of bat found in the project area, the text should
provide an analysis of what the long term implications of the project are for
this species.
Adaptive management should be listed as a method for monitoring and
mitigating impacts to bats (and birds). Specifically, the project sponsor
should commit to adjusting project operations, such as adjusting turbine
1 10 USFWS Stilwell, David cut-in speeds during low wind periods to reduce bat fatalities. This is the
period when most bats are killed as documented by recent research (Arnett
2005). A study at the Meyersdale wind project in PA recently determined
that bat mortality can be reduced by more than half if the cut-in speeds are
adjusted (Arnett 2009).
The project area, as noted in the DEIS on p3-22, is within a concentrated
migratory pathway, has attractive stopover habitat, and has unusually high
1 11 USFWS Stilwell, David concentrations of birds and, therefore risk for collision may be higher than
at other projects. The proximity to wetlands, Lake Ontario, and St.
Lawrence River attract waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds to the area
during the breeding and migratory periods (Northern Ecological Associates,
3-51
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
1994). We find that insufficient data were collected at the project site to
determine the spatial and temporal use of the project airspace by flying
animals and to adequately conduct a risk assessment and predict wildlife
mortality for this project. One year of surveys is not enough and we
recommend another year of study data to adequately determine avian use
in project area and the associated risk from project operation.
The SDEIS has documented the presence of bald eagles and golden
eagles in the project area. The bald eagle was removed from the Federal
endangered list and is no longer protected under the ESA; bald eagles
1 12 USFWS Stilwell, David remain on the NYS list as a threatened species and are also protected by
the federal MBTA and BGEPA. The USFWS is currently finalizing
regulations related to eagle take. We suggest the project sponsors review
that information when available. We may make additional recommendations
regarding these species.
The USFWS is currently coordinating with project team and USACE
regarding effects of the project on the federally-listed Indiana bat. The
project sponsor is preparing a Biological Assessment and we reserve the
1 13 USFWS Stilwell, David right to provide additional comments on the Federally-listed species until
the receipt of a complete BA. We will follow the consultation process (CFR
Part 402) for next steps (Biological Opinion, determination of effects,
recommendations and necessary conservation measures, etc).
In summary, we find that the SDEIS provides some of the information we
requested previously, but other data are missing. We maintain our view that
the report does not contain adequate information regarding potential
impacts of the project on wildlife, and additional environmental review is
necessary. Significant data is lacking for migrating, breeding, and wintering
1 14 USFWS Stilwell, David birds, as well as bats. Importantly, more information is needed on State-
and Federally-listed species use of the project area and how the
construction and operation of the project will affect these species. The
USFWS typically recommends that these studies be conducted over 3
years of project operation and be conducted at all times of the year and
under varied weather conditions.
3-52
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Our previous recommendation to mitigate potential impacts to bats was not
included in the SDEIS. Again, we recommend turbines should not have a
cut-in speed of less than 6 meters per second, and operation should be
curtailed between July 15 and September 15 for 5 hours after sunset. Also,
1 15 USFWS Stilwell, David the project approval should be conditioned upon an adaptive management
plan to address wildlife mortality as a result of turbine operations. A
construction environmental monitoring program should be implemented for
this project. We suggest that the program include a training component for
workers on how to identify and handle injured or dead wildlife.
The SDEIS Section 2.4, page 2-4, states that the project is seeking an
easement from DEC to cross approximately 1.6 miles of the Ashland WMA
with the 115 kV transmission line. Use of the WMA for this purpose requires
authorization by the New York State Legislature and requires DEC
approval. The DEC is not aware of any pending legislative proposals to
2 1 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen provide this authorization. Because the timeframe for receipt of
authorization by the state legislature is not able to be determined, an
alternate route may be necessary for the project to move forward in a timely
manner, which may necessitate revision of SDEIS Section 7, Alternatives
Analysis. If the transmission line exceeds 10 miles, DPS approval would be
required.
Define the procedures proposed to cross the Chaumont River with the
overhead transmission line. The Chaumont River is a Navigable Body of
Water, as defined by 6 NYCRR Part 608. Workers/contractors in the river
2 2 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen could create a health and safety issue for the workers and the recreational
public. Appropriate measures to ensure the health and safety of the
workers/contractors and recreational public while crossing a navigable body
need to be addressed.
SDEIS Section 4 does not include discussion of the potential for use of the
proposed transmission line by the BP Cape Vincent Wind Power Project,
2 3 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen which would be located adjacent to the SLWF and would need to deliver
power to the same substation in the Town of Lyme. This analysis should be
provided.
3-53
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
SDEIS Section 2.6.5, page 2-16, states that although not currently
anticipated, portions of the interconnect could be installed above-ground
when burial would not be economically feasible or could result in significant
2 4 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen environmental impacts. More clearly define what situations would meet
these criteria to provide rationale for change. This section includes typical
specifications for installation of underground collection lines. Provide specs
for OH lines also in order that potential impacts, particularly visual, can be
analyzed.
Section 3.1.3.3 includes an outline of proposed karst and geotechnical
investigations, and the role of the environmental monitor is included in
2 5 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen Section 3.1.3.4. While this largely conforms to the DEC's previous
recommendations in the June 15, 2007 letter, it is important that results be
made available to assess the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures
identified in Section 3.2.1.3.
A draft SWPPP should have been included in the SDEIS that provides
specifications for best management practices to control contaminants
based on results of the karst and geotechnical investigations. Specifically
lacking is any mention of controlled concrete washout areas at turbine
2 6 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen foundation sites, which is imported for preventing concrete slurry from
contaminating groundwater through karst features or surface waters and
wetlands. DEC may require that the SWPPP prepared for the SPDES
permit be reviewed by DEC staff prior to implementation to ensure that
plans for site characterization, project construction, and construction
monitoring have been included and adequately address these concerns.
DEC is concerned that the short-eared owl was not sampled in any of the
bird surveys conducted. In contrast to SDEIS Section 3.3.6.2, DEC has
documented a wild, although cyclic, distribution of the species within the
2 7 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen general project area during winter months (see attached maps). Additional
surveys of short-eared owl are recommended both pre-construction and
post-construction to be sure this species' distribution and abundance is
accurately documented. SDEIS should also include 1) short-eared own in
its list of bird species know to inhabit the area 2) short-eared owl in its
3-54
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
wintering bird discussion and 3) short-eared owl listed in Table 1-1.
In reference to Appendix E, page 3, the site visit with the DEC staff
2 8 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen mentioned is not valid part of survey/study effort and was not only to
identify roosting locations. DEC requests that this characterization in the
report be corrected.
Based on the information in the SDEIS, it is difficult to predict that raptors
would not have a high risk for collision due to either low recorded numbers
or flight height outside of the rotor swept zone because 1) the numbers
recorded at the Project Area were higher than most other proposed wind
energy projects and 2) there is not enough information collected at the
2 9 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen Project Site regarding use by wintering or migrating raptors, especially
during fall migration to make such a conclusion. It is known that the Project
Area lies within one of the most important raptor wintering grounds in New
York State. A more thorough analysis of raptor migration within the Project
Area is needed to support the conclusions made in the SDEIS.
Mortality rates at other wind farms, such as Maple Ridge, should not be
2 10 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen used to predict SLWF numbers because avian use of the SLWF Project
Area is higher than all other sites.
SDEIS Section 2.4 states that the total of built project facilities will occupy a
land area of approximately 60 acres. The SDEIS also quantifies impact to
habitat loss by providing the acreage of grassland (41 acres) and second
growth forest (17 acres) that will be affected. However, calculating the total
of temporary and permanent impacts, 14.4 miles of access road
development at 39 feet mean width, 53 tower work spaces at 1.6 acres
2 11 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen each, the result is approximately 150 acres of disturbed land area, much of
which may represent existing wildlife habitat. Further discussion is needed
regarding plans for restoration of temporarily affect areas, including the
length of time for restoration (e.g. replaced forest canopy will require much
longer to replace than grassland). Also, any areas that will need to remain
as buffers (e.g., mowed areas along permanent roads) should be calculated
as permanent impacts if these activities represent restoration of viable
3-55
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
wildlife habitat.
2 12 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen Revise Table 1-1 of the SDEIS to include consultation with the DEC
regarding T&E species, in addition to consultation with USFWS.
While it is recognized that project development and operation will result in
the perpetuation of some grassland habitat (that might otherwise be lost to
succession if farm were to cease) the direct loss of 150 acres of habitat, at
least on a temporary basis, combined with associated habitat loss due to
avoidance or displacement, at least relative to listed species, will need to be
2 13 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen minimized and perhaps mitigated. Pending further clarification and
consultation with DEC with regard to direct and indirect habitat loss due to
construction of this project, the presence of both state endangered and
threatened species utilizing the Project Area may require the issuance of an
Article 11 permit from DEC. The principal condition of this permit would be
to ensure that habitat take impacts, if not avoided, will be mitigated in such
a way as to achieve a "net conservation benefit."
The breeding bird survey conducted for the project according to USGS BBS
protocol are not sufficient; the BBS protocol is designed to estimate trend
data over the long-term, not to fully characterize bird species' occupancy of
2 14 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen an area. Due to the presence of significant grassland, endangered, and
threatened species know to be in the area, an additional breeding bird
survey should be conducted according to DEC's Guidelines for Conducting
Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Facilities.
More complete data need to be obtained in order to support the conclusion
that construction and operation of the proposed Project will likely result in
2 15 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen minor, temporary impacts to breeding birds. The Project could contribute to
an increase in the fragmentation of habitat that may result in birds being
displaced from their nesting areas.
Conclusion: The SDEIS and its related additional information with regards
to pre-construction bird and bat studies substantially adds to what was
2 16 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen offered in the DEIS. However, several of the related studies, including the
Raptor Migration and Breeding Bird Surveys are still lacking in scope in
comparison to the most recent DEC guidelines for bird and bat pre-
3-56
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
construction studies.
Conclusion: Another concern is that the SDEIS continually cites other
studies of wind projects or data from surveys that are not ecologically
2 17 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen similar or even related to the Project Area. The SLWF is located in a region
that has significant grassland bird, raptor, and waterfowl concentration
areas and should not be compared to other potential wind energy projects
that do not support the same natural resources.
DEC agrees that post-construction studies are very important and should
be included as part of the project's required mitigation measures. The
2 18 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen SDEIS should further state that based on the results of these studies,
adjustments to the Project's operational configuration and or time-table may
be necessary to affect avoidance or minimization of the take of birds or
bats, with listed species receiving the highest consideration.
In order to adequately assess the potential impacts to the Project Area's
threatened and endangered species, the Project needs to fully characterize
2 19 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen seasonal use of the area by these species. As submitted, the SDEIS is
inadequate to allow a thorough evaluation of the potential impacts to these
species.
Subsection 3.1.1.4, p3-13, states that a majority of the area is level and the
drainage pattern is generally in the direction of small streams and creeks
(e.g. Kent's Creek, Fox Creek, Shower Creek, Super Creek, Three Mile
Creek), which discharge directly into the St. Lawrence River. There are a
number of inaccuracies in this description: (1) Kent's Creek (aka Mud
Creek) flows directly into Mud Bay, which is an embayment of Lake Ontario
2 20 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen that is approximately 4 miles from the beginning of the St. Lawrence River;
(2) Fox Creek flows directly into Lake Ontario approximately 5.5 miles away
from the beginning of the St. Lawrence River; (3) Shower Creek and Super
Creek do not exist within the Project Area. Shaver Creek, Soper Creek, and
Three Mile Creek flow into Three Mile Bay which flows into Chaumont Bay
and then directly into Lake Ontario approximately 12.2 miles from the
beginning of the St. Lawrence River.
3-57
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Subsection 3.2.2, p3-23, stats that 36 mapped surface water bodies occur
within the Project layout. These include Scotch Brook, Chaumont River,
Kent's Creek, Shaver Creek, Three Mile Creek, Soper Creek and 30
unnamed tributaries. These surface waters are perennial and located within
the Saint Lawrence River Basin. There are a number of inaccuracies in this
description: (1) Scotch Brook is the only one from the listed streams on
page 3-23 that actually flows directly into the St. Lawrence River; (2) Kent's
Creek (aka Mud Creek) flows directly into Mud Bay, which is an embayment
of Lake Ontario that is approximately 4 miles from the beginning of the St.
Lawrence River; (3) Shaver Creek, Soper Creek, and Three Mile Creek flow
into Three Mile Bay which flows into Chaumont Bay and then directly into
Lake Ontario approximately 12.2 miles away from the beginning of the St.
Lawrence River.
It is difficult to assess this SDEIS with a highly inaccurate description of the

surface water geography as it relates to the Project Area.
Subsection 3.1.2 states that the proposed project, once built, could
potentially cause a minor alteration to existing drainage patterns (pages 3-
13 to 3-14). A detailed investigation designed to evaluation the potential for
2 21 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen long-term alterations to existing drainage patterns should be prepared,
noting that any alterations to the existing drainage patterns, even perceived
minor ones, could have serious effects on current land use patterns,
homes, and the environment.
The methods noted in the SDEIS to avoid impacts to Blanding's turtles
(Subsection 3.3.7) are insufficient to adequately protect Blanding's turtles,
particularly from loss of nesting habitat by turbines and mortality caused by
2 22 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen vehicles on roads constructed in nesting areas. Nesting areas are typically
found outside of wetlands. In addition, minimization of impacts to nesting
Blanding's turtles may need to include the restriction of construction
activities to outside of the nesting season.
2 23 NYSDEC Tomasik, Stephen SDEIS Section 2.6.10. DEC recommends that the environmental monitor
be empowered to order correction of acts that violate environmental
3-58
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
regulations and permit requirements, and order the cessation of
construction activities until such corrective action has occurred. The monitor
should also provide regular reports to appropriate involved and interested
agencies, including DEC staff responsible for permitting and technical
review of agency permits. A staff of monitors should be available to provide
coverage at all times the construction activities occur; one monitor may not
be enough to cover extended hours. These provisions will be requirements
on any DEC permits that may be necessary for project construction.
As currently proposed, the project is not substantially located within the
boundaries of the New York State coastal zone. However, its proximate
location and the nature of the proposed activity suggest that coastal effects
3 1 NYSDOS Zappieri, Jeff may be likely. Should further authorization from other federal regulatory
agencies be required or should the USACE decide that the proposed
project would not meet the criteria for a permit issued under the NWP
program, DOS should be notified to determine if a consistency review is
necessary.
The proposed project incorporates transmission lines that traverse portions
of New York's Coastal Zone. Transmission line right-of-way maintenance
activities should not adversely affect any coastal resources. In part, this
3 2 NYSDOS Zappieri, Jeff may be accomplished through a reduced reliance on herbicides, the
establishment of buffer areas adjacent to the Chaumont River, and careful
use of best management practices designed to lessen stormwater impacts
both pre- and post-construction.
Section 2.8.1.4 states that at decommissioning, the transmission line poles
will be sawn flush with the ground unless the "appropriate governing
3 3 NYSDOS Zappieri, Jeff authority" determines that the environmental damage will outweigh the
benefits of removal. This "appropriate governing agency" should be
identified along with suspected environmental damage that would negate
the benefits of removal.
In the Section 2.8.3 discussion of decommissioning, it may be useful to
3 4 NYSDOS Zappieri, Jeff require a performance bond or dedicated fund to be established to ensure
the complete decommissioning of the project.
3-59
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Section 3.2.3.3 should include that all wetland mitigation should be located
within the same sub-watershed as the original disturbed wetland.
Additionally, specific parameters should be established that define what
3 5 NYSDOS Zappieri, Jeff would constitute a successfully established wetland and at what point
guaranteed remedial action would occur, should success parameters not be
met. It may be advantageous to guarantee proper wetland establishment
through bonding or other financial security mechanisms.
Curtailment between July and September should be considered to reduce
impacts to birds and bats. A recent study at the Casselman Wind Power
Project in Pennsylvania indicated that these impacts may be reduced by
3 6 NYSDOS Zappieri, Jeff raising the minimum "cut-in" wind speed necessary to begin turning the
wind turbine. An investigation into the viability of such a procedural shift
may indicate that the benefits derived warrant its implementation. Similarly,
this procedure may be useful to curtail potential effects on the proximate
Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats.
Avian use may be affected at the seven Significant Coastal Fish and
Wildlife Habitats (SCFWH) located within 10 miles of the SLWF. Specific
pre-construction characterization of avian uses of the SCFWHs should be
3 7 NYSDOS Zappieri, Jeff required along with sufficient post construction monitoring to quantify any
potential effects. Appropriate provisions for operating procedure adaptation
should be included in the SDEIS if impacts at the SCFWHs become
evident. These and all other wildlife monitoring data should be presented to
all regulatory agencies and made available for public inspection.
Statements within the last paragraph of Section 3.3.7.2 appear to contradict
each other by stating that the project may cause abandonment of an
3 8 NYSDOS Zappieri, Jeff Indiana Bat maternal colony, effects will not be large enough to affect the
maternal colony, and that direct impacts may lead to the loss of the
maternal colony. This language should be clarified to indicate the
paragraph's true intent.
Section 3.4 states that several road closures may be necessary to enable
3 9 NYSDOS Zappieri, Jeff delivery of construction equipment and materials to the project site and that
some routes may necessitate road improvements. These routes should be
3-60
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
planned to ensure that the public's access to the coast is not hindered.
Additionally, the potential may exist to improve the public's access to the
coast by ensuring that necessary road upgrades are constructed in a way
that would relieve traffic congestion or otherwise improve the public's travel
to and from the coast.
Section 3.4.3 discusses mitigation measures to repair highway
infrastructure that may be damaged during construction of the proposed
3 10 NYSDOS Zappieri, Jeff project. It may be advantageous to ensure that proper financial assurance
measures are in place to provide for adequate repair. Roads likely
susceptible to damage also likely provide the public access to the coast and
as such should be maintained in an appropriate fashion.
Section 3.5.1.3 discusses potentially applicable New York State coastal
policies. However, the analysis appears to consider only a small part of the
project's transmission line. Given the project's proximity to the coastal zone,
3 11 NYSDOS Zappieri, Jeff a full analysis of coastal policy should be included in the SDEIS that
considers the potential effects of the entire project on New York Coastal
Resources. Such an analysis should consider all applicable New York State
coastal policies and any applicable policies of the Village of Cape Vincent
Local Water Revitalization Plan.
3 12 NYSDOS Zappieri, Jeff Include the DOS on the distribution list for all future monitoring reports
regarding this proposed project.
The facilities proposed for the SLWF do not trigger Public Service
4 1 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew Commission jurisdiction (nameplate capacity above 80MW, 115 kV line
over 10 miles, or 125 kV over 1 mile).
The PSC encourages wind energy developers to adopt procedures and
practices to minimize conflicts and interruptions of utility services during
wind project construction and operations. The developer should coordinate
4 2 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew with local utility service providers to avoid construction interference of
electric, gas, cable, water, and telecommunications services providers. The
developer is encouraged to join Dig Safely New York UFPO program during
project development to identify proposed locations of underground facilities
in relation to other underground infrastructure and avoid inadvertent
3-61
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
interruptions during excavation. Section 3.6.2.1 does not address
underground utility structures and equipment which may be affected by
road widening or access road construction. Widening roads at intersections
for temporary construction access by oversize vehicles has the potential to
affect buried infrastructure. Project planning and coordination with utilities
should address any underground facilities which may be encountered for
these improvements. Alternative design or access layout adjustments may
be necessary to avoid conflicts with infrastructure.
Discussion of transmission line construction at Section 3.6.2.1 is cursory.
Construction will involve repeated access for clearing, grading, and access
4 3 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew improvement, excavation, pole placement, installation of hardware and
conductors and conductor tensioning. Maintenance of transmission facilities
and vegetation along the right-of-way will require permanent and ongoing
periodic access to the length of the line.
Above-ground poles should be marked with owner identification information
and numbering of poles, pursuant to PSC regulations. DEIS Section 3.6.3
does not address pole marking requirements. Pole marking is important for
4 4 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew notification of the facility operators in event of damages to or emergency
responses involving downed or damaged service lines. Without appropriate
facility marking information, the likely perception in the community will be to
contact the local electric company if a pole is damaged in events such as
automobile accidents, or construction accidents or line encounters.
DPS staff notes that the use of the former railroad corridor for siting a 115
kV transmission line will require access for construction and facility O&M.
The old rail right-of-way includes washed out bridge and culvert crossings
at waterways, which preclude through-access, and which may make
4 5 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew construction access problematic. Access routes should be identified, and
constraints accounted for in project planning and permitting. In addition, the
co-location of electric transmission lines along the corridor of the existing
water lines may have the potential to result in induced voltages on the
water pipeline. Step and touch voltage levels should be estimated, and any
grounding necessary to avoid induced voltages which could induce an
3-62
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
electric shock in someone touching an above-ground water line facility
(such as a hydrant) should be implemented.
Discussion of facility security at Section 3.13.3.2.7 should indicate that clear
4 6 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew zone around the project substation may need to be enlarged beyond the 10
feet cited, to preclude danger tree contact with station infrastructure and
perimeter fencing.
Attached are standard questions and information requests which DPS
poses to major wind project developers. Some of these items are
4 7 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew addressed in the discussion of impacts and mitigation as described in the
SDEIS; however there are additional details which may be relevant for
consideration of the SLWF.
Visual impacts discussion does not address the Seaway Trail-Cape Vincent
Bicycle Look trail (map attached), much of which is open land through
portions of the Project Area. An analysis of visual impacts to the trail,
including photo simulations, should be provided. Some consideration of
4 8 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew cumulative effects of wind energy on state parks and recreation facilities in
the Jefferson County area is warranted. The number of wind turbines which
will be visible from park locations should be noted for the Wolfe Island, St.
Lawrence, Cape Vincent, and Hounsfield Wind projects is like to be
significant. DPS notes that the Wolfe Island wind turbines are visible across
the low-relief areas of the region at distances exceeding 12 miles.
1. Provide a list of engineering codes, standards, guidelines, and practices
that the company intends to conform with when planning, designing,
4 9 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew constructing, operating and maintaining the wind turbines, electrical
collection system, substation, transmission line, interconnection, and
associated buildings and structures.
2. a) Provide a list of the permits, approvals, and permissions the company
will have to obtain to construct, operate, maintain, and retire the wind
4 10 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew turbines, electric collection system, substation, transmission line,
interconnection, and associated buildings and structures. b) Provide an
estimated schedule for the application and receipt of items in item "a"
4 11 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew 3. Provide a Quality Assurance and Control plan, including staffing
3-63
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
positions and qualifications necessary, demonstrating how applicant will
monitor and assure conformance of facility installation with all applicable
design, engineering and installation standards and criteria as indicated in
question 1 above [Comment 4-9].
4. Provide a statement from a responsible company official that: a)
company and its contractors will conform to the requirements for protection
4 12 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew of underground facilities contained in Public Service Law §119-b, as
implemented by 16 NYCRR Part 753; b) company will comply with pole
numbering and marking requirements, as implemented by 16 NYCRR Part
217.
5. Provide plans and descriptions indicating design, location, and
construction controls to avoid interference with existing utility transmission
4 13 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew and distribution systems. Indicate detailed locations and specify design
separations of proposed facilities from existing electric, gas, and
communications infrastructure. Indicate measures to minimize interferences
where avoidances cannot be reasonably achieved.
6. Provide description and indicate details of plans to limit public access
4 14 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew and assure security at substations, collection points, wind energy facilities,
and aboveground components of electrical collection system.
7. Explain how the design and operation of the facility will avoid interference
4 15 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew with radio communications, including cell phones, AM/FM/SW radio,
television, radar, GPS and LORAN, and microwave transmissions.
8. Provide transmission facility design and construction plans, indicating
vegetation clearing and disposal specifications, structure locations, access
4 16 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew requirements, grading and access improvements, and environmental
control measures including storm water and erosion and control practices
and facilities.
9. Provide facility maintenance and management plans, procedures, and
criteria. Specifically, address the following topic:
4 17 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew a) turbine maintenance, safety inspections, and tower integrity;
b) electric transmission, gathering and interconnect line inspections,
3-64
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
maintenance and repairs;
(i) vegetation clearance requirements;
(ii) vegetation management plans and procedures;
(iii) inspection and maintenance schedules;
(iv) notification and public relations for work in public right-of-way;
(v) minimization of interference with electric and communications
distribution plans.
c) vegetation management practices for switchyard and substation yards,
and for danger trees around stations; specifications for clearances;
inspection and treatment schedules; and environmental controls to avoid
off-site effects.
10. If the company will entertain proposals for sharing above ground
4 18 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew facilities with other utilities (communications, cable, phone, cell phone
relays, etc) provide criteria and procedures for review of proposals.
11. Provide emergency response plans, notification and coordination
procedures. Specify plans and procedures for addressing electric line
4 19 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew outages, specification of 24-hours per day storm and emergency response
situations. Include measures for communication and coordination with
operators of existing utility facilities, and residents of adjoining or affected
locations.
4 20 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew 12. Specify commitments for addressing public complaints, and procedures
for dispute resolution during facility construction and operation.
13. Specify commitments for end-of-life facility retirement and
4 21 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew decommissioning, with specific references to electrical gathering and
transmission system, interconnection and substation facilities.
14. Provide switchyard and substation design drawings and site plans,
indicating:
a) property lines and setbacks; access road location, width, and gradient;
4 22 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew site grading, cut and fill, drainage and environment controls; all proposed
improvements and equipment; fencing and gates; permanent erosion
control measures;
b) indicate any station lighting needs, and appropriate design criteria
3-65
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
c) provide a statement indicating that any future lighting will be designed to
avoid off-site lighting effects (i.e., avoid up-light direction except for as-
necessary maintenance task-lighting; avoid drop-down optics to minimize
light trespass);
d) listing of all electrical equipment and specifications for substation and
switchyard facilities;
e) interconnection facility design plan and profile information.
4 23 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew 15. Provide a status report on equipment availability and expected delivery
dates for towers, turbines, transformers, and related major equipment.
16. a) Specify turbine design setback requirements for the following
structures: occupied structures (residences, businesses, and schools);
barns and unoccupied structures; electric transmission lines.
4 24 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew b) Explain the rationale for the setback distances for each type of structure
or facility.
c) Provide a detailed explanation as to why local setback provision from
transmission lines cannot be accommodated in facility layout.
17. Provide an analysis of the electrostatic and electromagnetic fields for
the proposed 115 kV electric transmission line. Include a cross-section
diagram and chart showing the results of the field strength analysis at
4 25 NYSDPS Davis, Andrew average annual and annual maximum conductor current flow (maximum
conductor rating). The cross-section diagram should demonstrate the
electrostatic and electromagnetic field strengths extending horizontally from
facility centerline to a distance of 300 feet.
We have received a request to evaluate properties for potential
historic/cultural significance. The initial request for resource evaluation was
received on October 9, 2007 and consisted of a single-volume report titled
Historic Architectural Survey (1-2 Mile APE) for the St. Lawrence Wind
5 1 NYSOPRHP Bonafide, John Project (October 2007, TRC). This document was supplemented by a
revised and expanded survey document that was received on January 23,
2008 titled Historic Architectural Survey for the St. Lawrence Wind Project
(January 2008 TRC). Our full assessment is attached to this letter as
Appendix A.
3-66
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Within the survey area, this agency has identified several key loci where
visual impacts should be carefully assessed. There areas encompass the
Cape Vincent village area, especially the National Register Listed individual
properties and historic district. Many of these resources may have a direct
visual connection to more than two-thirds of the proposed towers. In
addition, several of the individual rural agrarian properties will be in the view
5 2 NYSOPRHP Bonafide, John shed of a significant number of the proposed towers. Given the
unremarkable topography of this area the potential view shed/setting
impacts associated with these resources should be carefully assessed. All
resources where this office believes additional visual assessments should
be undertaken have been identified in Appendix A with an asterisk (*). We
would recommend that your agency seek to have appropriate visual
simulations generated to better understand the full extent of the potential
visual impacts associated with this project.
Although the full extent of potential impacts from the proposed undertaking
cannot be assessed absent simulations as part of a comprehensive visual
analysis, OPRHP believes that sufficient information does exist to
determine that under Section 14.09 1(c) of New York State Parks and
Recreation Law, the undertaking will have an Adverse Impact on cultural
5 3 NYSOPRHP Bonafide, John resources. The introduction of the sleek, ultra modern, approximately 425-
foot tall kinetic wind turbines (up to 96 proposed) throughout this scenic
landscape forever alters and changes the rural setting, which itself is a
significant element in much of the survey area and serves as the backdrop
for the architectural, cultural, and scenic tourism heritage of these
communities.
We would recommend that the applicant utilize the visual analysis as a tool
to aid in the exploration of feasible and prudent alternatives that avoid the
adverse impact(s). The assessment of potential impact avoidance options
5 4 NYSOPRHP Bonafide, John may include a reduction in turbine numbers and/or height, relocation of
turbine units, and various screening options. We would recommend that
only after an assessment of avoidance options has been established should
potential migration options be discussed. All consultation regarding
3-67
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
avoidance options and potential later mitigation options should involve
those state/federal agencies directly associated with the permitting/approval
process for this project.
At this point in time we have concluded our evaluation of eligible resources
5 5 NYSOPRHP Bonafide, John and the potential impacts to those resources associated with this project.
Please be aware that we will be asking the project sponsor for GPS data
gathered as part of the survey.
Project design has been changed from 97 turbines to 53 and, consequently,
from 136 MW to 79.5 MW. As a result of the redesign, the project may no
longer require the Section 14.09 review of the NYS Public Service
6 1 NYSOPRHP Bonafide, John Commission. However, at this time, we do not know if other state and/or
federal agencies may be involved in this undertaking. Also, please note, our
comments related only to historic/cultural resources. Comments regarding
New York State parkland were submitted separately.
It is our understanding that the remaining 53 turbines are located on sites
previously identified in the original project information. As such, no
6 2 NYSOPRHP Bonafide, John additional topographic assessment or architectural survey was requested
by this office. The Alternatives Analysis and Visual Analysis provided in the
SDEIS would indicate that a number of the previously identified resources
would remain affected even with the turbine field selection.
As noted in the SDEIS, the reduction in the total number of turbines from 97
to 53 is a significant component in minimizing the impacts to historic
properties and is discussed in the sponsor's Alternatives Analysis. While
recognizing the significance of this redesign on the overall impact to the
6 3 NYSOPRHP Bonafide, John region's historic resources that surviving turbine field, nevertheless will
continue to have an adverse effect on historic properties. At this point in
time we encourage the Lead Agency, the project sponsor, and involved
state and/or federal lead agencies to continue to seek opportunities to
explore feasible and prudent alternatives that avoid, minimize, or to mitigate
the adverse impacts.
7 1 NYSOPRHP Lyons, Thomas I am writing on behalf of the State Parks office of the NYSOPRHP.
Comments on the cultural/historic impacts are provided separately by John
3-68
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Bonafide.
The visual impact analysis indicates the project will be visible from three
state parks: Cedar Point, Burnham Point, and Long Point. These three
facilities constitute an important component of the public recreational
amenities in the region and it is quite apparent that this project will have an
7 2 NYSOPRHP Lyons, Thomas adverse impact on these facilities. It is not possible to tell the location where
the line-of-sight confirmations were conducted. We request information on
the specific location, preferable GPS coordinates, for further review. Once
we receive this information, we may request additional photo simulations to
assist in determining potential impacts.
There seems to be an inconsistency in the SDEIS between the photo
simulation in Figure A14b and Table 3-27 which indicates that the "Actual
7 3 NYSOPRHP Lyons, Thomas View" from Cedar Point State Park will be "substantially screened by local
structures or vegetation." It would seem that this should be listed as
"Visibility indicated." Please clarify or provide further information.
7 4 NYSOPRHP Lyons, Thomas We also request further information on the impacts to park patrons of the
required FAA lighting to the nighttime horizon.
Based on the fall raptor migration rates exceeding those of Franklin
Mountain Hawk Watch and given the location of the project along the
northeastern edge of Lake Ontario, large numbers of birds may funnel
7 5 NYSOPRHP Lyons, Thomas through the Project Area during fall migration. State Parks recommends
that post-construction mortality surveys focus particularly on mortality
during migration. If significant mortality is observed, consideration should
be given to reducing operations during peak periods of migration.
State Parks endorses the SDEIS proposal to implement "the minimum FAA
safety lighting requirements." Also with regard to lighting, this agency
requests that the findings within the following two scientific documents be
7 6 NYSOPRHP Lyons, Thomas considered during the preparation of the FEIS: 1) USFWS 2003 Interim
Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines.
Wind Turbine Siting Group, and 2) Longcore, Travis, Catherine Rich and
Sidney A. Gauthreaux Jr., 2008.
7 7 NYSOPRHP Lyons, Thomas The DEIS states that there will be shadow flicker less than 10 hrs/year at
3-69
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Burnham Point State Park. Please provide additional information on
impacts associated with shadow flicker including the basis for this estimate
as well as a focus on impacts to recreationists at the State Park.
Table 1-1 of the DEIS states, "The proposed project would generate noise
7 8 NYSOPRHP Lyons, Thomas during construction." State Parks seeks assurances that the project
applicant will confer with us on ways to minimize disruptions to park patrons
during construction.
In closing, State Parks acknowledges the importance of alternative and
7 9 NYSOPRHP Lyons, Thomas renewable energy sources for sustainability but we also recognize the
importance of this agency's mission to protect public resources that are so
important to the quality of the experience for our patrons.
WWNY's experience is that windmill farms can disrupt television signals
and municipalities should have a solid plan to make sure that free over-the-
air TV remains a valuable resource to all citizens now and in the future for
local news, weather, emergency broadcasts, as well as entertaining
programming.
WWNY has reviewed the sections which covered television reception within
the DEIS and SDEIS. We know St. Lawrence Wind Farm contracted
Comsearch for an analysis of the impact on off-air television reception, but
Corbin, James, could not find a date when this study was conducted. Some data is
FOX Program Director incorrect or dated (stations in operation, channel numbers, stations
10 1
Broadcasting and Director of FOX operating digitally, etc) and there are a few statements which we would
Broadcasting challenge based on our engineering knowledge and experience.
As of February 17, 2009 WWNY no longer broadcasts an analog signal. On
that date we also switched our digital broadcasts from UHF channel 35 to
VHF channel 7. It has been our experience that VHF frequencies are more
affected by turbines than UHF frequencies, and contrary to the conclusion
Comsearch makes, digital signals can be affected by intervening structures.
We suspect it relates the physical size of the radio wave-length of a
structure reflects or signal. Reflected signals produce a phenomenon called
multi-path which with may DTV sets or converter boxes makes the signal
appear weak or missing.
3-70
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
We were pleased to read that if project operations impact existing television
coverage SLWF would address and resolve each individual problem. This
is encouraged since all viewers are important to us. It notes further that
mitigation actions could include adjusting existing antennae, upgrading
Corbin, James antenna, or providing cable or satellite systems to affected households. It
FOX Program Director needs to be noted that cable is not a viable action for many residents in our
10 2
Broadcasting and Director of FOX rural area and the Direct Broadcast Satellite services do not carry local
Broadcasting stations. Signal interference from windmills would not make a viewer
eligible for a distant-market Network feed from satellite and distant-market
feeds do not serve the viewer with local news or emergency broadcasts.
Distant Network feeds negatively affect WWNY's ability to serve and
contribute to the North Country.
Menter, Rudin, The SDEIS is not adequate and still fails to address the deficiencies
11 1 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas discussed in my letters of June 13, 2007, June 14, 2007 and February 20,
P.C. 2008.
The SLWF is incompatible with the Village and Town of Cape Vincent Joint
Comprehensive Plan of 2004. The plan provides that "Area 8" where the
majority of the Project and much of the unrelated BP wind project will be
Menter, Rudin, sited, consists "mainly of rural residential and agriculture, with scattered
11 2 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas commercial and a public school." The plan provides that "development that
P.C. has minimum impact on important resources such as scenic natural vistas,
working landscapes, and tourism assets" should be encouraged, and the
"location of towers...or utility facilities...[which] would have a negative
impact on scenic vistas and tourism assets" should be discouraged. Page
32.
Menter, Rudin, The visual impact analysis is not adequate. The 140 towers from the
11 3 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas pending Cape Vincent are not included. The density of wind turbines in the
P.C. town will have a large impact that is not adequately addressed.
Menter, Rudin, The Applicant states that design alternatives for the portion of the
11 4 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas transmission substation in the resort district will be evaluated to avoid or
P.C. minimize placement of this facility within this district. The evaluation of
design alternatives must take place as part of the impact statement
3-71
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
process.
Menter, Rudin, The bird and bat studies in the SDEIS are not adequate. Further study is
11 5 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas necessary in accordance with NYSDEC Guidelines (expanded study) and
P.C. USFWS 2003 Interim Guidelines.
Menter, Rudin, The raptor surveys are inadequate. The SDEIS downplays the presence of
11 6 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas these species. At a minimum, additional seasons of data regarding the
P.C. presence and height of these species is needed before such presence can
be dismissed as "minimal" or outside the "zone of danger."
Menter, Rudin, The presence of the protected species of breeding birds (northern harrier,
11 7 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow) merits additional
P.C. seasons of study during the SEQR review of this Project.
The Indiana bat analysis in the SDEIS is inadequate. Further study is
required to determine the extent in which this site is used by the Indiana
Bats (as opposed to the two brief sampling events conducted by the
Menter, Rudin, Applicant) and to corroborate the Applicant's theory that the Glen Park
11 8 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas cave-based ecology is dying off. Such analysis should not be part of a
P.C. vague future "collaborate process" but must be assessed in an
environmental impact statement. Such consultation and the development of
effective mitigation must occur during the SEQR process to render SEQR
meaningful.
Based upon the presence of multiple threatened and endangered species
of birds and bats and in the immediate vicinity of the site, much more study
is required to adequately assess the impact of the proposed facility on
those species. Such study must be performed prior to construction, as part
Menter, Rudin, of the environmental impact statement for this Project.
11 9 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas
P.C. Such impacts must be assessed and mitigated during the SEQR process,
not after it has concluded. These are potential impacts that will likely require
a "taking" permit under both state and federal law, and therefore this is not
some theoretical or fanciful concern. There are many different species of
birds and bats which are lawfully protected and significantly more study is
required in an environmental impact statement to determine whether or not
3-72
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
this site is feasible for this large industrial wind facility.
Menter, Rudin, SDEIS should adequately justify the need for overhead rather than buried
11 10 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas power lines and discuss whether overhead lines will actually create more
P.C. impacts to birds than will be avoided in the wetlands.
Menter, Rudin, Coastal consistency - nowhere in the DEIS or SDEIS is there any
11 11 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas demonstration that this facility (or any part of it) must be constructed in a
P.C. shorefront location.
Menter, Rudin, The SDEIS states that the Applicant will develop a wetland mitigation plan.
11 12 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas Mitigation of impacts to resources such as wetlands is an important part of
P.C. the SEQR process and should be discussed within the SDEIS, not
developed after SEQR is completed.
Group of local citizens hired a noise consultant to evaluate Hessler's noise
analysis of the BP facility (attached to comment letter). Because the same
consultant conducted the analysis for SLWP, we assume the same flaws in
methodology.
(1) Test sites at the noisiest locations resulting in higher ambient noise
level. And the typical residence in Hessler's report is not a typical residence
but a construction trailer on a main road with a storage yard for trucks and
other heavy equipment
(2) Hessler significantly overstated background noise conditions during the
Menter, Rudin, summer by conducting a noise survey during a narrow time period when
11 13 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas insect noise would have been at its peak
P.C. (3) Insect noise does not "mask" noise from wind turbines as contended by
Hessler because it is of a substantially higher frequency than wind turbine
sounds.
Schomer showed how a much more accurate ambient level for comparison
is 30 dB, which is much more typical of a rural community like Cape
Vincent.
Based upon the critical ramifications of establishing an erroneous ambient
sound level, it is incumbent upon the Town to more accurately determine
the background sound levels in this community. SLWF's elevated ambient
level of 37 db(A) is neither reasonable nor adequate to protect the citizens
3-73
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
of Cape Vincent from objectionable noise. At a minimum, the Town should
have its own consultant assess background noise levels in Cape Vincent,
the results of which will be important to both pending projects.
Anticipated noise level of the operating facility is also suspect. The
Applicant's study relied upon modeling results obtained utilizing the
manufacturer's (the Applicant's) own sound data rather than actual sound
Menter, Rudin, level data obtained from operating wind farms. The Applicant should
11 14 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas compare actual operational noise data from operating facilities with
P.C. manufacturer's data to determine if model results compare with actual
conditions at such facilities, and determine if whether the Applicant's
modeling assesses the frequency and duration of weather-generated
variation from "normal" expected sound levels at such facilities.
Menter, Rudin, The visual impact analysis of impacts to cultural/historic resources is
11 15 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas inadequate because it does not consider the total impact of the additional
P.C. 140 proposed turbines for the adjacent Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project.
The SEQR process is meant to be an important tool for analyzing impacts
and mitigation, not a mere procedural impediment or bother. As with the
Menter, Rudin, DEIS, the Applicant relies too much on post-construction studies or future
11 16 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas collaborative efforts with state and federal agencies to determine impacts or
P.C. develop necessary mitigation. As Lead Agency, the Planning Board must
ensure that such efforts are part of the SEQR process or that process has
no value whatsoever.
Since my comment letter dated May 22, 2007, I have received copies of the
following documents which are part of the Planning Board's record of this
action:
Menter, Rudin, 1. Memo to "File" from Kris Dimmick, the Town of Cape Vincent's consulting
12 1 & Trivelpiece, Fucillo, Thomas engineer dated 2/11/09 re Comments on January 2009 SDEIS (copy
P.C. attached).
2. 2/12/09 Letter from Todd Mathes, Town of Cape Vincent attorney, to
Richard Cogen, attorney for SLWF regarding the SDEIS completeness
review.
3. Email from Todd Mathes to various representatives of the Applicant
3-74
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
dated 3/20/09 subject "Comments on St. Lawrence SDEIS" and
4. Letter of 3/23/09 from Todd Mathes to Richard Edsall regarding
completeness review of the SDEIS.
These documents support the conclusion that the SDEIS is inadequate, in

particularly regarding the sound analysis. It confirms that the Town's sound
consultant takes issue with portions of the sound analysis. Our FOIL
request to obtain a copy of these comments was denied and we reserve the
right to challenge that denial as a violation of New York's Freedom of
Information Law.
We request that you make the Tocci materials part of the SEQR record in
this action, require the Applicant to modify the SDEIS to make substantive
changes required by Mr. Dimmick (and apparently Mr. Tocci) and require
further analysis of noise impacts after appropriate background levels are
determined. There is no need to rush this important review to accommodate
the Applicant's construction schedule.
The WEST Inc study is likely flawed and did not adhere to the study work
plan. The SLWF is located proximal to one of the largest rivers in North
America and at the base of a large peninsula yet the studies provide little
evidence documenting the large concentrations of birds that would be
expected in this area. Flaws include:
- The study does not characterize avian/bat passage rates proximal to the
shoreline nor over inland areas, as planned in the study plan. Only a
13 1 Old Bird Inc. Evans, William passage rate summing up the whole radar-swept area is provided, most of
which is outside the wind project and another determination of passage rate
from a thin slice of atmosphere from the vertical mode of radar operation,
which was also collected outside the wind project area.
- West located radar equipment 0.5 km (instead of the prescribed 1.5 km
from the river edge. As such, the study provides horizontal passage rate
data where a third of the radar sweep area is over the St. Lawrence River.
The bird activity in this airspace is totally impertinent [sic] for avian impacts
of this wind project and it likely severely biases the results. For example,
3-75
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
lower density (low-altitude) migration over water wouldn't have been
included in the overall passage rate figure whereas higher density overland
migration would have. Why doesn't the SDEIS come out and say that the
radar was only located 0.5 km from the St Lawrence River instead of the
prescribed 1.5 km? Why does this SDEIS incorrectly state that the USFWS
and NYSDEC recommended that the radar be less than 1.5 km away from
the shore when, in fact, these agencies requested that it be "approximately
1.5 km away?
- The passage rate determined from the vertical radar analysis is just a
single small slice of atmosphere adjacent to the project area and doesn't tell
us anything about channeling dynamics or the migration density across the
larger project area.
The West study does provide directional data of targets, which has the
potential to indicate channeling dynamics if carried out properly. But the
directional data they use in their analysis is from targets detected across all
altitudes surveyed. West's inclusion of high-altitude targets in this analysis
13 2 Old Bird Inc. Evans, William will tend to mask any channeling along the shoreline region because such
channeling activity would be primarily at low-altitudes.
The West study does not provide quantification of the relative rates of
passage below turbine height over the water, over the coastal zone, or over
the inland regions -- data that would help substantiate whether channeling
along the lakeshore was occurring.
For various reasons, the preconstruction radar study for this wind project
was not as productive as it could have been. What this means is there is a
lot less certainty in any forecast for impact to night migrating songbirds,
13 3 Old Bird Inc. Evans, William which so far appear to compose more than 80% of fatalities in eastern
North American wind projects. I think the SDEIS and the West radar study's
predictions of inconsequential collision impacts to birds are without solid
basis. The avian collision impact is potentially much higher than is
suggested by the SDEIS and West.
13 4 Old Bird Inc. Evans, William I have conducted nocturnal migration research in the region of the St.
Lawrence wind project using acoustic monitoring of avian flight calls. While
3-76
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
my data suggest channeling dynamics in the region and unusual avian
concentration dynamics due to the peninsular location of this wind project, it
is clear that more research needs to and could be conducted to understand
these complex nocturnal migration dynamics with regard to reducing the
avian impact of wind projects in the region. What is needed is a study with
multiple nocturnal monitoring methodologies that can monitor the
atmospheric stratum below turbine height of multiple sites. Such a study
would help site turbines in areas that would have less nocturnal migration
traffic below turbine height, and theoretically less collision risk. Such a
study is worth consideration by all parties as wind turbine development in
this region is a long-term prospect.
While the West radar study has serious flaws and could have been carried
out more productively, the NYSDEC bears some responsibility for making
sure than the preconstruction studies are on track to be productive. The
preconstruction studies for the SLWF wind project were designed and
13 5 Old Bird Inc. Evans, William carried out before the NYSDEC guidance on wind power development were
finalized and fully thought out. It should be noted that avian impact at wind
projects is a learning process for all involved. The wind industry is the
primary proponent (and receiver of significant public $ stimuli). As such, it
has to bear a major burden for compliance with the full spectrum of public
service surrounding wind projects, including environmental impact.
I have conducted an acoustic monitoring avian night migration study
approximately 1 km west of the intersection of Rosiere Rd and Millens Bay
Road, approximately 1 km south of the SLWF, rough the same distance as
the West radar equipment was from the wind project area. The breeding
bird survey should also consider the following five species based on my
13 6 Old Bird Inc. Evans, William study, which recorded multiple flight calls of these species in the first week
of June 2007: Black-crowned night heron, least bittern (NYS Threatened),
Virginia rail, whip-poor-will (NYS Special Concern), and grasshopper
sparrow (NYS Special Concern). The site where these species were
recorded was simply an open field area. For most of these species, this
suggests they were flying about at night in regions outside of their preferred
feeding and nesting habitat. The fact that three of these species are
3-77
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
associated with wetlands suggests that they are breeding within (or in the
near vicinity) of the SLWF. I am happy to provide this data to SLWF and the
agencies.
The SDEIS does not contain enough data to support the conclusions made
in the SDEIS. For example, the Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New
York State identifies Cape Vincent as having significant concentrations of
Onondaga bird species that are Threatened and Special Concern in New York State.
14 1 Riley, Thomas
Audubon The atlas is a culmination of five years of fieldwork by thousands of
volunteers across the state. The SDEIS does not report the same avian
concentrations. We believe this is because the fieldwork for the SDEIS was
not adequate in duration and expertise.
We are very concerned that the project will adversely impact breeding,
migrating, and wintering patterns and behavior on the project site and
Onondaga surrounding area for the following Threatened and Species of Special
14 2 Riley, Thomas Concern that occur in the project area: northern harrier, short-eared owl,
Audubon
rough-legged hawk, whip-poor-will, and grasshopper sparrow (contrary to
the SDEIS conclusion, there is no evidence that this species would benefit
from the project).
The environmental impact statement attempts to discount those concerns
with the citing of minimal studies. Considering the variety of weather and
Onondaga other natural cycles there was not enough study of the bird populations to
14 3 Riley, Thomas
Audubon be confident of the recommendations. We would request that at least two
additional years of avian studies be conducted before another
environmental impact statement is considered for review.
For all the assurances in the SDEIS, the operator does not know what
damage will be done to the bird species on this site. The impact of this
Onondaga project on the welfare of birds in the region and the state is so critical that
14 4 Riley, Thomas we should insist that all comments in the study be based on scientifically
Audubon
acquired data. Referencing other studies and the proposed wind projects
that do not have a historical basis for their data should be discounted and
removed from the report.
14 5 Onondaga Riley, Thomas Any wind power project that gets approved and built should include post-
3-78
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Audubon construction studies. For this unique site it is critical that the science be
done now, not after the facilities are built and the damage to the avian
resources is done.
Onondaga In conclusion we ask you to recommend that this site not be approved for
14 6 Riley, Thomas
Audubon wind power projects.
We have talked with DEC employees watching for short-eared owls by our
Bell, Dolores and house over the past few years. They've seen as many as seven owls at one
15 1 time. If those doing the SDEIS failed to find any of these owls they must be
Michael
either incomplete or negligent and it should call into question their credibility
on other aspects of the SDEIS.
Two years ago, Clif Schneider did a sound level study at our home. Sound
levels he recorded were much lower than background levels assumed in
the SDEIS. The ambient sound test for the SDEIS is not a correct
representation of typical non-participating residents because the testing
Bell, Dolores and positions were located in noisy areas (near a construction site, near the
15 2
Michael largest dairy in town, near working farms, near busy highway, one near a
farm and a road). We are a farming and a resident community. To achieve
a limit of no more than 5 dBA above ambient sound at our home we think
setbacks need to be at least 3500 feet. Assurances that non-participating
residents will be protected need to be made before development proceeds.
In reference to low frequency noise, independent studies show it adversely
affects young children and the elderly. There needs to be further studies
into that. We did not find reference to this problem in the SDEIS. Please
reference World Health Organization (WHO) Lares final report Noise effect
Bell, Dolores and Morbidity by Dr. Niemann and Dr. Maschke
15 3
Michael (http://www.who.int.docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html) on page 8 refers
to the nervous and cognitive systems and on page 14 it refers to noise and
sleep disturbances, let alone other health problems. Science suggests that
Fiber acoustic disease may be attributed to windmills, so further research
needs to be done here too.
Bell, Dolores and The SDEIS report claims shadow flicker will affect up to 2,700 feet. There
15 4
Michael are 10 proposed turbine sites within this distance of our house. We have
3-79
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
bedroom windows facing east without shades, frequently watch the sunset
out the western windows, and spend a lot of time outdoors. We will be
subjected to shadow flicker thought the day.
Bell, Dolores and Under the complaint resolution it is very vague and no true resolutions are
15 5 listed. Fill out the paperwork and wait. It doesn't give any time constraints
Michael
for true resolution.
A concern to be included in the complaint resolution in the complaint
resolution would be for the wind farm, it's developer and participating
Bell, Dolores and landowners to put up a bond to purchase properties from non-participating
15 6
Michael owners of adjacent windmill property owners if adjacent windmill property to
remediate any problems, if adversely affected by the "effects" of the
windmills and unable to sell on the open market.
There are no mitigation measures for shadow flicker or sound levels in the
Bell, Dolores and report. In fact, the use of buffer zones is the primary protection for ice shed
15 7
Michael and blade failure. We think buffer zones should be at least 3,500 feet to
avoid problems with shadow flicker and sound levels.
Also, under the mediation measure it needs to state that if within 18 months
Bell, Dolores and a non-participating resident deems that the developer denies them health,
15 8
Michael safety, or well-being, the wind farm, its developers, and participating
landowners would purchase property at pre-development market value.
It's not the responsibility of this board to assess the wind power industry's
Bell, Dolores and affect on global warming based on questionable science or the financial
15 9 viability of the industry without government subsidies. It is this board's
Michael
responsibility to regulate development based on its effect on the health,
safety, and general welfare of the public of this community.
Bell, Dolores and We think the SDEIS should be rejected due to its obvious lack of credibility
15 10 and apparent attempt to deceive and a moratorium be placed on
Michael
development until these concerns can be more adequately addressed.
Bell, Dolores and We started building our home over 5 years ago. If we know then what we
15 11 knew now we wouldn't have built our home here. The public officials did us
Michael
a disservice by not letting us know of the proposed windmills.
3-80
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
The poles used for the overhead 34.5 kV and 115 kV transmission lines can
cause interference with agriculture operations when located on farmland.
16 1 Boss, Mark As a result, the Department [NYS Ag & Mkts] recommends that the 34.5 kV
lines be buried in agricultural fields. Why are you not burying the lines in
farmland?
In paragraph 2.6.2 St. Lawrence Wind states that in active agricultural
areas, agricultural protection measures in accordance with the guidelines of
16 2 Boss, Mark the NYS Ag & Mkts will be followed and the cable will be placed at a
minimum depth of 48 inches or 6 inches beyond the depth of bedrock. NYS
Ag & Mkts says that at now time [sic] will the depth be less than 24 inches
below the soil surface. Is it 24 inches or 6 inches?
Concerns regarding impacts of bedrock excavation on water resources.
There is no indication that any fieldwork has been done to establish major
springs and their use or flow prior to construction, thus no baseline to
16 3 Boss, Mark measure the impact of construction. Nor is there any information on wells
and springs within 500 feet of where blasting will occur. Will this information
be included in the FEIS? Also, what is St. Lawrence Wind's plan to provide
citizens with potable water if well problems occur?
St. Lawrence Wind does not say if the concrete will be mixed on site or
hauled in from off site. In either case will the FEIS include a description of
16 4 Boss, Mark specific processes that will be implemented to ensure the concrete is
handled properly during construction to limit the impacts to surface waters,
wetlands, and underground waters, given the existence of karst topography
in the project area?
St. Lawrence Wind states that the final overhead transmission line right-of-
16 5 Boss, Mark way will be identified post-construction on as-built drawings which will be
filed with the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. Why not be identified pre-
construction?
Why doesn't the decommissioning plan include the long distance
16 6 Boss, Mark transmission lines? What is the plan to ensure that there are sufficient
funds available to execute the plan? If it includes bonding, which I favor,
how will that bonding follow to successive owners?
3-81
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
What are the migratory patterns of the herons and how do they fly when
17 1 Boss, Sarah they are migrating? How long do they stay in Cape Vincent? When do they
arrive and when do they depart? Why isn't this addressed in the DEIS?
17 2 Boss, Sarah Impacts of shadow effect on wildlife should be part of the DEIS.
17 3 Boss, Sarah Individuals, guides, and town must be compensated if towers result in loss
of fishing revenues.
17 4 Boss, Sarah SLWF needs to establish who the environmental monitor works for and how
he/she sends reports to.
The development of a long-term environmental management plan should
be considered to incorporate plans for restoration of environmental impacts
17 5 Boss, Sarah during the following construction [sic], environmental considerations to be
included in the ongoing maintenance facility, a contingency plan to assess
and minimize environmental impacts during major repairs, and assessment
and mitigation of environmental impacts during decommissioning process.
17 6 Boss, Sarah It is important to know the impacts of shadow effect on the fish in the water.
How can the impact on wells and springs be evaluated if there is now
baseline for the springs or wells? Fieldwork should be done to establish
17 7 Boss, Sarah major springs and their use or flow prior to construction. I would like to see
identification of all wells and springs within 500 feet of where blasting will
occur. Also address the steps to be made to provide citizens with potable
water if problems occur.
17 8 Boss, Sarah The project may require an Article 24 Freshwater Wetland Permit and
Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
Since issues regarding potential medical problems related to wind turbines
17 9 Boss, Sarah come up with proposals around the state, it would seem appropriate to
include a section on medical issues in the DEIS.
Critical information is needed to evaluate potential impacts resulting from
17 10 Boss, Sarah the project not performed as part of the DEIS. The DEIS should be updated
to include: geotechnical field data, groundwater studies, wetland field
survey, and hydrogeological balance study based upon long-term runoff. By
3-82
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
omission of this information during the design and review stage with a
disclaimer that it will be obtained "prior to construction" the developer
avoids all accountability from the Lead Agency, involved agency, and public
comment.
At best the studies to date may be considered pilot efforts requiring 3-5
17 11 Boss, Sarah years of intense further studies of many groups before any consultation of
value may be drawn.
Are you and the Audubon Society aware of the IBA (Important Bird Habitat)
17 12 Boss, Sarah on Pleasant Valley Road? How will it be affected? What does Audubon
say?
17 13 Boss, Sarah The lease with SLWF takes away landowners' constitutional rights to sue
for punitive damages and the right to jury trial. Why is this acceptable?
Section 2.6.4 of the SDEIS needs to include a description of specific
processes that will be implemented to ensure the concrete is handled
17 14 Boss, Sarah properly during construction to limit the impacts to surface waters,
in the project area.
The report should specifically state that the habitat type located at
17 15 Boss, Sarah Chaumont Barrens and Three Mile Creek will not be impacted by the
project.
Section 3.2 shows that no biotic or water quality data is provided but this
17 16 Boss, Sarah information should be included in the report along with a discussion of
potential impacts from project construction.
Section 3.3 of the DEIS does not identify if the wind project will impact to
17 17 Boss, Sarah establish [sic] the St. Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management
District (SLWGMD). Nor does it mention if it is compatible with the
SLWGMD.
Section 3.3.6 NYS Fish and Wildlife strongly recommend that the Smith
17 18 Boss, Sarah (2007) be considered by the project sponsor in siting the project features
[sic].
17 19 Boss, Sarah Section 3.3.6 NYS Fish and Wildlife found insufficient data exists to
3-83
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
adequately conduct a risk assessment and predict wildlife mortality for this
project.
The DEIS falls short of providing the necessary information in a
17 20 Boss, Sarah comprehensive manner. The DEIS states that additional data on wildlife
use and potential impacts is forthcoming. NYS Fish and Wildlife will review
this information prior to making a final determination.
The SDEIS states that SLWF will meet the setbacks required by the
Planning Board of Cape Vincent. These setbacks are 1,500 feet from the
18 1 Boss, Sarah Village of Cape Vincent boundary line, 1,000 feet to a non-participating
property line, 1,250 feet to a non-participating residence, and 750 feet to a
participating residence. These are inadequate for the safety of our
residents. I request that you require changes to these setbacks.
Commentary regarding the impact on health and safety from the wind
18 2 Boss, Sarah turbines. It is bordering on a crime to even consider that some residents will
be forced out of their homes due to inability to live with conditions caused
by the location of their turbines to their homes.
The monies the town acquires from the PILOT will be eaten up by the loss
18 3 Boss, Sarah of revenue from property taxes. Properties will decrease in value due to the
turbine industry. Commentary regarding negative impacts to the community
from the wind project.
The SDEIS is incomplete and not adequate for public comment and should
not have been accepted by the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board.
Dramatic adverse impacts are proposed in the SDEIS without adequately
19 1 Bragdon, Brooks describing these impacts. There is no discussion to avoid adverse impacts;
there is no mention of alternate sites for the turbines, and no opportunity for
interested parties such as myself to communication concerns and
suggestions about the adverse impacts.
A letter dated May 28, 2008 from John A Bonafide of the NYS Historic
Preservation Office to Andrew C Davis of the NYSDPS advises that the
19 2 Bragdon, Brooks project shall result in adverse impacts, that "visual analysis be used to
explore alternatives to avoid the adverse impacts, suggests discussion of
relocation of the turbine units as well as a reduction in height and the
3-84
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
number of turbines. Only after potential avoidance options have been
established should mitigation measures be discussed and this
communication should involve supervision state and federal agencies.
There is no such communication in the SDEIS.
Objections to the location of turbines near the two roads leading into Cape
Vincent, NYS Route 12 from Chaumont and from Clayton. These turbines
should be moved back considerably in order to preserve the basic assets of
the community. The project will jeopardize the historic preservation
19 3 Bragdon, Brooks designation of my home and my real estate development company. The
project will adversely affect the historic and cultural significance of the
community. Setbacks from the main roads leading into the community,
away from the St. Lawrence River, and from the village and historic
properties are essential to preserve the culture of the community.
A large percentage of the property tax assessment base is made up of
19 4 Bragdon, Brooks waterfront and water view properties and would be adversely affected by
the imposition of the economic will of a minority of the tax assessment
base.
20 1 Bragdon, Brooks Who negotiates PILOT payments for our town is not addressed.
20 2 Bragdon, Brooks What is the estimated cost per kilowatt hour produced for the first year of
the project, first five years, and the first 10 years?
There is no mention of Payment, Performance, and Maintenance Bonding
for this project. If the project is not bonded, neither the towns nor
20 3 Bragdon, Brooks leaseholders have any guarantee that promises will be kept, construction
completed, payments made, maintenance done, and dismantling
completed.
Most DEISs I have reviewed for wind power projects include the results of a
20 4 Bragdon, Brooks Job and Economic Development model. None was referenced in this DEIS
so it appears that the Socioeconomics section was based upon
assumptions.
20 5 Bragdon, Brooks There is insufficient documentation to back up the claim that downsizing the
project is not considered an economically viable solution.
3-85
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Since turbines are considered a utility then shouldn't the land on which they
20 6 Bragdon, Brooks are placed by assessed as industrial use and taxed accordingly and not
taxes as agriculture?
I am concerned that the DEIS does not adequately address who will
20 7 Bragdon, Brooks compensate businesses and individuals if the proposed wind project results
in loss of fishing revenues.
20 8 Bragdon, Brooks How will historic designated properties near towers be compensated?
20 9 Bragdon, Brooks How does SLWF plan to compensate Indigenous Americans if Indian burial
grounds are discovered?
20 10 Bragdon, Brooks Why no mention of Dodge Bay in the historical Architecture Resource
Investigation section of the DEIS/Supplemental?
The SDEIS is incomplete and not adequate for public comment and should
not have been accepted by the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board.
Dramatic adverse impacts are proposed in the SDEIS without adequately
20 11 Bragdon, Brooks describing these impacts. There is no discussion to avoid adverse impacts,
there is no mention of alternate sites for the turbines, and no opportunity for
interested parties such as myself to communication concerns and
suggestions about the adverse impacts.
A letter dated May 28, 2008 from John A Bonafide of the NYS Historic
Preservation Office to Andrew C Davis of the NYSDPS advises that the
project shall result in adverse impacts, that "visual analysis be used to
explore alternatives to avoid the adverse impacts, suggests discussion of
20 12 Bragdon, Brooks relocation of the turbine units as well as a reduction in height and the
number of turbines. Only after potential avoidance options have been
established should mitigation measures be discussed and this
communication should involve supervision state and federal agencies.
There is no such communication in the SDEIS.
Objections to the location of turbines near the two roads leading into Cape
20 13 Bragdon, Brooks Vincent, NYS Route 12 from Chaumont and from Clayton. These turbines
should be moved back considerably in order to preserve the basic assets of
the community. The project will jeopardize the historic preservation
3-86
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
designation of my home and my real estate development company. The
project will adversely affect the historic and cultural significance of the
community. Setbacks from the main roads leading into the community,
away from the St. Lawrence River, and from the village and historic
properties are essential to preserve the culture of the community.
The SDEIS is grossly incomplete. It should be returned to the developer to
be redone. The rights of interested parties in the community must be
respected. In my view, turbines may be allowed but in an area away from
20 14 Bragdon, Brooks unique community assets. Should I personally suffer economic loss as a
result of having my rights under the SEQR review process suppressed I
shall be obliged to defend myself legally in order to reverse any economic
losses I should suffer.
I am writing to clarify my comments on the SDEIS in regard to setbacks
[Comments 19.3 and 20.13]. The setbacks I proposed are intended to be
consistent with the Introductory Provisions of the Cape Vincent Zoning Law
which calls for the following: protecting existing development while
protecting the existing assets of the community, conserving property
values, minimizing negative environmental impacts of development,
protecting visually and environmentally sensitive areas such as viewsheds
along the lake and river, protecting scenic views and agricultural lands,
protecting historically significant land and buildings, allowing landowners to
20 15 Bragdon, Brooks make beneficial economic use of their land provided that such uses are not
harmful to neighboring properties.
I maintain that no turbines should be allowed on the lake side of or near
Route 12 from Cape Vincent to Chaumont and also not near Route 12 from
Cape Vincent to Clayton. Rather the turbines should be setback sufficiently
to protect the basic scenic sense and spirit of the community. This setback
may be variable depending on the landscape, but a starting point for
discussion would be 4000 ft inland from Route 12. The development should
fit in with the community, not vice versa. Interested parties in the community
must be allowed the right to have input into the SEQR review process and
any analysis of adverse effects and proposals to mitigate.
3-87
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
The SDEIS is a dishonest document which avoids moving the turbines to
reasonable locations. If the project is allowed as proposed it would harm
20 16 Bragdon, Brooks the majority tax assessment comprised of waterfront and waterview
properties in favor of the minority interests of the relatively modest number
of landowners who have contracts for turbines.
Any turbines allowed should be setback so as to not change this unique
and lovely community. Views should be protected. The spirit of the
21 1 Brown, Mary Jane community should not be ruined. The SEQR process is not being carried
out fully and there has been no opportunity for input into the approval
process.
The proposal has too many turbines dominating the landscape. This would
22 1 Burpee, Edith destroy the community particularly together with the other proposed project.
Any turbines allowed should be setback so as not to damage the loveliness
of the community setting along the St. Lawrence River.
Commentary objecting to misinformation about the adverse impacts from
wind projects that have been suggested in other comments. My opinion is
that there are people in our community that just do not want wind power in
23 1 Burton, Darrell the area. I have observed the members of our planning board in action
since this project started. I believe you all have been very open minded and
conducted business properly. I think the results of the SDEIS are an
adequate report.
Commentary supporting the wind energy project and the benefits of wind
energy as opposed to other forms of energy production. Commentary
24 1 Burton, Marlene objecting to misinformation about the adverse impacts from wind projects
that have been suggested in other comments. I truly believe Tom Rienbeck,
Rich Edsall, and the Board Members are doing an honest, legally,
thankless job and should be applauded for the work they have done.
The poles used for the overhead 34.5 kV and 115 kV transmission lines can
cause interference with agriculture operations when located on farmland.
25 1 Byrne, Tatyana As a result, the Department [NYS Ag & Mkts] recommends that the 34.5 kV
lines be buried in agricultural fields. Why are you not burying the lines in
farmland?
3-88
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
In paragraph 2.6.2 St. Lawrence Wind states that in active agricultural
areas, agricultural protection measures in accordance with the guidelines of
25 2 Byrne, Tatyana the NYS Ag & Mkts will be followed and the cable will be placed at a
minimum depth of 48 inches or 6 inches beyond the depth of bedrock. NYS
Ag & Mkts says that at now time [sic] will the depth be less than 24 inches
below the soil surface. Is it 24 inches or 6 inches?
Concerns regarding impacts of bedrock excavation on water resources.
There is no indication that any fieldwork has been done to establish major
springs and their use or flow prior to construction, thus no baseline to
25 3 Byrne, Tatyana measure the impact of construction. Nor is there any information on wells
and springs within 500 feet of where blasting will occur. Will this information
be included in the FEIS? Also, what is St. Lawrence Wind's plan to provide
citizens with potable water if well problems occur?
St. Lawrence Wind does not say if the concrete will be mixed on site or
hauled in from off site. In either case will the FEIS include a description of
25 4 Byrne, Tatyana specific processes that will be implemented to ensure the concrete is
handled properly during construction to limit the impacts to surface waters,
in the project area?
St. Lawrence Wind states that the final overhead transmission line right-of-
25 5 Byrne, Tatyana way will be identified post-construction on as-built drawings which will be
filed with the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. Why not be identified pre-
construction?
Why doesn't the decommissioning plan include the long distance
25 6 Byrne, Tatyana transmission lines? What is the plan to ensure that there are sufficient
funds available to execute the plan? If it includes bonding, which I favor,
how will that bonding follow to successive owners?
25 7 Byrne, Tatyana Will the geotechnical investigation, necessary for project construction and
design, be included in the FEIS?
25 8 Byrne, Tatyana 3.1.3.3 In this paragraph, SLWF does not mention the use of an
environmental monitor. In order to provide proper oversight of these
3-89
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
activities it is important that an environmental monitor be onsite for all pre-
construction survey and any construction activities that involve excavation
to bedrock or are located in proximity to known karst features. Will an
environmental monitor be present?
25 9 Byrne, Tatyana 3.2.3.3 The discussion on soil is too general. Each turbine site, access
road, electric line pole, and substation needs a soil map.
25 10 Byrne, Tatyana 3.4.2 Will the comprehensive transportation study, delivery routes, and
crane assembly areas be part of the FEIS?
3.9.1 There is no discussion of the impact of the turbines on the ozone level
25 11 Byrne, Tatyana which is already out of compliance with EPA guidelines. What is the impact
and if so, how will you mitigate?
3.11.3 To mitigate impacts to local roads during construction, any
construction-related damage or improvements to roads would be the
25 12 Byrne, Tatyana responsibility of the Applicant and would be undertaken at no expense to
the municipalities. How long after project completion is this going to
continue.
3.13.1.2 The study used in the discussion if ice shedding (Morgan,
25 13 Byrne, Tatyana Bossanyi, and Siefert, 1998) is an 11-year old study. Why aren't you using
a more recent one?
4.1.3.2 This section indicates that white nose syndrome will have a greater
25 14 Byrne, Tatyana cumulative effect on Indiana bats than the wind energy development. What
is the cumulative impact of both white nose syndrome and wind turbines on
Indiana bats?
25 15 Byrne, Tatyana 4.1.11.2 Since the housing market has changed so dramatically since 2007
why haven't you done a more recent "housing value study."
7.2 This section states that the Project will meet all of the following
setbacks required by the Planning Board of Cape Vincent. Are these
25 16 Byrne, Tatyana current?
- 1500 feet from Village of Cape Vincent boundary line
- 1000 feet to a non-participating property line
- 1250 feet to a non-participating residence
3-90
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
- 750 feet to a participating residence
25 17 Byrne, Tatyana 7.6 Table 7-1. What compensation are the three non-participating
homeowners with over 48 db going to get?
25 18 Byrne, Tatyana Appendix E. The avian and bat study was conducted in one year. Why
didn't you do a multi-year study?
25 19 Byrne, Tatyana Appendix E1. The bat studies were done with radar. Why not also sonar?
Appendix E1. In this Appendix SLWF says that there is no statistical
evidence that Indiana Bats are in the project area, but Appendix E3 Section
3.0 July Aug 2007 states that four were captured and tracked. Appendix E6
25 20 Byrne, Tatyana July Aug 2007 1.0 states that six captures Indiana bats were radio tracked
and roost sites were identified in the project area [sic]. Appendix E4 June
2008 states that no Indiana bats were captured during that study. Appendix
F3 says they are present. Are there Indiana bats in the project area or not
and if there are, what mitigation actions will you take?
25 21 Byrne, Tatyana Appendix E3 is labeled Blanding Turtle but reports on bats.
25 22 Byrne, Tatyana Appendix E7. Which of the Blanding Turtle mitigation recommendations will
be adopted and which will not and why not?
25 23 Byrne, Tatyana Appendix J. What will you do to mitigate shadow flicker if your analysis is
wrong?
25 24 Byrne, Tatyana Appendix L. The data in Table 2.2.1 does not match the data from our paid
consultant (elaborate).
25 25 Byrne, Tatyana Appendix L.3.6 The negative impacts of low frequency sound are dismissed
as corrected by design change. Where is the medical data?
25 26 Byrne, Tatyana Appendix N2. Who pays to mitigate the loss of TV signals in the project
area?
25 27 Byrne, Tatyana they are migrating? How long do they stay in Cape Vincent? When do they
25 28 Byrne, Tatyana Impacts of shadow effect on wildlife should be part of the DEIS.
3-91
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
25 29 Byrne, Tatyana Individuals, guides, and town must be compensated if towers result in loss
25 30 Byrne, Tatyana SLWF needs to establish who the environmental monitor works for and how
25 31 Byrne, Tatyana during the following construction [sic], environmental considerations to be
25 32 Byrne, Tatyana It is important to know the impacts of shadow effect on the fish in the water.
25 33 Byrne, Tatyana major springs and their use or flow prior to construction. I would like to see
25 34 Byrne, Tatyana The project may require an Article 24 Freshwater Wetland Permit and
25 35 Byrne, Tatyana come up with proposals around the state, it would seem appropriate to
the project not performed as part of the DEIS. The DEIS should be updated
25 36 Byrne, Tatyana survey, and hydrogeological balance study based upon long-term runoff. By
comment.
25 37 Byrne, Tatyana At best the studies to date may be considered pilot efforts requiring 3-5
3-92
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
years of intense further studies of many groups before any consultation of
value may be drawn.
25 38 Byrne, Tatyana on Pleasant Valley Road? How will it be affected? What does Audubon
say?
25 39 Byrne, Tatyana The lease with SLWF takes away landowners' constitutional rights to sue
25 40 Byrne, Tatyana properly during construction to limit the impacts to surface waters,
25 41 Byrne, Tatyana Chaumont Barrens and Three Mile Creek will not be impacted by the
project.
25 42 Byrne, Tatyana information should be included in the report along with a discussion of
25 43 Byrne, Tatyana establish [sic] the St. Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management
SLWGMD.
25 44 Byrne, Tatyana (2007) be considered by the project sponsor in siting the project features
[sic].
Section 3.3.6 NYS Fish and Wildlife found insufficient data exists to
25 45 Byrne, Tatyana adequately conduct a risk assessment and predict wildlife mortality for this
project.
25 46 Byrne, Tatyana comprehensive manner. The DEIS states that additional data on wildlife
3-93
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
25 47 Byrne, Tatyana Who negotiates PILOT payments for our town is not addressed.
25 48 Byrne, Tatyana What is the estimated cost per kilowatt hour produced for the first year of
the project, first five years, and the first 10 years?
There is no mention of Payment, Performance, and Maintenance Bonding
for this project. If the project is not bonded, neither the towns nor
25 49 Byrne, Tatyana leaseholders have any guarantee that promises will be kept, construction
completed, payments made, maintenance done, and dismantling
completed.
Most DEISs I have reviewed for wind power projects include the results of a
25 50 Byrne, Tatyana Job and Economic Development model. None was referenced in this DEIS
so it appears that the Socioeconomics section was based upon
assumptions.
25 51 Byrne, Tatyana There is insufficient documentation to back up the claim that downsizing the
project is not considered an economically viable solution.
Since turbines are considered a utility then shouldn't the land on which they
25 52 Byrne, Tatyana are placed by assessed as industrial use and taxed accordingly and not
taxes as agriculture?
I am concerned that the DEIS does not adequately address who will
25 53 Byrne, Tatyana compensate businesses and individuals if the proposed wind project results
in loss of fishing revenues.
25 54 Byrne, Tatyana How will historic designated properties near towers be compensated?
25 55 Byrne, Tatyana How does SLWF plan to compensate Indigenous Americans if Indian burial
grounds are discovered?
25 56 Byrne, Tatyana Why no mention of Dodge Bay in the historical Architecture Resource
Investigation section of the DEIS/Supplemental?
Since the coal/gas generators just go on standby while the wind generator
25 57 Byrne, Tatyana is generating please explain how wind power eliminates pollutants and
greenhouse gases during the production of electricity, thus benefiting
ecological water resources, as well as human health.
3-94
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Please explain who maintains service roads to individual towers and
25 58 Byrne, Tatyana takeaway lines and what level of maintenance priority will these roads have
vs. residential roads.
25 59 Byrne, Tatyana I am concerned that there are no safety measures to ensure children don't
get near the wind mills.
25 60 Byrne, Tatyana The assumptions used to complete the DEIS/Supplemental are not listed.
The DEIS should include the Planning Board's Energy Facilities Ordinance
25 61 Byrne, Tatyana that governs the application and decision-making process for the special
permits associated with the wind farm project.
The substation/collection station and operations and maintenance facility
should be represented with a plan and profile figures indicating proposed
25 62 Byrne, Tatyana layout, elevation drawings indicating all major equipment, architectural
features, fencing, exterior lighting, and access road in relation to the NMPC
transmission facilities.
A real-time 3D computerized simulation of the project's area of impact with
selected resources digitized would give the Lead Agency, Involved
25 63 Byrne, Tatyana Agencies, and the public a better understanding of the project's impacts.
Due to the scale of the project, it is virtually impossible to assess the
project's impacts through GIS maps, line of sight cross sections, and photo
simulations alone.
The decommissioning process is inadequate. Watertight policies must be
put into contract form which ensures that sufficient funds are available to
dismantle and remove the complete project and to restore the land to its
25 64 Byrne, Tatyana original condition before the FEIS is accepted. Additionally, triggers need to
be set to clearly provide parameters under which a decommissioning
process must occur. The citizens of the town must then be given sufficient
time and opportunity to review and comment on the revised process before
the FEIS is signed.
I urge the Lead Agency to insist upon nothing short of full bonding for
25 65 Byrne, Tatyana performance, payment, public improvements, and decommissioning. You
will need to figure out how that bonding follows to successive owners,
3-95
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
because the IRS tax structure for wind turbines is a huge incentive to sell
the project every two years.
I am concerned that the maximum power generation of the wind farm will
25 66 Byrne, Tatyana come close to the transmission capacity and the impact that will have on
future power requirements for the area.
SLWF has concluded that the transmission line on which the project would
25 67 Byrne, Tatyana interconnect has limited capacity, which limits a larger project. In that case,
they are blocking other power generators (bio/solar) from generating power
unless they pay to increase the capacity of the transmission line.
25 68 Byrne, Tatyana The DEIS states that the project will augment local electricity supply. Is this
a true statement?
Neither the DEIS or the Supplemental discuss the Comprehensive Plan
25 69 Byrne, Tatyana adopted by the Town and how the project will fit into the goals set forth in
the plan. The discussion should include potential impacts to the scenic
byway and tourism in the area.
The Planning Board in their 11 July 2007 letter to SLWF in paragraph 6
25 70 Byrne, Tatyana asked that SLWF work with BP on the transmission line and asked that any
response by BP be provided to the Planning Board. That response belongs
in the Supplement but is not provided. Why not?
25 71 Byrne, Tatyana asked that SLWF produce a revised visual impact study based upon the
new project map. They asked that seven specific locations be included.
That response belongs in the Supplement but is not provided. Why not?
25 72 Byrne, Tatyana asked that SLWF include measures of commercial and pleasure watercraft
in the background ambient sound measurement. There are no such
measures in Supplemental Appendix L1 and L2. Why not?
25 73 Byrne, Tatyana asked that SLWF meet with Cape Vincent Fire Department and work out an
emergency fire and ambulance response plan. Why isn't it included in
Appendix B Emergency Response Plan?
3-96
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
There are many variables that could impact the number of turbines you can
25 74 Byrne, Tatyana site in the Project Area. What is the number that keeps the project
commercially viable?
26 1 Cullen, Geoffrey I wish to express my profound concern regarding the proposed SLWF. I
have reviewed the SDEIS and feel it is inadequate.
26 2 Cullen, Geoffrey One only has to look across the river to Wolfe Island to see how radically
and permanently the landscape will be changed.
Property values will inevitable suffer if this project moves forward. What
26 3 Cullen, Geoffrey compensation is planned for those of us who will not have turbines but will
see a drop in our home and property values?
While I firmly believe in renewable energy, I also feel there are other more
26 4 Cullen, Geoffrey compelling issues to consider. The SDEIS is not adequate. The setbacks
are too low. I request that you reject the SDEIS.
I frequently drive through the town of Cape Vincent. I feel Cape Vincent is
not the right community for wind turbines. The roads and fields are lovely
27 1 Daub, Patricia and are to be protected as rural landscapes with historic preservation stone
farmhouses and old barns under the New York State preservation laws.
Input under the SEQR process has been inadequate.
28 1 Docteur, David asked that SLWF work with BP on the transmission line and asked that any
response by BP be provided to the Planning Board. That response belongs
in the Supplement but is not provided. Why not?
28 2 Docteur, David asked that SLWF produce a revised visual impact study based upon the
new project map. They asked that seven specific locations be included.
That response belongs in the Supplement but is not provided. Why not?
28 3 Docteur, David asked that SLWF include measures of commercial and pleasure watercraft
in the background ambient sound measurement. There are no such
measures in Supplemental Appendix L1 and L2. Why not?
3-97
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
28 4 Docteur, David asked that SLWF meet with Cape Vincent Fire Department and work out an
emergency fire and ambulance response plan. Why isn't it included in
Appendix B Emergency Response Plan?
There are many variables that could impact the number of turbines you can
28 5 Docteur, David site in the Project Area. What is the number that keeps the project
commercially viable?
Docteur, Dennis and Comments expressing support for the project and the Town Board's
29 1
Donald decisions. Comments requesting approval of the project not be delayed.
Comments supporting the project and objecting to information presented by
30 1 Docteur, Lee a vocal minority that has been opposed to the project. Comments
expressing the positive net benefits of wind power. Please do your civic
duty to uphold the rights of the majority.
4.1.3.2 This section indicates that white nose syndrome will have a greater
31 1 Docteur, Mary cumulative effect on Indiana bats than the wind energy development. What
is the cumulative impact of both white nose syndrome and wind turbines on
Indiana bats?
31 2 Docteur, Mary 4.1.11.2 Since the housing market has changed so dramatically since 2007
why haven't you done a more recent "housing value study."
7.2 This section states that the Project will meet all of the following
setbacks required by the Planning Board of Cape Vincent. Are these
current?
31 3 Docteur, Mary - 1500 feet from Village of Cape Vincent boundary line
- 1000 feet to a non-participating property line
- 1250 feet to a non-participating residence
- 750 feet to a participating residence
31 4 Docteur, Mary 7.6 Table 7-1. What compensation are the three non-participating
homeowners with over 48 db going to get?
31 5 Docteur, Mary Appendix E. The avian and bat study was conducted in one year. Why
didn't you do a multi-year study?
3-98
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
31 6 Docteur, Mary Appendix E1. The bat studies were done with radar. Why not also sonar?
Appendix E1. In this Appendix SLWF says that there is no statistical
evidence that Indiana Bats are in the project area, but Appendix E3 Section
3.0 July Aug 2007 states that four were captured and tracked. Appendix E6
31 7 Docteur, Mary July Aug 2007 1.0 states that six captures Indiana bats were radio tracked
and roost sites were identified in the project area [sic]. Appendix E4 June
2008 states that no Indiana bats were captured during that study. Appendix
F3 says they are present. Are there Indiana bats in the project area or not
and if there are, what mitigation actions will you take?
31 8 Docteur, Mary Appendix E3 is labeled Blanding Turtle but reports on bats.
31 9 Docteur, Mary Appendix E7. Which of the Blanding Turtle mitigation recommendations will
be adopted and which will not and why note?
31 10 Docteur, Mary Appendix J. What will you do to mitigate shadow flicker if your analysis is
wrong?
31 11 Docteur, Mary Appendix L. The data in Table 2.2.1 does not match the data from our paid
consultant (elaborate).
31 12 Docteur, Mary Appendix L.3.6 The negative impacts of low frequency sound are dismissed
as corrected by design change. Where is the medical data?
31 13 Docteur, Mary Appendix N2. Who pays to mitigate the loss of TV signals in the project
area?
The SDEIS should not be accepted as written. There are too many issues
32 1 Docteur, Paul pertaining to the health, safety, and welfare of all residents of the
community. Over the past couple of years, many of us have learned a great
deal about the effects of noise and its effects on our health.
Shadow flicker also can have a very detrimental effect on our health as well
32 2 Docteur, Paul as safety issues. My wife is plagued with benign positional vertigo. It is
impossible for her to drive through the turbines on Route 177, making
setbacks a very important issue.
32 3 Docteur, Paul The other issue of importance is the Conflict Resolution Board. This cannot
be controlled by the wind company.
3-99
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Mr. Reinbeck, as our Supervisor, you are in charge. Put an end to this
hostile sell out of this most beautiful and historical part of the world.
32 4 Docteur, Paul Implement a two year moratorium immediately. Put together a legitimate
steering committee, which will document a zoning law for turbines, to clarify
it if can occur with our already accepted comprehensive plan.
The Blanding Turtle study conducted by SLWF is flawed. Results show only
one turtle found in 2005 and one in 2007. We gave permission to the
NYSDEC to study Blanding Turtles on our property during 2007 and 2008.
Numerous Blanding turtles have been found on our property in the
wetlands, farm pond and resting in hayfields. We have seen many crossing
Estelle, Douglas and the street from our property to the wetlands which continue on the opposite
33 1 side of the street. In addition, numerous Blanding turtles have been found
Michelle
on our neighbor's property, Francis & Brenda Aubertine, on Pelo Road.
The study was conducted when there wouldn't be much movement by

turtles, in mid-November. They even state that the active time for Blanding
turtles is in June, so why did they do it in winter? This is why it is so
important for the Town to do their own studies.
Freislich, John and Comments expressing concern regarding affects of the project, shadow
34 1 flicker and noise in particular, on existing health problems, fibromyalgia and
Michelle
Graves Disease.
The potential sleep disruption from turbine noise has me generally
concerned. The noise study is flawed. First, why should there be no sound
meters along the river from Burnham Pt to Sand Bay? The bulk of the
dwellings are located along the river on both sides of 12E as you well know.
Freislich, John and Why would the only location be at Wood's Farm? They are a participant so I
34 2 fail to see how this would be representative of the effect on the bulk of the
Michelle
populace. Why did the Planning Board not challenge the lack of additional
data affecting the populated areas? Secondly, the length of time spent
studying the ambient noise is laughable if it wasn't so serious a factor.
Seventeen days? One of the most critical issues and that was the total
winter test duration?
3-100
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Why was no measuring device placed at the school? Why no devices near
Beadles Pt, Millen's Bay, or further west near the trailer parks? Why did the
Town of Cape Vincent not hire an independent firm to conduct this critical
research?
Freislich, John and This SDEIS does nothing to guarantee that there will be no impact on my
34 3
Michelle quality of life.
Since the coal/gas generators just go on standby while the wind generator
35 1 Doull, Melodee is generating please explain how wind power eliminates pollutants and
greenhouse gases during the production of electricity, thus benefiting
ecological water resources, as well as human health.
Please explain who maintains service roads to individual towers and
35 2 Doull, Melodee takeaway lines and what level of maintenance priority will these roads have
vs. residential roads.
35 3 Doull, Melodee I am concerned that there are no safety measures to ensure children don't
get near the wind mills.
35 4 Doull, Melodee The assumptions used to complete the DEIS/Supplemental are not listed.
The DEIS should include the Planning Board's Energy Facilities Ordinance
35 5 Doull, Melodee that governs the application and decision-making process for the special
permits associated with the wind farm project.
The substation/collection station and operations and maintenance facility
should be represented with a plan and profile figures indicating proposed
35 6 Doull, Melodee layout, elevation drawings indicating all major equipment, architectural
features, fencing, exterior lighting, and access road in relation to the NMPC
transmission facilities.
A real-time 3D computerized simulation of the project's area of impact with
selected resources digitized would give the Lead Agency, Involved
35 7 Doull, Melodee Agencies, and the public a better understanding of the project's impacts.
Due to the scale of the project, it is virtually impossible to assess the
project's impacts through GIS maps, line of sight cross sections, and photo
simulations alone.
35 8 Doull, Melodee The decommissioning process is inadequate. Watertight policies must be
3-101
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
put into contract form which ensures that sufficient funds are available to
dismantle and remove the complete project and to restore the land to its
original condition before the FEIS is accepted. Additionally, triggers need to
be set to clearly provide parameters under which a decommissioning
process must occur. The citizens of the town must then be given sufficient
time and opportunity to review and comment on the revised process before
the FEIS is signed.
I urge the Lead Agency to insist upon nothing short of full bonding for
performance, payment, public improvements, and decommissioning. You
35 9 Doull, Melodee will need to figure out how that bonding follows to successive owners,
because the IRS tax structure for wind turbines is a huge incentive to sell
the project every two years.
I am concerned that the maximum power generation of the wind farm will
35 10 Doull, Melodee come close to the transmission capacity and the impact that will have on
future power requirements for the area.
SLWF has concluded that the transmission line on which the project would
35 11 Doull, Melodee interconnect has limited capacity, which limits a larger project. In that case,
they are blocking other power generators (bio/solar) from generating power
unless they pay to increase the capacity of the transmission line.
35 12 Doull, Melodee The DEIS states that the project will augment local electricity supply. Is this
a true statement?
Neither the DEIS or the Supplemental discuss the Comprehensive Plan
35 13 Doull, Melodee adopted by the Town and how the project will fit into the goals set forth in
the plan. The discussion should include potential impacts to the scenic
byway and tourism in the area.
Concerns regarding impacts to aquifer providing water to spring off of
Mason Road as a result of possible blasting for wind turbine footings in the
36 1 Henchy, Harold general vicinity of the spring. What is the plan of the Town to provide water
to my home in a timely manner, within 24 hours, if the aquifer is
compromised?
37 1 Hetzler, Eileen Concerns regarding the impact of the project on property values and
3-102
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
existing tourism from visual impacts.
Concerns regarding the impact of the project on property values from visual
38 1 Hetzler, Stephen impacts. Also concerns that the escrow for the warranty of the wind turbine
generators would more than likely be used up before the warranty period is
over.
Concerns that there has not been sufficient time for public review of the
39 1 Hirschey, Urban SDEIS. The SDEIS was submitted over 2 years after the DEIS and is twice
as long yet public was given only half the time to review and make
comments.
Concerns regarding the cumulative impacts from the BP Cape Vincent
project, as well as the proposed, dormant PB application for a project in
Lyme which would also share the same transmission line. Also, the
39 2 Hirschey, Urban Alternatives Section Table 7-1, states that the 53-turbine project will
encompass 7849 acres. This amounts to 148 acres per turbine and if you
include the 140 turbines of BP that would total over 28,000 acres which
amounts to 88% of the mainland area of the Town of Cape Vincent.
Concerns regarding the adequacy of the ice shedding discussion in the
SDEIS, specifically the lack of an ice shedding study and relevance of the
existing research referenced in the discussion.
The Morgan, Bossani, and Siefert 1988 study calls for ice studies to be
completed in three stages. An estimate should be made of the time
(number of days per year) during which icing conditions occur at the turbine
40 1 Hludzenski, Kathryn site:
- "heavy icing" more than 5 days, less than 25 days icing per year
- "moderate icing" more than 1 day, less than 5 days icing per year
- "light icing" less than 1 day icing per year
- "no icing" no appropriate icing conditions occur
Also, the report is now old. Since it was written, many cases of injury from
turbine ice shed have been documented. For example,
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/fullaccidents.pdf.
3-103
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Concerns that the Cape Vincent Indiana bat studies are insufficient.
The length of time may not be sufficient to determine bat presences

because weather conditions changes from year to year and this could affect
bat activity. The Cape Vincent test was done in July/August 2007 but is not
clear on how many days were spent in the field and under what conditions.
41 1 Hludzenski, Kathryn Sampling was done in July and August but the report for the Horse Creek
Wind Farm in neighboring Clayton, New York trapped their first bat on June
2 and after July 31st capture rates significantly decreased. Depending on
when the Cape Vincent studies were done, this may have had an effect on
the results also.
The study did not do thermal imaging or use acoustical radar. The Indiana
brown bat is difficult to distinguish from the little brown bat therefore
additional mist net surveys are needed during spring and fall migration.
Concerns regarding cumulative impacts from the several wind projects in
the area: operational Wolfe Island project (86 turbines), Horse Creek in
41 2 Hludzenski, Kathryn Clayton (62 turbines), Galoo Island (77 turbines), BP's Cape Vincent wind
project (140 turbines), and the SLWF (53 turbines). All for a total of 418
turbines within a 25 mile radius of the Indiana bat hibernacula in Glen Park,
New York.
Concerns regarding mortality to Indiana bats from the wind project, from
fragmenting its habitat and destroying its foraging ground and pressure
changes that spinning blades have on the lungs of bats. A more extensive
41 3 Hludzenski, Kathryn study is necessary to know how many Indiana bats are actually in the area
and the impact the project would have. Not only do I think that the bat
studies are inadequate, but I think that due to the plight of the Indiana bat
and the sensitive nature of the area, the project should not be in Cape
Vincent.
41 4 Hludzenski, Kathryn Were the transmission line routes also included as part of the area being
tested?
3-104
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
42 1 Hubbard, Sandy they are migrating? How long do they stay in Cape Vincent? When do they
42 2 Hubbard, Sandy Impacts of shadow effect on wildlife should be part of the DEIS.
42 3 Hubbard, Sandy Individuals, guides, and town must be compensated if towers result in loss
42 4 Hubbard, Sandy SLWF needs to establish who the environmental monitor works for and how
42 5 Hubbard, Sandy during the following construction [sic], environmental considerations to be
42 6 Hubbard, Sandy It is important to know the impacts of shadow effect on the fish in the water.
42 7 Hubbard, Sandy major springs and their use or flow prior to construction. I would like to see
42 8 Hubbard, Sandy The project may require an Article 24 Freshwater Wetland Permit and
42 9 Hubbard, Sandy come up with proposals around the state, it would seem appropriate to
42 10 Hubbard, Sandy the project not performed as part of the DEIS. The DEIS should be updated
survey, and hydrogeological balance study based upon long-term runoff. By
3-105
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
comment.
At best the studies to date may be considered pilot efforts requiring 3-5
42 11 Hubbard, Sandy years of intense further studies of many groups before any consultation of
value may be drawn.
42 12 Hubbard, Sandy on Pleasant Valley Road? How will it be affected? What does Audubon
say?
42 13 Hubbard, Sandy The lease with SLWF takes away landowners' constitutional rights to sue
42 14 Hubbard, Sandy properly during construction to limit the impacts to surface waters,
42 15 Hubbard, Sandy Chaumont Barrens and Three Mile Creek will not be impacted by the
project.
42 16 Hubbard, Sandy information should be included in the report along with a discussion of
42 17 Hubbard, Sandy establish [sic] the St. Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management
SLWGMD.
42 18 Hubbard, Sandy (2007) be considered by the project sponsor in siting the project features
[sic].
42 19 Hubbard, Sandy Section 3.3.6 NYS Fish and Wildlife found insufficient data exists to
3-106
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
adequately conduct a risk assessment and predict wildlife mortality for this
project.
42 20 Hubbard, Sandy comprehensive manner. The DEIS states that additional data on wildlife
The Complaint Appeal Procedure states that the Complaint Resolution
Board shall consist of three members: an SLWF designee, a Town Officer
or Employee appointed to the position annually, and an independent third
party expert."
Since the appeal procedure follows the original complaint which "SLWF will
make every reasonable effort to resolve" it does not make any sense that
SLWF would also be included in an appeal board. If they had resolved the
43 1 Jury, Charles complaint in the first place the appeal would not be necessary.
The appendix also states "in making such decision, the Complaint
Resolution Board shall take into account the terms and conditions of the
special use permit and approved site plans, and shall not require any
resolution that is inconsistent with such terms." This seems to say that as
long as the permit and site plans are approved there is no way any
complaint will be heard. This statement should be eliminated from the
SDEIS.
Regarding the TV analysis and the statement that TV programming by
alternative means can be offered to mitigate the issue of loss of coverage,
who will determine whether there is a problem and who will pay for the
44 1 Jury, Ellen alternative method? It should also be noted that cable TV is not available to
all areas of Cape Vincent and that DBS does not offer all local channels.
These local channels are necessary for local news, emergency information,
weather alerts, school closings, security alerts, etc.
45 1 LaMora, David Concerns regarding conflict of interest of the Planning Board members in
reviewing the SLWF. A majority of the Planning Board, which I believe
3-107
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
illegally voted itself Lead Agency for this process, have prohibitive conflicts
of interest, which you refuse to acknowledge or seek an authoritative
decision on in the best interest of this community.
Further information is necessary to substantiate the conclusion that the
wind project will have a positive benefit to air quality. In many cases, the
45 2 LaMora, David existing plants that provide electricity at a much higher efficiency level do
not shut down when wind-generated power is being substituted; they
merely redirect their energy source so it is available to ramp up with the
wind stops blowing.
The visual impacts from the project are enough to prevent acceptance of
45 3 LaMora, David the SLWF on the basis of the zoning law, which specifies that if any
deleterious effect cannot be mitigated then the subsequent site plan review
must be disapproved.
The SLWF is not compliant will all town zoning and land use regulations
because the project does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, which
guides all land use laws in Cape Vincent. The Plan states that one of its
45 4 LaMora, David goals is to encourage development that minimizes any negative impact on
the natural vistas and scenic landscapes. This is in complete contradiction
to the claim SLWF makes that this project complies with all land use
regulations by its own admission that it cannot mitigate the visual impact of
these turbines.
In Section 3.5.1.3 this report states that turbine locations and other project
components will conform to setbacks and standards required by the Town
Planning Board in response to public comments on the SLWF DEIS. These
setbacks and standards are not legitimate validated criteria for site plan
45 5 LaMora, David review. According to the Cape Vincent Zoning Law all zoning criteria must
be legislated by the Town Board. Stipulating that these standards must be
conformed to is an illegal attempt to circumvent the proscribed legislative
process and cannot be allowed to guide the SEQR process. The planning
board must not allow this, since these criteria would not hold up to a
challenge by either the developer or a dissenting landowner.
45 6 LaMora, David The noise analysis has flaws. Why were 5 to 6 testing locations chosen
3-108
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
only at participating properties? They should have tested at non-
participating properties, because impacts to non-participating residents
should be evaluated. Also, the equipment used to collect the data was not
suitable for sever winter weather and didn't provide a statistically adequate
percentage of raw data.
My final comment concerns the complaint resolution process. It is obvious
that even though they go to great lengths to detail every impact and
describe what they consider a suitable mitigation for each impact, they are
certain that the criteria suggested to site this project are inadequate to the
extent that it will require a sophisticated and complex complaint resolution
process to deal with noncompliance. I believe it is inherent in the biased
45 7 LaMora, David unwillingness of the Town Board and Planning Board to significantly restrict
this development that will lead to this compliance nightmare. The final insult
to the residents of Cape Vincent is the proposed makeup of SLWF's
resolution board. If it is true that we require resolution beyond what the
Zoning Board of Appeals can provide then the process should not be
determined by the developer and certainly not controlled by them to the
extent they propose. A resolution board should be designed and controlled
by members of the community just as any zoning regulations should be.
If this Supplemental Study is approved by this Planning Board, it will do
nothing but illuminate the severity of the bias produced by the conflicts of
45 8 LaMora, David interest prevalent in this government. I sincerely hope you will consider the
ramifications of approving this document and instead will either ask for
another Supplemental Review of halt the process until this community can
resolve some of these issues for ourselves.
The wind turbine setbacks are in violation of several paragraphs under
46 1 Leschord, Paul Article I, Section 115 of the Cape Vincent Planning and Zoning Introductory
Provisions. Setbacks should be examined in miles, not feet. Anything else
creates visual impacts.
Concerns regarding the cumulative impacts from both Cape Vincent and
47 1 LeTendre, Gerard the other proposed project on wildlife. The SDEIS does not adequately
address this and does not have adequate studies of impacts to wildlife.
3-109
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
We had deep rooted problems in attempting to resolve the wind tower issue
in this town. The Town Board is conflicted as is the Zoning Board (including
47 2 LeTendre, Gerard the Chairman). These people that have little or no biological training are
making decisions favoring the developer that will affect the town drastically
in the future. Favorable decisions are often rendered no matter how poor or
wrong the information is that is provided.
The bird and turtle studies are inadequate and never even develop an
accurate portrayal of the various populations as they exist today. The
47 3 LeTendre, Gerard developer fills many pages with information about other wind farms that
don't apply to Cape Vincent and then neglects local information such as the
data generated in the 1980 and 1984 NYS Breeding Bird Atlas.
Blanding Turtles: The developer and paid consultants have been unable to
determine where the turtles exist in town so they have no idea of population
size. Yet, they want us to believe that once the wind towers are in place the
47 4 LeTendre, Gerard turtles will survive. Additional effort is required to locate this species. Once
location and numbers are known they can move forward and determine
possible adverse effects and develop a wind turbine placement plan that
will avoid the turtle habitat or mitigate the problem.
Bats: Studies have been completed. Several Indiana Bats were captured in
2006, but in the SDEIS there is no report of follow-up studies on the Indiana
Bat. The studies done are too narrow in scope and avoid review of such
problems as white nose syndrome and how that relates to expected
47 5 LeTendre, Gerard mortality rates caused by wind tower blades. Much more and better
information is necessary in order to mitigate turbine mortality of bats. Cape
Vincent is near the Glen Park, NY hibernaculum and at least 3 years of
sound pre-construction bat studies should be required to learn how the
wind towers will effect the various populations of bat species.
Hawks: The studies done to date are minimal. A case in point is the
Northern Harrier that is NYS threatened and not adequately studied. These
47 6 LeTendre, Gerard birds nest in our town and will require protection. Acciona consultants are
not providing population status and no mitigation to protect species can be
applied at this time. Other hawks such as rough-legged, sharp-shinned,
3-110
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
coopers and American kestrel depend on areas such as Cape Vincent for
their survival. Rough-legs require over-wintering habitat while the other
three species successfully nest here. The fact that all local hawks are
stressed means more and better studies are required.
Owls: Cape Vincent habitat is of particular importance to short-eared owl
survival. It is inconceivable that people hired to study birds in the Acciona
wind tower area never even located one! The developer either hired
unqualified people to collect bird data or they simply don't care. I have
47 7 LeTendre, Gerard personally shown short-eared owls to many bird watchers and nature lovers
that visited the area in recent years. Yes, they are here and require
protection from wind towers. The developer has not located the species and
therefore is unable to determine the number of short-eared owls present.
Once they know where the owls are and how many they can begin the
process of mitigating potential damage. Several years will be required.
Migrating Birds: The studies of migrating birds are especially poor. The
counters are not able to identify ducks and geese in flight and this is
compounded by short study times and too few counts. Information is
required on all bird migration and what can be done to avoid collisions.
Wind tower siting should not be anticipated until this is completed.
Note: In 2005, I spent one May morning watching birds on Gosier Road in
Cape Vincent. This site is the Acciona footprint. Large numbers of ducks
47 8 LeTendre, Gerard and geese were migrating north and I decided to make an impromptu
count. Over 20,000 ducks and geese were counted that morning. Of these,
over 1,000 were Snow Geese, a few hundred were Mallard Ducks and
approximately 19,000 Canada Geese were tallied. This was in a one mile
wide area that I selected because they were outside the count area. I
believe that more birds migrated through the area that morning than were
represented in all studies conducted and reported in the DEIS and the
SDEIS.
Breeding Birds: This study should start from scratch. A good place to start
47 9 LeTendre, Gerard is the 2000 to 2004 New York State Breeding Bird Atlas. Major problem
identified in bird studies: Adequate bird studies can't be completed unless
3-111
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
you have competent bird counters that can identify birds by site and sound.
Counts of hawks, owls, ducks, geese, gulls, and songbirds were all poorly
done and should be expanded and repeated.
Invasive Plants: The disturbed earth created by wind farm construction will
compromise the ongoing swallow-wort control effort in the entire Town of
Cape Vincent. This invasive species is being controlled with funding by
47 10 LeTendre, Gerard NYS at the present time. There is no specific mention in the SDEIS of this
control effort which is funded for two more years. Stopping the possible
spread of swallow-wort and other invasive species should be given high
priority. Methodology for implementing this stoppage must be developed
prior to wind tower approval.
Noise: The noise issue is the most interesting and confounding issue of the
Cape Vincent wind tower sites. The developer hired a consultant (Hessler)
that appears to know exactly what decibel levels are required for maximum
placement of wind towers. Amazingly, the data provided by this consultant
came out at just the proper level for maximum wind tower placement.
This information on decibel background levels and the methodology
Hessler used is being challenged by several noise experts. I believe the
47 11 LeTendre, Gerard consultant hired by the Town of Cape Vincent (Cavanaugh Tossi
Associates Inc) came up with lower decibel background levels. It is
imperative that the Town Board and Zoning Board members get this right
because all the residents will be affected by the noise levels.
In addition to the consultant Cape Vincent hired, another consultant was
hired (Shomer and Associates) and neither of these (Shomer or
Cavanaugh) agreed with the results produced by Hessler. Paul Carr, a local
noise expert, also does not agree with Hessler.
Request for a moratorium of at least 12 months to investigate and
determine if this project is safe for the town. The issues of accurate
LeTendre, Jerry and measurement of ambient noise levels, nighttime noise levels affecting
48 1
Judith sleep, project effect on our water supplies, shadow flicker effects, migratory
bird impact, and the dominant visual impact of 390 foot tall turbines on our
landscape need to be resolved.
3-112
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
49 1 Macura, David Will the geotechnical investigation, necessary for project construction and
design, be included in the FEIS?
3.1.3.3 In this paragraph, SLWF does not mention the use of an
environmental monitor. In order to provide proper oversight of these
49 2 Macura, David activities it is important that an environmental monitor be onsite for all pre-
construction survey and any construction activities that involve excavation
to bedrock or are located in proximity to known karst features. Will an
environmental monitor be present?
49 3 Macura, David 3.2.3.3 The discussion on soil is too general. Each turbine site, access
road, electric line pole, and substation needs a soil map.
49 4 Macura, David 3.4.2 Will the comprehensive transportation study, delivery routes, and
crane assembly areas be part of the FEIS?
3.9.1 There is no discussion of the impact of the turbines on the ozone level
49 5 Macura, David which is already out of compliance with EPA guidelines. What is the impact
and if so, how will you mitigate?
3.11.3 To mitigate impacts to local roads during construction, any
construction-related damage or improvements to roads would be the
49 6 Macura, David responsibility of the Applicant and would be undertaken at no expense to
the municipalities. How long after project completion is this going to
continue.
3.13.1.2 The study used in the discussion if ice shedding (Morgan,
49 7 Macura, David Bossanyi, and Siefert, 1998) is an 11-year old study. Why aren't you using
a more recent one?
50 1 Macura, Joan Why not bury the overhead lines in the farmland?
50 2 Macura, Joan Will the cable depth be 24" or 6" below the soil surface?
50 3 Macura, Joan Will nearby well/spring info be included in the FEIS? Are there any plans to
provide potable water to citizens if well problems occur?
50 4 Macura, Joan How will concrete be handled during construction?
50 5 Macura, Joan Why not identify final overhead transmission line right-of-way pre-
construction?
3-113
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
50 6 Macura, Joan Why doesn't it include long-distance transmission lines? What is the plan to
ensure sufficient funds? How will bonding follow to successive owners?
51 1 Mahrer, Carolyn Request for 12 month moratorium to investigate project safety.
Mahrer, Michael and Request for more time to review impacts and 1 year moratorium.
52 1
Susan
Mason, Elaine and Expressed support of the project.
53 1
Paul
54 1 Metzger, Donald Request for 30 days of public comment period
54 2 Metzger, Donald What is the second of the two alternative pathways? If second pathway is
taken, what are the steps involved?
54 3 Metzger, Donald Discuss decommissioning overhead collection lines. Confusion and
skepticism over decommissioning process.
54 4 Metzger, Donald Confusion regarding decommissioning concrete foundations.
54 5 Metzger, Donald Overhead transmission line shares same right-of-way with water line -
potential issue?
54 6 Metzger, Donald Request for testing of stray voltage every 6 months.
54 7 Metzger, Donald Who appoints the Complaint Resolution Board Town Officer member?
What town is represented?
54 8 Metzger, Donald Request for pre- and post-construction tests for signal quality.
54 9 Metzger, Donald Request for Saratoga Associates to apologize for calling community "late
risers."
54 10 Metzger, Donald Request for testing of all wells within 500' radius of turbines.
54 11 Metzger, Donald Expressed concern over cumulative effects of overall project.
55 1 Metzger, Donald Same as comment letter #54
56 1 Moehs, Charles Request public health/medical impact research
56 2 Moehs, Charles Request for mitigation of impacts through setbacks if impacts exist
57 1 Radley, Jerry Will people want to come to the area if they see turbines everywhere?
57 2 Radley, Jerry How will turbines affect child and adult health?
3-114
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
57 3 Radley, Jerry Request for more research on wildlife.
57 4 Radley, Jerry Will turbines decrease property values? Will industrialization affect
seasonal residents?
58 1 Radley, Pattie Marie Expressed support of the project.
Reed, Alfred and Turbine #38 will decrease property value.
59 1
Maria
Reed, Alfred and Noise from turbines #38 and #39 will affect their way of life.
59 2
Maria
60 1 Ross, Pat Request for 12 month moratorium to investigate project safety.
61 1 Ryon, Doug Expressed concern over visual effects of overall project.
62 1 Schneider, Clifford Maps showing non-resident receptors are inadequate.
62 2 Schneider, Clifford Request for new survey that represents background noise for non-
participating residents.
62 3 Schneider, Clifford References to LEQ noise metrics in SEQR should be struck.
62 4 Schneider, Clifford Request to conduct another background survey using more representative
monitoring sites and incorporate recommendations from Town's consultant.
62 5 Schneider, Clifford Request to conduct project layout and impact analysis that assumes 26
dBA background sound along with the NYSDEC noise impact allowance.
62 6 Schneider, Clifford Provide details on source levels presented in Table 3-30.
62 7 Schneider, Clifford Request to recast analysis using 31 dBA as critical operational design level.
62 8 Schneider, Clifford Request to correct the ground absorption coefficient.
62 9 Schneider, Clifford Request to adjust model analysis (including setbacks) that will reduce
predicted noise levels by 5 dBA.
62 10 Schneider, Clifford Request to adjust siting plan to ensure non-participating residences will not
have noise impacts that exceed state guidelines.
62 11 Schneider, Clifford Provide siting plan and design level based on 31 dBA impact contour for
Project only noise addition.
62 12 Schneider, Clifford Remove comments and opinions that diminish importance of State
3-115
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
guidelines.
62 13 Schneider, Clifford Increase the setback from the nearest offending turbines to reduce noise
impacts.
62 14 Schneider, Clifford Complaint Resolution Board Town Officer membership appointment issues.
62 15 Schneider, Clifford SLW Noise Impact Assessment - Provide measures of background noise
based on more conventional standards.
62 16 Schneider, Clifford SLW Noise Impact Assessment - Issues with background sounds -
misrepresentation of summertime noise levels.
62 17 Schneider, Clifford SLW Noise Impact Assessment - Van Der Berg references impacts would
be 15-18 dBA higher than expected.
62 18 Schneider, Clifford Noise Modeling Methodology - Request to re-do noise modeling
62 19 Schneider, Clifford Model Results - Redesign the layout plan accounting for background levels
at least 10 dBA lower than provided.
63 1 Schoeberlein, Donna Expressed concern over human and environmental health effects of project.
Requested more time to determine health effects.
63 2 Schoeberlein, Donna Who will purchase more expensive form of energy? What will this project
do to tourism revenue?
64 1 Simpson, Carol What is cumulative impact of both White Nose Syndrome and continued
human encroachment?
64 2 Simpson, Carol A more recent housing value impact study should be done due to the recent
changes in the housing market.
64 3 Simpson, Carol Are the listed setbacks correct?
64 4 Simpson, Carol Compensation for non-participating residents with noise over 40 dBA?
64 5 Simpson, Carol Why not multi-year study?
64 6 Simpson, Carol Are there Indiana Bats within the project area? If so, mitigation?
64 7 Simpson, Carol Appendix E3 is labeled "Blanding Turtles" but is about bats.
64 8 Simpson, Carol Appendix E7 - Which of the mitigation efforts for Blanding Turtles will be
adopted, which not?
3-116
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
64 9 Simpson, Carol Appendix J - if analysis is wrong, what will be done to mitigate?
64 10 Simpson, Carol Appendix L - The negative impacts of low frequency noise are dismissed.
Where is the medical data?
64 11 Simpson, Carol Appendix N2 - who pays to mitigate loss of TV signals?
65 1 Simpson, Carol The SDEIS should provide specific impacts to specific
threatened/endangered.
What is the potential impact to Northern Harrier? How many breeding pairs
could be affected? Is this a significant portion of the breeding population in
65 2 Simpson, Carol the area? How will the impact be mitigated? What is the range of
reasonable alternatives considered to avoid this species pursuant to
617.9(b)(5)(iv)?
65 3 Simpson, Carol Cumulative Impacts on bird species with regard to Wolf Island
66 1 Steinhouse, Barbara Request for 12 month moratorium to investigate project safety.
Thomas, Carol and Who negotiates PILOT payments for the town?
67 1
Dan
Thomas, Carol and What is the estimated cost per kilowatt hour produced for the first year of
67 2
Dan the project, first 5 years and the first 10 years?
Thomas, Carol and No mention of payment, performance and maintenance bonding. If project
67 3
Dan is not bonded, how will promises be kept?
Thomas, Carol and No Economic Development Impact Model, so it appears the
67 4
Dan socioeconomics section was based on assumptions.
Thomas, Carol and Insufficient documentation to backup project downsizing claim.
67 5
Dan
Thomas, Carol and Since the turbines are a utility, then shouldn't the land be zoned as
67 6
Dan industrial and taxed accordingly.
Thomas, Carol and SDEIS does not address who will compensate business and individuals if
67 7
Dan proposed project results in loss of fishing revenues.
68 1 Uhlig, Bob and Ruth Who is responsible for the safety, repairs, maintenance, and removal of
turbines?
3-117
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
What evidence do we have to keep swallow wort from spreading? Will
68 2 Uhlig, Bob and Ruth equipment be power washed when moved from site to site? Will turbines
spread seeds? Will farmers discontinue to plow fields which allows swallow
wort to spread?
68 3 Uhlig, Bob and Ruth Visible damage at Wolfe Island. Will this happen to Cape Vincent?
69 1 Vooder, Linda Request for 12 month moratorium to investigate project safety.
Wiley, Karen and Request for 12 month moratorium to investigate project safety.
70 1
Richard
71 1 Williams, Sharon Request for 12 month moratorium to investigate project safety.
72 1 Williams, Tina Request to set turbines back from roads, views of the St. Lawrence River,
and village.
72 2 Williams, Tina The SEQR process should allow for input from interested parties.
72 3 Williams, Tina Feels the SDEIS is incomplete.
73 1 Grant, Cindy General concerns over health and safety of residents within 2 mile radius of
project.
73 2 Grant, Cindy Believes residents will be harmed by low frequency noise, or infrasound.
Noise should be measured using dBC in addition to dBA.
73 3 Grant, Cindy Project area is highly populated. Other wind farms are in less populated
areas, far enough away so people are not harmed.
Typically industrial wind turbines cause the most disturbance at night, when
73 4 Grant, Cindy the winds at ground level are still but the wind up at the hub height are still
blowing, and the noise from the turbine will be very noticeable in the home.
Noise studies done at an industrial wind project sites after they have been
73 5 Grant, Cindy up and running often show that they are making much more noise than the
developers said they would, but by then it's too late.
73 6 Grant, Cindy Also believes that the residents will be harmed by the shadow flicker effect,
especially people who already suffer from migraines, epilepsy and vertigo.
73 7 Grant, Cindy Believes that large oil companies are not good to do business with, and
residents may never see compensation citing Exxon Valdez as an example.
3-118
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Believes there is also no way that the town of Cape Vincent residents will
ever be able force developer to make right any violations against the
73 8 Grant, Cindy residents that live near this project unless proper regulations are put into
effect now. Before this project is allowed, requests more safeguards in
place now.
Expressed concern over raptor area. States that issues are barely
73 9 Smith, Gerry addressed, and they are not addressed significantly, especially on the part
of the field teams that were out looking at these birds and bats, specifically
short-eared owl. Also, disagrees with breeding bird summary.
73 10 Metzger, Don The SDEIS doesn't state anything about alternative two. What is alternative
two?
The public only gets ten days in which to consider the final Environmental
73 11 Metzger, Don Impact Statement. Believes that ten days to consider a project of this size is
insufficient for the community.
Do the foundations go, the collection cables, the 37 miles of underground
73 12 Metzger, Don collection cables? At one point a depth of 44 inches is used. Believes that's
a misprint.
Concerns about the safety and integrity of the Development Authority of the
North Country's western Jefferson County regional water line, the 12-inch
interior diameter water line that goes for 25 miles from Cape Vincent to
73 13 Metzger, Don Glen Park, serving four towns, five villages, the General Brown School, and
many, many water hydrants. That is a potential -- with the poles there being
set 15 feet into the ground, there is a physical integrity, physical security
problem.
73 14 White, Beth In favor of accepting SDEIS and supports the proposed wind farm.
73 15 Doull, Melodee States that the project is not in compliance with the local zoning ordinance
and land use regulations.
73 16 Doull, Melodee Claims setbacks have not been legally adopted.
73 17 Doull, Melodee Claims downsizing is not enough to mitigate visual impacts.
73 18 Doull, Melodee There is no mention of the transmission lines; there is no mention of secure
3-119
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
funds to implement the plan. Will there be bonding? What happens when
the wind farm is sold to another company?
What happens when the wind farm is sold to another company? Will the
73 19 Doull, Melodee new company adhere to the decommissioning plan as described in the
SDEIS?
73 20 Doull, Melodee A mitigation solution would be to increase turbine setbacks in order to
lessen the effects of flicker, noise, and vibration concerns.
73 21 Hirschey, Urban Feels 5 months are necessary for SDEIS comment period.
73 22 Hirschey, Urban Disagrees with separating two (BP and Acciona) Cape Vincent projects.
73 23 Hirschey, Urban Concerned that Lyme project was not considered in projects within 13 miles
of site.
73 24 Ciocci, Theresa Concerns over overall impacts to human health.
73 25 Byrne, John Expressed concern over 5 dB increase in background noise.
73 26 Docteur, David Why is this area even considered when there can be visual and health
impacts? Specifically, disease from vibrations.
Claims a 1,250-foot setback from a nonparticipating residence results in
putting the generating plant practically on top of them and will cause
73 27 Docteur, David intolerable conditions with the shadows, flicker, and noise. Says it is
recommended that there be a one-and-a-half-mile setback, not two-tenths
of a mile.
73 28 Docteur, David Land will become undevelopable. Why does St. Lawrence want to do this?
73 29 White, Kenneth In favor of accepting SDEIS and supports the proposed wind farm.
73 30 King, Gary In favor of accepting SDEIS and supports the proposed wind farm.
73 31 Chapman, Tom Does not feel that wind energy is green energy and does not create jobs.
73 32 Lawrence, Rick Supports the proposed wind farm.
73 33 Johnson, Warren Expresses concern over overhead lines and requests burying lines
underground.
73 33 LeTendre, Jerry Disagrees with SDEIS findings on impacts to birds.
3-120
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
73 34 Sirianni, Paul Supports the proposed wind farm.
73 35 Clark, John Supports the proposed wind farm.
73 36 Gauthier, Bob Supports the proposed wind farm.
73 37 Mason, Paul Supports the proposed wind farm.
73 38 Kenney, Gail Resident of Wolfe Island warns of negative impacts.
73 39 Brown, Tom Wants to know why other potentially less visually intrusive sites were not
considered.
73 40 Brown, Tom Disagrees with exempting alternative sites.
Disagrees that during operation approximately 48 residences would have a
73 41 Ebbing, Chuck nominal project sound level slightly above the project impact threshold of
60B over the estimated 42 dBA.
Challenges Table 1-1 when it talks about impacts, potential impacts and
73 42 Ebbing, Chuck what they're going to do. Disagrees that the project will not have significant
noise impacts during operation.
73 43 Ebbing, Chuck Challenges overall noise study, claims it is biased.
73 44 Schneider, Clif Challenges overall noise study, says estimate of ambient at 37 dB is about
10 dB high.
73 45 Haskins, Janet Concern over living adjacent to turbines.
Insists that the town and the developer fully give rights under the SEQR
73 46 Bragdon, Brooke law, the National Federal Historic Preservation laws, and other -- the local
zoning law.
73 47 Cullen, Cyril How is decommissioning going to be funded, bonding, no bonding,
deposits, etc.?
73 48 Cullen, Cyril Requests for a moratorium and zoning law.
73 49 Kobylarz, Virginia Climate may not be adequate for wind power.
73 50 Kobylarz, Virginia Concern over migrating birds.
73 51 Kobylarz, Virginia Who is responsible for repair, decommissioning, and restoration?
73 52 Radley, Jarvis Supports SDEIS findings and the proposed wind farm.
3-121
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Requests identification of liability in the case of damages caused by the
73 53 Jolliff, Tom wind farm to persons or property and how they would be handled, such as
by insurance.
73 54 McTaggert, Pat Requests further health studies.
73 55 Boss, Sally Projects turbines will take-up 88% of land mass and requests a moratorium.
73 56 White, Harvey Supports SDEIS findings and the proposed wind farm.
73 57 Chase, Hester Requests clarification on sound/distance relationship.
73 58 Chase, Hester Proposes development of alternatives.
73 59 Falcon, Mary Concerns over red light at night.
73 60 Falcon, Mary Concerns over protecting water during construction.
73 61 Falcon, Mary Concerns over subsidies - feels that citizens will be paying for putting it up
and taking it down.
73 62 Bourquin, Don Supports the Planning Board.
73 63 Bowers, Bert Does not believe 79.5 megawatts of power will be produced.
Production of this clean, renewable energy will not create air or water
73 64 Bowers, Bert pollution or add to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This statement
again is totally false as it pretends that industrial wind power can be an
independent stand-alone source of power.
73 65 Bowers, Bert Concern over 10 to 15-decibel sound level increase.
73 66 Falcon, Spencer Concern over psychiatric impact.
73 67 DeLong, Sam Concern over the effect on his vertigo and migraine health conditions.
73 68 Edgar, Chris Supports the SDEIS and proposed wind farm.
73 69 Moehs, Charles Concerns over low frequency noise, cardiac issues, children, elderly, and
learning disabilities, and sees no way of mitigating these issues.
73 70 Metzger, Don Concerns over decommissioning, with regard to long-distance transmission
line that would run to Lyme.
73 71 Metzger, Don Concern over proposed 485 turbines all within 17 miles of the building they
are in.
3-122
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
Claims there will be a degradation of signal with the cell phone, with the AM
73 72 Metzger, Don radio, with the FM radio, with wireless communication, wireless internet,
issues with the VHF and UHF communication for police, fire, emergency
responders.
73 73 Ciocci, Theresa General health concerns.
73 74 Ciocci, Theresa Asks for liability of damages for both short- and long-term outcomes of
health risks.
73 75 Ciocci, Theresa Concerns regarding sleep deprivation.
Shadow flicker concerns, citing Maine Medical Association results of
73 76 Ciocci, Theresa shadow flicker and noise emissions from turbines on humans living within
3500 feet of industrial turbines
73 77 Schneider, Clif Finds SDEIS exceedances of acceptable noise levels.
73 78 Ebbing, Chuck Concern over night-time noise conditions. Overall concern with noise
study.
Requests ambient noise is measured in the area directly beside each
proposed turbine locations so that you have an accurate noise baseline to
73 79 Grant, Cindy start with and is performed by an independent acoustic engineer that is
chosen by the Town Board but paid for by the developer. Stresses
importance of measuring low frequency noise.
73 80 Grant, Cindy Requests testing of drinking water.
73 81 Grant, Cindy Suggests a buyout clause.
There is no further communication after this letter from Acciona to the
73 82 Bragdon, Brooke State, no follow-up whatsoever in terms of delineating what the adverse
impacts are, and no discussion whatsoever about relocating turbines or
coming up with greater setbacks.
73 83 Byrne, John Questions background noise levels. Feels that noise study is flawed.
What if a well goes dry while blasting for a turbine foundation is done
74 1 various landowners nearby? According to the SDEIS, pre-construction and post-construction
hydrological studies will be conducted to determine if project construction is
3-123
Table 3-2
Agency/
Organization
responsible for any wells going dry. But what about the time between the
blasting and the post-construction studies? Will the landowner have to find
an alternative water supply and pay for it out of his own pocket, while
waiting for the post-construction study to be completed?
1
Source 73 represents oral comments received during May 16, 2009 Public Hearing.
3-124

ST - Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comment Summary

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ST - Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comment Summary

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WINDPOWER PROJECT

It is difficult to assess this SDEIS with a highly inaccurate description of the

b) electric transmission, gathering and interconnect line inspections,

These documents support the conclusion that the SDEIS is inadequate, in

The study was conducted when there wouldn't be much movement by

The length of time may not be sufficient to determine bat presences

Você também pode gostar