St.Lawrence Wind SDEIS Public Comment Letters 2 of 5

8/6/2019 St.Lawrence Wind SDEIS Public Comment Letters 2 of 5

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stlawrence-wind-sdeis-public-comment-letters-2-of-5 1/58

-C)b;1iJ 6/ C ;fIe tf ;/l (e/IIt

;ffll;: / ;W/i) f t ' j ? r f . c _ i-I/.$ .1Ie

j ? ( ) , / J r ) X t s o

C ~je / J / It ct:V I; j)- l ' , / ] c :1$

ft;5. t!(:ey t-it-,f,z. I e . /It- flit/I tile f!et.yJIUC/) UJ/A/LJ

lve(J/A-i:: .fddl/-cJ:.f ;tV//;,,,fetJ . 5 " 1 ,Sf: llct,eeItCt3 C( ) /kLJ

htN ;1:(.6 Clt/iLt /» il/t/&-il()1i) 6 r .St'/Jelt.fL /,4;t46',('.fj//ls

{jlvQtLf. Ad/le/e.~ S6-C:/l' tIJ I/_(" c.;:' frt C ' t 1 / 7 E V/-1 ce).;; '

, . - -

;'/1.1.4; r f#lfo t J

/Jt:t'(oftt A J /

b/Jt~L

( } / J ! r fjt:.,

)?e,fvtj

dt,.( z.J~

Jv II I I !1(jt;-fl:i ;lIf I Z &.

(~~6f /)/ldt:1J 0 lv, f /J,~/{j



,/

y'" ~-------------==--------t

TOWN OF CAPE VINCENT

ZONING LAW

1989

AS AMENDED1991

AS AMENDED 1993AS AMENDED 1998

nall

D

aa



ARTICLE I INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS"

105 Enacting Clause

Pursuant to the provisions of Municipal Home Rule Law, section 10, andArticle 16 of Town Law, the Town Board of 'the Towri 6fcape Vincent, inJefferson County, and the state of New York, h$reby enacts this locallaw.

section 110 Title

This local shall be known and may be cited as "Town of Cape VincentZo ni ng Law. "

Section 115 Purpose

This local lawproviding somea d etr im ent toIt is intended

is designed to protect existing development whilecontrol of growth so that futurEi development will not bethe town and its residents.to:

provide adequate light and air;

prevent the overcrowding of land;

avoid the undue concentration of popUlation;

lessen congestion on the highways;

e ns ure a deq ua ce tr ans por ta tio n, wa ter , se wag e, s c~6 ot , fir e, p oli ce , ~and other faciIities; , , ';

co nse rve p ro per ty v alu es ;

minimize negative environmental impacts of development, especialiyin visually and environmentally sensitive areas', such as 'viewsheds, along the Lake and River, wetlarids, and floodplains;

encourage the development of land for its most appropriate usewithin the town, and to conserve and protect the rural,agricultural, and scenic resources of the Town;

protect existing wooded areas, ..scenicviews, agri,cultural lands,waterways, ground and surface water supplIes, ecological systemswildlife habi.tat a nd natural vegitatiorii. . '

p re se rv e a nd p ro te ct h is to ri ca l. ly s ig ni fi o~ nt ' Lands a nd b ui ld in gs ;regulate commercial and other non-resi4eritial uses in a manner tis sensitive to t h e natural and scenic 'res6~rces'of the community

and provides freedom for landOWpersto ma)cepenificial economicof their land, provided that such uses are hot harmful toneighboring properties.

Section 120 One Use Per Lot

There shall be no more than one principal use per lot.

I



Town of Cape Vincent

Attn Town Supervisor

PO Box 680

Cape Vincent NY 13618

28 May 2009

Re Comment on SDEIS St Lawrence Wind farm

Ifrequently drive through the town of Cape Vincent Ifeel Cape Vincent is not the

right community for wind turbines ..The roads and fields are lovely and are to be

protected as rural landscapes with historic preservation stone farmhouses and

old barns under the NY State preservation laws ..Input under the SEQR process

has been inadequate,

~~

Pa;~~~ub ..

Shady Shores

Clayton NY 13624



Old Bird, Inc.605 W . State St.

Ithaca, NY 14850

(607 ) 272-1786

M ay 29, 2009

T ow n of C ape V ince nt

A tte nti on : T own Sup erv is or

PO. Box 680

Cape V incent, N Y 13618

R e: S t. L aw re nce W ind P roje ct S DE IS

To the T ow n of Cape V incent Tow n Supe rv isor and Planning B oard M em bers:

The St. Law rence w ind project location is not a generic inland site in ce ntral N e w Y o rkIt is proxim al to one of the largest rivers in N orth A merica and at the base of a large

peninsula There is no case I am aw are of w here such geographic elem ents do not cause

conce ntrations of m igrating birds and coastal channe ling dynam ics -- ye t the W est Inc

(W e st) studie s prov ide little e vide nce docum enting any such phe nom ena, T his sugge sts to

m e a poor study de sign giv en that conce rns for the se av ian conce ntration dynam ics, and

associated increased av ian collis ion risk, w ere at the heart of the N Y D E C and U SFW S

comme nts w he n the se age ncie s w ere consulte d about the pre construction re se arch plan

for this w ind project For e xam ple , the 2006 bird and bat w ork plan for this w ind proje ct

stated:

"Based on conunents from N Y SD EC and U SFW S, the ideal radar sam pling location w ould allow

ch aracte rizatio n o f av ian/bat m ov em en t alo ng th e sh ore line . T his p rop ose d sam pling lo cation w ould allo w

characte rizatio n of av ian/b at m ov em ent alo ng th e sh ore lin e, as w ell as m ov em en t o ve r inland are as , O ne

radar sam pling locatio n w ill b e se le cte d base d o n con strain ts o f th e rad ar (e .g ., m in im izatio n o f g ro und

inte rfe re nce ), p ro pe rty o wne rsh ip . and acce ss. A tte mp ts w ill b e m ad e to p ositio n th e rad ar unit

a pp ro xim ate ly L 5 Ian fro m the sh ore lin e at a lo cation th at w ill m ax im iz e rad ar v isibility w ith in the o ve rall

proposed dev elopm ent area." P.3 A &B W ork Plan

How ev er, ne ithe r the av ian/bat passage rate s proxim al to the shore line nor ov er inland

areas w ere characterized in the W est radar study. A ll that w as provide d is a passage rate

that sum s up the w hole radar-sw ept area, m ost of w hich is outside the w ind project (see

be low ), and anothe r de te rm ination of passage rate from a thin slice of atm osphe re from

the v ertical m ode of radar ope ration, w hich also w as colle cte d outside the w ind proje ct

area. I fail to see how these radar data satisfy the state d goals of the B ird & B at W ork

P lan for the W est radar study of bird m igration dynam ics pe rtine nt to the s r. Lawrencew ind p ro je ct

A s discusse d in my prior comme nts (June 14, 2007~ appe nde d be low ), W est locate d the

r ad ar equi pmen t -05 km (i ns te ad o f th e p re sc ri be d -1.5 km) from the riv er e dge . As

s uch, the W est study prov ide s us w ith passage rate data (horizontal m ode ) w he re a third



of the are a of the radar sw eep is ove r the St. Law rence R iv er. T he bird activ ity in this

ov er-riv er airspace is totally im pe rtine nt for av ian im pacts of this w ind proje ct and it

like ly se ve re ly biase s the re sults , am ong othe r re asons for the follow ing, If the suspe cte d

c ha nn elin g o f n ig ht m igran ts is oc currin g at re lativ ely lo w altitud es in the o ve r-la nd

shore line zone , the re w ould also like ly be a concom itant lack of landbird m igrants at

re lativ ely lo w altitu de s o ve r th e riv er (te rm e d "w ate r-im pe de d" p as sag e rate he re afte r).T hus, if the radar had be en locate d the pre scribe d 1 " 5 km from the s ho re line , th e p as sag e

rate w ould hav e like ly be en e ve n highe r than the 346 t/km lhr fall passage rate calculate d

by W est (using the horizontal-m ode data of the ir radar e quipm ent). T his is be cause the

low er de nsity (low -altitude ) m igration ov er w ate r w ouldn't hav e be en include d in the

o ve rall p as sag e rate fig ure w he re as high er d ens ity o ve rlan d m ig ratio n w ou ld hav e,

T he passage rate de te rm ine d from the v ertical radar analysis is just a single sm all slice of

atm osphe re adjace nt to the proje ct are a and doe sn't te ll us anything about channe ling

dynam ics or the m igration de nsity across the large r proje ct are a, B ecause of the narrow

airspace that is sam ple d at low altitude by the v ertical m ethod, its re sults are not

s ta ti sti ca lly ro bu st fo r in dic atin g low -a ltitu de p as sa ge ra te . It s hou ld be n ote d, h ow e ve r,

tha t b oth the " wa te r-im pe de d" h oriz on tal-m ode p as sag e rate an d th e th in -s lic e v erticalpassage rate are m ore than tw ice as high as the m ean nocturnal passage rate de te rm ine d

by the fall A BR radar study at M aple R idge in 2005 (158 t/km lhr), w hich used sim ilar

analysis m ethods. T he M aple R idge w ind proje ct m ay hav e incurre d av ian fatalitie s as

high as 9 birds per turbine in a 5-m onth study period (Jain et at 2007) Should w e then

e xpect 20+ birds per turbine at the propose d St. Law rence w ind project in a sim ilar 5-

m onth pe riod base d on the tw ice as high radar-de te rm ine d passage rate ? P erhaps that

possibility deserv es a note in the FEIS for the St. L aw re nce w ind project B ecause that

w ould be the highe st av ian fatality rate docum ente d at any w ind proje ct in N o rth

Ame rica, In the curre nt D EIS /S DE IS , the re is no indication that such a high av ian fatality

rate m ight be a possibility. T his 20+ bird pe r turbine pe r 5~months calculation is as v alid

as any such statistic that W est include s in their study - eg, their com parison of data from

o the r w ind pro je cts or o th er s ou rce s o f m ortality

Furthe rm ore , w hat stands out to m e is that the 05 km radar s tation location from the S t.

L aw re nce R iv er in ste ad o f th e p re scrib ed -,15 km location is not m entioned in the W est

radar report or the SD EIS. The follow ing statem ent on p. 46 in the W est radar report

stands out as a pote ntial inte ntional cov er-up: "T he passage rate in the study are a m ay

hav e be en influe nce d locally by the close proxim ity of the radar unit to the shore line

« 1 .5 km), th ou gh this d is tanc e w as re comm end ed by the N Y DEC and USFWS to

in ve stigate this q ue stio n, , "

L W hy doesn't the SD EIS come out and say that the radar w as only located ~05 krn

from the S t L aw re nce R iv er inste ad of the pre scribe d -, 1,5 kilom ete rs?2. W hy does this SD EIS incorrectly state that the U SFW S and N Y D EC

re commended that the radar be le ss than 1.5 km aw ay from the shore w hen, in

fact, the se age ncie s re que ste d that it be "approxim ate ly" 1.5 km aw ay ..



This has the sm ell of a cover-up. In any case , this falsehood in the record needs to be

co rre cte d in th e fin al E IS

T he W e st study doe s prov ide dire ctional data of targe ts , w hich has the pote ntial to

indicate channe ling dynam ics if carrie d out prope rly. B ut the dire ctional data the y us e in

the ir analysis is from targe ts de te cte d across all altitude s surv eye d. W est's inclusion ofhigh -altitu de ta rge ts in th is a na ly sis w ill te nd to m as k an y c ha nn elin g a lo ng the s hore line

re gio n be cau se s uc h ch an ne lin g a ctiv ity w ou ld be prim arily at lo w -a ltitud es

T he W est study doe s not prov ide any quantification of the re lativ e rate s of passage be low

turbine height ov er the w ate r, ov er the coastal zone , or ove r the inland re gions - data that

w ou ld h elp s ubs tan tiate w h eth er c ha nn elin g alo ng th e lak es ho re w as oc cu rring .

F or v arious re asons, the pre construction radar study for this w ind proje ct w as not as

p ro du cti ve a s it could have been, W hat this m eans is there is a lot less certainty in any

fore cast for im pact to night m igrating songbirds, w hich so far appe ar to com pose m ore

than 80% offatalitie s in easte rn N o rth American w ind projects ..I think the SD EIS and the

W e st rad ar s tu dy's p re dictio ns of inc on se qu en tial c ollis io n im pacts to b ird s are w ith ou tsolid basis . T he av ian collis ion im pact is pote ntially m uch highe r than is sugge ste d by the

SDE IS and W est.

F or re late d studie s, I hav e conducte d nocturnal m igration re se arch in the re gion of the S t

L aw re nce w ind proje ct using acoustic m onitoring of av ian flight calls W hile m y data

sugge st channe ling dynam ics in the re gion and unusual av ian conce ntration dynam ics due

to the peninsular location of this w ind project, it is clear that m ore rese arch nee ds to and

could be conducte d to unde rstand the se com ple x nocturnal m igration dynam ics w ith

regard to reducing the av ian im pact of w ind proje cts in the re gion. W hat is nee de d is a

s tu dy w ith m ultip le no cturn al m on ito ring m etho dolog ie s tha t ca n m on itor the

atm osphe ric stratum be low turbine he ight of m ultiple site s" S uch a study w ould he lp site

turb in es in a re as th at w ou ld h av e le ss n octu rna l m igra tion traffic b elo w tu rbin e h eigh t,

and the ore tically le ss collis ion risk S uch a s tudy is w orth conside ration by all partie s as

w ind turbine de ve lopm ent in this re gion is a long-te rm prospe ct

W hile the W est radar study has serious flaw s and could hav e bee n carried out m ore

productiv ely, the N Y D EC be ars s om e re sponsibility for m aking sure that the

p re co ns tru ctio n s tu die s are on trac k to be p ro duc tiv e. T he p re co ns truc tion s tu die s for th e

St Law rence w ind project w ere des igned and carried out be fore the N Y D EC guidance on

w ind pow er de ve lopm ent w ere finaliz ed and fulJy th ou gh t o ut, It should be note d that

av ian im pact m itigation at w ind proje cts is a learning process for all inv olv ed T he w ind

ind us try is the p rim ary pro pon en t (an d re ce iv er of s ign ifican t pu blic $ stim uli) A s such,

it has to bear a m ajor burden for com pliance w ith the full spectrum of public se rv ices urro un d w i nd p ro je cts , i nc lu di ng e nv iro nmenta l imp ac ts .

W hile the im pact to night m igrating birds is a substantial issue for the St. Law rence w ind

proje ct, hav ing re ad the D EIS /S DE IS I hav e the re sponsibility to state that the bre eding

bird surv ey for this im pact state me nt (D EIS /SD EIS ) is lacking conside ration for a



num ber of species , several of w hich are listed species in N ew Y ork I have carried out an

acoustic m onitoring of av ian night m igration a kilom ete r or so w est of the inte rse ction of

Rosie re Rd. and M illens Bay Rd. This location is approxim ate ly 1 km south of the St.

Law rence w ind turbine project - roughly the sam e distance as the W est radar equipm ent

w as from the w ind project area, M y acoustic study docum ented m ultiple flight calls of

the follow ing species in the first w eek of June 2007:

B la ck -c row ne d N i gh t H ero n

L eas t B itte rn (N Y S : T hre ate ne d)

V i rg in ia Ra il

Wh ip -p oo r-w ill (N Y S : S pe cia l C on ce rn )

G ra ss ho pp er S parrow (N Y S : S pe cial C on ce rn )

The site w here these species w ere recorded w as sim ply an open fie ld area, For m ost of

thes e spe cie s, this sugge sts they w ere flying about at night in regions outs ide of the ir

prefe rred fe eding and nesting habitat. T he fact that three of thes e spe cie s are associated

w ith w etlands suggests that they are breeding w ithin (or in the near v icinity) of the St.

L aw rence w ind proje ct and are trav ers ing the region to re ach distant fe eding groundsT he w ind proje ct area contains num erous sm all w etlands and thes e s pecies are like ly

using these w etlands during the breeding season as w en as the m igration periods. I am

confident that m ost of these species could be docum ented flying at night w ithin the St.

L aw rence w ind proje ct area by acous tic m onitoring stations (v ia their flight caU s) on any

night w ith w inds less than 10 m ph in the months of June and June. I am happy to prov ide

a dem onstration for this to repre se ntativ es of the S t. L aw rence W ind P roje ct, the C ape

Vincent Tow n Board, N Y D EC, and USFW S during June or July 2009, I am also happy to

prov ide the flight call data I hav e acquired that subs tantiate s the pres ence of these species

n ea r th e S 1. Law re nc e w in d p ro je ct

In conclusion, these fiv e species (note d abov e) should probably be include d on the lis t of

species that m ay be im pacted by the St. Law rence w ind project W hile G rasshopper

Sparrow w as docum ented in the W est breeding bird study (1 i nd iv i dual ), my acous ti c

d ata s ug ge sts th is s pe cie s e ng age s in s ubs ta ntia l n octu rn al flig ht ac tiv ity in th e re gio n

during the bre eding season and that substantial num bers are pote ntially at risk of collision

w ith the S t. L aw rence w ind proje ct

Sincerely,

William REvans

Execut iv e D i re c to r



Begin appended letter from June 14, 2007

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Old Bird, Inc.605 W, State St

Ithaca, NY 14850

(607) 272-1786

June 14, 2007

Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board Chairman

PO Box 680Cape Vincent, NY 13618

Dear Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board Chairman and Members:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the St. Lawrence Wind project

Please find below my comments on the "preliminary results" ofthe nocturnal radar study

by West Inc, which was included in the St Lawrence DEIS. I am director of a nonprofit

based in Ithaca) NY that focuses on the study of nocturnal bird migration, I am a

nationally recognized expert on that topic as well as bird mortality at tall man-made

structures I am currently a principal investigator on a NYSERDA~sponsored nocturnal

bird migration study at the Maple Ridge wind project, 75 km southeast of Cape Vincent

Between 2004'"2005 I carried out nocturnal bird migration studies for Ecogen LLC, awind developer for a proposed wind project near Prattsburgh, NY, and at similar wind

energy projects in Pennsylvania and Vermont

Because of my expertise in nocturnal bird migration and the impacts oftal1 man-

made structures on night migrating birds along with my experience at wind projects, I am

frequently invited to speak at workshops on the impact of wind energy on wildlife, This

includes three such conferences in 2006, I have attached my credentials at the end of this

document, which demonstrate my expertise for providing this review of the West radar

study.

Comments o n S1. Lawrence Wind DEIS (draft of June 15,2007)

My first comment involves the time table of the public comment period for the

proposed 81, Lawrence Wind Farm project DEIS with regard to when specific

information in the DEIS became available for public review" The field work for the

nocturnal radar study was finished by November 2006, however the results of that study

were only made available for public review about two weeks before the public comment

period on the DEI8 was over. While it is nice to have this information available for



examination, the short time period available does not allow adequate review by the

handful of people who are qualified to carry out such review, This includes experts like

myself who are frequently asked to comment on such reports and NYDEC and USFWS

officials who are swamped with numerous wind projects in NYS, Out of respect for the

DEIS process, the comment period should be extended.

Though I have not had time to fully review the St. Lawrence Wind project radar

study carried out by West, Inc" I note the following information is lacking:

e The project turbines are proposed to be up to 425 ft high (based on a 2008construction schedule), The contractor only provides information on bird

migration under 410 ft (125 m) agl Given that wind turbines are tending to get

larger and that this project, as with many wind projects, take longer to be built

than projected, bird/bat migration altitude information should be provided at 25-m

resolution up to 200 m above ground level

e Nightly data on passage rate below turbine height is not presented. Without this

information one cannot see whether nights with significant migration under

turbine height correspond to the time when any State or Federal Endangered orThreatened night migrating birds are likely to be moving through the region, Just

providing a seasonal average for targets below 125 m is not very helpful for

assessing flying animal impact For example, were the numbers below 125 m

concentrated in August when the main bat migration was occurring? When

presenting such data, it would be useful if West Inc, presented it in tabular format

with actual figures rather than bar graphs where the actual number can only be

approximated, Since West Inc, is relatively new to carrying out radar studies, I

suggest that West Inc. follow the format of more experienced radar consultants

such as Woodlot Alternatives in presenting their radar data

These latter two deficiencies in the West radar study may be able to be corrected if West

Inc. has archived their radar data from the study. Itwould then simply be a matter of

going back and recalculating the data and reproducing the figures.

The most significant problems I find with the West Inc. radar study involve the location

they chose to carry out their radar study and their lack of analysis of migration density

dynamics within their radar study area. The St. Lawrence Wind project area is currently

(June 15 DEIS) proposed to be located within 800 m of the St. Lawrence River The radar

study site was apparently only about 500 m from the shoreline (see Fig. 3 in West report),

in fact, outside the wind project area. My interpretation of the NYSDEC and USFWS

comments is that the radar site would ideally be located 1500 m from the shoreline (p. 3,

Avian and Bat Study Plan 7/06). The consultant states:

"Attemp ts w i ll be m ad e to p ositio n the rad ar unit ap pro xim ate ly L fi-km from the s ho re lin e a t a loc atio n

that will m axim ize radar v isibility w ithin the ov erall proposed dev elopm ent area." PJ A &B Study Plan

7/06

West's placement of the radar unit approximately one kilometer closer to the shoreline

than had apparently been recommended leads to the fact that about one third of the radar



detection area was located over the St Lawrence River (see Fig 3 in the West report) and

less than half of their radar coverage was actually over the proposed wind project site.

This is based on West's stated method of determining passage rate in the horizontal

mode:

"T o d ete rm ine p as sage rate s inho riz ontal m od e, the 2 ~d im en sio nal are a re pre se nte d b y the rad ar im age w as

tre ate d as a l-d im en sio nal " fron t" pe rp end icu lar to th e d ire ctio n of m ig ratio n, w ith le ng th e qu al to '3 km(th e diam ete r o f th e s urv ey ed are a); all targ ets co unte d in th e radar im ag e d urin g th e s am plin g p eriod w e re

tre ate d a s if they had cros se d the front" P.8 W es t radar s tudy

There are no radar studies in inland New York State that include such a large over-water

proportion in their sampling region, and especially over a directional water body such as

the St Lawrence River that likely channels bird and bat migration. This is problematic

for comparing horizontal radar data from the West radar study to those of other New

York radar studies, which West does in the text oftheir report and in Table 7 of their

report Based on my own research in eastern North America, there is a strong likelihood

that more small songbird migration in the fall occurs inland along the St Lawrence River

than over the water of the St. Lawrence River. This would especially be true on evenings

when winds are below 10 miles per hour or if winds were from the east.

West's data does suggest that the St. Lawrence plays a role in channeling nocturnal

migration This is indicated by Fig 4, in which the strongest flight vector is parallel to the

river shore and by the overall more southwesterly direction (toward the angle of the

shoreline) of flight documented in this study compared to some similar radar studies in

New York However, West's analysis provides us with no information on the details of

this channeling ..Is it occurring across the whole SL Lawrence Valley? Is it occurring only

at low altitudes? These latter questions have considerable bearing on the avian (and

potentially bat) impact of wind projects on the Cape Vincent peninsula These questions

appear to be a thrust of the Avian and Bat Study Plan (07/06) for this project, which

states.

" Th is p ro po se d s ampli ng lo ca tio n w o uld a llo w c ha ra cte riz atio n o fa via n/b at mov eme nt a lo ng th e s ho re lin e.

as w ell as m ov em ent over inland areas ." P.3 A &B Study Plan

The West radar report, however, does not provide information on movements along the

shoreline and those over inland areas. The radar data from over the S1,Lawrence River,

its shoreline, and inland areas of coverage are simply summed together to produce a

single passage rate for the whole radar survey area. The question of migration corridor

along the south shore of the S1,Lawrence is not addressed as was suggested it would be

in the Study Plan (see quote above).

What we want to know is what are the characteristics of the nocturnal migration that fliesover land (where turbines might be constructed) in the vicinity of the south shore of the

St Lawrence River on the Cape Vincent Peninsula. Presuming West Inc. has archived

their radar observation data, it may be possible that they can go back and reanalyze their

data and provide this information. What would be useful to see in evaluating potential

impact to night migrants is a 500 m resolution representation of flying target (presumed

birds and bats) density as one moves away from the 81.Lawrence River In other words,



w hat is the m igration density w ith in 500 m of the R iver? W hat is the m igration density in

the zone betw een 500 m and 1 Ion from the Riv er? W hat is the m igration density in the

zone betw een 1 km and 1.5 km from the riv er? W hat is the m igration density in the zone

betw een 1.5 krn and 2.0 km from the R iver? H ow do these m igration density dynam ics

v ary w ith w eather? Such data can be obtained from a prop erly d es igne d m arin e radar

s tud y or w ith o the r m etho do lo gie s. In add itio n, co ncu rre nt us e o f im ag e inte nsifie r

m ethodology can be used to help unders tand the proportion of bats and birds in the flying

anim al m ix re vealed by the radar

SummaryThe w ind industry has been plague d w ith bird kill and bat kill issues ..This is the

reason w hy bird and bat s tudies are often conducted at proposed w ind project s ites before

construction. M ost proposed w ind projects in N e w Y o rk State are located w ell aw ay from

m ajo r w a te r b od ie s th at c au se m ig ra tio n c ha nn elin g a nd m ig ra tio n c on ce ntra tio n

dynam ics . M ost of these studies hav e carried out one year of m igration study before

hav ing the ir D EIS rev iew ed. B ecause of its proxim ity to Lake O ntario and the s t .L aw re nce R iv er, the C ap e V ince nt pe nins ula w ill h av e comple x m igration ch ann elin g

and concentration phenom enon. The spe cifics of these dynam ics are large ly unknow n andw ill require m ore study than typical inland w ind projects in N e w Y o rk State in order to

m inim iz e th e w ildlife im pact of w ind tu rbin e place me nt

M y profess ional opinion, and those of others I hav e spoken w ith, is that som e

areas on the C ape V ince nt peninsula hav e the potential to result in the highest b ird and

bat m ortality per w ind turbine to date in easte rn N o rth America if w ind turbines are built

there . Such concern calls for m ore than one year of w ildlife m onitoring and three years is

not ou t o f the q ue stion . R us hin g a w ind proje ct thro ug h w ith ou t ad equ ate ly u nd ers ta ndin g

w ildlife im pacts could negativ ely im pact the Tow n as w ell as the effectiv eness of the

w i nd p ro je ct.

For the Tow n, lack of adequate w ildlife m onitoring at a w ind project such as this

w ill le ad to in cre as ed atte ntion b y m ajo r e nv iro nm ental o rgan iz ation on w ind pro je cts at

C ape V incent and m ore detailed scrutiny of the Tow n B oard 's role in approv ing such

proje cts , M ajor e nv ironme ntal g rou ps su ch as N a tional W ild life F ede ratio n, A ud ubo n,

Sierra C lub and others are generally in fav or of utility-scale w ind energy projects as long

as such projects are s ited properly. The inform ation in the current D EIS for the St.

Law rence W ind project does not conv ey confidence in proper siting. M ajor concerns for

m igratory corrido rs alo ng th e s ou th sh ore of th e S t. L aw re nce an d w inte rin g raptor

c on ce ntra tio ns h av e n ot b ee n a de qu ate ly a dd re ss ed ,

For the w ind dev eloper, rushing ahead w ith w ind project dev elopm ent and then

fin din g th at th e p ro je ct in cu rs p ro blem atic w i ld life im pa cts , a fte r h av in g re ce iv ed

pre viou s w arnin g that s uch m ig ht o ccur, m ay trigg er pro se cution u nd er v arious w ild life

p ro te ctio n law s . S uch litigatio n co uld le ad to e xte ns iv e p erio ds of tim e during m igratio n

periods w hen w ind turbine operation is shut dow n (i.e .. los t rev enue for the w ind project).For exam ple , the A ltam ont w ind project in C alifornia is currently shutdow n for 6 m os. a

ye ar du e to co nce rn s ov er e ag le m ortality ..

W hether w ind projects on C ape V incent w ill hav e such problem atic w ildlife

im pacts is currently unknow n, but of all 45 proposed w ind projects in N e w Y o rk that I

am aw are of, my pro fe ss io nal op inion is th at w in d p roje cts o n the C ap e V in ce nt



peninsula (as well as other sites in close proximity to major water courses) have a real

possibility of becoming Altamont's of the east The initial development of wind projects

in New York State should be kept away from close proximity to major watercourses,

which we have good reason to believe have higher concentrations of migratory flying

animals. Ifprojects are to be built at such locations, they should have the maximum

wildlife impact studies recommended by State and Federal Governments,

Wind energy is good for our nation in many ways. Please slow down your DEIS

process on this and other wind projects you may be facing and allow adequate

environmental studies so that wildlife impacts are thoroughly addressed.

Sincerely yours,

cui: 1. e.:«.William R. Evans '*

Executive Director

Cc: N Y D EC, USFW S



5/29109

Mr. Thomas Rienbeck, Town Supervisor


P.O. Box 68 0Cape Vincent, NY 1.3618

Dear Tom,

In reviewing the supplemental environmental impact statement for S1.Lawrence Wind

Farm, I would like to bring to your attention paragraph 7.2 which states that "the Projectwill meet all of the setbacks required by the Planning Board of Cape Vincent". Those

setbacks are 1,500 feet from the 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.

As the Town has not proceeded with a zoning law that includes turbines with regulations,

it would seem that the above figures are what the Planning Board will ask of

S1.Lawrence Wind Farm" As Iave written you recently that these setbacks are totally

inadequate for the safety of our residents, it will be necessary for a much larger setback to

be included in the SElS" Therefore, I request that you (Planning Board) require changes

to 72.

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 turbines to their

homes. I want you to realize that TH ERE A RE NO HEROES IN THIS DILEMMA

CAPE VINCENT IS FACING AT THIS TIME. The dilemma is safety of our residents

verses the desires of those who profit and demand the industry in our township. Iannotfathom how some of the pro wind turbine residents can overlook the health and welfare

of our community let alone see what turbines have done to the landscape of Wolfe Island.

The monies the town acquires from the Pilot will be eaten up by loss of revenue from

property taxes" Properties will decrease in value due to the turbine industry" What do we

gain? Nothing!! Oh, what we gain are several families getting several thousand dollars a

year for many years and the rest of the community have a loss of home values, some with

medical issues, and resentment and distrust for our community for many years to come.

Sounds like a good deal to me!!

Do the math if you care about nothing else.

Submitted by

,/ ' ;7 /1 .'/.".;'t:-c . ,: _ -7'. . - " ' ~ v

Sarah F, Boss



q ; ; ; _ u t - t Qf ) Care I/; - r c . e 11-/

#1//7. ~!:::;~OfP05eo( Si- ,__/_C{ r:u VRt:H(?

l~~,'/?()/ s: /7 el:9 y '()o_j'ec" v .

#36'

II:;p C f f /~7

t Ve_ .f ! N r/ '-lit e It/; (1 ('/

-100 clost? TC our-

p r l " . J : P e J A , IY 'lc:x I-/crp ~:?_;J.. ,}{ C ? q -

c ;< q,19 - / - S"2

/VYS '?. fe /2E '

7/1 fJ IA./OL'< Ict cit? Va/ue '-/1((; j/ircj'?("'r ~

'II g, ,lv ITN I'-(ve r VI 'eL-t/ .

r :n t? 110/c: (-? Ie / _ . I C - / f l . - co s- b o!'/, t v : . / '! c : - / 1 J ; : ;rht ' I r c _ > : ,

-#39 O'NC/

#.3g- t~///

e#c·/Our

t""'OY Of ~ / / e _ I

3S-0s o 5/Wi, /:.;;.£

Care v " ' t ' 1 Ce'//'// AI.YI36/j(



May 26,2008

Town Supervisor Thomas Rienbeck

P.O. Box 680

Cape Vincent, New York

Dear Tom,

I have reviewed the April 2009 st. Lawrence Wind Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement and have identified comments that members of Wind Power Ethics Group,

LLC and Government Agencies made regarding the DEIS either in the Public Hearing or

in written comments that are not addressed in the SElS.

1) What are the migratory patterns of the herons and how high do they fly when 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?

2) Impacts of shadow effect on wild life should be part of the DEIS.

3) Individuals, guides and town must be compensated if towers result in loss of

fishing revenues,

4) SLW needs to establish who the environmental monitor works for and who he/she

sends reports to.

5) The development of a long-term environmental management plan should be

considered to incorporate plans for restoration of environmental impacts during

the following project construction, environmental considerations to be included inongoing maintenance of facility, a contingency plan to assess and minimize

environmental impacts during major repairs, and assessment and mitigation of

environmental impacts during decommissioning process.

6) It is important to know the impacts of shadow effect on the fish in the water.

7) How can the impact on wells and springs be evaluated if there is no baseline for

the springs or wells. Fieldwork should be done to establish 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 ifproblems occur,

8) The project may require an Article 24 Freshwater Wetland permit and section 401

Water Quality Certification.



9) Since issues regarding potential medical problems related to wind turbines come

up with proposals around the state, it would seem appropriate to include a section

on medical issues in the DEIS.

10) Critical information is needed to evaluate potential impacts resulting from the

project not performed as part of the DEIS. The DEIS should be updated toinclude: Geotechnical field data; groundwater studies; wetland field survey; and

hydro geological balance study based upon long-term runoff By 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 lead

agency, involved agency and public comment.

11) At best the studies to date may be considered pilot efforts requiring 3-5 years of

intense further studies of many groups before any conclusions of value may be

drawn,

12) Are you and the Audubon Society aware of the IBA (Important Bird Habitat) on

Pleasant Valley Road? How will it be affected? What does Audubon say?

13) The lease with SLW takes away landowners' constitutional rights to sue for

punitive damages and the right to jury triaL Why is this acceptable?

14) Section 2.6.4 ofthe SDEIS needs to include a description of 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.

15) The report should specifically state that the habitat type located at Chaumont

Barrens and Three Mile Creek will not be impacted by the project

16) Section 3.2 shows that NO biotic or water quality data is provided but this

information should be included in the report along with a discussion of potential

impacts from project construction.

17) Section 3..3of the DEIS does not identify if the wind project will impact to

establish the St. Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management District

(SLWGMD), Nor does it mention if it is compatible with the purpose of

SLWGMD,

18) Section 3,.3.6NYS Fish and Wild Life strongly recommend that the Smith (2007)be considered by the project sponsor in siting the project features,

19) Section 3.3.6 NYSFWL found insufficient data exists to adequately conduct a risk

assessment and predict wildlife mortality for this project



20) The DEIS falls short of providing the necessary information in a comprehensive

manner, The DEIS states that additional data on wildlife use and potential

impacts is forthcoming, NYSFWL will review this information prior to making a

final determination.

Respectfully submitted,



5/27/09


Attn: town Supervisor

P.O. Box 680

Cape Vincent, NY 13618

Dear Mr. Rienbeck,

Thank you for allowing me to submit comments to the SEIS of S1.Lawrence Wind Farm,

r have concerns of which I will go into detail.

In section 3.1.1.2 SLW says that karst limestone presents special problems for civil

engineering projects such as roads, bridges, tunnels, sewerage pipelines, and mining.

Careful preparatory investigations are therefore required with special design measures

and provisions for unforeseen problems. As a result, bedrock in the project area shouldbe investigated for karst and other dissolution features as part of the geotechnical

investigations prior to construction. Will the geotechnical investigation be included in

the FEIS?

Paragraph 3.L33 does not mention the use of an environmental monitor. In order to

provide proper oversight of these activities it is important that an environmental monitor

be on site for all pre-construction survey and any construction activities that involve

excavation to bedrock or are located in proximity to known karst feature. Will an

environmental monitor be present?

In paragraph 323.3 the discussion on soil is too general. Each turbine site, access road,electric line pole and substation needs a soil map.

In paragraph 3A2 SLW says that the turbine construction cranes would he transported to

the site in a semi-dismantled manner and hauled to specific crane assembly areas

designed along the turbine access roads" The locations of the crane assembly area would

depend on the feasibility of walking the crane between turbine sites" This would be

further evaluated as part of the comprehensive transportation study pending Project

approval. Will the comprehensive transportation study. delivery routes and crane

assembly areas be part of the FEIS?

In 3,9.1 there is no discussion of the impact of the turbines on the ozone level which is

already out of compliance with EPA guidelines" What is the impact and if so, how will

you mitigate?

3.11.3 states that the only potential adverse impact to municipal budgets and taxes would

be the impact of the Project construction on local roads, and the need to repair or upgrade

these roads to accommodate construction vehicles and higher activity. To mitigate this



impact, any construction-related damage or improvements to State, County, or town

roads would be the responsibility of the Applicant and would be undertaken at no

expense to the municipalities" How long after project completion is this going to

continue?

In 3013,1.2 paragraph SLW states that ice shed may occur when ice builds up on theblade of a turbine and then breaks off and falls to the ground. While this is a potential

safety concern, it should be noted that there has never been a reported injury from ice

shed by wind turbines, despite the installation of more than 6,000 MW of wind energy

worldwide (Morgan, Bossanyi, and Siefert, 1998.) This is an (11) eleven-year-old study.

Why are you not using a more recent study?

Respectfully submitted,



May 20,2009

Mr. Thomas Rhienbeck, Supervisor


N Y S Rte. 12E

Cape Vincent, N Y 13618 RE:Comments on SLWF SDEIS March 25, 2009

Dear Tom:

The following are my comments pertaining to noise background studies and impact

analysis described in the St. Lawrence Wind Farm Supplemental DEIS section 3,10. I

have also attached a copy of a paper I prepared: "Measuring background noise with an

attended. mobile survey during nights with stable atmospheric conditions," which

demonstrates that background sounds in Cape Vincent are far lower than AES-Accionadepicts in their SDEISI. In a discussion I had at the public hearing on May 16, your

attorney Todd Mathes suggested that he and the Planning Board would pay attention to

anyone who may have collected their own background sound levels in Cape Vincent I

hope Attorney Mathes is correct and that the Planning Board will examine not only my

report, but also the background sound level report prepared by Schomer and Associates

forWPEG.

After carefully reviewing AES-Acciona's SDEIS sound report, I am convinced it is

severely biased in favor of the developer. The principal problem is their elevated

estimate of background sound. The Planning Board now has to carefully weigh the

technical merits of all three reports, as well as the various comments directed at the

developer'S noise studies. To help determine the right path from the maze of technical

details, the Planning Board needs an independent, comparative review of these materials

by their engineering consultants, Bernier-Carr and Cavanaugh-Tocci. From what I have

seen in the past, they have produced fair, balanced reporting and advice. Moreover, any

review they provide should be made public, preferably prior to issuing an FEIS.

Establishing an unbiased measure of the background sound in Cape Vincent is a crucial

issue and it needs a careful, open review by your technical experts.

Comments:

3.10.1 Affected Environment:

The map showing non-resident receptors is inadequate. The purpose of this section of the

SDEIS is to document potential adverse affects on non-participating residents. Exhibit

3.10.1 should show all non-participating residents and their property lines within the 1-

mile buffer zone of the project. Moreover, each non-participating residence should be

1 I will be presenting the paper at the Institute of Noise Control Engineering conference, INTERNOISE

2009, at Ottawa in August.



S1.Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comments by C. Schneider May 30, 2009 2

noted in a table format including address of the residence, assumed background noise and

projected noise impact from the wind farm. This is common practice for many other

wind project DEISs within New York Italso provides a format that will not require

interpretation if compliance or complaint resolution surveys are needed in the future. The

poor resolution maps in SLWF SDEIS need to be redone: property lines need to be

shown clearly in every map, not just the map indicating combined impacts from both

wind development projects.

Noise monitoring sites were arbitrarily chosen and all sites were located on lease-holder

land. In addition, a number of sites were adjacent to sources of noise that elevate

background sound. Since this analysis is ultimately intended to assess impacts on non~

participating residents, the selection of noise monitoring sites should have focused on

those properties. Using lease-holder properties also brings into question whether these

individuals understood the significance of the noise assessment to project approval, and

thereby, may have unduly influenced the monitoring process. For this reason alone. a

new survey should be undertaken that represents background noise for non-participating

residents rather than noise conditions for lease-holders.

All references to LEQ noise metrics in this SEQR should be struck. It adds nothing but

confusion. Appropriately, L90 descriptors were used to document background noise in

subsequent analyses; therefore, focus on their use and do not try to convince us that the

L90 metric is "too conservative." More importantly. the Town's acoustic consultant also

recommended that references to LEO background noise levels should be "struck" from

the SDEIS. The Town is well advised to adhere to the recommendations of their expert

consultants.

The use of regression analysis to estimate background noise is inappropriate. First, this

procedure is not a part of any environmental noise measuring standard currently in

practice in New York (although it is commonly used by Hessler). In the NYSDEC policy

on Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, which the developer cites frequently in this

SDEIS, there is no mention of measuring background noise by regressing sound levels on

fO-m extrapolated wind velocities. Also, the proper use of linear regression assumes the

independent variable, e.g., wind speed, is measured without error, but this is clearly not

the case here. Wind speed was estimated from a single meteorological tower at a height

of 40 m (-120 ft). The wind speed at 40111was then "normalized" to a height of lO-m,

using a formula that does not adequately represent local wind shear conditions.

Moreover, wind speed at some sites was associated with noise levels measure more than

7 miles away - this is ridiculous All these factors combined not only make for

substantial variation in the data, but also suggest problems with accuracy as welL Even if

the approach was standardized, wind speed should be measured adjacent to and at theheight of the sound level meter's microphone. Again, the Town's acoustic expert also

recommended that regression analysis should not be used to describe background noise in

Cape Vincent The developer needs to conduct another background noise survey that not

only uses more representative monitoring sites. but incorporates a methodology that

conforms to recommendations of the Town's acoustic consultant.



St. Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comments by C. Schneider May 30, 2009 3

For another view of what constitutes background sound levels in Cape Vincent, refer to

my attached report. It demonstrates that in 30% of the nights ground level winds can be

calm while wind turbines could be operating noisily" Median background L90A noise

levels were 2506 dBA under stable, calm conditions, which is similar to the levels

reported in the SDEIS with no wind. The developer needs to conduct another project

layout and impact analysis that assumes a 26 dBA background sound along with theNYSDEC noise impact allowance. e.g. . 5 dBA for project-only increase (6 dBA for

project + background).

3.10.2.2 Operation:

The developer has proposed using Acciona AW-8211S00 WIGo This wind turbine's

sound power levels are presented in Table 3-.30. However, no details are provided on the

source levels. For example, how many units were measured and under what conditions

were they assessed? For the assumed power level of 101.7 dBA, is this an average sound

power level?Ifit is. then another model analysis should be undertaken using the loudestlevels measured, not just an average value" An average by definition suggests that Y 1 the

values will exceed the average, Therefore, it is more appropriate to use the loudest

measurement within the series (excepting if it were an outlier) to ensure that actual

sounds from turbines do not exceed model predictions" This supplemental analysis can

be incorporated into the model run using the 26 dBA background sound level.

Developer is wrong when it assert, "The worst case acoustic condition for the proposed

Project occurs at a wind speedoj 6 nils, with the highest differential occurring between

the wintertime [,90 background level 0/37 dBA and turbine sound power level (LW) of

101,7 re 1 p W at this wind speed." As I described in my report, the worst-case conditions

for wind turbine noise are during stable nights, This is when turbines may produce 42

dBA sound levels (developer's example) at a non-participating residence, while groundlevel winds are nil and background sounds would otherwise be very low, e,g, 26 dBA

This condition would result in the highest differential of 16 dBA, which is considered

"objectionable" by NYSDEC noise assessment policy" Developers need to recast their

analysis and wind farm layout using 31 dBA as the critical operational design level to

better conform with worst case noise impacts and NYSDEC policy"

Developer assumes a ground absorption coefficient of 0.5, which may diminish potential

noise impacts. As noted by Planning Board's acoustic consultant, there is recent

scientific evidence that the developer's predictive modeling should set ground absorption

to zero, In the additional noise impact modeling that will correct background and sound

power levels. the developer can also correct the ground absorption coefficient as well.

Developer is correct to conclude that "<under normal day-to-day circumstances O f wind

and weather operational noise from the nearest turbines is likely to be clearly audible

much a/the time," But developer is incorrect to add, "except during calm or near calm

conditions." As noted above and in my study, the worse-case conditions for adverse

noise impacts will occur on calm nights. Moreover, these worse-case atmospheric



SL Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comments by C Schneider May 30, 2009 4

conditions are very common in Cape Vincent; not temporary phenomena as stated by

developer (see my report).

Developer admits that, "In general, Project sound emission under normal circumstances

is likely to have a variance of +/- .5 dBA [rom the mean predicted lever." The suggestion

is that noise levels may exceed NYSDEC standards simply because there is an error in

their model results. To correct this deficiency and to better comply with NYSDEC

standards, developer should adjust model analysis to use parameters (including setbacks)

that will reduce predicted levels by 5 dBA in order to ensure compliance with noise

standards. Merely stating noise impacts will exceed standards is unacceptable. An

alternative turbine layout should be considered in order to comply with standards.

The developer notes that three residences " .< were found to have a Project sound level

that was slightly above the 6 dBA potential impact threshold." Again, rather than just

noting the exceedance, the developer should make adjustments in their siting plan to

ensure these non-participating residences will not have wind turbine noise impacts that

exceed state guidelines.

The overall conclusion that "the numerous houses along the Sf. Lawrence River

'Shoreline, are well outside of the area ill which adverse Project noise impacts," is true if

you assume a 37 dBA background level) but wrong because it is based on an elevated

measure of background sound. The developer needs to provide a siting plan and a PIOject

design sound level based on a 31 dBA impact contour, e.g., 26 dBA + 5 dBA for Project

only noise addition, My own calculations suggest this analysis will then show that nearly

all the homes along the river will be within the area of adverse wind turbine noise

impacts.

It is foolish for the developer to make statements like, "Response to any increase ill

background sound levels is largely subjective .." The developer uses the NYSDEC

criteria to assess impacts and they should not undermine their own adoption of the State

guidelines by trying to minimize noise impacts. Stick to the standard and remove

comments and opinions that diminish the importance of the policy guideline.

The developer also indicates there will some non-participating residents who will have

cumulative noise impacts from both wind projects that will exceed NYSDEC guidelines,

The developer states, "The actual change in sound exposure at these locations would be

small due to this cumulative affect" However) developer states earlier that there are

substantial errors in their calculations (5 dBA) and that meteorological events can

increase noise levels even further. Therefore, rather than just noting the problem and

suggesting the exceedances will be small, the developer needs to increase the setbackfrom the nearest offending turbines to reduce the noise impact on these residents.



St. Law rence W ind SO EIS Com ments by C S ch ne id er M a y .3 0, 2 00 9 5

3.10.3 Mitigation Measures

De ve lo pe r is in co rre ct in s ta tin g th at, "The Project has been purposely designed to

minimize environmental noise during Project operations. " B y the ir ow n adm is sio n

th ro ug ho ut th e n arra tiv e th eir P ro je ct w ill n ot m ee t S ta te g uid elin es .. M o re im po rta ntly ,

the ir use o f an e le vate d backgroun d so und le ve l th at doe s n ot re pre se nt w ors e-cas econditions only m inim izes the real potential adv erse im pacts . The dev eloper needs to go

back and try hard er to actu ally "m inim iz e e nv irom ne ntal nois e durin g pro je ct

operations,"

In the com plain t re solution p lan the de ve lo pe r s tate s, "SL W intends to comply fully with

Town laws and all conditions of the authorizing permits during he operation of the

project, including alllloise requirements." This statem ent does not conform w ith SD EIS

narrativ e on noise , w hich m akes frequent re ferences to exceeding N Y S D EC noise

guideline.

The com plaint plan as outlined in A ppendix M is a reasonable approach to resolv ing any

pote ntial pro ble ms, e xce pting o ne organ ization al point T he compo sition o f the

C om plaint B oard is tilted tow ard the dev eloper .. A s described, the dev eloper not only has

a seat on the three m em ber board , but also ge ts to approv e the third, supposedly

ind epe nd ent, re pre se ntativ e (a T ow n re pre se ntativ e is the s econd m em be r} F urth erm ore ,

there is a suggestion that the th ird m em ber is som e type of paid expert, O ur com munity

does not need another H essle r s itting on our C om plaint B oard, along w ith the developer,

This arrangem ent is absurd! I suggest m em bership should be com prised of community

re pre se nta ti ve s to i nc lu de : 1) a representativ e from the Tow n or V illage of C ape V incent.

ap poin ted b y the T ow n S upe rv iso r: 2) a re pre se ntativ e o f the w ind p roje ct's le as ehold ers.

appointed by a m ajority v ote of their m em bers: and 3) a re pres entativ e of th e no n-

participating landow ners. appointed by a m ajority v ote of its m em bership. A non-

participating landow ner w ould be any landow ner liv ing w ith in the bounds of the w indturbine s ou nd de sign critie ra, e .g., 5 d BA abov e b ack gro und for P roje ct only nois e

impacts. If this project goes through as outlined in the SLW D EIS and SD EIS there w ill

be com plaints about noise - count on it It w ill only m ake m atte rs w ors e if le gitim ate

com plaints ge t sw ept under the rug because of a biased, tainted C om plaint B oard. Let's

keep the dev eloper out and the community in.

CONCLUSION:

I am really troubled by the tone of this SD EIS narrative on noise . The deve loper seem s

in te nt on adm itting to e xce ssiv e no ise im pacts on non -participating re side nts , rathe r than

corre cting o r adjus ting th eir Pro je ct plan . F urthe rm ore , if this lan guage and app roach isacce ptab le to th e P lann in g B oard it w ill m ean n on-p articip atin g re side nts w ill ne ve r h av e

a basis for an excessiv e noise com plaint. The dev eloper w ill s im ply note that they hav e

stated v ery clearly and at num erous tim es in the SD EIS docum ent that w ind turbine noise

w i ll e xc ee d S ta te g uid elin es . If this n ois e im pact ass es sm en t is ap pro ve d, the P lan ning

B oard w ill be the focus of any future com plaints , s ince the dev eloper w ill contend that

the y w ere hone st abou t e xce edin g State n oise guid elin es " C ons ide ring that z on ing an d



St. Lawrence Wind SDEIS Comments by C Schneider May 30, 2009 6

site plan review are designed to help protect "non-particiants" from adverse impacts from

their neighbor's development, the entire noise narrative needs to be recast with more

attention on providing better protection to many of our residents and for the developer to

be more confident about their forecasted noise impacts not exceeding State guidelines.

Comments on SLW Noise Impact Assessment (Hessler, Oct. 22, 2008)

1.0 Introduction

The report notes that, "The primary basis for evaluating potential Project noise is the

Program Policy Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts issued by the New York State

Department ojEnvironmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Feb. 2001, Yet it also states the

purpose is ".. to determine how much natural masking sound there might be - as a

function ofwind speed - at the nearest residences to the Project" This is NOT a process

described or recommended in the NYSDEC policy. It is an approach developed by the

wind energy industry and it should be clearly stated that the background sound levelsused in this report were not determined using conventional, approved environmental

standards. The developer should provide measures of background noise based on more

conventional standards for measuring environmental noise,

2.2 Background sounds as a function of wind speed:

Hessler concludes, " .. sound levels during the summer are heavily influenced by natural

sounds, primarily insects and crickets" and notes sound levels were approximately 4.2

dBA in light winds (3 m/s). Hessler erred by not removing insect sounds from his

estimate of summer sound levels. This was in violation of his own published

recommendations of how to conduct baseline sound studies:""For example, this approach allows the mathematical subtraction of high-

frequency insect noise from summertime survey results yielding a modified A-

weighted sound level that can be used as a year-round design basis, Without this

adjustment, one might easily overestimate the long-term background level,

particularly the nighttime level."

Adding to this deception, Hessler fails to explain that insect noise will not mask wind

turbine sounds because their frequency spectrum is much higher than typical wind turbine

sounds. This misrepresentation of summer-time noise levels. without the adjustments

that Hessler himself advocates, clearly demonstrates that all his work should be carefully

scrutinized by the Town's acoustic consultant. The Planning Board should require

Hessler to go back and make the adjustments he suggests in the Sound and Vibration

Journal and recalculate summer background sound levels.

3.3 Critical Design Levels:

2 Hessler, OF, an d DM. Hessler. 2006. Base l ine Env ironmental Sound Levels for Wind Turbine Projects.

J Sound & Vibration, Novembe r pp . 10-13.



SL Law rence W ind SD EIS Com ments by C S chn eide r M ay 30, 20 09 7

T he re po rt d escribe s th e w orst-case con ditio n re lativ e to adv ers e w in d turbin e nois e

impact:

"III terms of potential noise impact and perceptibility the worst-case combination

of background and turbine sound levels would occur at the wind speed where the

background level was lowest relative to the turbine sound level - 01", in other

words, where the differential between the background level and turbine soundpower level is greatest"

H essle r uses regression analysis to assum e the m axim um diffe rential occurs at a w ind

speed of 6 rn/s w here background sound leve ls w ere 37 dB A. The Tow n's acoustic

cons ultan t, h ow e ve r, has adv ise d H ess le r not to us e reg re ss ion analys is to e stim ate

background sounds in H essle r's B P sound study fo r the C ap e V ince nt W ind P roje ct,

w hich is the sam e m ethodology he used in the SLW sound study. H essle r's m ethods for

a ss es sin g b ac kg ro un d s ou nd le ve ls d o n ot re pre se nt g en erally a cc ep te d a co us tic al

m ea su reme nt p ro ce du re s. F urth erm ore , th e T own 's a co us tic c on su lta nt, C av an au gh -

T occi, Inc., re comme nde d a de taile d m eth odolog y to m easu re backg roun d s oun d that did

not associate background sound lev els and w ind speed. This recommended approach

became part of the Tow n Board's M arch 2009 D raft W ind Law . In my report, Iexam ined an approach that w as v ery sim ilar to that proposed by C avanaugh Tocci. The

result, e .g ., 25.2 dBA , w as the sam e as other m ethods I exam ined, but all w ere

sub stantially low er th an H ess le r using re gres sio n te chniq ue s. T he de ve lope r sh ould

u nd ertak e a no th er b ack gro un d s urv ey u sin g th e m ore c on ve ntio na l m ea su reme nt

te ch niq ue s ug ge ste d b y th e T own 's a co us tic c on su lta nt.

T here are o th er s erious flaw s , too, in the analys is an d conclus ion by H es sle r .. In H es sle r's

b ac kg ro un d s ou nd re gre ss io n (h is F ig 2 ,2 .1 ), th e g re ate st d iffe re ntia l b etw e en b ac kg ro un d

and w ind turbine sound leve ls w ould occur at w ind speeds of 2 m /s and less , w here

background sound lev els are 25 elB A or less . In th is w orse-case condition Project only

sound lev els of 42 dBA w ould exceed background lev els by 17 dBA (42-25==17).

N Y SDEC policy in dic ate s C ap e V in ce nt's n on -p artic ip atin g re sid en ts w o uld lik ely fin dthis noise increase to be "objectionable" (N Y SD EC Table B ). The H essle r's response to

this v iew is , "the Project is silent during calm or low wind conditions", H ow ev er, it has

been w ell established that w ind turbines can operate w hen ground lev el conditions are

calm.

H essle r includes the w ork of v an den B erg in his lis t of re ferences , but does not discuss

the focus and im portance of his s tudies of w ind turbine sound im pacts . V an den B erg

concluded in his report of the R hede W ind Farm "

"In modelling wind turbine sound, ve1:Yrelevant atmospheric behaviour has been

'overlooked ' As a consequence, at low surface wind speeds sucli as often occur

at night, wind turbine noise immission levels may be lip to 15 or 18 dB higherthan expected. The discrepancy between real and modelled noise levels is greater

3 NYSDEC .2001 Assessing and mitigating noise impacts New York State Dept. Environ. Cons. Policy

Memoranda. 2Sp

4 Van den Berg, G.P. 2003 Wind turbines at night: acoustical practice and sound research Proceedings

Euronoise 2003 Naples. 6p




for tall wind turbines. International models used to assess wind turbine noise all

dwellings should be revised / ' 0 1 ' this atmospheric effect "

The behavior van den Berg describes is atmospheric stability and his description of

turbine sounds being 15-18 dB higher than expected is right on the mark for the S1.

Lawrence wind farm. As noted above modeled turbine noise impacts would be 17 dB

higher than more reasonable measures of background sound levels,

3.4 Noise Modeling Methodology:

Hessler used 0..5 for the ground absorption coefficient, but as a noted earlier, Town's

acoustic consultant cited new evidence that the model runs should be redone setting

ground absorption to zero. Moreover, turbine sound power level should be set to the

maximum, 1025 dBA re 1 pW; not 101.7 dBA re 1 p'W. This would be consistent with

much of Hessler's other sound studies and both modifications ofhis model parameters

would marginally increase projected sound levels. Even small increases, however, may

affect some non-participating residences that are close to the NYSDEC guideline ..

Developer needs to redo noise modeling. as suggested by Town's acoustic consultant.

and calculate a new noise impact contour map. In addition, noise impacts for each non-

participating residence should be listed in table form to ensure there will not be any

difficulty interpreting maps to determine a specific noise impact for a specific residence.

This is common practice for other wind developers in New York and it should be

required here,

3.5 Model Results:

Sound report states, "The NYSDEC criterion is essentially the same as the Town's 6 dBA

increase limit at non-participating residences, which is, illfact, based on the State

guideline" Developer is wrong asserting the Town has a 6 dBA limit at non-participating residences. The only local guideline governing noise is that adopted by the

Planning Board in September 2006 that is referenced in the SLW DEIS. That guideline

stipulated a 5 dBA increase above background sound measured at property lines, not

residences.

Hessler admits atmospheric stability can lead to higher turbine noise levels than predicted

with his model, but he suggests these events are infrequent:

"Atmospheric phenomena, sucli as temperature inversions, can also temporarily

elevate or enhance the Project sound level at a given location. In short, wind and

weather conditions will develop from time to time causing Project sound levels to

increase, sometimes substantially, over the nominally predicted level but, basedon field measurements of similar projects, these unavoidable and inevitable

excursions are infrequent, short-lived and the vast majority a/the time sound

levels will be close to the mean predicted value.

Hessler is making this judgment based on his experience elsewhere. He does not present

any meteorological data that could establish the rate of occurrence of atmospheric




stability. Remarkably, the developer has been collecting wind data from Cape Vincent

for many years, but Hessler has no data to determine the frequency of atmospheric

stability, This is an important point in assessing the impact of wind power projects in

Cape Vincent

In my paper I provided estimates of the frequency of atmospheric stability in Cape

Vincent from June through October 2008, I found that stable conditions occurred in

67.4% of the nights and found that:

"Overal l , 29,6% of the nights betw een J une 10 and O ctober 27 had wors t- ca s e

condit ions w here w ind tu rbine noise w ou ld have been dom inant (Table 2). In J un e

and J uly , w ind tu rbine noise w ou ld have been m ore problem atic w ith w ors t-case

conditions occurring m ore than 40% of sum mer nights "

Hessler's "field experience elsewhere" does not discount what I found measuring wind

speeds in Cape Vincent The obvious fact is any wind turbines placed in Cape Vincent in

the future will commonly operate and produce adverse noise impacts at times when

ground level winds are calm. This will lead to human responses described asobjectionable by NYSDEC policy, The developer needs to redesign the wind turbine

layout plan for the 5t. Lawrence Wind Farm accounting for background sound levels at

least 10 dBA lower than that provided by their paid consultant

Thank you for considering my comments and suggestions,

Sincerely yours,

t2;1j/~Clifford P. Schneider



Ottawa. Canada

INTERNOISE 2009Scheduled for August 23·26 2009

Measuring background noise with an attended, mobile

survey during nights with stable atmospheric conditions

Clifford P Schneider"- Retired

Cape Vincent Fisheries Station

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

PO Box 165

Cape Vincent, New York 13618

ABSTRACT

In response to sound studies from commercial wind developers, a series of background noisesurveys were conducted in Cape Vincent, NY between May and July 2008 ..The survey approach

included sampling at night under stable atmospheric conditions and systematically selecting

monitoring stations at 1.6 km intervals. Stable conditions occurred in 67% of nights and in 30%

of those nights, wind velocities represented worst-case conditions where ground level winds

were less than 2 mls and hub-height winds were greater than wind turbine cut-in speed, 4 m/s,

The median A-weighted L9(IA,9.hround pressure level was 25.7 dBA for five, fixed monitoring

stations. For two mobile surveys, the medians (L90A.s.min)were comparable, 25.5 and 26.7 dBA.

C-weighted SPLs from the two mobile surveys were 40.0 dBC and 43.9 dBC Assuming 45 dBA

background noise, developers of the St. Lawrence Wind Farm predicted noise impacts would not

exceed local and New York guidelines. However, assuming worst-case conditions using 25 ..6

dBA background noise, nearly all residences within range of the St. Lawrence Wind Farm

exceeded New York guidelines and more than half would have noise levels considered"objectionable" to "intolerable."

1. INTRODUCTION

The impetus for this study began in 2007, shortly after AES-Acciona Energy submitted a sound

study for their proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm Project located in the town where I reside,

Cape Vincent, New York USA (Figure l ). By the end of 2007, another wind developer, BP

Alternative Energy, also completed a series of studies in support of their proposed Cape Vincent

Wind Power Facility Project (Figure 1),.Collectively, the two wind energy projects plan to erect

nearly 200 wind turbines (L5 turbines/krn'') within the Town of Cape Vincent The sound studies

submitted by the two developers had a number of deficiencies. AES-Acciona was directed by the

Town of Cape Vincent's Planning Board" to conduct an accurate assessment of background noise

in lieu of assuming 45 dBA as typical of rural environments. ' BP's sound study' had issuesrelated to monitoring sites and estimating background levels that were identified by the Town's

acoustic consultant'.

aa Lake Ontario Unit Leader - Retired, Cape Vincent Fisheries Station, Division of Fish and Wildlife, email address

clif [email protected]

b http://www.stluwTcnccwind.com/pdf/planning comments 001507.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.stluwtcnccwind.com/pdf/planning

http://www.stluwtcnccwind.com/pdf/planning

mailto:[email protected]



2

Figure 1. Map of the Town of Cape Vincent, NY showing the location of two proposed wind power projects, NYS

Rte 12E road-based survey routetyellow pins no. 11-21), Burnt Rock Road road-based survey route (yellow pins no

1-10), and location of baseline, night-time monitoring sites (yellow pins letters A-E

In addition, the two Cape Vincent commercial wind developers neglected to consider night-

time, worst-case wind conditions and noise impacts. Swedish and Dutch residents who live near

wind farms described wind turbine noise as much louder and more perceptible during evenings

and night, and they also reported excessive noise annoyance was associated with sleep

disturbance':'. In a study of the noise immissions from the Rhede Wind Park along the Dutch-German border, most of the complaints about noise focused on evenings and night-time, and

wind turbine noise was found to be greater than predicted due to stable atmospheric conditions".

Stable atmospheric conditions occur when land begins to cool with the setting sun and calm

ground level winds become de-coupled from winds aloft Calm winds at ground level provide no

masking sounds thereby making wind turbine noise more noticeable, The term worst-case has

been commonly used by New York wind developers modeling noise impacts 1. 7 H ' ) 10 Yet, in none

of their assessments have they completed an analysis of noise impacts during evenings and

nights with stable atmospheric conditions, when wind turbine noise will be most noticeable and

the worst-case impact will occur! I

In this study I attempt to address some of these concerns related to site selection and

atmospheric stability ..A major problem with arbitrary site selection, the industry norm, is that it

does not provide a means for establishing accuracy" Probability sampling, on the other hand,allows the calculation of sample error and understanding the degree to which the sample differs

from actual community levels. Systematic sampling is a form of probability sampling that uses a

random start and a predetermined sample interval for site selection ..12 For this study I used

systematic sampling by measuring sound pressure levels (SPL) at regular intervals along

secondary rural roads. These roads are little traveled, particularly at night, concurring with the

suggestion by van den Berg, II"in order to reduce wind induced 'Sound, it helps to measure over

a low roughness surface and in a stable atmosphere, as both factors help 10 reduce



turbulence" "

Specific objectives of this study were to answer the following questions: I)How common is

atmospheric stability in Cape Vincent, and under these conditions, how often will winds be

strong enough at hub-height to operate commercial wind turbines, 2) what background noise

level is typical during stable nights in Cape Vincent, and do levels vary much within the Town,3) how will predicted wind turbine noise levels exceed estimated background noise and how will

these exceedences compare with the Town's and New York State guidelines 13, and 4) how

practical is a night-time, mobile survey and how will results compare with a fixed-station

survey?

2. METHODS

I collected wind velocity data using two Inspeed Vortex anemometers with Madgetech Pulse

data loggers. One anemometer was located on a mast 10m above ground level and the other 1.3

m above ground on a portable mount I field calibrated the anemometers by comparing wind

speed with a newly calibrated HOBO weather station. Wind velocity was collected for l C-minute

sampling intervals and then averaged for day, evening and night periods, 07:00-18:00,

18:00-22:00 and 22:00-07:00 hours, respectively. I used night-time average wind speed at 10-m(VIO ) and average percentage cloud cover from the Watertown, NY weather station to categorize

Pasquill stability classifications for each night, using the criteria outlined in Table L For each

stability classification I assigned an associated wind shear exponent (m) and then calculated hub-

height wind velocities (80-m) according to van den Berg":

V S O - m IVIO -m = ( h 8 0 - m Ih lo_ll\ )Ill (1)

For the 140-night study period, there were 21 nights with no cloud cover information, For 17 of

these nights I calculated wind shear using 10-m and 13-m wind speeds:

( 2 )

The adjusted database provided complete data for 135 of the 140 nights.

T b 1 PI e ; asqui st a I ity c ass 0 servationa cntena an associa e wm s lear ex_ponen s .

DAY N IGHT Pasquill

W in d s pe ed Incom ing solar radiation Cloud Cover Class N ame III

(m/s) Strong Moderate Slight >50% <50% A Ve ry uns ta bl e 009

<2 A A-B B E F B Moderate ly unstable 020

2-.3 A-B B C E F C neutral 022

3-5 B B-C C D E D S li gh tl y s ta bl e 028

5- 6 C C-D D D D E stable 0.37

>6 C D D D D F v e ry s ta ble 0 0 4 1

'11 bT b I . - C d . t d . d I t II

During sound measurements, the portable anemometer was located at the same height as thesound level meter (e.g, L3 111 above ground level), but approximately 15 meters away. Noise

measurements were made with a Quest Model 2900 Type II Integrated and Logging Sound Level

Meter. An annual factory calibration of the sound meter and the field calibrator was completed in

Arpil 2008, prior to data collection, The meter was fitted with a V 2 inch Electret Microphone and

a 75 mm diameter, open-cell wind screen.

'US. Na ti on al O c ea ni c & A tm os ph eric A dm in is tr atio n. A ir R es ou rc es L ab ora to ry

http://ww w.arl.noaa.gov/READ Y pgclassphp

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/READYpgclassphp

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/READYpgclassphp



4

I used two methods to collect A-weighted background noise data in Cape Vincent First, five

fixed-unattended monitoring sites were sampled Sound pressure levels were collected for LDA ,

L!'.QA, and LWA metrics Three different methods were used to summarize the SPL in order to

examine recommended approaches for assessing the quietest period. Two methods were based

on recommended procedures submitted to the Town of Cape Vincent: the lowest l-hr mean SPLof l O-min sample intervals '\ and the lowest lOvmin SPL for a continuous night-time series 15

The third method measured sound metrics for approximately a 9-h1' period. I chose monitoring

sites much the same as developer's consultants chose their sites, I picked them arbitrarily (Figure

1). I did not, however, place the sound level meter close to roads, homes and other buildings

Instead, I kept my meter at least 50 m from these locations and chose sites more in line with the

Town of Cape Vincent's zoning guidelines, which called fo r measuring noise impacts at the

property lines. I surveyed only nights when the atmosphere was calm and stable.

For the mobile survey, I employed a systematic sampling methodology with a random start

I selected two routes that ran along the longitudinal axis

of the town and the two proposed wind projects (Figure

I).. Survey nights were selected to coincide with

forecasts for stable atmospheric conditions, i.e., calmwinds and a clear sky. One survey ran along Burnt

Rock Road on May 29-30, and a second along NYS Rte

12E on June 13 (Figure I). Combined, twenty-one sites

were sampled for approximately 10 minutes each. I

randomly selected a starting point on the route near the

end of the project boundaries, but then systematically

chose the next site along the path by traveling 1..6 km ( I

mile), as measured on my vehicle's odometer. Both A-

weighted and C-weighted noise measurements were

recorded in l-second intervals for approximately 5

minutes for each weighting ..The noises associated with

walking to and from the sound level meter and passingvehicles did not influence L90 levels, but they did affect

L E Q and L l O levels. Therefore, L E O and L IO levels were

Park. Town of Clinton. NY recalculated for the two mobile surveys after removing

30 seconds each from the start and finish of A and C-weighted data collection and removing

infrequent passing vehicle noise.

I also conducted a mobile survey at the Clinton Wind Park in the Town of Clinton, NY on

June 24-25 (Figure 2)..The monitoring stations were not systematically selected along every mile

(L6 krn) of roadway. Rather, I chose stations near non-participating landowner residences,

similar to what might be done with a compliance survey. Nevertheless, the sample sites were

uniformly distributed. Atmospheric conditions were stable, winds at ground level were less than

1 mis, but all wind turbines within view were operating.

I used Microsoft Excel to consolidate and summarize the wind and noise data. I did not editthe data files to remove anthropogenic (man-made) noise. I used the statistical software program

MyStat and relied on simple statistical tests for normality and non parametric procedures to

establish differences in sample distributions,



5

3. RESULTS

A . Prevalence of atmospheric stability:

Stable night-time atmospheric conditions (classes E and F) predominated from June through

October in Cape Vincent (Table 2), The prevalence of stable (E) and very stable (F) conditions

occurred 22.2% and 452% of nights; the overall average was 674% for both classes; higher

rates occurred in July and August Although 67..4% of summer night conditions were classified

as stable, not all of these nights had sufficient winds at hub-height (e.g .. 80 m) to operate

commercial wind turbines. I examined a subset of the data filtering two variables ..First, I limited

I J-m wind speeds to 2 m/s and less, knowing that winds this calm would provide very little leaf

and grass rustle and that background noise levels under these conditions were usually very quiet

Next, I filtered SO-m wind speed to allow only those nights where velocities exceeded 4 mis,

which is a typical cut-in speed for commercial wind turbines. For an area with an operational

wind farm, this represents a worst-case condition where ground level winds are calm yet wind

turbines are fully operational, generating both electricity and noise.

Overall, 29,6% of the nights between June 10 and October 27 had worst-case conditions

where wind turbine noise would have been dominant (Table 2) In June and July, wind turbine

noise would have been more problematic with worst-case conditions occuning more than 40% of

summer nights.

Table 2: Pre valence of Pasquill stability classification and w orst-case noise im pact conditions for nights in Cape

V incent, N Y from June 10-O ctober 27,2008. W orst-case conditions w ere those stable nights w ith calm ground lev el

w inds (;S2 m /s) and hub-height w inds at or abov e cut-in speed C::4m/s)

STABILITY HJN ru L AUG SEP OCT JUN -OCT

CON D ITION S N o % N o % N o % N o. % N o. % Total %

D 9 42.9 6 20.7 6 200 10 .357 13 48.1 44 32.6

E 3 14J 8 27.6 II 36.7 8 286 0 00 30 22.2

F 9 429 15 517 1. 3 433 10 357 14 51.9 61 45.2

TOTAL 21 100 29 100 30 100 28 100 27 100 135 100

E+F 12 57 I 23 793 24 800 18 643 14 51.9 91 674

Worst-case 9 42.9 12 41.4 6 20.0 7 25.0 6 22.2 40 29.6

B. Statistical treatment of acoustic data:

Visual inspection of the L90A.5-l11ioound level data from the two mobile surveys suggested a

skewed, non-normal distribution, I calculated Shapiro-Wilk test statistics for A-weighted and C-

weighted L91h LEOand Llo SPLs and found that L90,\. LEOAand L90C distributions were significantly

different from normal CPS 005). Consequently, I used medians instead of means to describe

central tendency and Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric ANOVA to test differences in the

distributions of the sound pressure levels ..

c. Fixed surveys for baseline background noise:

L90A.9-hround pressure levels are plotted for 10-minute intervals at five baseline monitoring

locations in Figure 3. At locations A, Band D sound pressure levels were consistently low, -25

dBA, from 9:00 PM throughout the night, then increased around 4:.30 AM due to bird

vocalizations. Monitoring location C was similar except for elevated levels from 9:00-11 :00

PM, which were attributable to bam noises in early evening and frog choruses later, The L90A.9.hr

for location E was 6.2 dBA higher than the other four sites This site was 200 1 1 1 from the

lakeshore, and in spite of an average wind speed of 13 mis, there was additional background



6

noise associated with wave action on the shoreline,

TIME

Figure 3: Night-time sound pressure levels (SPL) at five fixed monitoring stations A-E in Cape Vincent, NY

Collecting unattended, background sound pressure levels (SPL) in lO-min intervals is how

consultants in New York normally acquire and report background noise, although they more

typically collect data for a week or two, I used fixed survey data as a baseline to help gauge the

accuracy of the mobile survey, At the five fixed survey sites, SPL was consistently low: the

median L90A.9-hr level for the five monitoring locations was 25.7 dBA (Table 3), The median SPL

based on two alternate methods were comparable: 25.2 dBA for the lowest I-hI' arithmetic

average of 10-min s p L , 1 4 and 25.0 dBA for the lowest 10-min SPL 1 5 ,The night-time sound levels

at these fixed stations were also typified by a floor in the meter response at 25-26 dBA (Figure3)

Table 3: Summary of fixed survey, A-weighted sound pressure levels comparing three reporting time frames: I) 9-

hr period, 2) the lowest l-hr arithmetic mean for the 9-hr period", and 3) the lowest 10-min interval within the 9-hr

eriod".

Monitor Wind 9-hr Period Lowest l-hr Average Lowest 1D-min

Date Location SEeed L90 LEO L10 L90 LEO LID L90 LEO L l O

11-12MAY08 A 01 257 36.8 330 25.6 261 265 252 257 26.1

J3-14MAY08 B 0.0 25.7 36.2 37.8 25.4 258 26.2 253 25.6 258

15-16MAY08 C 00 25.7 441 490 25.0 368 393 248 30.2 319

16·17MAY08 D 00 24.9 457 416 24,8 28,1 26.8 24.6 248 25.0

25·26MAY08 E 0.6 31.9 41.3 43.7 30.2 30.8 31.4 28.9 29.3 29.6

Median 25.7 41.3 41.6 25.2 27.1 26.7 25.0 25.7 26.0

D. Cape Vincent mobile, background noise surveys:

For the 10 survey stations along Burnt Rock Road, the median L90A.5.min SPL was 25,5 dBA

(Table 4). Both the LEQA and LJOA median background noise levels were 1.7 and 2.3 dBA greater

than L90 levels, respectively. Median C-weighted background L90C,5-min was 40,0 dBc.. All three

C-weighted sound metrics were 14-17 dB greater than their A-weighted equivalents,



7

Table 4: Summarx for Mobile-Background Noise Surve;::,May 29-30, 2008, Burnt Rock Rd., CaEe Vincent, NY

Monitor Wind A-weighted C-weighted

Location Speed (m/s) L90 LEQ L I D L90 LEQ L I D

I 0 269 278 28.5 41.6 429 43.4

2 01 30.6 32.7 341 416 48.6 52.1

3 0 248 258 268 396 456 42.7

4 0 24.8 25 1 25.3 39 1 455 45 1

5 0 24.8 25.3 258 38.8 43.7 41.7

6 0.1 249 260 27 1 387 445 44.0

7 0 283 31.4 329 387 401 40.8

8 0 252 266 262 424 45.5 46.1

9 0 257 279 295 4lJ 43 1 44.2

10 0 26.5 28.3 29.6 40.3 42.3 43.4

Median 25.5 27.2 27.8 40.0 44.1 43.7

The summary for the second part of the mobile survey, along NYS Rte 12E, is presented in

Table 5. Median background noise L90A5.min SPL level was 26.7 dBA The LEQA5lniflo and LWA.5.min

medians were 1.9 and .10 dB greater than L90A.5'IDin

levels, respectively, C-weighted noise levelsalong NYS Rte 12E were 439, 46.2 and 47 ..5 dBC for L90C5.mil1, LEQC.5lllill and LlOc.s-min,

respectively (Table 5).. All three metrics were about 4 dBC higher than their C-weighted

counterparts from the Burnt Rock Road survey. Moreover, the median Cvw e ig hte d L )(1 cwas 17.2

dB greater than the A-weighted L90A, compared to a 14.5 dB differential at Burnt Rock Road ..

Table 5: Summa!:Xfor Mobile-Background Noise Survey, June 13,2008, NYS Rte 12E, CaEe Vincent, NY

Monitor Wind A-weighted C-weighted

Location Speed (m/s) L90 LEQ L I O L90 LEQ L I O

11 0 273 282 284 42.6 437 444

12 01 305 304 309 446 462 48.0

13 0 25 1 274 283 402 41.7 42.7

14 0 322 32.6 329 453 47.0 483

15 0 265 28.6 29 429 44.5 45.616 01 26.7 293 313 439 47.2 49.9

17 0 26.5 273 282 439 463 479

18 0 257 261 26.3 44.5 45.8 46.5

19 0 360 363 366 52.4 5.3.1 534

20 0 29.2 308 32 451 469 47.5

21 0 26.7 28.2 29.7 42.2 43.8 44.5

Median 26.7 28.6 29.7 43.9 46.2 47.5

A single site for each of the mobile survey's L90 SPI. is plotted in Figure 4. The sites

selected for the plot were those that best conformed to the medians for each survey. At the start

of each A-weighted sample and the crossover to C-weighted measurements, there were 5-10 dB

increases in noise associated with my walking to and from the meter. Passing vehicles were

noisy (e.g., 60-70 dB), but were infrequent occurrences, less so along Burnt Rock Road. Passingvehicles occurred at one site on Burnt Rock Road (site 2) and at five sites along NYS Rte 12E

(sites 12, 1 . 3 , 16, 19 and 21). Other sources of anthropogenic noise were a plane (site 1), dairy

farm bam cleaner (site 12), and refrigeration fans (sites 14 and 19). Elevated noise was also

attributable to natural causes, too: birds and frogs (sites 7 and 10), barking dogs and coyotes

(sites 9 and 16), and waves on a nearby beach along the Sf Lawrence River (site 20). Most of

these short-duration noises, however, had little effect on the L90A.S.min SPL As noted in the fixed

survey, the L90A measurements at a number of sites went down to 25 dBA and no lower, again



8

indicating a "floor" in meter readings,

RELATIVE TIME

Figure 4: LIII sound pressure levels (SPL) for three mobile surveys: BRR_3 =Burnt Rock Rd survey, site #3;

12E_18 =NYS Rte 12E survey, site #18 and CUNT_2 =Clinton Wind Park survey, site #2 Sites selected to best

conform to medians listed in Tables 4, 5 and 6

Statistical tests showed that L90A noise levels for the fixed survey and two mobile surveys

were the same, but the low frequency L 9 0 C levels were different. The L 90A medians were 25.7,

26.7 and 25,5 dBA for the fixed, NYS Rte 12E and Burnt Rock Road surveys, respectively, The

Kruskal- Wallis test indicated that all three surveys had the same distribution (H :::;;;,8082,df=2,

P= 0,0903). However, for the low frequency L90C noise levels the Kruskal-Wallis statistic showed

a highly significant difference between the two Cape Vincent mobile surveys" , The C-weighted

L90C,5.rnin medians were 43.9 and 40,,0 dBC for NYS Rte 12E and Burnt Rock Road, respectively,

and were significantly different (U= 104,00, P=O,OOl).

E. Clinton Wind Park background noise survey:For the ten monitoring locations within the Clinton Wind Park, A-weighted L90A,S.",;n SPL ranged

from .35-43 dBA with a median of 38,0 dBA, C-weighted L9 o c.5'''';11 SPL ranged from 49-58 dBC

with a median of 52,6 dBC (Table 6). Aside from two cars that passed during the C-weighting

data collection at site 3, there was no other noise intrusion, other than wind turbine sounds .. A

typical site plot of A and C-weighted SPL is shown in Figure 4 in comparison with the Cape

Vincent mobile surveys.

~ No Cvweighted data was collected for the fixed survey. Hence, the Mann-Whitney two-sample test in lieu of

Kruskal-Wallis for three or more samples.



9

Table 6: Summar2: for Mobile-Background Noise SurveX, June 24-25, 2008, Clinton Wind Park, Clinton, N Y

Monitor Wind A-WEIGHTED C-WEIGHTEDLocation Speed (rn/s) L90 LEQ L10 L90 LEQ L10

0.4 360 44.8 386 519 547 543

2 0.8 38.6 398 40.0 544 570 577

3 01 40 ..3 417 42.4 5 .3 .3 578 555

4 0.1 350 370 37.2 488 523 52.2

5 02 363 378 37.4 51.0 54.3 53.3

6 0.1 373 39.8 392 517 55.3 54.7

7 01 41 0 427 432 55.9 579 58.4

8 0.6 41 5 42.9 433 558 58.5 590

9 O J 34A 360 35.7 496 53.9 53.5

10 0.1 43.3 45.0 43.3 57.6 59.4 60.0

Median 38.0 40.8 39.6 52.6 56.2 55.1

The L90A.5-min SPL for Clinton were compared with the samples from the two mobile surveys

in Cape Vincent The higher levels at Clinton were significantly different from the sample

distributions observed in Cape Vincent (Kruskal-Wallis H= 20.7080, P< 0001); the mean ranksfor the two Cape surveys were similar while Clinton was significantly greater. Comparisons of

C-weighted SPL were significantly different for each of the distributions and mean ranks (H=

23.9684, P< 0.001); again the samples at Cape Vincent and Clinton were all significantly

different

4. DISCUSSION - CONCLUSIONS

Night-time, stable atmospheric conditions were very common in Cape Vincent between June and

October, 2008. The prevalence of Pasquill stability classes E and F were 22% and 45% of

nights, respectively. Putting aside any differences in meteorological equipment, prevalence of

stability at Cape Vincent is similar to 34% (E) and .32% (F) reported by van den Berg." to r the

northern part ofthe Netherlands, He also noted that high wind shears at night are a very common

feature of the night atmosphere in temperate zones, Furthermore, the frequent occurrence ofstability in Cape Vincent, along with the operation of the Clinton Wind Park during a calm night,

contradict the observation that wind turbines "do not operate during calm, still or tranquil

conditions.?"

Having demonstrated that atmospheric stability is a common occurrence in Cape Vincent,

the graphic in Figure 5, taken from the Flat Rock Wind Farm sound report", illustrates why

stable, night-time atmospheric conditions represent a worst-case wind turbine noise state. At

night, predicted wind turbine noise (upper blue lines) will be most: noticeable, e..g. 17 dBA

louder than ambient background (lower red lines), at the lowest wind speeds, At higher wind

speeds, however, wind turbine noise will be masked (e.g. no difference) by background noise

(Figure 5), During daytime, the difference between predicted wind turbine and background

noises at low wind speeds would be one-half as great as at night Therefore, worst-case wind

turbine noise impacts will occur at night with stable atmospheric conditions, and consequently,

environmental assessments should focus on these worst-case conditions,



10

F la l H r, ,; :\ : \ \ i nd F ;~ tl \l

rl-~J1(,,1~'"\,~Ch;tllg_'I.! tn Amht.:m ~ms" L eve! : S " ~~:dll-tim.:Ilours

Ik~·;!PtML['JC~Hk)tl S\\ I

ftn H ' "l i: k \ \ ~.~Jann

I7C'1.lkl~" C!l,U1J;r: m AmhE~nl \'II~~-L' Level : n avum e Huurs

I lc ~ ·. :pw rLo c aa o n : 5W i

Figure 5: Night-time (left pane) and daytime (right pane) background A-weighted SPL in relation to wind speed at

monitoring site SW I from Hayes McKenzie Partnership's Flat Rock Wind Farm Noise Assessment", Lowville, NY

Upper, blue lines represent predicted wind turbine noise and lower, red lines the existing ambient background noise

Background sound pressure levels measured in this study were far lower than the levels

reported by wind power developers in their sound level studies..For the fixed surveys the L90A

medians were 257, 252, and 25,0 dBA for the 9-hr, lowest l-hr arithmetic average, and lowest10-min interval summary approaches, respectively, All three methods provided similar estimates

of background noise, suggesting any of the three methods will provide adequate estimates of the

"quietest periods." For two mobile surveys, the L90A medians were 25.5 dBA and 26.7 dBA for

Burnt Rock Road and NYS Rt. 12E surveys, respectively, and they were consistent with those

levels measured for the fixed surveys. At the same time, the 25 dBA "floor"observed in both the

fixed and mobile surveys indicate that a more sensitive meter and microphone combination

would probably exhibit even lower A-weighted background noise levels. Any future study

should include the use of the most sensitive instrumentation available.

A-weighted sound pressure levels from the mobile surveys in Cape Vincent were the same

as levels observed at fixed, unattended monitoring locations. The fact the SPL distributions were

not statistically different seems to suggest arbitrarily selected monitoring locations are just as

efficient and accurate as a systematic survey with a random start Yes, a few fixed sites can beaccurate and efficient ifcare is taken to find appropriate sites and operating conditions. However,

I could have increased the measured SPL if I had located equipment closer to homes, barns and

roads, and if 1had picked nights with moderate winds.

A systematic mobile survey removes the subjective selection of sites, and thus, it can help

minimize potential abuse, There are other advantages as well: no landowner permission is

required, no extensive hiking off-road at night, no security problems with unattended metering

far from landowner premises, little time needed to prepare a survey, and no requirement for big

battery packs and waterproof environmental housings There are also the advantages of attended

metering, such as being able to document various noise intrusions, A mobile survey could also

be used to help verify and supplement fixed station SPLs in cases where a few fixed sites were

used to characterize background noise over a large geographic area,

AES-Acciona and BP Alternative Energy reported background noise levels in Cape Vincentas 45 dBA and 47 dBA, respectively, more than 20 dBA greater than this study. L2 Neither

developer, however, focused their studies on the night-time period, even though night noise

levels are far quieter than daytime and represent worst-case conditions, Rather, they chose to

include daytime, windy conditions where background noise is greater and wind turbine noise

impacts the least The median A-weighted and C-weighted levels measured within the Clinton

Wind Park were 13-16 dB greater than Cape Vincent These increases in background noise are

undoubtedly due to wind turbine operation. It also suggests that the quiet, night-time, rural



1 1

soundscape, which residents value most", could be transformed into one where night-time sound

levels more closely resemble suburban and urban environments!'}

The low background sound levels reported in this study result in very different wind turbine

noise impacts than those predicted by AES-Acciona. Columns A-C in Table 7 are taken from

AES-Acciona's sound level report's predicted impacts from the S1. Lawrence Wind Farm,assuming 45 dBA background noise. IWith no impacts more than 5 dBA above background

levels (col. C) they concluded, "As a result, noise levels from the proposed SI Lawrence Wind

Energy Project are in compliance with State guidelines, local draft zoning ordinance criteria for

noise associated with commercial wind turbine operation, and will 110t produce noise impacts

above New York policy" However, recalculating worst-case impacts using 25 ..6 dBA,

background SPL (col. D) show that most receptors will have night levels exceeding the local

ordinance and State guidelines (e.g., :s6 dBA above background). Moreover, applying probable

human responses from New York State policy", shows that .34.4% of residences within range

will consider turbine noise "Objectionable" and 194% "Very objectionable to intolerable!' In

total, more than half of the residents may find night-time wind turbine noise "objectionable" to

"intolerable"

Table: 7, Predicted sound levels at nearest receptors to turbines. Columns A-C from Table 4 of the SI lawrence

Wind Farm sound level report I Column D is the predicted sound level to nearest receptors using 25.6 dBA worst-

case background levels from this study. Column E is expected human reactions to new predicted noise levels in

col uf!!!!l?,~~(}r~i ng,12_1'>lXSDE~ Ass~ssi ng~nd l\fIi tig~jQg Noise imp1!cts ..I.~_.."~_...____...

ABC D E

Predicted Sound Number of Predicted Increase in Predicted Increase in Human Reaction

level Range (dBA) Residences 45 dBAAmbient 25.6 dBAAmbient NYSDEC Policy"

~_~~_._.~~WJ.~hin Rang~~_. (dBI1)___ ..~~ __ @AL ._.,~~ ~ __.__ ._..

22 9 - 24 9 7 0 0 Unnoticed to tolerable

25 - 299 3 0-0, I 0-43 Unnoticed to tolerable

30 - 349 38 0 1-04 4.4-93 Intrusive

35 - 399 67 04-12 94-143 Very noticeable

40 - 44.9 84 1 2-3.0 14.4-19J Objectionable

45 - 48 3 48 3 0-5 0 194-24.7 Very objectionable to~_._~ ... ~ .__ ..._~ ...~ ~, __ ~_~.~ __ ~_ .._~~ .. __j!:J.t,(}lerab.!£~_ ...__

In its most recent wind turbine noise impact assessment for the St. Lawrence Wind Farm",

AES-Acciona assumed a background noise level of 37 dBA, used the NYSDEC noise increase

guideline of 6 dBA above background, and adopted a Project-only sound level of 42 dBA to

assess potential adverse impacts. They concluded " .the numerous houses along the Sf

Lawrence River shoreline, are well outside of the area of adverse Project noise impacts. "

Again, if AES-Acciona bad assumed a worst-case background level of 25.6 dBA from this study,

they would have to conclude that nearly all the houses along the river will be within the area of

adverse noise impacts from the St. Lawrence Wind Farm.

The difference between C- and A-weighted SPL is used as a simple screening method for

assessing potential low frequency noise problems.":" If this difference exceeds 20 dB, then alow frequency problem may exist For the mobile surveys in Cape Vincent, the differentials in

median LEOc-LEOAwere below this threshold.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Chuck Ebbing for his encouragement and advice. I also want to thank Rick

Bolton, George Karnperman and Rick James for their reviews of my manuscript.



12

6. REFERENCES!Tetra Tech Ee, Inc. (TtEC). 2007 Proposed St Lawrence Wind Energy Project Sound Level Report Prepared for:

AES-Acciona January l007 8pp

2 Hessler, DM 2008 Environmental sound level survey - summertime conditions Cape Vincent Wind Farm BP

Alternative Energy N A, Inc. REPORT NO 1810-112607-0, Nov. 27,2007 22pp

J Cavanaugh Tocci Associate. 2008 Review: Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Prepared tor: Bernier & Carr Asso-ciates, PC for Town of Cape Vincent January 30, 2008. 6pp,

,I Pedersen, E. 2007. Human response to wind turbine noise: Perception annoyance and moderating factors Dept

Public Health &Community Medicine The Sahlgreuska Academy. Univ Goteborg. 88pp

.I Van den Berg, G.P, E Pedersen, J Bouma, and R Bakker 2008. WINDFARMperception - Visual and acoustic

impact of wind turbine farms on residents University of Groningen: FP6-2005-Science-and-Society-20 Specific

Support Action Project no 044628 99pp

I. Van den Berg, GP 2004. Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound Journal of Sound and

Vibration 277 (4-5), pp 955-970'

7 Envrionmental Design and Research (FOR). 2007 OEIS Howard Wind Power Project Prepared for: Steuben

County Industrial Development Agency February 27, 1007 226pp

HESS Group, Inc 2006 OEIS Marble River Wind Farm, Clinton & Ellenburg, N Y Prepared for: Marble River

Wind Farm LLC March 30, 2006 209pp

9 Hessler, DM 2008. Environmental Sound Study and Noise Impact Assessment Prepared for: New Grange Wind

Farm, LLC. February 7, 2008 65pp.III Tetra Tech EC, Inc (TtEC). 2008 Jericho Rise Wind Farm Envrionmental Noise Assessment, Franklin County,

NY Prepared for: Jericho Rise Wind Farm, LLC January 31, 2008. 64pp

IIVan den Berg, G P 2006. The sounds of high winds: the effect ofatmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and

microphone noise ..PhD Dissertation. University of'Groningen. Groningen, The Netherlands

12 Cochran, W G 1977 Sampling Techniques Wiley & Son 428pp

!3NYSDFC. 200 l. Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts Program Policy, Department lD: DEP 00-01, Rev: Feb

2, 200 I. 18PP

1,1 Cavanaugh Tocci Associate 2008b Draft Noise Ordinance Town of Clayton, New York Prepared for: Bernier &

Carr Associates, PC for Town of Clayton. March 14,2008 5pp

!5 Kamperman, G W ,RR James 2008 How-to guide: Criteria for citing wind turbines to prevent health risks from

sound July 30,2008. 35pp

II. Hessler, G.W and DM Hessler 2006. Baseline Environmental Sound Levels for Wind Turbine Projects J

Sound and Vibration November 2006: p. 10-14.

"Hayes McKenzie Partnership 2003 Flat Rock Wind Farm: Noise Impact Assessment. Appendix 7: Flat RockWind Farm Change in Ambient Noise Levels 16pp

"Willits, FK., R.C Bealer and VL Timbers 1990 Popular images of "rurality": data from a Pennsylvania survey.

Rural Sociology 55(4):559-578.

19ARI GUIDELINE L-1997 1997. Assessing the Impact of Air-Conditioning Outdoor Sound Levels in the

Residential Community The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Adapted by

RJames, E-Coustic Solutions

20 Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (TtEC) 2009. Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement: St Lawrence Wind Farm

Report Prepared for: AES-Acciona March 25, 2009

2! Casella Stanger 2001. Low frequency noise - Technical research support for OEFRA Noise Programme.



May 28,2009


Attention: Town SupervisorP.O. Box 680


To Whom It May Concern:

I have reviewed the April 2009 SLW Supplemental EIS and have identified the following items

that are not adequately addressed.

Descriptio" o('Proposed Action:

2.5.6. In this paragraph SLW states that the collector substation located on Swamp Road

will step up the voltage of the electricity so that it can be reliably transmitted through the

9-mile overhead line to the transmission owner interconnection substation located on

County Route 179 and interconnected with the 115 kV transmission line at the existing

National Grid substation in Lyme. The poles used for the overhead 34,5 KV and 115 KV

transmission lines can cause interference with agriculture operations when located on

farmland. As a result the Department recommends that the 34.5KV lines be buried in

agriculture fields. Why are you not burying the lines in farmland?

2.6.2. In this paragraph SLW states that in active agricultural areas, agricultural

protection measures in accordance with the guidelines of the New York State Department

of Agriculture and Markets will be followed (Appendix A); and the cable will be placed

at a minimum depth of48 inches or 6 inches beyond the depth of bedrock (Exhibit 2,6.3).

NYS DA&M says that at no time will the depth be less than 24 inches below the soil

surface. Is it 24 or 6?

2.6.4. In this paragraph SLW states that if bedrock is encountered it is anticipated it will

be excavated with a backhoe. Ifthis is not possible, drilling, pneumatic jacking, hydraulic

fracturing or blasting, as a last resort, would excavate the bedrock. The geological study

indicates that the area consists of "irregular bedrock" surface, the presence of large voids

and rapid underground drainage. 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

measure the impact of construction. Nor is there any information on wells and springswithin 500 feet ofwhere blasting will occur. Will this information be included in the

FEIS? Also, what is SLW plan to provide citizens with potable water ifweU problems

occur?

2.6.4. In this paragraph SLW doesn't say if the concrete will be mixed on site or hauled

in from off site. In either case will the FEIS needs to include a description of 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,

Exhibit 2.6A In this exhibit SLW states that the final overhead transmission line right-of-

way will be identified post-construction on as-built drawings which will be filed with theTowns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. Why not identified pre-construction?

2.8. In this paragraph SLW outlines their decommissioning plan.

Why doesn't it include the long-distance transmission lines?

What is the plan to ensure that there sufficient SLW funds are available to execute

the plan?

If it includes bonding, which we favor, how will that bonding follow to successive

owners?



May 28,2009


Attention: Town Supervisor

P..O. Box 680


To Whom ItMay Concern:

I have reviewed the April 2009 SLW SEIS and have identified the following comments

that members of the WPEG and Governmental Agencies made regarding the SLW DElS

either in the Public Hearing or in written comments that are not addressed in the SEIS:

Environmental

I) What are the migratory patterns of the herons, how high do they fly when they aremigrating? How long do they stay in CV? When do they come? When do they depart

Why isn't this addressed in the DEIS?

2) The impacts of shadow effect on wild life should be part of the DElS,

3) Individuals; guides and town must be compensated if towers result in loss of fishing

revenues,

4) Need to establish who the environmental monitor works for and who he/she sends

reports to.

5) The development of a long-term environmental management plan should be

considered to incorporate plans for restoration of environmental impacts during and

following project construction, environmental considerations to be included in

ongoing maintenance of facility, a contingency plan to assess and minimize

environmental impacts during major repairs; and assessment and mitigation of

~nvironmental impacts during decommissioning process,

6) It is important to know the impacts of shadow effect on the fish in the water.

7) How can the impact on wel1s and springs be evaluated if there is no baseline for

the springs or wells. Fieldwork should be done to establish major springs and their

use or flow prior to construction. We would like to see identification of all wells andsprings within 500 feet of where blasting will occur. Also address the steps to be

made to provide citizens with potable water if problems occur.

8) The project may require an Artic1e 24 Freshwater Wetland permit and section 401

Water Quality Certification.



9) Since issues regarding potential medical problems related to wind turbines come up

with proposals around the state, it would seem appropriate to include a section on

medical issues in the OElS,

10) Critical information needed to evaluate potential impacts resulting from the project

were not performed as part of the OElS, The OEIS should be updated to include:Geotechnical field data; groundwater studies; wetland field survey; and hydro geological

balance study based upon long-term runoff By 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 lead agency, involved agency and public

comment

11) At best the studies to date may be considered pilot efforts requiring 3-5 years of

intense further studies of many groups before any conclusions of value may be drawn.

12) Are you and Audubon Society aware of the IBA (Important Bird Habitat) on Pleasant

Valley Road? How will it be effected? What does Audubon say?

13) The lease with SWL takes away landowners constitutional rights to sue for punitive

damages and the right to jury traiL Why is this acceptable?

14) Section 2,6.4 ..The SDEIS needs to inc1ude a description of 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.

15) The report should specifically state that the habitat type located at Chaumont Barrens

and Three Mile Creek will not be impacted by the project

16) Section 32..We note that no biotic or water quality data is provided but this

information should be included in the report along with a discussion of potential impacts

from project construction.

17) Section .33. The OElS does not identify if the wind project will impact to establish

the ST Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management District (SLWGMD). Nor does it

mention if it is compatible with the purpose of SLWGMD.

18) Section 3..3.6. We (NYSFWL) strongly recommend that the Smith (2007) be

considered by the project sponsor in siting the project features.

19) Section 3.3,6. We (NYSFWL) found insufficient data exists to adequately conduct arisk assessment and predict wildlife mortality for this project,

20) The DEIS falls short of providing the necessary information in a comprehensive

manner. The DEIS states that additional data on wildlife use and potential impacts is



forth coming. NYSFWL will review this information prior to making a final

determination,

Sincerely,



May 28, 2009

ML Thomas Rienbeck

Town of Cape Vincent Supervisor

1964 NY8 Rt 12E


I would like to take this opportunity to make comments and express concerns 011 the

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement supplied to you by Acciona's St.

Lawrence Wind Farm.

Regarding Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts in paragraph 4.1.3.2 81. Lawrence

Wind states that while cumulative effects to Indiana Bats may occur as a result of

increased growth and development in the area, unrelated catastrophic events such as

"white nose syndrome" are likely to have greater cumulative effects on Indiana Bats than

the projects under review in this analysis or continued human encroachment on Indiana

Bat habitat. What is the cumulative impact of botli events?

III paragrah 4.1.11.2 a more recent housing value study should be done due to the

dramatic change ill tile housing market since 2007.

In the section on Alternative Analysis paragraph 7.2 states that the Project will meet all

the following setbacks required by the Planning Board of Cape Vincent.

1,500 feet from the Village of Cape Vincent boundary line

1,000 feet to a non-participating property line

1.250 feet to a non-participating residence, and750 feet to a participating residence.

Where do we stand Oil these setbacks? Are they correct? Is this the last word 011

setbacks?

Regarding 7.6. Table 7-1, what compensation are the three 1 1 0 1 1 participating home

owners witlt over 48db goillg to get?

In the Appendix Wildlife Studies section E, the avian and bat study was conducted in one

year. Why did" 'tyou do a multi-year study?

In Appendix EI, the bat studies were done with radar. WIry 110t also sonar'l

Also, in Appendix El SLW states that there is no statistical evidence that Indiana Bats

are in the project area but Appendix E# Section 3.0 July-August 2007 it states that four

were captured and tracked. Appendix E6 July-August 2007 1.0 states six captured

Indiana bats were radio tracked and roost sites were identified in the project area.



Appendix E4 June 2008 states that no Indiana Bats were captured during that study.

Appendix F3 says they are present Are there Indiana Bats ill the Project area 01' not

ami if there are, what mitigation actions willyou take?

Appendix £3 is labeled "Blanding Turtle" but reports 011 bats.

III Appendix £7which of the Blanding Turtle mitigation recommendations will beadopted and which will not and why not?

III Appendix J regarding Supplementul Shadow Flicker, what will you do to mitigateshadowflicker if your analysis is wrong?

III appendix L. 3.6 Noise, the negative impacts of lowfrequency sound are dismissed ascorrected by design change. Where is the medical data?

III Appendix N2 Off-Air TV Reception analysis at the St. Lawrence Wind Farm Project

Area ill Jefferson County, New Your I ask "who pays to mitigate the loss o/TV signals

ill the project area"?

Please review and answer the above questions. Thank you.



May 28, 2009Q A ( U J L d Of\f-J ---ru9rYlA-S

'3 '-{3jj 'N"IS, (Uu.7 £ I~G' .

( ~ A eE \II IV CS,,)-( /vlr' 13 (r 1 8



PH Box 680Cape Vincent, NY 13618


I have reviewed the April 2009 SLW SEIS and have identified the following comments that

members of the WPEG and Governmental Agencies made regarding the SLW DEIS either in the

Public Hearing or in written comments that are not addressed in the SEIS:

Financial: '

l ) Who negotiates PILOT payments for our town is not addressed,

2) What is the estimated cost per kilowatt hour produced for the first year of the project, first five

years and the first 10 years?

3) There is no mention of Payment, Performance and Maintenance Bonding for this

project Ifproject is not bonded, neither the towns nor leaseholders have any

guarantee that promises will be kept, construction completed, payments made,

maintenance done, and dismantling completed,

4) Most DElS I have reviewed for Wind Power Projects include the results ofa Job

and Economic Development Impact model, None was referenced in this DEIS so

it appears that the Socioeconomic Section was based upon assumptions

5) There is insufficient documentation to back up the claim that downsizing the project is not

considered an economically viable solution

6) Since turbines are considered a utility then shouldn't the land on which they are placed be

assessed as industrial use and taxed accordingly and not taxed as agriculture.

7) I am concerned that the DEIS does not adequately address who will compensate businesses

and individuals ifthe proposed wind project results in loss of fishing revenues Of\C1 ! l i S t Ioc~ j i : : E N - tA W

CGeological: None,

D. Historical.

1) How will historic designated properties near towers be compensated.

2) How does SLW plan to compensate Indigenous Americans if Indian burial

grounds are discovered?



3) Why no mention of Dodge Bay in the historical Architecture Resource Investigation section of

the DEIS/SupplementaL

(Aic L ~ '0 f'.\~ "t{\.O{\If-YS

1r,~Gb{__ ( l i d ( J " L auG G :

3!.faII N'ls (U;~ 7£ I t;)~

c...lq-{~ V I I(}C£i-J'-( N ' ' ' ; 1:3 (p ( ! >





roBox 680


I am commenting on the Saint Lawrence Wind Farm SDEIS with regard to the complaintresolution plan as listed at

£1ppemlix ! l -1- Complaint Resolution Program

The "Complaint Appeal Procedure" states that the Complaint Resolution board shall

consist of three members: an SLW 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 "SLW will make every

reasonable effort to resolve" it does not make any sense that SLW should also be

included in an appeal board, If they had resolved the 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 that there is no way

ANY complaint will be heard, This statement should be eliminated from the SDEIS.

Charles Jury

2552 Humphrey Rd




May 28, 2009



r.o. Box 680Cape Vincent, NY 13618


I have reviewed the April 2009 SLW Supplemental EIS and have identified the following items

that are not adequately addressed.

Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts;

4,132. In this paragraph SLW says that while cumulative effects to Indiana bats may

occur as a result of increased growth and development in the area, unrelated catastrophicevents, such as "white nose syndrome," are likely to have greater cumulative effects on

Indiana bats than the projects under review in this analysis or continued human

encroachment on Indiana bat habitat What is the cumulative impact of both events?

4. L 11.2. Since the housing market has changed so dramatical1y since 2007 why haven't

you done a more recent "housing value study?

D. Alternatives Analvsis:

7.2. In this paragraph SLW says that the Project will meet all of the following setbacks

required by the Planning Board of Cape Vincent (Are these current????):

o 1,500 feet from the Village of Cape Vincent boundary line;

o 1,000 feet to a non-participating property line;

o 1,250 feet to a non-participating residence; and

o 750 feet to a participating residence.

706. Table 7-1" What compensation are the three non participating home owners with over

48db going to get?

E. Appendix Wildfire Studies."

Appendix K The avian and bat study was conducted in one year. Why didn't you do a

multi-year study?

Appendix EL The bat studies were done with radar. Why not also sonar?



Appendix E1. In tills Appendix SLW says that there is no statistical evidence that Indiana

Bats are in the project area but Appendix E3 Section 300July Aug 2007 states that four

were captured and tracked, Appendix E6 July Aug 2007 1.0 states six captures Indiana

bats were radio tracked and roost sites were identified in the project area. 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?

Appendix E3 is labeled Blanding Turtle but reports on bats.

Appendix E7. Which of the Blanding Turtle mitigation recommendations will be adopted

and which will not and why not?

Appendix JSupplemental Shadow Flicker. What w in you do to mitigate shadow flicker if

your analysis is wrong?

Appendix L . Noise Impact Assessment, St. Lawrence Wind Farm Project REPORT NO.

JB29-0B210B-A. The data in Table 2.2.L does not match the data from our paidconsultant (elaborate).

Appendix £.3.6 Noise. The negative impacts oflow frequency sound are dismissed as

corrected by design change, Where is the medical data?

Appendix N2 OfFAir TV Reception Analvsis at the St. Lawrence Wind Farm Project Area in .lefforson

County. New York: Who pays to mitigate the loss of TV signals in the project area?



May 28,2009



r,o.Box 680


f)At/1 D II ( /oc>71~t.t lR_

33(b3 IVys I1r/2/~C - - / - I - j J £- l ' / ; / V C/3:(\(T;/'/

/3b'1f"To Whom ItMay Concern:

I have reviewed the April 2009 SLW SEIS and have identified the following comments that

members ofthe WPEG and Governmental Agencies made regarding the SLW DElS either in the

Public Hearing or in written comments that are not addressed in the SEIS:

Will those tasking in the Planning Boards 11Julv 2007 LeJler to SLW nol responded 10 in

the SEIS be included in the FEfS?

1) The Planning Board in their 11 July 2007 letter to SLW in paragraph 6 asked that

SWL work with BP on the transmission line and asked that any response by BP be

provided the Planning Board. That response belongs in the Supplement but is not

provided. Why not?


SWL 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?


SWL include measures of commercial and pleasure watercraft in the background ambientsound measurement. There are no such measures in Supplemental Appendix L 1&2.

Why not?

4) The Planning Board in their 1] July 2007 letter to SLW in paragraph 9 asked that

SWL meet with the 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?

5) There are many variables that could impact the number of turbines you can site in the

Project Area. What is number that keeps the project economically viability?

Sincerely,

/ a v d J /I flv-z!j~





r.o Box 680


I am commenting on the Saint Lawrence Wind Farm SDEIS with regard to off-air TV

reception as shown at the following appendix

dppendix N2 Off-Air TV Reception Ana/psis at the St. Lawrel1ce Wind Farm Pl'o;ect Area ill

.Jefferson CO/mil'. Nell' York:

The analysis lists all off-air TV channels within 100 miles of the proposed wind farm

Following the list is a short narrative regarding how the wind farm may affect off-air TV

reception, Included is the statement "Although it is unlikely that there will be severe loss

of off-air TV coverage in any of the communities in the vicinity of the windfarm in those

areas where the loss of TV channels is greatest and becomes an issue with the residents

of that community, TV programming by alternative methods can be offered to mitigate the

issue ", It goes on to say that the alternative methods would be cable where available orDirect Broadcast Satellite,

What it does not say is who will determine whether there is a problem and who will pay

for the 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 al l local channels, These local

channels are necessary for local news, emergency information, weather alerts, school

closings, security alerts, etc

Ellen Jury

2552 Humphrey Rd




Since the windmills have gone up on Wolfe Island, which is right across from Cape

Vincent, some local people seem to have changed their minds as to how they feel about

having one of these industrial turbines close to their property. I have also talked to people

on Wolfe Island and they are not happy about them, BUT IT IS TOO LATE

There arc so many issues with these turbines. The town has put new water lines in the

township to promote growth and increase our tax base, but will people want to come to

this area when they see turbines everywhere in the town? Also, the health issue is a very

big concern, how will these turbines affect the children and adults? Ibelieve more

research is needed in this area and of course there is also the effect on wildlife ..

With these new industrial turbines, a property re-evaluation will be required sooner

than anticipated. Will these turbines decrease property values? We have approximately

fifteen miles of waterfront on Lake Ontario and the same for the St Lawrence River

including four islands. Our seasonal residents are very important to our area and

contribute so much in taxes and expertise, some are choosing to make their seasonal

home into year round residences, which helps our local economy and encourage more

businesses. Will this continued to happen with an industrial area all around them? We

have too much at stake, because this will take away our image, and the beauty of our

township.

Wind is not consistent, you can't store it and you need a backup system as well. Water

current in the St Lawrence is 8 mph and is constant I believe under-water turbines will

be our future for electricity.

Let's decide wh(:lt ; < :: h",d fm thp p....~;r~ l",.·_ - .1 .. .: _ ~ ,. .. c o - ! , .. ,. ., "Ir", the right decision, taking

everyone's concerns into consideration

1erry Radley

Cape Vincent



Mr" Richard Edsall

Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board Chairman

P.O, Box 680


May 29,2009

Dear Sir:

I have a comment about St. Lawrence wind's SDEIS regarding the report on the Indiana bat

Jefferson County is home to the northernmost colony of Indiana brown bats, a federally listed

endangered species, that are undergoing a serious population decline. There is a hibernacula in

Glen Park, New York approximately 20 miles from Cape Vincent. The Indiana brown bat

typically moves between 12 and 40 miles to roost locations, SLW'S Indiana bat study reports

that Cape Vincent provides summer colony habitat, roosting and foraging areas for the Indiana

Brown bat and also it documented that there is a maternity roost location in this same area. This

is significant because Indiana bats have strong fidelity to summer colony areas, roosts and

foraging habitat (USFWS 1999). Radio telemetry studies in NY have shown this to be true for

maternity roost locations as well where the Indiana bat forms maternity colonies of 20 to 100

members.

I am concerned that the Cape Vincent Indiana bat studies are insufficient. The length of time

may not be sufficient to determine bat presence because weather conditions change from year to

year and this could very well affect bat activity. The Cape Vincent test was conducted in

July/August of 2007 but the report is not clear as to how many days were spent in the field and

under what conditions.

I also noticed that the report on Indiana Bat Roost Trees and Emergence Counts on bats capturedoutside Cape Vincent, New York sampling by Sanders Environmental Inc. has a date of July &

August, 2007" Upon going over the report prepared for the Horse creek wind farm in

neighboring Clayton, New York, I noticed they reported in their study that they trapped their first

Indiana bat on June 02, (although a gap in netting activities indicates that bats could have been

present in late May) and the last radio telemetry location occurred on August 09. After July .31,

capture rates significantly decreased. Depending on when the Cape Vincent studies were done

this may have had an effect on the results also.

Sanders Environmental 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 need

to be conducted during the spring and the fall migration to understand the project area number

and diversity of bats passing through the project area. These are extraordinary times and they

call for extraordinary measures. We have an endangered species mysteriously dying off by the

thousands. The Indiana bats have been affected by white nose syndrome, the mysterious ailment

that has killed thousands of these bats. White nose syndrome has been identified among Indiana

bats wintering in Glen Park The issue of the white nose syndrome, and the fact that the Indiana



bat is already an endangered species requires that we must move with great caution since this

could become a critical issue for the Indiana bat's survival.

St. Lawrence Wind Power has the potential to significantly impact the future survival of the

Indiana bat because the fragmentation of habitat can have a negative effect bat on an already

dwindling bat population,

Within 3/4 of a mile from the shores of Cape Vincent there already is an operational 86 turbine

wind power plant on Wolfe Island, Canada. In Clayton, NY, Horse Creek wind farm is

proposing to erect 62 turbines and another 77 turbine project is planned for Galoo Island. BP's

Cape Vincent wind project indicates their number is up to 140 Plus, slated for the area and 8LW

lists 53 turbines. That is the potential for a total of'< 86 + 62 + 77 + 140 + 53 =418 turbines.

This means that potentially if all these projects come to fruition there would be 418 wind

turbines within a 25 mile radius of the Indiana bat hibernacula in Glen Park, New York.

Henderson, New York is also entertaining the idea of a wind farm and if the project that is

developed it would only further increase the potential damaging effect on the bat population.

Already diminished in numbers, we are then going to assault this creature by fragmenting its

habitat and destroying its foraging ground. Without a more extensive detailed study in Cape

Vincent there is no way of knowing how many Indiana bats are actually in the area. In the case

of such a sensitive issue studies should be done by an independent company, not one who

depends on their lively hood from the wind companies. Another issue to consider is pressure

changes that the spinning blades have on the lungs of the bats once the turbines become

operational. This will also increase the mortality rate of an already endangered species and could

become a critical issue in the future survival of the bat population especially considering thecumulative effects.

Lastly, were the transmission lines routes also included as part of the area being tested? St

Lawrence Wind wil l be irreversibly committing resources to this project, resources that wil l

cause the destruction of habitat, foraging areas and possibly causing irrevocable damage to this

federal1y protected species. Not only do I think that the bat studies are inadequate but Ihink,

that due to the plight of the Indiana bat and the sensitive nature of the area, the project should not

be in Cape Vincent.

f!~n~-"._/Kathryn A Hludzenski

29174, Stoney Point Road

St.Lawrence Wind SDEIS Public Comment Letters 2 of 5

Documents

Transcript of St.Lawrence Wind SDEIS Public Comment Letters 2 of 5