St. Lawrence Wind SDEIS I

SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WINDPOWER PROJECT

TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Applicant, St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC (SLW), has prepared this Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for the proposed Saint Lawrence Windpower Project
(the Project). The Project, as originally proposed, was described in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS), which was accepted by the Town of Cape Vincent on January 10,
2007. Since completion of the DEIS, public and agency comments have been received, the
Project turbines and layout have been revised, proposed studies have been completed,
supplemental or revised studies have been conducted and additional data has been collected.
This SDEIS describes the revised Project, presents the results of completed and revised studies,
provides supplemental data, and addresses certain issues raised during the public comment
period on the DEIS. The SDEIS generally follows the same format as the DEIS to minimize
duplication and maintain consistency, and incorporates that document by reference. Only
information that has changed or been added since preparation of the DEIS is included in this
document. Where information is the same as described in the DEIS, it is noted in the SDEIS.
All references to sections, appendices and figures within this document refer to this SDEIS
unless noted otherwise. A summary of the changes and supplemental information presented in
this SDEIS include:
1. Revised Wind Turbine Locations

Wind turbine locations were revised based on wind resource assessment, engineering
considerations, environmental constraints, and setback requirements provided by the Cape
Vincent Planning Board. Wind turbine locations are shown in Figure 2-1, Revised Project
Layout and Boundary.
2. Selection of Acciona AW-82/1500 Turbines Wind Turbines

Acciona AW-82/1500 wind turbines have been selected for use in the proposed Project.
3. Revised Underground Electrical Collection Line Configuration

The location of underground collection cables was redesigned to maintain connectivity with
revised turbine locations. The underground electrical collection system is shown in
Figure 2-1, Revised Project Layout and Boundary.
4. Revised Access Road Configuration

Access road design was modified to accommodate the construction and maintenance of the
revised wind turbine locations and the overhead electrical collection system. In addition,
access roads were modified to minimize or avoid potential impacts to wetlands and cultural
resources. Access roads are shown in Figure 2-1, Revised Project Layout and Boundary.
1-1
001302
5. Revised Substation Locations

The collection substation will be located on Swamp Road and will step up power to allow for
transmission to an existing National Grid 115 kV electric transmission line located in the
Town of Lyme. The transmission owner substation will serve as the point of interconnection
with the existing National Grid 115 kV line and will be located on County Route 179
adjacent to an existing National Grid substation. The substations are shown in Figure 2-1,
Revised Project Layout and Boundary.
6. Identification and Analysis of Route for 8.9 Miles of Overhead Electrical Collection System
Power generated from the wind turbines will be transmitted via an underground and overhead
electrical collection system. At the collection substation, the electrical power from the entire
Project will run through a step-up transformer and be converted to 115 kV. The overhead
collection system, consisting of 8.9 miles of poles and lineS routed from the collection
substation to the 115 kV interconnection substation in Lyme. The route for the overhead
electrical collection system was not identified in the DEIS, but is identified, and its impacts
analyzed, in this SDEIS. The proposed route is shown in Figure 2-1, Revised Project Layout
and Boundary.
7. Five Meteorological Towers

Five meteorological towers will exist during the construction and operations phases of the
Project. Two meteorological towers are currently in place. One will be decommissioned
prior to construction. Four more meteorological towers will be installed during construction.
8. Additional Wetlands Delineation Data

Additional activities were undertaken to complete the assessment of wetlands based on the
current Project layout. These activities included avoidance and minimization of impacts
through Project reduction, design and layout modifications, delineation and documentation of
existing wetlands resources, an assessment of wetlands functions and values, calculation of
proposed impacts and development of a wetland mitigation plan. The revised wetland
delineation report may be referenced in Appendix C.
9. Additional Avian and Bat Impact Data

Additional avian and bat data have been included to provide a comprehensive analysis of
Project impacts. These data include: nocturnal marine radar and Anabat surveys; raptor
migration, breeding bird, and winter waterfowl and raptor surveys; and mist-netting surveys,
1-2
001303
bat roost tree and emergence counts, and radio telemetry data. These data and studies may be
referenced in Section 3.3 and Appendix E.
10. Additional Rare Species Impact Data

Additional investigation and evaluation of potential Blanding’s Turtle habitat data has been
included to provide a comprehensive analysis of Project impacts on this species and may be
referenced in Section 3.3.3.7 and Appendix E.
11. Additional Cultural Resources Studies

A Phase IB archeological resource survey was conducted in accordance with the New York
State Historic Preservation Office Guidelines for Wind Farm Development Cultural
Resources Survey Work (the SHPO Guidelines) to evaluate the potential effects of the
Project. A supplemental historical architectural resources survey was also completed to
identify and document historically significant structures that may be located in the Project
viewshed within the revised five-mile limit of the Project site. The additional cultural
resource studies may be referenced in Appendix H.
12. Supplemental Visual Assessments and Shadow Flicker Study

To address potential impacts to historic sites; address agency concerns; and evaluate the
potential impacts of the overhead electrical collection system, and modified wind turbine and
substation locations, SLW conducted the following studies:
x Prepared supplemental visual simulations for current turbine layout referenced in
Appendix I;
x Performed a supplemental visual impact assessment for the current turbine layout
described in Section 3.8;
x Performed a Supplemental Shadow Flicker Analysis referenced in Appendix J; and
x Performed a Transmission Infrastructure Visibility Study in Appendix K.
13. Noise Studies

Baseline environmental sound level survey, revised noise modeling and impact assessment
was performed to characterize the impacts of the modified wind turbine and substation
locations. The updated noise modeling results may be referenced in Appendix L.
14. Revised Construction Schedule

The Applicant plans to construct the Project in the spring/summer of 2010 and to complete
construction by the end of 2010.
1-3
001304
1.1 Project Description

SLW is proposing to develop a wind-powered electrical-generating facility with up to 53 turbine
locations, and a total capacity of approximately 79.5 megawatts (MW). The proposed Project
will be located in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County, New York. All 53
turbines, temporary construction laydown area(s), access roads, underground collection lines,
operations and maintenance building, meteorological towers, an electrical collector substation
and other components will be located in the Town of Cape Vincent; most of the overhead
electrical transmission line and a transmission owner interconnection substation will be located
in the Town of Lyme where an existing transmission grid substation is located.
Turbines used for the Project will be 1.5 MW Acciona AW-82/1500 turbines manufactured by
Acciona Windpower, S.A. The maximum blade-tip height will be approximately 390.5 feet and
the rotor width (diameter) is estimated to be 269 feet (82 meters). Each turbine will ultimately
consist of a 262 foot (80 meter) tall steel tower; a rotor consisting of three composite blades; and
a nacelle, which houses the generator, gearbox, and power train. A pad mount transformer will
be located adjacent to the base of the tower, to raise the voltage of the electricity produced by the
turbine generator to the voltage level of the underground collection system. The steel towers
used for this Project will be manufactured in multiple sections. The towers will have a base
diameter of approximately 20 feet. Each tower will have a locked access door and an internal
safety ladder to access the nacelle, and will be painted (off-white) to make the structure less
visually obtrusive.
The Project also will result in the construction of approximately 14.4 miles of gravel access
roads, 37.1 miles of underground interconnect cables, of which 9.8 will be co-located adjacent to
constructed access roads, a co-located electrical substation and operations and maintenance
building, and interconnection substation adjacent to an existing substation in the Town of Lyme.
An approximately 9 mile long (115 kV) overhead transmission line will be constructed to
connect the Project with the existing transmission grid and electrical substation in the Town of
Lyme.
The Project facilities will be developed on leased private land. SLW plans to begin construction
in the spring of 2010 and to complete construction by the end of 2010. SLW will begin site work
as early as possible after all required permits and approvals are received, in 2009. This will
enable SLW to commence construction as early as possible after the 2010 spring thaw. The
geotechnical investigation and other engineering studies to support the civil design will be
conducted prior to construction. Once the Project is in operation, the wind turbines and
associated components operate in an almost completely automated fashion. SLW intends to
1-4
001305
permanently employ from 4 to 6 full-time workers for operation and maintenance of the wind
energy facility.
Throughout this document, the term Project Area is used to mean the total area of all of the
leased parcels regardless of the portion of that area actually occupied by the Project. The Project
Area is equal to approximately 7,900 acres. The term Project facilities is defined as the
permanent footprint of disturbance occupied by turbine foundations, crane pads, meteorological
towers, gravel access roads, underground electrical cables, the operations and maintenance
building, the 115 kV overhead transmission line, and the two electrical substations. The term
Project Site is defined as the area required for construction of the Project which includes both the
permanent and temporary footprint of disturbance. Temporary expanded work areas are needed
for the construction of turbine foundations, gravel access roads, underground electrical cables,
and the 115 kV overhead transmission line. Additional temporary construction-related facilities
include staging areas (equipment laydown, construction management trailer, and parking) and a
potential concrete patch plant.
1.2 Project Applicant

SLW is the Applicant for the Project. The Project name is the St. Lawrence Wind Energy
Project. The Project's mailing address is:
St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

122 South Point Street
P.O. Box 660
Cape Vincent, New York 13618
1.3 Summary of Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed Project is to develop a wind powered electrical-generating facility
at the proposed Project location. This Project will be a significant source of renewable energy to
the New York power grid. The Project will facilitate compliance with the New York State Public
Service Commission (PSC) Order 03-E-0188, issued on September 24, 2004, which created the
New York State Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). The purpose of the RPS is to
increase the proportion of electricity from renewable energy sources in New York State to 25
percent by the end of 2013. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) is responsible for implementing the RPS as an agent for the New York State
Department of Public Service. The Project also supports several objectives identified in the 2002
State Energy Plan (New York State Energy Planning Board, 2002). These objectives include
stimulating economic growth, increasing energy diversity, and promoting a cleaner and healthier
1-5
001306
environment. The benefits of the proposed Project also include significant positive impacts on
socioeconomics and air quality. By eliminating pollutants and greenhouse gases during the
production of electricity, the Project will benefit ecological and water resources, as well as
human health.
1.4 Summary of Environmental Effects and Proposed Mitigation

In accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
potential impacts arising from the proposed Project were evaluated with respect to a
comprehensive list of environmental and cultural resources. The Project will result in positive,
long-term impacts on agriculture, socioeconomics, ecology, and air quality within the Project
Area and surrounding region. The Project may result in potential environmental impacts on soils,
geology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology including threatened and endangered species, storm
water management, land use and zoning, visual resources, socioeconomic issues, traffic and
transportation, air quality, and noise proposed; however, proposed mitigation measures minimize
or avoid significant environmental impact to the maximum extent possible. In addition a large-
scale wind power-generating project will result in significant environmental and economic
benefits to the area. Mitigation is proposed for potential impacts associated with the Project. A
discussion of mitigation measures is included by resource type in Section 3.0. Table 1-1 is a
summary of potential impacts and related proposed mitigation.
1.5 Summary of Alternatives Analysis

The following alternatives to the proposed action are described and evaluated in this SDEIS: no
action, alternate Project locations, alternate electric generation technologies, alternate turbine
technologies, alternative Project design and layout, and alternate Project scale and magnitude. In
addition, alternates for the routing of the electric transmission interconnectrion are also described
and evaluated. Analyses of these alternatives indicate that the Preferred Alternative (the Project)
as currently proposed is necessary to produce a commercially feasible Project that reduces
environmental impacts to the greatest extent practicable. A detailed discussion of alternatives is
included in Section 7.0.
1.6 List of Required Permits and Approvals

Development of the proposed Project will require certain permits and/or approvals from local,
state, and federal agencies. The permits and approvals that are expected to be required are listed
in Table 1-2.
1-6
001307
Table 1-1 (Sheet 1 of 8)

Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Aspect of Affected
Environment Potential Impact Proposed Mitigation
Physiography, Geology, and Erosion and sedimentation during A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Soils construction. will be developed and implemented for the
construction period.
Construction traffic could also create A Dust Control Plan will be developed and
airborne dust. implemented.
The proposed Project, once built, could A SWPPP will be developed and implemented for
potentially cause a minor alteration to the operational period.
existing drainage patterns.
Impacts to agricultural soils during SLW will follow NYS Department of Agriculture
construction and operation and Markets Guidelines for Siting and
Constructing Wind Farms. Applicable soil
protection, erosion control and soil restoration
measures will be included in the final construction
documentation and plans for the contractor(s) and
subcontractor(s).
Shallow bedrock and other geologic Geotechnical studies will be conducted prior to
challenges (e.g., karst and problematic soils) final engineering design.
could be encountered during construction.
Release of hazardous substances A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
associated with construction or operation. Plan (SPCCP) will be developed and
implemented.
Water Resources Soil erosion during construction could impact A SWPPP will be developed and implemented for
ground water. the construction period.
Spills associated with operation of Appropriate best management procedures will be
construction equipment (i.e. diesel and used to prevent spills, limit quantities of hazardous
gasoline fuels, lubricating oils, and cooling materials used on site, and the implementation of
fluids). the Emergency Response Plan.
Potential water table reduction or pathway Impacts will be avoided through pre-construction
alteration due to dewatering. surveys and studies and re-location of turbines, if
necessary.
Streams, Rivers, and Lakes Potential temporary impacts during Clearing near surface waters will be kept to a
construction could result from clearing and minimum to prevent significant disturbance to the
grading near stream banks. habitats associated with surface waters; A
SWPPP will be developed and implemented for
the construction period.
Construction and operation of the Project will The installation of environmentally friendly culvert
result in two surface water body crossings by types (i.e., bottomless or arched culverts with a
Access Roads and Interconnects gravel base).
Construction and operation of the Project will Crossings of the Chaumont River and other
result in seven surface water body crossings streams and tributaries will be accomplished by
by the Overhead transmission line. overhead spanning. Poles will be located greater
than 50 feet from both sides of the Chaumont
River and other streams and tributaries. Cable
between these utility poles will be strung in a
manner that will not require construction
equipment to drive through shallow surface water
bodies.
Construction and operation of the Project will Wetland areas and open waters temporarily
temporarily affect 1.67 acres of wetlands; affected during the construction will be restored to
and result in the placement of 0.33 acres of pre-construction contours and re-vegetated with
fill in wetlands and the conversion of 0.34 native (non-invasive) plant material or seeds
acres of forested wetlands to non-forested immediately following the completion of regulated
wetland cover. activities at each site.
SLW will develop a Wetland Mitigation Plan to
compensate for unavoidable permanent impacts
to wetlands and proposes to compensate for the
unavoidable permanent fill of wetlands using a 2:1
mitigation ratio.
1-7
001308

Aspect of Affected
Vegetation Clearing for construction may temporarily Clearing of vegetation will be minimized in areas
impact abundant vegetation communities. that are ecologically sensitive, such as forested
uplands, forested wetlands and the banks of
creeks crossed by the overhead transmission line.
All temporary disturbances will be restored.
Potential for the introduction of invasive SLW has prepared an Invasive Species
species into areas disturbed during Management Plan to ensure that all disturbed
construction activities. areas will be returned to a native vegetative state
once construction is complete.
Non-bat Mammals Minor, temporary displacement of individuals The Project was designed to avoid significant
and disturbance of wildlife habitat will be impact to wildlife. Project infrastructure is sited
limited to the construction right-of-way and away from high quality wildlife habitat and forested
adjacent areas. Forested habitat will be clearing has been minimized.
cleared within portions of the laydown areas
at 6 turbines sites and along limited portions
of the overhead transmission line right-of-
way.
Bats Bat collision with wind turbines is a potential Post-construction monitoring studies will be
impact. implemented to estimate the mortality and habitat
displacement experienced by bats as a result of
the Project, to verify the environmental impacts
estimated by pre-construction studies, and to
provide supporting value to the overall
conservation measures that will ultimately benefit
the species or population.
Conservation measures including Project design,
seasonal restrictions on tree clearing and formal
consultation with the USFWS, USACE, and
NYSDEC will be implemented before or during
construction to avoid and minimize potential
Indiana bat mortality during construction and
operation of the Project.
Migrating Birds During operation of the Project, there is the SLW has selected the proposed Project layout to
potential that migratory birds could collide minimize impacts to sensitive Potential impacts
with wind turbines. associated with migratory bird collision with wind
turbines have been mitigated by maximum turbine
spacing, placing electrical collection lines between
turbines and the collector substation underground
rather than above ground, and implementing the
minimum FAA safety lighting requirements. SLW
will also implement a post-construction avian
fatality monitoring program.
Breeding Birds Construction and operation of the proposed The proposed Project will encourage continued
Project will likely result in minor, temporary farming activities in the area by supplementing
impacts to breeding birds. During area farmers’ income. This will also result in the
construction, clearing and work activities in maintenance of open grassland habitats since the
open habitats will temporarily displace regional climate favors traditional late season
nesting and foraging individuals from the harvest which is beneficial for grassland birds.
work area and suitable adjacent habitats. Areas associated with grassland species nesting
will be avoided until after the breeding season.
Approximately 17 acres of second growth Mitigation is not necessary because conversion of
deciduous forest will be cleared for Project forest habitat in the Project Area will benefit birds
components, which could result in temporary that nest and forage in open habitats which are
and permanent minor habitat loss for some relatively more important in the region. Mitigation
forest-nesting avian species. for habitat loss has been performed by sighting
Project components to minimize disturbance and
restoring all temporarily disturbed areas.
1-8
001309

Aspect of Affected
There is a low potential risk that local SLW is studying potential avian impact at the
breeding birds could collide with the wind Project site. The Project site is anticipated to pose
turbines. Impacts at the St. Lawrence Wind a low risk to breeding birds. SLW will fund an
Energy Project will be similar to other wind operational (post-construction) monitoring
projects; therefore, avian mortality is likely to program to estimate direct and indirect impacts of
range between 122 to 509 birds/year the wind farm on breeding grassland birds
Over wintering Birds Impacts to wintering birds, in particular SLW has selected the proposed Project layout to
waterfowl, are likely to be minimal. minimize impacts to sensitive receptors including
wintering roosting and foraging birds. Any
necessary above ground power lines will follow
the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
suggested practices for protecting avian species.
Threatened and Endangered Individual bats or bat colonies for the Indiana SLW, working with the USACE, USFWS, and
Species bat and the small-footed myotis have been NYSDEC, is in the process of preparing a
documented in Jefferson County, within Biological Assessment (BA) to evaluate in greater
approximately 15 to 40 miles of the detail the possible impacts to Indiana Bat
proposed Project. No impacts are populations due to construction and operation of
anticipated. the Project. The BA will be used to initiate formal
consultation with the USFWS under the
Endangered Species Act in connection with SLW’s
application for permits from the USACE. Results
of the consultation process will determine whether
conservation measures in addition to those
outlined herein are necessary to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate potential impacts from the Project on
Indiana bats.
There is a slight risk of collision for migrating The Project site is anticipated to pose a low risk to
raptors. threatened or endangered raptor species. SLW
will consult with the USFWS to address the
potential impacts and if any mitigation measures
are warranted.
There is a slight risk of collision for breeding To mitigate temporary impacts to breeding listed
birds. species, clearing activities will occur prior to the
breeding season where appropriate.
Potential impacts to State listed plants, Impacts to listed plant species will be avoided
Michigan lily and autumnal water-starwort. through avoidance of sensitive ecological
communities, such as wetlands, and minimizing
permanent impacts to vegetation to the greatest
extent practicable.
Potential impacts to State listed Reptiles and Barriers and culverts will be installed to either
amphibians, Blanding’s turtle prevent or to facilitate movement across Project
components. Silt fence will be installed to isolate
potential Blanding’s turtle wetlands habitat from
construction activity. In addition, barriers (silt
fence) will be installed to direct the movements of
nesting turtles in a manner that limits the potential
for road mortality.
Transportation The potential need for the Project to improve SLW will obtain all necessary permits from
transportation infrastructure to accommodate NYSDOT and local highway department(s) in
construction equipment and oversize order to make necessary road improvements and
vehicles delivering or repair damage to to operate oversized vehicles on the roads.
roads caused by construction traffic. Construction related wear and tear to County and
local roads will be discussed with the entities that
manage the transportation system and an
appropriate strategy for road restoration will be
developed.
1-9
001310

Aspect of Affected
The need for the Project to temporarily A Transportation and Traffic Plan will be created
relocate overhead lines, traffic lights, cable for the Project and will address this issue.
and phone lines to accommodate oversize
vehicles.
Traffic delays and road closures due to SLW will assess work areas two weeks ahead of
transportation improvements or construction construction and will provide schools (during the
traffic; potential disruption of tourism in the school-year), police, fire, and emergency service
Thousand Islands; and increased traffic over agencies with advance notice of lane or road
local roads during construction closures.
Increased traffic generally over local roads A Transportation and Traffic Plan will be created
during construction. for the Project and will address this issue. The
proposed Project transportation routes have been
selected to minimize impacts to roads and
surrounding communities. The number of roads
used for material and equipment transportation
has been limited to the minimum needed for
construction. Aside from the oversized vehicles
delivering turbine and tower components,
construction vehicles will be similar in nature to
vehicles currently traveling over the road network
and therefore will likely not require special
mitigation measures. Construction equipment and
the personal vehicles of construction workers will
not be parked along public roadways, but rather in
designated parking areas, so as to preserve safety
along local roadways (unless exceptions are
requested and granted by the appropriate
authorities). In consultation with appropriate local
officials, a Project speed limit will be established.
Project construction traffic may create A Dust Control Plan will be developed and
fugitive dust. implemented for the construction period.
Transportation - Cumulative If the SLW Project and BP projects are built If construction is concurrent, coordination between
during the same construction season, it is the projects may be required to ensure that
possible that similar construction responsibilities for road impacts and remediation
transportation routes may be chosen. are properly recognized and assigned. To the
extent there is any overlap in project construction
schedules, SLW will coordinate road construction
or improvements and transportation activity with
the other projects and will seek to modify its traffic
management plan, if necessary, to mitigate local
transportation cumulative effects.
Land Use and Zoning The Project will have temporary, The Project is designed to meet or exceed all of
construction-related impacts and permanent, the requirements in the Towns of Cape Vincent
long-term impacts on land use. The Towns and Lyme land use and zoning ordinances; and is
of Cape Vincent and Lyme have no specific compliant with current local zoning and land use
requirements for development of wind regulations in Cape Vincent and Lyme.
projects in their jurisdictions, but have
general zoning and land use regulations
established for development.
Construction of the Project will result in the SLW will follow NYS Department of Agriculture
temporary disturbance of approximately 425 and Markets Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation
acres of agricultural land and permanent for Wind Power Projects.
conversion of 41 acres of agricultural land to
wind turbine structures, a substation and
pervious access roads.
1-10
001311

Aspect of Affected
Utilities and Community The Project will result in minor short- and Mitigation is not necessary as neither of these
Services long-term increases in energy usage represents significant impacts on energy
associated with construction and operation resources.
of the Project.
There is a remote possibility that some SLW will collaborate with the utility owners to
overhead electrical distribution lines will reduce impacts to their facilities to the maximum
have to be temporarily relocated to extent practicable.
accommodate crane routes.
During construction, large vehicles and SLW will assess work areas two weeks ahead of
temporary roads closures could block construction and will provide schools (during the
emergency vehicle access to area farms and school-year), police, fire, and emergency service
homes. agencies with advance notice of lane or road
closures. SLW will issue press releases to local
newspapers and radio stations regarding lane or
road closures. SLW in collaboration with the Cape
Vincent Fire Department (CVFD), has developed
an Emergency Response Plan to define
prevention and emergency response measures for
hazardous materials spills, medical/fire/law
enforcement, weather emergencies, and
evacuation.
Local fire department concerns regarding SLW will maintain an appropriate level of
inexperience with the components of the preparedness and equipment for emergency
new wind facility, during construction and rescue operations involving the nacelle and tower.
operation of the wind power facility, SLW Project personnel will meet with the local
emergency service personnel (police, fire,
ambulance, and health care) to review and
discuss the planned construction process.
Impacts from Ice shedding Compliance with setbacks and measures to
control public access, such as fences and warning
signs, will minimize public safety risks associated
with ice shedding.
Cultural Resources The Project will not affect archeological Archeologically sensitive areas to be avoided
resources that are potentially eligible for the during project construction will be clearly identified
NRHP. In the event of future archeological as “No Access” on Project construction maps.
discoveries in the archeological APE, SLW Prior to the start of construction, an Unanticipated
intends to avoid impacts to archeological Discoveries Plan will be developed, describing
resources that may be potentially eligible to actions to be taken in the event that archeological
the NRHP. sites, including possible human remains, are
accidentally discovered during Project
construction.
The proposed project will have an adverse SLW will continue drafting a Memorandum of
visual effect on historic architectural Agreement for Visual Impact Mitigation, to be
resources. approved by the Towns of Cape Vincent and
Lyme and by SHPO.
Visual Resources The Project will be visible from a variety of Although the visual mitigation options are limited
locations within 5 miles of the proposed given the nature of the Project and its siting
Project Area. criteria, the following mitigation measures are
proposed for the Project:
Turbines will be painted white or light grey
with non-specular material and not be used for
commercial advertising.
The turbine areas and facilities will be kept
orderly and maintained on a regular basis.
Turbines will not be allowed to rust.
1-11
001312

Aspect of Affected
To the extent practicable, the electrical
interconnect between turbines will be installed
underground. Overhead electrical transmission
from the turbines to the 115 kV transmission
line, to the greatest extent practicable, will be
sited away from where such infrastructure can
be viewed from roads. The developer will also
minimize clearing necessary for the installation
of the electrical interconnect.
The proposed turbines will maintain
appropriate buffers from property lines, nearby
residences, roads and other nearby visually
sensitive areas.
Perimeter screen plantings will be used to
minimize visibility of the proposed substations
and Operations and Maintenance Building.
Appropriate plantings will be assessed after
construction.
Some residences located within 10 turbine The proposed turbines will maintain
diameters will experience some degree (less appropriate buffers to minimize visual impact
than 30 hours per year) of shadow flicker in and extended shadow flicker.
the Town of Cape Vincent. Settlement agreements could be used to
purchase landscape screening (trees, shrubs),
or exclusionary treatments such as curtains or
blinds.
The United States Department of Aviation warning lighting will be limited to the
Transportation Federal Aviation minimum required by the FAA. The Project will
Administration (FAA) requires aviation purchase aviation warning lights that are shielded
warning lights on the turbines, which could or otherwise directed so that they are the least
present a potential adverse visual impact visible from the ground. Due to the height of the
from some viewing locations. proposed turbines, the FAA requires red flashing
aviation obstruction lighting to be placed atop the
nacelle on 34 turbines to assure safe flight
navigation in the vicinity of the Project.
Visual - Cumulative Construction of the SLW Project and the BP The proposed mitigation described above will be
projects in relatively close proximity to one employed.
another may have the potential to create
cumulative visual impacts. There may be
locations where turbines from projects will be
visible, either at the same time or in rapid
succession while traveling on area road-
ways. In most locations within the study
area, only small portions of either project will
be visible. However, in some open elevated
settings, it is possible that large portions of
projects will be visible.
Air Quality During construction there may be short-term Standard mitigation control measures to maintain
localized air quality impacts. Temporary air quality will include:
minor adverse impacts to air quality may Vehicles used during construction will comply
result from the operation of construction with applicable Federal and State air quality
equipment and vehicles. regulations;
Limiting engine idling time and equipment
shut down when not in use;
1-12
001313

Aspect of Affected
Dust suppression on unpaved access roads,
parking areas and staging areas, and using
water or DOT approved dust suppression
materials in compliance with State and local
regulations;
Traffic speeds on access roads will be kept to
25 mph to minimize generation of dust;
Car-pooling among construction workers will
be encouraged to minimize construction-
related traffic and associated emissions;
Disturbed areas will be re-planted or graveled
to reduce wind-blown dust; and
Erosion control measures will limit deposition
of silt to roadways.
Noise The proposed Project will generate noise The following mitigation measures will be applied
during construction. to Project construction, as necessary and
practicable:
Adhering to regular construction work hours
Mondays through Saturdays, and typically not
working on Sundays or after dark;
All construction equipment will be maintained
in good working condition in order to reduce
general noise emissions;
When practical, heavy equipment will be shut
down when not active, to minimize idling
noise;
All internal combustion engines will be fitted
with appropriate muffler systems; and
Adjacent landowners will be advised in
advance of any significant noise-causing
activities and these will be scheduled to
create the least disruption to residents.
The Project will not have significant noise It is not expected that mitigative measures will be
impacts during operation. required during Project operations; however, if
needed, a complaint resolution program will be
implemented whereby neighboring residents can
contact SLW with their concerns. Complaints will
be promptly investigated to resolve any verifiable
issue or exceedance condition, and mitigation may
be taken on a case-by-case basis.
Telecommunications It is unlikely that there will be a significant FCC's mandate to transition all off-air television
impact to television signal coverage during broadcasts from analog signals to digital signals
Project operation. by February 2009 will eliminate turbine-related
interference problems as digital signals are not
subject to interference from intervening structures.
It is unlikely that the Project will impact Should the NTIA identify any Project-related
government communications. concerns related to signal blockage following their
30-day review of the Project, SLW will mitigate
impacts as required.
There is a remote possibility that ice shed The use of buffers from roads and property lines
from turbines could cause personal or and public control measures will minimize already
property injury. low public safety risk of ice shed. All turbines will
have automatic braking and shutdown. Ice
detectors will be installed at previously determined
locations to notify maintenance personnel of icing
conditions, which will allow the operator to take
the appropriate actions.
1-13
001314

Aspect of Affected
Safety and Security There is a remote possibility that tower The use of buffers from roads and property lines
collapse or turbine failure could cause and public control measures will minimize the
personal or property injury. already low public safety risk associated with
tower collapse or blade failure. The standard
engineering design and protection systems
incorporated into modern wind turbines will
prevent and minimize problems that could lead to
tower collapse or blade failure.
Wind power facilities have the potential to Stray voltage concerns will be addressed through
create stray voltage only if the electrical proper electrical engineering design and
system is both poorly grounded and located installation of all Project electrical components.
near underground or poorly grounded metal
objects.
Due to their height, physical dimensions, and An Emergency Response Plan has been
complexity, wind turbines may present developed for the Project to ensure the safety of
response difficulties to local emergency company employees and local residents, visitors,
responders should a fire occur within or near and their property. Prior to the commencement of
the structures. Storage and use of diesel construction SLW will present, review and revise
fuels, lubricating oils, and hydraulic fluids of necessary the Emergency Response Plan in
within the Project boundary also create the cooperation with local fire departments.
potential for fire or medical emergencies.
Due the height and materials used to The standard lightning protection system installed
construct, the wind turbines are susceptible within the rotor blades will be used to prevent and
to lightning strikes. minimize problems associated with lightning
strikes.
It is not anticipated that the proposed Project SLW will design all facilities in accordance with
will be a target for any homeland security guidance and regulations of the Department of
concerns. Homeland Security.
1-14
001315
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Permits and Approvals for the St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project
Agency Description of Permit or Approval Required
Towns
Administration of SEQRA Process, and issuance of findings (as Lead
Town of Cape Vincent Agency under SEQRA).
Planning Board Site Plan Approval for construction of wind energy project and transmission
line to Town boundary
Town of Cape Vincent
Zoning Permit
Code Enforcement Officer
Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance.
Town of Cape Vincent Departments
Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements.
Town of Lyme
Participation in SEQRA Process as an involved agency
Planning Board
Town of Lyme Special Use Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other land use
Zoning Board of Appeals considerations for construction of transmission line to substation
Town of Lyme Issuance of building permits.
Departments Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements.
Jefferson County
Completion of a NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-m review and
Planning Department
issuance of recommendations.
Highway Department County road work permits.
New York State
ECL Article 17 SPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges including
creation of SWPPP and SPCC/Oil Contingency Plans (6NYCRR Part 750).]
Department of Environmental
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (6NYCRR Part
Conservation
608).
Issuance of SEQRA Findings as an involved agency.
Department of State
Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination
Division of Coastal Resources
Department of Transportation Special Use Permit for oversize/overweight vehicles. Highway work permits.
Participation in SEQRA Process as an interested agency.
Department of Agriculture & Agricultural District Law Article 25AA, Section 305-a
Markets Coordination of local planning and land use decision-making with the
agricultural districts program
Public Service Commission Participation in SEQRA Process as an interested agency.
NYSOPRHP (SHPO) Cultural Resources Consultation.
Federal Agencies
FAA Notice of Construction and Aviation Lighting Plan.
1-15
001316
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Federal Agencies
USACE Nationwide Section 10 Permit for aerial crossing of the Chaumont
River.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit for placement of fill in federal
jurisdictional wetlands/waters of the U.S.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation regarding special status species.
29 CFR 1910 regulations (standard conditions for safe work practices during
OSHA
construction).
1-16
001317
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

The following discussion describes the proposed Project in terms of purpose, need and benefit,
Project location, and layout. This Project description also describes construction, operation and
maintenance, and decommissioning. In addition, a list of regulatory approvals is provided.
2.1 Introduction
This SDEIS assesses the environmental effects of constructing and operating the proposed
Project. Provided below are descriptions of the Project, the Project Applicant, the Project's
purpose, need, and benefit; the Project’s potential environmental impacts and related proposed
mitigation measures; the alternatives analyzed in this SDEIS; and the regulatory approvals
necessary for the Project to be constructed and operated.
The Applicant, SLW, is proposing to develop a wind-powered electrical-generating facility of up

to 53 turbine locations with a total capacity of approximately 79.5 MW. The proposed Project
would be located in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County, New York. All
53 turbines, temporary construction laydown areas, access roads, underground interconnect lines,
operations and maintenance building, meteorological towers, an electrical substation and other
components would be located in the Town of Cape Vincent; most of the overhead electrical
transmission line and the interconnection to the existing transmission grid would be located in
the Town of Lyme.
The wind turbines proposed for the project are 1.5 MW Acciona AW-82/1500 turbines
manufactured by Acciona Windpower, S.A. The blade-tip height is approximately 390.5 feet,
and the rotor width (diameter) is approximately 269 feet (82 meters). Each turbine will consist of
a 262-foot (80-meter) tall steel tower; a rotor consisting of three composite blades; and a nacelle,
which houses the generator, gearbox, and power train. A transformer will be located adjacent to
the base of the tower, to raise the voltage of the electricity produced by the turbine generator to
the voltage level of the underground collection system. The steel towers used for this Project will
be manufactured in multiple sections. The towers will have a base diameter of approximately 20
feet. Each tower will have a locked access door and an internal safety ladder to access the
nacelle, and will be painted (off-white) to make the structure less visually obtrusive.
The Project also would result in the construction of approximately 14.4 miles of gravel access
roads, 37.1 miles of underground electric cables (of which approximately 9.8 miles will be co-
located adjacent to gravel access roads), two electrical substations, and an operations and
maintenance building (the collector substation will be co-located with the operations and
maintenance building). An approximately 9 mile long (115 kV) overhead transmission line will
2-1
001318
be constructed to connect the Project with the existing transmission grid and electrical substation
in the Town of Lyme.
The Project facilities will be developed on leased private land. SLW plans to begin construction
in the spring/summer of 2010 and to complete construction by the end of 2010. However, SLW
may initiate site clearing and tree removal during winter 2009-2010. SLW will begin site work as
early as possible after all required permits and approvals are received. This will enable SLW to
commence construction as early as possible after the 2010 spring thaw. The geotechnical
investigation and other detailed engineering studies to support the civil design will be conducted
prior to construction. Once the Project is in operation, the wind turbines and associated
components operate in an almost completely automated fashion. SLW intends to permanently
employ approximately four to six full-time workers for operation and maintenance of the wind
energy facility.
2.2 Purpose and Scope of Environmental Impact Statement

The proposed Project is subject to review under New York’s SEQRA because it requires the
issuance of discretionary permits by state and local agencies (see Section 2.9, Regulatory
Approvals). SLW submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to the Town of Cape
Vincent Planning Board on November 8, 2006, addressing the potential environmental impacts
of the proposed Project. The submittal of the EAF initiated the SEQRA process for the proposed
action.
SLW voluntarily agreed to prepare a DEIS. SLW retained a team of experienced environmental
consultants to study the proposed Project and develop a SEQRA DEIS which was submitted to
the Town of Cape Vincent, as Lead Agency, on January 10, 2007.
The following steps in the SEQRA process for the Project have been completed:
x The DEIS was accepted as complete by Lead Agency (i.e., Town of Cape Vincent
Planning Board) on January 24, 2007;
x The Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board filed a notice of completion of the DEIS and
notice of public hearing and comment period on February 7, 2007;
x The Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board held a public hearing on the DEIS on March
24, 2007; and
x The public comment period on the DEIS ended on June 15, 2007.
2-2
001319
After the public comment period on the DEIS, the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board
requested preparation of a SDEIS. SLW agreed and retained a team of experienced
environmental consultants to prepare the SDEIS. The next steps in the SEQRA process for this
Project include the following:
x A public hearing to be held on the SDEIS 30 days after its submission date.
x A public comment period of 60 days, starting from the acceptance of the SDEIS.
After the public comment period on the SDEIS, two alternative procedural pathways would be
available to the Lead Agency. The Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board could require
preparation of a Final EIS (FEIS). If that alternative pathway is chosen, the following steps
would be taken:
x SLW prepares the Final EIS (FEIS);

x Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board reviews the FEIS, and determines whether to
accept the FEIS as complete;
x Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board files notice of completion of the FEIS;
x 10-day public consideration period;
x The Planning Board, as Lead agency, issues its SEQRA Findings Statement; and
x Involved agencies consider the FEIS and issue their SEQRA Findings Statements as
necessary to implement their permitting jurisdiction.
2.3 Project Purpose, Public Need and Benefits

The purpose of the Project is to develop a wind-powered electrical-generating facility at the
proposed Project location. This Project will be a significant source of renewable energy to the
New York electrical power grid, with the ability to annually power approximately 26,500 homes.
The Project will assist New York State in complying with the objectives of New York State PSC
Order 03-E-0188, which was issued on September 24, 2004. This order established the New
York State RPS to increase the proportion of electricity from renewable energy sources used in
New York State to 25 percent by the end of 2013. The RPS helps to ensure that New York
State's growing need for electricity will be satisfied in an efficient and environmentally sound
manner. Wind generated electricity provides increased stability to the price volatility of fossil-
fuel electricity generation in New York. In addition, the Project also assists in fulfilling
objectives identified in the 2002 State Energy Plan (New York State Energy Planning Board,
2002), such as stimulating economic growth, increasing energy diversity, and promoting a
cleaner and healthier environment.
2-3
001320
The Project will generate a number of other benefits to the host communities and to New York
State in general. The Project will result in increased tax revenues to local governments, annual
income to participating landowners, and direct job creation during the development and
construction of the Project, as well as indirect job creation during operation of the wind energy
project. For a lengthier discussion of potential socioeconomic benefits, see Section 3.11
(Socioeconomics).
Wind energy benefits local ambient air quality and long-term health of the atmosphere because it
produces electricity without emitting pollutants. Unlike conventional fossil fuel-fired electric
power plants, no pollutant emissions are associated with wind power generation. To the extent
that electricity produced by wind energy displaces electricity produced by fossil-fired power
plants, pollutant emissions are reduced and air quality is improved. Pollutants that may be
reduced from this energy displacement include “criteria pollutants” regulated by the Clean Air
Act, such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile
organic compounds, as well as “non-criteria pollutants,” such as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
including metals and other toxic compounds. The Project is estimated to result in annual
reductions of approximately 138 tons of nitrogen oxides, 391 tons of sulfur dioxide, and
substantial quantities of other pollutants including particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide
(CO), and volatile organic compounds. In addition, unlike fossil fuel-fired energy generation,
wind power does not result in greenhouse gas emissions (such as carbon dioxide), which
generally are considered the major factor in global warming. The Project will offset
approximately 92,697 tons of carbon dioxide annually. By offsetting air pollutants and
greenhouse gases, the Project will provide a benefit to environmental resources and human
health.
The Project will also support the long-term economic viability of agricultural areas in the host
communities, enabling the primarily agricultural landowners to augment their farm incomes by
realizing the full potential of the wind asset on their lands.
2.4 Project Description and Location

The Project will be located in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County, New
York. Figure 2-1 illustrates the proposed location of the Project. The Project facilities will have a
permanent footprint of disturbance equal to approximately 60 acres. Nearly all Project facilities
would be located on individual leased land parcels located within a larger area of
approximately 7,900 acres (Project Area). However, SLW is seeking an easement from the
NYSDEC for a portion of the overhead transmission line, (approximately 1.6 miles), that would
2-4
001321
traverse the Ashland Wildlife Management Area. The Project Area will be located southeast of
the St. Lawrence River and New York State Route 12E, which generally parallels the riverbank.
As proposed, the Project and associated turbines will be located within the Agricultural
Residential District of Cape Vincent and part of the electric overhead transmission line will be
located within the Agricultural and Rural Residence District in Lyme. The Project Area extends
from approximately one-half mile from the river bank to about two and one-half miles inland and
extends from one mile south of the Village of Cape Vincent northeasterly about 10 miles
southeast of Route 12E. The overhead transmission line will extend several miles in an easterly
direction from the Project Area to an existing transmission grid substation within the Town of
Lyme. Land use in the Project Area is mostly agricultural, with farms and single family rural
residences occurring along road frontage.
The general Project Area will be served by a network of state, county and local highways and
roads that vary from two-lane highways to gravel roads. The New York State (NYS) Highway
system in and adjacent to the Project Area includes Interstate Route 81, NYS Route 12E, State
Route 12, NYS Route 180, and several County roads. The extensive road network provides
excellent site access for construction vehicles and delivery of Project equipment.
2.5 Proposed Facility Layout and Design

The following section describes the proposed Project layout as shown on Figure 2-1, and
provides a description of the major components of the Project. The St. Lawrence Windpower
Project will consist of up to 53 wind turbines, each with a nameplate capacity of 1.5 MW and a
rotor diameter of 82 meters (269 feet). All installed turbines will be the same make and model.
The Project’s installed capacity will be 79.5 MW. The Project will also require the construction
of approximately 14.4 miles of permanent gravel access roads, 37.1 miles of underground
interconnect (of which approximately 9.8 miles will be co-located adjacent to permanent access
roads), an electrical substation, and an operations and maintenance building. An approximately 9
mile long (115 kV) overhead transmission line would be constructed to connect the Project with
the existing transmission grid and electrical substation in the Town of Lyme.
The turbines will have a maximum height of approximately 395.5 feet from the tip of the rotor
blade at the uppermost position to ground level, and the rotor diameter would be 269 feet. There
is one temporary meteorological tower with guy wires currently on the site that will be removed
when Project construction is complete. There will be up to three permanent meteorological
towers located on site, the location of which will be determined after a final construction layout
is completed. Existing roads will be used to the extent feasible to bring equipment and material
to the site (see Section 3.4).
2-5
001322
The proposed location and spacing of the wind turbines and support facilities were determined
using results of a wind resource assessment, selection of a turbine model, a review of the site's
land use constraints (see Section 3.5, Land Use and Zoning), landowner preferences, and the
locations of currently existing sensitive environmental and cultural resources.
The Project will also require two substations: a collector substation, located on Swamp (Wilson)
Road approximately 0.1 miles south of its intersection with Favret Road, for low-voltage step-up
to transmission voltage; and a transmission owner interconnection facility, located south of the
Chaumont River and north of County Route 179, opposite the National Grid Lyme Substation in
the Town of Lyme. The collector substation will consolidate power from the 1500-kW wind
turbine generators, and increase the voltage level from 34.5 kV to 115 kV. The collector system
substation will receive power from feeders, through the underground collector system connected
to the 53 wind turbine generators. The collector substation will be connected to the transmission
owner interconnection substation by an approximately 9-mile 115 kV transmission line. The
main function of the interconnection substation is to mechanically connect the Project to the
utility grid and to provide fault protection.
2.5.1 Wind Turbines

Turbines used for the Project will be 1.5 MW Acciona AW-82/1500 turbines manufactured by
Acciona Windpower, S.A. Each turbine will consist of a 262-foot (80-meter) conical, tubular
steel tower; a 269-foot (82-meter) rotor consisting of three
Exhibit 2.5.1- Turbine Dimensions
composite blades; and a nacelle, which houses the generator,
gearbox, and power train as shown in Exhibit 2.5.1. The
towers are slightly tapered, with diameter of approximately
20 feet at ground level. A service platform at the top of each
section allows for access to the nacelle for routine inspection.
The nacelle houses the main mechanical components of the
WTG, which include the drive train, a gearbox and the
generator. The nacelle sits atop the tower. A large flange
protrudes from the front of the nacelle to which the hub is
bolted. The rotor blades are all bolted to this central hub.
Exhibit 2.5.2 provides a detail of the nacelle, hub and rotor
assembly. A transformer will be located near the tower base,
to raise the voltage of the electricity produced by the turbine
generator to the voltage level of the collection system. The
steel towers used for this Project will be manufactured in
2-6
001323
multiple sections. Each tower will have a locked access door and an internal safety ladder to
access the nacelle, and will be painted (off-white) to make the structure less visually obtrusive.
Specifications for the turbines are presented in Table 2-1.
Exhibit 2.5.2 - Nacelle Main Components
Table 2-1
Turbine Specifications
Type: Acciona AW 82/1500 IEC IIIb T80A LM40.3P
Manufacturer: Acciona Windpower, S.A.
Rated power: 1500 kW (1.5 MW)
Rotor manufacturer: LM
Rotor blade type: 40.3P
Rotor diameter: 82.026 m (269.114 feet)
Rotor swept area: 5281 m2
Number of rotor blades: 3
Rotor rated speed: 18.25 min-1
Hub height above ground: 80 m (~262 ft)
Measurement distance R0: 113 m (~371 ft)
2.5.2 Turbine Spacing

Development of the Project layout has been an iterative process. The first step in siting the wind
turbines for this Project was to assess the wind resource and place conceptual turbine locations
where wind would appear to be the strongest and steadiest. Appropriate buffers (see Figure 2-2)
from roads, property lines, residences, and sensitive environmental resources were taken into
account in developing the first conceptual layout. Once the conceptual layout was set, land rights
2-7
001324
specialists, environmental consultants, and engineers reviewed the possible turbine locations in
the field. Adjustments were made to the proposed turbine locations based upon land use,
environmental, and engineering considerations. Each suggested change in turbine locations based
upon field conditions must then be reviewed by a meteorologist, who ensures the adjustments in
turbine positioning will not unreasonably impact the efficiency of the layout. This review process
has been repeated multiple times over the course of Project development as additional
information has become available. Factors considered when siting the turbines include:
Wind resource assessment: In order to find the most efficient turbine sites for generating
electricity, SLW uses computer models that combined wind resource data from meteorological
towers in the Project Area with long-term weather data, topography, and environmental factors.
Sufficient spacing: Wind turbines create turbulence, or wake, immediately downstream of the
rotor. Wake can interfere with the operation of neighboring wind turbines, creating extra wear
and tear, and decreasing the efficiency of producing electricity. Using computer models, SLW
ensured that turbines were spaced correctly to avoid wake losses and turbulence.
Distance from residences: In conformance with setback comments issued by the Town of Cape
Vincent in July 2007, the turbine locations were selected to maintain a buffer of 750 feet from
the nearest outer wall of an existing occupied participating residence to the center of the tower
foundation and 1,250 feet from that of an existing occupied non-participating residence. The
turbine buffer minimizes the visual and sound effects of the turbines on local residences.
Distance from roads: The turbine locations were also selected to maintain a buffer from
existing road rights-of-way of 615 feet or 1.5 times the turbine tip height, whichever is greater.
Distance from adjacent property lines: The turbine locations were also selected to maintain a
buffer of 1,000 feet from adjacent non-participating property lines in conformance with setback
comments issued by the Town of Cape Vincent in July 2007.
Sensitive Environmental and Cultural Resources: In addition to the above the following
factors were taken in to consideration during the planning process for the facility layout:
implementation of siting guidelines developed by the New York State Department of Agriculture
and Markets (Ag & Markets), minimization of impacts to sensitive biological and cultural
resources, consideration of unusual landforms, avoidance and minimization of impacts to
wetlands and surface water bodies, and minimization of visual and noise impacts. These factors
involved evaluation of setback distances from such resources as the St. Lawrence River and Lake
2-8
001325
Ontario, the Seaway Trail Scenic Byway, historic properties listed or eligible for the State and
National Register of Historic Places, designated Coastal Zone areas including Significant Coastal
Fish and Wildlife Habitats and Local Waterfront Revitalization areas, and designated Wildlife
Management Areas.
2.5.3 Access Roads

As described in Section 3.4, most of the transportation infrastructure needed for the Project is
already in place. However, because turbine sites must be located a distance from existing roads,
it will be necessary to create access roads from the existing roadways to the turbines.
Approximately 14.4 miles of permanent access roads will be constructed. An additional 1.5
miles of temporary access roads will also be constructed to allow for construction equipment
turnaround. Turbine sites have been selected to optimize efficiency and avoid environmental
impacts. Similarly, the locations of access roads have been selected to minimize impacts to
agricultural land uses and environmental resources, and to account for engineering and
constructability concerns.
SLW is currently developing the Project construction plan, which would include transportation
considerations. Existing roads and intersections will need to be improved to accommodate
construction traffic, as described in Section 3.4. The proposed access road system is shown on
Figure 2-1. SLW would be responsible for the maintenance of new private roads.
2.5.4 Underground Interconnect Line

Electricity from the wind turbines will be generated at a specific voltage and transported through
underground cables that will connect groups of turbines together electrically. Approximately
37.1 miles of underground electrical lines will be constructed to interconnect the Project to the
collector system substation. Approximately 9.8 miles (26 percent) of these lines would be co-
located adjacent to permanent access roads. These gathering lines will feed to the collector
substation within the Project Site. At the collector substation, the electrical power from the entire
wind energy project will run through a transformer and be converted to a higher voltage
(increased from 34.5 kV to 115 kV) to allow for transmission to the proposed transmission
owner interconnection substation in Lyme and the existing system transmission grid.
2.5.5 Overhead Interconnect Line

Interconnection to the transmission grid will be accomplished through an approximately 9-mile
overhead line. The line will consist of a single circuit 115 kV line to accommodate the Project.
SLW proposes to locate the overhead line primarily following an abandoned railroad bed and
existing water line (see Figure 2-1). The transmission line will be supported by mostly wooden
2-9
001326
poles approximately 80 feet tall. The location of the poles will be determined through detailed
engineering and design. Pole locations will be designed to avoid impacts to the operation of the
water line. The overhead interconnection line will connect to an existing substation in the Town
of Lyme, owned and operated by National Grid. The Chaumont River will be crossed by an
overhead wire (conductor) crossing.
2.5.6 Substation and Interconnection Facilities

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. At the transmission owner
interconnection substation, electricity delivered will be metered and a protection system put into
place to ensure reliability and integrity of the infrastructure. SLW anticipates that structural
elements at both substations will be installed on concrete foundations. In addition, SLW
anticipates that both substations will consist of a graveled footprint area, a chain link perimeter
fence, and an outdoor lighting system. The design of the transmission owner interconnection
facilities to the 115 kV line will be finalized based on a facility study conducted by the
transmission line owner and the Exhibit 2.5.3 Electrical and Central Control System
New York Independent System
Operator (NYISO) in
accordance with the NYISO’s
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission-approved Open
Access Transmission Tariff.
The Proposed Revised Project
Layout in Figure 2-1 shows the
general routing paths of the
underground and overhead
electrical lines as well as the
proposed substation locations.
Exhibit 2.5.3 illustrates the
overall electrical collection
system schematically.
2.5.7 Meteorological Towers

A maximum of five meteorological towers will be installed during the construction and
operations phases of the Project to monitor wind resources. Towers will be permitted according
2-10
001327
to local and state requirements. Three 80-meter lattice towers will remain for the life of the
Project to collect data on wind speed and direction, and ambient temperature. They will be
supported by three to four guy wires and rest on concrete footings. In addition, two temporary
80-meter guyed lattice towers will be installed during construction to calibrate the site for power
performance testing. Two meteorological towers are currently in place: a 60-meter tubular
guided tower and an 80-meter guyed lattice tower. The 60-meter tower will be decommissioned
prior to construction.
2.6 Construction
The following section describes the various activities that will occur as part of Project
construction. Project construction will be performed in several stages and will include the
following main elements and activities:
x Clearing and grading of the temporary field construction office, substation, access roads,
crane pads, turnaround areas and turbine locations;
x Construction of access roads;
x Construction of turbine tower foundations and, if necessary, transformer pads;
x Installation of the underground interconnect lines;
x Construction of the approximately 9 miles of overhead transmission line;
x Assembly and erection of the wind turbines;
x Construction and installation of the substation;
x Plant commissioning and energizing;
x Final grading and drainage; and
x Site restoration.
Project construction will likely occur over one construction season (April through mid-December
2010) and will require the involvement of approximately 200 construction-related personnel
depending on the stage of construction. However, tree clearing and site preparation work, and
hazard tree clearing for the transmission line may occur from November 2009-April 2010.
2.6.1 Geotechnical Investigation

Prior to construction, a detailed final geotechnical investigation will be performed to identify
subsurface conditions necessary for final design and engineering of the Project. The geotechnical
investigation will include drilling test borings at designated locations to evaluate subsurface
geology and groundwater conditions, and performing field tests and geotechnical laboratory tests
on recovered samples to evaluate the physical and engineering properties of the strata
encountered. SLW will also perform engineering analyses to develop design and construction
2-11
001328
specifications for foundations, site subgrade, and fill preparation. Soil borings, or test pits as
necessary, are required at each wind turbine location, the substation, and at certain intervals
along access roads. Borings will be performed in accordance with local requirements, such as
filling boreholes with grout after testing is complete.
2.6.2 Design and Construction Specifications

The design and construction specifications are based on proven and established sets of
construction standards set forth by standard industry practice and are used to generate the impact
assumptions provided in Table 2-2. However, during detailed engineering design additional
needs and constraints may be identified, requiring that site specific plans be developed. Under
those circumstances, qualified engineers would tailor the design and construction specifications
for site-specific conditions and the area of impact required may deviate from the assumptions in
Table 2-2. For the remainder of this SDEIS, the Project Site is defined as the total area,
temporarily and permanently disturbed for the construction and operation of the Project facilities.
2.6.3 Access Road Installation

The Project will include approximately 14.4 miles of gravel access road construction. To the
greatest extent possible, SLW will use and upgrade existing roads and farm drives for use as
Project access roads in order to minimize agricultural and environmental impacts. New gravel
access roads will also be constructed. Road construction will typically involve clearing and
grubbing of the right-of-way and topsoil stripping in active agricultural areas, as necessary.
Stripped topsoil will be stockpiled along the road corridor for use in site restoration. Agricultural
protection measures will be followed so that topsoil is not mixed with subsoils or gravel. The
topsoil, when replaced, will retain its unique characteristics. These agricultural protection
measures were developed during the construction of past wind energy projects in New York and
are suggested for use by the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets.
For evaluation purposes, it is assumed that access road construction will disturb, at most, a
temporary 39-foot wide area. In certain locations, vegetation clearing activities might extend
slightly beyond the footprint of anticipated ground disturbance. Cleared vegetation will be
chipped and properly spread on-site or hauled to an off-site location for disposal or reuse.
Topsoil will then be stripped and segregated. Subsoil will then be graded, compacted, and
surfaced with gravel or crushed stone in accordance with the requirements of the wind turbine
supplier and recommendations from the geotechnical engineer. Any excess topsoil will be
stockpiled on the landowner’s property in an agreed upon location for landowner use, or be
hauled to an off-site location for disposal or reuse. Geotextile fabric or grid may be installed
2-12
001329
Table 2-2
Construction and Operations Impact Assumptions
Area of Total Disturbance Area of Permanent
Project Components (temporary and permanent) Disturbance
Wind Turbines and Workspaces
150 ft per turbine 10 ft per turbine
(radius)
Included in 150 ft workspace
Crane Pads (length x width) 100 ft x 50 ft
for each turbine
35 ft (in non-public road or
Crane Paths (width) None
access road areas only)
Access Roads (width) 39 ft 17 ft
Access Roads Temporary “T”
16 ft x 200 ft -
Turnaround Areas
2 ft wide trench per cable plus
Buried Electrical Interconnects 10 ft separation between None
additional circuits
Buried Electrical Interconnect Single Cable: 100 ft -
Work Area Multiple Cables: 150 ft -
Overhead Electrical Interconnect
100 ft 17 ft1
(width)
Meteorological Towers 1 acre per tower 0.10 acre per tower
Collection Substation/
11.5 acres 11.5 acres
Operations and Maintenance Building
Transmission Owner Substation 0.6 acres 0.6 acres
Staging Areas 12.25 acres None
Concrete Batch Plant 10 acres None
1
This represents the permanent right-of-way width to be periodically maintained where required. No permanent
access road will be created.
beneath the road surface to provide additional support, if engineering studies indicate it is
necessary. Permanent access roads will generally be 17 feet wide, including side slopes. Cross-
sections at turning radii and pull-offs to accommodate passing vehicles will be slightly wider, as
necessary for safety. Where needed to facilitate cross drainage, culverts will be placed in
wetland/stream crossings in accordance with state and federal permits. Appropriate sediment
and erosion control measures will be installed prior to construction of the Project and maintained
throughout the construction phase with specific measures addressing access road construction
near sensitive environmental resources. These measures will be described in the Project SWPPP
in the FEIS.
2-13
001330
2.6.4 Foundation Construction

Turbine foundation construction would begin only after access roads to turbine locations are
constructed. Foundation construction includes drilling, hole excavation, outer form setting, rebar
and bolt cage assembly, casting and finishing of the concrete, removal of the forms, backfilling
and compacting, if required, and foundation site area restoration.
A construction work area consisting of a temporary 150-foot radius around each turbine
foundation is necessary for wind turbine assembly and erection. This will typically involve
clearing and stripping/stockpiling topsoil. Backhoes will then excavate a foundation hole. In
agricultural areas excavated subsoil and rock will be segregated from stockpiled topsoil. If
bedrock is encountered it is anticipated it will be excavated with a backhoe. If this is not
possible, drilling, pneumatic jacking, hydraulic fracturing or blasting, as a last resort, would
excavate the bedrock. The Project geotechnical/civil engineer will specify the foundation type.
Typical wind turbine foundations are approximately 7 to 10 feet deep and approximately 50 to
60 feet across, such as the one Exhibit 2.6.1 – Typical Turbine Foundation
shown in Exhibit 2.6.1. Foundations
typically require approximately 320
cubic yards (cy) of concrete. After
the concrete is cured, it is backfilled
with the excavated on-site material.
Permanent loss of usable land will
be restricted to the tower diameter,
which for the Project is 20 feet. To
provide adequate foundation for the
erection cranes, a gravel crane pad
(approximately 100 feet by 50 feet)
will be constructed at the base of
each tower. Excess subsoil or other
excavated material generated from foundation work will be used to backfill or fine grade roads
and wind turbine erection areas. Any excess topsoil, subsoil or gravel will be stockpiled on the
landowner’s property in an agreed upon location for landowner use, or be hauled to an off-site
location for disposal or reuse.
Large quantities of concrete necessary for foundations and constraints imposed by the need for
continuous pour will require either a nearby source of concrete or an on-site cement batch plant.
The Applicant’s first preference is to contract with a local supplier to provide the concrete for
2-14
001331
turbine foundations. In the event that a local source is not available, a temporary concrete batch
plant will be installed on an approximately 10 acre parcel located in the northeast portion of the
Project. The plant would occupy only a portion of the parcel and would be surrounded by an
earthen berm to contain water runoff. It would operate during Project construction hours (10
hours per day during daylight hours, 5 to 6 days per week) for approximately 8 months. The on-
site batch plant would be provided by a local supplier and would require a stand-alone generator
that would draw fuel from a self-contained, fail-safe storage tank. The batch plant would be
supplied by water dawn from an adjacent onsite water storage tank that would be refilled as
required.
The batch plant would use stockpiled sand and aggregate stored outdoors. These stockpiles
would be placed to minimize exposure to wind and the possibility of airborne dust. Cement
would be discharged from a screw conveyor directly into an elevated storage silo. Trucks would
be loaded from the silo. Temporary concrete washout facilities will be constructed for rinsing out
concrete trucks. Concrete waste solids and liquids will be collected and disposed of properly in
accordance with the Project SWPPP and any state permit conditions. This location will be more
than 50 feet away from any storm drain, open ditch, surface water or wetland. Construction
managers would exercise good housekeeping practices and conduct regular cleanings of the
plant, storage and stockpile areas to minimize buildup of fine materials. Upon completion of
turbine construction the batch plant will be removed and the area restored.
2.6.5 Underground Interconnect Line Installation

A work area width of approximately 100 feet, centered on the interconnection route, will be
cleared prior to installation of the underground lines. The project is designed to minimize the
cutting of trees and other vegetation. This 100-foot wide corridor will be accessed by cable
installation machinery, which is not anticipated to involve excavation of soil. Electrical
interconnects will follow Project access roads whenever practicable (approximately 9.8 miles of
the approximate 37.17 miles of interconnect will be co-located adjacent to access roads). In areas
where co-location adjacent to access roads is not practical, interconnect design will follow field
edges as much as possible and avoid cutting directly across fields. Where the interconnect must
cross active agricultural fields, the location of any subsurface drainage (tile) lines will be
determined (through consultation with the landowner[s]) to ensure that these sites are not
damaged during cable installation, or, if damage is unavoidable, that the tiles are subsequently
restored. Cable plow methods using a PLC trencher will be used during the installation of
underground interconnect lines. Interconnect installation will disturb an area approximately 24
inches wide in which bundled cable will be placed at a minimum depth of 48 inches where soil
conditions allow (or 6 inches beyond the depth of bedrock). Generally, no restoration of the
2-15
001332
interconnection line is required, as the opening

Exhibit 2.6.2 – PLC Trencher
closes in on itself following installation (see Exhibit
2.6.2). Similarly, surface disturbance associated
with the passage of machinery in the 100-foot wide
work corridor will be minimal, and should not
require restoration. However, should disturbance
require surface restoration, it will be carried out
shortly after installation, and will be accomplished
by a small bulldozer, or equivalent. Any tiles that
are cut or damaged during construction of the
interconnect will be repaired during restoration.
Installation of interconnect cable via an open trench will be avoided, if possible. Areas where
open trench installation may be required include unstable slopes, excessive unconsolidated rock,
and standing or flowing water. Open trench installation would be performed with a backhoe and
would result in a disturbed trench approximately 36 inches wide and a minimum of 48 inches
deep. Excavated material would be sidecast immediately adjacent to the trench. In active
agricultural areas, agricultural protection measures in accordance with the guidelines of the New
Exhibit 2.6.3 – Typical Underground
York State Department of Agriculture and Markets will
Interconnect Installation be followed (Appendix A); and the cable will be placed
at a minimum depth of 48 inches or 6 inches beyond the
depth of bedrock (Exhibit 2.6.3). Replacement of
excavated material will occur immediately after
installation of the underground interconnect. Any
damaged tiles will be repaired, and all areas adjacent to
the open trench would be restored to original grades and
surface condition.
Although not currently anticipated, portions of the

interconnect could be installed aboveground.
Aboveground installation would be indicated when burial would not be economically feasible or
could result in significant environmental impacts. If that occurs, the interconnect would be
installed aboveground on treated wood utility poles.
2.6.6 Wind Turbine Assembly and Erection

Wind turbines consist of three main components: the tower, the nacelle, and the rotor blades.
Turbine components will be delivered to the Project Site on uncovered transport trucks. Turbine
2-16
001333
erection is typically performed in six stages: (1) setting of the electrical components in the
foundation, (2) erection of the tower, (3) erection of the nacelle, (4) assembly and erection of the
rotor, (5) connection and termination of the internal cables, and (6) inspection and testing of the
electrical system.
Turbine assembly and erection is performed with large track mounted cranes, smaller rough
terrain cranes, boom trucks and rough terrain fork-lifts for loading and off-loading materials. The
erection crane(s) will move from one tower to another along a designated crane path. This path
will generally follow existing public roads and Project access roads, but in a few places may
traverse open fields. If this approach is not feasible, topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled in
accordance with agricultural protection measures and 39-foot-wide temporary roads will be
installed in these areas. In addition, the use of construction mats will be considered during
constructability review of the Project. The crane may also be partially disassembled and carried
by a flatbed tractor-trailer, but this is inefficient and expensive.
After a turbine is erected, site restoration activities will begin. Restoration of crane paths will
include removal of temporary fill and gravel materials. In agricultural fields, restoration will also
include subsoil de-compaction (as necessary) and rock removal, spreading of stockpiled topsoil,
and re-establishing pre-construction contours. Exposed soils at restored tower sites and along
roads and crane paths will be stabilized by seeding with native species and/or mulching.
2.6.7 Substations
Construction of two substations will be required for the Project, a collection substation for low-
voltage step-up to transmission voltage located in the southwest portion of the Project and
transmission owner interconnection facilities at the National Grid Substation located in the Town
of Lyme. The collection substation will be located on an approximately 11.5-acre parcel in the
Town of Cape Vincent, and co-located with the facility’s Operations & Maintenance building.
This substation will be accessed by Swamp (Wilson) Road. The substation construction area will
be cleared, grubbed, and graded. Concrete foundations and gravel surfacing will be placed prior
to the installation of the electrical infrastructure. The substation will include a gravel parking
area and be enclosed by a chain link fence. The main elements of the collection substation
include a control house, a power transformer, outdoor medium-voltage and high-voltage
breakers, relaying and protection equipment, high-voltage bus work, steel support structures,
overhead lightning suppression conductors, and a sub-surface grounding grid.
The transmission owner interconnection substation will be located across the street from the
existing Lyme substation on Route 179, in the town of Lyme. The main elements of the
2-17
001334
transmission owner interconnection substation include a control house, utility-quality metering,

outdoor high-voltage breakers, relaying equipment, 115 kV bus work, dead-end steel support
structures, overhead lightning suppression conductors, and a sub-surface grounding grid.
2.6.8 Overhead Transmission Line

The temporary construction right-of-way for the overhead transmission line may be up to 100
feet, as necessary for construction equipment. The construction right-of-way will be cleared and
grubbed. The construction right-of-way will serve as access for construction vehicles.
Additional access to the work area will include use of existing farm roads and drives. To the
extent new access roads are necessary, the siting criteria described in Section 2.6.3 will be
employed. Construction vehicles and equipment will then set the Exhibit 2.6.4 – Typical
treated wood utility poles and associated transmission infrastructure. Overhead Line Pole
Later, stringing crews will install electrical cable on the utility poles
(see Exhibit 2.6.4). The system will be tested prior to energizing the
wind generating facility. Restoration of the construction right-of-
way will be done as required through use of agricultural protection
measures. The final overhead transmission line right-of-way will be
identified post-construction on as-built drawings which will be filed
with the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme.
The proposed overhead transmission line will deviate from the old
railroad bed approximately 0.1 miles northwest of Old Town Springs
Road in the Town of Lyme. At this point it will turn 90 degrees and
head in a generally northeast direction for approximately 0.6 miles,
at which point it will turn 90 degrees and head in a generally
southeast direction crossing the Chaumont River and connecting to
the existing National Grid Substation in the Town of Lyme. The
Chaumont River will be crossed by an overhead wire (conductor).
Existing shrubs and trees will be cleared and chipped, or hauled
from the right-of-way corridor. Single trees or small clusters of trees within the proposed right-
of-way will be avoided and will not require removal. Tree clearing adjacent to the transmission
line will be limited to “danger trees” associated with the electric transmission line conductors.
“Danger trees” adjacent to the transmission line that pose a threat to the reliability of the
overhead line include trees that could fall or strike the conductors and take the transmission line
out of service. These trees will be selectively cut by hand (i.e., non-mechanized clearing) to
avoid heavy equipment access and adverse impacts to adjacent wetlands.
2-18
001335
2.6.9 Operations and Maintenance Facility

The proposed Operations and Maintenance Facility will be located on an approximately 11.5-
acre parcel in the Town of Cape Vincent. The facility will be accessed from Swamp Road. The
facility construction area will be cleared, grubbed, and graded. Concrete foundations and gravel
surfacing will be completed prior to the installation of the infrastructure. The facility will include
a gravel parking area.
2.6.10 Environmental Construction Compliance

An environmental construction compliance program will be prepared by SLW and implemented
prior to and during construction. At a minimum, this program will consist of the following
components:
x Planning – Compilation of all environmental requirements into a construction
environmental management implementation document.
x Training – All contractors and subcontractors will attend an environmental training
program prior to the start of construction. Throughout construction, new crews will also
receive Environmental Training. Retraining in specific areas will occur periodically, as
needed, during construction.
x Preconstruction Coordination – The Environmental Inspector, Contractor and any
Subcontractors will conduct a site walkover of areas to be affected by construction
activities identifying landowner restrictions, sensitive resources (biological, geological,
and cultural), limits of clearing, proposed stream crossings, location of drainage features,
and layout of sediment and erosion control features. A pre-construction checklist will be
completed during the walkover. Wetland and any other sensitive resource features will be
flagged in the field prior to construction. The limits of work areas, especially in
agricultural areas, will also be defined.
x Inspection During Construction Operations – The Environmental Inspector will visit each
construction work site at least once per day and will be present during construction at
environmentally sensitive areas.
x Reporting and Agency Audits/Inspections – As required, weekly, monthly, or quarterly
reports will be prepared for the federal, state, and local agencies that monitor compliance.
x Restoration – An environmental "punch list" will be created based upon the restoration
requirements in the permits to ensure that restoration activities occur as required.
2.7 Operations and Maintenance Plan

The Project will be operated and maintained by SLW. Once operational, the Project will be
almost completely automated. SLW will employ a staff of four to six full-time
administrative/operations and maintenance personnel.
2-19
001336
Electrical power generated by the wind turbines will be collected through a network of
underground cables. Overhead cables would be used as a last resort, if necessary due to
environmental or geological concerns. Turbines will be grouped along individual electrical
circuits that terminate at the Project’s collection substation, where the voltage level will be
increased from 34.5 kV to 115 kV. The wind turbines will be equipped with sophisticated
computer control systems which constantly monitor variables such as wind speed and direction,
air and machine temperatures, electrical voltages, currents, vibrations, blade pitch and yaw
angles, etc. The main functions of the control system include nacelle and power operations.
Nacelle functions monitored include yawing (or rotating) the nacelle into the wind, pitching the
blades, and braking. Power operations controlled at the bus cabinet inside the base of each tower
include operations of the main breakers to engage the generator with the grid as well as control
of ancillary breakers and systems. The control system continually monitors the turbines to
assure their efficient and safe operation.
In the event of turbine or plant facility outages, the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) system would send alarm messages to the on-call technician via pager or cell phone to
notify him of the outage (see Exhibit 2.5.3 for a schematic of the electrical and control system).
The Project will always have an on-call local technician who can respond quickly in the event of
emergency notification or critical outage.
Wind turbines will receive scheduled preventative maintenance inspections. In certain

circumstances, heavy maintenance equipment such as a lifting crane might be required to
effectively repair an exposed turbine problems (such as, in rare instances, nacelle component
replacement).
2.8 Decommissioning
The projected life of the project is 20 years. After the end of the Project’s life, the wind turbines
may be replaced or repaired for continued operation. Except for the underground collection
system, which is provided for under a perpetual easement, SLW’s lease agreements with the
landowners provide that all wind Project facilities will be removed to a depth of four feet below
grade following the end of the Project’s useful life. The following sections provide descriptions
of the decommissioning and restoration processes.
2.8.1 Decommissioning Process Description

All decommissioning and restoration activities will adhere to the requirements of appropriate
governing authorities, and will be in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local
2-20
001337
permits. The decommissioning process will be carried out and completed within 12 months after
the end of the useful life of the Project. The Project will be presumed to be at the end of its
useful life if no electricity is generated for a continuous period of 12 months.
The decommissioning and restoration process comprises removal of above-ground structures,

removal of below-ground structures to a depth of 48 inches or greater, removal of access roads if
required by the landowner, restoration of topsoil, re-vegetation and seeding, and a two year
monitoring and remediation period.
Above-ground structures include the turbines, transformers, overhead collection lines, wind farm
owned portions of the substation, maintenance buildings, and access gates. Below-ground
structures include turbine foundations, collection system conduits, drainage structures, and
access road sub-base material.
The process of removing structures involves evaluating and categorizing all components and
materials into categories of recondition and reuse, salvage, recycling, and disposal. In the interest
of increased efficiency and minimal transportation impacts, components and material may be
stored on site in a pre-approved location until the bulk of similar components or materials are
ready for transport. The components and material will be transported to the appropriate facilities
for reconditioning, salvage, recycling, or disposal. The sequence for removal of the system
components would be: turbines, turbine foundations, underground collection cables, substation,
and access roadways and construction pads. The remainder of the decommissioning would
involve earthwork and topsoil restoration.
2.8.1.1 Turbine Removal

The modular nature of wind turbine towers, blades, and generators allows for relative ease in the
removal, reconditioning, and reinstallation. Access roads to turbines will be widened to
sufficient width to accommodate movement of appropriate sized cranes or other machinery
required for the disassembly and removal of the turbines. Control cabinets, electronic
components, and internal cables will be removed. The blades, hub and nacelle will be lowered to
grade for disassembly. The tower sections will be lowered to the ground where they will be
further disassembled into transportable sections. The blades, hub, nacelle, and tower sections will
either be transported whole for reconditioning and reuse or dissembled into salvageable,
recyclable, or disposable components.
2-21
001338
2.8.1.2 Turbine Foundation Removal

The decommissioning of the turbine foundations will consist of sufficiently excavating
completely around the foundations to provide access to, and a working platform around, the
foundation pad. Topsoil will be removed from an area surrounding the foundation and stored for
later replacement. Turbine foundations will be excavated to a depth sufficient to remove all
anchor bolts, rebar, conduits, cable, and concrete to a depth of 48 inches below grade. Each
foundation pad will be removed to a depth of 48 inches and properly disposed of. The remaining
excavation will be filled with clean sub-grade material of quality comparable to the immediate
surrounding area. The sub-grade material will be compacted to a density similar to surrounding
sub-grade material. All unexcavated areas compacted by equipment used in decommissioning
will be de-compacted in a manner to restore the topsoil and sub-grade material to the proper
density consistent and compatible with the surrounding area. The turbine site will ultimately be
revegetated with a seed mix chosen by the landowner.
2.8.1.3 Underground Collection Cables

The cables and conduits contain no materials known to be harmful to the environment and will
be cut back to a depth greater than 48 inches. All cable and conduit buried greater than 48 inches
will be left in place and abandoned.
2.8.1.4 Overhead Collection Lines

The conductors will be removed and stored in a pre-approved location. The supporting poles will
be removed and the holes filled in with compatible sub-grade material. In areas where
environmental damage from complete removal may outweigh the benefits, the poles will be
sawed flush with the surrounding grade (determined by appropriate governing authority). The
poles will be stored in a pre-approved location. Stored conductors and poles will be later
removed and transported to appropriate facilities for salvage or disposal.
2.8.1.5 Substations
Disassembly of the substations will include only the areas owned by the Applicant (any System
Upgrades made by the Applicant and conveyed to the New York Power Authority or any
improvements made to the local National Grid distribution system will remain in place). Steel,
conductors, switches, transformers, etc. will be reconditioned and reused, sold as scrap, recycled,
or disposed of appropriately depending upon market value. Foundations and underground
components will be removed to a depth of 48 inches and the excavation filled, contoured, and re-
vegetated.
2-22
001339
2.8.1.6 Access Roads and Construction Pads

Depending on permit requirements and terms of the land lease agreements, the Applicant will
coordinate with each landowner to determine whether access roads or construction pads will
remain in place. The Applicant will also seek recommendations from the NYS Department of
Agriculture and Markets. The applicant will work with the landowner and the NYS Department
of Agriculture and Markets to resolve any differences between the agency’s recommendations
and a landowner’s preferences with respect to leaving a specific Project component in place.
After decommissioning activities at a turbine site are completed, access road and construction
pad removal will commence. The decommissioning process for access roadways will involve
excavation and transportation of the gravel materials to a nearby quarry or aggregate preparation
site for reprocessing. The geotextile fabric will be removed and properly disposed. Gravel will
be removed from access roads and construction pads and transported to a pre-approved disposal
location. Drainage structures integrated with the access road or construction pad will be removed
and backfilled with sub-grade material, the topsoil replaced, and the surface contoured and re-
vegetated.
Access gates will remain operational until completion of decommissioning, at which time they
will be removed unless requested by the landowner that they remain. Ditch crossings connecting
access roads to public roads will be removed unless requested that they remain by the landowner.
Improvements to Town and County roads that were not removed after construction at the request
of the Town or County will likely remain in place.
2.8.2 Site Restoration Process Description

Topsoil will be removed and stockpiled prior to removal of structures from work areas. Prior to
topsoil replacement, rocks 4 inches or greater will be removed from the surface of the subsoil.
The topsoil will be de-compacted to match the density and consistency of the immediate
surrounding area. The topsoil will be replaced to original depth and original surface contours
reestablished where possible. Rocks 4 inches or larger will be removed from the surface of the
topsoil. Any topsoil deficiency and trench settling will be mitigated by importing topsoil
consistent with the quality of soil at the affected site.
In accordance with guidelines provided by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets, topsoil de-compaction and replacement will be avoided after October 1, unless
approved by the landowner in consultation with Ag. and Markets because areas restored after
October 1st may not obtain sufficient growth to prevent erosion over the winter months. If areas
2-23
001340
are restored after October 1st, provision will be made to restore eroded areas in the springtime to
establish proper growth.
Following decommissioning activities, the sub-grade material and topsoil from affected
agricultural areas will be de-compacted and restored to a density and depth consistent with the
surrounding fields or to a depth of 18 inches. The affected areas will be inspected, thoroughly
cleaned, and debris removed.
Disturbed soil surfaces within agricultural fields will be seeded with a seed mix agreed upon
with the landowner in order to maintain consistency with the surrounding agricultural uses. Other
disturbed areas will be restored to a condition and forage density reasonably similar to original
condition. Restoration will include, as reasonably required, leveling, terracing, mulching, and
other necessary steps to prevent soil erosion, to ensure establishment of suitable grasses and
forbs, and to control noxious weeds and pests.
In accordance with the guidelines of the New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets, a monitoring and remediation period of two years immediately following the
completion of any decommissioning and restoration activities will be provided. The two-year
period allows for the effects of climatic cycles such as frost action, precipitation and growing
seasons to occur from which various monitoring determinations can be made. Remaining
agricultural impacts can be identified during this period and follow-up restoration efforts will be
implemented.
In addition, agricultural protection measures will be implemented in accordance with New York
State Agriculture and Market guidelines as included as Appendix A. These mitigation measures
will include:
x Avoiding disturbance of surface and subsurface drainage features (e.g., diversions,
ditches, tile lines).
x Prohibiting vehicular access to turbine sites until topsoil has been stripped and permanent
access roads have been constructed.
x Stockpiling topsoil from work areas separate from all other excavated material (e.g.,
gravel, subsoil).
x Removing excess subsoil and gravel and transporting them off-site for disposal or reuse.
x Temporarily fencing work areas in active pastureland to protect livestock.
2-24
001341
x Removing and disposing of all construction debris offsite at the completion of

restoration.
x Restricting heavy equipment to designated access roads, crane paths, and work pads at
the structure sites for all breakdown activities.
x Restoring agricultural land based on a seasonal schedule.
x Decompacting all disturbed agricultural areas to a depth of 18 inches after construction.
x Grading decommissioned access roads to allow for farm equipment crossing and to
restore original surface drainage patterns.
x Stabilizing restored agricultural areas with seed and/or mulch.
x Repairing all surface or subsurface drainage structures damaged during construction.
x Providing a monitoring and remediation plan of no less than two years immediately
following completion of the final restoration.
2.8.3 Cost of Decommissioning
The following discussion describes the estimated cost of decommissioning in current dollars and
does not represent an absolute value of decommissioning costs at the end of the project life.
Based on recent estimates for similar projects, a reasonable presumption of salvage or resale
value of the above ground wind turbine components is between 5 to 10 percent of the new
turbine value. The most conservative figure of 5 percent salvage or resale value
($1,650,000/turbine x 0.05 or $82,500/turbine) for the wind turbine components will essentially
pay for the removal of all components, including; turbine, foundations, electrical equipment,
access roads, and crane pads. As a worst-case scenario, the above ground turbine components
may be independently sold and removed with the surface and subsurface components remaining
to be decommissioned.
Decommissioning turbine foundations was estimated at approximately $2,000 per unit for
mobilization and excavation, and $15,000 per unit for transportation. Removal of access roads
and crane/construction pads were estimated based on $0.50 per square yard for removing
geotextile fabric, and $8.00 per cubic yard for pit-run gravel and crushed gravel. Salvage values
for the items removed during access road and crane pad decommissioning were based on an
applied recovery value factor of 0 percent for geotextile fabric, 50 percent for pit-run gravel and
75 percent for crushed gravel using a base material value of $8.50 per cubic yard. Earth work
2-25
001342
and soil restoration estimates were based on unit costs of $7.50 and $10.00 per cubic yard,
respectively.
Based on the above assumptions, the estimated cost of decommissioning the wind turbines will
be offset by the salvage value of the towers and the turbine components. Table 2.3 provides the
estimated decommissioning cost per tower, in current dollars, in comparison to the salvage value
of Project turbines. The estimated cost of decommissioning and expected salvage value of wind
components will be reassessed and certified by a Professional Engineer at appropriate intervals
throughout operation of the project. SLW will pay for any costs of decommissioning that are
not covered by the salvage value.
Table 2.3
Decommissioning Costs Summary
a
Component Total
Salvage Values
Turbine Components Salvage Value $4,372,500
Decommissioning Costs
Turbine Removal $0
Turbine Foundation Removal $901,000
Access Roadway Removal $199,866
Crane/Construction Pad Removal $40,977
Cable Removal $0
Earthwork & Topsoil $114,506
Subtotal Decommissioning Cost $1,256,349
Salvage Value Less Decommissioning Costs $3,116,151
Total Salvage Value Per Turbine (53) $58,795.31

a
values are based on current costs and do not assume any
inflation costs or other fluctuations.
2.9 Regulatory Approvals

Development of the Project would require permits, approvals, and consultations with local, state,
and federal agencies. The permits and approvals that are expected to be required are listed in
Table 2-4.
2.10 Public and Agency Involvement

Extensive agency interaction and public outreach preceded and followed the formal submittal of
the DEIS in January 2007 and preparation of this SDEIS. The Applicant has had numerous
informational sessions, meetings, and discussions with the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme
regarding the Project. Several formal and informal meetings have been held with the Town
2-26
001343
Table 2-4
Towns
Administration of SEQRA Process, and issuance of findings (as Lead Agency
Town of Cape Vincent under SEQRA)
Planning Board Site Plan Approval for construction of wind energy project and transmission line
to Town boundary
Zoning Permit
Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance
Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements
Town of Lyme
Planning Board
Town of Lyme Special Use Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other land use considerations
Zoning Board of Appeals for construction of transmission line to substation
Town of Lyme Issuance of building permits
Departments Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements
Jefferson County
Completion of a NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-m review and issuance
Planning Department
of recommendations
Highway Department County road work permits
New York State
ECL Article 17 SPDES General Permit for construction stormwater discharges
including creation of SWPPP and SPCC/Oil Contingency Plans (6NYCRR Part
750)
Conservation
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (6NYCRR Part 608)
Issuance of SEQRA Findings as an involved agency
Department of State
Department of Transportation Special Use Permit for oversize/overweight vehicles, Highway work permits.
Participation in SEQRA Process as an interested agency
Agricultural District Law Article 25AA, Section 305-a
Department of Agriculture & Markets
Coordination of local planning and land use decision-making with the agricultural
districts program
Public Service Commission Participation in SEQRA Process as an interested agency
Federal Agencies
USACE Nationwide Section 10 Permit for aerial crossing of the Chaumont River.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit for placement of fill in federal
OSHA
construction).
2-27
001344
Boards and Town Planning Boards. In addition, SLW has met with various township, county
and regional agencies, and organizations throughout the project development process, including
local historians and councilman, the Cape Vincent Fire Department, Thousand Island Central
School Superintendent, Save The River, Thousand Islands Land Trust, the Development
Authority of North County (DANC), and Region 6 NYSDEC Wildlife Offices in Brownville and
Watertown.
The Applicant also opened an office in the Town of Cape Vincent in the fall of 2006 that is open
4 days a week, providing the opportunity for the general public to obtain information and ask
questions about the Project. To further inform the Public, SLW has also created a website
(www.stlawrencewind.com), which provides an additional opportunity for interested parties to
learn about the Project and submit comments. Posted on the website are the DEIS, results of
studies, a transcript of the first public hearing, and comments received during and after the first
public hearing and comment period.
The Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board held its first public hearing on the DEIS on March
24, 2007. The public comment period on the DEIS extended through June 15, 2007.
The first Open House meeting with local residents was held in June 2007 and an additional
public information session regarding the proposed Project was held on August 28, 2008. SLW
has also had numerous meetings with participating landowners and project neighbors, and the
Project has been covered by articles in local newspapers, as well as stories carried by local radio
and TV stations.
A further important aspect of the Applicant’s interactions with involved and interested agencies
has been the meetings held with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC), New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, New York Department of
Transportation, New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These meetings were
initiated by the Applicant in order to obtain feedback and additional comments on the Project’s
various components.
2-28
001345
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

3.1 Soils, Topography and Geological Resources
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
3.1.1.1 Surficial Geology
The surficial geology of the Project Area was mapped by the New York State Geological Survey
(Cadwell et al., 1991). Based upon an evaluation of the maps (including Figure 3-1), the surficial
geology of the Project Area consists primarily of glaciolacustrine lake, silts, and clays. As
glaciers from the last Ice Age melted from south to north, they filled low-lying areas with water,
which became inundated with silts and clays. A small portion of the Project Area consists of peat
muck (swamp deposits) which are poorly drained areas consisting of organic silts and sands.
One proposed wind turbine location (No. 45) lies within the designated peat muck area; however,
according to the Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York (McDowell, 1989), this area does
not include hydric soils. Local areas may also consist of mixed glacial and residual soils
weathered from the underlying limestone bedrock. The thickness of glacial soils is expected to
vary widely across the site from very shallow to very deep (McDowell, 1989).
3.1.1.2 Bedrock Geology

The proposed Project Area is located in the Ontario Lowlands Physiographic Province, which
includes sedimentary rocks (Cambrian and Ordovician) of the Lower Paleozoic age. The
underlying bedrock (Figure 3-2) is composed of rocks of the Trenton group (Trenton Limestone)
and Black River Group (Lowville Limestone and Watertown Limestone) (Ruedemann, 1908).
The New York State Geological Survey indicates that the primary mineral resources of Jefferson
County include crushed stone, construction gravel, and topsoil. The New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Mined Land Database (NYSDEC, 2006b) records
commercial mining around the proposed Project Area. The mineral resource mined in the
vicinity of the Project Area is carbonate rock (limestone), which can be used in the construction
industry for concrete or highway paving materials. The Project is not anticipated to impact these
resources.
A review of United States Geological Survey and New York State Geological publications did
not identify any specific geological hazards within the Project Area. Because the Project Area is
located mainly on lowlands and consists predominantly of glacial till, there is no possibility of
landslides. Review of topographic maps (Figure 2-1) and aerial photographs of the Project Site
(Figure 3-3) revealed no evidence of landslides. While no limestone (karst) hazards are mapped,
the Trenton and Black River Groups are composed of carbonate rocks that are susceptible to
dissolution and sinkhole formation. Caverns have been mapped in the Project Area and mapping
3-1
001346
has indicated numerous closed depressions. Due to its particular characteristics, including an
irregular bedrock surface, the presence of large voids and rapid underground drainage, 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 will be investigated for karst and other dissolution features as part of the
geotechnical investigation(s) prior to construction.
The Project Area lies in a zone of relatively low seismic risk. The maximum earthquake ground
motion is expected to be 0.20 times the acceleration due to gravity (0.20g) for 0.20 second
response acceleration and 0.08g to 0.11g for one second response acceleration (Building Code of
New York State, 2002).
Based upon the soils information and geologic setting, surficial conditions in the Project Area
vary from shallow hard rock to deeper organic soils. Soils located in the Project Site include the
hydrologic groups B, C, and D. Detailed geotechnical investigations will be conducted to assess
the specific conditions for each proposed wind turbine location.
3.1.1.3 Soils Designations

The Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York (McDowell, 1989) indicates that the Project
Area is underlain by 26 soil series, comprising several soil types of similar developmental origin.
These soil series consist predominantly of silt loams and loams of glacial origin. The soil survey
indicates that the soils in and around the Project Area vary from shallow to very deep and have
been formed from glacial till derived from the underlying limestone. The soils identified within
the Project Area are presented in Figure 3-4. The soil series listed in the legend of Figure 3-4 are
designated by a two letter code, followed by a third letter indicating the degree of slope, and,
when data are available, by a number that indicates the degree of erosion. The primary soil types
underlying the Project Area include the following:
Benson (Bg)
The Benson series consist of nearly level to gently sloping, shallow and very shallow, somewhat
excessively drained soils. These soils are mainly in broad, undulating areas interspersed with
rock outcrops on ridges. Typically, the surface layer is dark brown channery silt loam about 3
inches thick. The subsoil is reddish brown and dark reddish brown, very channery silt loam about
9 inches thick. Bedrock is commonly at a depth of 10 to 20 inches. Most of these soils are used
as permanent pasture or cedar woodland, or are reverting to brush. This soil is generally not
suited for cultivated crops. The rate of runoff on the Benson soils is medium, and the capacity of
3-2
001347
these soils to store water available for plant growth is very low. The primary soils mapped within
the areas of the proposed Project are BgB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 0% to 8% in the
vicinity of proposed turbine Nos. 10 and 19.
Chatfield (Ch)
The Chatfield series are moderately deep and well drained soils of hills and ridges. Depth to
bedrock is 20 to 40 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 30 inches of loam over un-weathered
bedrock. The parent material consists of loamy till derived mainly from granite, gneiss, or schist.
Available water capacity is low to moderate and water movement in the most restrictive layer is
moderately high. Depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than 60 inches. The soils
mapped within the Project Area include ChB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 0% to 8%.
Chaumont (Cl)
The Chaumont series consist of level to gently sloping, moderately deep and somewhat poorly
drained soils in concave, sloping areas of lowland plains. Typically, the surface layer is dark
grayish brown silty clay about 5 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and about 22 inches thick.
It is grayish brown to dark grayish brown clay in the upper part and dark grayish brown silty clay
in the lower part. Bedrock is commonly at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. Most areas of this soil type
have been cleared and are used for cultivated crops. Some areas are used as pasture and
woodland; as a result drainage is needed in extensively cropped areas. The rate of water
movement through the soil is slow or very slow, and runoff is slow. The capacity of the soil to
store water available for plant growth is moderate to high. The surface layer is moderately acidic
to neutral. The soils mapped within the Project Area include ClA and ClB (see Figure 3-4) and
have slopes of 0% to 3% and 3% to 8%, respectively. These soil types occur in the vicinity of
proposed turbine Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 18, 20, 23, 24 and 25.
Claverack (Cm)
The Claverack series are very deep and moderately well drained soils of lake plains. Depth to
bedrock is from 20 to 40 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 8 inches of loamy fine sand
over 13 inches of fine sand over 39 inches of silty clay to silty clay loam. The parent material
consists of sandy glaciolacustrine deposits, derived primarily from non-calcareous sandstone or
granite, which overlies clayey glaciolacustrine deposits. Available water capacity is very low and
water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Depth to the seasonal high water table is
about 18 to 24 inches. The soils mapped within the Project Area include CmB (see Figure 3-4)
and have slopes of 3% to 8%. This soil series occurs within the vicinity of proposed turbine Nos.
46 and 47.
3-3
001348
Collamer (Cn)
The Collamer series are very deep and moderately well drained soils of lake plains. Depth to
bedrock is greater than 60 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 18 inches of silt loam over 14
inches of silty clay loam over stratified silt loam to very fine sand to clay. The parent material
consists of silty and clayey glaciolacustrine deposits. Available water capacity is high and water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low or moderately high. Depth to the
seasonal high water table ranges from 18 to 24 inches. The soils mapped within the Project Area
include CnB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 3% to 8%. This soil series occurs within the
vicinity of proposed turbine No. 39.
Covington (Cp)
The Covington series consist of nearly level, very deep, poorly drained soils in smooth, broad,
mostly level areas and depressions of the lowland plains. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent, but
are predominantly less than 1 percent. Typically, the surface layer is very dark silty clay about 6
inches thick. The subsoil is mottled, about 26 inches thick, and consists of dark gray to grayish
brown clay. The substratum is mottled, gray firm, sticky and plastic silty clay to a depth of 60
inches or more. Most areas of this soil type have been cleared and are used for cultivated crops.
The rate of water movement through the soil is slow or very slow in the surface layer and very
slow in the subsoil and the substratum; in addition, runoff is slow. The capacity of the soil to
store water available for plant growth is moderate to high. The surface layer is moderately acidic
to neutral. Bedrock is commonly at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. The prolonged seasonal high
water table, the clayey texture, slow rate of water movement through the soil, poor stability, and
potential frost action are limitations of this soil for urban uses. This soil series is considered
hydric and occurs in the vicinity of proposed turbine Nos. 7, 11, 16, 17, 27 and 28 (see Figure 3-
4).
Dumps (Dp)
The Dump series represent miscellaneous areas having essentially no soil and supporting little or
no vegetation. These areas consist of smoothed or uneven accumulations or piles of waste rock
and general refuse typically resulting from human activities. This series is well drained and has
slopes of 0% to 15%. This soils series occurs in only one location adjacent to the Project Area:
a triangular shaped area bounded by the proposed overhead transmission line to the southwest,
the substation/operations and maintenance building to the northwest, and the temporary
construction work area to the northeast. This property is currently used as a municipal transfer
site for refuse and recycling. It accepts trash, furniture, appliances and construction debris for a
fee; and brush, grass clippings, tree limbs and recyclables at no charge. Refuse is separated and
3-4
001349
stockpiled on-site prior to transfer to Rodman, New York (trash) or the Jefferson County
Recycling Center in Watertown (recyclables).
Elmridge (El)
The Elmridge series are very deep and moderately well-drained soils of lake plains. Depth to
bedrock is between 20 and 40 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 23 inches of fine sandy
loam over 37 inches of silty clay. The parent material consists of loamy over clayey
glaciolacustrine or marine deposits. Available water capacity is moderate and water movement in
the most restrictive layer is high. Depth to the seasonal high water table ranges from 18 to 30
inches. The soils mapped within the Project Area include ElA and ElB (see Figure 3-4) and have
slopes of 0% to 3% and 3% to 8%, respectively. This soil series occurs within the vicinity of
proposed turbine No. 42.
Farmington (Fa)
The Farmington series are shallow and well drained soils of benches, ridges and till plains. Depth
to bedrock is between 10 and 20 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 19 inches of loam over
four inches of un-weathered bedrock. The parent material consists of loamy till or congeliturbate
derived from limestone, dolomite, shale, and sandstone, and in many places mixed with wind and
water deposits. Available water capacity is very low and water movement in the most restrictive
layer is very low. Depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than 60 inches. The soils
mapped within the Project Area include FaB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 0% to 8%. This
soil series occurs within the vicinity of proposed turbine Nos. 4 and 19.
Fluvaquents (Fu)
The Fluvaquents series are very deep and poorly drained soils of floodplains. Depth to bedrock is
greater than 60 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 5 inches of mucky silt loam over 67
inches of very gravelly sand. The parent material consists of alluvium with highly variable
texture. Available water capacity is moderate and water movement in the most restrictive layer is
moderately low. Depth to the seasonal high water table is 0 inches and annual flooding is
frequent. Slopes of this series range from 0% to 3%. This soil series is considered hydric and
occurs in the vicinity of proposed turbine No. 14 (see Figure 3-4).
Galen (Ga)
The Galen series are very deep and moderately well drained soils of deltas on lake plains. Depth
to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 26 inches of fine sandy
loam over 14 inches of loamy fine sand over 20 inches of stratified fine sand to very fine sand.
The parent material consists of deltaic deposits with a high content of fine and very fine sand.
3-5
001350
Available water capacity is moderate and water movement in the most restrictive layer is
moderately high. Depth to the seasonal high water table ranges from 18 to 24 inches. The soils
mapped within the Project Area include GaB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 3% to 8%.
Galoo (Gb)
The Galoo series consist of very shallow excessively drained and somewhat excessively drained
soils. The areas are mainly on undulating ridges and knolls. The Galoo soil is 2 to 10 inches deep
over limestone of calcareous sandstone bedrock. Typically, the surface layer consists of dark
brown silt loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is reddish brown channery silt loam to a depth
of 7 inches. Most of the areas used as pasture are reverting to brush, or are poor quality
woodlands. This soil is not suited to cultivated crops because of the very shallow depth to
bedrock, droughtness and rock outcroppings. The rate of water movement through the soil is
moderate, and the runoff rate is slow or medium. The capacity of the soil to store water available
for plant growth is very low. The surface layer is moderately acidic to mildly alkaline. Soils
mapped within the Project Area include GbB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 0% to 8%.
This soil series occurs within the vicinity of proposed turbine No. 3.
Galway (Gl)
The Galway series are moderately deep and well drained soils of benches, ridges and till plains.
Depth to bedrock ranges from 20 to 40 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 9 inches of silt
loam over 20 inches of gravelly loam to very gravely loam over un-weathered bedrock. The
parent material consists of calcareous loamy till. Available water capacity is moderate and water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Depth to the seasonal high water table
is greater than 60 inches. The soils mapped within the Project Area include GlB and GmC (see
Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 3% to 8% and 0% to 15% slopes, respectively.
Guffin (Gv)
The Guffin series are moderately deep and poorly drained soils of depressions. Depth to bedrock
ranges from 20 to 40 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 22 inches of clay over un-
weathered bedrock. The parent material consists of clayey glaciolacustrine deposits or
glaciomarine deposits. Available water capacity is low and water movement in the most
restrictive layer is moderately low. Depth to the seasonal high water table is 0 inches and annual
ponding is occasional. Slopes of this series range from 0% to 3%. This soil series is considered
hydric and occurs in the vicinity of proposed turbine Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 48 (see Figure 3-4).
Hudson (Hu)
The Hudson series consist of gently sloping to steep, very deep, moderately well drained soils
mainly in smooth, irregularly shaped areas and on convex slopes. Typically, the surface layer
3-6
001351
consists of brown silt loam about 8 inches thick. The subsurface is mottled brown silt loam
about 4 inches thick, and the subsoil is mottled and approximately 47 inches thick. It is brown to
dark brown silty clay in the middle part and yellowish brown silt loam in the lower part. Most
areas of this soil have been cleared and used for cultivated crops for dairy farming. The rate of
water movement through the soil is moderately slow or moderate in the surface layer, and slow
or very slow in the subsoil and the substratum; in addition, the runoff is medium. The capacity of
the soil to store water available for plant growth is moderate to high. The surface layer is
moderately acidic to neutral. Erosion is a serious hazard if the slopes are bare of vegetation.
Mapped soils in the Project Area include HuB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 3% to 8%.
This soil series occurs within the vicinity of proposed turbine Nos. 32 through 37, 46, 48, 49, 50,
51 and 53.
Kingsbury (Kg)
The Kingsbury series consist of nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils mainly in
smooth, broad, irregularly shaped areas on plains. Typically, the surface layer consists of dark
grayish brown silty clay about 7 inches thick. The subsurface is mottled, grayish brown silty
clay about 5 inches thick, and the subsoil is mottled and about 16 inches thick. It is firm, grayish
brown clay in the upper part and olive gray clay in the lower part. Most areas of this soil have
been cleared and used for cultivated crops and dairy farming. If properly drained, this soil is
moderately suited for cultivated crops. The rate of water movement through the soil is
moderately slow in the surface layer and very slow in the subsoil and the substratum. The clayey
subsoil somewhat restricts rooting depth, and runoff is slow. The capacity of the soil to store
water available for plant growth is high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to mildly
alkaline. Soils mapped within the Project Area include KgA and KgB (see Figure 3-4) and have
slopes in the range of 0% to 3%. This soil series occurs within the vicinity of proposed turbine
Nos. 4, 5, 8, 11, 16, 22, 27 through 31, and 33.
Livingston (Lc)
The Livingston series consist of nearly level, very deep and poorly drained soils mainly in
smooth, broad, flat or depressional areas on plains. Typically, the surface layer is black mucky
silty clay about 6 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and about 24 inches thick. It is dark
greenish gray to dark gray, very firm, very plastic and very sticky clay. Most areas of this soil are
used as pasture or woodland. The rate of water movement through the soil is slow or very slow
in the subsoil and the substratum. The runoff is very slow or ponded. The capacity of the soil to
store water available for plant growth is high. The surface layer is moderately acidic to neutral.
Soils mapped within the Project Area include Lc and Ld (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes in the
3-7
001352
range of 0% to 3%. This soil series is considered hydric and occurs in the vicinity of proposed
turbine Nos. 7, 15 and 21.
Madalin (Ma)
The Madalin series are very deep and poorly drained soils of depressions. Depth to bedrock is
greater than 60 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 14 inches of silt loam over 16 inches of
silty clay over 30 inches of stratified silty clay to silt loam. The parent material consists of clayey
glaciolacustrine deposits. Available water capacity is moderate and water movement in the most
restrictive layer is moderately low. Depth to the seasonal high water table is 0 inches and annual
ponding is frequent. Slopes of this series range from 0% to 3%. This soil series is considered
hydric and occurs in the vicinity of proposed turbine Nos. 7, 8, 9, 37, 40 and 42 (see Figure 3-4).
Nellis (Nl)
The Nellis series are very deep and well drained soils of drumlinoid ridges, hills and till plains.
Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 21 inches of loam
over 51 inches of gravelly fine sandy loam. The parent material consists of calcareous loamy till.
Available water capacity is high and water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately
high. Depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than 60 inches. The soils mapped within
the Project Area include NlB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 3% to 8%.
Newstead (Nn)
The Newstead series are moderately deep and somewhat poorly drained soils of benches, ridges
and till plains. Depth to bedrock ranges from 20 to 40 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 16
inches of silt loam over 14 inches of gravelly loam over un-weathered bedrock. The parent
material consists of loamy till derived from limestone, with varying amounts of sandstone, shale,
and granite. Available water capacity is moderate and water movement in the most restrictive
layer is moderately high. Depth to the seasonal high water table ranges from 6 to 12 inches.
Slopes of this series range from 0% to 3%.
Niagara (No)
The Niagara series are very deep and somewhat poorly drained soils of lake plains. Depth to
bedrock is greater than 60 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 75 inches of silt loam. The
parent material consists of silty and clayey glaciolacustrine deposits. Available water capacity is
high and water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Depth to the seasonal
high water table ranges from 6 to 18 inches. The soils mapped within the Project Area include
NoA (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 0% to 3%.
3-8
001353
Reinbeck (Rh)
The Reinbeck series are barely level to gently sloping very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil
mainly in smooth, broad, irregularly shaped areas on lake plains and at the margins of uplands.
Typically the surface layer is dark grayish brown silty loam about 8 inches thick. The subsurface
layer is mottled, grayish brown silt loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and about
14 inches thick. Most areas of this soil have been cleared and are used for cultivated crops in
dairy farming. The rate of water movement through the soil is moderately slow in the surface
layer and slow in the subsoil and the substratum; in addition, the runoff is very slow. The
capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is high. The surface layer is
moderately acidic to neutral. Soils mapped within the Project Area include RhA and RhB (see
Figure 3-4) and have slopes in the range of 0% to 3% and 3% to 8%, respectively. This soil
series occurs within the vicinity of proposed turbine Nos.3, 14, 21, 34 through 38, 40 through 44,
47, 49 and 50 through 53.
Saprists (Sa)
The Saprists series are very deep and very poorly drained soils of swamps and marshes. Depth to
bedrock is greater than 60 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 7 inches of mucky silt loam
over 63 inches of gravelly silty clay loam. The parent material consists of organic material.
Available water capacity is high and water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately
high. Depth to the seasonal high water table is 0 inches and annual ponding is frequent. Slopes of
this series range from 0% to 1%. This soil series is considered hydric.
Vergennes (Ve)
The Vergennes series are very deep and moderately well drained soils of lake plains. Depth to
bedrock is greater than 60 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 8 inches of silty clay loam
over 21 inches of clay over 43 inches of stratified clay to silt loam. The parent material consists
of clayey calcareous glaciolacustrine, glaciomarine, or estuarine deposits. Available water
capacity is moderate and water movement in the most restrictive layer is low. Depth to the
include VeB and VeC (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 3% to 8% and 8% to 15%,
respectively.
Williamson (Wm)
The Williamson series are very deep and moderately well drained soils of lake plains. Depth to
bedrock ranges from 15 to 24 inches. The typical profile includes 0 to 42 inches of silt loam over
stratified very fine sandy loam to silt loam. The parent material consists of glaciolacustrine or
eolian deposits with a high content of silt and very fine sand. Available water capacity is
3-9
001354
moderate and water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Depth to the
include WmB (see Figure 3-4) and have slopes of 3% to 8%.
Wilpoint (Wn)
The Wilpoint series consist of gently sloping, moderately deep, moderately well drained soil
mainly on convex slopes. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown silty clay loam about
6 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled and about 16 inches thick. It is dark brown silty clay in the
upper part and dark brown to dark grayish brown clay in the lower part. Bedrock is at a depth of
20 to 40 inches. Most areas of this soil have been cleared and are used for cultivated crops. The
rate of water movement through the soil is slow or very slow, and the runoff is medium. The
capacity of the soil to store water available for plant growth is moderate. The surface layer is
moderately acidic to neutral. Soils mapped within the Project Area include WnB and WnC (see
Figure 3-4) and have slopes in the range of 3% to 8% and 8% to 15%, respectively. This soil
series occurs within the vicinity of proposed turbine No. 23.
The Soil Survey of Jefferson County indicates that ground water is seasonally perched within the
upper 0.0 to 6.0 feet during the months of December to May and/or March to May depending on
the underlying soils (McDowell, 1989). The soils mapped within the proposed Project Area are
described as poorly drained, and groundwater is expected to be shallow in most areas.
A summary of soil properties for the various soil series is presented in McDowell (1989), and a
summary of the properties listed for the soils mapped within the Project Area is included as
Table 3-1.
3.1.1.4 Unusual Landforms or Geologic Formations

The Project Area contains landforms typical of a glacial lacustrine plain, including relatively flat
terrain with small lakes and wetland areas. The area also includes surficial peat deposits. Other
landforms include a cave near the northern limit of the Project Area, just south of Millen Bay,
and numerous closed depressions. The closed depressions are likely remnant glacial features, but
may also reflect karst and/or sinkhole activity in the underlying limestone.
The Project Area is mapped as part of four United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute
Topographic maps: Cape Vincent North, Cape Vincent South, Chaumont and St Lawrence
Quadrangles. Based upon the USGS Topographic maps (USGS, 1958a, b, c, d), the proposed
Project Area is located in the St. Lawrence River Valley (or the Thousand Island Region). The
3-10
001355

General Description of Soil Series1
(Taken from Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York [McDowell, 1989])
Risk of Corrosion
Water Bedrock Erosion Unified
Hydrologic Table Depth Permeability Uncoated Factors Soil Plasticity
2 3
Soil Name Group Depth (ft) ( in ) ( in/ hr ) pH Steel Concrete K Classification Index
Benson C/D >6 10-20 0.6-2.0 5.6-7.3 Low Low 0.02 SM,GM NP-10
Chatfield D >6 20-40 0.6-6.0 4.5-6 Low Moderate 0.49 SM,ML,SM-SC,CL-ML 1-6
Chaumont D 0.5-1.5 20-40 <0.2 5.6-7.3 High Low 0.49 MH,CH 15-50
4
Claverack C 1.5-2 20-40 6.0-20 5.1-8.4 Low Moderate 0.24 SM,SW,SW-SM,SP 5-30
Collamer C 1.5-2 >5 0.6-2.0 5.1-8.4 Moderate Low 0.49 ML,SM,CL-ML,SM-SC 5-10
Covington D 0.5-1.0 >60 <0.2 5.6-7.3 High Moderate 0.49 CH,MH 10-40
Dumps N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Moderate Moderate N/A N/A N/A
Elmridge C 1.5-3.0 20-40 2.0-6.0 4.5-7.8 Moderate Moderate 0.28 SM,ML NP
Farmington C >6 10-20 0.6-2.0 5.1-7.8 Low Moderate 0.28 ML,CL,SM,SC 3-15
Fluvaquents D 0 >60 N/A 4.5-8.4 High High 0.28 N/A N/A
Galen B 1.5-2 >60 0.6-6.0 5.1-7.8 Moderate Low 0.28 SM,ML NP-4
Galoo C/D >6 2-10 0.6-2.0 5.6-7.8 Low Low 0.32 CL,ML,SM,CL-ML 3-15
Galway B 1.5-3.0 20-40 0.6-2.0 5.6-8.4 Low Low 0.32 ML,SM 10-15
Guffin D 0-0.5 20-40 <0.2 5.6-8.4 High Low 0.49 MH,CH 15-20
Hudson C 1.5-2.0 >60 0.2-2.0 5.1-7.3 High Low 0.49 ML,CL-ML,OL,CL 5-19
Kingsbury D 0.5-1.5 >60 0.06-0.2 5.1-7.8 High Moderate 0.49 ML,MH 11-20
Livingston D 0-1.0 >60 0.2-0.6 5.1-7.3 High Low 0.49 CH,MH 10-40
Madalin D 0-0.5 >60 0.2-0.6 5.1-8.4 High Low 0.37 ML,MH,OL,OH 10-25
Nellis B >6 >60 0.6-2.0 5.6-8.4 Low Low 0.28 ML,SM 1-5
Newstead C 0.5-1.0 20-40 0.6-2.0 5.6-8.4 High Low 0.32 ML,SM 2-10
Niagara C 0.5-1.5 >60 0.6-2.2 5.1-8.4 High Low 0.49 ML 5-15
Reinbeck D 0.5-1.5 >60 0.2-0.6 5.1-7.3 High Low 0.49 ML,MH 10-25
Saprists D 0 >60 N/A 4.5-8.4 High Low N/A N/A N/A
Vergennes C 1-3 >60 <0.2 4.5-8.4 High Moderate 0.49 MH,CH,CL,ML 20-40
Williamson C 1.1-1.5 15-24 0.6-2.0 4.5-7.3 Moderate Moderate 0.49 ML,SM 5-15
Wilpoint D 1.5-2.0 20-40 <0.2 5.6-7.3 High Low 0.49 MH,CH 15-50
1
Descriptions apply to the surfical soil layer. Characteristics, while similar, can vary with depth.
3-11
001356

2
a) Definition
Hydrologic group is a group of soils having similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. Soil properties that influence runoff potential are those that influence the
minimum rate of infiltration for a bare soil after prolonged wetting and when not frozen. These properties are depth to a seasonally high water table, intake rate and permeability after
prolonged wetting, and depth to a very slowly permeable layer. The influence of ground cover is treated independently.
(b) Classes
The soils in the United States are placed into four groups, A, B, C, and D, and three dual classes, A/D, B/D, and C/D. In the definitions of the classes, infiltration rate is the rate at
which water enters the soil at the surface and is controlled by the surface conditions. Transmission rate is the rate at which water moves in the soil and is controlled by soil properties.
Definitions of the classes are as follows:
A. (Low runoff potential). The soils have a high infiltration rate even when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravels. They
have a high rate of water transmission.
B. The soils have a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly are moderately deep to deep, moderately well drained to well drained soils that have moderately fine
to moderately coarse textures. They have a moderate rate of water transmission.
C. The soils have a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly have a layer that impedes downward movement of water or have moderately fine to fine texture. They
have a slow rate of water transmission.
D. (High runoff potential). The soils have a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of clay soils that have a high swelling potential, soils that have a
permanent high water table, soils that have a clay pan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. They have a very slow rate of water
transmission.
(1) Dual hydrologic groups, A/D, B/D, and C/D, are given for certain wet soils that can be adequately drained. The first letter applies to the drained condition, the second to the
undrained. Only soils that are rated D in their natural condition are assigned to dual classes. Soils may be assigned to dual groups if drainage is feasible and practical.
3
Unified Soil Classification, see ASTM D2487.
4
Supplemental information from http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/
3-12
001357
St. Lawrence Valley and the Erie-Ontario plain together are referred to as the “lowlands.” The
elevations across the Project Area vary from about 249 feet above mean sea level (msl) to about
370 feet above msl. The proposed Project Area is encompassed by rivers and lakes, which
include the St. Lawrence River, the Black River, and Lake Ontario. A majority of the Project
Area consists of nearly level agricultural land (row crops). Approximately 80% of the Project
Area has slopes within the range of 0 to 10%, approximately 16% of the area is between 10 to
15% and approximately 4% of the Project Area includes slopes greater than 15%. A majority of
the area is level and the drainage pattern is generally in the direction of small streams and creeks
(e.g., Kents Creek, Fox Creek, Shower Creek, Super Creek, Three Mile Creek), which discharge
directly into the St. Lawrence River.
3.1.2 Potential Impacts

3.1.2.1 Potential Short-Term Impacts
Approximately 547 acres of surface soils will be disturbed during the construction of the Project.
Once construction activities are complete, approximately 92 percent of the disturbed area, or
approximately 503 acres of surface soil, will be restored. Table 3-2 provides the approximate
areas of both temporary and permanent soil disturbance.
Table 3-2
Approximate Area of Soil Disturbance
Permanent Temporary
Impact Impact
Component (acres) (acres)
Turbines 0.4 50.8
Access Roads 31.3 38.4
Buried Electrical Interconnect 0.0 282.9
Overhead Electrical Transmission Line 0.0 106.5
Collector Substation/O&M Building 11.4 0.1
Transmission Owner Substation 0.5 0.0
Meteorological Towers 0.4 3.6
Laydown Yard 0.0 12.25
Concrete Batch Plant 0.0 9.9
Based on the information reviewed and described above, the subsoils within the Project Site
consist predominantly of silt loams and loams of glacial origin. The soil survey indicates that the
soils in and around the Project Area vary from shallow to very deep and have been formed from
glacial till derived from the underlying limestone. The water table associated with mapped soils
on the Project Site is shallow. In addition, bedrock depths across the area would vary in areas
underlain by karst limestone. As stated above, due to its particular characteristics, including an
3-13
001358
limestone presents special challenges for civil engineering projects such as wind energy projects.
The finer grained soils may have a tendency to soften on exposure to weather and would likely
require protection from weather and vehicle traffic to prevent rutting. Slopes are generally slight
to moderate in the area of the proposed wind turbines and slope stability is not expected to be an
issue for design. The overall seismic risk is low.
The mapped Dumps soils series is limited to one location adjacent to proposed project activities.
Impacts to this map unit will be avoided as only a small portion, approximately 0.015 acres (654
square feet), is located within the northeastern boundary of the proposed overhead ROW.
Construction activities will avoid disturbance of this area.
Based upon the topographic features (see Figure 2-1) and drainage characteristics of the
proposed Project Site, grading and other construction activities could cause the disruption of
soils and the increased potential for erosion during construction without appropriate erosion and
sediment controls. In addition, the short-term removal of vegetation, including the root system
from portions of the site, would expose soils to erosive factors such as wind, rain and surface
runoff. Without appropriate erosion controls, soil transported by surface runoff could potentially
migrate to nearby surface waters where it may settle out as sediment. The Project is required to
obtain a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit to authorize its
construction related runoff discharges. To obtain that permit, SLW will be required to prepare a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction. As discussed in Section 3.1.3,
below, the SWPPP will describe how SLW will avoid and mitigate short-term soil erosion
impacts. Construction traffic could also create airborne dust. Dust control measures are
addressed in Section 3.9.
Blasting in karst areas without proper precautions can cause widespread contamination through
underground channels and features. Karst areas may also be subject to sinkholes and collapses,
especially when aquifers are altered by blasting and other construction activities. Karst
management issues associated with blasting, if necessary during construction, and associated
vibration(s) include damage to karst features and disturbance to residents in the local area as well
as cave-dwelling fauna.
A mapped cave is located just inside the Project Area boundary near Millen Bay (see Figure 2-
1). However, it is outside of the Project footprint of disturbance, located approximately one third
of a mile (1,700 feet) from the nearest turbine (WTG 36). Direct impacts to this resource will be
avoided. Indirect impacts to this feature will also be avoided based on the distance to the nearest
Project component.
3-14
001359
3.1.2.2 Potential Long-Term Impacts

The proposed Project, once built, could potentially cause a minor alteration to existing drainage
patterns.
3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation

3.1.3.1 Soil Erosion, Siltation and Runoff
To avoid and mitigate the short-term potential impacts associated with soil erosion, siltation and
runoff, and ensure that downstream waterways are not adversely impacted, a sediment and
erosion control plan will be developed as part of the Project SWPPP, which is required to obtain
a SPDES permit for construction. In addition, Project development and construction may cross
karst landscapes. Construction of Project components across such terrains faces environmental
and engineering challenges because of potential impacts on water quality from stormwater runoff
and concerns of sinkhole collapse under or near areas of development (e.g., turbine foundations,
access roads). When runoff drains rapidly into subsurface conduit networks through open
sinkholes and/or sinking streams, the impact of the runoff on a karst aquifer can be qualitatively
evaluated by various groundwater models (i.e., mixing cell). The formulation of a comprehensive
and stringent stormwater runoff management plan (including appropriate silt/stormwater fencing
design) prior to construction will minimize the associated adverse impacts to karst features.
Common best management practices (BMPs) help manage stormwater runoff effectively in some
areas. Site-specific management plans are preferable because of concerns regarding localized
flooding and land stability. Proactive measures should be taken to identify areas of the greatest
sinkhole collapse risk in proposed construction areas and associated groundwater drainage
patterns (W. Zhou and B.F. Beck, 2005).
Implementation of effective BMPs will serve as the primary measure to minimize soil impacts.
At a minimum, Project BMPs will be developed and implemented as follows:
x BMPs for erosion control during land clearing, site preparation, and grading including:
1. Limit permanent road widths to a maximum of 17 feet, and where possible, follow
hedgerows and field edges to minimize loss of agricultural land and potential
drainage impacts.
2. Avoid disturbance of surface and subsurface drainage features where possible (e.g.,
ditches, diversions, etc.).
3. Prohibit vehicular access to turbine sites until topsoil has been stripped and
permanent access roads have been constructed. Prohibit stripping of topsoil or
passage of heavy equipment during saturated conditions.
3-15
001360
4. Maintain access roads throughout construction in a manner that allows continued

access, crossing, and use of access roads for farm machinery and forest practices
operations.
5. Use appropriate erosion controls (e.g., silt fence, bio-filter bags, straw bales) to
control short-term erosion.
x BMPs such as diversion berms and conveyance channels for erosion control during
trench excavations for underground interconnect.
x BMPs such as vegetative strips, channel check structures that address erosion impacts
during transport of heavy equipment and materials. Using appropriate erosion controls
(e.g., silt fence, bio-filter bags, and straw bales) to control short-term erosion impacts can
also used to mitigate the erosion.
x BMPs for short- and long-term storage of construction materials (both equipment and
stockpiled soils/gravel).
x BMPs for handling and disposal of Project-derived waste materials including:
1. Remove all solid waste, hazardous materials, and construction debris from the site
and manage disposal in a manner consistent with all applicable state and federal
regulations.
2. Dispose excess concrete in a designated area. Under no circumstances shall excess
concrete be left on the surface in active agricultural areas.
3. Rinse concrete trucks in designated areas, outside of active agricultural areas. Manage
all rinsate in accordance with the requirements of the SWPPP permit.
x BMPs for operation of on-site borrow areas (if applicable).
x BMPs for stabilizing and re-vegetating disturbed areas.
3.1.3.2 Soils in Agricultural Areas

In order to prevent the loss or compaction of topsoil, SLW commits to following the NYS
agricultural protection measures during construction, as set forth in the NYS Department of
Agriculture and Markets Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Wind Power Projects
(Appendix A).
Soils impacted during construction would also be minimized by inclusion of applicable soil
protection, erosion control and soil restoration measures in the final construction documentation
and plans for the contractor(s) and subcontractor(s). One or more pre-construction meetings will
be held between the construction contractor(s) and a representative of the New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets. During construction the environmental inspector would
monitor compliance with the soil protection measures (including potential access restrictions)
described above and included in Appendix A.
3-16
001361
3.1.3.3 Karst and Geotechnical Conditions

Sinkholes are generally more active and diverse in evaporite karst areas than carbonate karst
terrains, but the hazards associated with each are important to evaluate and mitigate in areas of
land development and construction. In order to properly manage and mitigate karst hazards, a
phased approach is needed for sinkhole and karst identification, investigation, prediction and
mitigation. Identification techniques include field surveys and geomorphological mapping
combined with accounts from local people and historical sources. Detailed sinkhole maps can be
constructed from sequential historical maps, recent topographical maps, and digital elevation
models (DEMs) complemented with building-damage surveying, remote sensing, and high
resolution geodetic surveys. On a more detailed level, information from exposed
paleosubsidence features (paleokarst), speleological explorations, geophysical investigations,
trenching, dating techniques, and boreholes (in association with geotechnical investigation
discussed below) may help in investigating dissolution and subsidence features. Information on
the hydrogeological pathways including caves, springs and swallow holes are particularly
important especially when corroborated by tracer tests (F. Gutierrez, A.H. Cooper, and K.S.
Johnson, 2008).
To date, no significant karst features have been identified at the Project Site from a review of
available geologic maps and visible imagery. During initial review, and as noted above, one
potentially significant karst feature was identified in the vicinity of the project, a cave located
northeast of the Project Site in Millen Bay. To address this issue and the potential impacts
associated with subsurface karst, a comprehensive investigation of karst features at the Project
Site will be performed in three phases:
x Phase 1: Geologic resources detailing local and regional surficial and bedrock geologic
investigations will be gathered and reviewed. Karst terrain, local geologic conditions, and
geologic hazards will be assessed. Bedrock features (e.g. lithologic variations or faults
mapped by others, or areas of possible karst visible on imagery or maps) will be
interpreted. A field geologist will perform a reconnaissance of the Project Site to
inventory visible karst conditions on a Project-wide and regional scale, and prepare for
subsequent geophysical investigations.
x Phase 2: A non-intrusive geophysical investigation will be performed at select turbine
locations, and other Project components as necessary (e.g., substation, access roads) to
confirm and expand upon the findings from Phase 1. Geophysical methods are likely to
include:
• Two dimensional (2-D) resistivity imaging; and
• Multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW).
3-17
001362
2-D resistivity imaging will result in color-shaded resistivity cross-sections of the

subsurface. The depth of the investigation will depend on actual resistivity of local soils
and bedrock, but should result in an investigation depth of at least 50 feet throughout the
central portion of the survey. Intact limestone is likely to produce relatively high
resistivity values, whereas weathered and fractured rock and/or dissolution features are
likely to exhibit lower resistivity values. The clayey soils that are present at the Project
Site will likely enhance electrode contact and possibly result in high resistivity values.
Completion of MASW, a recently developed geophysical technique, is intended to
estimate shear-wave velocity variations at depths to approximately 100 feet. The results
will be depicted on color-shaded diagrams, depicting lateral and vertical variations in
estimated shear-wave velocity values beneath each traverse. Typically, low-velocity
zones would be indicative of fractures, weathering, solutioning, or softer lithologies.
x Phase 3: Based upon the results of Phase 2, intrusive borings and/or rock cores will be
drilled at locations that suggest karst and/or non-karst features to confirm the findings of
the geophysical investigation. Prior to this intrusive, subsurface investigation, a work
plan will be prepared that identifies procedures (e.g., drilling procedures, shoring and
restoration) for performing a detailed subsurface investigation where borings, and/or
other intrusive activities (e.g., rock cores), may interface with karst or other solution
features.
In addition to the comprehensive karst investigation, a geotechnical investigation will be

performed to assess conditions at locations where construction is proposed to determine soil
properties for design, specific groundwater depths, and to verify suitability of the native
materials for support of the proposed roadways, wind turbine foundations and other Project
components. The investigation will also assess areas where shallow groundwater or bedrock
might impact proposed underground construction for buried electric lines and foundations. A
limited number of deep borings are necessary to evaluate the geotechnical considerations
discussed above.
The investigation would include at least one boring at each proposed wind turbine location.
Additional borings may be added where karst features are identified or suspected. The borings
would be drilled to bedrock. Bedrock would be cored if encountered within 20 feet of the ground
surface. Where rock is not encountered, borings would extend to depths equal to 1 to 2 times the
foundation width below the foundation elevation, depending on the quality of the subsoils
encountered. If compressible strata are encountered, the borings would extend through the
compressible soil into a competent bearing stratum. Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) would be
3-18
001363
considered as a low cost method to evaluate subgrade conditions for proposed roadways.
Additional borings would be made at the proposed substation location and where directional
borings might be needed. Borings would obtain undisturbed samples of cohesive materials.
Geotechnical borings and slope stability analyses may also be necessary. Geophysical
investigation, coupled with a limited number of geotechnical borings, would be provided to
determine the depth to rock along proposed underground interconnect lines.
The geotechnical data will be presented in a geotechnical report that includes boring logs,
laboratory test results, recommended foundation types, depths and allowable pressures, seismic
site classification, and recommended soil and rock parameters to be used for the design of
foundations and roadways. This report and recommendations, if any, will be prepared prior to the
final engineering design. Information to be addressed in this report includes the following:
requirements for possible further investigation, turbine and/or other component re-location,
determination of the effects of blasting, and additional institutional and/or engineering
construction controls.
Risks associated with karst features will be mitigated through a tiered approach as listed and
described below:
1. Perform pre-construction investigations and geotechnical studies to initially identify
potentially significant karst features;
2. Adjust turbine locations to avoid identified features;
3. Provide on-site training to construction personnel to increase awareness of potential risks
associated with development in karst;
4. Develop a controlled blast program for turbines proximal to potentially significant karst
features;
5. Implement spill preventions; and
6. Consider elimination of turbine for unavoidable adverse impacts to karst.
Pre-construction karst investigations and geotechnical studies, as described above, will, at a

minimum, identify bedrock fractures, caves, and sinkholes within 200 meters of proposed Project
activities. Foundation locations will be adjusted if necessary to avoid intersecting potentially
significant karst features while taking into account any applicable setback constraints.
On-site training will be provided to construction personnel and machine operators to ensure that
they are aware of the potential risks associated with karst terrain. This awareness training will be
part of the environmental construction compliance program (see Section 2.6.10).
3-19
001364
The Applicant will further reduce the potential for blast-induced geological changes to
potentially significant karst features by developing a controlled blast program, if required, with
appropriate blasthole drill diameter and drilling patterns for areas where karst features are
located within 200 meters of a turbine location. In the event that the Applicant will incorporate
blasting into construction plans, it will notify the Town of Cape Vincent, the Jefferson County
Soil and Water Conservation District, and NYSDEC of the scope of and reason for blasting
activities. The Applicant agrees to work with these parties to develop a blasting plan and to
follow any additional permitting requirements. At a minimum, any blasting will be designed and
performed to keep the impacts localized and fracture the least amount of bedrock necessary to
perform the construction.
In addition, in the event of a spill or a release, karst features will be further protected through
implementation of spill prevention and response procedures with specific guidelines prepared for
response to karst features. The Applicant has prepared an ERP (see Appendix B) that addresses
such risks. The Applicant will be prepared to mobilize the equipment, manpower, and materials
resources that may be required to respond to a range of failures that have a reasonable likelihood
of occurrence. Through the advance anticipation and planning of response actions, karst features
will be more successfully protected and managed.
As a last resort, if impacts to a potentially significant karst feature cannot be avoided through
adjustment of turbine location, protection through a blast program or implementation of spill
prevention plan, the Applicant will consider eliminating the turbine.
3.1.3.4 Environmental Monitoring for Karst

An environmental monitor, qualified to work in karst environments, will observe and/or review
activities related to pre-construction surveys and construction activities that involve excavation
to bedrock or are located in proximity to identified karst features. The environmental monitor
will provide a mitigation tool that will identify potential karst hazards on a daily basis and assist
in preventing construction related impacts to sensitive karst features and sensitive groundwater
resources.
3.1.3.5 Management of Oil and Hazardous Materials

Wind turbines, and their associated equipment, use lubricating and insulating oils in a closed
system. The Emergency Response Plan is provided as Appendix B.
3-20
001365
3.2 Water Resources

3.2.1 Groundwater and Groundwater Quality
3.2.1.1 Affected Environment
Glaciolacustrine lake silts and clays overlie consolidated rocks of sedimentary origin throughout
most of the Project Area (Cadwell et al., 1991), although a small portion of the Project Area
consists of peat muck (swamp) deposits, which are poorly drained areas and include of organic
silts and sands. The glacial till deposits form surficial aquifers, while bedrock consisting of
carbonate rocks (primarily limestone) form deep aquifers. These consolidated rocks yield water
primarily from bedding planes, fractures, joints, and faults, rather than from intergranular pores.
Carbonate rocks generally yield more water than other types of consolidated rocks because
carbonate rocks are subject to dissolution by slightly acidic groundwater. Dissolution along
bedding planes, fractures, and joints enlarges these openings and increases the permeability of
these carbonate rocks (Isachsen et al., 2000).
No known sole-source aquifers occur within the Project Area or its vicinity (United States
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2006a). In 2000, total freshwater use for Jefferson
County was 17.21 million gallons per day (Mgal/d), of which 13.25 Mgal/d (27 percent) was
from surface-water sources and 3.96 Mgal/d (73 percent) was from groundwater (USGS, 2006).
However, domestic users acquired 100 percent of their water supply from groundwater sources
(USGS, 2006). Table 3-3 lists an excerpt from the USGS report of water usage statistics in
Jefferson County, New York. Current data (October 2006) from the EPA indicates that drinking
water is obtained from groundwater, surface water and purchased groundwater/surface water
resources in Jefferson County (EPA, 2006b).
Table 3-3
Year 2000 Water Usage Statistics in Jefferson County 1
Water Withdrawals2
Type of Usages
Groundwater Surface Unit
Public supply3 2.17 8.20 Mgal/d
Domestic, self-supplied withdrawals 0.45 0.00 Mgal/d
1
Source: http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2000/index.html
2
6.39 Mgal/d was industrial use
3
Population (Year 2000) in Jefferson County was approximately 111,740
3.2.1.2 Potential Impact

Construction of the proposed wind energy project will have minimal to no impact to groundwater
quality in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County. Operation of construction
equipment and vehicles that require the use of diesel and gasoline fuels, lubricating oils, and
cooling fluids may pose a small risk for spills. Spills associated with these sources, should they
3-21
001366
occur, will likely be small and confined to work sites, thus limiting the potential for infiltration
into groundwater or direct flow of contaminants through fissures in karst areas.
While shallow groundwater flow rates and patterns may exhibit some deviation from pre-
construction conditions in the immediate area surrounding the foundations of Project facilities,
the Project will have minimal impacts on regional groundwater recharge because of the small
percentage of added impervious surface. Dewatering of excavated pits for foundations may result
in minor and local lowering of the water table, which could affect nearby water wells. Given the
minor and highly localized character of these impacts, local water supply wells will not be
adversely affected. Each turbine will be located a minimum distance of 1,250 feet from existing
residences, and presumably several hundred feet from associated private wells. The routine
operation and maintenance of the Project facilities is anticipated to have no significant impacts to
groundwater, as most of the Project impacts are attributed to the construction phase.
3.2.1.3 Mitigation Measures

The potential for groundwater contamination resulting from Project construction or operation
will be mitigated by: requiring construction contractors to use appropriate best management
procedures to prevent spills, limiting quantities of hazardous materials used on site, and the
implementation of the Emergency Response Plan (ERP) (see Appendix B) that addresses
prevention, containment and removal of spills. The potential for direct flow of contaminants into
groundwater through fissures in karst areas will be addressed in the ERP and SWPPP. The
Applicant will work with the NYSDEC and the County Soil and Water District prior to
construction to develop a plan to survey karst features in the Project Area. The survey will at a
minimum identify bedrock fractures and sinkholes within 500 feet of proposed Project activities.
Risks of potential water table reduction or pathway alteration due to dewatering will be avoided
initially through pre-construction surveys and studies. Depth to water table will be established
through evaluation of core borings at every foundation by conducting pre-construction
geotechnical studies. Foundations will be relocated, if necessary, to avoid intersecting the water
table, which limits the need for foundation de-watering.
Construction of foundations presents limited risk to the continued operation of private wells.
Mechanical or hydraulic equipment, similar to that planned for excavating foundations, are
commonly used in the Project Area to excavate building foundations of equivalent depth and
area to those proposed for Project facilities. As previously mentioned, each turbine will be
located a minimum distance of 1,250 feet from existing residences, and likely several hundred
feet from associated private wells. At such distances, hydraulic or mechanical means of
3-22
001367
excavating foundations presents limited risk to the continued operation of private wells. The
Applicant will conduct additional pre-construction surveys to locate local water supply wells
within 500 feet of proposed wind turbine. For any such wells, the Applicant will conduct pre-
and post-construction hydrological studies to characterize flow rates and water quality. Where
the post-construction study indicates that a well’s characteristics have significantly changed, the
Applicant will conduct subsequent studies to determine the cause of the change. Should these
studies find Project construction responsible for well damage, the Applicant will provide
alternative water supply or compensation equivalent to the value of the lost water production.
3.2.2 Streams, Rivers, Lakes, and Floodplains

Thirty-six (36) mapped surface water bodies occur within the Project layout. These include
Scotch Brook, Chaumont River, Kents Creek, Shaver Creek, Three Mile Creek, Soper Creek and
30 unnamed tributaries (Figure 3-5). These surface waters are perennial and located within the
Saint Lawrence River Basin. The Saint Lawrence River drains a total area of nearly 300,000
square miles. Within New York State, approximately 5,600 square miles are drained by
tributaries that enter the Saint Lawrence River between Lake Ontario and Montreal. Land use in
the Saint Lawrence River Basin consists of densely forested woodlands and agriculture. The
region is economically supported by agriculture, logging, mining, and recreational and tourism
activities. In 1996, the Saint Lawrence River Basin population was approximately 192,000
(NYSDEC, 2004).
Water bodies within the Project layout are classified by NYSDEC as Class C and D waters.
Class C waters are best used for fishing, but are also suitable for fish propagation and survival,
and primary and secondary contact recreation. Class D waters are best used for fishing and are
also suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation. A list of the mapped NYSDEC
surface water bodies located within the Project layout and their NYSDEC classification are
provided in Table 3-4.
Federal Emergency Management Agency maps (FEMA, 1992, 1993) were reviewed to evaluate
the presence of floodplains associated with surface waters within the Project Area (Figure 3-6).
Floodplains associated with the five hundred (500)-year flood were not identified within the
proposed Project Area. A 100-year floodplain is associated with the following streams and
rivers located in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme; however, none of these floodplains are
located within the Project layout with the exception of the aerial crossing of the Chaumont River:
3-23
001368
Table 3-4
NYSDEC Streams Crossed by the Project
NYSDEC
Stream Name Stream Classification
Chaumont River C
Kents Creek C
Scotch Brook D
Shaver Creek Not Listed
Soper Creek C
Three Mile Creek C
Unnamed Tributary to Kents Creek 1 C
Unnamed Tributary to Shaver Creek 1 C
Unnamed Tributary to Wheeler Creek 1 D
Unnamed Tributary 1 D
Unnamed Tributary 3 C
x St. Lawrence River North of Route 12E;

x Unnamed tributary to Millen Bay;
x Kents Creek east of Johnny Cake Road;
x French Creek
x Unnamed tributary to and wetlands associated with Wilson Bay;
x Kents Creek and associated wetland west of abandoned railroad right-of-way;
3-24
001369
x Wetland area along the eastern border of Cape Vincent and Lyme Townships between
Route 12E and east of abandoned railroad right-of-way;
x Shafer, Soper and Three Mile Creeks; and
x Chaumont River.

Wetland and surface waterbodies located within the proposed Project layout were field
delineated by TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) in July, August and September 2007 and
August and October 2008. The results of the delineation effort are described in the Wetland
Delineation Report, St. Lawrence Windpower LLC, St. Lawrence Wind Farm (2008) provided as
Appendix C. Delineated streams included NYSDEC Class C and Class D streams. NYSDEC
“protected streams” as defined in Part 608 § 608.1 (p) were not identified within the proposed
Project layout. Nine streams that will be crossed by the Project were delineated and are
presented Table 3-5.
The locations of less prominent surface water features (i.e., centerlines or banks), within larger
wetland complexes, were not delineated separately from the larger wetland complex and were
included as a wetland feature. Such surface water features, with intermittent drainage or flow,
were included in the delineated boundaries for wetlands W9, W10, W17, W17T, W45, W47,
W54 and W60. Two ponds, delineated as part of wetlands OT11 and OT12 and one ditch,
delineated as part of wetland W49, did not meet NYSDEC definitions of a Stream or
Watercourse.
Table 3-5
Field Delineated Stream Crossings
Cowardin
1
Wetland ID Surface Water Description Project Component Classification
W26 Intermittent Stream Turbine 22 Access Road R4
W26T2 Intermittent Stream Turbine 22 interconnect R4
OT13 Three Mile Creek Overhead line R3
OT14 Unnamed Perennial Stream Overhead line R3
OT16 Intermittent Stream Overhead line R4
OT18 Soper Creek Overhead line R3
OT21 Chaumont River Overhead line R2
1
R2 = Lower Perennial
R3 = Upper Perennial
R4 = Intermittent
3-25
001370

Delineated Wetlands and Surface Waterbodies Potential Temporary and Permanent Impacts
Temporary Impact Permanent Impact

(Cable & Road Disturbance) (Roads) Stream Bank
Cowardin NYS DEC Mapped
Wetland ID Alteration
Classification 1 Wetland
(linear feet)
(square feet) (acres) (square feet) (acres)
W9 PEM1/PUBH No 560.20 0.013 0.00 0.000 -

W10 PEM1 No 2,458.92 0.056 771.31 0.018 -
W11T PEM1 No 216.38 0.005 87.02 0.002 -
W16-T1 PEM1 No 661.85 0.015 0.00 0.000 -
W16-T2 PEM1 No 238.69 0.005 0.00 0.000 -
W17 PEM1 No 2,317.81 0.053 0.00 0.000 -
W18 PEM1 No 3,924.95 0.090 962.02 0.022 -
W18T2 PEM1 No 224.94 0.005 60.98 0.001 -
W22 PSS1/PEM1 No 42,970.85 0.986 5,898.07 0.135 -
W24T PEM1 No 130.71 0.003 137.65 0.003 -
W25 PEM1 No 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 -
W26 R4/PEM1 No 589.49 0.014 453.59 0.010 40.00
W26-T1 PEM1 No 215.21 0.005 91.10 0.002 -
W26-T2 R4 No 361.79 0.008 0.00 0.000 10.00
W26-T3 PFO No 1,360.83 0.031 13612 0.031 -
3
W31 PFO1 No 9,761.75 0.224 17078.96 0.392 -
W34-T1 PEM1 No 48.57 0.001 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T12 PFO1 No 800.00 0.018 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T2 PEM1 No 103.36 0.002 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T3 PEM1 No 157.22 0.004 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T4 PEM1 No 650.96 0.015 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T5 PEM1 No 1,825.16 0.042 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T6 PEM1 No 697.30 0.016 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T7 PEM1 No 356.38 0.008 0.00 0.000 -
3-26
001371

Temporary Impact Permanent Impact Proposed
Cowardin NYS DEC Mapped (Cable & Access Road Disturbance) (Access Roads) Stream Bank
Wetland ID
Classification 1 Wetland Alteration
(square feet) (acres) (square feet) (acres) (linear feet)
W34-T8 PEM1 No 568.43 0.013 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T9 PEM1 No 228.52 0.005 180.05 0.004 -
W34-T10 PEM1 No 1,220.34 0.028 362.11 0.008 -
W34-T11 PEM1 No 4,026.79 0.092 999.20 0.023 -
W35 PEM1 No 1,731.83 0.040 0.00 0.000 -
W41 PFO1/PEM1 No 877.00 0.020 0.00 0.000 -
W42T PEM1 No 251.60 0.006 136.94 0.003 -
W45 PEM1 No 276.96 0.006 92.49 0.002 -
W47 PEM1 No 0.92 0.000 0.00 0.000 -
W48 PEM1 No 746.52 0.017 299.95 0.007 -
W49 PEM1 No 642.13 0.015 0.00 0.000 -
W52 PEM1 No 357.14 0.008 0.00 0.000 -
W53 PSS1/PEM1 No 258.09 0.006 0.00 0.000 -
W54 PEM1 No 158.64 0.004 0.00 0.000 -
W55 PSS1 No 725.87 0.017 0.00 0.000 -
W59 PEM1 No 180.72 0.004 161.33 0.004 -
W60 PEM1 No 208.24 0.005 0.00 0.000 -
OT-12 PUBH/PEM1 No 625.00 0.014 10.00 0.000 -
OT-13 R3/PEM1 No 625.00 0.014 10.00 0.000 -
OT-18 R3/PSS1 No 625.00 0.014 10.00 0.000 -
Total 84,968.06 1.95 10,723.81 0.67 50.00
1
Covertype Definitions
PFO1 – Palustrine forested wetland, broad-leaved deciduous
PEM1 – Palustrine emergent wetland, persistent
PSS2 – Palustrine scrub-shrub wetland, broad-leaved deciduous
PUBH – Palustrine unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded
3-27
001372

R3 - Upper perennial
R4 – Riverine, intermittent
2
Includes 1,361 square feet of permanent forested conversion impacts and 0 square feet of permanent fill impacts
3
Includes 13,420 square feet of permanent forested conversion impacts and 3,658.61 square feet of permanent fill impacts
3-28
001373
Based on the results of the field delineation, only two streams will be affected by the Project, as
interpreted from the NYSDEC definitions described in the NY Environmental Conservation Law
code Part 608 § 608.1 (t) and (v): surface water bodies W26 and W26T2. Delineated crossing
W26 corresponds with a mapped NYSDEC tributary; however, W26T2 does not. Stream
crossing W26 is associated with the access road southeast of Turbine 22 and stream crossing
W26T2 is associated with the interconnection line northeast of Turbine 20. Proposed stream
bank alteration for these features is estimated at 40 and 10 linear feet, respectively. The
remaining seven delineated streams identified in Table 3-5, are associated with the overhead
transmission line. Project related impacts to these surface waterbodies are not anticipated, as
these features are already culverted under the existing railroad right-of-way. Delineated
wetlands and surface waterbodies potentially affected by the proposed Project are provided on
Figure 3-8. Impacts, by waterbody or wetland, are presented in Table 3-6.
SLW proposes to use an overhead crossing of the Chaumont River and floodway for the
overhead transmission line. This is the only crossing of a 100-year floodplain within the Project
layout. All temporary disturbances and permanent structures associated with the proposed wind
farm will be located outside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. Potential impacts to
surface waters will be minimal and will only occur during the construction of the Project.
Potential impacts during construction will result from clearing and grading near stream banks
and will be kept to a minimum to prevent significant disturbance to the habitats associated with
the creek and its tributaries. Vegetation near the Chaumont River will not be removed to
construct the transmission line, as the Chaumont River will be spanned by overhead lines.
TheApplicant is in the process of preparing a Joint Wetland Permit Application to the NYSDEC
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for regulated activities located in state jurisdictional
waters or waters of the United States.

The Project has been designed to avoid and minimize surface water impacts to the greatest extent
practicable. Impacts to streams and wetlands will be avoided and minimized through crossing
waterbodies in the fewest locations possible and giving preference to existing crossings or
narrow crossings when impacts are unavoidable.
Since completion of the DEIS Project components were relocated at the following locations to
specifically avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and/or waterbodies:
x WTG 21 was eliminated;
x access road between WTGs 27 and 28 was eliminated;
x access roads to WTGs 20, 22, 23, 28 32, 35, and 44 were moved;
3-29
001374
x underground cable routing to WTGs 7, 32, and 47 were removed; and

x underground cable between WTGs 10 to 20 and 14 to 15 were moved.
SLW is also committed to the use of

Exhibit 3.2.1 – Bottomless Culvert
environmentally friendly culvert types (i.e.,
bottomless or arched culverts with a gravel
base) as an alternative to traditional closed
culverts to minimize stream impacts
(Exhibit 3.2.1). Bottomless culverts use the
natural channel bed and maintain the
integrity of the aquatic system. They
provide sufficient water depth, reduce
excessive velocity, and provide adequate
space, which collectively promote safe
passage of fish and other aquatic organisms under the structure. Soil erosion resulting from
construction will be mitigated with sediment and erosion control measures described in the
Project SWPPP, which will be provided in the Project’s FEIS.
Additional mitigation measures implemented to protect waterbodies and wetlands will include
establishing “Restricted Activities Areas.” Designated Restricted Activities Areas will limit the
extent of permissible activities within an established buffer zone of 100 feet surrounding
essential construction activities within wetlands and waterbodies. Restricted activities in these
areas will include the following:
x No degradation of stream banks;
x No storage of construction debris within the area;
x No equipment refueling or washing within the area;
x Limited use and strict adherence to manufacturer’s instructions for the application of
herbicides;
x No storage of any chemical substances, combustible fuels, or petroleum products within
the area; and
x No deposition of slash within or adjacent to a wetland or waterbody.
3.2.3 Wetlands
Based on a review of the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Maps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (Figures 3-5 and 3-7, respectively),
3-30
001375
there are 70 NYSDEC mapped wetlands and 1,024 NWI mapped palustrine wetland polygons
within the towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. Riverine and lacustrine wetlands were also
identified within the two townships. Approximately 4 percent of the total area within the limits
of these two towns is mapped by NYSDEC or the NWI as palustrine wetlands.
The NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Act (1975) rank wetlands in one of four classes ranging
from Class I, which provide the most benefits, to Class IV, which provide the fewest benefits.
Table 3-7 provides the number of mapped NYSDEC-regulated wetlands by class within the
towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. The NWI inventory classifies and maps wetlands using a
hierarchical system (system, subsystem and class) generally based on hydrologic regime,
dominant vegetative life form or composition of the substrate. Table 3-8 provides a summary of
the number and acreage, of the palustrine wetlands mapped by the NWI within the Towns of
Cape Vincent and Lyme, by cover class.
Table 3-7
Summary of Mapped NYSDEC Wetlands
Number of
Wetland Class Acreage
Wetlands
I 6 304
II 42 3666
III 18 470
IV 4 62
Total 70 4,501
Table 3-8
Summary of Mapped Palustrine NWI Wetlands
1 Number of Wetland
Polygons
PFO 172 2396
PFO/PSS 20 228
PFO/PEM 31 358
PFO/PUB 2 31
PSS 105 265
PSS/PEM 69 515
PSS/PUB 1 2
PEM 336 863
PEM/PUB 10 12
PUB 253 181
PUS 4 2
Palustrine Farmed 21 66
Total 1,024 4,919
1
PFO = Palustrine forested
PSS = Palustrine scrub shrub
PEM = Palustrine emergent
PUB = Palustrine unconsolidated bottom
PUS = Palustrine unconsolidated shore
3-31
001376
NWI wetlands that occur within the town limits of Cape Vincent and Lyme include palustrine
emergent (PEM), palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine scrub–shrub (PSS), palustrine
unconsolidated bottom (PUB), and palustrine unconsolidated shore (PUS) cover classes. The
following summarizes the specific wetland covertypes as defined by Edinger et al (2002)
observed at the proposed project.
Shallow Emergent Marsh (PEM) - Shallow emergent marshes are permanently saturated and
seasonally flooded wetlands that can be dominated by a variety of herbaceous vegetation.
Common dominant herbaceous plants within this community include woolgrass (Juncus effusus),
cattails (Typha latifolia), reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), reed canary grass (Phalaris
arundinacea), sedges (Carex spp.), and meadow-rues (Thalictrum spp.). Other plants
characteristic of shallow emergent marshes include, blue flag iris (Iris versicolor), sensitive fern,
cinnamon fern, and rushes (Juncus spp.). Shallow emergent marshes commonly have scattered
shrub species including speckled alder, dogwoods (Cornus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), and
meadow sweet (Spiraea alba).
Shrub Swamp (PSS) - Shrub swamps are a broadly defined, highly variable covertype that
includes several distinct communities and many intermediates. Shrub swamps may have a single
dominant shrub species or be co-dominated by a mixture of species. Speckled alder (Alnus
incana sp. rugosa) is a common shrub of this community. Red osier dogwood (Cornus
stolonifera), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), and Spirea spp. also occur either as a dominant
species or co-dominant with speckled alder. Various other shrub species occasionally occur and
include highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), smooth alder (Alnus serrulata), willows
(Salix spp.), and viburnums. These wetland communities are frequently associated with stream
complexes and may also contain patches of emergent wetland sedges and grasses.
Hemlock-hardwood swamp (PFO) - The tree canopy in this wetland is typically dominated by
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and co-dominated by yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), and red
maple (Acer rubrum). Other less frequently occurring trees include white pine (Pinus strobus),
black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Characteristic shrubs
include saplings of canopy trees and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). Other less
frequently occurring shrubs include various viburnums (Viburnum cassinoides, V. lentago, and
V. lanatanoides), winterberry (Ilex verticillata), and mountain holly (Nemopanthus mucronatus).
Characteristic herbs are cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) and sensitive fern (Onoclea
sensibilis). Groundcover may also be fairly sparse. Other less frequently occurring herbs include
sedges (Carex trisperma, C. folliculata, and C. bromoides), goldthread (Coptis trifolia), Canada
3-32
001377
mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), mountain sorrel (Oxalis montana), foamflower (Tiarella

cordifolia), and sarsparilla (Aralia nudicaulis).
Farm pond/artificial pond (PUB/PUS) – This aquatic community typically consists of small
ponds generally constructed on agricultural or residential property. These ponds are often
eutrophic, and may be stocked with panfish such as bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and yellow
perch (Perca flavescens). The biota inhabiting these ponds can be variable but more often
display limited diversity and reflect the species that would opportunistically colonize or be
artificially seeded, planted, or stocked in the pond.
In addition, two rare wetland community types, as identified by the NYSDEC (2006) are located
near the Project Area:
x Silver maple-ash swamp – Four discrete fragments of this rare community type occur
within 1.5 miles of the Project. Canopy cover includes silver maple, swamp white oak,
and green ash.
x Sinkhole wetlands – Sinkhole wetlands in and around the Project are a series of small
wetlands that lie in the limestone bedrock. They occur in linear groups and are
surrounded by either cow pasture or old fields.

Forty-four wetland/surface water body crossings were delineated within the Project layout
associated with access roads and underground interconnection lines. The locations of delineated
wetlands and surface water bodies are provided on Figure 3-8. None of the affected wetlands
were identified as NYSDEC-regulated wetlands. An additional 21 wetlands/surface water bodies
were delineated along the proposed overhead line. These wetlands are listed in Table 3-9. Five
of these crossings were identified as NYSDEC-regulated wetlands. The overhead line would
also span the NYSDEC-regulated adjacent area associated with these wetlands. Construction
and operation of the Project will temporarily affect 1.67 acres of wetlands and permanently
affect 0.67 acres of wetlands (Table 3-6). These permanent impacts include the placement of
0.33 acres of fill in wetlands and the conversion of 0.34 acres of forested wetlands to non-
forested wetland cover.
Construction of the overhead transmission line will avoid wetland impacts to the extent
practicable as most of the proposed overhead transmission corridor traverses fields, resulting in
minimal affects to forested habitat. Approximately 30 square feet of the permanent impact will
result from the placement of a maximum of three poles in wetlands. To prevent trees and limbs
from contacting or falling on the transmission wires, sapling and trees within the “hazard zone”
3-33
001378
of these wires (defined by transmission line design standards – FERC 2007) will have to be
removed. These “danger trees” will be selectively removed prior to construction, and maintained
during operation of the transmission line. Selective tree, sapling, and limbs removal from
forested wetlands is minimal and will be addressed in the Joint Wetlands Permit application of
the Project. Crossings of the Chaumont River will be accomplished by overhead spanning, and
utility poles will be located a minimum of 50 feet from both sides of the river banks. It is
possible to string cable between these utility poles in a manner that will not require construction
equipment to drive through the streams. There is the possibility that wetland vegetation in the
overhead transmission line corridor crossing the Chaumont River may need to be cleared. If
practicable, SLW will avoid such clearing.
Table 3-9
Delineated Wetlands Overhead Transmission Line
NYS DEC
Cowardin
Wetland ID Mapped Location
Classification 1
Wetland ID
OT1 PFO1 CV-1 Along railroad bed
OT3 PSS1 N/A Along railroad bed and Kents Creek
OT4 PEM1/PSS1 N/A Along railroad bed and Kents Creek
OT5 PFO1 N/A Along railroad bed and Kents Creek
OT7 PSS1 N/A Along railroad bed northwest of McWayne Road
OT9 PFO1 U-4 Along railroad bed
OT11 PUBH N/A Railroad bed
OT12 PUBH/PEM1 N/A Golf course
OT13 R3/PEM1 N/A Intersection of railroad bed and Three-mile Creek
OT14 R3/PSS1 N/A ½ mile southeast of Gibson Road
OT16 R4/PSS1 N/A 700 feet northwest of County Route 8
OT18 R3/PSS1 N/A Upstream of NY State Hwy 12E
OT19 PEM1 N/A Along railroad bed
OT20 PFO1 N/A Along railroad bed
OT21 R2OW X-5 Chaumont River
1
Cover Class Definition
OW - Open Water
R2 - Riverine, lower perennial
3-34
001379
R3 – Riverine, upper perennial

Although wetland impacts will be avoided if practicable, any clearing through forested wetlands
could result in a change from tree species to shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Non-forested
wetlands within the proposed overhead transmission line right-of-way consist of emergent and
scrub-shrub wetlands. Impacts to non-forested wetlands are expected to be short term and
vegetation is expected to return to pre-construction conditions in one to two growing seasons.
The NYSDEC considers the conversion of forested wetlands to non-forested wetlands a

permanent change in wetland vegetation composition. While this conversion from one cover
class to another does not constitute a net loss of wetlands, it may alter the structure and function
of these wetland habitats. Therefore, impacts to forested wetlands that are converted to either
emergent or scrub-shrub wetlands are considered permanent impacts. Construction of the Project
will permanently convert 0.34 acres of forested wetlands to non-forested wetland cover classes.

The Project has been designed to avoid and minimize wetland impacts to the greatest extent
practicable. Reduction of the total number of turbines from 96 to 53 has also reduced total
wetland impacts. As previously indicated, since completion of the DEIS, Project components
were relocated at the following locations to specifically avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands
and/or waterbodies:
x WTG 21 was eliminated;
x access road between WTGs 27 and 28 was eliminated;
x access roads to WTGs 20, 22, 23, 28 32, 35, and 44 were moved; and
x underground cable routing to WTGs 7, 32, and 47, and between WTGs 10 to 20 and 14 to
15 were moved.
Temporary Impacts: Wetland areas and open waters temporarily affected during the
construction of the Project will be restored to pre-construction contours and revegetated with
native (non-invasive) plant material or seeds immediately following the completion of regulated
activities at each site.
Permanent Impacts: The Applicant is seeking permit authorization from NYSDEC and
USACE for unavoidable impacts to wetlands. As part of the permitting process, and in
consultation with NYSDEC and USACE, the Applicant will develop a Wetland Mitigation Plan
to compensate for unavoidable permanent impacts to wetlands. SLW proposes to compensate
for the unavoidable permanent fill of 0.3 acres of wetlands using a 2:1 mitigation ratio. Most of
3-35
001380
the proposed fill is located in narrow wetland drainage corridors consisting of emergent wetland
herbaceous and scrub-shrub located contiguous to agricultural fields. The functional value
assessment for these wetlands indicates that they primarily function as runoff conveyances, and
provide minor flood water attenuation and potential sediment/toxicant retention. A few wetlands
in the project corridors have well-developed vegetative structure and diversity, providing wildlife
habitat corridors between fields. Due to their small overall area of these wetlands, their proximity
to active agricultural fields, and their lack of diverse or dense vegetation, they have limited
wildlife habitat value.
In consideration of these limited functional values, the goal for compensatory mitigation is to
replace and enhance the lost water quality function and wildlife habitat value provided by the
proposed wetlands to be filled. SLW proposes to compensate for the loss of these functions by
establishing new wetlands at a 2:1 replacement ratio, and to consolidate the replacement in one
location contiguous to a more functionally valuable natural wetland, thus increasing the chances
of successful re-establishment. This wetland replacement approach also affords practical
construction of the replacement and creates a suitable opportunity to enhance the wildlife habitat
value of the compensatory wetland by planting trees and dense emergent and herbaceous shrub
cover.
Five sites have been selected for evaluation as compensatory wetland areas. In accordance with
USACE mitigation guidance, these sites were chosen based the following selection criteria:
x locate in the same sub-watershed as the filled wetlands with similar hydro-geomorphic,
ecological landscape features, and functions and values (duplicate features of “reference”
wetlands to the extent practicable or enhance connectivity with natural upland landscape
elements) (Gwin et al., 1999);
x locate with natural and adequate variable hydrological sources/conditions (including
locating sites near existing wetlands or are “marginal” wet areas that do not meet all three
wetland criteria), or where sites were previously wetlands;
x locate where soils and heterogeneous topographic gradients are available and will require
minimal construction grading to achieve appropriate planting elevation, depth, soil type
and seasonal timing; and
x consider the opportunities and constraints concerning equipment access for construction
and maintenance, and agreeable landowners, subsurface conditions, and groundwater
quantity and quality.
Wetland Hydrodynamics/Hydrology – The proposed impacts from the project occur in two
different hydrologic unit codes (HUCs): the Upper St. Lawrence watershed HUC number
3-36
001381
04150301; and the Chaumont-Perch watershed HUC number 04150102. Approximately 74

percent of the proposed impacts will occur in the Chaumont-Perch watershed. All of the
proposed mitigation sites are located in the Chaumont-Perch watershed and are located in the
flood zone X (FEMA map panel 361062C). All the sites selected exhibit the potential for
utilizing available surface and groundwater hydrology, have the potential to provide sediment
removal, flood storage, nutrient uptake, while also contiguous to existing wildlife habitat. Two of
the potential sites would expand the riparian zone habitat of Kents Creek, providing stream
shading, and increase the buffer zone from the current farming activities occurring on the
proposed mitigation sites.
Soils and Topography – The Project is located in the physiographic basin of the St. Lawrence
River. Based on the Jefferson County Soil Survey and observations in the field in the Project
study area, the soil parent material includes both glacial lake and marine sediments
(USDA/NRCS, 2006). As a result, the wetlands in the Project Area and associated “reference”
wetlands contain similar geomorphic soils formations. The soils in the potential mitigation sites
have fairly silty content and the wetlands in the Project area all have surface hydrology driven by
these poorly drained soils and relatively level topography. Regional groundwater does not appear
to significantly influence the hydrology of reference wetlands, and as such will not be considered
available for consideration at the wetland mitigation sites. The relatively large natural wetland
complexes that do exist in the Project area are located south of the proposed wind farm (see
Figure 3-7), and in two large wetland areas crossed by the proposed electric transmission
corridor. These larger wetland complexes are also NYSDEC mapped state wetlands located to
the south of the proposed wind farm and have the greatest potential to provide groundwater
influenced hydrology. The following potential mitigation sites were evaluated with respect to
wetland hydrodynamics (surface and groundwater), soils and topography.
Compensatory Wetland Site Evaluations: Five potential compensatory wetland site locations
where identified for evaluation for the proposed mitigation plan as shown in Exhibit 3.2.2, Sites
A-E. The characteristics of the five wetland mitigation sites evaluated are as follows.
Mitigation Site A – Mitigation Site A is located in an open agricultural field contiguous to

Wetland W-33, a forested wetland with a “PFO1C” NWI wetland classification. NRCS soils
mapping for the site is Kingsbury silty clay. This soils series consists of very deep, somewhat
poorly drained soils formed in lacustrine or marine sediments. The site consists of herbaceous
vegetation, which changes with the management of the field. This site is located approximately
1,600 linear feet northwest of DEC Wetland V-1, however, and is not directly hydraulically
connected to this DEC wetland. The nearest FEMA mapped floodplain area is located in the
3-37
001382
DEC Wetland and is approximating 2,000 feet away from the proposed mitigation site. The
proposed mitigation would expand the existing NWI Wetland.
Mitigation Site B – Mitigation Site B is located in an agricultural field adjacent to the abandoned
railroad ballast, south of the proposed substation site, and would be hydrologically connected to
Wetland OT-20. NRCS soil series mapping indicates that the area has Kingsbury silty clay,
consisting of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in lacustrine or marine sediments.
The site has been periodically farmed, suggesting it may be marginally wet depending on rainfall
and weather conditions. The nearest DEC Wetland (DEC Wetland V-1) is located approximately
850 feet south of this proposed mitigation site. The nearest FEMA mapped floodplain area is also
located south of the proposed mitigation site and is associated with the DEC Wetland. The
nearest NWI Wetland is east of the proposed mitigation site and is classified as mixed forested
and scrub/shrub wetland (“PFO/SS1E”). The proposed mitigation would be hydrologically
connected to this NWI Wetland.
Exhibit 3.2.2 – Potential Mitigation Locations
Mitigation Site C – Mitigation Site C is also located in an open agricultural field, north of the
abandoned railroad ballast and would be hydrologically connected Wetland OT1. Soil mapping
3-38
001383
in this area is Covington silty clay, a hydric soil. It has a very deep and poorly drained soils
formed in calcareous clayey glacio-lacustrine or glacio-estuarine deposits on glacial lake plains.
These soils are found on broad plains, depressions, and drainage ways. The vegetation of the site
consists of herbaceous vegetation, which changes with the management of the field. The site is
located approximately 600 feet north of DEC Wetland V-1. The nearest FEMA mapped
floodplain area is associated with the DEC Wetland and is approximating 550 feet away for the
proposed mitigation site. The nearest NWI Wetland is approximately 500 feet northeast of the
site and is classified as mixed forested and scrub/shrub wetland (“PFO/SS1E”). This NWI
wetland is associated with the project designated Wetland OT-1.
Mitigation Site D – This potential site is located in an agricultural field along the west bank of
Kents Creek. This portion of Kents Creek is mapped as an NWI “PSS1A” wetland and the
proposed mitigation site would be hydrologically connected to this shrub dominated wetland.
NRCS soil mapping indicates the series in this area is Rhinebeck silt loam. These are a very
deep, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in glacio-lacustrine sediments having a high clay
and silt content. The vegetation of the site consists of herbaceous vegetation cover, which
changes with the management of the field. The nearest FEMA mapped floodplain area is
associated with Kents Creek and is about one mile downstream. The nearest DEC Wetland is
“ST-10” and is approximately 2,300 linear feet to the northeast of the mitigation site and is
associated with Kents Creek. The proposed mitigation site would expand the riparian, wildlife
corridor of Kents Creek.
Mitigation Site E – This potential site is also located in an agricultural field along the west bank
of Kents Creek. The soil mapping in this area is also Rhinebeck silt loam. The vegetation in this
area is currently dominated with herbaceous cover; the area appears to be cleared periodically, or
maintained as a field. The nearest FEMA mapped floodplain area is the same FEMA floodplain
area associate with Site D and is located about 1.5 miles downstream on Kents Creek. The
proposed mitigation site is located approximately 450 feet southwest of DEC Wetland “ST-10”;
which is the nearest mapped DEC Wetland. This site is located approximately 500 feet northeast
of a scrub/shrub NWI Wetland classified as “PSS1A”; the same wetland associated with Site D.
This site would also effectively expand the apparent riparian wildlife corridor of Kents Creek.
Summary of Proposed Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: SLW proposes the following

compensatory mitigation for the impacts to “aquatic resources” (wetlands):
x The establishment of 0.7 acres of wetlands (a 2:1 ratio of lost wetlands) from on-site
uplands in the Project area adjacent to one existing wetland area;
x the restoration of 1.95 acres of wetlands; and,
3-39
001384
x the establishment of a conservation easement of at least one acre of existing forested

wetland habitat and associated upland buffer to mitigate the conversion of existing
forested wetland habitat to emergent wet meadow habitat resulting from the Project
activities.
Wetland Construction Plan: Mitigation Site Plans and Profiles - Once the preferred wetland
mitigation site has been obtained (i.e. either a Conservation Restriction agreement or purchase
from the landowner), the site specific construction grade specifications and details will be
submitted for final approval. Construction parameters and requirements include: sub-grade,
micro-topographic and final grade specifications; topsoil thickness; surface drainage
requirements and planting specifications depicting location, quantities, density, and species
necessary to establish palustrine emergent wetlands (PEM). These parameters will be depicted
on plans with cross-sections across the wetland replacement areas (see Exhibit 3.2.3).
Exhibit 3.2.3 – Conceptual Wetland Replacement Cross-section
Mitigation Site Construction Sequence – Construction of the replacement wetlands will

commence once the Project access roads have been completed and before completion of the wind
farm. Prior to commencement of mitigation construction, a pre-construction meeting will be held
to familiarize contractors with the design and permitting requirements for the replacement
wetlands. The meeting will be convened by a wetland scientist familiar with the requirements of
the Project plans and the conditions issued by the USACE. The project wetland scientist will be
present onsite during the construction to monitor the work and to ensure compliance with
requirements of the wetland replacement plans and permits.
3-40
001385
Grading, Soils, and Hydrology – The replacement wetland will be excavated and graded
appropriately to create sufficient depth and persistent wetland hydrology to accommodate
approximately 0.7 acres. This grading will be conducted adjacent to existing “reference”
wetlands to facilitate similar hydrologic conditions influenced by soils and topography. The soil
drainage class, depth to water table and frequency of inundation of the soils mapped to occur in
these locations by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service are indicators of
hydrologic conditions suitable for constructing the replacement wetlands. Surface runoff is the
primary source of soil saturation for the mitigation site. Proposed grades throughout the created
wetland will be designed to capture this surface drainage. Other suitable hydrologic parameters
observed in the reference wetland will be considered with respect to establishing grading and soil
depths at the wetland replacement site. These include: proximity to existing wetlands, landscape
position, evidence of soil saturation or inundation displayed by soil texture and coloration,
presence of mottling or redoximorphic features and abundance of hydrophytic vegetation.
Wetland Construction – Prior to construction at the wetland replacement area, erosion controls
will be installed in appropriate areas to protect adjacent wetlands. A tracked excavator will be
used at the replacement wetlands site to create somewhat irregular or small “pit and mound”
topography characteristic of natural wetlands. Total relief between the bottom of the pools and
the tops of the mounds will be no more than one vertical foot. Sub-grades will be excavated 8 to
12 inches below final grade to accept backfill with a corresponding thickness of wetland topsoil.
This thickness of topsoil is representative of the corresponding “A” horizon in other undisturbed
wetlands adjoining the replacement wetlands. To the extent feasible, hydric or wetland soil
stockpiled from the wetlands to be filled will be salvaged and spread over the surface of the
replacement wetlands. As necessary, this will be supplemented with suitable organic-rich topsoil
augmented with composted soil obtained locally. After application of the topsoil to sub-grades,
the constructed wetland footprint will blend in with contours of adjacent undisturbed slopes.
Along the transition area between the upland and replacement wetland boundary, at least a 3:1
upland slope will be maintained
Wetland Planting – Native species indigenous to the Project will be purchased from a local
nursery and planted in the wetland replacement area to re-establish a diverse emergent (PEM)
and scrub/shrub wetland community. In particular, native species tolerant of periodic inundation
or saturated soils will be chosen. In addition, a commercially available and acceptable seed
mixture of native wetland plants (hydrophytes) will be sown across bare soil in the replacement
wetlands to establish an understory of herbaceous wetland vegetation beneath woody shrub
species planted along the fringe of the replacement wetland. The seed will be mixed to achieve
a mosaic of plant micro-communities and plant diversity that have the potential to encourage
wildlife use. Typical application rates of such seed mixes will be 15 pounds per acre (+0.5
3-41
001386
pounds per 1,000 square feet). This seed mixture will also be applied to the impacted wetlands
associated with the temporary road disturbances. In addition, dead or dying woody debris
obtained from logs, limbs and stumps of non-invasive species will be distributed throughout the
constructed wetlands. The woody debris is intended to provide structural and temporal diversity
and cover, nest sites, and perches for wildlife. Woody debris will be sited to represent dispersed
configurations typically observed in reference wetlands including fallen logs, snags, overturned
stumps depicting tree-throw and fallen canopy. Based on the proximity of the proposed wetland
mitigation site to existing wetlands, it is reasonable to expect other “volunteer” species of woody
and herbaceous vegetation will also colonize the replacement wetlands.
Wetland Monitoring: Monitoring of the wetland replacement areas will begin once the area has
been constructed and will continue for five full growing seasons after completion of construction
in accordance with USACE mitigation guidance. Monitoring will take place at several key times
throughout construction of the replacement wetland and during the first growing season, and on a
routine schedule for the remainder of the five years of monitoring. Monitoring will occur twice a
year during the growing season for the first three years and once a year during the growing
season for the remaining two years. Monitoring will be conducted by a wetland scientist familiar
with the design of the wetland replacement areas and the associated permitting requirements.
Monitoring reports will be submitted to the NYSDEC and USACE promptly after the
observations. A schedule and discussion of the observations to be made during the monitoring,
along with topics that are to be addressed in the annual monitoring reports, are described as
follows:
x Prior to excavation: confirm proper layout of the replacement area, document nearby or
in-place occurrence of invasive or problematic species that may require future control or
management;
x Prior to completion of grading: verify hydrology, sub-grades and final grades have been
achieved;
x Onset of planting: verify adherence to planting specifications and identify planting
locations;
x Completion of planting: verify planting placement, evaluate need for irrigation, and
identify corrective measures;
x Weekly after planting:evaluate need for irrigation and implement as necessary;
x Midway during growing season: evaluate planting success and need for irrigation,
inventory occurrence of invasive species and implement, if necessary, remedial measures
ranging from physical removal to application of herbicides as appropriate;
3-42
001387
x Early September: inspect success of plantings, implement necessary corrective measures

before month end (end of growing season), photograph site from designated monitoring
stations, and evaluate achievement of compensatory mitigation goals;
x Early October: inspect success of plantings, implement necessary corrective measures
before month end (end of growing season) photograph site from designated monitoring
stations, and evaluate achievement of mitigation goals. In the subsequent three years,
monitoring will be conducted as scheduled below for the related purposes; and
x During the last two years of monitoring, observation will be made only during the month
of September.
Monitoring Stations – Permanent monitoring stations will be established in the replacement

wetlands from which photographs will be taken annually to track development of wetland
conditions. Data will also be collected at the monitoring stations during the mid-growing season
or early September. Vegetative data to be collected from nested quadrants containing respective
stratums at these stations will include species composition, percent dominance, and percent
survival of planted species. Soils observations will consist of describing soil profiles at each
monitoring station. Hydrologic data will be obtained from test pits excavated to evaluate soil
profile development. The above data will be evaluated in accordance with methods presented in
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual to determine whether conditions occur
that meet criteria representative of a reference wetland community. Conditions throughout the
wetland replacement areas such as vegetative cover, occurrence and extent of invasive species,
evidence of disturbance, slope stability, and use by wildlife (e.g. tracks, scat, browsing, or nests)
will also be recorded during the mid-growing season monitoring.
Monitoring Conditions, Reporting, and Success Parameters – Conditions observed at the

monitoring stations and throughout the compensation area will be summarized in the monitoring
report along with any necessary recommendations for remedial measures such as replanting dead
vegetation, re-grading to achieve appropriate hydrology, controlling invasive species, and
stabilizing un-vegetated or eroding soil. Data collected during monitoring site visits will be
summarized in the report. By the end of the second growing season, the monitoring reports will
also address progress towards the following success standards:
x 100 percent vegetative coverage;
x More than 85 percent of the replacement wetland will contain a minimum of six
planted species or non-exotic volunteer species that are well represented in
compensation area;
x Stable slopes/soils within and adjacent to the wetland replacement area; and,
3-43
001388
x Control of non-native invasive species (e.g. common reed, Russian and autumn
olives, buckthorn and/or multiflora rose) within the replacement area.
Monitoring Reports – The monitoring reports will contain:

x Plans showing the location of monitoring stations for planted species;
x Assessment of planted species survival and sustainability;
x Species list inventory of dominant (greater than 5 percent cover) volunteer species;
x Assessment of wetland functions being provided by the replacement wetland;
x Representative photographs of the created wetlands from monitoring stations; and
x Recommended remedial measures needed to correct problems or deficiencies.
3.3.1 Vegetation
Vegetative cover in the Project Area consists primarily of agriculture (85 percent), forest stands
(8 percent), and scrub-shrub (5 percent) (Figures 3-3 and 3-9) (USGS, 1992). The remaining 2
percent comprises developed and non-forested wetland cover. Agriculture land includes
pastureland (69 percent) and row crops (13 percent). Forest stands include deciduous forests (6
percent), and evergreen forests (<1 percent). Dominant species in deciduous forests include
American Beech (Fagus americana), White Birch (Betula papyrifera), and White Oak (Quercus
alba), while mixed forests can include Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Sugar Maple (Acer
saccharum), and Oak (Quercus sp.) interspersed with Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and
Spruce (Picea sp.). Forested cover within the Project Area is fragmented and represented by
isolated stands, typical of the region. Some edge habitats with shrubby growth occupy the
transition between agriculture fields and forested areas; however, an abrupt transition between
covertypes is common. Forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent wetlands constitute less than two
percent of the Project Area.
A unique grassland type, alvars, is found in the St. Lawrence River Basin. Alvars consist of
grasslands and shrublands that develop on shallow soils with limestone geology. They typically
support rare plant communities. Alvars are unique not only to this Basin, but are unique on a
state and global level as well. Most alvars are concentrated in Jefferson County. Examples in the
Project Area are Chaumont Barrens and Three-Mile Creek Barrens. No alvars were observed on
the Project Site during field surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008. Based on consultation with
the New York Natural Heritage Program, two endangered plant species, the Michigan lily and
autumnal water-starwort are potentially associated within the wetland habitats found in the
Project Area and are discussed separately in Section 3.3.7. However, neither of these species
were observed on the Project Site during field surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008.
3-44
001389

No significant impact to vegetation will occur. Alvars at the Chaumont Barrens and Three-Mile
Creek Barrens will not be affected by the Project. Impact to plant communities associated with
the construction of the Project will include the development of approximately 41 acres of
agricultural land (30 acres of pasture/hay and 11 acres of cropland) and 0.6 acres of forest for the
construction of the turbines, access roads, and substation. There is potential for the introduction
of invasive species into areas disturbed during construction activities. In addition, approximately
17 acres of forested land, mostly associated with the proposed 100-foot overhead transmission
line right-of-way, will be converted to herbaceous and open shrub cover. Following the
completion of construction activities, natural regeneration of vegetative species will occur;
therefore the resulting plant community will likely consist of local early successional low shrubs
and young trees. The overhead transmission line right-of-way will be selectively managed
periodically so that trees or their branches do not compromise the security of the infrastructure.

Clearing of vegetation will be minimized in areas that are ecologically sensitive, such as the
banks of creeks crossed by the overhead transmission line. All temporary disturbances will be
restored. To facilitate restoration, the subsoil used to create access roads will be pervious, native
material. Most access roads will be restored to a permanent width of up to 17 feet, including side
slopes. In agricultural fields, access roads will be located along existing farm roads or placed
along the edge of fields, to the greatest extent practicable to preserve farmland. To eliminate or
mitigate the potential for invasive species introduction to areas disturbed by construction
activities, SLW has prepared an Invasive Species Management Plan (Appendix D) to ensure that
all disturbed areas will be returned to a native vegetative state once construction is complete.
3.3.2 Mammals Excluding Bats

This discussion addresses mammals, other than bats, that potentially occur in the Project Area.
Bats are addressed separately in Section 3.3.3 because of their flight capabilities and the potential
environmental consequences associated with this behavior. Most of the mammals associated
with the Project Area are species adapted to human activities such as those associated with the
largely agricultural land use. Jefferson County supports a large population of white-tailed deer, a
sparse localized population of ruffed grouse, and a moderate population of eastern cottontail.
Agricultural fields and vegetation cover types within the Project provide habitat for these species
of wildlife. Agricultural land such as pastures, hayfields and row crops provide nesting and
feeding habitats for eastern cottontail, shrews, mice, and birds. Predatory mammals such as
coyote and fox use open areas for hunting. Forested areas provide habitat for other wildlife such
3-45
001390
as grey squirrel, chipmunk, and white-tailed deer. Based on evaluation of habitat types present
in the Project Area as well as consultation with the New York Natural Heritage Program, no
threatened or endangered mammals, or their critical habitat, (excluding bats, which are discussed
separately in Section 3.3.3) are known to be located or are found within the Project Area.

Impacts to mammals (bats are discussed separately in Section 3.3.3) during construction or
operation of the Project are anticipated to be minor and short-term. Minor, temporary
displacement of individuals and disturbance of wildlife habitat associated with construction of
the Project will be limited to the construction right-of-way and immediately adjacent areas.
Forested habitat will be cleared within portions of the laydown areas for 6 of the 53 turbines and
along limited portions of the overhead transmission line right-of-way. Total permanent forest
clearing will amount to only 0.6 acres. In addition, approximately 17 acres of forest would
temporarily be cleared for construction of the Project. Most wildlife within the Project Area will
actively avoid the immediate construction area because of construction related activity and
human presence. Displaced individuals will most likely move to adjacent undisturbed areas.
However, more sedentary species, such as small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that lack the
mobility needed to avoid construction equipment could be more directly affected during
construction and a few individuals could possibly be lost.

The Project was designed to avoid significant impact to wildlife. Project infrastructure is sited
away from high quality wildlife habitat and forested clearing has been minimized.
3.3.3 Bats
The Project Area is within the geographic range of nine species of bats: big brown bat (Eptesicus
fuscus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), hoary
bat (Lasiurus cinereus), small-footed bat (Myotis leibii), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus),
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and eastern bat
(Pipistrellus subflavus). The Indiana bat, a State- and Federally-listed endangered species, has
been recorded in the Project Area. A documented hibernaculum containing Indiana bats is
located in Glen Park approximately 17 miles southeast of the Project Area. Multiple Indiana bat
spring/summer roosts have also been documented within ten miles of the Project Area. Indiana
bats are discussed in detail in Section 3.3.7. In addition, the eastern small-footed myotis has
been documented within 25 miles of the Project Area.
3-46
001391
SLWF contracted Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. to conduct surveys for bats within the
Project Area (see Appendix E – Avian and Bat Survey). These surveys included: spring and fall
AnaBat surveys for migrant bats, summer AnaBat surveys for resident bats, 2007 and 2008
summer mist-net surveys for bats, and habitat focused surveys for the Indiana bat. Three hundred
and fifty-three bats of six species were captured during the July and August 2007 mist net
survey, including four Indiana bats. Species captured included 178 little brown, 26 northern
long-eared, 139 big brown, five eastern red, and one silver-haired bats. One hundred and eighty-
five bats of four species were captured during the June 2008 mist net survey; however, no
Indiana bats were captured during this sampling event. Species captured included 119 little
brown, 22 northern long-eared, 43 big brown, and one eastern red bats.
Results of other studies at wind projects indicate that populations of breeding bats nearby are not
highly susceptible to turbine collision, and that impacts to summer breeding resident species such
as little brown bats, big brown bats, northern Myotis, and Indiana bats found in the Project study
area are expected to be low. It has been found that resident bats in and around wind projects do
not appear to be affected as greatly as long distance migrant species (see Johnson 2005, Arnett et
al. 2008). The studies of bat mortality at wind projects have shown that impacts are unequal
across species and season, and that relative abundance of species based on acoustic surveys in
not correlated with mortality.
New York bat populations have been recently affected by White Nose Syndrome (WNS). WNS
is characterized by a white fungus encircling the noses and on the wings of the majority of the
affected bats. This fungus is thought to be symptomatic of the problem but may not be the actual
cause of death. Affected bats have depleted fat reserves and do not usually survive through
winter hibernation. A recent study has identified a new fungus which is a close genetic relative
the Geomyces group of fungi, that had colonized the skin of 90 percent of the bats analyzed from
all the states affected by white-nose syndrome (Blehert, et. al., 2008). Since the discovery of
WNS in New York State in 2006, the numbers of hibernating bats have been drastically
declining in New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Little brown bats have
sustained the largest number of deaths attributed to WNS.

No significant impacts to bat species are likely during construction of the Project. During
Project operation, bat collision with wind turbines is a potential impact. Several bat mortality
trends have emerged based on post-construction mortality studies at wind projects in the United
States and Canada. Risk to bats from wind turbines is unequal across species. Most bat fatalities
at North American wind projects have involved species of the genus Lasiurus, typically hoary
3-47
001392
bat (Lasiurus cinereus), red bat (L. borealis) and silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans).
These are long distance migrants that commonly forage in forest canopy (Johnson, 2005).
Eastern pipistrelles (Pipistrellus subflavus) fatalities are also often reported (Johnson, 2005);
however, eastern pipistrelles are not commonly found in northern New York and will not be
affected by the Project. The least common fatalities are of big brown bats and Myotis species.
Numerous studies across the U.S. and Canada have shown this trend (see Johnson, 2005).
Risk to bats from wind turbines also is unequal across seasons. Highest mortality to bats at wind
turbines generally occurs during the period from late-July to mid-September, which is believed
to be the post-breeding dispersal and fall migration period for bats. In addition, results of
mortality studies suggest that bat mortality is not related to site-specific features or habitats
(Arnett et al., 2005; Baerwald, 2007; Jain et al., 2007). Predicting bat fatality impact is difficult
based on available knowledge of bat interactions with wind facilities but it is expected that
impacts to bats at the Saint Lawrence Windpower Project would be similar to other regional
wind projects. Average fatalities of 3.4 and 46.3 bats per turbine per year have been reported by
NWCC (2004) for U.S. national and eastern region wind facilities, respectively. Applying these
rates to the number of turbines associated with the Project, the average annual bat fatality is
estimated to be between 180 and 2,454 bats. Annual average bat fatality estimates documented
at Maple Ridge Wind Farm during first year monitoring efforts ranged between 15 to 24 bats per
turbine, with 244 of 326 identified bat fatalities (75 percent) occurring in July and August (Jain
et al. 2007). If patterns of bat fatality for the Project are considered consistent with those
observed in the Maple Ridge Wind Farm, average annual bat fatality is estimated to be between
795 and 1272 bats.
Based on the available information as well as the data during 2006 studies (WEST, 2007) it is
expected that bat mortality at the Project Area will be similar to the other studies in the U.S. and
New York with the peak of mortality likely occurring in August and September. Spring and
summer mortality levels for bats are expected to be lower than the fall. The species expected to
be the most common fatalities would include eastern red bat, hoary bat, and silver-haired bat,
with fewer numbers of big brown bat, little brown bat, and northern myotis.
3.3.3.3 Mitigation Measures, Compensation and Monitoring

The following conservation measures have been implemented during the design of the project or
will be implemented before or during construction to minimize potential bat mortality as a result
of the construction and operation of the Project:
1. Project design – the Project has been designed to avoid or minimize cutting deciduous
forest habitat to the maximum extent feasible.
3-48
001393
2. Project design - the Project has been reduced in scale from 96 turbines to a minimum
economically viable size of 53 turbines (79.5 MW). This design effectively
minimizes collision risk through fewer turbines,
3. Project design - the Project design was also used to minimize exposure by placing all
turbines at appropriate distances from known roost trees.
4. Timing – All tree clearing will occur outside of the highest known usage times for the
project area (May – September),
5. SLW is currently in formal consultation with the USFWS, USACE, and NYSDEC for
potential impacts to Indiana bats (see Appendix F – between R. Niver, USFWS and
B. Gunderman, Acciona, various dates). The Project will be required to comply with
conditions and mitigation measures derived through this collaborative process.
Post-construction monitoring studies will be implemented to estimate the mortality and habitat
displacement experienced by bats as a result of the Project, to verify the environmental impacts
estimated by pre-construction studies, and to provide supporting value to the overall package of
conservation measures that ultimately benefit the species or population. SLW will engage in a 3-
year monitoring program to determine the level of impact and circumstances under which
impacts to bats occur from the Project (See Appendix E – Post-Construction Monitoring Plan).
The monitoring program also will provide information about the risks to Indiana bats from wind
turbines that may be useful in developing additional impact reduction strategies.
3.3.4 Migrating Birds

Based on 2006 hawk count data, the annual number of migrating hawks in the region varies from
approximately 5,000 to 31,000 birds in 2006 and 6,000, to 52,140 birds in 2007 (Table 3-10).
Six species were observed at nearly all three watch sites. The most common species observed
were turkey vultures, broad-winged hawks, red-tailed hawks and sharp-shinned hawks. These
data are compiled from three hawk watch sites: Derby Hill located appoximately 70 miles south
of the Project Area; Braddock Bay located approximately 190 miles southwest; and Franklin
Mountain located approximately 195 miles southeast (Hawk Migration Association of North
America, 2006). These numbers represent hawk migration in western and northern New York
and may not be indicative of hawk movements in the vicinity of the proposed Project.
In addition, large open waters associated with the Saint Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, north
and west of the Project Area, and sheetwater wetlands in the region are used by migratory
waterfowl. The 2040-acre Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area provides wetland habitat
3-49
001394
Table 3-10
Hawk Observations for the Braddock Bay1, Franklin Mountain2 and
Derby Hill3 Bird Observatory: 20064
Braddock Bay Franklin Mt. Derby Hill
Spring Spring Fall Fall Spring Spring
Common Name Scientific Name 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007
Black Vulture Coragyps atratus 0 0 0 0 1 2
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 4671 15097 393 483 11375 8291
Osprey Pandion haliaeetus 1 150 121 140 503 365
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 20 267 121 141 363 244
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 89 1134 70 109 474 590
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 49 4060 573 835 2706 2413
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperi 43 889 115 162 349 413
Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 4 26 8 25 29 16
Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 187 750 115 93 578 363
Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus 0 24445 774 1639 9442 8349
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 419 4384 2711 2146 4859 3366
Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 37 278 4 10 251 254
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 5 55 207 164 41 47
American Kestrel Falco sparverius 44 544 85 89 216 325
Merlin Falco columbarius 0 46 39 38 33 39
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 1 14 14 25 11 9
Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni 0 1 0 1 0
Unknown 3 0 56 61 39 21
Total Number of Hours 157.75 378 847.25 516.42 485.6 444.25
Total Number of Individuals Observed 5573 52140 5406 6160 31271 25107
1
Located on the southern shore of Lake Ontario in the town of Greece, just outside of Rochester, NY.
2
Located on the Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society Sanctuary, two miles south of Oneonta, NY, overlooking the Susquehanna
River Valley, on the western edge of New York’s Catskill Mountains.
3
Located on the southeastern shore of Lake Ontario in Oswego County.
4
Source: Hawk Migration Association of North America (2006-2007). Hawkcount Results [Online].
used by waterfowl for nesting and feeding cover. Mallards, wood ducks, blue-winged teals,
American black ducks, Canada geese and to a lesser extent, ring ducks, green-winged
teals,gadwalls, American widgeons, and hooded mergansers use these areas as migratory
stopovers (Northern Ecological Associates, 1994; Losito, 1993). Other migratory waterfowl
documented in the region, include snow goose, northern pintails, northern shoveler, American
coot, bufflehead, common merganser, lesser scaup, canvasback and goldeneye.
Surveys for migrating birds within the Project Area were conducted in 2006 and included spring
and fall radar surveys for nocturnal avian migrants, and spring and fall surveys for migrant
raptors (see Appendix E – Avian and Bat Studies). The objective of these surveys was to record
and estimate the use of the site by migrant raptors, other diurnal migrants (i.e. waterfowl), and
other large birds possibly utilizing this migration corridor. Point counts, as prescribed by the
3-50
001395
Hawk Mountain Association of North America (HMANA), were conducted by observers

continuously scanning the sky and surrounding areas for raptors in the survey area (see Appendix
E Section 3.2.1 – Avian and Bat Studies). The timing of these surveys was determined in
consultation with the NYSDEC and based on available raptor migration watch stations in
northern and western New York. Three fixed survey points were located within the proposed
project area to provide comprehensive east-west coverage of the project area while minimizing
the potential double counting of individual birds. Also, these points represented a cross-section
of landforms found in the proposed development area. Each survey point was surveyed once
each survey day during the hours of 0700-1700, these hours being considered the peak period for
observing migrating raptors. Sampling intensity was designed to document raptor migration
through the project area. Flight height was used to calculate a relative index of exposure for each
species. Survey dates and times were selected to maximize the possible observations for
migrating raptors. Therefore, it is likely that if more survey hours were conducted, the average
numbers of individuals observed would be reduced.
A total of 12 surveys during the spring of 2006 resulted in the observation of 1581 individual
birds, of which 91 were raptors representing 9 species. Spring 2006 raptor passage rates were
7.5 birds per observer-hour. The fall 2006 season surveys (30 total) resulted in the observation
of 8521 birds, of which 288 were raptors representing 9 species. Fall 2006 raptor passage rates
were 9.6 birds per observer-hour. During the spring of 2007, there were 21 surveys resulting in
the observation of 2666 individual birds, of which 232 represented 8 species of raptors. Spring
2007 raptor passage rates were 15.4 birds per observer-hour. A total of 12,768 individual large
birds, of which 611 individual raptors represented 13 species, were recorded during all surveys.
Canada goose and unidentified gull species were the most commonly recorded bird during the
surveys. Turkey vultures were the most common recorded raptor species during all spring
surveys. During the fall surveys, northern harrier was the most commonly observed species.
Other raptor species observed include broad-winged hawk, red-tailed hawk, rough-legged hawk,
sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, osprey, American kestrel, merlin, and bald eagle (see
Appendix E – Avian and Bat Studies, see Section 3.2.2 Table 1). For raptors, turkey vulture had
the highest exposure index due to higher use estimates.
Results of the raptor migration studies indicate that the number of migrant raptors passing
through the project area is significantly less than established hawk watch sites and similar to
other wind sites studied in New York. Fall migrants observed in the vicinity of the Project are
slightly higher than the average number of raptors observed at 18 wind facility locations studied
throughout New York (Table 3-11). Similarly, birds per hour and number of species are also
slightly higher than the average of 4.7 birds/hour and 7.7 species observed at these locations.
3-51
001396

Raptor Migration Data for Proposed Wind Sites in New York State 1
Number
Number Total Percent
Dates Number of Turbine Survey
Location of Hours Number of Birds/hr Below Year
Sampled of Days Species Height Times
Sampled Individuals Turbine
Seen
Spring
Cape Vincent, Jefferson County 3/21-5/1 7 21 232 15.4 8 not calc 125 m 9-5 2007
2
Cape Vincent, Jefferson County 4/14-5/12 4 12 91 7.5 8 (80.5%) 125 m 9-5 2006
Clayton, Jefferson County 3/30-5/7 10 58 700 12.1 14 61% 150 m 9-3 2005
Chateaugay, Franklin County 4/19-4/28 3 21 47 1.9 12 3% 400 ft 9-4 2006
Marble River, Clinton County 4/5-5/6 10 60 170 2.83 11 76% 120 m 9-3 2005
3
Altona, Clinton County 5/4-5/6 3 (21) 2 0 0 1 not calc n/a 9-4 2005
4
Clinton/Ellenburg, Clinton County 4/18-4/20 3 (21) 2 0 0 1 not calc n/a 9-4 2005
West Hill, Madison County 4/5-5/16 10 60 375 6.25 12 78% 118 m 9-3 2005
Windfarm Prattsburgh, Steuben Co. not reported 10 (60) 2 314 5.23 15 83% 125 m not reported 2005
Cohocton, Steuben County not reported 10 60 164 2.73 11 77% 125 m ~9-3 2005
Howard, Steuben County 4/3-5/14 9 52.5 260 4.95 11 64% 125 m 9-3 2006
Dairy Hills, Wyoming County 4/15-4/26 5 20 50 (2.5) 2 6 (94.7%) 2,5 125 m 9-3 2005
Bliss, Wyoming County 4/21-4/28 3 (21) 2 19 (0.9) 2 4 not calc n/a 9-4 2005
Wethersfield, Wyoming County 4/22-4/29 3 21 5 0.1 3 not calc n/a 9-4 2005
High Sheldon, Wyoming County 4/2-5/14 7 37 119 3.2 7 not calc n/a 9-5 2005
Alabama, Genesee County 4/16-4/29 5 20 177 9 8 (84.5%) 2,5 125 m 9-3 2005
Spring Mean 6.4 35.3 170.2 4.7 8.1
Fall
2
Clayton, Jefferson County 9/9-10/16 11 63.5 575 9.1 13 89% 150 m 9-3 2005
Altona, Clinton County 9/24-9/30 3 (21) 2 0 0 0 0 n/a 9-4 2005
Clinton/Ellenburg, Clinton County 9/23-9/28 3 (21) 2 0 0 0 0 n/a 9-4 2005
Jordanville, Herkimer County 10/13-11/30 44 234.7 629 (2.7) 2 12 (67%) 2 125 m ~7:30-3 2006
Windfarm Prattsburgh, Steuben Co. not reported 13 73 220 3.01 10 62% 125 m not reported 2004
3-52
001397

Raptor Migration Data for Proposed Wind Sites in New York State
Number
Seen
Fall
Howard, Steuben County 9/1-10/28 10 57 206 3.6 12 85% 125 m 9-3 2005
Dairy Hills, Wyoming County 9/11-10/10 4 16 48 (3) 2 6 (94.7%) 2,5 125 m 9-3 2005
Bliss, Wyoming County 9/12-9/17 3 (21) 2 0 0 0 0 n/a 9-4 2005
Wethersfield, Wyoming County 9/21-11/1 3 (21?) 2 231 9.7 11 27% 400 ft 9-4 2006
Wethersfield, Wyoming County 9/13-9/18 3 21 0 0 0 0 n/a 9-4 2005
High Sheldon, Wyoming County 8/29-11/4 8 53.5 168 3.1 9 not calc n/a 9-5 2005
Fall Mean 8.9 49 189 3.8 7.7
1
Source: New York State Department of Environmental Protection 10/1/07
2
(#) = value not reported in results, calculated by DEC based on report text and tables
3
Four turkey vultures were observed but not deemed migratory; not included in overall mean calculation
4
Two broad-winged hawks were observed but not deemed migratory; not included in overall mean calculation
5
Calculated for spring and fall combined
3-53
001398

It is not anticipated that Project construction will have significant impacts on migratory birds.
The landscape of the coastline around Cape Vincent would require raptors that are following the
lake shore to move westward before continuing on a northerly heading. It is highly likely that
raptors that have moved through the Derby Hill area continue on a northerly track and pass east
of the Project Area. It is also likely that raptors migrating through the Cape Vincent area are
more dispersed due to fewer topographic features and land forms that could concentrate raptor
movement. However, during operation of the Project, there is a potential that migratory birds
could collide with wind turbines. Although this presents a potential risk for migrating raptors, it
is not expected to impact the raptor species that have been observed in the area because of their
relatively low abundance and exposure index.
Post construction mortality studies conducted at 12 wind facilities throughout the nation indicate
a national avian mortality rate of 2.3 birds per turbine per year (birds/turbine/year) (National
Wind Coordinating Collaborative, 2004). Two thirds of fatalities documented during post
construction mortality monitoring studies were estimated to be migrants. Using this mortality
rate, a total mortality of 122 birds/year is estimated. When considering results from only wind
facilities located in the eastern U.S. region, the calculated average avian mortality rate is reported
as 4.3 birds/turbine/year. This mortality rate would result in an estimate total mortality for the
Project of 228 birds/year. On a more local level, first year post-construction mortality
monitoring conducted at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm, a wind facility located approximately 40
miles southeast of the Project, indicates avian mortality ranged from 3.1 to 9.6 birds/turbine/year
(Jain et al. 2007). Using these mortality rates, a total mortality of between 164 and 509
birds/year is estimated. Based on the results of these studies, total avian mortality impacts at the
St. Lawrence Windpower Project are likely to range between 122 to 509 birds/year. However,
on an annual basis, fatalities resulting from collisions with wind turbines represent a small
fraction of all bird fatalities related to collision with human structures. Collisions with windows
and buildings (97,600,000 to 976,000,000 birds per year) and automobiles (60,000,000 to
80,000,000 birds per year) are major sources of avian mortality (Erickson et al., 2001).
Based on avian studies conducted within the proposed Project Area, raptors in general do not
have high risk for collision due to either low recorded numbers or flight height outside of the
rotor swept zone. Turkey vultures are at the highest risk since they were commonly observed,
most often in the rotor swept zone. However, while occasionally recorded as fatalities at other
wind facilities, the number of turkey vulture fatalities at other wind energy projects is lower than
for other raptor species, and turkey vulture fatalities have not been recorded at other wind energy
projects as often as would be predicted based on the use or exposure index. (Erickson et al.,
3-54
001399
2001, 2002) The National Wind Coordinating Collaborative’s 2004 study also summarized
raptor fatality rates at the same 12 nationwide wind energy facilities. This study estimated a
national average raptor mortality rate of 0.15 raptors/turbine/year. Using this fatality rate,
estimated total raptor mortality for the Project would be approximately 8 raptors/year. The
calculated average raptor mortality rate for eastern facilities only is reported as 0.02
raptors/turbine/year. This fatality rate would result in estimated total raptor mortality for the
Project of approximately 1 raptor/year. Using results obtained from the Maple Ridge Wind Farm
first year post-construction mortality monitoring, raptor mortality (including turkey vultures)
represented only 3 percent of total fatalities. Applying this to fatality rates recorded, a total
raptor mortality of between 5 and 15 raptors/year is estimated. Based on results from these
studies, the Saint Lawrence Windpower Project raptor mortality is likely to range between 1 to
15 raptors/year. Total number of individual birds, number of birds per hour and number of
species observed in the Project vicinity are similar to the average numbers for 18 wind facilities
studied in the state (Table 3-11).
SLW will conduct an operational (post-construction) monitoring program to confirm direct and
indirect impacts of the wind farm on birds (Appendix E – Post-Construction Monitoring Plan).
This will include an estimate of direct impacts of the operating project in terms of mortality rates
of birds caused by collisions with the wind turbines and an estimate of the potential avoidance
effects of the wind project on migrant raptors. The pre-construction raptor migration surveys will
be repeated during the first year of operation to (1) estimate the spatial and temporal use of the
site by migrant raptors, other diurnal migrants (e.g. waterfowl, corvids), and other large birds, (2)
compare post-construction use estimates to pre-construction use estimates, and (3) to associate
fatality rates to avian use to understand relative risk of collision.
3.3.4.3 Mitigation and Monitoring Measures

SLW has selected the proposed Project layout to minimize impacts to sensitive receptors,
including migrating birds. Impacts associated with migratory bird collision mortality with wind
turbines have been mitigated by spacing turbines the maximum distance apart, placing electrical
collection lines between turbines and the collector substation underground rather than above
ground, and implementing the minimum FAA safety lighting requirements. Any necessary
above ground power lines will follow the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
(http://www.aplic.org) suggested practices for protecting avian species.
Although significant bird mortality is not anticipated, the Project will implement a post-
construction avian fatality monitoring program to document impacts. Though the post-
construction monitoring program will not provide mitigation for this Project, information
3-55
001400
obtained may be used to modify the design of future wind energy facilities to further minimize
impacts to birds and bats.
3.3.5 Breeding Birds

The Saint Lawrence River Valley’s wetlands and grasslands provide habitat to a diverse
collection of breeding birds. Waterfowl are important wildlife resources in Jefferson County and
the Saint Lawrence River Valley provides nesting habitat for numerous species including:
mallard, American black duck, wood duck, green-winged teal, northern pintail and Canada
goose. It supports the highest density of breeding mallards in the Atlantic Flyway with a
population of nearly 15,000 pairs (Losito, 1993; Northern Ecological Associates, 1994). The
Valley is also a priority area for its obligate grassland-breeding bird habitat. It supports 17
percent of the global population of bobolinks (Wells, 2000). Other important grassland species
known to nest in the Valley include grasshopper sparrow, upland sandpiper, Henslow’s sparrow,
savannah sparrow and eastern meadowlark. Wild turkeys also inhabit the northern part of the
County along the Jefferson County/St. Lawrence County border. Song birds are common
throughout the County and vary with habitat.
Based on results of the 2006 USGS Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) for three survey routes located
within the Project vicinity (Watertown (61071), Ogdensburg (61096), and Philadelphia (61116)),
131 species are known to breed in the Project Area (Table 3-12). However, the total number of
species observed along individual routes varies between 104 and 117. The most numerous
species encountered included: red-winged blackbirds, ring-billed gulls, European starlings,
American robins, song sparrows, American crows, yellow warblers and bobolinks.
During June and July of 2006, SLW conducted breeding bird surveys for the Project Area (see
Appendix E – Avian and Bat Studies). The objective of the breeding bird survey was to estimate
the spatial and temporal use of the proposed project area by breeding birds. Survey dates were
based on the regional timing recommendations for USGS BBS in upstate New York, (USGS
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 2001). Twenty survey points were selected to be
representative of habitats found across the proposed Project Area. All birds observed were
recorded.
Point count surveys were repeated twice per day on June 30 and July 7, 2006. A total of 1080
individual birds representing 59 species were observed in 425 groups (see Table 3-13 and
Appendix E – Avian and Bat Studies). European Starling, red-winged blackbird, and bobolink
3-56
001401

Number of Birds/Route Documented Along the USGS Breeding Bird Survey2 Watertown (61071),
1
Ogdensburg (61096), and Philadelphia (61113) Routes3 in the Project Vicinity

Number of
Birds/Route
Common Name Scientific Name Watertown Ogdensburg Philadelphia
Common Loon Gavia immer ----- 0.05 0.21
Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus ----- 0.16 0.11
Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 0.05 ----- 0.05
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 1.16 0.21 0.26
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 9.26 2.26 6.00
Green Heron Butorides virescens 0.79 1.74 0.42
Black-crn. Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 0.05 -----
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 0.47 0.26 2.79
Canada Goose Branta canadensis 2.53 3.63 1.05
Wood Duck Aix sponsa 0.26 0.68 1.05
American Black Duck Anas rubripes 0.26 ----- 0.11
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 1.37 2.63 1.74
Blue-winged Teal Anas discors ----- 0.16 0.21
Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus ----- ----- 0.05
Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis ----- 0.16 -----
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus ----- ----- 0.05
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 0.21 0.37 0.26
Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus ----- ----- 0.05
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 0.42 0.79 0.42
American Kestrel Falco sparverius 0.63 1.89 0.74
Gray Partridge Perdix perdix 0.11 ----- -----
Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 0.74 0.16 0.05
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus 0.11 0.21 -----
Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 0.05 0.05 0.53
Virginia Rail Rallus limicola 0.05 0.16 0.21
Sora Porzana carolina ----- 0.05 0.05
Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 0.05 0.05 0.11
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 11.63 10.89 5.79
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 0.42 0.05 0.05
Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 0.26 0.21 0.26
Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago 1.05 7.26 3.53
American Woodcock Scolopax minor ----- ----- 0.05
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 155.74 52.95 5.05
Herring Gull Larus argentatus 0.11 ----- -----
Rock Dove Columba livia 43.89 26.16 10.37
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 17 7.58 7.00
Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus 1.26 0.79 1.00
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 0.16 ----- 0.05
3-57
001402

1

Number of
Common Name Scientific Name Birds/Route
Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio 0.11 ----- -----
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 0.11 ----- -----
Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor ----- 0.11 -----
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica 2.63 0.95 1.32
Ruby-thr. Hummingbird Archilochus colubris 0.11 0.11 -----
Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 0.47 0.47 0.79
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 0.11 ----- -----
Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 0.05 ----- 0.05
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius ----- ----- 0.11
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 1.42 0.68 0.68
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 0.05 0.11 0.16
Northern Flicker Colaptes spp. 3.47 3.16 2.21
Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 0.05 0.26 0.42
Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens 6.16 4.84 3.47
Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 5.00 2.32 1.26
Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 10.37 0.89 0.74
Willow/Alder Flycatcher Empidonax spp. 15.37 3.21 2.00
Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus 3.63 1.32 1.37
Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 4.68 3.68 4.84
Grt. Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 2.74 1.95 1.53
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 5.89 5.32 8.16
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus ----- 0.16 0.05
Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons 0.21 0.32 1.53
Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius ----- ----- 0.05
Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus 15.37 8.26 8.05
Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus 5.68 4.58 9.58
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata 3.53 4.68 5.26
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 35.68 38.21 32.79
Common Raven Corvus corax ----- ----- 0.21
Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris 3.68 0.42 0.11
Purple Martin Progne subis 1.63 0.84 0.53
Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 8.79 9.95 7.58
N. Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 0.21 0.21 0.21
Bank Swallow Riparia riparia 7.37 5.58 0.21
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota ----- 0.05 1.68
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 19.11 16.89 26.89
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus 5.63 2.32 5.95
White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 0.16 0.32 1.79
House Wren Troglodytes aedon 13.63 11.11 10.89
Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 0.05 ----- 0.16
Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis ----- 0.16 0.21
3-58
001403

Number of Birds/Route1 Documented Along the USGS Breeding Bird Survey2 Watertown (61071),
Number of
Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 0.11 0.05 3.32
Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis 0.11 0.42 0.26
Veery Catharus fuscescens 3.42 2.16 0.95
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus ----- ----- 0.21
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 8.74 4.21 5.05
American Robin Turdus migratorius 56.26 43.26 47.89
Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 6.63 4.89 6.58
Northern Mockingbird Mimis polyglottos ----- ----- 0.16
Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 1.32 2.47 2.37
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 111.63 34.89 21.26
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 10.37 4.11 4.89
Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus 0.11 ----- 0.05
Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 0.16 0.11 2.21
Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla 0.05 0.05 -----
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 33.05 39.11 32.32
Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica 5.32 1.42 2.26
Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata 0.05 0.05 0.11
Black-thr. Green Warbler Dendroica virens 0.11 0.05 0.32
Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus 0.05 0.26 0.42
Cerulean Warbler Dendrocia cerulean ----- ----- 0.16
Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia 1.00 1.47 2.84
American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 2.47 2.47 4.37
Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 0.89 1.11 2.89
Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 0.05 ----- 0.68
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 29.89 20.05 30.37
Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens ----- 0.05 -----
Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis 0.11 ----- -----
Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 0.58 0.32 2.05
Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 3.42 2.74 9.79
Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina 12.32 8.84 11.37
Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 3.84 2.89 7.79
Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 1.32 0.26 0.05
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 35.11 12.42 12.26
Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 1.42 ----- -----
Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii 0.42 ----- 0.05
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 40.89 39.63 31.11
Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana 3.58 1.84 6.84
White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 0.32 1.37 0.37
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis ----- ----- 0.21
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 2.63 1.84 0.74
Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 2.11 4.26 4.58
3-59
001404

1

Number of
Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 0.79 2.11 8.21
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 36.00 28.32 27.00
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 166.05 74.47 86.63
Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 25.47 21.84 23.84
Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 35.00 14.42 16.63
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 10.84 5.68 4.84
Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula 10.47 5.47 3.16
Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus 0.05 0.26 0.26
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 4.00 0.37 1.05
American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 35.05 13.58 17.58
House Sparrow Passer domesticus 27.32 27.84 15.74
Total Number of Species 110 104 117
1
Based on 50 stops per route, 3-minute counts per stop, and representing the averages of the total counts along the route for the
period 1966-2005.
2
Source: Sauer et al. (2005), United States Geological Survey. 1966-2005 North American Breeding Bird Survey Database
[Online].
3
The Watertown route is located approximately 10 miles southeast of the Project Area; the Ogdensburg route is located
approximately 20 miles northeast; and the Philadelphia route is located approximately 30 miles east.

Avian Species Observed During Project Breeding Bird Surveys
1
Species/Group Number of Number of Mean Use
Individuals Groups
Waterbirds
Great Blue heron 4 4 0.1
Green heron 1 1 0.025
Ring-billed gull 47 6 1.175
Unidentified gull 38 2 0.95
Waterfowl
Canada goose 27 4 0.675
Mallard 2 1 0.05
Shorebirds
Killdeer 16 10 0.4
Raptors/Vultures
American kestrel 2 2 0.05
T
Northern harrier 4 3 0.1
Red-tailed hawk 4 3 0.1
Turkey vulture 9 7 0.225
Passerines
American crow 53 11 1.325
3-60
001405

Individuals Groups
Passerines
American goldfinch 23 15 0.575
American robin 30 25 0.75
Baltimore oriole 6 3 0.15
Barn swallow 23 6 0.575
Black-capped chickadee 5 3 0.125
Bluejay 2 2 0.05
BobolinkBCC 76 32 1.9
Brown-headed cowbird 11 4 0.275
Cedar waxwing 4 1 0.1
Chestnut-sided warbler 1 1 0.025
Common grackle 29 3 0.725
Common yellowthroat 29 20 0.725
Eastern bluebird 2 2 0.05
Eastern kingbird 4 3 0.1
Eastern meadowlark 32 28 0.8
Eastern towhee 1 1 0.025
Eastern tufted titmouse 1 1 0.025
Eastern wood peewee 5 5 0.125
Empidonax spp. 1 1 0.025
European starling 235 19 5.875
Grasshopper sparrowSC 1 1 0.025
Gray catbird 6 5 0.15
SC
Horned lark 6 2 0.15
House wren 3 3 0.075
Indigo bunting 1 1 0.025
Northern cardinal 2 1 0.05
Ovenbird 11 11 0.275
Red-eyed vireo 7 7 0.175
Red-winged blackbird 136 49 3.4
Rose-breasted grosbeak 1 1 0.025
Savannah sparrow 37 26 0.925
Scarlet tanager 2 2 0.05
Song sparrow 48 35 1.2
Tree swallow 13 3 0.325
Unidentified passerine 1 1 0.025
Unidentified sparrow 1 1 0.025
Veery 1 1 0.025
Willow flycatcher 4 4 0.1
BCC
Wood thrush 6 5 0.15
Yellow warbler 31 18 0.775
3-61
001406

Individuals Groups
Upland Gamebirds
Ruffed grouse 1 1 0.025
Wild turkey 4 1 0.1
Doves
Mourning dove 10 6 0.25
Rock pigeon 14 5 0.35
Other Birds
Hairy woodpecker 1 1 0.025
Northern flicker 2 2 0.05
Unidentified woodpecker 3 3 0.075
1
T=State Threatened, SC=State Species of Concern, BCC=USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
were the most common passerines observed. Most of the observed species are associated with
agricultural, grasslands, and/or edge habitat. The northern harrier, a NYS threatened species; the
horned lark and grasshopper sparrow, NYS species of concern; and bobolink and wood thrush,
USFWS 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern, were recorded during the surveys.

Construction and operation of the proposed Project will likely result in minor, temporary impacts
to breeding birds. During construction, clearing and work activities in open habitats will
temporarily displace nesting and foraging individuals from the work area and suitable adjacent
habitats. Approximately 41 acres of pasture/hay fields, which represent much less than one
percent (approximately 0.003 percent) of pasture/hay fields in the Town of Cape Vincent, may
be displaced by Project infrastructure. Similarly, 17 acres of second growth deciduous forest
(approximately 0.001 percent of forested cover in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme) will be
cleared for the Project. Of this total, less than 1 acre will be permanently cleared for Project
infrastructure and 16 acres will be temporarily cleared for construction. This will result in minor
temporary and permanent habitat loss for some forest-nesting avian species. However, unlike
most of the northeast where forest habitats remain a high priority, grasslands are more important
in the St. Lawrence River Valley and forested areas temporarily disturbed will be initially
converted to grassland habitats.
Some grassland species may be disturbed or displaced by turbine noise and movement. Studies
have shown small scale reductions in density for some nesting grassland bird species close to
operating wind turbines (Leddy et al. 1999, Johnson et al. 2000). In general, use by grassland
birds was lower in areas with turbines than in areas without. At Buffalo Ridge, Montana, areas
3-62
001407
located 180 meters from wind turbines support higher densities of breeding birds than areas
within 80 meters of turbines.
As previously discussed in Section 3.3.4, it is expected that impacts at the St. Lawrence
Windpower Project will be similar to other wind projects; therefore, avian mortality is likely to
range between 122 to 509 birds/year. There is a low potential risk that local breeding birds could
collide with the wind turbines. This risk is expected to be very low for most of the grassland
species, since breeding individuals typically fly well below tree level. Two thirds of fatalities
documented during post construction mortality monitoring studies were estimated to be migrants.
Migrants typically fly at heights approximating the wind-swept area of a commercial wind
turbine while foraging breeding birds, by contrast, are typically flying at lower altitudes;
therefore, risk to breeding birds is expected to be low. The risk is slightly higher for nesting
species such as red-tailed and broad-winged hawks, which fly above the tree heights, thereby
increasing their risk of collision with turbines. This risk is, however, a small risk because these
raptor species have a relatively low exposure index based on the one-year survey results
(Appendix E – Avian and Bat Studies), and raptor mortality has been relatively low at other
eastern wind projects that have been monitored (see Kerns and Kerlinger 2004, Nicholson 2002,
2003, Koford et al. 2005, Arnett et al. 2005, Jain et al. 2007).
SLW will fund an operational (post-construction) monitoring program to estimate direct and
indirect impacts of the wind farm on breeding grassland birds (Appendix E – Post-Construction
Monitoring Plan). This will include an estimate of direct impacts of the operating project in
terms of mortality rates of birds caused by collisions with wind turbines and an estimate of the
potential displacement effects of the wind project on grassland birds. Pre-construction point
count surveys for breeding birds were conducted in the Project Area during the 2006 baseline
studies. Additional pre-construction surveys will be conducted in the year prior to construction,
to identify a more current baseline. These surveys will then be repeated the first two years of
operation, and at least one additional year (either third, fourth, or fifth years) to evaluate potential
indirect impacts from the Project.

The proposed Project will encourage continued farming activities in the area by supplementing
area farmers’ incomes. This will also result in the maintenance of open grassland habitats since
the regional climate favors a traditional late season harvest which is beneficial for grassland
birds. The Project would result in grassland areas being protected from other development (i.e.,
housing developments) that might permanently eliminate grasslands in the area. Areas with
3-63
001408
grassland species nesting within or adjacent to proposed areas of construction will be avoided
until after the breeding season to the extent practicable.
Mitigation for habitat loss has been performed through siting Project components to minimize
areas of disturbance and restoring all temporarily disturbed areas. All construction employees
will receive training pertaining to sensitive environmental issues and known nesting areas on the
site. A professional environmental monitor will provide expertise and guidance, and ensure the
enforcement of environmental protection criteria outlined in the permits.
3.3.6 Over Wintering Birds

The upper reaches of the St. Lawrence River is a known wintering location for bald eagles
(NYSDEC, 2006c). The wintering site is located along the St. Lawrence River in an area roughly
bound by Kingston, Ontario and Cape Vincent, New York on the southwest, and Cornwall,
Ontario and Massena, New York on the northeast. Active since at least 1975, this wintering area
is the second largest known in New York State and annually supports an average of 20 to 30
eagles. As lakes and rivers freeze, bald eagles that have bred in the northern parts of Canada
move south to open water in search of food. In early winter, eagles can be spotted at Wellesley
Island State Park along the edge of the ice or roosting in trees along the shoreline. As the River
freezes, the eagles move further east to the Brockville Narrows or other open water.
A waterfowl winter conservation area is located at Wilson Marsh along the eastern edge of Lake
Ontario. This 305-acre area consists of open water up to 30 feet deep with flat rock, sand, or
gravel on the bottom. A gravel barrier beach at the head of the bay separates it from the marsh,
which consists of 98 acres of brushy swamp and 70 acres of mixed hardwood swamp. This area
is located at the southwest corner of the Project Area.
AWMA, located in the Town of Lyme along the proposed overhead transmission line, supports
year round waterfowl habitat. Specifically, Shaver Creek and a number of pothole wetlands
provide habitat used by waterfowl. A primary management goal at this 2040-acre AWMA is to
increase the amount of waterfowl nesting and feeding cover.
Results of the Audubon Christmas Bird Counts for the Watertown count circle, conducted
December 2004 through January 2005 and December 2005 through January 2006, indicated that
55 species of birds over wintered in the Project vicinity during that two year period (Table 3-14).
3-64
001409

Birds Observed During Audubon Christmas Bird Counts for Watertown, NY (NYWA)
1
for Count Years 105 and 106 (12/2004-1/2005 and 12/2005-1/2006)
Survey Date
18 Dec 2004 28 Dec 2005
Common Name Scientific name (41 hrs) (31 hrs)
Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 11 --
Canada Goose Branta canadensis 4523 913
Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus -- 7
American Black Duck Anas rubripes 16 3
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 407 84
Greater Scaup Aythya marila 4 --
Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis 4 --
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 1 170
Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 14 --
Common Merganser Mergus merganser 39 100
Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus -- 2
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus -- 1
Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 93 290
Great Blue Heron (Blue form) Ardea herodias -- 2
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 2
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 17 --
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 2 2
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii 3 3
Accipiter sp. Accipiter -- 1
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 52 84
Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 13 11
American Kestrel Falco sparverius 1 3
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 34 11
Herring Gull Larus argentatus 38 17
Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus 14 12
Rock Pigeon Columba livia 547 1002
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 284 638
Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 2 2
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 15 13
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 6 7
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus -- 5
Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 1 1
Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor 2 6
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata 74 163
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 2601 1330
Common Raven Corvus corax 1 4
Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris 55 120
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus 227 206
Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor 1 --
3-65
001410

1
Survey Date
18 Dec 2004 28 Dec 2005
Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta Canadensis 1 1
White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 18 18
Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis -- 2
American Robin Turdus migratorius 181 2
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 931 1672
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 32 --
American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea 69 121
White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis -- 3
Dark-eyed (Slate-colored) Junco Junco hyemalis 14 20
Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus -- 3
Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 614 51
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 31 41
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 1 --
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 1 --
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 145 66
American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 46 35
House Sparrow Passer domesticus 373 711
Total Number of Species 47 47
1
Source: National Audubon Society (2002). The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results [Online].
However, the number of individual species encountered varied from year to year with 47 species
observed each year. Species observed included waterfowl, black birds and starling, and song
birds. The most numerous species observed, all exceeding a total of 500 individuals, were
Canada geese, American crows, European starlings, rock doves, and house sparrows. It is
important to note that the Audubon Christmas Bird Counts were conducted in different areas
than the Project Area surveys and reflect different years, locations, and habitats. However, they
provide a general indication of birds that might be expected in the area absent site-specific data.
Winter surveys were conducted for SLW in 2006-2008 within the proposed Project Area. All
waterfowl and raptor observations were plotted for six fixed survey points (Appendix E – Avian
and Bat Studies). In addition, other large birds such as waterbirds, upland game birds, and
species of interest were also recorded during the surveys. Survey results are presented in Table
3-15. Mean use is calculated as the number of individuals observed within 800 meters of the
survey point per 60-minute survey. Frequency of occurrence is calculated as the percent of
surveys in which a species was observed.
3-66
001411

Raptor and Other Large Bird Species Observed During 2007 and 2008 Winter Waterfowl and Raptor Surveys at Project Area
2007 2008
Percent Percent
Species/Group Individuals Groups Mean Use Frequency Individuals Groups Mean Use Frequency
Waterbirds 49 17
Great Black-backed Gull - - - - 4 2 0.04 2.22
Herring Gull - - - - 2 1 0.02 1.11
Ring-billed Gull 4 2 0.19 9.52 37 12 0.41 7.78
Unidentified Gull 250 1 11.90 4.76 6 2 0.07 2.22
Waterfowl 1946 47
Canada Goose 115 4 5.48 19.05 1932 45 21.47 16.67
Mallard 24 1 1.14 4.76 - - - -
Tundra Swan 3 1 0.14 4.76 - - - -
Unidentified Scaup 131 2 6.24 9.52 - - - -
Common Merganser - - - - 14 2 0.16 2.22
Raptors 235 216
Accipiters - - - - 5 4
Coopers Hawk - - - - 2 2 0.02 2.22
Sharp-shinned Hawk - - - - 1 1 0.01 1.11
Unidentified Accipiter - - - - 1 1 0.01 1.11
Buteos 201 185
Red-tailed Hawk 15 11 0.71 80.95 72 62 0.80 52.22
Rough-legged Hawk 63 56 3.00 47.62 114 109 1.27 68.89
Unidentified Buteo 6 4 0.29 9.52 15 14 0.17 13.33
Northern Harrier 19 16 0.90 42.86 12 10 0.13 10.00
Bald Eagle - - - - 2 2 0.02 2.22
Falcons 15 15
American Kestrel 1 1 0.05 4.76 11 11 0.12 12.22
Merlin - - - - 4 4 0.04 4.44
3-67
001412

2007 2008
Percent Percent
Vultures 5 4
Turkey Vulture 8 3 0.38 4.76 5 4 0.06 3.33
Upland Gamebirds 309 16
Wild Turkey 21 3 1.00 14.29 309 16 3.43 17.78
Passerines 323 117
American Crow 129 0 6.14 85.71 322 116 3.58 74.44
Common Raven 1 1 0.05 4.76 1 1 0.01 1.11
Total 70 146 37.62 2867 417
3-68
001413
In comparison, a total of 2,230 individuals in 280 groups of waterbirds, waterfowl, and raptors
were recorded during the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 Audubon Christmas Bird Count surveys
(Table 3-14), while Project surveys counted 2,867 individuals in 417 groups (Table 3-15). Four
species of waterfowl (all gull species), five species of waterfowl, and ten species of raptors were
observed during the Project surveys. Other large birds recorded included wild turkey, American
crow, and common raven (Table 3-15). Canada goose was by far the most abundant and
commonly observed waterfowl species recorded during the winter surveys. Rough-legged hawk
and red-tailed hawk were the most abundant and common raptor species. Two state threatened
species, northern harrier and bald eagle, and two state species of concern, Cooper's hawk and
sharp-shinned hawk, were observed during the winter 2007-2008 surveys. In general, no
concentrated raptor or waterfowl use or movements were seen in the study area. Flight paths and
directions were generally scattered and ubiquitous and a few commonly used Buteo perch sites
were observed. Numbers of waterfowl in the Project Area were consistent across the two years
studied. Differences between species composition and numbers observed during the Audubon
Christmas Bird Counts and the Project surveys are likely attributable to habitats present in areas
surveyed. The Project survey results reflect the primarily agricultural land use (approximately
82 percent) in the Project Area, the Project’s proximity to the St. Lawrence River and species
that are typically attracted to these habitats.
The Project Area is included in an area that the NYSDEC routinely surveys for short-eared owls
and their habitat. A site visit was conducted with NYSDEC personnel on February 22, 2008 to
survey the project area for short-eared owls and identify the location of “roost” sites recorded
during previous NYSDEC studies. No short-eared owls were observed during 2007-2008 site
surveys or the February 2008 NYSDEC survey targeting short-eared owls (WEST, 2008). The
lack of sightings of short-eared owls during these surveys does not necessarily indicate that these
owls are not present but suggests that the density or relative abundance of this species in the
study area is very low and the relative risk is also very low. Short-eared owls migrate or move to
follow preferred prey species. When prey densities are low for a given area (which may
fluctuate for any given area from year to year) the low prey densities are reflected in a lower than
might be expected population of short-eared owls. Preservation of large areas of grassland
habitat within the Project Area is likely to insure long-term use of the area by short-eared owls
by preventing alternate development that would possibly eliminate much of their preferred
habitat.

Impacts to wintering birds, in particular waterfowl, are likely to be minimal. Most species of
waterfowl forage in the open waters of the Saint Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, and roost in
3-69
001414
protected coves and wetlands along the shoreline. Impacts to wintering waterfowl are not
expected to be significant due to the large numbers of geese in the region, the low occurrence of
collision fatalities at other wind projects, and the relatively low abundance of other species of
waterfowl in the Project Area. As discussed in Section 3.3.4, it is expected that impacts at the St.
Lawrence Windpower Project will be similar to other wind projects; therefore, avian mortality is
likely to range between 122 to 509 birds/year. Using results obtained from the Maple Ridge
Wind Farm’s first year post-construction mortality monitoring, raptor mortality (including turkey
vultures) represented only 3 percent of total fatalities and waterfowl represented less than 1
percent. Applying these percentages to fatality rates recorded, a total raptor mortality between 5
and 15 raptors/year and a total waterfowl mortality rate of between 1 and 5 waterfowl/year is
expected.
Although the proposed Project would increase collision risk for wintering red-tailed and rough-
legged hawks over existing condition, impacts are not expected to be significant. These raptor
species have a relatively low exposure index based on the one-year survey results (Kerns et al.
2007), and raptor mortality has been relatively low at other eastern wind projects that have been
monitored (see Kerns and Kerlinger 2004, Nicholson 2002, 2003, Koford et al. 2005, Arnett et
al. 2005, Jain et al. 2007). There is no information to suggest that winter raptor mortality would
be greater at the proposed Project than at other wind projects studied with similar topography
and associated migratory patterns. Furthermore, the Project landscape or topography does not
have thermal-producing features that might create added risk for migrating raptor or wintering
bird populations.
Furthermore, the low densities of overwintering threatened species such as the golden eagle, bald
eagle, and short-eared owl suggest that the relative risks to these species are very low. No
significant impacts to these species are expected from the proposed Project.

SLW has selected the proposed Project layout to minimize impacts to sensitive receptors
including wintering roosting and foraging birds. In addition, any necessary above ground power
lines in the will follow the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee suggested practices for
protecting avian species (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, 2006). No significant
impacts to these species are expected from the proposed Project; therefore, no additional
mitigation is required.
3-70
001415
3.3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species

A December 2006 response (see Appendix F) from the New York State Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) regarding the presence of threatened or endangered species and unique or
significant natural communities indicated that three endangered, eight threatened, and three
special concern bird species; one endangered and one special concern bat species; one threatened
turtle species; one rare fish species, and two endangered plants species occur near the Project
(Table 3-16). In addition, a search of the USFWS Jefferson County list of Threatened,
Endangered, and Candidate Species; and the List of Extirpated Species was conducted in
October 2007 and December 2008. Search results indicated that the bald eagle (formerly
threatened), the Indiana bat (endangered) and Designated Critical Habitat for the Great Lakes
population of piping plover (endangered) are currently documented in Jefferson County (see
Appendix F).
Federal Species: Additional consultation with the USFWS revealed that a hibernaculum for the
Indiana bat is located approximately 17 miles southeast of the proposed Project Area. Multiple
Indiana Bat spring/ summer roosts have also been documented within ten miles of the Project
Area. Bald eagles are known to nest approximately 14 miles for the Project and winter along the
St. Lawrence River between Cape Vincent and Massena. Common tern have been documented
in the Wilson Bay Marsh located west of the Project Area; the short-eared owl has been
documented in the Dutch Point Uplands southwest of the Project Area; and the great blue heron
has been documented in Kents Creek also west of the Project (Payne and Cochran, 1972). The
northern harrier has been documented at all three locations as well and within the Project Site
(WEST, 2007). Designated critical habitat for the endangered piping plover is located in the
coastal areas of Lake Ontario in southern Jefferson County. This habitat is limited to sandy
shorelines bordering the Lake. Also, two species of conservation concern (USFWS, 2002),
bobolinks and wood thrushes were observed during pre-construction surveys.
In July and August 2007, WEST, Inc. sampled six mist net sites on the proposed Project Site
location to assess the presence or absence of the federally endangered Indiana bat (Appendix E –
2007 Sampling at Six Sites). Three hundred and fifty-three bats of six species were captured,
including four Indiana bats which were subsequently radio tracked. One adult male was never
relocated, two juvenile males were tracked to a maternity concentration in a forested area south
of the Project Site, and one adult female was tracked to a different area in the same forested
complex as the two juvenile males. In June of 2008 WEST sampled 11 mist net sites on the
proposed Project Site (Appendix E – 2008 Sampling at 11 Sites). One hundred and eighty-five
bats of four species were captured; however, no Indiana bats were captured during this sampling
3-71
001416

Summary of Listed Species Reported in the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Database
Suitable
Suitable Habitat in
Status Habitat On Project Suitable Habitat in Project
Common Name Scientific Name (State/Federal) Source Project Site?¹ Area?¹ Area?¹
Vascular Plants
Wet meadows, floodplain forests,
Michigan Lily Lilium michiganense Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes
swamps
Autumnal Water-
Callitriche hermaphroditica Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes Lakes and streams
Starwort
Fish
S2-Imperiled
Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus NHP No Yes Rivers and lakes
(NHP listing)
Reptiles
Shrub swamps, marshes, and
Blanding’s Turtle2 Emydoidea blandingii Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes
shallow ponds
Birds3
Marshes, grasslands and
Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes
croplands
Black Tern Chlidonias niger Endangered (St.) NHP No Yes Freshwater marshes
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes Agricultural areas
Grasslands and rocky inland
Common Tern Sterna hirundo Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes
shores
Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Threatened (St.) NHP No Yes Marshes
Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Grasslands
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Agriculture fields, grasslands
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened (St.) NHP No No Lakes, rivers, reservoirs
Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Threatened (St.) NHP No Yes Streams, ponds, lakes, marshes
3-72
001417

Suitable
Suitable Habitat in
Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Marshes and wet meadows
Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Grasslands
Common Loon Gavia immer Special Concern (St.) NHP No Yes Lakes
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Special Concern (St.) NHP Yes Yes Marshes and swamps
Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida Special Concern (St.) NHP Yes Yes Grasslands
4
Mammals
Caves, mines, under rocks and
tree bark, floodplain forest,
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered (St./Fed.) NHP Yes Yes
beech-maple forest, limestone
woodlands
Eastern small-footed Caves, mines, under rocks and
Myotis leibii Special Concern (St.) NHP No Yes
myotis tree bark, forest and forest edge
1
Project Area is defined as the larger area of leased parcels equal to approximately 7,900 acres, and the term Project Site is defined as the area required for
construction of the Project which includes both the permanent and temporary footprint of disturbance.
2
Documented within 0.6 mile of project site (NHP)
3
Avian species that may be located within a 10-mile buffer of the project boundary
4
Bats that may be located within a 40-mile buffer of the project boundary but have been documented beyond the boundaries of the project site
3-73
001418
event. New York bat populations have been recently affected by White Nose Syndrome (WNS).
WNS is characterized by a white fungus encircling the noses of most affected bats. The fungus
can also be present on the limbs. This fungus is thought to be symptomatic of the problem but
may not be the actual cause of death. Affected bats have depleted fat reserves and do not usually
survive through winter hibernation. A recent study has identified a new fungus which is a close
genetic relative the Geomyces group of fungi, that had colonized the skin of 90 percent of the
bats analyzed from all the states affected by white-nose syndrome (Blehert, et. al., 2008). Since
the discovery of WNS in New York State in 2006, the numbers of hibernating bats have been
drastically declining in New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Little brown bats
have sustained the largest number of deaths attributed to WNS.
Nine of the ten known New York hibernacula containing Indiana bats have been infected with
WNS. Half of all of the 52,000 Indiana bats estimated to hibernate in New York utilize one
former mine which is now infected with WNS. The only identified Indiana bat hibernaculum in
Jefferson County is Glen Park cave. During a January, 2008 census of Glen Park cave, four of
the 50 Indiana bat observed were found to be infected with WNS. No confirmed WNS deaths
were recorded during this census (Hicks, 2008). There were no reports of WNS mediated deaths
for other species during this survey.
State Species: Of the 20 state listed species initially identified by the NHP, seven species were
also documented during 2006-2008 surveys on the Project Site. These include: northern harrier
and bald eagle (state threatened); Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, horned lark, grasshopper
sparrow (state species of concern); and Indiana bat (state endangered).
While suitable habitat for two endangered plant species, the Michigan lily and autumnal water-
starwort are potentially associated within the wetland habitats found in the Project landscape,
these species have not been documented during site wetland delineation efforts.
Review of the New York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas identified twenty reptile and
amphibian species reported to use the Project Area. According to the Atlas, the Blue-spotted
Salamander, a state species of Special Concern, has been reported on the tip of the cape in Cape
Vincent. The Atlas also lists the Blanding’s turtle, a listed state Threatened species, as using the
Project Area. Riveredge Associates performed a mid-November 2007 Blanding’s turtle habitat
survey (see Appendix E – Blanding’s Turtle Survey Report) to evaluate wetlands and adjacent
areas for potential use by the species. They determined that the vegetative structure, vegetative
species composition, and other habitat parameters present in six wetlands in and around the
3-74
001419
Project Area and overhead transmission corridor represent suitable habitat for Blanding’s turtle
for foraging, nesting, and/or overwintering.
Five listed bird species were observed during 2006 breeding bird point count surveys: the
northern harrier (state threatened); horned lark and grasshopper sparrow (state species of
concern); and bobolink and wood thrush (USFWS 2002 Birds of Conservation for the Lower
Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region). Winter raptor surveys did not record short-eared owls;
however, two stated listed species of concern, Cooper's hawk and sharp-shinned hawk, were
documented.

Potential effects associated with major construction projects on threatened and endangered
species include both direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are results of the proposed action
and would include effects such as loss of habitat and mortality of individuals. Indirect effects are
those caused by the proposed action that are reasonably certain to occur and may include effects
such as disturbance and/or displacement of individuals, change in habitat suitability or habitat
degradation, and change in population density or distribution. Effects may be temporary (short-
term), for example during the project construction period, or long-term, such as effects arising
from long-term operation and maintenance of the facility (Table 3-17). Also, effects may be
cumulative, arising from the total impact of development, management, and use of the
surrounding land. If “take” is determined to be unavoidable during project construction and
operation, the requirement for an Endangered and Threatened Species Incidental Take Permit
may be necessary in future planning, review and permitting efforts (see letter from William
Gordon, Region 6, to Supervisor Rienbeck and Clerk Ingerson, Jan. 27, 2009 – Appendix F).
SLW discussed the contents of the letter during a meeting with the NYSDEC on February 26,
2009, and will continue to work collaboratively with the NYSDEC to avoid as many impacts as
is practicable prior to initiating discussion on an incidental take permit.
Plants: Michigan lily and autumnal water-starwort have not been documented within the Project
Area during wetlands surveys. Suitable habitat for these species within the Project Area is either
limited or not available, as the site is primarily agricultural land with limited undisturbed wetland
and aquatic habitats to support these species. As wetlands have been avoided or minimized,
impacts to Michigan lily and autumnal water-starwort are not anticipated.
Reptiles and Amphibians: Project impacts will not occur near areas reported to be habitat for
the Blue-spotted Salamander and this species should not be affected by the Project. Two
wetlands (of the 6 identified) have potential for Blanding’s turtle habitat and are in the vicinity of
3-75
001420
Table 3-17
Potential Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species from the Project
Impact Type
Impact Duration Direct Indirect
Short-Term x Temporary loss of habitat from x Prohibiting or altering
(e.g., during construction areas that will be (displacement) use of the area due
construction) reclaimed to construction activity.
x Potential mortality from construction x Altering or disturbing species
or related activity. behavior patterns due to
construction activity.
Long-Term x Permanent loss of habitat to wind x Prohibiting or altering
(e.g., during project. (displacement) use of the area due
project operation x Potential mortality due to wind plant to the wind project.
and maintenance) operation. x Altering or disturbing species
behavior patterns due to wind
project operation.
x Altering or changing species
distribution patterns due to the wind
project.
areas proposed for potential wind turbines or transmission lines. Even if Blanding’s turtle
actually utilize these habitat areas, the potential for impacts on Blanding’s turtle is low because
turbine placement will not occur directly within identified wetlands. The only Project-related
activities that appear to create the potential for adverse effects on the identified potential
Blanding’s turtle habitat areas are the use of roads and equipment staging areas by heavy
equipment during the construction period. SLW has minimized the potential for such habitat
impacts by minimizing the placement of roads and staging areas in the vicinity of the potential
Blanding’s turtle habitat areas. In addition, access road traffic is expected to be infrequent during
operation.
Raptors: The bald eagle was delisted by the USFWS in June 2007, but still remains protected by
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is a state
threatened species. Bald eagle occurrence in the St. Lawrence Wind Project Area was
documented during the avian studies of the Project Site; however, use of the Project Area was
generally low and there are no known nests in the area based on NYSDEC information. In
addition, no bald eagle fatalities have been recorded during monitoring studies at other wind
energy projects nationwide – including other wind energy projects at which fatalities to other
raptor species have been recorded. The lack of recorded bald eagle fatalities at other wind
projects suggests that bald eagles are less at risk for wind energy-related fatalities than other
raptor species. The risk to bald eagles from the Project is not expected to be significant due to
the low use of the Project Area by bald eagles, the poor nesting habitat of the Project Area, and
3-76
001421
the apparent lower risk exposure for bald eagles (as compared to other raptor species) suggested
by the absence of bald eagle fatalities at other wind projects.
Northern harriers observed in the Project Area are possible breeding individuals, winter
residents, and migrants. The wetlands and agricultural settings provide suitable habitat for the
northern harrier year round. Northern harriers could be at risk of collision with turbines as they
have been recorded as fatalities at other wind projects. However, the low level flights and low
soaring frequency for breeding individual northern harriers are not likely to result in significant
risks for collision with turbines.
No golden eagles were counted during the Site surveys and due to the very low relative
abundance they are not expected to be impacted. No eagle fatalities have been recorded at the
Maple Ridge Wind Farm post-construction monitoring over a two year period.
Other Avian Species: It is not anticipated that the listed species associated with wetland
habitats (black tern, common tern, least bittern, pied-billed grebe, common loon or great blue
heron) will be adversely affected by the Project since documented occurrences are located
outside the Project Area and wetland habitats located within the Project Area will be avoided.
As discussed in Section 3.3.5.2, some grassland species may be disturbed or displaced by turbine
noise and movement. These species include the upland sandpiper, horned lark, grasshopper
sparrow, bobolinks, sedge wren, and Henslow’s sparrow. It is not anticipated that these species
will have any long-lasting effects resulting from the construction and operation of the St.
Lawrence Project provided that construction areas are reclaimed to existing conditions to
minimize the overall habitat losses.
The piping plover is listed as occurring in Jefferson County. The designated critical habitat area
for the piping plover is located along the Lake Ontario shoreline in the southernmost portion of
the county where it borders Oswego County. Since the Project occurs in inland areas of the Cape
Vincent peninsula it is not expected that construction or operation of the St. Lawrence Project
will affect or adversely modify critical habitat for the piping plover.
Bats: For Indiana bats, there are no known winter hibernacula within or adjacent to the Project
Area that may be affected by the construction and operation of the Project. The population of
Indiana bats that could be affected by the Project is believed to be from the nearest known
hibernaculum, the Glen Park cave (near Watertown, NY) hibernating population. This cave is
located approximately 17 miles southeast of the proposed Project Area.
3-77
001422
Female Indiana bat in New York are known to disperse between 12 and 40 miles from their
winter hibernacula to summer roost locations on their foraging grounds (NYSDEC, 2006d). A
small colony of Indiana bats constituting a summer maternal colony was observed during
summer 2007 in a forested wetland habitat located south of the Project Site. Based on available
information and results of the site surveys as discussed above, Indiana bats appear to use areas
near the Project Site only from May through September. During the late fall/winter months it is
believed that Indiana bats return to the Glen Park cave. Because the Project Site is near the St.
Lawrence River and 17 miles from the Glen Park hibernacula, it is unlikely that the Project will
affect wintering Indiana bat populations or bats traveling to and from their hibernacula.
Only limited information is available on which to base estimates of potential mortality of

summer roosting Indiana bats which may utilize areas near the Project Site. Based upon the
available information, it is expected that the mortality impacts of the Project on Indiana bats
which may use areas near the Project Site during the May through September period will be
similar to other regional wind projects (see Section 3.3.3 Bats), which is to say low. There are
several reasons for this conclusion. First, to date there have been no Indiana bat fatalities
reported from wind energy projects within the range of Indiana bat. The majority of bat fatalities
at wind energy facilities in the Eastern United States are of long distant migrant, non-hibernating
species of bats (see section 3.3.3, above). Second, studies at other wind energy projects have
shown that summer resident bats do not appear to be at significant risk from wind turbines
(Johnson, et al., 2005; Arnett, et al., 2008). Third, existing information on Indiana bat biology
suggests that they are at lower risk for wind energy-related fatalities than other species of bats
because they typically fly low to the ground below the rotor sweep area, and because their
preferred habitat is wooded and riparian areas, rather than more open agricultural fields
(USFWS, 2007).
An estimate of potential Indiana bat mortality can be developed based on the abundance of
Indiana bats relative to the other Myotis species, assuming impacts to Myotis species are equal
across species. Using this method, it is estimated that between 4 and 7 Indiana bat fatalities
could occur across the Project Area annually. This approach, however, likely significantly
overestimates mortality for several reasons. First, as noted in Section 3.3.3.1, mortality impacts
are not uniform across species. The absence of any recorded Indiana bat fatalities at other wind
energy projects within the range of the Indiana bat suggests that the mortality rate for Indiana
bats may be lower than for other Myotis species. Second, the available data indicates that
Myotis species are the least common bat fatalities at wind energy projects for which bat
mortality data has been collected (see Section 3.3.3.2). Third, the presence of WNS within the
Glen Park cave is likely to reduce the number of Indiana bat which may use areas near the
3-78
001423
Project Site. Evidence to date suggests that WNS results in greater than 90 percent mortality of
bats within caves where WNS is found over a two year period (A. Hicks, NYSDEC, pers.
comm.). Provided this holds true for the Glen Park Cave, the resident (non-migratory) bat
population in the Project Area would be drastically reduced by the end of 2009. WNS was
confirmed in Glen Park cave in 2008, and mortality is expected to be greatest over the winter
2008 to 2009 (A. Hicks, NYSDEC, pers. comm.). Under the assumption that the Glen Park Cave
bat population experiences a 90 percent decline by 2009 (information from NYSDEC), the
relative abundance of the Indiana bats in the Project Area would be expected to drop by 90
percent. If this is the case, and potential mortality impacts are related to abundance, the expected
number of Myotis bats impacted would drop to less than 0.25 per turbine per year. Under the
same assumption that 5 percent of the Myotis fatalities would be Indiana bats, there would be
less than 0.6 Indiana bat fatalities per year for the Project, or approximately one Indiana bat
fatality every 1.5 to 2.5 years. This level of mortality is immeasurable and likely less than
background mortality for this species. Essentially the relative abundance of Indiana bats in the
Project Area would be low enough that no measurable impacts would occur.
Disturbance-related effects on Indiana bats also are conceivable; however, monitoring studies at
other wind energy projects indicate that bats are not significantly disturbed by wind turbines (see
Johnson, et al., 2005; Arnett, et al., 2007). Based on existing information from studies of bats in
and around operating wind energy projects, it appears that some bat species can easily fly around
turbines, and are not displaced by them. At Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, based on sampling bat
activity at turbines with AnaBat detectors, it was estimated that a minimum of 96,102 bat passes
occurred at turbines over a 2-year study period. No relationship between bat activity at the
turbines and the number of bat fatalities (Johnson, et al., 2003) was found. Similarly, at the
Foote Creek Rim, Wyoming wind energy project, data from AnaBat detectors indicated 2.6 bat
passes per turbine per night during the summer and fall (Gruver, 2002). At that project, and at
the Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee wind energy facility, bat activity as measured with AnaBats at
turbines did not correlate with collision mortality (Nicholson, 2002). Similarly, during the
intensive studies of the Mountaineer and Myersdale wind energy projects in the Fall of 2004,
field personnel routinely observed bats emerging at dusk and foraging in the clearings around
turbines, supporting the hypothesis that at least some bats occupying forests near the turbines
were local residents (Arnett, et al., 2005). Horn et al. (2008) documented numerous bats flying
close to turbines and even within the rotor swept area indicating that turbines do not create a
disturbance strong enough to cause displacement. These studies have all shown that bats can and
do fly around turbines and do not appear to be subject to substantial disturbance or displacement
effects.
3-79
001424
As with fatality impacts, while the evidence suggests that there will be little disturbance effects
on bats in general, there is no information specific to Indiana bat populations. Assuming that
Indiana bats are most similar to little brown bats in ecology, the wind turbines will not have a
disturbance or displacement effect on Indiana bats. Also, construction-related activities will be
temporary and some of the construction activities will fall outside of the period when Indiana
bats are expected to be in the Project Area.
The Project could indirectly affect the summer distribution of Indiana bats in Jefferson County
by causing abandonment or movement of the known maternal colony located south of the
proposed Project Area. Based on the best information available, however, any disturbance and
displacement effects are not expected to be large enough to cause abandonment of the maternal
colony. While direct impacts with turbines may create a source of mortality that may eventually
lead to the loss of the maternal colony, it could be lost (moved) under natural circumstances if
the area of the roost trees becomes less suitable than current conditions. Maternal roosting areas
are likely to move over time with or without the proposed Project.

Plants: The Project has been designed to avoid sensitive ecological communities, such as
wetlands, and to minimize permanent impacts to vegetation to the greatest extent practicable.
Therefore, impacts to impacts to Michigan lily and autumnal water-starwort are not anticipated
and no mitigation is proposed.
Reptiles and Amphibians: To avoid potential impacts to Blanding’s turtle, barriers and culverts
will be installed to, as applicable, either prevent movement to or facilitate movement across
Project components. Silt fence will be installed to isolate potential Blanding’s turtle wetlands
from construction activity. In addition, barriers (silt fence) will be installed to direct the
movements of nesting turtles in a manner that limits the potential for road mortality. Silt fence
will remain in place until construction and clean-up activities are complete. Potential nesting
habitat around selected turbine placements and equipment staging areas will also be created or
enhanced as several turbine areas (9, 32, 33, and 43) may provide nesting habitat. A management
plan outlining measures to be implemented during construction of the Project to reduce potential
impacts to Blanding’s turtles or their habitat will be developed.
Raptors: Bald eagle was recently removed from the list of threatened species and the USFWS is
developing means by which to permit incidental take of bald eagles for otherwise lawful and
permitted actions. Currently, the Project is not expected to result in any incidental take of bald
eagles because it will not affect nesting habitat for bald eagles, the relative abundance of bald
3-80
001425
eagles in the Project Area is low, and no other bald eagle impacts from wind projects are known.
The Project is not expected to affect bald eagle and no mitigation is proposed. In the event that
new information becomes available or the density of bald eagles in the Project increases or
nesting by bald eagles is confirmed in the Project, suggesting that potential impacts to this
species may occur, the Project sponsor will consult with the USFWS to address the potential
impacts and if any mitigation measures are warranted.
Other Avian Species: Pre-construction surveys for listed bird species were conducted in Project
work areas to inform construction and management activities to avoid disturbance of nesting
threatened and endangered species. To mitigate temporary impacts to breeding listed species,
clearing activities will occur either prior to or after the breeding season. Where nesting
individuals are encountered, construction will be rescheduled to minimize disturbance during
construction to the extent possible.
Bats: The following conservation measures have been implemented during the design of the
project or will be implemented before or during construction to offset any potential Indiana bat
mortality as a result of the construction and operation of the Project:
x Avoidance – the project design has taken into consideration the distribution of
potential Indiana bat habitat in the project area to avoid potential take of Indiana bats,
such as avoiding placement of wind turbines in forested or wetland areas, timing the
cutting of trees to the winter season when Indiana bats would be hibernating, and
siting the transmission line within an abandoned railroad bed;
x Project design – the Project has been designed to avoid or minimize cutting deciduous
forest habitat to the maximum extent feasible;
x Project design – the Project has been reduced in scale from 96 turbines to a minimum
economically viable size of 53 turbines (79.5 MW). This design effectively
minimizes collision risk through fewer turbines;
x Project design – the Project design was also used to minimize exposure by placing all
turbines at appropriate distances from roost trees;
x Timing – All tree clearing will occur outside of the known usage times for the project
area (May – September); and
x SLW is currently in formal consultation with the USFW, USACE, and NYSDEC.
(see Appendix F – between R. Niver, USFWS and B. Gunderman, Acciona, various
dates). The Project will be required to comply with conditions and mitigation
measures derived through this collaborative process.
3-81
001426
As part of the proposed monitoring program, an Indiana bat monitoring plan is being
prepared, in addition to the Post-Construction Bird and Bat Monitoring Plan, and will be
implemented at the Project post-construction (see Section 3.3.3).
The Applicant, working with the USACE, USFWS, and NYSDEC, is in the process of
preparing a Biological Assessment (BA) to evaluate in greater detail the possible impacts
to Indiana bat populations due to construction and operation of the proposed Project. The
BA will be used to initiate formal consultation with the USFWS under the Endangered
Species Act in connection with SLW’s application for permits from the USACE. Results
of the consultation process will determine whether conservation measures, in addition to
those outlined herein, are necessary to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts
from the Project on Indiana bats.
3.3.8 Critical Environmental Areas and Significant Habitats

Critical Environmental Areas: Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs) are specific local or state
agency designated geographic areas that have an exceptional or unique character with respect to
one or more of the following attributes:
x A benefit or threat to human health;
x A natural setting (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, forest and vegetation, open space and
areas of important aesthetic or scenic quality);
x Agricultural, social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational values;
or
x An inherent ecological, geological or hydrological sensitivity to change that may be
adversely affected by any change.
CEAs are designated within the jurisdictional boundaries of a local or state agency and can
encompass any geographical area that the agency owns, manages, or regulates. No critical
environmental areas are presently designated in Jefferson County.
Significant Habitats: Several significant habitats, as identified by the NYSDEC and the
USFWS, are located in the Project vicinity and include AWMA, the St. Lawrence Wetland and
Grassland Man-agement District, and seven Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats (see
Exhibit 3.3.1). These habitats are further described below.
3-82
001427
Exhibit 3.3.1 - Significant Habitats
The AWMA is located in Jefferson County, in the Towns of Lyme and Cape Vincent. An
approximately 2-mile portion of the proposed overhead trans-mission line will be located on a
former railroad bed bordering the extreme western edge of the AWMA. The 2,037-acre
Management Area is owned and managed by the NYSDEC. It was designated a New York State
Bird Conservation Area in 2003. AWMA has relatively large areas of early successional habitats,
including grassland and shrub land. Forested areas and limestone barrens are also present. These
habitats support a diversity of early successional bird species. AWMA is managed to maintain
and enhance the grassland habitat present to ensure continued use by grassland birds. AWMA
represents a migratory concentration site, a diverse species concentration site, an individual
species concentration site, and a species at risk site. Protected species previously observed at the
AWMA include Short-eared Owl (endangered), Henslow's Sparrow (threatened), Sedge Wren
(threatened), Northern Harrier (threatened), and Upland Sandpiper (threatened).
The St. Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management District (SLWGMD), established in
1997, is a two million-acre district encompassing portions of Jefferson, St. Lawrence, and
Franklin Counties with over 350,000 acres of grasslands, including agricultural lands. This
District is the largest of its kind in the northeast, with a large number of birds, especially
3-83
001428
waterfowl and raptors, and other wildlife using the wetlands and grasslands throughout the year
for breeding, feeding, roosting and wintering. Within this three county area, the USFWS
proposes to buy 1,600 acres for protection and management, and acquire an additional 6,400
acres in easements from surrounding landowners, with land remaining in private ownership.
(USFWS, 2000).
State coastal policies protect fish and wildlife resources of statewide significance. Seven of these
designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats are located within 0.5 miles to 10
miles of the Project and include:
x St. Lawrence River Shoreline Bays – eight shallow bays along the River's mainland
shoreline;
x French Creek Marsh – wetlands extending inland approximately five miles from the
Village of Clayton, encompassing an approximate 700-acre streamside wetland and
adjacent uplands in the NYSDEC's French Creek Wildlife Management Area;
x Carlton Island – Featherbed Shoals – an approximate 800-acre, shallow, open water area,
containing extensive beds of submergent aquatic vegetation (e.g., wild celery,
pondweeds, and muskgrass);
x Fox Island – Grenadier Island Shoals – an approximate 4,000-acre shallow water area,
containing beds of submergent aquatic vegetation (e.g., wild celery, pondweeds), and
patches of emergent wetland vegetation around the shoreline of northeastern Lake
Ontario;
x Point Peninsula Marsh - approximate 300-acre flood pond wetland on the west side of the
peninsula, separated from Lake Ontario by a narrow sand and cobble barrier beach; also
included in the habitat are the shoal areas immediately west and south of the wetland;
x Point Peninsula – an approximate 2000-acre mosaic of active farmland, old field, and
some woodlots and conifer plantations; and
x Wilson Bay and Marsh – encompasses the open waters of Wilson Bay, and an
approximate 200-acre flood pond wetland located at the head of the bay.

Critical Environmental Areas: The Project will not affect Critical Environmental Areas. The
Applicant plans to obtain an easement, approximately 100-foot wide and 2-miles long, from the
NYSDEC to place the overhead transmission line within the AWMA. Approximately 18 acres
of forest (17 temporarily, 0.6 permanently) would be affected to construct this transmission line.
The transmission line will follow the existing Development Authority of the North Country
(DANC) water line and railroad bed bordering the extreme western edge of the AWMA.
3-84
001429
Significant Habitats: The St. Lawrence Windpower Project will not interfere with efforts to
establish the SLWGMD. SLW encourages preservation of grassland ecosystems, and
construction of the Project will avoid or minimize further development and conversion of
grassland within the Project Area and areas adjacent to these significant areas. The Project
would permanently develop approximately 30 acres of pastures/hay fields; however, where forbs
equal or outnumber grasses, this habitat is far less attractive to grassland birds.
Wind turbines may affect grassland birds and waterfowl through direct collision; however, birds
have good visual acuity and studies indicate that if birds can see the turbines they avoid them
(Higgins et al. 1996). It is generally under low visibility situations that the probability of birds
colliding with wind turbines increases (Detect, Inc. 2005, Larkin and Frase 1988, Avery et. al.
1976). Wind projects protect land from other types of development, which typically result in
massive loss of habitat. Wind projects result in relatively low losses of habitat and result in long
term preservation of grassland habitat. Under the proper management scenario for lands around
turbines, improved habitat conditions may actually benefit waterfowl and grassland birds by
increasing nesting opportunities and reproductive success.
The Project will conduct a grassland breeding bird displacement study as part of post-
construction monitoring efforts (see Appendix E). The goal of this study is to evaluate potential
indirect impacts from the Project. A gradient analysis (Morrison et al. 2001) will be used to
determine any relationship that might exist between density of grassland/steppe avian species
and distance from turbines. Any differences between grassland bird use during the pre- and post-
construction period will be calculated at 50-m intervals moving away from the turbines.
Land and water uses or developments that destroy a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat
or significantly impair the viability of a habitat would result in an adverse impact to these
designated habitats. Habitat destruction is defined as the loss of fish or wildlife use through
direct physical alteration, disturbance, or pollution of a designated area or through the indirect
effects of these actions on a designated area. Habitat destruction may be indicated by changes in
vegetation, substrate, or hydrology, or increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, or pollutants.
Significant impairment is defined as reduction in vital resources (e.g., food, shelter, living space)
or change in environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, substrate, salinity) beyond the
tolerance range of an organism.
Indicators of a significantly impaired habitat focus on ecological alterations and may include but
are not limited to reduced carrying capacity, changes in community structure (food chain
relationships, species diversity), reduced productivity and/or increased incidence of disease and
mortality. Results of impairment assessment for the seven Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife
3-85
001430
Habitats located in the vicinity of the Project are presented in Table 3-18. These seven habitats
area located 0.5 miles to 10 miles from the Project. Because the Project will not be constructed
directly within any of these resources, and will be located a distance from all or them, the Project
will have no direct or indirect impact on these resources. Any potential for Project-related
construction activities to degrade water quality or increase turbidity or sedimentation will be
avoided or minimized by implementing BMPs for soil erosion and sediment control as part of the
Project SWPPP discussed in more detail in Section 3.1.3.1. Therefore, the Project will not
destroy or significantly impair the viability of any of these habitats.
Table 3-18
Coastal Zone Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitats in Project Vicinity
Will
Will Project
Distance Project Impair
From Activities That Impair Habitat Destroy Habitat
Habitat Project Viability Habitat? Viability?
St. Lawrence River Shoreline Bays 0.5-2 miles Activities that substantially degrade No No
water quality, increase turbidity or
sedimentation, reduce water levels,
or increase water level fluctuations
French Creek Marsh 1-2 miles Activities that substantially degrade No No
alter flows, or alter water level
fluctuations, or eliminate wetland
habitats, or result in significant
human disturbance of the area
Carlton Island – Featherbed Shoals 1.5 miles 1 Activities that substantially degrade No No
water quality, or result in
substantial alteration or fluctuation
of water levels
Fox Island – Grenadier Island Shoals 6-8 miles 2 Activities that degrade water quality No No
Point Peninsula Marsh 8-10 miles 3 Activities that degrade water No No
quality, reduce water levels, or
increase water level fluctuations
Point Peninsula 8-10 miles 3 Waste disposal, and discharges of No No
sewage or stormwater runoff
containing sediments or chemical
pollutants and decrease of
available habitat
Wilson Bay and Marsh 2-3 miles Activity that degrade water quality, No No
increase turbidity or sedimentation,
reduce water levels, or increase
water level fluctuations, or
eliminate wetland habitats, or result
in significant human disturbance of
the area.
1
In St. Lawrence River
2
In Lake Ontario
3
Across Chaumont Bay
3-86
001431

Critical Environmental Areas will be avoided; therefore no mitigation will be required. To offset
impacts associated with construction of the electrical overhead line through the AWMA, SLW
will purchase property that the regional NYSDEC has identified as a desirable acquisition having
wildlife value and will deed the property to the NYSDEC. The selected property will be of
greater wildlife-related value than the easement area. The AWMA easement and the proposed
acquisition property have been assessed according to NYSDEC standards and assessments were
reviewed by the regional and headquarter NYSDEC offices. In addition, any necessary above
ground electric lines will follow the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee suggested
practices for protecting avian species. The Project will not destroy or significantly impair the
viability of any Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats; therefore no mitigation will be
required.
3.4 Transportation/Traffic
The proposed St. Lawrence Windpower Project Area would be located in the Towns of Cape
Vincent and Lyme, and would be surrounded by an extensive network of local, county and state
managed roads (see Figure 2-1). This section describes the network of roads that may be used
during construction of the proposed wind energy project, the potential impact of construction
traffic on the existing transportation system, potential road improvements required and measures
to mitigate potential impact. This section has been prepared based on consultations with the New
York State Department of Transportation, Region 7.
3.4.1 Affected Environment

Construction of the proposed Project would require hauling long- and semi-heavy loads on local,
county and state managed roads. Most of the roads that may be affected are paved, but some are
surfaced with packed gravel. The general Project Area includes NYS Route 12E and County
Roads 8 (Johnny Cake Road), 9 (Sandy Bay Road/St. Lawrence Road), 4 (Rosiere Road) and
179 (Evans St/Caroline St.). Nearby roads outside the Project Area include Interstate Route 81,
NYS Route 12, NYS Route 12F, NYS Route 180 and several other County Roads. NYS Route
12E and County Roads 4 and 9 form a closed network of roads around the proposed Project
Area. NYS Route 12E and County Roads 4, 8 and 9 are two-lane asphalt-paved roads.
NYS Route 12, which has an annual average daily traffic volume of approximately 4,500
vehicles per day (NYSDOT, 2003), represents the primary supply route for delivery of
equipment, such as tower sections, blades, nacelles, hub assembly, and transformers, during the
construction phase of the Project. (Figure 3-11). There are several other local roads located
3-87
001432
within the Project boundary that will be used during construction as secondary routes for civil
works vehicles and transport of electrical equipment associated with the overhead transmission
lines. These local roads include Pelo, McKeever, Mason, Peo (Gosier), Favret/Cold Spring, Hell,
Constance, Swamp (Wilson), Deer Lick, Wells Settlement (Ashland), Gibbons (Merchant),
Cheever and Old Town Spring Roads. Some of these roads have two names; the names in
parentheses are the current reference. Most of the local roads are asphalt paved except for
Constance Road, and a portion of Mason Road between Favret at County Road 4, which are
gravel packed. A portion of Swamp (Wilson) Road is also gravel packed but construction
activities will be confined to the paved portion of this road. Photographs of local roads and
intersections associated with primary and secondary routes are provided in Appendix G.

The potential impacts to traffic and the transportation system are limited to activities that would
occur during construction of the Project. Potential impacts to traffic or transportation during the
operation of the proposed wind energy Project will be infrequent and minimal, and will be
properly mitigated.
Impacts during construction include, but are not limited to, the following categories: the
adequacy of existing roads and transportation infrastructure to accommodate construction
equipment and oversize vehicles delivering wind turbine and tower components; the need for the
Project to improve transportation infrastructure to accommodate construction vehicles; the need
for the Project to temporarily re-locate overhead lines, traffic lights, cable and phone lines to
accommodate oversize vehicles; traffic delays and road closures due to transportation
improvements or construction traffic; potential disruption of tourism in the Thousand Islands;
and increased traffic over local roads during construction.
SLW investigated several routes throughout the Project Area that could be used for delivery of
turbine components and related construction materials. The turbine component delivery vehicles
would be oversized, requiring modification to intersections along the preferred routes. Since
preparation of the DEIS, the roads proposed for material and equipment transport have been
minimized. It is expected that delivery of turbine components and materials would come from
the north or south along Interstate Route 81. From Interstate Route 81 (Exit 48), the primary
route is Route 342 West to NYS Route 12 to Route 9. From Route 9 local roads will be used
including Pelo, McKeever, Mason, Peo (Gosier), Favret/Cold Spring, Hell, Constance, Swamp
(Wilson), Deer Lick and State Route 12E (between Favret and Deer Lick Roads only). County
Roads 8 (Johnny Cake Road), 9 (Sandy Bay Road/St. Lawrence Road), 4 (Rosiere Road), 5
(Church Street/Three Mile Creek Road), and 179 (Evans St/Caroline St.) and local roads Wells
3-88
001433
Settlement (Ashland), Gibbons (Merchant), Cheever and Old Town Springs will be used as
secondary routes for civil works vehicles and transport of electrical equipment associated with
the overhead transmission line.
This route has been selected to minimize impacts to traffic on the local roads and surrounding
communities. Specifically, the route has been designed to reach the largest number of wind
turbine locations while minimizing potential impacts and potential disruption to tourism by
avoiding route 12E. Existing local road and the turbines, or Project facilities they provide access
to, are listed in Table 3-19. Final construction transportation plans would be approved by state
and local officials.
Table 3-19
Existing Local Roads and Proposed Wind Turbine Facility
Local Road Name Turbine Number/Facility
Deer Tick Road 1-2, 3-4
Favret Road 5-8, 9, 10
Swamp Road Substation, O&M Building, Temporary work area and parking
Cold Springs Road 12-13, 14-15
Hell Street 16-19, 26, 27, 29, 30
Constance Road 20-25
Peo Road 28, 31
Mason Road 33, 34-35
Johnny Cake Road 32, 36-37, 38, 39-41, 42
McKeever Road 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48-49,
Sand Bay Road 50-53
The preferred delivery and transportation route for the proposed Project was selected to
minimize impact to local traffic, damage to local, county and state highways, the number of
roads being used for delivery, and potential improvements to individual roads. Furthermore,
private access roads will be constructed from public roads over privately owned land to the
proposed turbine locations. The layout for access roads is depicted on Figure 3-12. An initial
assessment of existing conditions associated with the preferred route has been conducted by
Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP (see Appendix G) and is summarized in Table 3-20. All
roads are asphalt surfaced with the exception of Constance Road and Wilson Road, which are
seasonal. Most roads comprising the preferred route are in fair to good condition.
The turbine construction cranes will be transported to the site in a semi-dismantled manner and
hauled to specific crane assembly areas designated along the turbine access roads. The locations
of the crane assembly area will depend on the feasibility of walking the crane between turbine
3-89
001434
sites. This will be further evaluated as part of the comprehensive transportation study pending
Project approval.
Table 3-20
Preferred Route Road Characteristics
Road From To Traveled Pavement1 Surface Type Speed Limit
Way Width Condition
State Roads
NY Route 12 NY Route 342 County Rd 9 24 Fair/Good Asphalt 35 to 55-mph
NY Route 12E Favret Rd Deerlick Rd 22 Fair Asphalt 55-mph
NY Route 342 I-81 – Exit 48 NY Route 12 24 Good Asphalt 55-mph
County Roads (CR)
CR 8 (Sand Bay Rd) NY Route 12E County Rd 4 22 Good Asphalt Not Posted
CR 9 (Millens Bay Rd) NY Route 12 NY Route 12E 21 Good Asphalt 45 to 55-mph
Local Roads
McKeever Rd County Rd 9 County Rd 8 23 Fair/Good Asphalt Not Posted
Mason Rd County Rd 8 Favret Rd 20 Fair Asphalt Not Posted
Favret Rd Mason Rd NY Route 12E 19 Fair/Good Asphalt Not Posted
Gosier Rd NY Route 12E Mason Rd 20 Fair/Poor Asphalt Not Posted
Hell St County Rd 4 NY Route 12E 19 Fair/Poor Asphalt Not Posted
Constance Rd Hell St NY Route 12E 14 Poor Seasonal Not Posted
Wilson Rd Favret Rd County Rd 4 20 Fair/Poor Seasonal Not Posted
Deerlick Rd NY Route 12E Pleasant Valley Rd 21 Good Asphalt Not Posted
1
U.S. and NY State Route Pavement Conditions are based on New York State’s Highway Sufficiency Rating, 2006.
Pavement Conditions for County and Local Roads are based on a visual inspection.
The physical dimensions of vehicles delivering the turbine and tower components would dictate
the road width and turning radius needs at intersections along the delivery route, as these are the
heaviest and longest vehicles that would be necessary for construction. Table 3-21 provides
dimensions of specialized vehicles required for delivery of WTG components. Intersections
located within the Project Area were visually evaluated using a minimum truck turning radius of
130 to 150 feet, the required radius for the oversize vehicles typically used to deliver turbine and
tower components. In addition, an engineer also conducted a screening level visual inspection of
road surfaces and integrity of roads within the Project Area to preliminarily assess the types of
improvements that might be necessary to accommodate construction traffic.
Table 3-21
Delivery Vehicle Dimensions and Weights
Component Delivery Length Height Width Gross Weight
Vehicle
80 m Tower Base Section 140 ft 0 in 20 ft 0 in 15 ft 0 in 134,000 lbs
80 m Tower Mid Section 140 ft 0 in 18 ft 0 in 13 ft 0 in 130,000 lbs
80 m Tower Top Section 100 ft 0 in 16 ft 0 in 11 ft 0 in 86,000 lbs
Nacelle 100 ft 0 in 18 ft 0 in 11 ft 0 in 130,000 lbs
Hub Assemble 75 ft 0 in 18 ft 0 in 11 ft 0 in 50,000 lbs
Blades (two) 155 ft 0 in 13 ft 10 in 10 ft 0 in 35,000 lbs
3-90
001435
The Applicant has also identified the following requirements for roads to be used as primary
delivery routes for the transport of wind turbine components:
x Maximum road grade of 10 percent;
x No dips or rises greater than 18 inches over a 65 foot distance;
x Maximum vehicle gross weight of 135,000 pounds (lbs) (24,000 pounds maximum per
axle);
x Maximum vehicle turning radius of 150 feet (measured from trailer centerline above rear
axle);
x Maximum vehicle length of 155 feet;
x Maximum vehicle width of 15 feet; and
x Maximum vertical clearance of 20 feet (loaded vehicle).
In addition to the specialized flat bed trucks needed to transport turbine components, other
vehicles commonly involved in wind energy facility construction include:
x Gravel trucks for access road construction (approximate capacity of 10 cubic yards (cy)
per truck and an estimated gross weight of 75,000 lbs);
x Concrete trucks for construction of turbine foundations and transformer pads
(approximate capacity of 10 cy per truck and estimated gross weight of 78,000 lbs);
x Conventional semi-trailers for delivery of reinforcing steel (two per turbine foundation)
and small substation components and interconnection facility material;
x Pickup trucks for equipment and tools; and
x Trucks and cars for transporting construction workers.
Based on the initial assessment conducted by Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP, some local
roads and intersections will require modifications to accommodate the requirements for
construction vehicles. Based upon the initial assessment, it appears that Constance Road and
Wilson Road may need to be widened and/or repaved to accommodate the vehicles carrying the
wind tower components. No bridge restrictions were identified on any of the roads comprising
the preferred route; however, culvert and drainage structures would need to be improved on
County Road 9 and County Road 8, and Route 12E in the vicinity of Favret Road and Deerlick
Road. There are also potentially four instances of traffic signals on the following road segments
that may need to be raised to accommodate the height of the tallest design vehicle load: the
intersection of NY Route 12/NY Route 342; and the flashing traffic signals at the intersections of
NY Route 12/NY Route 180 (Gunns Corners), NY Route 12/County Road 179 (Depauville), and
County Road 9/County Road 4 (Saint Lawrence). These modifications are summarized in Table
3-22. The Applicant will conduct a comprehensive transportation study prior to construction.
3-91
001436
Table 3-22
Potential Impacts
by Preferred Route
Drainage Structure
Curve/Intersection
Quadrant Affected
Non-Participating
Property Owners
Trees/Vegetation
Overhead Signal
ROW Impacts to
Road Condition
Overhead Wire
Existing Sign
Improvement
Intersection
Utility Pole
Impacts to
Clearance
Clearance
Widening
Existing
Impacts
Impacts
Culvert/
Affected Intersection
1
or Segment
Intersections
1) Route 342/I-81 Exit 48 NB Ramp Southeast Ɣ Ɣ
2) Route 342/I-81 Exit 48 SB Ramp Northeast Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
3) Route 12/Route 342 Ɣ Ɣ
4) Route 12/County Rd 9 Southwest Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
5) County Rd 9/McKeever Rd Southwest Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
6) County Rd 8/McKeever Rd Southeast Ɣ Ɣ
7) County Rd 8/Mason Rd Southwest Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
8) Mason Rd/Gosier Rd Northwest Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
9) Favret Rd/Mason Rd Northwest Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Northeast Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
10) Favret Rd/Hell St
Southeast Ɣ Ɣ
11) Hell St/Constance Rd Northwest Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
12) Favret Rd/Wilson Rd Southeast Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
13) Route 12E/Favret Rd Southeast Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
14) Route 12E/Deerlick Rd Southwest Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Segments
Constance Road Ɣ
Wilson Road Ɣ
NY Route 12
- at NY Route 180 Ɣ
- at County Road 179 Ɣ
- at County Road 4 Ɣ
1
The quadrant impacted by the preferred route option was chosen because it represents the least amount of impact based
on a review of the participating property owners and existing intersection constraints. The impacts shown above should be
revised if the primary quadrant impacted by the preferred route changes due to land agreements.
Modifications to intersections may include increasing the corner radii, adding road width
upstream of necessary intersections, adding road width downstream of necessary intersections, or
a combination of these modifications. The degree to which corner radii can be enlarged is limited
by houses, bridges and/or culverts located in proximity to the intersections, which may make it
necessary to increase road width either upstream or downstream of intersections requiring
improvement. Intersection modifications may require the acquisition of additional property and,
in some cases, re-location of utility poles and/or guardrails. Where culverts or ditches cross
under existing intersections, culverts may have to be extended. The drainage features at
applicable intersections may be modified or new drainage features may be created along the
edges of modified intersections to maintain proper drainage. Such improvements or
modifications will be coordinated with the appropriate highway departments and appropriate
wetland and storm water permits would be obtained. Existing culverts will be inspected and, if
3-92
001437
required, approvals for improvements will be obtained from appropriate local, state and federal
agencies.
The materials used for construction will be obtained from many locations. In addition to the wind
turbine and tower components, typical construction materials will include: gravel, concrete,
reinforcing bar, electrical poles, electrical and miscellaneous materials. The vehicles used for
delivery of Project materials will include dump trucks, 18-wheel tractor trailers, flat-bed type
trucks, short wheel base trucks, and concrete delivery trucks. Since physical dimensions of these
vehicles are smaller than the turbine component delivery vehicles, they would be able to employ
the route established for delivery of the turbine components. Since these vehicles are standard
size and smaller, they can use a greater number of local roads.
It is estimated that 35 to 40 concrete trucks would be required for each turbine foundation. This
would result in 70 to 80 delivery trips for each turbine or approximately 3,700 to 4,500 total trips
over the duration of the project. In addition, material delivery would include gravel for the
development of access roads, road improvements, and intersection modifications. Other material
deliveries would include reinforcing bar for each foundation, electrical equipment and materials
for each turbine and the electrical transmission and interconnect line network.
The potential for lane and possibly road closures during road improvements exists. In addition,
the increase in traffic over Project roads during construction would impact travel time for those
people using county and local roads. SLW does not anticipate adverse safety impacts to the area
due to material delivery vehicles. Although there would be a significant number of vehicles in
the area during construction activities, safety measures such as traffic controls, flagmen and
traffic signs would be implemented to reduce the potential adverse traffic conditions as described
in Section 3.4.3.
3.4.3 Mitigation Measures

The proposed Project transportation route has been selected to minimize impacts to roads and
surrounding communities. The number of roads used for material and equipment transportation
has been limited to the minimum needed for construction. The material delivery route would, in
most cases, follow the route established for turbine component delivery. A before and after
condition assessment will be conducted and any damage from Project transportation will be fixed
either by the Project or the Project will fund the repairs.
Steps will also be taken during construction to make certain that safety is a priority including:
caution signs, escorts, police, and flag men. Construction equipment and workforce vehicles
3-93
001438
would not be parked along public roadways, but rather in designated parking areas, so as to
preserve safety along local roadways. In consultation with appropriate state officials, a Project
speed limit would be established. SLW would work with state and county officials to enforce all
traffic safety requirements. Construction vehicles may create dust plumes on gravel roads. The
Project would develop a dust control plan to ensure that visibility along roadways is maintained.
See Section 3.9 for further detail on the dust control plan.
SLW would obtain all necessary permits from the New York State Department of Transportation
(NYSDOT) and respective local highway department(s) in order to make necessary road
improvements and to operate oversize vehicles. Construction related wear and tear to state,
county and local roads would be discussed with the entities that manage the transportation
system and an appropriate strategy for road restoration would be developed. SLW would
continually assess work areas approximately two weeks ahead of construction and would provide
schools (during the school-year), police, fire, and emergency service agencies with advance
notice of lane or road closures. Any such lane or road closures on state roads will require state
approval.
The Applicant will identify all public road upgrades that may be required to accommodate
construction vehicles, including shoring up bridge abutments, adding steel plates or gravel to
road surfaces, widening roadways, reconfiguring intersections to accommodate the turning radius
of large construction vehicles, and identifying the bridges, pipes, and culverts that will not
accommodate the construction related traffic. Other improvements such as construction warning
signs, or flaggers, will provide motorists with advanced warning of the slow moving construction
equipment. Improvements will be made at the Applicant’s expense prior to the arrival of
construction vehicles and the Applicant will obtain any easements from adjacent property owners
necessary to access and work on private property.
The Applicant will repair damage done to roads affected by construction within the approved
primary route, at no expense to the towns, county, or state. Prior to construction the specific
terms of road use and reconstruction will be negotiated and agreed upon in a Road Agreement(s)
between the Applicant and road owner(s). Prior to construction, the Applicant will video-
document the existing roadways to verify the pre-construction roadway conditions. Upon
completion of the construction activities, the Applicant will return all roadways to their pre-
construction conditions, at a minimum, and video-document restored conditions.
3-94
001439
3.5 Land Use and Zoning

Land use and zoning in the Project Area was determined through review of local town laws and
aerial photographs. Land use and zoning are discussed in terms of regional land use patterns,
Project Area land use and zoning, agricultural land use, and future land use.

Existing land use, potential impacts, and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in the
following sections.
3.5.1.1 Regional Land Use Patterns

The Project Area is located in the western portion of Jefferson County in the Town of Cape
Vincent with a portion of a transmission line and transmission owner interconnection substation
in the Town of Lyme. Jefferson County is located in northwestern New York and is bordered by
the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario on the north and west, St. Lawrence County to the
northeast, Lewis County to the southeast, and Oswego County to the south. Jefferson County is
primarily rural and dominated by agricultural land, scattered rural homes, and farms. The major
population center of the County is the City of Watertown, which is about 25 miles southeast of
the Project Area. This city, including other villages and hamlets in the County are primarily
residential.
In terms of land use, Jefferson County is characterized by 1,028 farms consisting of 330,561
acres (Census of Agriculture, 2006) of active agricultural land, and residential land uses
concentrated in and around villages and hamlets. Pockets of commercial and industrial
development are scattered throughout the County along major transportation corridors. The
highest percentage of land use by number of parcels for the County is residential properties (62.8
percent), followed by vacant land (21.8 percent), and agricultural properties at 5.1 percent (New
York State Office of Real Property Services, 2006).
Agriculture is a significant contributor to the County’s overall economy. It is one of the major
dairy-producing counties (12th) in the State. Other important agricultural products in the County
include: raising chickens for egg production, honey production, beef production, and sugar
bushes for maple syrup production. Main crops in the County include: hay, corn, and small
grains (Yarnall, 2002). Despite the importance of agriculture, employment in the agricultural
sector has declined over the years and only accounted for 3.4 percent of total employment in the
County in 2000. Meanwhile, the educational, health, and social services (24.4 percent); retail
trade (14.2 percent); and public administration (10.4 percent) sectors have grown in importance
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
3-95
001440
3.5.1.2 Project Area Land Use and Zoning

The Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme are predominantly rural with dairy farming leading the
agricultural industry in the area. The highest percentage of land use by number of parcels for
both towns is residential properties in Cape Vincent (60.1 percent) and Lyme (62 percent),
followed by vacant land in Cape Vincent (25.3 percent) and Lyme (28.4 percent). The third
highest percentage of land use by number of parcels was agricultural properties in Cape Vincent
(7.4 percent) and 4.2 percent in Lyme (New York State Office of Real Property Services, 2006).
Both towns have zoning ordinances, and review of the proposed Project would be covered under
New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act. The proposed Project will be located
within the Agricultural and Residential (AR) District in the Town of Cape Vincent and within
the Agricultural and Rural Residence (AR) District in the Town of Lyme (Figure 3-10). A
portion (0.26 miles) of the overhead transmission line will also cross the Resort (RES) District in
the Town of Lyme and two poles will be placed within this district. A portion of the transmission
owner substation may also be located within the RES District. The Applicant will evaluate
design alternatives to avoid or minimize, to the extent practicable, placement of the transmission
owner substation within this zoning district. In addition to compliance with town regulations for
both Cape Vincent and Lyme, a building permit would be required through Jefferson County.
3.5.1.3 Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme

Town of Cape Vincent: The Town of Cape Vincent does not have specific regulations placed
on wind energy facilities or turbines. The proposed Project would require Site Plan Approval by
the Planning Board. Following approval and any additional reasonable conditions that may
apply, a Zoning Permit and Certificate of Compliance is required through the Code Enforcement
Office. Once all town permits are finalized, a Building Permit through Jefferson County is
required prior to construction. On November 7th, 2006 St. Lawrence Wind Farm submitted a
Site Plan Application to the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board.
The Planning Board issued guidance based on material contained in the St. Lawrence Wind
DEIS and comments during the public comment period. The following setbacks were required by
the Planning Board of Cape Vincent in response to the St. Lawrence Wind DEIS:
x 1,500 feet from the Village of Cape Vincent boundary line;
x 1,000 feet to a non-participating property line;
x 1,250 feet to a non-participating residence; and
x 750 feet to a participating residence.
3-96
001441
Through the site plan review process and associated SEQR review, the final Project design will
reflect the land use goals and conditions established by the Town of Cape Vincent zoning
ordinance. In addition, the locations of turbines and associated Project components will conform
to the setbacks and standards outlined in the Town of Cape Vincent's guidance (Appendix F)
based on the public comment period, dated July 11, 2007.
Town of Lyme: The Project would require a Special Use Permit, followed by a Zoning Permit
and Certificate of Compliance. The purpose of the special permit procedure is to allow the
Zoning Board of Appeals to attach reasonable safeguards and conditions to special uses (Town
of Lyme, 1989). Most of the proposed overhead transmission line and substation are located
within the Agricultural and Rural Residence (AR) District. A portion of the overhead
transmission line (0.26 miles) will cross the Resort (RES) District and two poles will be placed
within this district. A portion of the transmission owner substation may also be located within
the RES District. The Applicant will evaluate design alternatives to avoid or minimize, to the
extent practicable, placement of the transmission owner substation within this zoning district.
New York Department of State Division of Coastal Resources Coastal Zone Consistency
Review: A portion (0.41 miles) of the proposed overhead transmission line would cross the
Chaumont River in the Town of Lyme and the coastal zone delineated by the New York
Department of State’s Division of Coastal Resources in its Coastal Management Program
(CMP). The applicant of a permit for development in the coastal zone must submit to the lead
federal agency for that permit a “Statement of Consistency” that the project is consistent with
New York’s federally approved coastal zone management program and policies. The New York
State Department of State’s Division of Coastal Resources must concur with this Statement and
issue a “Consistency Determination” before any federal permit may be issued for the Project (15
CFR 930.60).
SLW will submit an application to cross the Chaumont River to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The NYS Division of Coastal Resources
Consistency Determination must be issued before the Corps may issue a notice to proceed with
construction of the overhead transmission line over the Chaumont River.
The 0.41-mile portion of the overhead transmission line complies with the State’s applicable
coastal policies. Specifically, the Project would be consistent with the following policies: 2
(development policy), 11-12 (flooding and erosion hazards policies), 21-22 (recreation policies),
27 (energy policy), 33 (water and air resources policies), and 44 (wetlands policy) as listed and
described in Table 3-23.
3-97
001442
Table 3-23
Consistency with New York State Coastal Policies1
No. Policy Consistency Measures

The 0.41-mile segment of the overhead
Facilitate the siting of water-dependent uses and transmission line and Interconnection Substation
2
facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters would not preempt the reasonably foreseeable
development of water dependent uses.
Buildings and other structures will be sited in the The 0.41-mile segment of the overhead
coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and transmission line and Interconnection Substation is
11
the endangering of human lives caused by flooding not located in coastal erosion hazard areas, coastal
and erosion high hazard areas, or floodways.
Activities or development in the coastal area will be The 0.41-mile segment of the overhead
undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural transmission line and Interconnection Substation
12 resources and property from flooding and erosion by will not be located on beaches, dunes, barrier
protecting natural protective features including islands, or bluffs and will not result in disturbance of
beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and bluffs. these areas.
Water-dependent and water-enhanced recreation will
transmission line and Interconnection Substation
21 be encouraged and facilitated, and will be given priority
will not result in a barrier to the recreational use of a
over non-water-related uses along the coast.
major portion of a community's shore.
Development, when located adjacent to the shore, will
provide for water-related recreation, whenever such Water-related recreation use is not compatible with
22 use is compatible with reasonably anticipated demand the development, and a reasonable demand for
for such activities, and is compatible with the primary public use is not foreseen.
purpose of the development.
Decisions on the siting and construction of major
energy facilities in the coastal area will be based on Purpose and need is discussed in Section 2.3 of the
27 public energy needs, compatibility of such facilities with SDEIS. Sections 3.1 through 3.13 discuss
the environment, and the facility’s need for a shorefront compatibility with the environment.
location.
The activity will be performed in accordance with
Best management practices will be used to ensure the
applicable permit conditions, including the SPDES
33 control of stormwater runoff and combined sewer
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges during
overflows draining into coastal waters.
Construction.
Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands
44 transmission line and Interconnection Substation
and preserve the benefits derived from these areas.
will not affect tidal or freshwater wetlands.
1
Source: NYSDOS Coastal Management Program. 2002. State Coastal Policies. Accessed December 11, 2008
http://nyswaterfronts.com/downloads/pdfs/State_Coastal_Policies.pdf.
All of the State's policies are derived from existing laws and regulations administered by various
State agencies. The NYSDEC administers many of the programs found in the State’s polices
(e.g., the Department operates regulatory programs, which provide protection to tidal and
freshwater wetlands [Policy 44], restrict development and other activities in flood and erosion
hazard areas [policies 11-12], and protect air and water resources [policies 33]). Other agencies,
such as the Public Service Commission and the State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the
Environment administer programs that regulate the siting of energy transmission facilities and
regulate the location of electric power plants.
3-98
001443
3.5.1.4 Agricultural Land Use

Approximately 1,028 working farms occupy 330,561 acres in Jefferson County according to the
2002 U.S. Department of Agricultural National Agricultural Statistics Service (Census of
Agriculture, 2006). The leading agricultural products in Jefferson County include: dairy products
(78.1 percent), cattle and calve products (9.3 percent), hay and silage products (5.3 percent),
colonies of bees and honey products (1.6 percent), and 1.6 percent as corn used for grain
(Yarnall, 2002). According to U.S. Census Bureau (2006) statistics, 3.4 percent of the population
was engaged in farming in 2000.
The Project Area affects one agricultural district (Jefferson County Agricultural District #2
North) and the entire Project Area is located in this district. Agricultural land use is a significant
component of the Project Area with approximately 6,280 (80 percent) acres of the Project Area
in row crops, field crops, or pastureland. The Project Area includes approximately 60 working
farms, most of which are dairy farms. The patchwork of fields and farms located in the many
valleys edged by ridge tops with steep slopes is what defines the landscape/community character
of the majority of the Project Area. Within the Project Area, approximately 60 percent of the
area is designated as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance (Table 3-24).
Table 3-24
Summary of Prime Farmland1 in the Project Area
Total Acres Total Percent
Farmland Class by Farmland Class by Farmland Class
Prime Farmland 77.9 14
Prime Farmland if Drained 101.0 18
Not Prime Farmland 111.2 20
Farmland of Statewide Importance 256.5 47

1
Source: Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resource Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Survey Area, State [Online].
3.5.1.5 Future Land Use

Other than the proposed Project, future land use patterns in the area are anticipated to remain
largely unchanged for the foreseeable future. Inquiry with the Town of Cape Vincent found one
proposed industrial development (1 acre of land bought by the Town for water storage) outside
of the Project Area. Various residential developments, including a proposed seasonal trailer park
development would be dispersed throughout the Town. Inquiry with the Town of Lyme found
no commercial or industrial proposed or planned future developments. Several residential
developments have been proposed in the Village of Chaumont and on the outskirts of town. BP
3-99
001444
submitted a Site Plan application to the Cape Vincent Planning Board in December 2006 for a
wind energy facility. No other new projects are planned for Cape Vincent.

The Project would have impacts on land use. These would include temporary, construction-
related impacts, as well as permanent, long-term impacts. These impacts are described below.

The proposed Project is designed to meet or exceed all of the requirements in the Towns of Cape
Vincent and Lyme land use and zoning ordinances. The proposed Project is compliant with
current local zoning and land use regulations in Cape Vincent and Lyme.

Most of the proposed Project would be built on or adjacent to agricultural lands. Construction of
the Project would result in the temporary disturbance of approximately 425 acres of agricultural
land and the permanent conversion of approximately 41 acres of agricultural land to wind
turbines, a substation, and access roads.
Two types of impacts may result from wind facility construction on agricultural lands. The first
is the permanent loss of productive agricultural land because it would be used for Project
facilities such as access roads and turbine foundations. The second potential impact is reduced
agricultural productivity of the soils disturbed during construction. Both types of impacts can be
minimized or completely avoided with proper planning.

The proposed Project would not interfere with alternative future plans to develop the land to be
occupied by the wind energy facility or its ancillary facilities. Minimum buffers from wind
turbines place a slight constraint on development that can be co-located on parcels that have
wind turbines or are adjacent to wind turbines. However, capturing the wind asset provides an
individual benefit to landowners, an economic benefit to the local community, and energy
security, as well as environmental and human health benefits to the state. The buffers are not a
significant impact on other equally desirable uses. There appears to be no conflict between the
proposed Project and future residential developments.
3-100
001445

The proposed Project is compliant with current local zoning and land use regulations in Cape
Vincent and Lyme.

To minimize impacts to agricultural resources, the Project has been sited and would be built in
accordance with guidelines provided by the New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets (Appendix A). The agricultural protection measures provide guidance for siting wind
power facilities, constructing access roads, staging and storage areas, vegetation clearing and
disposal, excavation and backfilling, turbine erection, and restoration. These mitigation
measures include:
x Minimizing impacts to normal farming operations by locating structures and access roads
along field edges where possible.
x Having roads that must cross agricultural fields stay on ridge tops and other high ground
to minimize cut and fill and potential drainage problems.
x Avoiding disturbance of surface and subsurface drainage features (e.g., diversions,
ditches, tile lines).
x Building the surface of access roads through agricultural fields’ level with adjacent field
surfaces.
x Installing culverts and water bars to maintain natural drainage patterns.
x Prohibiting vehicular access to turbine sites until topsoil has been stripped and permanent
access roads have been constructed.
x Stockpiling topsoil from work areas separate from all other excavated material (e.g., rock,
subsoil).
x Maintaining a minimum depth of 48 inches in cropland, hayland, and improved pasture
areas to bury electric wires.
x Removing excess subsoil and rock, and onsite disposal of such material may be allowed
if approved by the Environmental Monitor.
x Temporarily fencing work areas in active pastureland to protect livestock.
x Removing and disposing of all construction debris offsite at the completion of
restoration.
x Restricting heavy equipment to designated access roads, crane paths, and work pads at
the structure sites for all setup, erection, and breakdown activities.
x Disposing of excess concrete offsite and washing of concrete trucks outside of active
agricultural areas.
3-101
001446
x Restoring agricultural land based on a seasonal schedule.

x Decompacting all disturbed agricultural areas to a depth of 18 inches after construction.
x Grading access roads to allow for farm equipment crossing and to restore original surface
drainage patterns.
x Stabilizing restored agricultural areas with seed and/or mulch.
x Repairing all surface or subsurface drainage structures damaged during construction.
x Providing a monitoring and remediation plan of no less than two years immediately
following completion of the initial restoration.

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have a significant impact on future
land uses. Consequently, no mitigation is necessary to address these impacts.
3.6 Utilities and Community Services

The Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme are served by several community facilities and services
including: public utilities, police protection, fire protection and emergency response, health
facilities, education facilities, and parks and recreation facilities.

These community facilities and services are briefly discussed below, and are generally
considered adequate for the local population.
3.6.1.1 Utilities and Infrastructure

Utilities: Utilities and infrastructure in the Project Area include various overhead and
underground facilities. Aboveground components include electric distribution and telephone
lines along most of the public roads. Communications towers, including television and radio
broadcast antennas and cellular phone communications towers also occur in and around the
Project Area. Underground utilities include sewer and water mains, telephone lines, and cable
television lines. These utilities are concentrated in the towns and villages in the vicinity of the
Project Area.
Electrical services throughout Jefferson County are provided by National Grid, and natural gas is
available along the Black River corridor and the southern portion of the I-81 corridor (Yarnall,
2002).
An existing Development Authority of the North Country (DANC) 12-inch water line, the
Western Jefferson County Regional Water Line, is located within the abandoned railroad right-
of-way proposed for the overhead transmission line route. This water line provides water to
3-102
001447
homes in five towns, four villages and the General Brown High School The water source is the
Saint Lawrence River.
Police Protection: Three (3) police departments are located near the Project Site. All emergency
calls are dispatched by the Jefferson County 911 center. The New York State Police and
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department have police protection jurisdiction in the Project Area,
and the Cape Vincent Village Police Department patrols within its respective village limits and
does not have jurisdiction beyond its municipal boundaries. The County Sheriff’s Department
provides patrol cars for the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme (Jefferson County Sheriff’s
Department, 2006).
The New York State Police (Troop D) augments the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department and
are headquartered in Oneida (New York State Police, 2006). The nearest satellite station is
located about 25 miles southeast of the Project Site in Watertown. The main police stations for
the Project Area include:
Cape Vincent Village Police Department

177 North James Street
(315) 654-3400
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department

753 Waterman Drive
Watertown, New York 13601
(315) 786-2700
New York State Police, Troop D, Zone 3 Station

25873 State Route 37
(315) 782-2112
Fire Protection and Emergency Response: Three fire departments are located near the
proposed Project Area. The Cape Vincent Volunteer Fire Department and the Three Mile Bay
Fire Department provide advanced emergency medical and critical care services, and the
Chaumont Fire Department provides basic life support services (New York State Department of
Health, 2006a). Other nearby local fire departments may provide additional support if needed
and they would be chosen based on proximity and response time. Local fire departments in the
Project Area include the following:
3-103
001448
Cape Vincent Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

241 East Broadway Street
(315) 654-2004
Three Mile Bay Fire Department, Inc.

8581 New York State 12 East
Three Mile Bay, New York 13693
(315) 649-2888
Chaumont Volunteer Fire Department

11385 New York State 12 East
Chaumont, New York 13622
(315) 649-2410
The Cape Vincent Volunteer Fire Department services most of the Project Area. There are about
55 active volunteers. The fire department’s emergency response equipment includes one
Kendrick’s extrication device Exhibit 3.6.1 – Fire Districts Jurisdictional Boundaries
and one basket stretcher. The
Chaumont Volunteer Fire
Department has approximately
48 active firefighting
volunteers and 30 non-
firefighting volunteers. Its
emergency response equipment
includes a 1000 foot life line,
two backboard and spider
straps, and one stokes basket
and straps. The Three Mile
Bay Fire Department does not
have equipment available to
assist in vertical rescue. The
jurisdictional boundaries of
each are shown in Exhibit
3.6.1. The Cape Vincent
Volunteer Fire Department has
Mutual Aid Agreements with both of these area fire departments.
3-104
001449
Health Care Facilities: Three (3) major hospitals are located in Jefferson County. The
Samaritan Medical Center in Watertown and River Hospital in Alexandria Bay are both located
about 26 miles from the Project Area. The Carthage Area Hospital is located about 40 miles from
the Project Area in Carthage (New York State Department of Health, 2006b). As stated, local
hospitals near the Project Area include:
Samaritan Medical Center

830 Washington Street
(315) 785-4000
River Hospital, Inc.
4 Fuller Street
Alexandria Bay, New York 13607
(315) 482-2511
Carthage Area Hospital
1001 West Street Road
Carthage, New York 13619
(315) 493-1000
The Samaritan Medial Center provides a comprehensive range of services to visitors and
residents of Jefferson County and the surrounding area, including primary medical care,
ambulatory surgery, emergency services, burns care, intensive care, maternity, psychiatric, and
several specialty health services. The hospital provides 294 beds for various patient needs,
including medical-surgical (166), psychiatric/mental (32), pediatric (30), maternity (24),
physical/medical/rehabilitation (16), neonatal care (12), pediatric and general intensive care (10),
and coronary care (4). The Samaritan Medical Center also has five extension clinics that provide
additional services. (NYSDOH, 2008a).
River Hospital has 14 physicians on staff to provide primary care medical service, ambulatory
surgery, emergency services, and social work service, as well as other specialty services to
residents and visitors of Jefferson County and the surrounding thousand islands region
(NYSDOH, 2008b; River Hospital, 2008). The hospital also provides 15 beds for special use
(River Hospital 2008). Carthage Area Hospital, located furthest of these three hospitals from the
Project area, and its several extension clinics also provide several medical care services and 48
beds (NYSDOH, 2008c).
Jefferson County has 22 fire departments and organizations that provide paramedic, critical care,
and basic life support ambulance services, including the Cape Vincent Volunteer Fire
3-105
001450
Department (Advanced EMP-Critical Care). The Chaumont Fire Department is also one of
several fire departments and organizations in Jefferson County that provides non-transporting
first response basic life support services. (NYSDOH, 2008d)
Educational Facilities: Two (2) public school districts provide educational services to the
Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, including associated villages and hamlets. The Project would
be located in the Thousand Islands and Lyme Central school districts. The Thousand Islands
Central School District total enrollment during the 2004 to 2005 academic school year for grades
K through 12 was 1,162 students (New York State Education Department, 2006a). This school
district is composed of two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. The
Cape Vincent Elementary School is located in Cape Vincent and the other three school buildings
are located in the Town of Clayton. Located in Chaumont about 10 miles from the Project Area,
the Lyme Central School District total enrollment during the 2004 to 2005 academic school year
for grades K through 12 was 365 students (New York State Education Department, 2006b). No
other public or private schools are located in the Project Area. The school district offices are
located as follows:
Thousand Islands Central School District, District Office

8481 High Street
Clayton, New York 13624
(315) 686-5594
Lyme Central School District

11868 Academy Street
Chaumont, New York 13622
(315) 649-2417
Parks and Recreation: The Project Area and vicinity includes several parks and recreational
facilities. These areas include two state parks near the water, four other scenic visitor areas, two
wildlife management areas (WMAs), and one fish hatchery that is managed by three groups.
These parks and recreational facilities offer many recreational opportunities. Burnham Point and
Cedar Point State Parks are located near the Project Area (New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation, 2006). These parks accommodate activities such as
boating, hunting, picnicking, camping, fishing, and swimming.
Other scenic visitor areas near the Project Area include Beadle Point, Tibbetts Point and
Lighthouse, Wilson Point, and Dablon Point. The Tibbetts Point Lighthouse is located at the
entrance from Lake Ontario into the St. Lawrence River, and is still actively maintained by the
3-106
001451
U.S. Coast Guard. After the lighthouse became fully automated in 1976, the light-keeper’s room
was converted into a hostel; the Lighthouse Museum is located adjacent to the hostel.
Two WMAs are located in the Project vicinity and include: French Creek WMA, approximately
1.5 miles northeast, and Ashland Flats WMA, part of which is crossed by the overhead
transmission line. In addition, the historic Cape Vincent Fish Hatchery is located near the Project
Area. The State fish hatchery, formerly a Bureau of Fisheries building, was built in 1856, but is
no longer managed by the government. Today, there is a program between the State, the Lake
Ontario Fisheries Coalition, and the Village of Cape Vincent to raise Walleye in 13 of the 24 fish
ponds in the Village of Cape Vincent that have been idle for over 30 years. Six ponds were
opened in 2005, one additional pond was opened in 2006, and one additional each year for a total
of 13 ponds. Each pond has the potential of raising 30,000 fingerlings each spring to be released
(Village of Cape Vincent, 2005).
The New York State Seaway Trail is also a State designated recreational resource in the vicinity
of the Project Area. The Seaway Trail is an approximate 454 mile scenic route consisting of
locals roads that parallel Lake Erie, the Niagara River, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence River.
The Seaway Trail has been selected as one of “America’s Byways” by the United States
Department of Transportation.

The Project is not anticipated to result in significant adverse effects to community facilities or
services within the Project Area, including utilities, emergency services, education facilities, and
other community services.
3.6.2.1 Utilities and Infrastructure

Utilities: Short-term impacts during construction of the Project would be limited to minor
increases in the demand for fossil fuels and petroleum products necessary for the operation and
maintenance of construction equipment, machinery, and vehicles. Energy use would increase as
a result of construction personnel traveling to and from the site. However, neither of these
represents significant impacts on energy resources. The Project would not result in significant
increases in the demand for utilities such as telephone, water, and sanitary sewer needs. Utilities
would be required during construction for the operation of the staging areas (e.g., job trailers).
There is a slight possibility that some overhead electrical distribution lines would have to be
temporarily relocated to accommodate crane routes during construction. SLW will collaborate
with utility owners to reduce impacts to their facilities to the maximum extent practicable.
3-107
001452
Impacts to existing utility distribution facilities are not anticipated as a result of Project operation
and maintenance.
An existing house is located along the proposed transmission route on east side of Ashland Road.
The Project has acquired sufficient easements to site the transmission line around the house.
There is also a slight potential for disruption of water service during construction of the overhead
transmission line. Transmission poles will be sited along the Exhibit 3.6.2 – Boom Crane
same corridor as the existing DANC water line. The exisiting
water line is sited within an approximately 40 to 60 foot wide
permanent easement. The Project has acquired its own
easements for a power line ranging in width from 66 feet to
100 feet wide. As the Project easements width is greater than
the permanent width of the DANC easements, there is
flexibility in siting the transmission poles, which also allows
feasibility of siting both along the same corridor. An
approximately 20- to 30-foot wide temporary work area
adjacent to the transmission line centerline will be required
to place the poles. Poles will be installed using a truck
mounted auger, a boom crane (see Exhibit 3.6.2), and a
telehandler (see Exhibit 3.6.3). Work will be planned prior
to construction and a few locations may also be widened to
allow for passing lanes or turnaround points. There are
locations where the abandoned railroad bed is less than 20
feet wide and places where it is bordered by wetlands. These locations will be spanned to the
greatest extent possible. The typical construction process for the overhead transmission poles
includes:
x Augering a bore hole approximately 3 feet wide and 15 feet deep for placement of the
pole.
x Placement of the pole with a boom crane. The pole will be lifted and tipped into the hole
with the help of a telehandler controlling the pole base. Concrete may be required when
installing poles, water crossings will be avoided to the greatest extent possible during
delivery.
x Backfill of the borehole with concrete.
3-108
001453
Work will be accomplished from either the top of the abandoned railroad ROW or along side of
the ROW, depending on setback and weight restrictions. Since large trucks will be used, the
Exhibit 3.6.3 – Telehandler potential for ground vibration exists; however speed
limits will be strictly enforced to avoid or minimize
construction-related vibrations. No blasting will be
used in the vicinity of the water line to install
transmisson poles. In the event that significant rock is
present, the poles will be sited to avoid rock
excavation. If avoidance is not feasible, rock may be
drilled to avoid blasting.
SLW will collaborate with DANC to design the

proposed overhead transmission in a manner that
avoids or minimizes impacts to their facilities. Construction guidelines will be implemented and
strictly enforced for work within the vincity of the water line, and a contingency plan will be
developed for the unlikely event of disruption of water service during construction. Impacts to
the existing water line are not anticipated as a result of Project operation and maintenance, as the
overhead transmission line will be designed with appropropriate setbacks that will minize direct
or indirect impacts to the water line. In addition, the design will provide adequate spacing
allowing DANC ready access to the water line for necessary repairs or improvements. SLW will
develop a detailed contingency plan to deal with the unlikely event that construction or
maintenance of the transmission line causes damage to the water line and disruption of water
service.
The Project would not result in significant adverse long-term impacts to local utilities and energy
resources. Long-term energy use would increase slightly as a result of facility maintenance and
operation personnel traveling to and from the site. However, these impacts would be minor
because the amount of required electricity and fuel is small, and local fuel suppliers and utilities
have sufficient capacity available to serve the Project’s needs. In addition, the Project will inject
new power into the regional grid at the Lyme Substation increasing the local electricity supply
and system reliability. As a result, no other improvements to the existing energy supply system
would be necessary beyond any system upgrades identified by the National Grid Facility Study
to interconnect the Project transmission line to the Lyme Substation.
Emergency Services: The Project would not have significant adverse impacts on the demand for
emergency services. Existing services (e.g., police, fire, ambulance, and health care) have the
personnel and equipment necessary to respond to emergencies that could occur during both
3-109
001454
construction and operation of the Project. However, certain Project-related activities could affect
the ability of emergency service providers to perform their duties. For instance, during
construction, large vehicles and temporary road closures could block emergency vehicle access
to area farms and homes. This is not anticipated to be a significant problem due to the small
number of residents within the Project Area, the general availability of alternate access routes,
and correspondence and coordination that would occur between construction managers and local
police departments. SLW in collaboration with the Cape Vincent Fire Department (CVFD), have
also developed an Emergency Response Plan (see Appendix B) to define prevention and
emergency response measures for hazardous materials spills, medical/fire/law enforcement,
weather emergencies, and evacuation. The Project also could experience vandalism and/or
trespass problems that would require involvement of local police. Based on experience with
other wind power projects in New York, this is not anticipated to be a significant impact.
The wind turbines themselves also pose a slight risk related to falling ice that may accumulate on
rotor blades during the winter. Although ice can fall off the turbine blades under certain
conditions during the winter, the maximum distance ice has been observed to fall from wind
turbines is less than 400 feet (Morgan et al., 1998). A more typical scenario would involve any
accumulated ice falling straight down and landing around the tower base. This is consistent with
the findings of Morgan et al. (1998) and with anecdotal reports from other operating wind
projects in the northeastern region of the country. Compliance with setbacks and measures to
control public access, such as fences and warning signs, will minimize public safety risks
associated with ice shedding. Turbines have been sited to maintain a minimum distance of 1,250
feet from non-participating residences and 750 feet from participating residences.
Educational Facilities: During construction, the Project would not adversely impact the local
school districts. Temporary construction workers would not create significant demand for school
district services or facilities because they would stay only for the duration of construction, which
would be approximately 7 to 10 months. These workers typically would not relocate their
families to the area for this short duration. Transportation planning for construction would take
into account school bus routes and schedules. Component deliveries to the extent possible will
not be conducted during school bus pick-up and drop-off time. Additional measures to manage
and mitigate impacts to traffic and transportation will be developed as part of the Transportation
Plan. The Project will work with transportation officials.
During operation, the Project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in the demand
on educational facilities. The operating Project would employ between 4 and 6 full-time
3-110
001455
employees. The existing educational facilities have sufficient capacity to accommodate this small
number of school children in the area.
The Project could have a positive economic impact on the school districts. In New York, a
portion of the funds from the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) that SLW would negotiate is
typically dedicated to the school districts. In other New York communities that host wind
projects, PILOT funds to school districts have significantly increased the districts ability to pay
down debt, advance capital improvements, and otherwise improve the educational experience for
local students. Section 3.11 provides additional discussion of school district revenues,
expenditures, and indebtedness.
Park and Recreation Facilities: Other community services and facilities, such as libraries and
park and recreation facilities would not be adversely affected by construction or operation of the
Project. Some construction workers may stay in nearby campgrounds for the construction-
duration of the Project, but this number is not significant. Additional municipal and county
revenue generated by the Project would help maintain and possibly expand these services and
facilities. Based on available information, the Project is not expected to have a negative effect on
tourism. A 2002 study conducted for the Scottish Renewables Forum and the British Wind
Energy Association investigated the effect of wind farms on existing tourism at scenic areas. The
researchers surveyed 307 tourists in the Argyll region of Scotland, noted for its scenic beauty and
landscape, and concluded that "the wind farms are not seen as having a detrimental effect on
their visit and would not deter tourists from visiting the area in the future." An additional
discussion of potential visual impacts is presented in Section 3.8.

The Project would have a beneficial impact on utilities and infrastructure by providing clean
renewable energy that can be used by the people of Jefferson County and New York State. In
addition, this would advance the New York State goal expressed in the PSC “Order Approving
Renewable Portfolio Standard Policy,” issued on September 24, 2004, calling for an increase in
renewable energy used in the State from the then current level of approximately 19 percent to 25
percent by the year 2013 (PSC 2008).
Utilities: To protect local utilities and utility services, including aboveground electrical lines
and/or poles, and buried natural gas lines, SLW would meet with the corresponding utility
entities to review the Project components, Project construction schedule, identify crossing
methodologies, and develop any relocation plans that may be required. Additionally, prior to
construction, buried utilities would be identified by the contractor using Protection of
3-111
001456
Underground Facility procedures (16 NYCRR Part 753) and in accordance with the Dig Safely
New York Program.
The Applicant will work with DANC to identify exact locations of the water line, weight
restrictions for working on and around the water line, and appropriate setbacks from the water
line. The setbacks will be based on several factors including industry standards and DANC
requirements. Siting will also consider OHSA requirements for working setbacks around
transmission lines in the event DANC needs to work on the water line during the operation of the
wind farm. To specifically minimize potential impacts to the water line the Applicant will:
x Survey and flag the centerline of the water line prior to construction;
x Determine and establish approriate setbacks;
x Locate pole placement based on setbacks and side-slope charateristics;
x Adjust pole spacing to avoid potential problem areas, (e.g. steep sloped portions of the
embankment);
x Set a low level speed limit to reduce vibrations for trucks working in the vicinity of the
water line;
x Determine the best location of work area (top of abandoned railroad ROW versus
adjacent to the ROW) for equipment used to place poles; and
x Develop a contingency plan in collaboration with DANC to address potential impacts to
the water line or disruption in service.
The contingency plan will at a minimum include the following elements:

x Instruction of construction workers on the presence of the water line, avoidance and
minimization of potential impacts to the water line, and response procedures in the event
of an impact or disruption in service to the water line. This training will be part of the
initial training scheduled for the Emergency Response Plan (ERP).
x Daily notification to DANC on work schedules when working in the vicinity of the water
line;
x List of contacts for notification in the event of an impact or disruption;
x Definitions of impacts or disruptions to include at a minimum:
o breakdown of the physical water systems (installation) to the extent that it is not
possible to keep the water line in use;
o impacts to the quality of water requiring boiling; and
o impacts to the quality of water that are considered unfit for human consumption
even if boiled;
x Notification procedures in the event of an impact or disruption; and
3-112
001457
x Response procedures in the event of an impact to the water line or disruption of service.
Emergency Services: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have a
significant impact on most emergency services, such as police, ambulance, and health care
facilities. To mitigate concerns of the local fire departments regarding inexperience with the
components of the new wind facility, during construction and operation of the wind power
facility, SLW would maintain appropriate level of preparedness and equipment for emergency
rescue operations involving the nacelle and tower. In addition, the appropriate personnel
involved with the Project would meet with the local emergency service personnel (police, fire,
ambulance, and health care) to review and discuss the planned construction process. During this
meeting the Project representative would review with the local personnel the important details
involved with Project construction including the unique construction equipment, the overall
construction process and construction scheduling. During this meeting all hazardous materials
that may be present during construction and/or operation would be discussed.
In collaboration with the CVFD, SLW has developed an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) to be
followed by all emergency response personnel in case of an emergency at the St. Lawrence Wind
Power Facility. This ERP (see Appendix B) defines prevention and emergency response
measures for hazardous materials spills, medical/fire/law enforcement, weather emergencies, and
evacuation at the Project Site. It was developed for the Project to ensure the safety of employees
and local residents, visitors, and their property.
Educational Facilities: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have a
significant impact on educational facilities. Consequently, no mitigation is necessary to address
these impacts. Further, PILOT payments to be made by SLW will provide revenues for use by
school districts.
Park and Recreation Facilities: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not
have a significant impact on other community services and facilities, such as libraries and park
and recreation facilities. Consequently, no mitigation is necessary to address these impacts.
Further, improvements to the Tibbetts Light House site proposed as mitigation for cultural
resources impacts discussed in Section 3.7 will provide for enhanced user experience at this
recreational facility.
3-113
001458
3.7 Cultural Resources

3.7.1 Archeological Resources
The area of potential effect for archeology (archeology APE) includes areas likely to have
ground disturbances related to Project construction, facility lifespan and decommissioning. A
review of archeological site files maintained by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation revealed 12 Native American and 5 Euroamerican archeological sites
previously recorded within one mile of the APE. The Native American sites include one Paleo-
Indian find, three Woodland Stage sites (including one St. Lawrence Iroquois village site), and
eight sites of unknown Native American prehistoric period chronological association. The five
Euroamerican archeological sites include the remains of nineteenth-century structures. An
additional two sites are recorded within the site files of the New York State Museum that have
not been attributed to either the prehistoric or historic time periods.
Review of historic cartographic sources indicated that early Euroamerican settlement in the area
was near roads, most of which reflect current roadways. The Town of Cape Vincent Planning
Board requires siting wind turbines no closer than 1,250 feet from participating residences, 750
feet from non-participating residences. Therefore, the Project also avoids most historic-period
structures and potential archeological remains of former historic-period structures within the
archeology APE.
Cultural resources studies were initiated to determine the presence of archeological resources.
These studies have been designed to be in compliance with the New York SHPO Guidelines for
Wind Farm Development Cultural Resources Survey Work (2006). A field inspection was
conducted of a majority of the Project Area of potential effects for archeology (archeology APE),
including areas of proposed construction and ground disturbances. The Phase 1A investigation
was conducted to identify aboveground evidence of archeological sites, areas that have the
potential to contain intact archeological resources, and areas recommended for no additional
testing due to wetlands, extreme slopes and/or visible evidence of ground disturbances (TtEC,
2007a). Field inspection of the Project revealed that the archeology APE is relatively undisturbed
and the general topography of the archeology APE exhibits low relief. Most of the archeology
APE appears to be suitable for archeological testing.
The archeology APE may have been an attractive environment to Native American populations.
Potable water sources are plentiful and the archeology APE retains proximity to aquatic food
resources along lowland streams and marshes and across large upland marshes. Lithic resources
such as Black River chert nodules are relatively abundant along many streams and riverbanks
3-114
001459
throughout the archeology APE. Canoe travel was possible along the shore of Lake Ontario and
across the portage between the Chaumont River and French Creek, east and north of the
archeology APE. Ceremonial or burial places have been recorded at several locations near the
archeology APE. Thus, the archeology APE would have been suitable for occupation and/or use
by Native American populations. One factor that may have limited Native American populations
within the archeology APE may have been the scarcity of well drained soils that would likely
have been preferred for settlement locations. Approximately nine percent of soils within the
archeology APE currently exhibit good drainage (TtEC, 2007a).
A Phase IB archeological survey was completed by SLW’s cultural resources consultant in 2007,
and was provided to the SHPO for their review and comment (Clark, Mack and Will, 2008). A
testing strategy was developed and implemented following consultation with the SHPO. In total,
3,298 30-centimeter diameter shovel tests were excavated. Only one prehistoric pottery sherd
was recovered in one shovel test, while 22 historic-period artifacts were recovered in 13
scattered shovel tests. Prehistoric- and historic-period artifacts were considered isolated finds
rather than archeological sites; however, a prehistoric inventory form was submitted to SHPO for
the isolated pottery sherd (SHPO A04505.000177). One historic-period poured concrete
foundation and other surface features and structural debris were discovered near the proposed
transmission line, but these historic-period remains will be avoided during construction. SLW’s
cultural resources consultant recommended that no additional archeological field investigations
should be conducted for this Project (Clark, Mack and Will, 2008). SHPO reviewed the Phase 1B
archeological survey report on July 16, 2008, and SHPO recommendations are discussed in
Section 3.7.1.3, below.
In summer 2008, the Project layout was revised reducing the number of turbines from 96 to 53.
In addition, some roadways and buried electrical interconnects were changed. SLWF described
the changes to the Project layout in a letter and project comparison map addressed to Nancy
Herter, dated September 5, 2008. On October 30, 2008, upon review, SHPO indicated there
were no archeological concerns with the revised Project layout (Letter from Nancy Herter,
SHPO, to Blayne Gunderman, Acciona Energy, October 30, 2008, see Appendix F).
3.7.1.2 Impact Analysis

SLW’s cultural resources consultant recommended that construction and operation of the Project
will not affect archeological resources that are potentially eligible for the NRHP (Clark, Mack
and Will, 2008). In the event of future archeological discoveries in the archeological APE, SLW
intends to avoid impacts to archeological resources that may be potentially eligible to the NRHP.
3-115
001460

SHPO completed the review of archeological investigations in a letter dated July 16, 2008
(Letter from Nancy Herter, SHPO, to Blayne Gunderman, Acciona Energy, July 16, 2008, see
Appendix F). SHPO expressed no further archeological concerns excepting the conditions that:
1. The SHPO receive a journal-ready article summarizing the results of the sensitivity
modeling.
2. The historic features identified in the proposed above-ground transmission line are
avoided by the construction, and construction plans should be submitted showing
avoidance of these historic features.
3. A qualified archeologist will monitor ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the
pottery find (SHPO A04505.000177). If further archeological deposits are identified,
construction must cease and consultation must be initiated with the SHPO and the
Onondaga Nation.
Archeologically sensitive areas that must be avoided during project construction will be clearly
identified as “No Access” on Project construction maps. Prior to the start of construction, and
Unanticipated Discoveries Plan will be developed, describing actions to be taken in the event
that archeological sites, including possible human remains, are accidentally discovered during
Project construction. The Project Environmental Inspector or Project Engineer will be
responsible for monitoring compliance with Project construction plans and implementing the
Unanticipated Discoveries Plan.
3.7.2 Architectural Resources

Historic architectural resources include standing structures that were style-dated as 50 years old
or older. The APE for architecture (architecture APE) was defined by the Project viewshed
which is included in the Visual Resource Assessment prepared by Saratoga Associates (see
Section 3.8). The architectural site files maintained online by the SHPO indicated that there are
currently 23 NRHP-listed properties located within one mile of the Project, including one NRHP
District (Broadway Historical District). Three historical architectural investigations were
conducted for differing parts of the architecture APE, including: 1) an architectural inventory
within a one-mile ring around the proposed construction locations (TtEC, 2007b); 2) a second
study within one- to two-mile ring (TRC, 2007), and; 3) a third study within two- to five-mile
ring of Project construction (TRC, 2008 – Appendix H). In total, SHPO determined that 145
individual historic properties were identified that might be eligible for the NRHP. These
included 37 historic properties previously listed in the New York State Register of Historic
3-116
001461
Places (SRHP) and the NRHP (including two districts), 86 properties were identified by SHPO
as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (see Table 3-25 and Exhibit 3.7.1). Seven properties were
unevaluated by SHPO and might be eligible for the NRHP, and 15 properties were determined
by SHPO as not eligible for the NRHP (Letter from John A. Bonafide, SHPO, to Andrew C.
Davis, New York State Department of Public Service, May 28, 2008, see Appendix F). Historic
properties were widely scattered across the Project landscape, including village/hamlet and rural
settings.
3.7.2.2 Impact Analysis

SHPO completed the review of historic architectural investigations in a letter dated May 28,
2008 (Letter from John A. Bonafide, SHPO, to Andrew C. Davis, New York State Department of
Public Service, May 28, 2008, see Appendix F). SHPO concluded that the proposed project will
have an adverse impact on cultural resources. SHPO identified 38 properties that should
undergo additional visual assessment and requested additional visual simulations to continue
SHPO review. Several key areas where visual impacts should be addressed include the Village
of Cape Vincent and National Register-listed properties and districts.
Since preparation of the DEIS, SLW has initiated measures to reduce adverse effects on historic
properties. The number of proposed turbines has been reduced from 96 to 53 turbines, reducing
3-117
001462

Historic Properties Evaluated Within the Five-Mile Area of Potential Effect
Map Code Description/SHPO Inventory Number Address Village/Town Determination 1

NRL-1 Jean Philipe Galbrand du Fort House (90NR01173) 313 James Street Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-2 John Borland House (90NR01168) 127 Joseph Street Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-3 Otis Starkey House (90NR01181) 9500 Point Street Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-4 Warren Wilson House (90NR01130) 4670 Favret Road Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-5 Captain Louis Peugnet House (90NR1126) 32115 County Road 6 Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-6 George Reynolds House (90NR01127) 34191 Route 12E Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-7 Reuter Dyer House ( 90NR01124) 29902 County Road 4 Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-8 Nicholas Cocaigne House (90RN1121) 2867 Favret Road Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-9 Johnson House (90NR01125) 33071 Tibbetts Point Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-10 Broadway Historic District (90NR01169) Village of Cape Vincent Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-11 James Buckley House (90NR01170) 169 Joseph Street Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-12 Remy Dezengremel House (90NR01122) 30538 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-13 Joseph Docteur House (90NR01123) 31469 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-14 Xavier Chevalier House (90NR01120) 6338 Gosiere Road Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-15 Claude Vautrin House (90NR01129) 33110 Mason Road Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-16 Fairview Manor (05NR05454) 38289 State Route 12E, Clayton Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-17 St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church (90NR01180) 139 Kanady Street Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-18 Union Meeting House (90NR01128) 6433 Millens Bay Road Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-19 Burnham House (90NR01171) 565 Broadway Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-20 Gen Sacket House (90NR01178) 467 James Street Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-21 Lewis House (90NR01175) 230 Market Street Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-22 Anthony Levi building (90NR1166) 580 Broadway Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-23 Aubertine Building (90NR01167) 496 Broadway Cape Vincent NRL
3-118
001463
Table 3-25 (Sheet 2of 6)


NRL-24 Glen Building (90NR01174) 352 Broadway Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-25 Roxy Hotel (90NR01176) 310 Broadway Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-26 Cornelius Sacket House (90NR01177) 571 Broadway Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-27 Rogers Brothers Farmstead (95NR00907) 27658 Dablon Point Road Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-28 Tibbetts Point Lighthouse (90NR01119) Tibbetts Point Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-29 Wilcox Farmstead (90NR03009) County Route 57 Chaumont NRL
NRL-30 Chaumont House (90NR03014) 11616 Main Street Chaumont NRL
NRL-31 Chaumont Historic District (90NR03013) Along Main Street Chaumont NRL
NRL-32 Evans Gaige Dillenback House (90NR03016) 27655 Evans Road Chaumont NRL
NRL-33 George House (90NR03018) 27405 Washington Street Chaumont NRL
NRL-34 St. Johns Episcopal Church (90NR01179)* 352 Market Street Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-35 Duvillard Mill (90NR01172) 583 Broadway Cape Vincent NRL
NRL-36 Vincent Le Ray House (90NR01182) 375 Broadway Cape Vincent NRL
T-4 house 29766 CR 6 Cape Vincent NRE
T-7 farmstead 2066/2072 Deerlick Road Cape Vincent NRE
T-10 farmstead 3204 NY 12E Cape Vincent NRE
T-14 farmstead 2481 NY 12E Cape Vincent NRE
T-20 Beechwood 31429 CR 6 Cape Vincent NRE
T-21 outbuilding associated with Beechwood 31429 CR 6 Cape Vincent NRE
T-24 house 596 W. Broadway Cape Vincent NRE
T-25 farmstead 523 W. Broadway Cape Vincent NRE
T-26 servants quarters 523 W. Broadway Cape Vincent NRE
T-36 house 266 N. Lake Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-47 house 139 S. Kanady Street Cape Vincent NRE
3-119
001464


T-78 Market Street Cemetery No address; Market Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-91 house 383 S. Market Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-98 house 179 W. Lake Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-126 house 151 W. Gouvello Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-127 house 131 W. Gouvello Street Cape Vincent UN
T-129 tourist cabins 184 N. Market Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-147 factory (now historical museum) 173/175 N. James Street Cape Vincent UN
T-155 house 134 N. Point Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-167 house 233/235 S. Point Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-176 farmstead 662 S. James Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-181 house 561 S. James Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-184 house 437 S. James Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-209 The United Church 260 E. Broadway Cape Vincent NRE
T-247 commercial - fisheries 567 E. Lake Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-264 house 212 William Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-269 house 742 E. Broadway (rear) Cape Vincent NRE
T-297 Riverside Cemetery No number; State Route 12E Cape Vincent NRE
T-301 house 32719 NY 12E Cape Vincent NRE
T-336 tourist cabins 34725 County Route 7 Cape Vincent NRE
T-337 boat house 34765 CR7 Cape Vincent NRE
T-346 house 35109 CR 7 Cape Vincent NRE
3-120
001465


T-356 farmstead 35438 CR 7 Cape Vincent NRE
T-358 house 35530 State Route 12E Cape Vincent NRE
T-359 tourist cabins 35681 State Route 12E Cape Vincent NRE
T-368 house 36091 State Route 12E Cape Vincent NRE
T-380/HR-35 Cedar Point State Park office building Cedar Point SP Cape Vincent NRE
T-408 parsonage 35158 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent NRE
T-420 New England Barn 33905 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent NRE
T-421 St. Lawrence Union Cemetery St. Lawrence Union Cemetery Cape Vincent NRE
T-424 house 33751 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent NRE
T-428 farmstead 7242 Millens Bay Road Cape Vincent NRE
T-445 St. Vincent de Paul Church 31385 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent NRE
T-453 commercial building 31305 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent NRE
T-461 farmstead 5851 Dezengremel Road Cape Vincent NRE
T-470 house Vacant, no number; W side Hell St. Cape Vincent NRE
T-471 farmstead 5477/5553 Constance Road Cape Vincent NRE
T-473 farmstead 5477/5553 Constance Road Cape Vincent NRE
T-479 farmstead 32175 Hell Street Cape Vincent NRE
T-484 house 4609 Favret Road Cape Vincent NRE
T-505 house 250 Center Cape Vincent NRE
C-1 New St. Vincent de Paul Cemetery No number; NY State Route 12E Cape Vincent UN
C-3 Judd Cemetery No number; NY State Route 12E Cape Vincent NRE
C-4 Sand Bay Cemetery No number; NY State Route 12E Cape Vincent UN
HR-9 Bayworth Farm 27846 Dablon Point Road Cape Vincent NRE
3-121
001466


HR-11 Merchant House 27341 Stony Point Road Cape Vincent UN
HR-12 Edsall House 69031 Stony Point Road Cape Vincent NRE
HR-15 Vincent Schaumont Farmstead 30321 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent NRE
HR-16 Hemple House and Farm 30374 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent NRE
HR-17 Furman House 30411 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent NRE
HR-18 Rosseau House 30485 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent NRE
HR-20 St. Vincent de Paul Cemetery Intersection of Rosiere and Dezengremel roads Cape Vincent NRE
HR-22 Worner House and Farm 30252 Burnt Rock Road Cape Vincent UN
HR-32 Calhoun House and Dairy Farm 15782 French Creek Road Clayton NRE
HR-36 farmstead Grenadier Island Road #3 Cape Vincent NRE
HR-40 Kernan Cottage 3063 Carleton Island Road #1 Cape Vincent NRE
HR-41 Hickory Point Club Cottages 3089 Carleton Island Road #1 Cape Vincent NRE
HR-42 Kernan Cabin 3063 Carleton Island Road #1 Cape Vincent NRE
HR-43 Carleton Villa 3158 Carleton Island Road #3 Cape Vincent NRE
HR-44 Kernan House 3164 Carleton Island Road #3 Cape Vincent NRE
HR-45 Kernan Cottages 3164 Carleton Island Road #3 Cape Vincent NRE
HR-46 George Brothers Building (90NR03017) 27428 Mill Street Lyme NRL
HR-50 Borden House 27707 Water Street Lyme NRE
HR-52 Sizeland Cottage 1 27605 Water Street Lyme NRE
HR-53 Sizeland Cottage 2 27587 Water Street Lyme NRE
HR-54 Walts House 27375 Washington Street Lyme NRE
HR-55 St. Paul's ME Church 27487 Washington Street Lyme NRE
HR-56 White House 27490 Washington Street Lyme NRE
HR-62 J. Wells House 29340 Ashland Road Lyme NRE
HR-63 Wells Settlement/Wells Family Cemetery 30228 / 30215 Ashland Road Lyme NRE
3-122
001467


HR-64 Mitchell House and Farm 27817 Three Mile Point Road North Lyme NRE
HR-68 Harris/Emerson Cemetery Robinson Road, west of Three Mile Creek Lyme NRE
HR-69 Thomas House 10163 County Route 8 Lyme NRE
HR-70 Anthony House/Farm 31700 Swalia Road Lyme NRE
HR-71 Dodge Farm 12283 County Route 9 Clayton NRE
HR-72 Colello House 37455 NY Route 12E Clayton NRE
1
NRE = National Register Eligible; NRL = National Register Listed; UN = Unevaluated, but considered NRE
3-123
001468
visual effects on some historic properties. For the 38 properties identified by SHPO that required
additional visual assessments, eight simulations were created to assist analyses of impacts (see
Appendix I). As measured by the number of turbines observed from historic properties, the new
turbine alignment reduced visual impacts at 22 properties. Visual impacts were generally similar
when comparing the former (96 turbines) and new (53 turbines) alignments at 13 historic
properties. Increased visual impacts were observed at three historic properties as a result of the
new alignment. A letter describing this assessment of the visual impacts of the revised turbine
alignment was submitted to SHPO on October 14, 2008. (Letter from Blayne Gunderman,
Acciona Energy, to John Bonafide, SHPO, October 14, 2008, see Appendix F).

In addition to avoidance and reduction measures, SLW intends to perform other mitigation for
visual effects. SLW held a meeting on October 15, 2008 with Cape Vincent town supervisors
and Lyme councilmen and the town historian to identify projects that may satisfy the Towns’ and
SHPO’s expectations for appropriate mitigation. The Town of Cape Vincent expressed interest in
renovations to the historic Tibbetts Lighthouse property. A meeting on December 6, 2008 with
Joe Dudek, President of the Tibbetts Point Lighthouse Historical Society, identified several
restoration priorities, including burying electrical lines at the entrance to the historic property,
eave and porch replacement and painting at the Keeper’s Cottage, and new fencing around the
property, all potentially to be funded by SLW. The Town of Lyme was reluctant to discuss
visual mitigation with SLW because the Town of Lyme currently has a moratorium on wind
energy development in effect. Town Supervisor, Scott Aubertine, indicated that once the
moratorium is lifted, the Town would be pleased to discuss mitigation measures. SLW will
continue drafting a Memorandum of Agreement for Visual Impact Mitigation, to be approved by
the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme and by SHPO.
3.8 Visual Resources/Community Character

3.8.1 Introduction
The 2007 DEIS included a Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) of the proposed Project to
identify potential visual and aesthetic impacts and to provide an objective assessment of the
visual character of the Project. The VRA was provided as Appendix C of the DEIS. The VRA
followed New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Program Policy
“Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts” (NYSDEC, 2000) and SEQRA criteria for analyzing
and minimizing impacts on visual resources. This visual policy requires a visual assessment
when a proposed facility is potentially within the viewshed of a designated aesthetic resource.
Where significant adverse aesthetic impacts are identified, the Applicant (e.g., developer) is
3-124
001469
Exhibit 3.7.1 -
3-125
001470
required to employ reasonable and practicable measures to eliminate, mitigate or compensate for
such effects. The following identifies and evaluates the potential visual impact of the Current
Project incorporating key components of the 2007 VRA by reference.
3.8.1.1 Project Description

The 2007 VRA was based on the original 96-turbine project (Original Project). The currently
proposed project is limited to 53 turbine locations and a total capacity of approximately 79.5
MW (Current Project). At the time of the 2007 VRA, the specific turbine type and model had
not yet been selected. In order to consider the worst-case scenario, the VRA assumed the largest
turbine model under consideration would be used throughout the project. The studied turbine
type was a 3.0 MW unit measuring 275 feet (84 meters) tall from ground to nacelle (hub) with a
300-foot (91 meter) rotor diameter with the apex of blade rotation reaching approximately 425
feet (129.5 meters) above ground elevation. Under the revised application, the project proposes
to use a smaller 1.5MW turbine measuring 262 feet (80 meters) ground to nacelle, with a 269-
foot (82-meter) rotor diameter, resulting in the apex of blade rotation reaching approximately
390.5 feet (121 meter blade tip height).
The Current Project is substantially smaller in scale than the Original Project. The number of
turbines is reduced from 96 to 53 (45%) and each turbine is reduced in height from 425 feet to
390.5 feet (-34.5 feet) compared to turbines evaluated the 2007 VRA. Turbines are generally
contained within the same perimeter area as the Original Project. However, with fewer units,
turbine density is substantially reduced.
3.8.1.2 Landscape Character/Visual Setting

Landscape character is defined by the basic pattern of landform, land use, vegetation, water
features, and human development. This descriptive section offers an overview of the intrinsic
visual condition of the study region and establishes the baseline condition from which to evaluate
visual change.
The Project Area is located in the western portion of Jefferson County in the Towns of Cape
Vincent and Lyme. Jefferson County is located in northwestern New York and is bordered by the
St. Lawrence River to the north and Lake Ontario to the west, St. Lawrence County to the
northeast, Lewis County to the southeast, and Oswego County to the south. Jefferson County is
primarily rural and dominated by agricultural land, scattered rural homes, and farms. Further, the
proposed Project is located in the Thousand Islands region of New York State at the convergence
of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. The Thousand Islands is a popular waterfront
vacation destination extending from the eastern shore of the St. Lawrence River. The region,
3-126
001471
well known for the scenic beauty of its shoreline and over 1,800 islands, offers numerous
cultural, recreational and entertainment attractions. While resorts, restaurants and tourist
attractions on the American side of the River are largely clustered around the Villages of Clayton
and Alexandria Bay, recreational and tourism resources are found throughout the Thousand
Islands area, including the waterfront portion of the study area. A more detailed discussion of
the natural and built elements that comprise the visual setting of the study area is provided in
Section 2.0 of the 2007 VRA.
3.8.2 Visual Impact Assessment

Although the St. Lawrence Windpower Project remains a highly visible facility, the reduced size
of the Current Project results in less impact on the aesthetic resources of the region than
presented in the 2007 VRA. The following summarizes this difference:
3.8.2.1 Affected Viewshed

Due to the height and number of proposed wind turbines, both the Original and Current Projects
would be visible from locations throughout the 5-mile visual study area. A viewshed analysis
included in the 2007 VRA identified the geographic area within which there was a relatively
high probability that some portion of the Original 96-turbine Project would be visible. SLW
prepared a revised viewshed map to illustrate the visibility of the Current 53-turbine Project (see
Exhibits 3.8.1 and 3.8.2).
Viewshed Methodology: The overall accuracy of viewshed mapping is dependent on the number
and location of control points (study points representing proposed turbines) used in the viewshed
calculation. To calculate the maximum range of potential turbine visibility, one control point was
established at the turbine high point (i.e., apex of blade rotation) for each of the 53 turbines. The
resulting composite viewshed identifies the geographic area within the 5-mile study radius where
some portion of the proposed wind energy Project (the apex of one or more turbine blades) is
theoretically visible.
One viewshed map was prepared defining the area within which there would be no visibility of
the Current Project because of the screening effect caused by intervening topography (see
Exhibit 3.8.1). This treeless condition analysis is used to identify the maximum potential
geographic area within which further investigation is appropriate. A second map was prepared
illustrating the probable screening effect of existing mature vegetation. This vegetated condition
viewshed identifies the geographic area within which one would expect to be substantially
screened by intervening forest vegetation (see Exhibit 3.8.2).
3-127
001472
Exhibit 3.8.1 -
3-128
001473
Exhibit 3.8.2 -
3-129
001474
Identified viewshed areas are further quantified to illustrate the number of turbines that may be
visible from any given area. This cumulative degree of visibility is summarized on each map
using the following groupings:
x 1-10 turbines visible;
x 31-40 turbines visible; and
x 41-53 turbines visible
By themselves, the viewshed maps do not determine either how much of each turbine is visible
above intervening landform or vegetation (e.g., 100%, 50%, 10% etc. of total turbine height) or
whether a specific wind turbine will actually be visible from any given vantage point, but rather
the geographic area within which some portion of one or more turbines theoretically would be
visible.
In this evaluation, ArcGIS 9.1 and ArcGIS 3D Analyst software was used to generate viewshed
areas based on publicly available digital topographic and vegetation data sets. Viewshed
overlays were created by first importing a digital elevation model (DEM) of the study area. This
DEM, obtained through the United States Geological Survey (USGS) from its National Elevation
Dataset, is based on the best available digital elevation data including the 1:24,000-scale USGS
topographic maps (10-foot contour intervals) and is accurate to a 10-meter grid cell resolution.
The computer then scanned 360 degrees across this DEM from each control point, distinguishing
between grid cells that would be hidden from view and those that would be visible based solely
on topography. Areas of the surrounding landscape were identified where each control point
would be visible; areas in shadow would not be visible.
Vegetation data was extracted from the National Land Cover Data (NLCD) acquired from the
USGS. The NLCD dataset, produced by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristic Consortium,
was developed from multi-spectral classification of LANDSAT 7 Thematic Mapper (TM)
imagery (2001) sampled to a 30-meter grid cell resolution.1 The screening effect of vegetation
was then incorporated by adding 40 feet in height to DEM grid cells that are completely forested
(according to NLCD dataset) and repeating the calculation procedure. Based on field
1
Thirty-meter resolution is the smallest vegetative grid cell increment commonly available for the Project region.
This resolution provides an appropriate degree of accuracy for development of five-mile viewshed maps given the
fairly broad patterns of existing land use in the area, as well as the accuracy of mapped topographic data (i.e.,
1:24,000-scale USGS topographic maps with 10-foot contour intervals)
3-130
001475
observation, most trees in forested portions of the study area are significantly taller than 40 feet.
This height thus represents a conservative estimate of the effect of vegetative screening 2.
It is important to note that the NLCD dataset is based on interpretation of forested areas that are
clearly distinguishable from multi-spectral satellite imagery. As such, the potential screening
value of site-specific vegetative cover such as small hedgerows and individual trees and other
areas of non-forest tree cover may not be represented in the viewshed analysis. Furthermore, the
NLCD dataset does not include the screening value of existing structures. This is a particularly
important distinction in populated areas, including the Village of the Cape Vincent and other
commercial and residential areas, where existing structures are likely to provide significant
screening of distant views. With these conditions, the viewshed map conservatively
overestimates potential Project visibility in areas where the Project may be substantially screened
from view.
It is noteworthy that untrained reviewers often misinterpret treeless condition viewshed maps to
represent wintertime, or leafless condition visibility (i.e., Exhibit 3.8.1). In fact, deciduous
woodlands provide a substantial visual barrier in all seasons. Since the NLCD dataset generally
identifies only larger stands of woodland vegetation that is clearly distinguishable from multi-
spectral satellite imagery, viewshed maps that include the screening value of existing vegetation
are equally representative of both leaf-on and leaf-off seasons (i.e., Exhibit 3.8.2). Treeless
condition analysis is provided only to assist experienced visual analysts to identify the maximum
potential geographic area within which further investigation is appropriate. Such topography-
only viewshed maps are not generally intended or appropriate for public interpretation or
presentation.
Finally, the viewshed maps indicate locations in the surrounding landscape in which one or more
turbine highpoints (i.e., apex of blade rotation) might be visible. These maps do not imply the
magnitude of visibility (i.e., how much of each turbine is visible), the viewer’s distance from
each visible turbine or the aesthetic character of what may be seen.
Viewshed Interpretation: Table 3-26 indicates the degree of theoretical visibility of the revised
Project within the 5-mile radius study area as illustrated on the viewshed map. The geographic
area affected by the Current 53-turbine Project is approximately the same as was found for the
2
The 2007 VRA viewshed used the Coastal Services Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) dataset acquired from the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2000) to represent vegetative cover. The
revised viewshed used 2001 NLCD acquired from the USGS to represent vegetative cover. The more current
NLCD data does not include coverage in Canada.
3-131
001476
Original 96-turbine Project. The principal difference between the two projects is the number of
turbines potentially visible from any given location. Throughout the five-mile radius study area,
the number of turbines in the revised Project potentially visible at given locations is substantially
reduced as compared to the original viewshed map. This clearly results from the reduction in
project size by 43 turbines.
Table 3-26
Viewshed Coverage Summary
Topography Only Viewshed Vegetation and Topography Viewshed
(see Exhibit 3.8.1) (see Exhibit 3.8.2)
Acres Percent Cover Acres Percent cover
No Turbines Visible 3,144 4% 29,430 32%
1-10 Turbine Visible 2,587 3% 9,132 10%
11-20 Turbines Visible 2,093 2% 6,242 7%
Total 91,193 100% 91,193 100%
Table 3-26 and Exhibit 3.8.2 indicate that one or more of the proposed turbines theoretically
would be visible from approximately 68 percent of the five-mile radius study area.
Approximately 32 percent of the study area will likely have no visibility of any wind turbines
due to intervening landform or vegetation. Turbine visibility is most common from inland
agricultural areas where cleared lands provide long vistas in the direction of turbine groupings.
Project visibility will also occur from unscreened coastal areas (primarily along the St. Lawrence
River), Lake and River Islands, and from on-water vantage points throughout the five-mile
radius study area.
The area most directly affected by views of the Project will be central portion of the turbine area
where multiple turbines will be visible up to 360-degrees around a vantage point. Viewers to the
north and west of CR 6 (Rosiere Road) will encounter views of a large number of turbines (30 to
53) at foreground and middleground distances (e.g., ½ to 3 miles). Similar views of multiple
turbines will occur along portions of NY Rte.12E, Deer Lick, Favret, Mason, McKeever, Sand
Bay (CR 9), Johnny Cake, Gosier, Hell, Constance, Wilson, and Branche Roads. This high
degree of Project visibility is the result of broad agricultural clearing and the lack of screening
hills.
While the viewshed map indicates theoretical visibility of multiple turbines within the Village of
Cape Vincent, field observation determined the prevalence of mature street trees and site
landscaping combined with one- and two-story residential and commercial structures (not
3-132
001477
included in the multi-spectral satellite imagery of the NLCD dataset) will commonly block views
in the direction of the Project from the downtown and waterfront area. Filtered or framed views
of proposed turbines are possible through foreground vegetation and buildings from the
perimeter of the Village. Direct views are more prevalent on the outskirts of the Village where
localized residential and commercial structures, street trees and site landscaping are less likely to
provide a visual barrier.
Similarly, viewshed mapping indicates a high degree of Project visibility from many shoreline
areas northeast of the Village of Cape Vincent. Based on field observation, such visibility would
likely be limited to some degree by existing clusters of localized (non-forest) vegetation that is
not clearly distinguishable in the multi-spectral satellite imagery of the NLCD dataset.
Nonetheless, views of some portion of numerous turbines will occur from shoreline areas along
the St. Lawrence River.
Direct views of multiple turbines will also occur from near shore and offshore vantage points on
the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Views are also found on Lake and River islands from
shoreline areas oriented toward the Project, as well as island hillsides with down slope vistas in
the direction of the Project. Water and island views are found on both sides of the international
border within the five-mile study area.
3.8.2.2 - Affected Receptors

Inventory of Visually Sensitive Resources: Because it is not practical to evaluate every
conceivable location where the proposed Project might be visible, it is accepted visual
assessment practice to limit detailed evaluation of aesthetic impact to locations generally
considered by society, through regulatory designation or policy, to be of cultural and/or aesthetic
importance. In rural areas where few resources of statewide significance are likely to be found, it
is common practice to expand inventory criteria to include places of local sensitivity or high
intensity of use. Definitions of visual resources are found on page 18-19 of the 2007 VRA. A
detailed description of inventoried resources is provided in Section 3.2.2 of the 2007 VRA.
Visibility Evaluation of Inventoried Resources: Each inventoried visual resource was

evaluated to determine whether a visual impact might exist. This consisted of reviewing
viewshed maps and field observation to determine whether or not individual resources would
have a view of the proposed Project.
A trained field observer visited each inventoried visual resource determined through viewshed
evaluation to be potentially affected by the Original Project to confirm view potential. Potential
visibility was confirmed if the observer found an unobstructed line-of-sight between the subject
3-133
001478
receptor and the study area. Field confirmation of potential visibility was conducted on
December 12, 2006, December 31, 2006 and December 21, 2007. Refer to Section 3.4.1 of the
2007 VRA for additional information.
Table 3-27 lists 783 visual resources located within the five-mile study area and identifies
potential Project visibility. The location of these visual resources is referenced by numeric code
within Exhibit 3.8.3.
3.8.2.3 – Factors Affecting Visual Impact

To bring order to the consideration of visual resources, the inventory of visual resources is
organized into several recognizable elements; landscape units, viewer/user groups, distance
zones and circumstances of view.
Landscape Units: Landscape units are areas with common characteristics of landform, water
resources, vegetation, land use, and land use intensity. While a regional landscape may possess
diverse features and characteristics, a landscape unit is a relatively homogenous, unified
landscape of visual character. Landscape units are established to provide a framework for
comparing and prioritizing the differing visual quality and sensitivity of visual resources in the
study area. Discrete landscape units were identified through field inventory and air photo
interpretation, and divide the study area into zones of unique patterns and visual composition.
Landscape Units identified within the Project Area include:
x Rural Agricultural;
x Rural Hamlet;
x Village Center; and
x Waterfront
Definitions of these Landscape Units are provided in Section 3.3.1 of the 2007 VRA.
In response to the recommendation of regulatory agencies following review of the 2007 VRA, an
additional Landscape Unit has been added to this assessment.
x Open Water – Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River are popular recreational
waterways during the late spring though early fall seasons. The Thousand Islands region
is well known for the scenic character of its shoreline and many islands, attracting
thousands of visitors annually. The aesthetic quality of the open water landscape is
central to the region’s appeal as a vacation destination.
3
67 visual resources were evaluated in the 2007 VRA. Eleven supplemental receptors, including locations along the
Seaway Trail, as well as locations on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River were added at the request of
several regulatory review agencies following initial review of the 2007 VRA.
3-134
001479

Visual Resource Visibility Summary
1
Potential Visibility
Theoretical View Theoretical
Indicated by View Indicated
Map Viewshed - by Viewshed - Actual View
Receptor Name Municipality Inventory Type
ID Excluding Including Likely Based on
Existing Existing Field
Vegetation Vegetation Confirmation of
(see Exhibit (see Exhibit Existing Line-
3.8.1) 3.8.2) of-sight
Cultural Resources
2 Broadway Historic District Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž

3 LeRay, Vincent, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
4 St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
5 Lewis House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ
6 Roxy Hotel Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ
7 Borland, John, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ
8 Buckley, James, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ
9 St. John's Episcopal Church Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ
10.1 Sacket, Cornelius, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ
12.1 Starkey, Otis, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ
Galband du Fort, Jean Philippe,
13
House
Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
18 Glen Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ
19 Burnham, E. K., House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž

20 Duvillard Mill Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
21 Aubertine Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
22 Anthony, Levi, Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
26 Sacket, General, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
27 Cocaigne, Nicholas House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
28 Peugnet, Captain Louis, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
30 Johnson House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
View from top of
31 Tibbetts Point Lighthouse Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance ż ż lighthouse
32 Rogers Brothers Farmstead Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ

35 Dyer, Reuter, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
36 District School No. 3 Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
3-135
001480

1
3.8.1) 3.8.2) of-sight
Cultural Resources
37 Dezengremel, Remy, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
38 Wilson, Warren, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
40.1 Fort Haldimand Site Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Not visited
41 Reynolds, George, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ

42 Chevalier, Xavier, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
43 Vautrin, Claude, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
44 Union Meeting House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
48 Docteur, Joseph, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
50 The Row Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
51 Taft House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
53 Taylor Boathouse Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
54 Three Mile Bay Historic District Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
55 Wheeler, Menzo, House Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
56 Stone Shop, Old Town of Lyme Statewide Significance ż ż ż
Recreational and Tourist Resources
9.1 Village of Cape Vincent River Access Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ
Village of Cape Vincent Historical
10
Museum
Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ
11 Cape Vincent Village Green Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ

13.1 Cape Vincent Recreation Park Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
15 Wolfe Island Ferry Landing Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ
17 Cape Vincent Public Dock Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ
NYS DEC Research Station &
19.1
Aquarium
Village of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
24 Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
25 Village Waterfront Park Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Lake Ontario ¾ Mile Off Tibbetts
31.1
Point
Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Lake Ontario 2 Miles Off Tibbetts
31.2
Point
3-136
001481

1
3.8.1) 3.8.2) of-sight
Recreational and Tourist Resources
31.3 Lake Ontario ¾ Mile Off Wilson Point Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
36.1 Long Point State Park Town of Lyme Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
40.2 Burnham Point State Park Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ž
40.3 St. Lawrence River off Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
40.4 St. Lawrence River off Wolfe Island Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
40.5 St. Lawrence River off Burnham Point Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
40.6 St. Lawrence River off Millen Bay Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
40.7 St. Lawrence River off Cedar Point Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Ashland Flats Wildlife Management
49
Area
59.2 Cedar Point State Park Town of Cape Vincent Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ
French Creek State Wildlife
62
Management Area
Town of Clayton Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
33 Intersection Merchant Rd & CR6 Town of Cape Vincent Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Bates
35.1
Rd
Highway Corridors/Roadside Receptors
39 Intersection Favret Rd & Hell St. Town of Cape Vincent Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Burnham
40
Point State Park
NY Rte 12E—Seaway Trail near CR
41.1
8
NY Rte 12E—Seaway Trail near
41.2
Poplar Tree Bay
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Millen
45
Bay
Intersection Millers Bay Rd & Rosiere
46
Rd (CR4)
Town of Cape Vincent Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
47 Intersection Favret Rd & CR 4 Town of Cape Vincent Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
57 Intersection CR5 & Millers Bay Rd Town of Lyme Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd &
58
St Lawrence Rd (CR9)
Town of Clayton Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Intersection Rosiere Rd (CR4) & St
59
Lawrence Rd (CR9)
Town of Cape Vincent Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Cedar
59.1
Point State Park
3-137
001482

1
3.8.1) 3.8.2) of-sight
Highway Corridors/Roadside Receptors
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Pelo
61
Rd
Town of Clayton Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Intersection of Deferno Rd & Grant
63
Rd
Town of Clayton Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail 1 Mile SE
65
of Clayton
Town of Clayton Statewide Significance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
Residential/Community Resources
14 Cape Vincent Elementary School Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
59.3 CR 9 – Thousand Islands HS Town of Cape Vincent Other Ɣ Ɣ Ɣ
1
Key
Ɣ Visibility Indicated
ż No Visibility Indicated
Ž Filtered view through trees or limited view through structures possible (field observed)
Substantially screened by local structures or vegetation (field observed)
3-138
001483
The waters of the Lake and River contain buoys, lighthouses, maritime commercial and
industrial activities, a variety of boats and ships including freighters, ferries, and pleasure
craft. In general, these waters appear dark bluish-gray in color. Cloud cover, wind sun
reflectance and surface glare affect the color of the water and often create patterns of
color variation over the water surface. The visible texture of the water is affected by the
action of waves. These factors contribute to an amalgam of shimmering colors and
patterns of light that are of aesthetic interest and may command the attention of
observers.
Shoreline development of varying density is visually evident across the coastal area.
Waterfront residences, docks, bulkheads, boats and other structures are common along
the mainland and many islands on both the American and Canadian coast.
Views across open water are unencumbered. Vistas radiate 360 degrees and extend to the
horizon and the distant shoreline.
Viewer/User Groups: Viewers engaged in different activities, while in the same Landscape
Unit, are likely to perceive their surroundings differently. The description of viewer groups is
provided to assist in understanding the sensitivity and probable reaction of potential observers to
visual change resulting from the proposed Project. Viewer/User groups identified within the
Project Area include:
x Local Residents;
x Through Travelers;
x Recreational Users; and
x Tourists
Definitions of these viewer/user groups are provided in Section 3.3.2 of the 2007 VRA.
Distance Zones: Distance affects the apparent size and degree of contrast between an object and
its surroundings. A description of each distance zone is provided in Section 3.3.3 of the 2007
VRA to assist in understanding the effect of distance on potential visual impacts. Distance zones
include:
x Foreground (0-½ mile);
x Middleground (½ mile to 3 miles); and
x Background (3-5 miles to horizon)
3-139
001484
Exhibit 3.8.3 -
3-140
001485
Duration/Circumstances of View: The analysis of a viewer’s experience must include the

distinction between stationary and moving observers. The length of time and the circumstances
under which a view is encountered is influential in characterizing the importance of a particular
view. Duration and circumstances of view include:
x Stationary Views; and
x Moving Views
Definitions of duration and circumstances of view are provided in Section 3.3.4 of the 2007
VRA.
3.8.2.4 – Summary of Affected Resources

As listed in Table 3-27, of the original 78 inventoried visual resources, 22 would likely be
screened from the proposed Project by either intervening landform or vegetation/structures and
are thus eliminated from further study. Table 3-28 summarizes the factors affecting visual
impact (landscape unit, viewer group, distance zone and duration/frequency/circumstances of
view) described above for each of the 56 visual resource determined to have a potential view of
the proposed Project.
Although the Current Project includes 43 fewer turbines than the Original 96-turbine Project, all
of the same visual resources will likely view one or more turbines. The Current Project does not
eliminate any previously affected visual resource from view, nor does it newly impact any
previously unaffected receptor. There is no difference in the number of visual resources
potentially affected by the Current 53-turbine Project. The principal difference is simply the
number of turbines visible from each affected receptor.
3.8.2.5 – Degree of Project Visibility

Photo Simulations: To provide a fair and adequate representation of how turbines will appear
within the study area from a variety of distances and locations, representative photo simulations
were prepared. The specific location of these simulations was chosen for their relevance to the
factors affecting visual impact (viewer/user groups, landscape units, distance zones and
duration/frequency and circumstances of view discussed above (see Section 3.8.2.1 above).
These simulations do not include views from all potentially affected visual resources, but rather
provide representative examples of how the proposed project will appear under varying
circumstances of distance and landscape character. Because the visibility of wind turbines will
most commonly affect local residents from rural homes and during daily travel along local roads,
and most open vistas of the Project typically occur in isolated locations along rural roadways,
views selected for photo simulation favor such views even though the number of viewers will not
be large.
3-141
001486

Visual Resources with Potential Views of the Project
Number of Factors Affecting Visual Impact
Turbines
Theoretically
1
Visible Distance (miles)
Map (see Exhibit Landscape Viewer/User /Distance Zone Moving/
ID Receptor Name Municipality Inventory Type 3.8.3) Unit Group(s) (nearest turbine) Stationary
2 Broadway Historic District Village of Cape Vincent Statewide NA - limited Village Center local residents, tourists 1.3 / Middleground (T1) Stationary
Significance view
3 LeRay, Vincent, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide NA - limited Village Center local residents 1.3 / Middleground (T3) Stationary
Significance view
4 St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church Village of Cape Vincent Statewide NA - limited Village Center local residents 1.1 / Middleground (T3) Stationary
Significance view
13 Galband du Fort, Jean Philippe, Village of Cape Vincent Statewide NA - limited Village Center local residents 1.0 / Middleground (T3) Stationary
House Significance view
13.1 Cape Vincent Recreation Park Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance NA - limited Village Center local residents, 0.9 / Middleground (T3) Stationary
view recreational, tourists
14 Cape Vincent Elementary School Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance NA - limited Village Center local residents 1.0 / Middleground (T3) Stationary
view
19 Burnham, E. K., House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide NA - limited Village Center local residents 1.2 / Middleground (T5) Stationary
Significance view
19.1 NYS DEC Research Station & Village of Cape Vincent Statewide NA - limited Village Center tourists 1.2 / Middleground (T5) Stationary
Aquarium Significance view
20 Duvillard Mill Village of Cape Vincent Statewide NA - limited Village Center local residents 1.2 / Middleground (T5) Stationary
Significance view
21 Aubertine Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide NA - limited Village Center local residents 1.1 / Middleground (T5) Stationary
Significance view
22 Anthony, Levi, Building Village of Cape Vincent Statewide NA - limited Village Center local residents 1.1 / Middleground (T8) Stationary
Significance view
24 Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance NA - limited Village Center local residents, 0.9 / Middleground (T8) Stationary
25 Village Waterfront Park Village of Cape Vincent Local Importance NA - limited Village Center local residents, 0.9 / Middleground (T8) Stationary
26 Sacket, General, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide NA - limited Village Center local residents 0.7 / Middleground (T3) Stationary
Significance view
27 Cocaigne, Nicholas House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 52 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.2 / Foreground (T4) Stationary
Significance
28 Peugnet, Captain Louis, House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide 5 Waterfront local residents 1.2 / Middleground (T1) Stationary
Significance
30 Johnson House Village of Cape Vincent Statewide 2 Waterfront local residents 1.8 / Middleground (T1) Stationary
Significance
3-142
001487

Turbines
Theoretically
1
31.1 Lake Ontario ¾ Mile off Tibbetts Point Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 36 Open Water recreational 2.9 / Middleground (T1) Moving
Significance
31.2 Lake Ontario 2 Miles Off Tibbetts Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 53 Open Water recreational 3.9 / Background (T1) Moving
Point Significance
31.3 Lake Ontario Off ¾ Mile Wilson Point Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 35 Open Water recreational 3.0 / Background (T1) Moving
Significance
32 Rogers Brothers Farmstead Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 35 Waterfront local residents 2.1 / Middleground (T2) Stationary
Significance
33 Intersection Merchant Rd & CR6 Town of Cape Vincent Other 8 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents, 1.0 / Middleground (T2) Moving
workers
35 Dyer, Reuter, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 35 Rural Agricultural local residents 1.4 / Middleground (T6) Stationary
Significance
35.1 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Bates Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 47 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents, 2.1 / Middleground (T9) Moving
Rd Significance tourists
36.1 Long Point State Park Town of Lyme Statewide 53 Waterfront recreational 7.1 / Background (T14) Stationary
Significance
37 Dezengremel, Remy, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 9 Rural Agricultural local residents 1.3 / Middleground (T14) Stationary
Significance
38 Wilson, Warren, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 47 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.4 / Foreground (T10) Stationary
Significance
39 Intersection Favret Rd & Hell St. Town of Cape Vincent Other 53 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 0.4 / Foreground (T15) Moving
40 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Burnham Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 35 Waterfront travelers, local residents, 0.4 / Foreground (T26) Moving
Point State Park Significance tourists
40.1 Fort Haldimand Site Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 17 Waterfront tourists 2.0 / Background (T22) Stationary
Significance
40.2 Burnham Point State Park Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 32 Waterfront recreational 0.5 / Middleground (T26) Stationary
Significance
40.3 St. Lawrence River off Cape Vincent Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 53 Open Water recreational 1.5 / Middleground (T8) Moving
Significance
40.4 St. Lawrence River off Wolfe Island Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 53 Open Water recreational 2.0 / Background (T3) Moving
Significance
40.5 St. Lawrence River off Burnham Point Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 53 Open Water recreational 1.5 / Middleground (T23) Moving
Significance
40.6 St. Lawrence River off Millen Bay Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 53 Open Water recreational 1.6 / Middleground (T39) Moving
Significance
3-143
001488

Turbines
Theoretically
1
40.7 St. Lawrence River off Cedar Point Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 53 Open Water recreational 2.1 / Middleground (T53) Moving
Significance
41 Reynolds, George, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 24 Waterfront local residents 0.6 / Middleground (T53) Stationary
Significance
41.1 NY Rte 12E—Seaway Trail near CR 8 Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 52 Waterfront travelers, local residents, 0.4 / Foreground (T38) Moving
Significance tourists
41.2 NY Rte 12E—Seaway Trail near Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 47 Waterfront travelers, local residents, 0.5 / Foreground (T22) Moving
Poplar Tree Bay Significance tourists
42 Chevalier, Xavier, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 45 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.3 / Foreground (T36) Stationary
Significance
43 Vautrin, Claude, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 53 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.4 / Foreground (T31) Stationary
Significance
44 Union Meeting House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 30 Waterfront local residents 0.5 / Middleground (T38) Stationary
Significance
45 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Millen Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 50 Waterfront travelers, local residents, 0.4 / Foreground (T38) Moving
Bay Significance tourists
46 Intersection Millers Bay Rd & Rosiere Town of Cape Vincent Other 47 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 0.8 / Middleground (T32) Moving
Rd (CR4)
47 Intersection Favret Rd & CR 4 Town of Cape Vincent Other 50 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 1 / Middleground (T14) Moving
48 Docteur, Joseph, House Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 53 Rural Agricultural local residents 1.3 / Middleground (T14) Stationary
Significance
49 Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 41 Rural Agricultural recreational 2.1 / Middleground (T14) Stationary
Area Significance
57 Intersection CR5 & Millers Bay Rd Town of Lyme Other 18 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 4.1 /Background (T32) Moving
58 Intersection Macomb Settlement Rd & Town of Clayton Other 4 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 2.9 / Middleground (T47) Moving
St Lawrence Rd (CR9)
59 Intersection Rosiere Rd (CR4) & St Town of Cape Vincent Other 34 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 1 / Middleground (T47) Moving
Lawrence Rd (CR9)
59.1 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail at Cedar Town of Cape Vincent Statewide 53 Waterfront travelers, local residents, 1.1 / Middleground (T53) Moving
Point State Park Significance tourists
59.3 CR9 - Thousand Islands HS Town of Clayton Other 53 Rural Agricultural local residents 0.4 / Foreground (T53) Moving/
Stationary
61 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail Near Pelo Town of Clayton Statewide 53 Waterfront travelers, local residents, 2.2 / Middleground (T47) Moving
Rd Significance tourists
3-144
001489

Turbines
Theoretically
1
62 French Creek State Wildlife Town of Clayton Local Importance 1 Rural Agricultural recreational 2.5 / Middleground (T47) Stationary
Management Area
63 Intersection of Deferno Rd & Grant Rd Town of Clayton Other 14 Rural Agricultural travelers, local residents 4.3 /Background (T47) Moving
65 NY Rte.12E-Seaway Trail 1 Mile SE of Town of Clayton Statewide 2 Waterfront travelers, local residents, 5.0 / Background (T47) Moving
Clayton Significance tourists
1
Viewshed mapping does not include the screening value of existing structures. This is a particularly important distinction in populated areas, including the Village of the Cape Vincent and other
commercial and residential areas, where existing structures provide significant screening of distant views. With these conditions, the viewshed map (Exhibit 3.8.2) conservatively overestimates
theoretical visibility in areas where the Project may be substantially screened from view. For this reason the approximate number of turbines visible is not reported for visual resources located in the
Village Center Landscape Unit.
3-145
001490
Original Project Simulations: The 2007 VRA included 16 representative photo simulations.
These simulations represented a worst-case condition assuming the Original 96-turbine Project
using 3.0 MW units measuring 275 feet (84 meters) tall from ground to nacelle (hub), up to 425
feet (129.5 meters) at the apex of blade rotation. The Current 53-turbine Project proposes a
smaller 1.5MW turbine measuring 262 feet (80 meters) ground to nacelle, up to 390.5 feet (121
meter) at the apex of blade rotation. All photo simulations of the Original Project are presented
in Appendix A of the 2007 VRA.
Current Project Simulations: Considering the 2007 VRA evaluated a worse-case condition
most of the simulations contained in the 2007 VRA have not been revised to reflect the lesser
impact of the Current Project. However, to compare the change in project visibility between the
Original Project and Current Project, four (4) of the original simulations that had views of
turbines under both the Original and Current Project configurations were updated. These photo
simulations from these four locations are provided in Appendix I herein. The following
summarizes and compares project visibility under both the Original and Current Project
configurations.
Figure 1: VP2 Broadway Historic District - The Broadway Historic District is a National
Register Historic District located along the St. Lawrence River in the western
portion of the Village of Cape Vincent. The location selected for photo simulation
is representative of constrained views typical of the Village Center Landscape
Unit. In this vicinity, structures and trees generally block most views, however,
filtered or framed views are possible through foreground vegetation and
buildings.
The photo simulation location is a vantage point where a limited line-of-sight

between intervening structures and vegetation allows a view in the direction of the
Project. Few other locations with similar visibility are found within the historic
district or western portion of the Village.
This study location is a worst-case vantage point. Although viewshed mapping

indicates that many turbines theoretically would be visible from this location,
field verification determined intervening structures, street trees and other local
vegetation would screen most, if not all turbines from view.
Note: The photo simulation of the Original Project from the Broadway Historic
District (see Figure A1 of the 2007 VRA) was found to have a minor alignment
inaccuracy that revealed a greater degree of project visibility than would actually
3-146
001491
occur from this vantage point. This discrepancy has been corrected. Figure 1
(Appendix I) includes a revised simulation of the Original Project as well as a
simulation of the Current Project for comparison purposes.
Figure 2: VP24 Village of Cape Vincent Boat Launch (compare with 2007 VRA Figure A2)
The Village of Cape Vincent public boat launch is a heavily used seasonal
waterfront recreation facility in the eastern portion of the Village. The location
selected for photo simulation is representative of constrained views typical of the
Village Center Landscape Unit. In this vicinity, structures and trees generally
block most views; however, filtered or framed views are possible through
foreground vegetation and buildings.
The photo simulation location is a vantage point where a limited line-of-sight

between intervening structures and vegetation allows a view in the direction of the
Project. Few other locations with similar visibility are found along the Village
waterfront.
This study location is a worst-case vantage point. Although viewshed mapping

indicates that many turbines theoretically would be visible from this location,
field verification determined intervening structures, street trees and other local
vegetation would screen most turbines from view.
Figure 3: VP43 Vautrin, Claude House (compare with 2007 VRA Figure A9) - The Claude
Vautrin House (c.1855), located on Mason Road in the Town of Cape Vincent, is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This private residence is
surrounded by open agricultural land with little topographic relief. This receptor
was selected for photo simulation as a representative example of exposed views
typical of the Rural Agricultural Landscape Unit where distant vistas (½ mile or
more) are common across the expansive agricultural plain.
The Vautrin House is located along the south perimeter of the Project Area. Due
to the lack of intervening topography or significant vegetation, unimpeded view
of numerous turbines extending nearly 180 degrees is likely. Viewshed mapping
indicates that some portion of many, if not all Project turbines theoretically would
be visible above intervening vegetation from this location. Field verification
confirms this finding. Although this study location is a worst-case vantage point,
this degree of project visibility is typical of many places within the Rural
Agricultural Landscape Unit.
3-147
001492
Figure 4: VP45 NY Rte. 12E – Seaway Trail Near Millen Bay (compare with 2007 VRA
Figure A10) - The Seaway Trail is a 454-mile scenic route paralleling Lake Erie,
the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Selected as one of
“America’s Byways” by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Seaway Trail
follows NY Rte.12E through the study area from Clayton southeast to Sackets
Harbor. This location was selected for photo simulation as a representative
example of open views along much of the Seaway Trail in the Town of Cape
Vincent where distant vistas (½ mile or more) are common across the expansive
agricultural plain.
The Seaway Trail in this vicinity parallels the north perimeter of the Project Area.
Due to the lack of intervening topography or significant vegetation along much of
the Seaway Trail in the Town of Cape Vincent, unimpeded view of numerous
turbines, often extending nearly 180 degrees, is likely. Viewshed mapping
indicates that some portion of many, if not most turbines theoretically would be
visible above intervening vegetation from this location. Field verification
Supplemental photo simulations are also provided to illustrate the extent of project visibility
from additional key locations. These photo simulations were added at the request of several
regulatory review agencies following initial review of the 2007 VRA. The following summarizes
project visibility from each of the supplemental receptors. Photo simulations from these
supplemental locations are also provided in Appendix I herein4.
Figure 5: VP41.2 NY Rte 12E – Seaway Trail near CR 8 (panoramic view); and
Figure 6: VP41.2 NY Rte 12E – Seaway Trail near Poplar Tree Bay (panoramic view)
Similar to Figure 4, these supplemental locations were selected for photo
simulation as representative examples of open views along the Seaway Trail in
the Town of Cape Vincent where distant vistas (½ mile or more) are common
across the expansive agricultural plain.
4
Several of the supplemental simulations are presented in panoramic format to fully illustrate views extending beyond
the field-of-view of a single photo frame. Panoramic views are a compilation of 50mm (equivalent) photo frames.
Panoramic images illustrate a wider field-of-view than can be captured in a single photo frame, and by their nature
distort normal perspective. To remedy this condition, photo simulations of these views are also provided as a series
of single 50mm (equivalent) frames covering the full extent of the associated panorama.
3-148
001493
Viewshed mapping indicates that some portion of many, if not most turbines
theoretically would be visible above intervening vegetation from this location.
Field verification confirms this finding. Although this study location is a worst-
case vantage point, this degree of project visibility is typical of many portions of
Route 12E in the Town of Cape Vincent.
Figure 7: VP59.3 CR9 – Thousand Islands High School (panoramic view) – Thousand
Islands High School is located on County Route 9 near the intersection with NYS
Route 12E. The high school is nearly surrounded by open agricultural land with
little topographic relief. This receptor was selected for photo simulation as a
representative example of exposed views typical of the Rural Agricultural
Landscape Unit where distant vistas (½ mile or more) are common across the
expansive agricultural plain.
This receptor is located along the northeast perimeter of the Project Area. Due to
the lack of intervening topography or significant vegetation, unimpeded view of
numerous turbines extending nearly 180 degrees is likely. Viewshed mapping
indicates that some portion of many, if not most turbines theoretically would be
visible above intervening vegetation from this location. Field verification
Figure 8: VP31.1 Lake Ontario off Tibbetts Point;

Figure 9: VP31.2 Lake Ontario off Tibbetts Point;
Figure 10: VP31.3 Lake Ontario off Wilson Point;
Figure 11: VP40.4 St. Lawrence River off Wolfe Island;
Figure 12: VP 40.3 St. Lawrence River off Cape Vincent (panoramic);
Figure 13: VP 40.5 St. Lawrence River off Burnham Point; and
Figure 14: VP 40.6 St. Lawrence River off Millen Bay; and
Figure 15: VP 40.7 St. Lawrence River off Cedar Point (panoramic);
Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, bordering the Project Area to the north
and west, are popular recreational waterways during the late spring through early
fall season. The Thousand Islands Region is well known for the scenic character
of its shoreline and many islands, attracting thousands of visitors annually. The
open water landscape is central to the region’s appeal as a vacation destination.
3-149
001494
Figures 8 through 15 (Appendix I) provide typical views of the Current Project

from three (3) locations on Lake Ontario and five (5) locations on the St.
Lawrence River.
Due to the lack of intervening coastal topography, unimpeded view of numerous

turbines, often extending nearly 180 degrees, is likely from on-water vantage
points. Viewshed mapping indicates that some portion of many, if not all turbines
theoretically would be visible above intervening vegetation. Field verification
confirms this finding.
Degree of Project Visibility Summary: Photo simulations illustrate that, when visible, a
substantial portion of individual turbines will be seen above intervening landform and
vegetation. From foreground vantage points (within ½ mile), all or most of the 275-foot tall
turbine tower, nacelle and 300-foot diameter turbine rotor will commonly be visible above
intervening vegetation. From background vantage points (3+ miles), foreground vegetation will
often screen the lower portions of the turbine structure (tower and nacelle) limiting views to the
upper portion of the rotor turning above the tree line. This high degree of Project visibility is
attributed to the broad agricultural clearing and lack of screening hills typical throughout much
of the five-mile radius study area.
The Current Project is substantially smaller in scale than the Original Project. The number of
turbines is reduced from 96 to 53 (45 percent) and each turbine is reduced in height from 425
feet to 390.5 feet (-34.5 feet) compared to turbines evaluated the 2007 VRA. Turbines are
generally contained within the same perimeter area as the Original Project. However, with fewer
units, turbine density is substantially reduced.
3.8.2.6 – Compatibility with Regional Landscape Patterns

The visual character of a landscape is defined by the patterns, forms and scale relationships
created by lines, colors, and textures. Some patterns dominate while others are subordinate. The
qualitative impact of a project is the effect the development has on these patterns, and by
corollary, the visual character of the regional landscape.
Existing Landscape: The visible patterns (form, line, color, and texture) found within the
Project region can best be described as representative of the agricultural landscape typical of
northern Jefferson County, NY. Given the rural nature of the study area, visible colors are
natural, muted shades of green, brown, gray, and other earth tones. When viewed from a
3-150
001495
distance, the landscape maintains a rather uniform and unbroken blending of colors, which tend
to fade with hazing of varying atmospheric conditions.
The following describes the compatibility of the proposed Project with regional landscape
patterns within which it is contained and viewed.
Form: The form of the regional landscape is essentially a planar landscape. The woodland edge
of agricultural fields commonly creates a brief vertical offset of the prevailing planar form. The
proposed wind energy project will be comprised of approximately 53 thin tapered vertical
structures distributed throughout the landscape; topped with large rotating blades. The
introduction of such clearly man-made and kinetic structures creates an obvious visual disruption
of the agricultural landscape.
Line: The existing landscape maintains a horizontal line formed by extended vistas over an
agricultural plain that often forms the visible horizon. The well-defined vertical form of the
approximately 53 turbines visible across this plain introduces a contrasting and distinct
perpendicular element into the landscape. Views will commonly include multiple turbines at
varying distances from the viewer. While the horizontal configuration of turbines across the
landscape is an approximate grid pattern, turbine rows will most commonly be viewed off-axis
creating the appearance of a rather random arrangement.
Color: The neutral off-white color of the proposed turbine tower, nacelle and blades will be
most often viewed against the background sky. Under these conditions the turbines would be
highly compatible with the hue, saturation and brightness of the background sky and distant
elements of the natural landscape. Color contrast will decrease with increasing distance and/or
periods of increased atmospheric haze or precipitation.
Texture: Tubular style monopole towers have been specifically selected, instead of skeletal (or
lattice) frame towers, to minimize textural contrast and provide a more simple, visually
appealing form.
Scale/Spatial Dominance: The proposed wind turbines will be the tallest visible elements on
the horizon and will be disproportionate to other elements commonly visible on the regional
landscape. From most foreground and middleground vantage points the contrast of the proposed
turbines with commonly recognizable features, such as structures and trees, will result in the
proposed Project being perceived as a highly dominant visual element.
3-151
001496
3.8.2.7 – Shadow Flicker

Under certain combinations of geographical position, time of day and time of year, the sun may
pass behind the rotor of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighboring properties. When the
blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the effect is known as shadow flicker. Shadow
flicker impacts occur only within buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window
opening. The seasonal duration of this effect can be calculated from the geometry of the machine
and the latitude of the potential site. In most cases however, where separation is provided
between wind turbines and nearby dwellings, shadow flicker is not a problem. (Scottish
Executive Development Department, 2002). Only dwellings within 130 degrees either side of
north relative to a turbine can be affected and the shadow can be experienced only within 10
rotor diameters of the wind farm. (TNEI Services Ltd., 2007).
The Current Project substantially reduces the occurrence of shadow flicker at nearby residences.
A study of shadow flicker impact of the Original Project is contained in Appendix K of the
DEIS. Based on the Original 96-turbine layout, of 197 studied shadow receptors located within
10 rotor diameters, 34 receptors were projected to be impacted by shadow flicker of more than
30 hours per year.
An updated shadow flicker study of the 53-turbine Current Project is contained in Appendix J.
The updated study found that, of 186 studied shadow receptors located within 10 rotor diameters:
x 75 (40.3 percent) will be affected less than 1 hr/yr;
x 87 (46.7 percent) will be affected 1-10 hrs/yr;
x 16 (8.6 percent) will be affected 11-20 hrs/yr; and
x 8 (4.3 percent) will be affected 21-30 hrs/yr.
None of the 186 studied shadow receptors located within 10 rotor diameters would be impacted
more than 30 hours per year.
The shadow flicker analysis presents a highly conservative assessment of potential flicker
impact. This assessment simply identifies the total time a shadow could fall on the exterior of
studied structure. The analysis does not consider whether or not a window exists on the impacted
side of a structure that might result in a period of shadow flicker on the interior of a building, or
whether site screening might prevent impacts even where a window with the proper orientation
exists. Given the conservatism of the study, and the low levels of impacts projected, no adverse
impact associated with shadow flicker is expected to result from the currently proposed project.
The most impacted residences will not experience more than 30 hours per year of impact. For
3-152
001497
residences where there are intermittent shadow flicker impacts, is greatest, such impacts might
be considered an annoyance by some, or might be unnoticed by others.
Aviation Obstruction Lighting: The United States Department of Transportation Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requires red flashing aviation obstruction lighting be placed atop
the nacelle of many project Exhibit 3.8.4 – Approved FAA Lighting Plan
turbines to assure safe flight
navigation in the vicinity of the
Project. The currently proposed
Project will reduce the number
of aviation obstruction lights
necessary. Only 34 illuminated
turbines will be necessary for the
Current 53-turbine project (see
Exhibit 3.8.4). Compliance with
FAA regulations would have
required approximately 50
turbines be illuminated under the
Original 96-turbine Project.
Transmission Line: The

proposed Project includes an
approximately nine (9) mile long
115 kV overhead transmission
line and new collection and interconnect substations. The transmission line will generally follow
an existing abandoned railroad bed and current underground water line for approximately 7.5
miles in a southeasterly direction into the Town of Lyme. At the hamlet of Chaumont, the
transmission line will turn to the northeast, approximately 750 feet north Old Town Spring Road
for approximately ½ mile before turning southeast and crossing the Chaumont River. The
transmission line will then connect to the new Rockledge substation. The transmission line will
leave Rockledge crossing CR 179 and terminating at the existing electric substation. A
Transmission Infrastructure Visibility Study is provided as Appendix K. The following
summarizes key findings of this assessment.
View Description - This transmission line will include approximately 150 wooden monopole
structures, approximately 68 to 75 feet in height. Wires will be suspended from diagonally
braced horizontal insulator assemblies. Transmission structures will be spaced approximately
3-153
001498
300 feet apart. These simple wooden poles will be similar in character to roadside utility poles
found along most public roads. While the poles will be roughly 1½ to 2 times the height of
typical utility poles, the distance between poles will be greater. Typical roadside utility poles are
commonly spaced 100-200 feet apart depending on their height.
Views From Roadways - The proposed transmission line will follow an abandoned railroad
grade for approximate 7.5 miles (85 percent of its total length). Only a short section
(approximately 500-600 feet) will be along the roadside (CR 179 near the existing substation).
Direct roadside visibility will be substantially limited to crossings at:
x Old Town Springs Road – Town of Lyme
x County Route 8 – Town of Lyme
x Merchant Road – Town of Lyme
x County Route 5 – Town of Lyme (refer to Figure 8)
x Ashland Road – Town of Lyme
x Burnt Rock Road – Town of Cape Vincent
x County Route 4 (Rosiere Road) – Town of Cape Vincent (refer to Figure 12)
x Hell Street– Town of Cape Vincent (refer to Figure 14)
x Wilson Road – Town of Cape Vincent
Figures 8, 12, 14, 22 and 24 (Appendix K) illustrate transmission line views at road crossings.
Distant Views - From some vantage points the proposed transmission line will be visible in the
distance across open fields. Such views may include multiple poles extending across open areas.
The degree of visibility depends on distance from the observer. Figures 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 16 and 22
(Appendix K) illustrate transmission line views across open fields.
Visually Sensitive Areas – The proposed transmission line crosses the Chaumont River
approximately 3,500 feet upstream of the Route 12E bridge in Chaumont. The proposed crossing
is approximately 900 feet downstream of an existing transmission line crossing the Chaumont
River. The Chaumont River is a popular boating and fishing resource. Figures 2, 18 and 20
(Appendix K) illustrate the transmission line crossing of the Chaumont River.
The Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is open to the public for hunting, fishing,
and hiking. A designated snowmobile trail crosses the central portion of the WMA. The existing
abandoned railroad creating the western boundary of the WMA is shown on WMA maps as a
foot-trail. The proposed transmission line would be located along the abandoned railroad grade
in this area. Figure 10 (Appendix K) illustrates the view of the transmission line passing through the
3-154
001499
Ashland Flats WMA as seen from Swamp Road. Figure 14 (Appendix K) illustrates the view of the
transmission line along the existing railroad grade.
The Bay Breeze Golf Links is a 9-hole course near the hamlet of Chaumont. The proposed
transmission line would extend in a northerly direction from the existing abandoned railroad
grade, adjacent to the 5th green before turning to the northeast across open field. The
transmission line will be directly visible from the 5th fairway and green, the 6th tee, and other
areas of the golf course. Figure 4 (Appendix K) illustrates the view of the proposed transmission
line from the 6th tee at the Bay Breeze Golf Links.
The overhead transmission line will connect the new collection substation on Swamp Road in the
Town of Cape Vincent with the new Rockledge substation on CR 179. The Rockledge substation
will connect to the transmission grid through an existing National Grid electric substation located
on the opposite side of CR 179 in the Town of Lyme. The substations will include an array of
transformers, line termination structures, surge protection, grounding, metering, switching,
protection and other control equipment. The substations will be contained within a chain link
fence enclosure.
Views of the new collection substation will be limited to lightly traveled Wilson Road and more
distant views from a short segment of Favret Road. The view of the substation from Favret Road
is illustrated in Figure 16 (Appendix K). Views of the interconnect substation will be limited to
CR 179 in the immediate vicinity of the proposed substation. The view of the interconnect
substation from CR 179 is illustrated in Figure 24 (Appendix K).

Current Turbine Reduction: Although the St. Lawrence Windpower Project will be a visible
facility, the reduced size of the Current Project effectively mitigates visual impact by reducing
the number and size of turbines visible when compared to the Original Project.
x Reduced Density - The Current Project reduces the number of turbines from 96 to 53
(45%). The geographic area affected by the Current 53-turbine Project is approximately
the same as was found for the Original 96-turbine Project. The principal difference is the
number of turbines potentially visible from any given location. Throughout the five-mile
radius study area, the number of turbines potentially visible substantially reduced as
compared to the Original Project.
x Reduced Height – The height of each turbine is reduced from 425 feet to 390.5 feet (-34.5
feet) compared to the Original Project. The reduction of the height reduces the vertical
scale of the project.
3-155
001500
x Increased Setback - The project is classified under the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning
Ordinance as a utility, and is, therefore, permissible as a site plan use in the Agricultural /
Residential District. The Planning Board has required that the wind turbines be sited
outside of the River District, the boundary of which is 1,000 feet from the centerline of
12E. SLW, however, has chosen to site its turbines an additional 1,000 feet away from
the boundary of the River District boundary in order to minimize visual impacts on the
River District and the River, itself.
Other Mitigation Opportunities: Considering the proposed Project will include up to 53 wind
turbines that will be visible over a wide viewshed area, traditional treatments such as fences,
earthen berms and vegetative screening cannot be applied in an effective manner to screen these
major structures. However, such treatments will be used where practicable to screen foreground
views from specific fixed receptors, such as houses. The following mitigation measures are
x The wind turbines will be painted (using a non-specular material) an off-white color and
would not be used for commercial advertising.
x SLW places a high priority on facility maintenance, not only for operational purposes,
but for aesthetic appearances in the community as well. The turbine areas and facilities
will be kept orderly and maintained on a regular basis.
x Perimeter screen plantings will be used to minimize visibility of the proposed substations
x Aviation warning lighting will be limited to the minimum required by the FAA. The
Project will purchase aviation warning lights that are shielded or otherwise directed so
that they are the least visible from the ground, and are sited in accordance with applicable
Town land use laws and ordinances. Due to the height of the proposed turbines, the FAA
requires red flashing aviation obstruction lighting to be placed atop the nacelle on 35
turbines, to assure safe flight navigation in the vicinity of the Project.
3.8.4 Visual Impact Conclusion

The U.S. Department of Energy and New York State Public Service Commission have mandated
that renewable energy sources, such as wind turbines, will provide an increasing percentage of
the nation’s electricity in the coming years. Meaningful development of renewable wind energy
will reduce the reliance on fossil fuel combustion and nuclear fission facilities and result in
reduction in air pollutants and greenhouse gasses. This Project is proposed to meet, in small part,
this ambitious federal and state objective to provide an environmentally friendly and renewable
energy source to help meet the growing energy needs for New York State residents and business.
3-156
001501
By their very nature, modern wind energy projects are large and visible facilities. The need to
position these tall moving structures in visible locations cannot be readily avoided. The siting of
wind turbines within a rural agricultural area provides increased opportunity for potentially
discordant views both near and far. While the use of mitigation techniques will help to minimize
adverse visual impact, the construction of the St. Lawrence Windpower Project will be an
undeniable visual presence on the landscape. However, unlike development projects such as
housing complexes and commercial centers, the proposed wind energy facility can and will be
decommissioned and removed at the end of its useful working life. All of the towers will be
removed and the project area restored to as near its present condition as possible, thus restoring
the landscape to its original condition.
3.9 Air Quality Exhibit 3.9.1 – Air Monitoring Stations in the Project Vicinity
The NYSDEC Division of Air
Resources publishes air quality
data annually. The most recent air
quality data available is the 2007
Annual New York State Air Quality
Report - Ambient Air Monitoring
System (NYSDEC, 2007). This
report includes ambient air quality
data through 2007, as well as long-
term monitoring trends in air
quality derived from data collected
at monitoring stations across the
State. The following is a summary
of existing air quality as reported
therein. Concentrations are taken
from monitoring stations located in
Jefferson County, New York, or the nearest location (Exhibit 3.9.1). Ambient air quality
standards are shown in parentheses. Short-term concentrations are based on the highest and
second-highest measured concentrations (consistent with the applicable standard not to be
exceeded more than once per year) unless otherwise noted.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) [Nick’s Lake #2167-03]

Annual - 0.0009 parts per million (ppm) (0.03 ppm)
24-hour - 0.006 ppm (0.14 ppm)
3-hour - 0.010 ppm (0.50 ppm)
3-157
001502
Inhalable Particulates (PM10) [Nick’s Lake #2167-03]

2004 Annual – 13 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3)
(Sampling terminated in 2005)
Inhalable Particulates Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5) [Potsdam #4477-01]

Annual Average of Last 3 Years – 6.7 ug/mg3 (15 ug/m3)
Average of 98th Percentile of Last Three Years – 22 ug/mg3 (65 ug/m3)
Ozone (O3) [Perch River #2223-01]

4th Highest Daily Maximum 8-hour Average during Last 3 Years - 0.079 ppm (0.08 ppm)
PM10 (Sulfates and Nitrates) [Nick’s Lake #2167-03]

Sulfate Fraction
2004 Annual – 3.7 ug/m3 (Data after 2004 not available)
Nitrates Fraction
2004 Annual – 0.2 ug/ m3 (Data after 2004 not available)
The EPA Green Book (EPA, 2008) lists Currently Designated Non-Attainment Areas for all
criteria pollutants by county for the entire United States. As of its last update on August 15,
2008, Jefferson County is designated as within attainment for all major pollutants monitored,
with the exception of 8-hour (hr) ozone, which is out of compliance in part of the county.
Energy use is one of the single largest sources of greenhouse gases in the U.S. and the world
because conventional fossil fuels, such as coal, produce carbon dioxide (CO2) as a byproduct of
combustion. There is currently approximately 30 percent more CO2 in the atmosphere than
there was at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and atmospheric CO2 levels are expected to
double during this century. The US emits about 25 percent of global warming pollution even
though it has only four percent of the world's population (Energy Information Administration
2004). Average global temperatures have risen already by one degree Fahrenheit, and
projections indicate an increase of two to ten degrees within this century. With increasing
temperatures resulting from use of conventional fossil fuels, global warming threatens human
populations and the world's ecosystems with worsening heat waves, floods, drought, extreme
weather, and by spreading infectious diseases (IPCC, 2001).
3-158
001503

Wind energy benefits the local ambient air quality and long-term health of the atmosphere
because it produces electricity without emitting pollutants. Unlike conventional fossil fuel-fired
electric power plants, no pollutant emissions are associated with wind power generation. To the
extent that electricity produced by wind energy displaces electricity produced by fossil-fired
power plants, pollutant emissions are reduced and air quality is improved. Based on USEPA’s
Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (EPA eGRID), average output emission
rates for upstate New York power generators are approximately equal to the following: SO2 at
3.00 pounds (lbs)/MWh, NOX at 0.83 lb/MWh, and CO2 at 699.63 lbs/MWh (EPA eGRID, 2007
Version 1.0 Year 2005 Summary Tables). Using these emission factors and assuming a
maximum wind farm generation potential of 79.5 MW along with an approximate capacity factor
of 30%, the project will displace roughly:
x 313.4 tons per year of SO2
x 86.7 tons per year of NOX
x 73,085.4 tons per year of CO2
Based upon these assumptions, the proposed Project would result in estimated annual reductions
of approximately 313.4 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 86.7 tons of nitrogen oxides (NO2), and
substantial quantities of other pollutants including particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and
volatile organic compounds. This not only leads to healthier air, but also helps to reduce climate
change impacts associated with fossil-fuel burning power plants. Carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions contribute to global warming. The proposed Project would offset approximately
73,085.4 tons of carbon dioxide annually that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere.
By offsetting air pollutants and greenhouse gases, the Project provides a benefit to environmental
resources and human health.
However, during construction there may be short-term localized air quality impacts. Temporary,
minor adverse impacts to air quality may result from the operation of construction equipment and
vehicles. Impacts would occur as a result of emissions from engine exhaust and the generation of
fugitive dust during earth-moving activities and travel on unpaved roads. The increased dust and
emissions would likely not be sufficient to significantly impact local air quality. However, dust
could cause annoyance at certain yards and residences located adjacent to unpaved town roads or
project access roads.
3-159
001504

The Project would have a long-term beneficial impact on air quality, by displacing emissions of
air pollutants from fossil fuel-fired electric generating facilities. This emissions displacement
may be viewed as mitigation for other environmental impacts associated with the Project.
Construction generated dust would be mitigated by a number of standard best management

practices (BMPs). First, SLW would minimize the extent of exposed or disturbed areas on the
site at any one time, and those areas would be restored or stabilized as soon as practicable.
During construction, dust problems would be identified and reported to the construction project
manager and the contractor. Water (or other DOT approved dust control substances) would be
used to wet down dusty roads as needed during construction activities. Other standard dust
control mitigation measures include:
x Vehicles used during construction would comply with applicable Federal and State air
quality regulations;
x Limiting engine idling time and equipment shut down when not in use;
x Dust suppression on unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas, and using
water or DOT approved dust suppression materials in compliance with State and local
regulations;
x Traffic speeds on access roads would be kept to 25 mph to minimize generation of dust;
x Car-pooling among construction workers would be encouraged to minimize construction-
x Disturbed areas would be re-planted or graveled to reduce wind-blown dust; and
x Erosion control measures would limit deposition of silt to roadways.
3.10 Noise
The proposed St. Lawrence Windpower Project, consisting of 53 1.5 MW Acciona AW-82/1500
WTGs, will be located in the Town of Cape Vincent in Jefferson County, New York. The Project
Area consists primarily of open farmland with existing noise sources such as road traffic,
farming equipment, and natural sounds (i.e., leaf rustle, insect noise), etc. Potentially sensitive
receptors in the general vicinity of the Project include structures such as residences, schools, and
churches. Locations of non-residence receptors within 1-mile of the Project are shown in Exhibit
3.10.1. These receptors were considered as a part of the noise impact analysis and the existing
ambient acoustic conditions were assessed by completing a baseline sound level survey.
3-160
001505
Exhibit 3.10.1 – Non-Residence Receptors within 1-mile of the Project
To most accurately represent ambient sound levels in the Project Area in terms of seasonal and
diurnal variation, long-term baseline sound surveys were completed during summertime and
wintertime at six different monitoring locations. The six locations were chosen to provide even
coverage throughout the Project Area. Sound levels at all six monitoring stations were
reasonably consistent with each other. Similar baseline sound surveys conducted in
homogeneous rural areas have very similar results (personal comm., David Hessler).
Baseline measurements were conducted in consecutive 10-minute intervals, recording the

equivalent sound level (Leq) and residual sound level (L90). The Leq value is the average sound
level over each measurement interval, which for this study was 10 minutes. Approximately half
3-161
001506
the time the sound level is louder than the Leq, and about half the time it is quieter than the Leq.
From a statistical perspective the Leq is the mean sound level that is most likely to be observed at
any given moment and is defined as the steady, continuous sound level, over a specified time,
which has the same acoustic energy as the actual varying sound levels over the same time.
The L90 level is essentially the lowest sound level that is consistently present when no events are
happening, for example, when it is quiet and the wind has momentarily slacked off. It
represents the quiet lulls between noise events, such as cars going by or planes flying overhead.
The L90 measure is considered a conservative sound level for assessing increases arising from a
proposed project because it is the near-minimum background level that only occurs, by
definition, 10 percent of the time. The remaining 90 percent of the time a higher background
sound level exists and project noise is less perceptible. Consequently, this background level
represents the "worst-case" situation in terms of potential impact.
Both the Leq and L90 are used to provide a more complete analysis of sound. The Leq represents
an essentially normal situation, while the L90 captures the maximum potential impact that might
occur intermittently and briefly. The L90 is not the permanent or typical background sound level,
so the relative impact basing the impact on the Leq is shown to provide some context. Using the
L90 is appropriate to evaluate impacts at sensitive receptors, such as residences. Both of these
statistics are illustrated in Exhibit 3.10.2.
Exhibit 3.10.2 – Example Showing Relationship between Leq and L90 Statistical Sound
Levels (Hessler, 2008)
3-162
001507
A regression analysis was performed using the measured baseline statistical sound levels and
wind speed. The wind speed was measured in 10-minute intervals by an anemometer 40 m (131
ft.) above the ground, located within the site area. Sound levels were then plotted against the
measured wind speed, which was normalized to a height of 10 m (33 ft.). The distances from the
anemometer location to sound monitor locations ranged from approximately 0.8 mile to 7.3
miles. Results of this analysis show that winter baseline sound levels are highly dependent on
wind speed.
There are no local ordinances or regulations that govern the methodology for assessment of
potential noise associated with the Project; therefore, the primary basis for evaluating noise
impacts is the Program Policy “Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts” published by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC, 2001). The NYSDEC
guideline document states that an incremental increase of 6 dBA over the ambient sound level,
which is defined as an Leq, when considered cumulatively, is the minimum threshold at which
adverse noise impacts may potentially begin to occur.
3.10.2 Potential Impact

3.10.2.1 Construction
The proposed Project would generate noise during and after construction. The detailed Project
Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) is included in Appendix L. Construction noise would include
noise generated during access road construction, electrical tie-in line trenching, site preparation,
foundation installation, material and subassembly delivery, and erection. Project construction
will temporarily constitute a moderate, unavoidable impact at some homes in the Project Area.
Quantifying these impacts is difficult because construction activities will be constantly moving
from place to place, making noise impacts highly variable at any given point in time. The
individual pieces of equipment likely to be used for each phase of construction are shown below,
in Table 3-29. This table also shows the maximum total sound levels that might occur at the
closest non-participating residences and the distance from a specific construction site at which its
sound would drop to 40 dBA, which is a level that is generally considered acceptable even when
background or masking, sound level is low.
Analysis results show that sound levels ranging from 56-63 dBA might temporarily occur over
several weeks at homes 1,000 feet from turbine construction sites. Such levels would not
generally be considered acceptable on a permanent basis or outside normal daytime working
3-163
001508
Exhibit 3.10.3 – L90 Regression Analysis Results – Winter Conditions (Hessler, 2008)
Exhibit 3.10.4 – Leq Regression Analysis Results – Winter Conditions (Hessler, 2008)
3-164
001509
hours, but the noise will be temporary, occur during the daytime, and be limited in duration. For
others, Project construction noise may be an unavoidable but temporary impact. The estimated
sound levels at 50 feet in Table 3-29 also demonstrates that a maximum allowable sound level of
80 dBA recommended in the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
construction noise guidelines is only likely to occur at, or within 200 feet of any specific
construction site. Consequently, construction activities at the site of each turbine will result in
sound levels that are substantially below 80 dBA at any homes due to the setback distance of at
least 1,000 feet. There may be some instances during road construction or trenching operations
where the separation distance from homes is less than 200 feet; however, the occurrences of such
instances is unlikely.
Table 3-29
Construction Equipment Sound Levels by Phase
Equipment Description Typical Estimated Maximum Maximum Distance until
Sound Total Level at 50 Sound Level at Sound Level
Level at 50 feet per Phase a Distance of Decreases to 40
feet (dBA) (dBA)1 1000 feet (dBA) dBA (feet)
Road Construction and Electrical Line Trenching
Dozer, 250-700 hp 88
Front End Loader, 300-750 hp 88
92 63 5500
Grader, 13-16 feet blade 85
Excavator 86
Foundation Work, Concrete Pouring
Piling Auger 88
88 59 4200
Concrete Pump, 150 cu yd/hr 84
Material and Subassembly Delivery
Off Highway Hauler, 115 ton 90
90 61 4800
Flatbed Truck 87
Erection
Mobile Crane, 75 ton 85 85 56 3400
1
Not all vehicles are likely to be in simultaneous operation. Maximum level represents the highest level realistically likely at any
given time.
3.10.2.2 Operation
The Applicant, SLW, has selected the Acciona AW-82/1500 WTG for the Project. Sound power
data was obtained by the WTG manufacturer and the critical operational design level was
determined for use in the acoustic noise modeling analysis. The sound power level (spl) that was
used in the noise assessment was taken directly from the certified WINDTEST measurements lab
report for Acciona’s 82m rotor turbine. The measurements were done in accordance with IEC
61400-11 and MEASNET of a WTGS type. The critical operational design level is the worst
case in terms of potential noise impact and perceptibility as it occurs when the differential
between the background level and turbine sound power level is greatest. At higher wind speeds
turbine sound power levels increase, while the masking background sound level also increases
significantly. The worst case acoustic condition for the proposed Project occurs at a wind speed
3-165
001510
of 6 m/s, with the highest differential occurring between the wintertime L90 background level of
37 dBA and turbine sound power level (LW) of 101.7 re 1 pW at this wind speed. Table 3-30
shows the estimated frequency content of the turbine sound power level at 6 m/s, below.
Table 3-30
Acciona AW 82/1500 Sound Power Level Spectrum at 6 m/s
Octave Band
Center Frequency 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k dBA
(Hz)
Estimated Lw
107 104.3 103.8 102.8 100.4 96.8 90.2 82.8 72.7 101.7
(dB re 1 pW)
The Acciona AW-82/1500 WTG sound power level spectrum at 6 m/s speed was inputted into
CadnaA (ver. 3.6.115), DataKustik’s acoustic modeling program. CadnaA conforms to ISO
9613-2 Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors and enables the Project
and its surroundings, including terrain features, to be realistically modeled in three-dimensions.
Modeling of the current Project layout as of October 1, 2008 assumed the nominally maximum
downwind sound level from each turbine in all directions simultaneously. In other words,
although physically impossible, an omnidirectional 6 m/s wind is assumed. In addition, a
moderate ground absorption coefficient (0.5) was selected to represent the rural farming land in
the Project Area (see Exhibit 3.10.5).
A predicted Project-only sound level of 42 dBA or higher means that under normal day-to-day
circumstances of wind and weather operational noise from the nearest turbines is likely to be
clearly audible much of the time, except during calm or near calm conditions. Turbulent airflow
sometimes leads to short-term increases in sound emissions that make the sound more noticeable
than it would be if it were perfectly constant. In general, Project sound emission under normal
circumstances is likely to have a variance of +/- 5 dBA from the mean predicted level. On rare
occasions when a passing storm, frontal system or otherwise disturbed airflow moves over the
site sound levels can substantially increase above the mean for brief periods (on the order of 5 to
20 minutes). In addition, atmospheric phenomena, such as temperature inversions, can
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 over the nominally predicted level but field experience indicates that these
unavoidable and inevitable excursions are infrequent, short-lived and the vast majority of the
time sound levels will be close to the mean predicted value. It should also be noted that Project
audibility does not cease at the 6 dBA threshold but extends further out for some distance.
3-166
001511
Exhibit 3.10.5 – Predicted Sound Levels at 1000 ft. using ISO 9613 for ground coefficients of 0, 0.5 and 1 - Compared to Measured Levels
(Hessler, 2008)
70
E1000 S1000 N1000
REFLECTIVE GROUND SURFACE,
60 MIXED GROUND SURFACE, WIND SPEED @ 1m WIND SPEED @ 80m MODEL LEVEL, Ag=1.0
ABSORPTIVE GROUND SURFACE MODEL LEVEL, Ag=0.5 MODEL LEVEL, Ag=0
50
40
30
20
LA90 SOUND LEVEL, dBA OR WIND SPEED, m/s

10
0
14 DAY PERIOD IN AUGUST 2008 IN 10-MINUTE SAMPLES
3-167
001512
Modeling results were compared to the NYSDEC cumulative incremental increase guideline of 6
dBA, which equates to a Project-only sound level of 42 dBA, as a basis for impact analysis.
Modeling results evaluating compliance with the State guideline are shown in Exhibits 3.10.6
and 3.10.7 (and in the NIA in Appendix L) in the form of sound contour maps. The area inside
the 42 dBA sound contour line (in blue) represents the region where, under the NYSDEC
criterion, sound from the Project may result in an adverse impact. These figures indicate that the
6 dBA incremental increase criterion will be met at the vast majority of non-participating
residences. Only three residences on CR 8 (between Route 12E and McKeever Road) and one at
the intersection of Route 12E and Deerlick Road were found to have a Project sound level that
was slightly above the 6 dBA potential impact threshold. All remaining homes in the Project
Area, and particularly the numerous houses along the St. Lawrence River shoreline, are well
outside of the area in which adverse Project noise impacts have been modeled based upon the
L90 analysis.
While most homes are outside of the 42 dBA sound contour line, many of these homes will
notice an increase in sound levels due to operation of the Project. Exhibits 3.10.8 and 3.10.9
show the area where sound from the Project may result sound levels of 38 dBA, a sound level
that is 1 dBA above the wintertime L90 background level of 37 dBA. While Project-related
sound may be audible in locations where there is a 1 dBA increase over the background level, it
does not necessarily mean that it will be annoying. However, the higher the incremental increase
over existing baseline levels, the greater the possibility for future Project related noise
complaints. Response to any increase in background sound levels is largely subjective and will
vary from person to person depending on several factors including predetermined perceptions of
the project and economic incentives. Project participants are less likely to be affected by noise
than non-participants.
For comparison, the NYSDEC recommendations for determining the potential for adverse noise
impact are presented in Table 3-31. To place the associated noise levels in context, typical sound
levels are provided in Table 3-32.
3-168
001513
Table 3-31
Effect of Increases in Noise Levels on Receptors
Increase in Existing
Ambient Sound Expected Effect on Receptors
Levels (dBA)
0–3 No appreciable effect
3–6 Potential for adverse noise impact limited to cases where only the most sensitive
receptors are present.
>6 Potential noise impact. Requires a closer analysis of impact potential depending on
existing SPLs and the character of sound emissions, land use and receptors.
10 Perceived as a doubling of the sound level
Table 3-32
Typical Sound Levels
Device dBA
Leaf Blower 95-105
Weed Whacker 94-96
1/4" Drill 92-95
Lawn Mower 88-94
Handheld Electric Mixer 86-91
Vacuum Cleaner 84-89
Hairdryer 80-95
Clothes Washer 65-70
Dishwasher 63-66
Window Fan on High 60-66
Clothes Dryer 56-58
Normal Conversation 55-65
Refrigerator 40-43
Typical Living Room 40
Quiet Room 28-33
Quiet basement w/o mechanical equipment 20
Grand Canyon at Night (no roads, birds, wind) 10
Normal Human Breathing <10
3-169
001514
Exhibit 3.10.6 – Noise Modeling Results for All Turbines (Hessler, 2008)
3-170
001515
Exhibit 3.10.7 –Noise Modeling Results for Western Turbines (Hessler, 2008)
3-171
001516
Exhibit 3.10.8 –Noise Modeling Results to 38 dBA for All Turbines (Hessler, 2008)
3-172
001517
Exhibit 3.10.9 –Noise Modeling Results to 38 dBA for Western Turbines (Hessler, 2008)
3-173
001518
A predicted Project-only sound level of 42 dBA or higher means that, under normal day-to-day
circumstances of wind and weather, operational noise from the nearest turbines is likely to be
audible much of the time, except during calm or near calm wind conditions. In addition, wind
and weather conditions (i.e., temperature inversions) will develop from time to time causing
Project sound levels to increase, sometimes substantially, over the nominally predicted level. It
should also be noted that the Project also may be audible at locations at which the sound impacts
are less than 42 dBA depending on wind, weather and atmospheric conditions. Below the 6 dBA
sound increase threshold, however, the typical prominence of Project sound emissions above
background is significantly lower and much less likely to be regarded as objectionable.
Cumulative impacts were also investigated with respect to the proposed BP Cape Vincent Wind
Farm Project, which may be located to the southeast of the Project. Exhibit 3.10.10 (Plot 2 in
Appendix L) shows the mean sound level contours that can be expected with both projects
operating together. The sound level contours show that a few non-participating residences may
exceed allowable Project-only sound level of 42 dBA, which is consistent with the NYSDEC
cumulative incremental increase guideline. Therefore, the cumulative modeling analysis showed
that a number of turbines in this adjacent project are close enough that the sound levels at some
residences between the projects are likely to experience slightly higher sound levels than they
otherwise would if the St. Lawrence Windpower Project existed in isolation.
While addition of the BP turbines would increase the area within the 42 dBA impact threshold
boundary, only a few non-participating residences that were near the threshold boundary would
be included if the BP project were added. These residences or groups of residences are properties
that are primarily affected by the St. Lawrence Project and only secondarily affected by the
adjacent project. The actual change in sound exposure at these locations would be small due to
this cumulative affect. Table 3-33 summarizes the predicted sound levels with the St. Lawrence
Windpower Project alone and with both projects at these four locations which are also depicted
in Exhibit 3.10.4. The predicted cumulative increase in sound levels is expected to be in the
order of 1-2 dBA above that for the St. Lawrence Project alone at all affected groups of
residences.
Table 3-33
Potential Cumulative Noise Impacts
Expected Sound Level Potential Sound Level

with Only the St. with Both Projects in Cumulative Increase,
Location Lawrence Project, dBA Operation, dBA dBA
A 40.6 42.5 1.9
B 41.2 42.2 1.0
C 41.4 42.2 0.8
D 40.4 42.4 2.0
3-174
001519
Exhibit 3.10.10 – Expected Mean Sound Level contours with St. Lawrence Windpower Project and Cape Vincent Wind Power Project
Operating Together (Hessler, 2008)
3-175
001520

As discussed above, construction noise will cause temporary unavoidable noise impacts. In an
attempt to minimize construction noise impacts, the following mitigation measures will be
applied to Project construction, as necessary and practicable:
x Adhering to regular construction work hours Mondays through Saturdays, and typically
not working on Sundays or after dark;
x All construction equipment will be maintained in good working condition in order to
reduce general noise emissions;
x When practical, heavy equipment will be shut down when not active, to minimize idling
noise;
x All internal combustion engines will be fitted with appropriate muffler systems; and
x Adjacent landowners will be advised in advance of any significant noise-causing
activities and these will be scheduled to create the least disruption to residents.
x In addition, turbine locations will continue to be evaluated based upon potential noise
impacts from the St. Lawrence project, as well as potential cumulative impacts from the
St. Lawrence and BP projects.
The Project has been purposely designed to minimize environmental noise during Project
operations by siting wind turbines as far away from existing residential receptor locations as
practicable, while keeping the Project an economically viable source of clean renewable energy.
In addition, the Project has selected the 1.5 MW Acciona AW-82/1500 WTG, which is among
the quietest wind turbines commercially available for its class, size, and power rating. It is not
expected that mitigative measures will be required during Project operations; however, the
following options will be considered by SLW, if needed:
x Implementing a complaint resolution program whereby neighboring residents can contact
SLW with their concerns. Complaints will be logged and promptly investigated in order
to resolve any verifiable issue or exceedance condition, and mitigation may be taken on a
case-by-case basis. Elements of the complaint resolution program include: providing a
dedicated Community Relations employee, preconstruction communication, safety and
environmental compliance briefings, providing channels for registering a complaint, and
formalized process to resolve a complaint. The details of the complaint resolution
program are provided in Appendix M.
3-176
001521
3.11 Socioeconomics
To understand the effects this Project would have on the socioeconomic conditions in the Towns
of Cape Vincent and Lyme, in Jefferson County, New York, it is important to understand the
current state of the economy in the area. Socioeconomic information is described in terms of
population and housing, economy and employment, and municipal revenues and taxes.

Existing population and housing, employment and income, and municipal revenues and taxes in
the County, Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, and Villages of Cape Vincent and Chaumont are
described and evaluated below.
3.11.1.1 Population and Housing

The estimated population of Jefferson County in 2005 was 116,384. Between 1990 and 2000, the
County's population increased by 0.7 percent and between 2000 and 2005 it increased by 4.2
percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
According to U.S. Census Bureau (2006) data for 2000, the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme
have populations of 3,345 and 2,015, respectively; and the Villages of Cape Vincent and
Chaumont have populations of 760 and 592, respectively. All but the Village of Chaumont
experienced a population increase in the Project vicinity between 1990 and 2000. The Towns of
Cape Vincent and Lyme experienced population increases of 20.8 percent and 18.5 percent,
respectively and the Village of Cape Vincent experienced an increase of 11.3 percent. The
Village of Chaumont experienced a slight decrease of 0.2 percent (1 person) between 1990 and
2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
Housing units for Jefferson County and each municipality for 2000 are presented in Table 3-31.
In 2000, the number of total available housing units in the two Towns and two Villages varied.
The Town of Cape Vincent had the most number of housing units and the highest vacancy rate at
2,783 total units, of which 867 units (31.2 percent) were occupied and 1,916 units (68.8 percent)
were vacant. The Town of Lyme had a similarly high vacancy rate and low occupancy rate. The
Villages had higher occupancy rates ranging from 69.3 percent to 85.3 percent (Table 3-34).
3-177
001522
Table 3-34
2000 County and Municipality Housing Units
Total
Available
Occupied Housing Vacant Housing Housing Units
County and
Town/Village Number Percentage Number Percentage Number
Jefferson County 40,068 74.1 14,002 25.9 54,070
Town of Cape Vincent 867 31.2 1,916 68.8 2,783
Town of Lyme 813 37.2 1,370 62.8 2,183
Village of Cape
348 69.3 154 30.7 502
Vincent
Village of Chaumont 233 85.3 40 14.7 273
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006
3.11.1.2 Economy and Employment

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2006), the largest industry in Jefferson County in 2000
was educational, health, and social services, with 24.4 percent of all workers employed in this
sector. The second largest industry was retail trade (14.2 percent), and the third largest industry
was public administration (10.4 percent). The educational, health, and social services was the top
industry in each Town and Village, and the second and third largest industries in the Towns and
Villages varied between public administration and retail trade. However, the third largest
industry in the Town of Cape Vincent was construction (11.4 percent). The 2005 unemployment
rate for Jefferson County was 4.8 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
3.11.1.3 Municipal Revenues and Taxes

Municipalities (i.e., Towns, Villages and counties) are responsible for providing specific services
to those who live and work within their boundaries. Municipalities incur costs associated with
providing these services, and to offset these costs, collect revenues by levying taxes. Tax
revenues in the Project vicinity accrue from both sales taxes and real property taxes. The taxing
jurisdictions in the Project vicinty include Jefferson County, the Towns of Cape Vincent and
Lyme, the Villages of Cape Vincent and Chaumont, and the Thousand Islands and Lyme Central
school districts. Property tax levy data for each taxing jurisdiction within the Project vicinity is
presented in Table 3-35 for fiscal years ending in 2007 and 2006.
For those items not included in the Jefferson County Sales and Use Tax Exemption (e.g.,
clothing, footwear, and items used to make or repair exempt clothing costing less the $110 per
item or pair) a total sales tax of 7.75 percent is levied on purchases within the County (Jefferson
County retains 3.75 percent). The current sales tax rate for Jefferson County is 7.75 percent,
3-178
001523
which includes a 4 percent state tax and 3.75 percent local tax (New York State Department of
Taxation and Finance, 2006).
Table 3-35
Real Property Tax Levy per Taxing Jurisdiction
Taxing Jurisdiction Real Property Tax Levy (2006) Real Property Tax Levy (2007)
Jefferson County $38,887,429 $41,425,711
Town of Cape Vincent $225,000 $229,000
Town of Lyme $150,151 $147,067
Village of Cape Vincent $254,615 $256,396
Village of Chaumont $68,782 $68,782
Thousand Islands School $2,835,700 (Cape Vincent) $2,902,959 (Cape Vincent)
District $29,272 (Lyme) $32,505 (Lyme)
Lyme Central School District $37,056 (Cape Vincent) $35,746 (Cape Vincent)
$2,623,012 (Lyme) $2,744,925 (Lyme)
Source: New York State Office of Real Property Services, 2008
Table 3-36 summarizes budgets for 2006 at the County and Town levels, including the Thousand
Island and Lyme Central School Districts.
3.11.1.4 Property Values

In 2000, the median value of owner-occupied units in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme
were $76,400 and $73,600, respectively. The median value of owner-occupied units in the
Village of Cape Vincent was $70,900. The median values in all of these areas were above the
median housing value for Jefferson County ($68,200), but were still moderate to low when
compared to the median value for New York State ($148,700). The median housing value for the
Village of Chaumont ($57,200) was $11,000 below Jefferson County’s median value (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2006).
Table 3-36
County, Municipal, and School District Budgets, 2006
Total Revenue
Total Revenue (with State and Total Total
Taxing Jurisdiction (Local) Federal Aid) Expenditure Indebtedness
Jefferson County $98,310,401 $145,688,058 $144,961,298 $29,530,000
Town of Cape Vincent $2,290,288 $3,126,910 $2,926,527 $4,511,256
Town of Lyme $1,367,056 $1,509,733 $1,450,299 $668,000
Village of Cape Vincent $991,088 $1,023,132 $947,887 $1,574,680
Village of Chaumont $0 $0 $0 not given
Thousand Islands School
$8,729,170 $16,430,753 $16,617,056 $6,615,000
District
Lyme Central School District $2,909,634 $5,969,079 $5,560,879 $4,385,006
Source: New York State Office of the State Comptroller, 2006
3-179
001524

The Project would have both direct and indirect positive economic effects on participating
individual landowners, Villages, Towns, the County, and several school districts. These effects
would commence during construction and continue throughout the operating life of the Project.
Short-term benefits of Project construction would include additional employment, income, and
expenditures associated with construction of the Project. For example, construction workers
would purchase food in local restaurants and may stay at local hotels or in nearby campgrounds.
Long-term operation of the Project would generate significant additional revenues for the host
communities through, among other things, payments made under a PILOT agreement, purchases
of goods and services, and lease payments to participating landowners.
The Project will provide about four to six full-time operational jobs, and likely result in some
increased visitation to the Project Area by tourists interested in wind power. All of these results
could have a beneficial effect on local businesses. The overall socioeconomic impact of Project
construction and operation is discussed in detail below.

Jefferson County and the Towns and Villages located in the Project Area experienced a moderate
growth rate between 1990 and 2000. This trend likely would continue regardless of whether or
not the proposed Project is built. The Project would not generate construction employment at a
level that would significantly increase population in either the Towns or the County. Even
though employment during the construction period would be significant (approximately 50 to
150 construction jobs), this employment is relatively short-term, and is not expected to result in
workers permanently relocating to the area. For the duration of construction (approximately 7 to
10 months) there could be a temporary increase in local population and demand for temporary
housing by out-of-town workers. However, this demand would be relatively modest, and could
easily be accommodated by the availability of vacant housing in the affected Towns and
surrounding communities. Beyond this relatively minor (and positive) short-term impact, Project
construction would not have significant impact on population and housing.
Based on the above housing information and high vacancy rate, there is likely an adequate
supply of local housing and temporary accommodations in Jefferson County for the expected
Project demand. This number of housing units would sufficiently accommodate construction
workers. Few new permanent employees are anticipated for operation of the wind facility,
therefore no long-term impacts on local housing are anticipated.
3-180
001525
Approximately four to six full-time jobs would be created once the Project is fully operational.
These employees would be expected to reside locally, which could translate into the purchase of
a few homes and the addition of a few families to the surrounding communities. Based on
vacancy rates in the Towns, there would be an adequate number of housing units available for
purchase or rent. Although this represents a positive economic impact, long-term employment
associated with the Project is not large enough to have a significant impact on local population or
housing characteristics.

Based on construction employment figures at other wind power projects in New York, it is
anticipated that construction of the St. Lawrence Windpower Project would employ a total
construction workforce of approximately 200 workers. It is anticipated that about two-thirds of
this anticipated workforce would be from the western New York labor market, which in light of
the size of the labor force and the number of unemployed, can easily supply the required
workforce. Local employment would benefit those in the construction trades, including
equipment operators, truck drivers, laborers, and electricians. Project construction would require
workers with specialized skills, such as crane operators, turbine assemblers, specialized
excavators, and high voltage electrical workers. It is anticipated that the most of these specialized
workers would come from outside of the Project Area and would remain only for the duration of
construction.
In addition to the direct jobs created during construction, this Project is expected to have an
indirect impact on the local economy through the purchases of goods and services, which would
support local businesses and perhaps result in the creation of some additional new jobs.
With respect to tourism in the region, it is worth noting that other wind power projects in New
York have resulted in a significant increase in visitation from tourists interested in the projects.
This has resulted in increased local expenditures for goods and services, but these have not been
quantified, and are probably fairly modest.
3.11.2.3 Municipal Revenues and Taxes

The proposed Project would significantly increase the revenues of each of the taxing
jurisdictions in the Project Area. Annual PILOT payments would be negotiated, along with road
use agreements. The Project would have a beneficial impact on municipal budgets and taxes
because the taxing jurisdictions would receive additional annual revenue from the Project in the
form of PILOT revenues, which would be necessarily distributed to the relevant taxing
jurisdictions in a manner to be determined by the County IDA.
3-181
001526
During construction, the Project would not impact municipal budgets and taxes. Temporary
construction workers would not create significant demand for municipal or school district
services or facilities. These workers would not generate significant revenue through payment of
property taxes. The Project would result in impacts to the local road system and this would have
the potential to affect local highway department expenditures and budgets.

Local residents often raise questions about the potential for utility-scale windfarms to affect
residential property values. Property values result from the interaction of several variables,
ranging from overall market conditions to property size and available community services.
Studies have been undertaken in recent years to provide an assessment of transactional sales data
at existing windfarms.
The Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) conducted a comprehensive study of U.S. projects
in 2003 (Sterzinger et al., 2003). The researchers compiled a database of real estate transactions
adjacent to wind energy projects in the United States generating at least 10 MW that became
operational between 1998 and 2001. Projects that became operational between 2001 and 2003
were not included in the study because they would not have had sufficient data at the time of the
report to allow a reasonable analysis. Of the 27 projects that fulfilled the search parameters, data
at 17 projects was either insufficient or unavailable. The resulting database included 25,000
records of property sales within five miles of ten projects, including two projects in Madison
County, New York. The five mile threshold was selected because review of literature and field
experience suggested that wind turbines have relatively little influence on the landscape’s overall
scenic quality beyond that distance.
The researchers further selected comparable communities to those hosting the wind energy
projects as a control group for the study. Criteria used in selection of comparable communities
included economic, demographic, and geographic attributes and trends intended to control for
other variables that might affect residential housing values. The study examined the data using
three methods: Case 1 considered changes in the viewshed and comparable community for the
entire period of the study (approximately six years total); Case 2 considered how property values
changed in the viewshed before and after the project became operational (approximately 3 years
before and 3 years after); and Case 3 compared how property values changed in the viewshed
and in the comparable community after the project became operational.
3-182
001527
The REPP study concluded that there is no statistical evidence to suggest that wind farms have a
negative effect on property values. The results of the Case 1 analysis showed that property values
increased faster in the project viewshed than in the comparable communities at eight of the ten
projects. Results of the Case 2 analysis showed that property values increased faster after the
projects became operational in nine of the ten viewsheds. Results of the Case 3 analysis showed
that property values increased faster in the viewsheds than in the comparable communities after
the projects became operational at nine of the ten projects. The two New York projects included
in the REPP study showed these positive trends; in five of the six scenarios (Case 1, 2, and 3
analyses for both projects), the monthly average sales price grew faster or declined slower in the
viewshed communities than in the comparable communities.
Another quantitative study was conducted by Ben Hoen as a Master of Sciences thesis that
analyzed transactional data for properties within five miles of the existing Fenner Wind Farm in
Madison County, New York (Hoen, 2006). The purpose of the study was to analyze whether
property values were affected by views of the wind farm. The study design included a field
component to evaluate the visibility at each property. A total of three points per turbine was
possible: one point if only the blade tip above the nacelle was visible, two points if the nacelle
was also visible, and three points if the tower below the rotor swept area was also visible, for a
maximum total of 60 points. The dataset included 280 residential home sales within five miles of
the wind farm between 1996 and 2005, with the closest home in the sample located 0.27 miles
away from the nearest turbine and 22 homes inside of a mile.
The Hoen study found that there are is no statistically significant relationship between either
proximity to or visibility of the windfarm and the sale price of homes. In additional, the analysis
in the report did not find a relationship when concentrating on homes within a mile or that sold
immediately following the announcement and construction of the windfarm. The study
concluded that view of the windfarm does not produce either a universal or localized effect on
property values.
A more recent U.S. focused study, prepared by the Electricity Markets and Policy Group in the
Energy Analysis Department at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, evaluated whether
wind facilities affect local property values (Wiser and Hoen, 2007). This study investigated four
sites in the northeast (two in New York and two in Pennsylvania) with a sample size of over 350
home sales for each site. It evaluated three categories of concerns: 1) Area Stigma, defined as
“industrialization” of area leading to decreases in tourism and second home desirability, 2)
Scenic Vista Stigma, defined as decreases in quality of scenic vistas from homes, and 3)
Nuisance & Health Effects, defined as potential health/well being concerns of nearby residents.
3-183
001528
Preliminary results of this study indicate that there is no statistical evidence that resale value of
homes within 4 to 7 miles of a facility are adversely affected based simply on proximity, or that
homes with a view of turbines have different values than homes without.
In addition, studies of potential impacts of wind energy projects on property values in Northern
New York have been conducted in connection with several environmental impact statements
prepared to review other wind projects. These studies uniformly found that there is no valid
basis on which to conclude that the presence of wind projects in the affected communities would
have a significant adverse impact on property values in those communities (ESS Group, Inc,
2006; Towns of Ellenburg, Altona and Clinton. July 26, 2006; Towns of Chateaugay and
Bellmont, 2007; and Tetra Tech, 2008).
Given the results of the REPP (Sterzinger et al., 2003; Hoen, 2006; and Wiser and Hoen, 2007),
and other studies, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed Project will not adversely affect
local property values. Furthermore, the additional revenue to the Towns from the Project may
result in a beneficial effect on variables that influence property values such as lower taxes,
improved local infrastructure, and community amenities and services.

As described above, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not have a
significant adverse impact on local population and housing, and would have a short-term
beneficial impact on the local economy and employment. The negotiated PILOT agreement
would provide a significant long-term benefit to the communities and school districts.
Consequently, no mitigation is necessary to address these impacts.
The only potential adverse impact to municipal budgets and taxes would be the impact of 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.
3.12 Telecommunications
Comsearch was contracted to evaluate the potential for the Project to impact existing
telecommunication signals. Comsearch performed an analysis to evaluate the potential effect of
the planned St. Lawrence Windpower Project in Jefferson County, New York on existing non-
3-184
001529
Federal Government microwave telecommunication systems and off-air television stations

within 100 miles, both in the United States and Canada (Appendix N).
3.12.1.1 Microwave Analysis

Microwave telecommunication systems are wireless point-to-point links that communicate
between two sites (antennas) and require clear line-of-sight conditions between each antenna.
Comsearch identified three microwave paths that intersect the Project Area (see graphics in
Appendix N): WLQ373, WML409 and WPOS292. None of these paths were identified to have
a potential conflict with any of the proposed turbine locations.
3.12.1.2 Television Analysis

Off-air stations are television broadcast signals that can be received directly on a television
receiver from terrestrially located broadcast facilities. Rotating wind turbines can compete with
the "direct wave" appearing at the antenna of a ground receiver. In some instances it is possible
to create television signal distortion capable of making reception difficult (Evans, 2005). To
determine if the proposed turbines would affect television reception in the area, Comsearch
identified the off-air television stations within a 100-mile radius of the proposed Project
(Appendix N), both in the United States and in Canada. Comsearch examined the coverage of the
off-air TV stations and the communities in the area that could potentially have degraded
television reception due to the location of the wind turbines. The stations that are most likely to
affect Jefferson County and the vicinity would be those stations at a distance of 40 miles or less.
Within this range, there are 32 licensed stations in the United States and 13 licensed stations in
Canada (Appendix N).
Of the 32 licensed stations in the United States, only nine are presently broadcasting. Four of the
nine stations have limited coverage. One of stations, although licensed in the United States, is
located in Canada. Two of the nine have digital signals. Digital signals are not subject to
interference from intervening structures (NWCC, 2005). Therefore, there is a potential for two
American off-air, full power analog TV stations to be affected by rotating wind turbines
(Appendix N).
Of the 13 Canadian stations licensed within the 40-mile area, only 8 produce television broadcast
signals in the vicinity of the Project. Seven of these 8 stations have analog signals; the remaining
station broadcasts digitally.
Comsearch also determined that there are approximately the same number of Canadian television
stations available in the area as American television stations. Without including low power
3-185
001530
television stations, there are a total of ten analog stations and two digital stations serving the
Project Area.
3.12.1.3 AM Radio Analysis

In general, it is possible for a turbine to interfere with AM radio signals. If a turbine intercepts a
low frequency radio wave from an AM broadcast antenna, it can "re-radiate" the signal with an
arbitrary phase delay. This secondary radiator then becomes a radio frequency source that
interferes with the primary signal, causing fading and noise in receivers tuned to the frequency
(Evans, 2005). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that studies be
conducted to determine if a proposed development will affect existing AM radio broadcast
stations. Specifically, a study is required when the proposed development is located within 0.6
mile (1.0 kilometer) of a non-directional broadcast station and/or within 1.9 miles (3.0
kilometers) of a directional broadcast station. Based on a Query of the FCC’s AM Radio
Database (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/amq.html), SLW determined that there are no AM
broadcast stations located within these distances that would require an FCC study. This search
was based on an area within 3.2 mile of the Project’s center. The nearest U.S. AM Radio
stations are located in Watertown approximately 18 miles away and the nearest Canadian AM
Radio station is located in Kingston approximately 13 miles away. SLW also determined that it
is unlikely that the proposed turbines would interfere with AM radio signals.
3.12.1.4 National Telecommunications and Information Administration Notification

In the fall of 2008, SLW sent a written notification of the proposed project to the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of
Commerce. Upon receipt of notification, the NTIA provides plans for the proposed project to the
federal agencies represented in the Interdependent Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), which
include the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Justice
(DOJ), and the FAA. The NTIA then identifies any project-related concerns during a 30-day
review period. To date, no response has been received from the NTIA. SLW will report on the
NTIA response in the Final EIS.

3.12.2.1 Operation
Microwave Communication Systems: Comsearch identified three (3) microwave paths that
intersect the Project Area. None of these paths were identified to have a potential conflict with
any of the planned turbine locations and the Project would not impact microwave
communication systems.
3-186
001531
Television Communication Systems: The television analysis report developed by Comsearch

detailed information for each of the off-air television stations that occur within 100 miles of the
Project. This information included the strength (power) of each broadcast, as well as the type of
service provided (digital, analog, etc.). Comsearch concluded that although in some locations
particular television channels may be distorted or lost once the wind turbines are operational,
many of the other channels would continue to be received without degradation. However, the
FCC's mandate to transition all off-air television broadcasts from analog signals to digital signals
by January 1, 2009 would eliminate turbine-related interference problems as digital signals are
not subject to interference from intervening structures (NWCC, 2005). As the Project will be in
operation in 2010 it will have no impacts to off-air television stations.
AM Radio Analysis: All proposed wind turbines within the Project are located at least 1.6
miles (1.0 kilometers) from a non-directional AM broadcast station and/or 4.8 miles (3.0
kilometers) from a directional AM broadcast station. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Project will
interfere with existing AM radio transmissions.
NTIA Notification: Should the NTIA identify Project-related concerns related to signal
blockage following their 30-day review of the Project, SLW would relocate the appropriate
project facilities. Therefore, impacts to the IRAC radio frequency transmissions are not
anticipated. SLW will report on the NTIA response in the Final EIS.

3.12.3.1 Operation
Microwave Communication Systems: The Project will have no impact on microwave
communication systems. Therefore, no mitigation measures will be necessary.
Television Communication Systems: The FCC’s mandated transition all off-air television
broadcasts from analog signals to digital signals by January 1, 2009 would eliminate turbine-
related interference problems as digital signals are not subject to interference from intervening
structures (NWCC, 2005). Since the Project will be in operation in 2010, it will not impact
existing off-air television stations. No mitigation measures will be necessary.
AM Radio Analysis: The Project will not impact existing AM radio transmissions. No
mitigation measures will be necessary.
3-187
001532
NTIA Notification: Should the NTIA identify Project-related concerns related to signal
blockage following their 30-day review of the Project, SLW would relocate the appropriate
project facilities.
3.13 Safety and Security

This section addresses potential public safety concerns with respect to the Project and includes
discussions of public health and safety issues associated with construction and operation of the
Project, and measures to mitigate and avoid possible or anticipated impacts.

Safety concerns associated with the construction of wind energy projects mirror the concerns of
most large-scale construction projects. These concerns arise from, but are not be limited to, 1)
transportation of equipment and materials using heavy construction equipment, 2) general
constructions hazards associated with vertical energy projects (e.g., overhead hazards, open
excavations, electrocution), and 3) spills of fuels and lubricants.
The operation of wind energy facilities is in many ways safer for the public than other forms of
energy or electricity production. The environmental pollution issues created by other types of
energy production facilities (i.e., fuel transportation, stack smoke) are not created by wind
energy projects. Because combustible fuel use is limited to facility maintenance, there are no
emissions leaks or spills that could potentially pollute the surrounding landscape.
During the operation of wind energy facilities, other, more unique, safety concerns, such as
possible ice shedding, tower collapse, blade throw, stray voltage, fire and lightning strikes,
sometimes arise. These potential concerns also are addressed in this section.
3.13.1.1.1 Transportation of Equipment and Materials
Access to all construction sites will be controlled; however, delivery of equipment and materials
to the construction site will occur up to six days a week during day light hours along public roads
potentially in the vicinity of schools, clusters of homes and small business areas. These roads
also will be used by emergency services. In addition, the vehicles that transport equipment and
materials to the Project Site could be involved in accidents as they travel along roads in the
Project Area.
3-188
001533
3.13.1.1.2 General Construction Hazards

These hazards include such issues as falling overhead objects, falls into open excavations, and
electrocution. They are largely limited to construction personnel who will be working close to
construction equipment and materials, and will be exposed to construction related hazards on a
daily basis.
3.13.1.1.3 Spills of Fuels and Lubricants

Construction of the proposed Project will require the use of diesel and gasoline fuels for
operating construction equipment and vehicles. The contractor will use fuel trucks for refueling
cranes and large earth-moving equipment and fuel storage tanks. The fuel trucks will drive to
the equipment and tank locations to refuel equipment. Some construction vehicles will refuel at
nearby gasoline stations. Lubricating oils and cooling fluids would be present in construction
vehicles and equipment. Small quantities of lubricating oils may also be stored at construction
staging areas.
3.13.1.2 Operations
3.13.1.2.1 Ice Shed
Ice shed may occur when ice builds up on the blade 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).
The ice that forms on a wind turbine's blades is relatively thin. Ice buildup on a turbine's blade
changes its shape, reducing the lift-drag ratio and increasing surface friction and resulting in the
blade losing its ability to develop speed (AWEA, 2006). Ice would be shed from blades as the
temperature rises, and then the blades would begin to rotate at higher speeds.
3.13.1.2.2 Tower Collapse/Blade Failure

While there is the potential for a tower collapse or blade failure during the operation of wind
energy projects, these events are extremely rare. Such collapses are potentially dangerous for
both project personnel and the general public. Past incidents have generally been the result of
manufacturing defects, poor maintenance, wind gusts that exceeded the maximum design load of
the turbine structure, or lightning strikes (AWEA, 2006). Technological improvements and
safety standards have made such occurrences rare in the industry.
3-189
001534
3.13.1.2.3 Stray Voltage and Electrical Shock

The term stray voltage generally refers to low levels of neutral-to-earth electrical currents that
occur between two points on a grounded electrical system (Wisconsin Legislative Council,
2000). Stray voltage usually is the result of poorly connected or damaged wiring systems,
corrosion, or damaged insulation materials. Wind power facilities have the potential to create
stray voltage if the electrical system is both poorly grounded and located near underground or
poorly grounded metal objects.
The proposed Project’s collector system, like other electrical facilities, has the potential to create
stray voltage to varying degrees based on factors such as operating voltage, geometry, shielding,
rock/soil electrical resistively, and proximity of surrounding structures. Stray voltage from such
facilities usually only occurs if two circumstances are simultaneously present: the system is
poorly grounded; and it located in close to ungrounded or poorly grounded metal objects (fences,
pipelines, buildings, etc.). Such defects in the installation of the Project’s collection system could
result in low voltage/nuisance shocks detectable by humans within close range of the
alternate/stray voltage pathway. Voltage drops in the collector system sufficient to harm human
health will be sufficient to trip circuit breakers.
3.13.1.2.4 Fire
Due to their height, physical dimensions, and complexity, wind turbines may present response
difficulties to local emergency responders should a fire occur within or near the structures.
Storage and use of diesel fuels, lubricating oils, and hydraulic fluids within the Project creates
the potential for fire or medical emergencies.
3.13.1.2.5 Lightning Strikes

Wind turbines are susceptible to lightning strikes due to their height and construction materials.
Modern wind turbines include lightning protections systems, which generally prevent
catastrophic blade failure.
3.13.1.2.6 Homeland Security

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has developed a series of
regulations that apply to the design and operation of Critical Energy Infrastructure.
3.13.1.2.7 Facility Access Security

The following is a discussion of the safety features associated with electrical equipment for the
proposed Project and addresses the transformers associated with each turbine, and the electrical
collection and transmission owner substations.
3-190
001535
Turbine Transformers: Approximately 12,000 Volts of power will be generated from each
wind turbine. Power generated within the nacelle is transmitted through drop cables which
travel down the tower to an outdoor step-up transformer located on a concrete pad at the base of
each tower base. The pad transformers are interconnected to underground cables that connect all
of the turbines together electrically.
Substation Equipment: Both substations are proposed to be located on private land. The on-
site collection substation will be co-located with the O&M Building, which will occupy a total of
approximately 11.5 acres. The interconnection substation will occupy less than one acre. An
underground single-phase connection to the local electrical distribution line will provide a local
source of substation service power to run the control houses and the associated protection and
control systems. A continuous grounding grid will cover the substation footprint and extend
beyond the station fence. The yards of each substation will be covered with uniform crushed.
The plant electrical system will be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines of
the National Electric Code (NEC), National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) and utility
requirements.
3.13.2 Potential Impact

The general public could be exposed to construction-related hazards due to the passage of large
construction equipment on area roads and unauthorized access to the work site. Because
construction activities will occur primarily on private land, and be well removed from adjacent
roads and residences, exposure of the general public to construction-related risks/hazard is
expected to be very limited. Further, in consultation with the New York State Department of
Transportation, Region 7 and Town and County highway officials, the Applicant has selected a
delivery route to minimize impacts to traffic on the local roads and surrounding communities as
described in Section 3.4.2.

Risk of construction related injury will be minimized through regular safety training and use of
appropriate safety equipment. In addition, the Applicant has prepared an ERP (see Appendix B),
in coordination with the Cape Vincent Fire Department, to define prevention and emergency
response measures for hazardous materials spills, medical/fire/law enforcement, weather
emergencies, and evacuation. This Plan and its procedures will apply to all wind farm personnel,
3-191
001536
contractors, and others who may be on he wind farm site during a fire, chemical release/spill,
medical emergency, tornado/severe storms, or a bomb threat.

Spills of fuels, lubricating oils, and mineral oil may occur as a result of vehicle accidents,
equipment malfunction, human error, terrorism, sabotage, vandalism, or aircraft impact. As
indicated above, the Applicant has prepared an ERP (see Appendix B) that addresses such risks.
Spills, should they occur, will likely be confined to the Project Site. Pad-mounted transformers at
the base of the towers will be filled at the factory and spills associated with.
3.13.2.2 Operations
3.13.2.2.1 Ice Shed
Ice build-up on turbine blades would cause an imbalance, which would alert turbine sensors
resulting in a complete shut down of the affected turbine. As previously noted, as the ice thaws it
would typically fall straight to the ground, because the turbine would not be rotating. The
distance traveled by a piece of thrown ice depends on a number of factors, including: the position
of the blade when the ice breaks off, the location of the ice on the blade, when it breaks off, the
rotational speed of the blade, the shape of the ice that is shed, and prevailing wind speeds. The
risk of ice landing at a specific location dramatically decreases as the distance from the turbine
increases. While a very remote potential exists for ice shed to cause personal or property injury,
the sensors within the towers themselves greatly reduce these risks by shutting down the affected
turbines as soon as they detect an imbalance. The setbacks from property lines, residences, and
other structures incorporated into the design of the Project further mitigate the risk of harm from
ice shed.

International engineering standards are used to certify modern wind turbines from manufacture,
through construction. The ratings include withstanding different levels of hurricane force winds
and other criteria (AWEA, 2006, a, b, c, d). Modern wind turbines also include state-of-the-art
braking systems, pitch controls, sensors, and speed controls which greatly reduce the risk of
tower collapse and blade failure. The safety features installed on modern wind turbines greatly
lower the chance of a catastrophic failure. While, turbine tower collapse or blade failure is a rare
event, such incidents have occurred. The hazard zone for blade failure should be approximately
that for ice throw. However, in an unlikely tower collapse or blade failure, setbacks from
structures and roads will reduce the risk of damage to adjacent property or public roads.
3-192
001537
3.13.2.2.3 Stray Voltage

Stray voltage is preventable through the use of proper electrical installation and grounding
practices. Certified electrical engineers would ensure that all electrical facilities are properly
grounded and insulated to reduce the risk of stray voltage. Proper maintenance of all facilities
would ensure that the wind energy project does not contribute to stray voltage within the Project
Area.
3.13.2.2.4 Fire
Fire at operating wind turbines has been extremely rare over the several decades that turbines
have been employed worldwide. However, as there are flammable materials such as lubricants in
the turbine nacelle, there is a remote possibility that a turbine fire could occur.

Lightning protection systems were first added to rotors in the mid-1990s. These protection
systems are now a standard component of modern turbines. The protection systems can detect all
lightning events. Should the system detect a problem, the turbine would be shut down
automatically. In addition, a grounded wind turbine would channel lightning strikes that
otherwise would be drawn to trees, silos, and other potentially ungrounded structures, thereby
reducing the probability of local lightning strikes and associated property damage and fires.

It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would be a target for any homeland security
concerns. However, as the Project contains Critical Energy Infrastructure, SLW would design all
facilities in accordance with guidance and regulations of the DHS. Energy facilities such as
nuclear power plants, liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminals, and natural gas pipelines
are considered vulnerable targets for terrorist activity because of combined disruption of energy
supply, potential associated loss of human life and property damage, and larger psychological
impact such attacks could result in. Wind generating facilities do not present a good target for
terrorist attacks since they consist of small individual generators, spaced relatively far apart,
which cannot easily be damaged at the same time. Wind turbines are also relatively easy to
replace compared to thermal power plants or LNG facilities. In addition, if a wind farm is
damaged, there is no secondary threat to the public, such as those that can come from release of
radioactive materials associated with nuclear plants and explosions associated with conventional
power plants/infrastructure.
3-193
001538

Unrestricted access to electric equipment and supply substations by unauthorized personnel can
result in theft, vandalism, accidents, injuries, and fatalities. In addition, uncontrolled access to
substation could allow for sabotage which may cause blackouts.

In consultation with the New York State Department of Transportation, Region 7 and Town and
County road officials, SLW has selected a delivery route to minimize impacts to traffic on the
local roads and surrounding communities, and specifically avoiding route 12E. To further
minimize safety risks to the general public, all over-sized vehicles will be accompanied by an
escort vehicle and/or flagman to assure safe passage of vehicles on public roads. The exposure
to the general public to any construction-related risks/hazard is expected to be very limited
because construction activities will occur primarily on private land and be well removed from
adjacent roads and residences. The anticipated impacts will be further minimized by extensive
signage across the Project Site warning the general public of the ongoing construction activities.
The general public will not be allowed on the construction site. After hours, vehicular access to
active construction sites will be blocked by parked equipment or temporary fencing. Temporary
construction fencing or other visible barrier will be placed around excavations that remain open
during off hours. In addition, material safety data sheets (MSDS) for potentially hazardous
construction materials will be provided to local fire and emergency service personnel. The
contractor will also coordinate with these entities to assure that they are aware of where various
construction activities are occurring, and avoid potential conflicts between construction activity
and the provision of emergency services (e.g., road blockages, etc.).

Contractors will comply with all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
regulations, in addition to state worker safety regulations, regarding electricity, structural
climbing, and other hazards, during construction of the wind farm. To minimize safety risks to
construction personnel, all workers will be required to adhere to a safety compliance program
protocol which will be prepared by the Applicant (or their representative) prior to construction.
The safety compliance program will address appropriate health and safety related issues. Safety,
environmental protection, and QA/QC inspections of the major facilities and equipment will also
assure that the Project is constructed in a manner that minimizes risks to the public and project
personnel. In addition, SLW will participate in the Dig Safely New York facilities protection
3-194
001539
system. Utility mark-out services will be performed prior to and during Project construction to
mark underground facility locations.

Fuel trucks will drive to the equipment and tank locations and will incorporate automatic shutoff
devices to limit accidental spills. Some construction vehicles will refuel at nearby gasoline
stations. In addition, the Applicant has prepared an ERP that addresses such risks (Appendix B).
3.13.3.2 Operations
3.13.3.2.1 Ice Shed
The use of buffers from roads and property lines and public control measures would minimize
the already low public safety risk of ice shed. Because of these setback distances to structures
and public roads, the risks of ice throw are considered minimal in the Project Area. Wind
turbine manufacturers have developed engineering controls that help to minimize safety risks
associated with ice build up on wind turbine components. These controls include the following:
x Detection of ice by a nacelle mounted sensor;
x Detection of an imbalance caused by ice formation on the blades by the shaft vibration
sensor; and
x Detection of measured wind speed below cut-in due to anemometer icing.
Such effects of ice accumulation can be sensed by the turbine's computer (SCADA system) and
result in the turbine being shut down until the most of the ice melts, at which time the turbine is
manually restarted by the operator. As an additional backup, ice detectors would be installed at
previously determined locations to notify maintenance personnel of icing conditions, which
would allow for remote switch off of the turbine by the operator.

The use of buffers from roads and property lines and public control measures will minimize the
already low public safety risk associated with tower collapse or blade failure. The standard
engineering design and protection systems incorporated into modern wind turbines would
prevent and minimize problems that could lead to tower collapse or blade failure.
3.13.3.2.3 Stray Voltage

Stray voltage concerns would be addressed through proper electrical engineering design and
grounding of Project electrical components.
3-195
001540
3.13.3.2.4 Fire
An Emergency Response Plan (ERP) has been developed for the Project, in coordination with
the Cape Vincent Fire Department (Appendix B) to ensure the safety of company employees and
local residents, visitors, and their property. Prior to the commencement of construction SLW will
review the ERP in cooperation with local fire departments and discuss training and
implementation of the Plan.

The standard lightning protection system installed within the rotor blades would be used to
prevent and minimize problems associated with lightning strikes.

SLW would design all facilities in accordance with guidance and regulations of the DHS.

Turbine Transformers: Turbines transformers will be mounted on concrete pads and will
generally be a grounded “Wye” type unit. All units will be compartment style, tamperproof, and
self cooled. All turbine transformer cabinets will be locked.
Substation Equipment: The outdoor electrical equipment associated with the substations will
be installed on concrete foundations that are designed for the soil conditions at each substation
site. Each substation will be installed within a graveled yard for weed control and to prevent
“step and touch potentials” (i.e., contact with voltage from energized substation), and will
include a chain link perimeter fence and an outdoor lighting system. In accordance with
guidelines from Homeland Security, there will be a road gate to limit public access; the road will
turn 90 degrees near the end so as not to terminate directly at the station fence or gate; a clear
space of at least 10 feet will be maintained exterior to the fence, and there will be intrusion
alarms. In addition, high voltage signage will be installed at the substation and elsewhere, as
necessary.
3-196
001541
4.0 CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS

4.1 Cumulative Impacts
This section evaluates the potential cumulative impacts that may arise from interactions between
the Project and other projects that are under review for approval by local regulators, have been
approved for development, and/or are planned for construction in the vicinity of the Project Area.
Cumulative impacts occur when the individual impacts of one project interact with the impacts
of another project in a manner which compounds or increases the extent of an impact that either
project would have on its own. Cumulative impacts are most often the result of concurrent
actions within the same location or in an overlapping larger impact area. These actions may vary
from temporary uses associated with construction (i.e., construction traffic resulting from two or
more projects being built at the same time) to more permanent impacts simultaneously affecting
the same resource (i.e., cumulative visual impacts resulting from wind turbines from two or more
projects within the same viewshed).
Due to the height of the proposed turbine structures and the unique nature of their movement,
cumulative impacts are most likely to result from development of other potential wind energy
projects, rather than development of facilities more common to the landscape. However, other
types of projects also could give rise to cumulative impacts depending upon their nature, location
and schedule. Although it is difficult to determine where and how future projects will be
developed and which future projects might contribute to cumulative impacts to area resources,
the SEQR process requires that reasonably related cumulative impacts be evaluated where other
projects have been specifically identified and either are part of a single plan or program, or
sufficient nexus of common or interactive impacts warrant assessing such impacts together. No
other projects are part of a single plan or program with the Project. Thus, there are no other
“common plan” projects that must be reviewed.
There are no existing wind energy projects within a 40-mile radius of the proposed St. Lawrence
Windpower Project. As a result, cumulative impacts associated with existing wind projects also
are not evaluated in this SDEIS.
SLW and interested or involved agencies have identified four proposed wind energy projects
within the vicinity of the Project to be considered as part of this cumulative analysis. These
include the BP Alternative Energy North America, Inc. (BP) Cape Vincent Wind Power Project,
the Upstate NY Power Corporation (Upstate Power) Hounsfield Wind Farm; the Atlantic Wind,
LLC Horse Creek Wind Power Project; and the Canadian Renewable Energy Corporation
(CREC) Wolfe Island Wind Project. These wind energy projects are in various phases of
4-1
001542
planning, development, and/or construction (see Table 4-1). Based upon consultation with the
interested and involved agencies, SLW has determined that, other than these four proposed wind
energy projects, there are no additional planned or proposed projects that appear likely to give
rise to environmental impacts that would be cumulative to those of the Project.
The following sections assess the extent to which potential impacts of the projects listed in Table
4-1 are expected to be cumulative with the impacts of the Project. Specific information about
these projects was obtained through publicly available documentation such as DEISs, FEISs, and
other public documents available from company websites. This cumulative impact analysis is
based on the following general assumptions:
x The most recent construction schedules available are provided in Table 4-1, while
proposed construction schedules may change, these dates are assumed for this analysis.
x All of the indicated projects will be constructed as proposed based on publicly available
project information appearing in project permit applications and permit documents.
4.1.1 Soils, Topography and Geological Resources

The impacts of all of the five projects will be additive, not cumulative or synergistic because of
the distances between the projects and differences in their construction schedules.
4.1.2 Water Resources

The Project was developed to avoid or minimize disturbance to wetland habitats to the extent
practicable; however, some impacts to wetlands are unavoidable. As discussed in Section 3.2, the
Project will temporarily affect 1.95 acres and permanently affect 0.33 acre, of wetlands. In
addition, 0.34 acre of forested wetlands will be permanently converted to non-forested wetlands
as a result of rights-of-way maintenance practices. Fifty feet of stream banks, associated with
two stream crossings, will also be altered as a result of the proposed Project. The four other
proposed wind farms will also affect wetlands; however, limited information was publicly
available regarding the quantity of wetlands and surface water bodies that could be affected.
The Cape Vincent Wind Farm estimates that there will be no permanent wetland impacts
associated with the construction or operation of its permanent facilities, including wind turbines,
electrical substation, and operations and maintenance facilities. Temporary impacts are
anticipated to be associated with road and transmission line crossings; however, approximated
impact acreages were not provided in that project’s DEIS. Wetland impacts for one of four
potential 115kV transmission lines are estimated at 3.2 acres. Two of the 3.2 acres included
forested cover types that would be permanently converted (ERM, 2007).
4-2
001543
Table 4-1
Proposed Wind Projects - Jefferson County, New York and Frontenac County, Ontario
Location Approximate Distance
Number
of Project Boundary 2
Project Name of Project Status
from St. Lawrence
Turbines 1
Windpower Project
St. Lawrence 53 Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson (this Project) Project construction will occur in a single phase. Project construction
Windpower County, New York approximately 1.5 miles scheduled to commence in Spring of 2010 and be completed by
Project southeast of the St. Lawrence River and New December 2010.
York State Route 12E, The transmission line will
extend about 9 miles southeast to an existing
substation in the Town of Lyme.
Cape Vincent 140 Town of Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, New 1.2 miles southeast Project construction is anticipated to occur in a single phase. It is
Wind Power York. Approximately two miles southeast of the (Contiguous to the St. scheduled to start in the spring of 2011 and be completed by December
Project Village of Cape Vincent and six miles northwest Lawrence Windpower 31, 2011.
of the Village of Chaumont. Project to the southeast)
Hounsfield 84 Galloo Island, Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson 17 miles south southwest The NYSDEC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS on May
Wind Farm County, New York. Approximately 12 miles 21, 2008. A public scoping session was conducted on June 17, 2008
west of Sacketts Harbor in Lake Ontario. and a Final Scoping Document was prepared on September 18, 2008.
Horse Creek 62 Towns of Clayton and Orleans, Jefferson 9 miles east The Project was scheduled to be constructed in one phase, anticipated
Wind Power County, New York. Approximately five miles to commence in April 2008 and to finish in December 2008. In June
Project south-southeast of the Village of Clayton and 2008, Horse Creek Wind Farm announced that development on the
three miles northeast of the Village of project was suspended.
Chaumont. The Project boundary abuts the
Towns of Brownville and Lyme between Perch
Lake and the Chaumont River.
Wolfe Island 86 Wolfe Island, the Township of Frontenac 5 miles west Construction was scheduled to commence in the first quarter of 2007,
Wind Project Islands, County of Frontenac, Province of with a targeted in-service date of October 2008. As on November 2008
Ontario. The City of Kingston is located north of construction had commenced and will continue through the winter into
the Project on the Canadian mainland. 2009. A July 2009 completion date is assumed.
1
Distance calculated using a central point within project boundary of the Project and the closest point of each proposed boundary.
2
Information obtained through publicly available information for each project.
4-3
001544
Although no detailed information regarding wetland impacts is available for the Hounsfield
Wind Farm, there are significant areas of wetlands and surface waters on and surrounding Galloo
Island and construction of the proposed wind farm has the potential to result in adverse impacts
to wetlands under NYSDEC and/or USACE jurisdiction (NYSDEC, 2008).
No detailed wetland delineation has been conducted of the Horse Creek Wind Power Project.
Based on an analysis of the preliminary Project layout and the approximated wetland boundaries,
12 acres of temporary wetland/stream impact are anticipated to occur due to project construction
(not including impacts that may result from any public road improvements). The permanent
footprint of access roads is anticipated to result in approximately 1.8 acres of permanent impacts
to wetlands/streams (EDR, 2007).
Information regarding specific acreages of impact associated with the Wolfe Island Wind Project
was not obtainable. Provincially Significant Wetlands, Non-Provincially Significant Wetlands,
and Unevaluated Wetlands were identified on the island as well as sixteen watercourses that
would require permanent vehicle crossings (Stantec, 2007).
Disturbances to wetlands and water bodies affect the functions and values (e.g., fish and wildlife
habitat, flood protection and abatement, sediment retention, and biological diversity, among
others [NYSDEC, 2008]), that these resources provide to surrounding areas. Temporary
disturbances associated with construction of access roads, underground and overhead collection
lines, and turbines will occur at the Project and at the other proposed wind farm development
projects within the region. According to information that is publicly available, these projects
have differing schedules (see Table 4-1) and impacts to wetlands will not be concurrent.
Most of these wind generation facilities will cause localized and temporary effects to wetlands
during construction; however, these effects would, for the most part, occur at different times for
the five projects, and wetland functions and values would be restored following construction.
Therefore, significant cumulative impacts from temporary disturbances associated with these
five projects are not anticipated.
Permanent disturbance to wetlands is regulated, both by state and federal agencies, which require
avoidance and minimization, as well as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable disturbances.
All wind projects considered in this cumulative effects analysis that would disturb wetlands are
required to restore or improve functions and values of degraded wetlands through compensatory
mitigation, resulting in a net increase in wetland acreage. To maintain ecological functions,
4-4
001545
wetland mitigation sites are usually required to be located in the same watershed in which the
affected wetlands occur.
Compensatory mitigation is typically implemented and functioning in advance of, or concurrent

with, project impacts thus reducing temporal losses of functions and values as well as uncertainty
regarding the success of offsetting project impacts. Because compensatory mitigation is
anticipated to initiate during, and continue following, construction, wetland functions and values
provided to the watershed are adequately maintained. Furthermore, compensatory mitigation
works to prevent “no net loss” of wetlands, and is often implemented at greater than 1 to 1
replacement ratios, 2 to 1 in the case of the Project. Therefore, construction and operation of the
planned wind generation facilities considered in this analysis is not expected to result in
significant cumulative adverse impacts to wetlands.
4.1.3 Ecological Resources

From a regional perspective, localized disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitats are expected
to occur during construction of all of the wind farms listed in Table 4-1. Temporal differences in
project schedules will lessen the cumulative effects of temporary impacts to wildlife and wildlife
habitats. Disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitats associated with wind development are
consistent with disturbances caused by agricultural and logging practices throughout the region.
Permanent loss of wildlife habitats caused by development of these five projects is minimal
relative to the habitat coverage in the region. Wildlife and wildlife habitat are common and
regionally appropriate for all five projects. Significant cumulative adverse effects are not
anticipated because none of the projects, when considered individually, are anticipated to cause
significant impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitats and the projects, taken together, will not cause
impacts that interact with or increase the extent of the impacts of other projects.
4.1.3.1 Birds and Bats

Construction of the projects listed in Table 4-1 is expected to affect birds and bats although none
of the projects is expected to result in significant adverse effects to either group. In addition to
the Project, avian and bat studies have been conducted for the Cape Vincent Wind Power
Project, the Horse Creek Wind Power Project; and the Wolfe Island Wind Project. These studies
and the associated environmental impact analyses indicate that birds and bats in the prospective
project areas were common and widely distributed, and that bird and bat habitats affected by
project construction represent a small percentage of the habitat available in surrounding areas.
Displaced birds and bats would return to the project area soon after the completion of
construction activities and construction related effects to birds and bats caused by one project are
not expected to increase effects caused by other projects considered in this analysis. Temporal
4-5
001546
differences in project schedules will lessen the cumulative effects of temporary project impacts
to birds, bats, and their habitats. Cumulatively, construction-related effects are not expected to
result in significant adverse impacts to birds and bats.
Operation of wind generation facilities is known to cause fatalities to birds. Mortality studies
conducted at eastern wind facilities indicate fatality rates between 3 and 10 bird fatalities per
turbine per year (Kerns and Kerlinger 2004; Nicholson 2002, 2003; Jain et al. 2007). At the
Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County, New York, the closest wind project conducting post-
construction monitoring studies, the annual per turbine fatality rate was estimated between 3.1
and 9.6 birds (Jain et al. 2007). Based on the results from all eastern studies, migrant song birds
represent approximately 60 to 80 percent of avian fatalities. Relative to other sources of avian
mortality, avian-wind turbine collision is low. According to Erickson et al. (2001), collisions
with buildings and automobiles result in high avian mortality in excess of 97 million and 60
million birds per year, respectively. Turbine collision mortality averages 2.3 bird deaths per
turbine per year for 12 wind facilities located throughout the United States (National Wind
Coordinating Collaborative, 2004) while mortality associated with wind projects in the eastern
United States averaged 4.3 bird deaths per turbine per year.
Migrant and Breeding Birds: Some migrant birds may be subject to turbine collisions. Survey
results conducted for the Project and the Cape Vincent Wind Power, the Horse Creek Wind
Power, and the Wolfe Island Wind projects indicated slightly above average total number of
migrants, birds/hour and number of species but no significant adverse affects to migrant bird
populations (see Section 3.3.4.2 Table 3-6). Similarly, the breeding bird surveys identified
regionally common, disturbance-tolerant species. Localized reductions in these stable
populations are not expected to cause significant adverse effects to breeding bird populations in
the project areas.
SLW utilized national and regional average estimates of avian mortality from post-construction
monitoring studies of wind farms to evaluate potential avian mortality at individual wind farms.
Based on the national average bird fatality per turbine per year as well as the eastern region bird
fatality rate (2.3 and 4.3 birds per turbine per year, respectively [NWCC 2004]), estimated
cumulative avian mortality from the five regional wind generation facilities is between 978 and
1828 birds per year (Table 4-2).
As an alternate method for estimating potential cumulative avian mortality, fatality rates
documented during the first year of post-construction monitoring at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm,
located approximately 50 miles southeast of the Project, were used to provide a more local
4-6
001547
perspective. The Maple Ridge study documented avian fatalities between 3.1 to 9.6 birds per
turbine per year (Jain et al., 2007). Applying these fatality rates, cumulative mortality for the five
wind developments considered is estimated to be between 1,318 and 4,080 birds per year (Table
4-2).
Results from the Maple Ridge Wind Farm indicate that 68 percent of identified passerine
fatalities occurred in September and October, during the fall migration period (Jain et al., 2007).
While some mortality is likely to occur, the cumulative loss of birds is unlikely to adversely
affect migrant bird populations found in these areas as these numbers represent a small
percentage of the regional migratory population. Therefore, cumulative significant adverse
affects to migrating and breeding birds are not anticipated to result from operation of the five
wind generation facilities considered in this evaluation.
Table 4-2
Estimated Cumulative Avian Mortality from
Wind Generation Facilities in Northern New York
Estimated Range of
Estimated Bird Estimated Bird
Bird Fatalities per
Fatalities per Year Fatalities per Year
Number of year based on 1st
Project Based on NWCC Based on NWCC
Turbines Year Results of
2004 National 2004 Eastern
Maple Ridge Wind
Average 1 Average 2
Farm 3
St. Lawrence Windpower
53 122 228 164 - 509
Project
Cape Vincent Wind Power
140 322 602 434 - 1344
Project
Hounsfield Wind Farm 84 193 361 260 - 806
Horse Creek Wind Power
62 143 267 192 - 595
Project
Wolfe Island Wind Project 86 198 370 267 - 826
Total 425 978 1,828 1,318 - 4,080
1
National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC; 2004) reported national avian mortality rates of 2.3 birds per turbine per year
(birds/turbine/year). Estimated rates of avian mortality in this table were derived by multiplying the number of turbines in each wind
generation facility by the national average avian mortality rate.
2
NWCC (2004) reported average avian mortality rates in the eastern US region of 4.3 birds/turbine/year. Estimated rates of avian
mortality in this table were derived by multiplying the number of turbines in each wind generation facility by the eastern regional
average avian mortality rate.
3
Maple Ridge Wind Farm post-construction monitoring occurred from June through November, 2006 using several methods.
Depending on the method employed, average fatalities ranged from 3.1 to 9.6 birds/turbine/year (Jain et al. 2007). Ranges reported
in this table, based on data from Maple Ridge, were estimated by multiplying the low and high average mortality rates per turbine
per year by the number of turbines in each wind facility.
Raptors: WEST concluded that both migrant and breeding raptor use of the Project Area were
low, and thus Project impacts to raptors would also be low. From a regional perspective, the five
4-7
001548
wind projects considered are not expected to cause significant cumulative adverse effects to
breeding or migrant raptors. In general, mean raptor use of the region is low, based on migrating
raptor and breeding bird surveys; therefore, direct raptor mortality is expected to be low. In
addition, results from the first year of post-construction monitoring at Maple Ridge Wind Farm
indicate fewer than 3 percent of all bird fatalities were raptors. Combined with low populations
and low risk of expected mortality, no significant cumulative effects to raptors are expected from
operation of the five wind energy project considered in this evaluation.
Habitats used by raptors may be indirectly affected by wind project construction; however,
raptors are expected to return to the area after temporary impacts cease, or relocate to nearby
suitable habitats. For these reasons, no significant adverse effects are expected to occur as a
result of construction or operation of the five wind energy facilities. Since construction is
asynchronous, any temporary impacts are not expected to be cumulative.
Bats: Operation of wind generation facilities is known to result in fatalities to bats, particularly
to long-distance migrant tree bats of the Lasiurus genus. Based on data collected at three of the
four other wind facilities considered in this analysis, operational impacts to resident bats are
expected to be lower than to migratory bats. Fatality rates recorded at national and regional wind
facilities can provide an estimate of cumulative bat mortality to be expected from operation of
the five wind projects considered in this analysis; however, these values do not address seasonal
trends or distinguish resident and migrant populations. Average fatalities of 3.4 and 46.3 bats
per turbine per year have been reported by NWCC (2004) for U.S. national and eastern region
wind facilities. Applying these rates to the number of turbines associated with the five projects
the cumulative average annual bat fatality is estimated to be between 6,855 to 11,050 bats (Table
4-3). Annual average bat fatality estimates documented at Maple Ridge Wind Farm during first
year monitoring efforts ranged between 15 to 24 bats per turbine, with 244 of 326 identified bat
fatalities (75 percent) occurring in July and August (Jain et al., 2007). If patterns of bat fatality
for the five regional wind facilities considered are consistent with those observed in the Maple
Ridge Wind Farm, cumulative average annual bat fatality is estimated to be between 6,460 to
10,413 bats (Table 4-3).
Although it is difficult to assess population-level impacts on bats because of the lack of regional
population data, these predicted ranges of mortality are not anticipated to produce significant
adverse effects to regional populations of bat species (Kunz et al., 2007). In addition to man-
made factors such as the number, location, and type of turbines or other man-made structures,
many natural factors also influence the impacts on regional bat populations. These factors
include the number and type of species in an area, species behavior, topography, predators,
4-8
001549
disease (i.e., “white nose syndrome”), and weather. In itself, the migration period for bats can be
a time of high mortality, mostly when it coincides with adverse weather and other random events
(Griffin, 1970; Fleming and Eby, 2003). The ranges of bat mortality estimated to result from the
wind projects is not expected to add significantly to the mortality caused by these other factors,
or to alter the population dynamics. While cumulative effects to bats may occur due to increased
development in the area, factors external to the five projects evaluated herein, such as “white
nose syndrome,” are likely to have greater cumulative effects on bats than the five projects.
The Applicant will conduct post-construction monitoring for birds and bats for a minimum
period of 3 years to estimate direct impacts of the operating project in terms of mortality rates of
birds and bats caused by collisions with wind turbines. These data will be provided to wildlife
management agencies to better understand the implications of wind development on bird and bat
populations, as well as to develop appropriate additional mitigation measures if impacts to bats
significantly exceed the anticipated impacts. Cumulative impacts to Indiana bats are discussed
separately in Section 4.1.3.2.
Table 4-3
Estimated Cumulative Bat Mortality from
Wind Generation Facilities in Northern New York
Estimated Range
Estimated Bat Estimated Bat of Bat Fatalities
Number
Fatalities per Year Fatalities per Year per year based on
Project of Based on NWCC Based on NWCC 1st Year Results of
Turbines 2004 National 2004 Eastern Maple Ridge Wind
1 2 3
Average Average Farm
St. Lawrence Windpower Project 53 180 2,454 806 – 1,299
Cape Vincent Wind Power Project 140 476 6,482 2,128 – 3,430
Hounsfield Wind Farm 84 286 3,889 1,277 – 2,058
Horse Creek Wind Power Project 62 211 2,871 942 – 1,519
Wolfe Island Wind Project 86 292 3,982 1,307 – 2,107
Total 425 1,445 19,678 6,460 – 10,413
1
National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC 2004) reported national average bat mortality rates for the 3.4 bats per turbine
per year (bats/turbine/year). Estimated bat fatalities based on NWCC results were derived by multiplying the number of turbines by
the reported national average.
2
NWCC (2004) reported bat mortality rates for the eastern US region of 46.3 bats/turbine/year. Estimated bat fatalities based on
NWCC results were derived by multiplying the number of turbines by the reported eastern regional average. This estimate was used
in the Marble River Wind Farm DEIS.
3
Maple Ridge Wind Farm post-construction monitoring occurred from June through November 2006 using several methods.
Depending on the method employed, average fatalities ranged from 15.2 to 24.5 bats/turbine/year) (Jain et al. 2007). Ranges
reported in this table, based on data from Maple Ridge, were estimated by multiplying the low and high average mortality rates per
turbine per year by the number of turbines in each wind facility.
4-9
001550
4.1.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

Listed plant, fish, reptile and amphibian species were not observed within the Project Site;
however, suitable wetland habitat for these species was identified. Impacts to wetland or
shoreline habitats suitable to these species and non-raptor avian species are avoided or
minimized to the extent practical by the layout and design of the Project. Limited temporary
disturbance or displacement of grassland avian species may occur. The risk to bald eagles and
northern harriers from Project is not expected to be great due to low use and poor nesting habitat
of the Project Area, and the low level flights and low soaring frequency, respectively. Based on
available information and results of site surveys, it is assumed that Indiana bats may occupy
areas near the project area from May through September. Development of the Project could
indirectly affect the summer distribution of Indiana bats in Jefferson County by causing
abandonment or movement of a known maternal colony located south of the proposed Project
Area. However, maternal roosting areas move over time and Indiana bats, along with other bat
species populations are expected to continue to use the Cape Vincent peninsula regardless of the
proposed Project.
Information regarding listed species within the proposed Hounsfield Wind Farm was not
available.
Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm were
identified to be limited to the Indiana bat. Individuals were recorded within 10 miles from the
proposed project and foraging habit for the species was identified on-site. Based on the EIS,
“further evaluation and consultation with USFWS and NYSDEC is on-going.”
According to the DEIS for the Horse Creek Wind Farm, plant species and unique communities
would be avoided during construction. Operational impacts to grassland avian species are
expected to include occasional collision mortality and disturbance/displacement. Collision
mortality for forest dwelling avian species was anticipated to be minimal due to limited
placement of turbines in forested areas. Collision risk to raptors was not anticipated to be high.
Species most at risk were anticipated to be those that forage in open country as opposed to
individuals migrating through the area. Risks to water birds were deemed low as they do not
forage in large numbers within the proposed wind farm area. Studies indicate that Indiana bats
travel through and forage in areas where turbines would be constructed, and collision mortality
could occur as a result of the Horse Creek project. However, the report indicated that “the level
of mortality that could result from operation of the [project] is not anticipated to be biologically
significant.”
4-10
001551
The Natural Heritage Information Center identified ten sensitive species within the proposed
Wolfe Island Wind Project. These included six avian species and four plant species. In addition,
the Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary listed two reptile/amphibian species within the vicinity of
the proposed Wolfe Island Wind Project. Limited information was obtained regarding impacts to
threatened and endangered species.
Baseline studies including mist-net surveys for Indiana bats have occurred at SLW, the Cape
Vincent wind project and the Horse Creek wind project, and have documented Indiana bat
occurrence throughout the region (Woodlot Alternatives, 2006; Kerns et al., 2007b). The
magnitude of cumulative effects on Indiana bats is difficult to measure. 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.
In general, rare species breeding habitat will be avoided by all of the projects; however, some
foraging habitat may be affected. These effects would be localized and temporary because
suitable adjacent habitats are readily available. Most of the wind generation projects considered
in this analysis also identified potential habitats for state-protected species; those projects
similarly concluded that although displacement and mortality might occur, direct and indirect
effects would be localized and would affect few, if any, individuals. Each project concluded it
would not cause significant adverse effects to state-listed species. As all projects are
implementing techniques to reduce or avoid impact to listed species and development of these
projects are occurring at different times, cumulative adverse effects to threatened and endangered
species are not anticipated from the construction and operation of the wind generation facilities.
4.1.4 Transportation/Traffic
Temporary increases to traffic volumes are expected as a result of the construction of the Project.
The construction schedules of the Hounsfield Wind Farm and the Horse Creek Wind Power
Project have not yet been determined. The construction periods for the Cape Vincent Power
Project and the Wolfe Island Wind Project, do not overlap with construction of the Project (see
Exhibit 4.1.1); therefore, no cumulative impacts to traffic and transportation routes are expected
as a result of the Project.
If construction schedules for the Hounsfield Wind Farm and Horse Creek Wind Power Project
coincide with that of the Project, it is unlikely that similar transportation routes will be used
4-11
001552
because of the location of these projects relative to the Project. However, if construction
schedules overlap and similar local transportation routes are used, coordination regarding use of
proposed transportation routes would be undertaken by the involved project developers,
NYSDOT, and local highway authorities to assure that the duration and extent of impact is
minimized and that road repair/restoration work is accomplished at the appropriate time.
Road traffic in the Project Area is currently below capacity and traffic conditions are light.
During operation of the Project a limited number of trucks will access the Project Site as well as
the other projects in the area for service and maintenance. The Cape Vincent Wind Power
Project has not disclosed its estimated operational trip generation. However, because the wind
projects typically generate very few trips during their operational periods, no adverse cumulative
impact on traffic or local roads is anticipated to result from simultaneous operation of the Project
and the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project.
Exhibit 4.1.1
Project Construction Schedules as Proposed 1
2008 2009 2010 2011
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
St. Lawrence Windpower Project -
Cape Vincent Wind Power Project -
Hounsfield Wind Farm - Schedule not determined
Horse Creek Wind Power Project - Schedule not determined
Wolfe Island Wind Project -
1
All schedules are based on publicly available construction schedule information
4.1.5 Land Use and Zoning

4.1.5.1 Regional and Local Land Use Patterns
Construction and operation of the proposed projects in the Project Area will have minimal
cumulative impacts to land use as the wind farms are generally consistent with the land use
patterns within the region. Since the projects will be primarily located on agricultural and
forested land, they are less likely to impact nearby residences/hamlets, villages, and recreation
areas within each of the towns.
4-12
001553
4.1.5.2 Zoning and Other Applicable Laws

Compliance with local town laws regulating the development of wind farm projects will ensure
that cumulative impacts on land are minimal. Construction and operation of these wind farm
projects will be conducted in compliance with each Town’s local wind energy facility
requirements and any conditions appearing in the local permits acquired for each of the projects.

Impacts to agricultural land would be greatest during construction of the projects because
additional acreage will be required for workspace and movement of equipment and material.
However, these projects have been located to minimize loss of active agricultural land and
interference with agricultural operations in accordance with agriculture mitigation measures
based on New York State Ag. & Markets guidelines for avoidance of impact, mitigation, and
restoration of agricultural resources as described in Section 3.5.3.2.
Operation of the projects will be compatible with agricultural land use and could have a long-
term positive benefit to individual towns in both counties because setback requirements for wind
turbines on agricultural land discourage encroaching non-agricultural uses. In addition,
participating farmers can afford to continue farming operations on their property as a result of a
reliable supplemental source of income provided by lease and royalty payments.

The proposed Project should not interfere with future plans to develop land in the area for single
family, residential, agricultural, or other uses permitted under the applicable zoning ordinances
provided that the proposed future uses comply with applicable setback requirements established
by each host municipality.
4.1.6 Utilities and Community Services

The impacts of all of the five projects will be additive, not cumulative because: 1) the Project
will inject new power into the regional grid at the Lyme Substation increasing the local
electricity supply and system reliability; 2) the Project will not have significant adverse impacts
on the demand for emergency services since existing services (e.g., police, fire, ambulance, and
health care) have the personnel and equipment necessary to respond to emergencies that could
occur during both construction and operation of the Project; 3) PILOT payments to be made by
SLW will provide revenues for use by school districts.
4-13
001554
4.1.7 Cultural Resources

Construction and operation of the Project will not have any impacts on archeological resources
since the Project layout has been developed to avoid areas where archaeological resources are
anticipated to be present. Since no Project-specific impacts are anticipated, the Project is not
anticipated to contribute to any cumulative impacts on archeological resources that might be
caused by planned development of the other four wind energy projects in the region.
Construction of the Project will not have any direct impacts on architectural resources (e.g.,
through demolition of any NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible buildings), and no potential direct
impacts have been identified associated with the other four projects considered in this evaluation.
However, during construction, each of these projects could have visual impacts on nearby
NRHP-listed or -eligible properties. It is unlikely that these impacts will be significant due to
their temporal nature. In addition, since the Project will not be under construction at the same
time as the other four projects, there will be no cumulative effect to the historic architectural
resources due to construction-related activities.
Operation of each of the projects in the region will result in visual impacts on NRHP-listed and
eligible properties within a 5-mile viewshed, the extent of the SHPO-determined viewshed for
historic structures. The Applicant will review potential cumulative impacts with the lead
agencies, the SHPO, and interested stakeholders, and the results of that review will be presented
in the FEIS.
4.1.8 Visual Resources/Community Character

The adjacent St. Lawrence Wind and Cape Vincent Projects will have viewshed areas that
substantially overlap. Considering the extended view opportunities within the Rural Agricultural
Landscape Unit covering much of the Town of Cape Vincent, an observer will likely view
multiple turbines of both projects from numerous locations. The degree of impact will not
similarly increase within the Village Center Landscape Unit where intervening structures, street
trees and other local vegetation will screen most, if not all turbines from view.
While owned and operated by individual entities, the distinction between projects will not be
readily apparent to typical observers. The cumulative effect of the Cape Vincent Project would
be perceived as the same as if the St. Lawrence Project were approximately three times its
proposed size. Combined, the St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Projects would encompass a
majority of the land area of the Town of Cape Vincent. Views of the turbines would be dominant
and widespread. Both Projects propose to utilize an existing National Grid substation in the
4-14
001555
Town of Lyme. Developing a shared transmission ROW between the Cape Vincent and St.
Lawrence Projects can mitigate cumulative impact from transmission lines.
The 86-turbine Canadian renewable Energy Corporation Wolfe Island Wind Project is currently
under construction. Wolfe Island, Ontario, is directly across the St. Lawrence River from the
Village of Cape Vincent; approximately three miles northwest of the nearest Project turbine.
Due to the presence of existing woodland and hedgerow vegetation there are few inland locations
within the Town of Cape Vincent where Wolfe Island or the St. Lawrence River is presently
visible. Views of the Wolfe Island Project from inland agricultural areas in and around the
project site will likely be limited to glimpses of blade tips above the intervening tree lines at
distances of more than three miles.
Conversely, riverfront locations in the Village and Town of Cape Vincent will directly view the
Wolfe Island Project across the St. Lawrence River. Simultaneous views of the Wolfe Island and
the St. Lawrence Windpower Projects from coastal vantage points will be limited since, in all
cases, the projects are located in opposite directions. Importantly, with primary views focused
toward the River, the presence of the Wolfe Island Project creates a more direct impact on scenic
river views from the U.S coastal area than does the St. Lawrence Windpower Project. Similarly,
the Project will be directly visible from southeast coast and upland agricultural areas of Wolfe
Island. Both projects will be visible from common on-water vantage points on Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River, albeit in different directions.
The Horse Creek Wind Farm Project is approximately seven miles southeast of the St. Lawrence
Windpower Project. At this distance should both projects be simultaneously visible, it is likely
that turbines from the closer project would be viewed in the foreground and dominate the scene.
Turbines from the more distant project would be viewed as part of the distant background where
impact is significantly diminished. Long distance views would generally be restricted to
elevated, open (agricultural) areas. It is possible that views from intermediate locations could
occur. However, such views would be in opposite directions.
Upstate Power proposes to install and operate up to 84 wind turbines on Galloo Island in the
Town of Hounsfield. Galloo Island is situated in Lake Ontario more than five miles offshore.
The Hounsfield project is approximately 13 miles southwest of the St. Lawrence Project. At this
distance atmospheric and linear perspective will substantially diminish the clarity of view, often
rendering turbine framework and rotating blades nearly indistinguishable. The presence of
intervening islands and irregular coastline make views from common intermediate coastal
vantage points unlikely. Where such vantage points exist, views will be in opposite directions.
4-15
001556
Cumulative Summary: Cumulative project visibility does not increase aesthetic impact in a
linear manner. For example, a view of 20 turbines is not twice as significant an impact as a view
of 10 turbines. The first incidence of project visibility on an undeveloped landscape creates the
greatest degree of aesthetic change. Installation of one wind energy project on an agricultural
landscape changes the landscape’s character. Installation of a second equally sized project
within the same viewshed is compatible with the character with the first project, resulting in a
lesser impact on the aesthetic quality of the land than the original development.
Turbines within multiple wind energy projects would typically be viewed within different
distance zones. Turbines from the closer project would be viewed in the foreground and tend to
be the dominant element within the scene. Turbines from a more distant project would be smaller
in scale and less impacting as part of the distant background landscape.
Should all projects currently proposed or under consideration be constructed, the area in an
approximately 13-mile radius of the town of Cape Vincent would include over 350 utility scale
wind generating turbines each likely exceeding 390 feet in height. While not continuously
visible, wind-generating turbines would be would be dominant and widespread from local
roadways, homes and various places of interest. Turbines would also be visible on the horizon
from vantage points on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River along approximately 50 miles
of waterway, from Clayton west and south to Southwick State Park, Jefferson County.
4.1.9 Air Quality

Cumulative impacts to air quality are not anticipated during construction of the Project due to the
differing schedules as described in Section 4.4. However, there will be a cumulative positive
impact from the operation of the Projects which will result in the avoidance of emissions to the
air identified in Table 4-4.
4.1.10 Noise
Cumulative noise impacts were assessed for Project construction and operation. In assessing
cumulative effects of noise for the Project, the Project noise study area was extended to include
BP’s proposed Cape Vincent Wind Project to the southeast of the Project, which could
potentially impact the residences of concern. The three other wind energy development projects
in Table 4-1 were determined to be sufficiently distant from the Project that they would not
contribute to cumulative noise impacts to receptors within the Project study area.
4-16
001557
Table 4-4
Estimated Emissions Reductions Resulting from the Projects
Total Annual Reductions
(tons/year) 1
Project
Carbon dioxide Sulfur dioxide Nitrogen oxides
(CO2) (SO2) (NOx)
St. Lawrence Windpower Project 73,085.4 313.4 86.7
Cape Vincent Wind Power Project 193,055.9 827.8 229.0
Hounsfield Wind Farm 247,111.6 1,059.6 293.2
Horse Creek Wind Power Project 121,349.4 520.3 144.0
Wolfe Island Wind Project 181,840.3 779.7 215.7
Total 816,442.6 3,500.9 968.6
1
Based on USEPA’s Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (EPA eGRID), assumes
average output emission rates for upstate New York power generators are approximately equal to: SO2 at 3.00
pounds (lbs)/MWh, NOX at 0.83 lb/MWh, and CO2 at 699.63 lbs/MWh (EPA eGRID 2007 Version 1.0 Year 2005
Summary Tables).
The cumulative modeling analysis (Appendix L) demonstrates that a number of turbines in the
adjacent Cape Vincent Wind Project are close enough that the sound levels at some residences
between the two projects are likely to experience slightly higher sound levels than they otherwise
would if the St. Lawrence Project existed in isolation. However, the predicted cumulative sound
levels are expected to be in the order of 1-2 dBA over that of the St. Lawrence Project alone,
which is a barely perceivable increase in terms of increased cumulative sound impacts.
While addition of the BP turbines would clearly reshape the area within the 42 dBA impact
threshold in many places, only a few non-participating residences that were formerly close to,
but outside of, the 42 dBA contour would be inside of this area if the BP project were added.
These residences or groups of residences are properties that are primarily affected by the St.
Lawrence Project and where the noise from the adjacent project would be secondary. The actual
change in sound exposure at these locations would be small due to this cumulative affect. The
predicted sound levels with the St. Lawrence Windpower Project alone and with both projects at
these four locations are summarized in Table 3-33 and also depicted in Exhibit 3.10.4 in Section
3.10.
In general, a change of at least 3 dBA is normally required before any real difference in sound
level begins to be perceptible, so these cumulative increases of 2 dBA or less at some residences
in the Project Area are minor and do not represent a substantial, or particularly tangible, change
in the potential impact from the Project when combined with the adjacent project. Essentially,
4-17
001558
whatever the reaction to noise might have been in response the St. Lawrence Project alone would
occur to the same degree and extent if both projects were constructed.
4.1.11 Socioeconomics
Construction and operation of the wind projects are not anticipated to have adverse cumulative
affects on the population and housing in the area, and it is not anticipated that additional (new)
housing will be required. Construction for the Wolfe Island Wind Farm started in November
2008 and will be completed in July 2009 before the Project will be built. Based on the known
schedules for the other wind projects, the Project construction will not overlap and therefore not
cause or contribute to cumulative impacts on population and housing.

The proposed projects should not have a cumulative adverse impact on local property values.
The sales data collected in existing wind farm markets indicates that the construction and
operation of wind farms have no influence on property values. A recent U.S. focused study,
investigating four sites in the northeast (two in New York and two in Pennsylvania) with a
sample size of over 350 home sales for each site, evaluated whether wind facilities affect local
property values (Wiser and Hoen, 2007). This study evaluated three categories of concerns:
Area Stigma defined as “industrialization” of area leading to decreases in tourism and second
home desirability, 2) Scenic Vista Stigma defined as decreases in quality of scenic vistas from
homes; and 3) Nuisance & Health Effects defined as potential health/well being concerns of
nearby residents. Preliminary results of this study indicate that there is no statistical evidence
that homes within 4 to 7 miles of a facility are affected adversely based simply on proximity, or
that homes with a view of turbines have different values than homes without.

Construction of the five projects will have cumulative benefits on the regional economy. The
sustained construction over the next 3 years will result in the direct creation of a number of jobs.
The five projects will also have indirect impacts on the local economy through the purchases of
goods and services, which will support local businesses. In addition, local lease payments to
participating landowners will enhance their ability to purchase additional goods and services. To
the extent that these purchases are made locally, they will have a broader positive affect on the
local economy.
4-18
001559
Total construction cost for the four U.S. projects is estimated to be approximately $511 million.
Approximately 15 to 18 percent of this total is the expected local share. Local share of annual
operating and maintenance costs is estimated to range between $1.8 million and $2.5 million,
providing an economic benefit to the region. While these figures are not known for the Wolfe
Island Wind Project, direct and indirect project expenditures will result in cumulative significant
economic benefits to the region during construction and operation of the projects.
4.1.11.4 Municipal Budgets and Taxes

The projects will have a cumulative beneficial impact on municipal budgets and taxes since the
taxing jurisdictions will receive additional revenues from the projects in the form of PILOT
revenues.
4.1.12 Telecommunications
These impacts are additive and can be quantified by simply adding the total impacts quantities
associated with each Project.
4.1.13 Safety and Security

These impacts are additive and can be quantified by simply adding the total impacts associated
with each Project.
4.2 Growth Inducing Impacts

Some proposed actions under the SEQR process have the potential to trigger further
development by either attracting a significant local population, inviting commercial or industrial
growth, or by inducing the development of similar projects adjacent to the built facility. The
proposed SLW Project does not require a permanent work force greater than approximately four
to six full-time employees, and therefore will not lead to significant, permanent growth in local
population or housing. The temporary impacts associated with the construction workforce were
discussed in Section 3.11. Although the Project’s operations phase work force will likely
support the local economy through the purchase of goods and services, the type and level of
expenditures are not anticipated to generate significant growth in the businesses that serve the
proposed facility. As a result, secondary or indirect impacts associated with local growth are not
anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed Project.
The Project may result in improved local infrastructure which would better support unrelated
economic development. Local roads used for component delivery routes would be improved to
accommodate Project construction equipment. Improvements to these roads would accommodate
heavier, larger vehicles once the Project is completed. In addition, the increased Project-related
4-19
001560
income to local governments may allow localities to create amenities to attract desirable
economic development within the Project Area. These improvements and enhancements are
considered Project benefits.
The Project may enhance tourism traffic in the area, especially in the first few years of operation.
Greater tourist traffic could generate business for local providers of gasoline, overnight
accommodations, and restaurant services. Based on construction of other wind farms in New
York State surrounding communities generally experience an increase in tourist traffic, but not to
the extent that expansion of existing businesses or the establishment of new businesses have
resulted. Certain communities such as the Town of Fenner, Madison County, New York have
established a renewable energy education and visitor center aimed at sustaining wind farm-
related tourism.
Participating farmers would receive economic benefits that would allow them to enhance their
operations through better technology or expansion of available property and resources. The
preservation of agricultural land and economic gain in the Project Area would provide these
landowners alternatives to selling their farms for construction of residential tracts and
subdivisions. The Project would also provide an additional revenue stream that could supplement
their income in years of lower agriculture and farm yield.
The St. Lawrence Windpower Project is proposed, in part, because of the existing wind resource
and associated transmission facilities allow the action to be economically viable. Specifically, the
availability of adequate wind and the presence of an existing transmission line in the Town of
Lyme allows for generation and transmission of the Project’s electric output to the power grid.
The availability of these resources/facilities has shown that other wind power projects will be
proposed on adjacent properties. The construction of the Project will not encourage the
development of additional wind power projects in the area. Since existing transmission lines
have limited additional capacity, the Project may make future projects more expensive to
develop if such development could only be accommodated by upgrading existing transmission
lines.
4-20
001561
5.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

The proposed Project will result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of certain
resources as described below. However, on the whole, the commitment of these resources will be
justified by the many benefits that would result from implementation of the Project. Human and
financial resources continue to be expended by SLW, the State of New York (i.e., various state
agencies), Jefferson County, and the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme for the planning and
review of the Project. This expenditure of human resources and money will continue to be
required throughout the permitting and construction phases of the Project. The Applicant has
entered into an agreement with the Town of Cape Vincent to compensate them for third-party
costs incurred by the Town in its role as Lead Agency in the SEQRA review of the Project.
Consequently, limited investment of local governmental economic resources will be required to
complete review of the Project. Also any expended local resources will be regained
exponentially in economic benefits to local government should the proposed Project be approved
and implemented.
The Project will also require a commitment of land for the life of the Project. Specifically, a total
of 59.5 acres developed for wind turbine tower locations, access roads, transmission lines and
substations will not be available for alternative purposes for the life of the Project. However,
because the turbines/towers can be removed, the land used for the Project can be reclaimed for
alternative use at some future date. Therefore, the commitment of this land to the Project is
neither irreversible nor irretrievable. It is possible that at the end of the expected life of the
Project, approximately 20 years, the wind turbines can be repowered with newer, more powerful
and efficient wind turbines. Repowering would fall outside the scope of this review and would
in any case only extend the use of land for a finite period of time.
Various types of construction materials and building supplies will be committed to the Project.
The use of these materials, such as gravel, concrete, steel, etc., will represent a long-term
commitment of these resources, which would not be available for other projects. Energy
resources will be irretrievably committed to the construction and operation of the Project. Fuel
and electricity will be required during the manufacture and transportation of materials and
components, during site preparation and turbine installation activities, and for the transportation
of workers and materials to the Project site. Despite this, the energy resources expended to
construct and operate the Project will be offset and represent a minuscule fraction of the clean,
renewable energy generated by the Project.
During the life of the Project, surface drainage patterns may be altered because of the added
impervious surfaces associated with the Project. The Applicant will minimize such alterations
5-1
001562
by implementing BMPs as described in Section 3.1.3.1 and an environmental monitoring and

compliance plan, and will attempt to restore the ground surface to pre-existing grade to the best
of their ability through the implementation of Project restoration plan. As most of the Project site
is agriculture, implementation agricultural protection measures in accordance with New York
State Agriculture and Market guidelines as described in Section 3.5.3.2 will also avoid or
minimize this alteration. Temporary loss of habitat can result in a redistribution of plants and
animals that can be different than their pre-existing location and concentration. Wildlife takes or
kills will be minimized by appropriate location of Project facilities, but some are still expected
and will be offset by proposed Project mitigation.
5-2
001563
6.0 EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

The SLW Project will have significant, long-term positive impacts on the use and conservation
of energy and natural resources particularly as a contributor to meeting state, federal and
international energy policies and initiatives. When the Project is in operation, it will deliver
approximately 79.5 MW of clean renewable energy at the point of interconnection to the
electricity grid. The Project will accomplish this without having to produce, transport, store, or
burn any fossil fuel in the process. Production of this clean, renewable energy will not create air
or water pollution or add to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is enough electricity for
over 26,500 homes in New York State (on an average annual basis).
SEQRA mandates that new energy generating projects demonstrate that they satisfy energy
generating capacity needs in a manner reasonably consistent with the most recent NY State
Energy Plan. The 2002 NY State Energy Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement
(NYSEP) (also see the March 2006 New York State Energy Plan Memorandum) incorporates
energy policies designed to place New York at the forefront among states providing fairly priced,
clean, and efficient energy resources. The SLW Project is consistent with the following major
policy objectives of the NYSEP: 1) Enhanced energy and transportation infrastructure security;
2) Stimulating sustainable economic growth, technological innovation, and job growth in the
New York energy sector; 3) Increasing energy diversity, including renewable based energy; 4)
Promoting the achievement of a cleaner and healthier environment; and, 5) Ensuring equity,
fairness, and consumer protections.
The SLW Project will add to and diversify the state's sources of power generation. Greater use of
renewable energy would displace use of other less desirable sources of electricity generation,
such as fossil fuels that pollute the air and water and contribute to global warming. New York
State wind generation offsets the equivalent of burning 3.4 million cubic feet of natural gas per
day. Expanding wind energy generation facilities through projects like the SLW Project will
increase natural gas conservation and modulate price spikes typically associated with fossil fuel
supply. Furthermore, wind energy projects are considered less vulnerable to terrorist activity
than fossil fuel- or nuclear-fired electric generating facilities because of the physical size and
distribution of turbines across a project landscape. Also, if a wind energy project is damaged,
there are no secondary threats to the public from those typical of nuclear (fallout) or
conventional power plants (explosions, release of toxic materials).
The New York State Energy Research Development Authority (NYSERDA) commissioned a
study entitled The Effects of Integrating Wind Power on Transmission System Planning,
Reliability and Operations (February 2005, the “NYSERDA Report”). The NYSERDA Report
6-1
001564
concludes, based on load and wind profiles from 2001 and 2002, that 65 percent of the electricity
displaced by wind generation would come from natural gas, 15 percent from coal, 10 percent
from oil and 10 percent from imports.
The NYSERDA Report also found that 3,000 MW of wind energy would result in total annual
New York wholesale electricity market variable cost reductions of over $400 million per year.
Of this total, the SLW Project will be responsible for almost $15-20 million in benefits to energy
consumers each year. In addition, the NYSERDA Report found that it is not necessary to start up
additional traditional generation to back up wind generation.
The New York Public Service Commission (NYSPSC) issued an Order approving a Retail RPS
Policy on September 24, 2004. The Order presented the PSC's renewable energy policy. The
Order identified targets and procedures to achieve an increase in renewable energy used in the
State to at least 25 percent by the year 2013. The Project will facilitate compliance with this PSC
order by providing over 79 MW of energy generation capacity. The Project adds to the
diversification of the state’s sources of power generation and addresses increasing power demand
through the use of a clean and renewable natural resource (wind). This Project will displace
generation from some of the older and dirtier energy generation plants found in New York State.
The SLW Project also supports compliance with Executive Order 111, issued by Governor
George Pataki on June 10, 2001. The Executive Order requires all New York State agencies to
purchase 10 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable sources. Wind power projects
such as the SLW Project offset energy from other energy generating polluting sources. Electric
generation is the leading industrial source of air emissions in New York State. Wind energy
generating plants offset or decrease the amount of fuel being burned at other energy generating
plants such as coal or natural gas. The NYSERDA study found that wind energy production in
New York State displaces 4.1 million tons of carbon dioxide, 9,900 tons of sulfur dioxide, and
3,800 tons of nitrogen oxides that would be emitted by other energy generating plants. Wind
energy does not require mining, drilling or transportation of fuel, nor does it generate radioactive
or other hazardous wastes. To generate the same amount of electricity as a single 1.5 MW wind
turbine for a lifespan of 20 years would require burning 80,000 pounds of coal or 126,000 barrels
of oil.
At a national level, the U.S. Department of Energy Draft Strategic Energy Plan (September
2006) promotes America’s energy security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy as its
primary strategic theme. This Plan prioritizes reducing the growing national demand for fossil
6-2
001565
fuel based energy sources, many of which are imported from foreign countries, and promotes the
development of alternative energy as a key means to reverse this long-term trend.
At the international level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (February, 2007)
summarized the physical science basis for documented climate change. Based on broadening
scientific evidence, this report concludes that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”
and that man-made greenhouse gases caused by fossil fuel based energy sources are a significant
contributor to this increasing warming trend. In addition, such findings have prompted the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol to establish
global emission reduction targets. Increasing the use of pollution-free renewable energy, such as
wind energy, to replace existing sources that contribute polluting greenhouse gases is integral to
achieving these established pollution reduction goals, thereby reducing global warming
In today’s volatile energy market with an ever-increasing public demand for cleaner energy
production, wind energy is a good hedge against pollution and inflation of electricity prices.
Upon construction completion, wind energy provides a known cost of energy production that is
not susceptible to changes in fossil fuel availability or transportation costs. Wind power reduces
the demand for, and therefore the price of, natural gas and oil.
6-3
001566
7.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

The following alternatives to the proposed action are described and evaluated in this section: no
action, alternative project location, alternative energy production technologies, alternative
turbine technology, alternative project design/layout, and alternative project size/magnitude.
These alternatives offer a potential range and scope of development that could reasonably be
undertaken by the Applicant for comparative analysis and consideration. The “no action”
alternative, which is required for consideration under SEQRA, represents the environmental
conditions that would exist if current land use and activities were to continue as is. In addition,
several potential alternate routes for the electric transmission interconnection also are evaluated
in this section.
7.1 No Action Alternative

SEQRA requires consideration of the “no action” alternative. In the case of the Project, the “no
action” alternative assumes that the Project area would continue as active agricultural land,
forest, and rural residential property. The “no action” alternative would have no impact on
current land use or zoning. It would maintain environmental, socioeconomic and energy-
generating conditions as they currently exist.
If the “no action” alternative were selected, no wind energy generating facility and ancillary
Project facilities would be built in the Project area. As a result, none of the minor environmental
impacts associated with Project construction and operation would occur.
Conversely, if the “no action” alternative were selected, no socioeconomic benefits would accrue
to the area. The local economy and community would not benefit from income from construction
jobs, lease payments to the landowners, annual tax revenues or PILOT payments.
Also, if the “no action” alternative were selected, lands that would be protected by Project
construction and operation might be lost to development projects that more negatively impact the
local community and environment by destruction of land by housing and industry development.
These types of development would be much more destructive of native grasslands and local
agricultural production and would more severely impact natural resources such as available clean
water and air, thereby, possibly impacting the popular tourist industry found in the area.
In addition, if the “no action” alternative were selected, the benefits of adding 79.5 MW of clean,
renewable energy to New York State's energy mix would be lost. There would be no offset of the
State's reliance on fossil-fuel-fired generators, which contribute to acid rain, smog, greenhouse
gases, and other environmental problems.
7-1
001567
If the “no action” alternative were selected, other Project benefits would also be lost, such as lost
potential tourism to the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. Consequently, given the short-term
and relatively minor nature of anticipated impacts of the Project, and the significant economic
benefits that the Project would generate, the “no action” alternative is not a preferred alternative.
7.2 Alternative Project Location

Under 6 NYCRR § 617.9(b)(5)(v)(g), site alternatives addressed in an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) may be limited to parcels owned by, or under option to, a private project
sponsor. SLW does not own, or have under option, parcels other than the ones that constitute the
Project Site and the route for the transmission interconnection. Therefore, there is no
requirement to evaluate any alternative Project locations other than the Project Site.
Nonetheless, this section provides background information on SLW’s selection of the Project
Site to facilitate understanding of the criteria that SLW employed.
Alternative site location analysis occurs very early in the planning process for wind power
projects. Because sites suitable for wind energy development in New York are limited, there is a
great deal of competition among companies for potential development sites. In order to secure
the right to develop in an area, a developer must obtain adequate land control and expend
considerable funds in transmission, meteorological, and environmental studies. This requires a
significant expenditure of limited financial and human resources. Therefore, a careful screening
process is employed.
The selection of wind farm locations is affected by several factors which allow a project to
operate in a technically and economically viable manner. These factors include the following
primary criteria:
x Adequate wind speeds to support a viable project;
x Proximity to a transmission line that can transport energy generated by a project;
x Ability to build a project in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and
regulations; and
x Ability to build a project without significant adverse environmental and socioeconomic
impacts.
SLW’s evaluation demonstrated that the proposed Project Site satisfies all of these criteria:
x Adequate wind speeds to support an economic project: SLW evaluated the wind
resource in the Project Area using computer models that combined wind resource data
from meteorological towers in the Project Area, long-term weather data, topography, and
7-2
001568
environmental factors. This evaluation demonstrated that the wind resource in the Project
Area is suitable to support an economically viable project. Wind turbines create
turbulence, or wake, immediately downstream of the rotor. Wake can interfere with the
operation of neighboring wind turbines, creating extra wear and tear, and decreasing their
efficiency for producing electricity. Using computer models, SLW ensured that turbines
were spaced correctly so as to avoid wake losses and turbulence and optimize energy
creation.
x Proximity to a transmission line that can transport energy generated by a project:
The Project would be interconnected with the 115 kV transmission line owned by
National Grid in the Town of Lyme. The System Reliability Impact Study of the Project
approved by the NYISO demonstrated that the transmission line and downstream
interconnected transmission system are adequate to accept and reliably transport the
energy generated by the Project.
x Ability to build a project in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws
and regulations: As demonstrated in this SDEIS and in SLW’s application to the
Planning Board for site plan review, the Project will meet all of the following setbacks
required by the Planning Board of Cape Vincent:
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.
The turbine buffers minimize the visual and sound effects of the turbines on local residences.
The turbine locations were also selected to maintain a minimum buffer from existing road rights-
of-way. The minimum buffer, as measured from the centerline of the tower foundation, is at least
615 feet from all roads.
x Ability to build a project without significant adverse environmental and
socioeconomic impacts: As demonstrated in this SDEIS, the Project will not have
significant adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts, and, in fact, will have
positive socioeconomic impacts.
Few other areas in the State of New York have as strong and reliable wind as the mouth of the
St. Lawrence River. This, in combination with the sparse population, and dominant agricultural
and managed land use, make the Project Area in Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme suitable for
development of a large-scale wind power project.
7-3
001569
Various Project layout alternatives were considered and rejected during the Project siting process
(see Section 7.4, below). The proposed Project layout (see Figure 2-1) is the result of an iterative
meteorological, environmental, social, and engineering analysis of the best locations for Project
facilities in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. The current Project layout is sited so as to
maximize the productivity of the proposed wind energy project by using the most energetic
(windy) sites along with the land where wind turbines would have the least environmental or
residential impact. Areas to the north and west are within prohibited municipal districts and a
significantly greater extent of wetlands near the coast of Lake Ontario (west) and the St.
Lawrence River (north), as well as greater population densities (Village of Cape Vincent) to the
north. Thus, relocating the Project elsewhere within the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme would
reduce its economic viability, and potentially increase its environmental and socioeconomic
impacts.
7.3 Assessment of Alternate Electric Generation Technologies

The purpose of the proposed action is to create a commercial-scale wind-powered electrical-
generating facility which will provide a significant source of renewable energy to the New York
power grid. An important component of that purpose is to be compliant with the Public Service
Commission (PSC) "Order Approving Renewable Portfolio Standard Policy", issued on the 24th
of September 2004. This Order calls for NYSERDA to purchase renewable energy attributes
from qualifying facilities to spur an increase in renewable energy used in the state to 25 percent
by the year 2013. SLW proposes to construct a facility that generates electricity by converting
the energy in the wind to electricity. Such a facility is clearly a qualifying facility for the
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), and therefore eligible to bid to receive payment from
NYSERDA for up to 95 percent of the renewable energy attributes it produces. Other electric
generating technologies are not reasonable alternatives to the Project because they would not
fulfill the Project’s purpose of generating electric power through the use of wind energy.
The types of wind turbine generators considered for this Project were all MW-class, three-
bladed, upwind designs with proven track records. These types of wind turbines have been the
most reliable and commercially viable types for use in utility scale wind energy projects.
Turbine sizes ranged from 1.5 MW with 77 meter rotor diameters to 3.0 MW and 100 meter
rotor diameters. SLW rejected the turbines below 1.5 MW or above 3 MW due to limited
availability in the marketplace, or unfavorable pricing/economics in the current timeframe. SLW
also rejected turbine technologies other than three-bladed upwind designs because they either are
largely unproven in commercial projects of similar output to the proposed Project (e.g., vertical
axis turbines), or have poor track records in commercial use (e.g., downwind turbines). SLW
chose the 1.5 MW Acciona AW-82/1500 turbines manufactured by Acciona Windpower, S.A.
7-4
001570
Each turbine will consist of a 262-foot (80-meter) conical, tubular steel tower; a 269-foot (82-
meter) rotor consisting of three composite blades; and a nacelle, which houses the generator,
gearbox, and power train as shown in Exhibit 2.5.1. The towers are slightly tapered, with
diameter of approximately 20 feet at ground level. This turbine combines reduced sound impacts,
while enabling full available potential transmission capacity given all the constraints
The final choice of turbine was influenced by two additional factors:
x Cost of Energy – Various model turbines perform differently in different conditions. A

project location's meteorological characteristics, such as wind speed, density, distribution
and shear, is a critical factor in the selection of one type of turbine over another. The 82-
meter rotor, 1.5 MW turbine selected by SLW is well-adapted for the meteorological
characteristics of the Project Site because it maximizes capture of the wind on the St.
Lawrence site and therefore maximize energy production and efficiency. This turbine
selection also optimizes the site’s production potential considering all other factors
including setbacks and environmental constraints while minimizing the number of
turbines required to achieve an economically viable level of production. The AW82 is
also well suited to the site given its low voltage ride through capabilities. This
characteristic enhances grid reliability compared to turbines that do not have this feature.
x Turbine Availability – Because of the recent public support for generating homegrown,
clean, renewable energy, there has been a shortage of all MW class, three-bladed, upwind
turbines, which has created uncertainties and/or long delays in the availability of
particular turbine models. The selected Acciona turbine is commercially available within
the time frame necessary to support the Project schedule.
7.4 Alternative Turbine Technology

The capacity to generate MWs is largely a function of rotor blade length, and productivity is
directly related to the size of the rotor swept area. Longer bladed turbines are relatively more
productive. Multi-megawatt class turbines also result in lower energy prices than sub-megawatt-
class turbines. As previously indicated, the 1.5 MW turbine was selected by SLW because it is
well-adapted for the meteorological characteristics of the Project Site and generates enough
energy to allow for an economically viable project.
In terms of other Project components, the Project is using tubular steel, guyed-wire towers
instead of lattice meteorological towers. These preferred structures are believed to reduce
potential avian and bat collision impacts and have fewer visual and agricultural land impacts.
7-5
001571
7.5 Alternative Project Design/Layout

SLW has analyzed several different project configurations since submittal of the DEIS. Each
version incorporated major or minor adjustments based on the criteria outlined below. While
many criteria are evaluated in designing a project layout, the primary siting criteria considered
included:
x Availability of adequate wind resource;
x Setbacks requirements for homes, structures, roads, property lines;
x Spacing between turbines to minimize turbulence effects and maximize power
production;
x Compliance with agricultural protection measures;
x Avoidance of unstable land forms and other engineering constraints;
x Avoidance of environmental and cultural resources;
x Sensitivity to viewshed and noise issues; and
x Landowner preferences.
Initial Project layout iterations were based on desktop analyses evaluating constraint information
and wind resource data. These configurations contained significantly more turbines than the
current layout and were refined after incorporating data from initial environmental field surveys
and engineering constraints. Subsequent iterations of the layout addressed the results of wetland
and stream delineations, meteorological modeling, setback requirements provided by the Cape
Vincent Planning Board, additional data provided by environmental field surveys, and landowner
acceptability. Subsequent iterations of the layout minimized environmental impacts or adjusted
for engineering constraints, while striving to achieve energy efficiency and economic viability.
The final revised Project layout represents the least environmental impacts of all the alternatives
evaluated. Optimal turbine configuration for energy production has been modified by landowner
agreements/considerations, public involvement, and recognition of the need to protect sensitive
resources such as forest habitat, wetlands, and agricultural land. Movement of turbines in one
location could result in increased impact in another location and/or reduced power generation. In
the case of visual impact, removal or relocation of one to several individual turbines from a 53-
turbine layout is unlikely to result in a significant change in project visibility and visual impact
from most locations. As a result, alternative project designs were likely to pose equal or greater
risk of adverse environmental, engineering, or community acceptability impacts and thus were
rejected.
7-6
001572
7.6 Alternative Project Scale and Magnitude

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC has invested significant time and resources in determining the
optimal project configuration. The current Project design consisting of 53 Acciona Windpower
1.5MW wind turbines minimizes potential environmental effects while maintaining an
economically viable project. Initially, SLW proposed a larger project (96 turbines) and
associated project components as described in the DEIS. As discussed throughout previous
sections of this SDEIS, SLW has reduced the Project’s scale (53 turbines) to more effectively
mitigate impacts on sensitive environmental, agricultural, and cultural resources, while achieving
a reasonable balance with the desired energy production goals that ensure economic viability.
The same factors that make the Project Site desirable were considered in siting individual
turbines. Individual turbines were sited in a manner that sought to minimize or avoid adverse
environmental impacts while maximizing the utilization of wind resources and, as a result, the
commercial viability of the proposed Project. The proposed wind turbines and associated
facilities on the site have been located so as to minimize loss of active agricultural land and/or
interference with agricultural operations. Turbines have also been sited to minimize impacts to
forests, wetlands, adjacent landowners and local municipal districts (e.g., Riverfront, Lake).
The proposed Project layout has been designed to maximize use of the area’s high wind energy,
while minimizing wake effects on downwind turbines and adverse environmental impacts.
Location of turbines and associated facilities reflects input and recommendations provided by
project ecological, visual, and noise consultants, as well as agency personnel who have visited
the site (e.g., Cape Vincent Planning Board, New York State Department of Agriculture &
Markets, NYSDEC, and USACE). The proposed layout represents the culmination of an iterative
process that considers numerous constraints and results in a balance of energy production and
environmental protection.
The proposed 53-turbine alternative described in this SDEIS and the 96-turbine alternative
described in the DEIS are summarized in Table 7-1. Overall, the construction, both temporary
and permanent, and operational footprints for the 53-turbine alternative are smaller and would
result in fewer environmental impacts. The 53-turbine alternative results in a 45 percent turbine
density reduction and decreased impacts to wetlands, surface waters, water quality, grasslands,
wildlife habitat, and viewshed. Further reductions in the Project’s electrical generation output
would undermine the economic viability of the Project.
7-7
001573
Table 7-1
Summary of Impacts
Resource 53-Turbine Alternative 96-Turbine Alternative No Action
Geology, Topography, and x The Project area encompasses 7,849 acres. x The Project area encompasses 9,000 acres. No impacts expected.
Soils x Construction of 53 turbine, 14.4 miles of gravel access roads, x Construction of 96 turbine, 29 miles of gravel access roads, 44
37.1 miles of underground interconnect cables, 8.9 mile miles of underground interconnect cables, 9 mile overhead
overhead transmission line, two electrical substations, and an transmission line, two electrical substations, and an operations
operations and maintenance building may result in minor and maintenance building may result in minor impacts to
impacts to existing drainage patterns existing drainage patterns
Water/Wetland Resources x Possible temporary impacts (erosion/sedimentation) during x Possible temporary impacts (erosion/sedimentation) during No impacts expected.
construction could result from clearing and grading near construction could result from clearing and grading near
streams and wetlands. streams and wetlands.
x Two (2) surface water bodies and 42 wetland, will be crossed x Fifty-one (51) surface water bodies and nine (9) wetlands will
by Project interconnect and transmission line. be crossed by Project interconnect and transmission line.
x Construction and operation of the Project will result in: x Construction and operation of the Project will result in:
o temporary disturbance of 1.67 acres of wetlands o temporary disturbance of 14.8 acres of wetlands
o permanent fill of 0.33 acres of wetlands o no permanent fill of wetlands
o conversion of 0.34 acres of forested wetlands to non- o conversion of 9.2 acres of forested wetlands to non-
forested wetland cover forested wetland cover
x Minimal to no impact to groundwater quality. x Minimal to no impact to groundwater quality.
Biological Resources x Construction may result in the development of 41 acres of x Construction may result in the development of 98 acres of No impacts expected.
agricultural land and 0.6 acres of forested land. agricultural land and 14 acres of forested land.
x Seventeen (17) acres of forested land in the 100-ft x Sixty-eight (68) acres of forested land in the 120-ft
transmission line right-of-way will be converted to herbaceous transmission line right-of-way will be converted to herbaceous
and open shrub cover. and open shrub cover.
x Minor temporary impacts to wildlife associated with x Minor temporary impacts to wildlife associated with
construction of the Project would be limited to clearing of construction of the Project would be limited to clearing of
forested habitat to widen the buffer corridor along the forested habitat to widen the buffer corridor along the
overhead transmission line right-of-way and within small overhead transmission line right-of-way and within small
portions of the lay-down area for 6 of the 53 turbines. portions of the lay-down area for 16 of the 96 turbines.
x There may be minor temporary impacts to bird nesting areas x There may be minor temporary impacts to bird nesting areas
during construction by clearing and construction work in open during construction by clearing and construction work in open
nesting and foraging habitat. nesting and foraging habitat.
x Approximately 17 acres (<1 acre will be permanently cleared) x Approximately 82 acres (14 acres will be permanently cleared)
of second growth deciduous forest would be cleared for of second growth deciduous forest would be cleared for
Project components, which will result in temporary and Project components, which will result in temporary and
permanent minor habitat loss for some forest-nesting avian permanent minor habitat loss for some forest-nesting avian
species. species.
7-8
001574
Table 7-1
Summary of Impacts
Biological Resources x Displacement of mobile wildlife to adjacent undisturbed areas. x Displacement of mobile wildlife to adjacent undisturbed areas.
(continued) x Avian mortality is likely to be in the range of 122 to 509 birds/ x Avian mortality is likely to be in the range of 221 to 922 birds/
year. year.
x Raptor mortality is likely to be in the range of 1 and 15 x Raptor mortality is likely to be in the range of 7 to 28
raptors/year. raptors/year.
x Bat mortality is likely to be in the range of 180 to 2,454 bats/ x Bat mortality is likely to be in the range of 326 to 4,445 bats/
year. year.
x Individual Indiana and small-footed myotis bats or colonies x Individual Indiana and small-footed myotis bats or colonies
have been documented within approximately 15 miles of the have been documented within approximately 15 miles of the
proposed Project. proposed Project.
Transportation x Traffic delays and road closures due to transportation x Traffic delays and road closures due to transportation No impacts are expected.
improvements or construction traffic. Construction is improvements or construction traffic. Construction is
anticipated to be completed in 9 months. anticipated to be completed in 15 to 18 months.
x Potential impacts to traffic and the transportation system x Potential impacts to traffic and the transportation system
limited to activities that would occur during construction only. limited to activities that would occur during only.
x Transportation infrastructure improvements required to x Transportation infrastructure improvements required to
accommodate construction needs. accommodate construction needs.
x Temporary relocation of overhead lines and other facilities may x Temporary relocation of overhead lines and other facilities may
be required to accommodate oversize vehicles used during the be required to accommodate oversize vehicles used during the
construction of the Project. construction of the Project.
x Traffic may increase over local roads during construction. x Traffic may increase over local roads during construction.
x Fugitive dust from Project construction activities is possible. x Fugitive dust from Project construction activities is possible.
Land use and zoning x Sixty (60) working farms and 60 percent of the area is x One hundred two (102) working farms and 75 percent of the Land in Project area would
designated as prime farmland or farmland of statewide area is designated as prime farmland or farmland of statewide be subject to other types
importance. importance. of development.
x Temporary disturbance of 425 acres of agricultural land and x Temporary disturbance of 191 acres of agricultural land and
permanent conversion of 41 acres of agricultural land; permanent conversion of 98 acres of agricultural land;
however, set back constraints preserve surrounding land use however, set back constraints preserve surrounding land use
for the life of the Project. for the life of the Project.
Cultural and Visual Resources x Construction and operation of the Project will not affect NRHP x Construction and operation of the Project could affect NRHP No impacts expected.
archaeological resources. archaeological resources.
x Turbine tip height of 390.5 feet. x Turbine tip height of 425 feet.
x Visual effects that may result in a change to the local rural x Visual effects that may result in a change to the local rural
setting and/or character. setting and/or character.
x One or more proposed turbines will be visible from x One or more proposed turbines will be visible from
7-9
001575
Table 7-1
Summary of Impacts
Cultural and Visual Resources approximately 68 percent of the five-mile radius study area. approximately 67 percent of the five-mile radius study area.
(continued) x Fifty-six (56) visually sensitive resources have a potential view x Sixty-seven (67) visually sensitive resources have a potential
of the proposed Project. view of the proposed Project.
x One hundred eighty-six (186) residences located within 10 x One hundred ninety-seven (197) residences located within 10
rotor diameters could experience some degree of shadow rotor diameters could experience some degree of shadow
flicker. flicker.
x None of the 186 studied shadow receptors would be affected x Thirty-five (35) of the 197 studied shadow receptors would be
more than 30 hours per year. affected more than 30 hours per year.
x Required aviation warning lights (USDOT – FAA) on the x Required aviation warning lights (USDOT – FAA) on the
turbines could present a potential adverse visual impact from turbines could present a potential adverse visual impact from
some viewing locations. some viewing locations.
x In some open elevated areas within the landscape, it is x In some open elevated areas within the landscape, it is
possible that large portions of the Project would be visible. possible that large portions of the Project would be visible.
Air Quality x Temporary minor adverse impacts to air quality may result x Temporary minor adverse impacts to air quality may result No impacts expected;
from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. however, no benefits
x It is estimated that annual reductions of air pollutants would be x It is estimated that annual reductions of air pollutants would be would be realized.
87 tons of nitrogen oxides and 313 tons of sulfur dioxides. 669 tons of nitrogen oxides and 236 tons of sulfur dioxides.
x The proposed project will offset approximately 73,085 tons of x The proposed project will offset approximately 158, 576 tons of
carbon dioxide annually. carbon dioxide annually.
Noise x The proposed Project would generate noise during and after x The proposed Project would generate noise during and after No impacts expected.
construction construction
x Construction noise would include noise generated during the x Construction noise would include noise generated during the
transport of project materials and equipment, and the transport of project materials and equipment, and the
installation of project components. installation of project components.
x Construction activities at turbine sites will result in sound levels x During operation, approximately 48 residences would have a
substantially below 80 dBA at any homes due to the setback nominal Project sound level slightly above the potential impact
distance of at least 1,000 feet. threshold of 6dBh over the estimated ambient 42 dBA
x During operation, three (3) residences would have a nominal
Project sound level slightly above the potential impact
threshold of 6dBh over the estimated ambient 42 dBA
Telecommunications x There are no impacts to television signal coverage during x There are no impacts to television signal coverage during No impacts expected.
Project construction and operation. Project construction and operation.
x It is unlikely that the Project would impact government x It is unlikely that the Project would impact government
communications. communications.
7-10
001576
Table 7-1
Summary of Impacts
Safety and Security x There is a remote possibility that ice shed from turbines could x There is a remote possibility that ice shed from turbines could No impacts expected.
cause personal or property injury. cause personal or property injury.
x There is a remote possibility that tower collapse or turbine x There is a remote possibility that tower collapse or turbine
failure could cause personal or property injury. failure could cause personal or property injury.
x Potential to create stray voltage if the electrical system is both x Potential to create stray voltage if the electrical system is both
poorly grounded and located near underground or poorly poorly grounded and located near underground or poorly
grounded metal objects. grounded metal objects.
x Due to height and materials used to construct, the wind x Due to height and materials used to construct, the wind
turbines are susceptible to lightning strikes. The Project, by turbines are susceptible to lightning strikes. The Project, by
the nature of the physical dimensions, may present response the nature of the physical dimensions, may present response
difficulties to local emergency responders should a fire occur difficulties to local emergency responders should a fire occur
within a structure. within a structure.
x Storage and use of diesel fuels, lubricating oils, and hydraulic x Storage and use of diesel fuels, lubricating oils, and hydraulic
fluids within the Project boundary may create the potential for fluids within the Project boundary may create the potential for
fire or medical emergencies. fire or medical emergencies.
7-11
001577
7.7 Alternative Transmission Line Routing

The following routing alternatives for the 115 kV transmission line have been evaluated:
x Placement within the abandoned railroad ROW
x Placement adjacent to the abandoned railroad ROW
x Underground placement of the 115 kV line in sensitive resources
All alternatives originate at a collector substation located on Swamp Road and would connect to
an existing substation in the Town of Lyme, owned and operated by National Grid. The point of
interconnect would be located on the east side of County Road 179. All alternatives would also
require crossing the Chaumont River.
Most transmission lines have three conductors. Aboveground conductors are un-insulated
bundles of wire suspended on poles or towers. Separation between lines ranges between four to
24 feet depending on line voltage. Open air circulating between and around the conductors cools
the wires and dissipates the heat that is generated by the current passing through the conductors.
The air also prevents power from flashing over to ground eliminating the need for insulation.
Underground transmission lines are generally placed in pipes, ducts, or conduits buried in the
earth, and typically are placed four to five feet underground. In place of natural air circulation
and spacing, other methods are used to insulate the conductors from their surroundings and each
other, and to dissipate heat. There are several types of underground transmission lines. They are
classified by the need for piping and the type of insulation. The main types are:
x High-pressure, fluid-filled pipe (HPFF)
x High-pressure, gas-filled pipe (HPGF)
x Self-contained fluid-filled (SCFF)
x Cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE)
High pressure fluid-filled (HPFF) types are the most common in the United States. Self-
contained fluid filled (SCFF) types are the least common and least likely to be used in northern
New York due to climate.
There are different advantages and disadvantages for underground transmission lines. When
compared with overhead transmission lines, underground lines produce fewer post-construction
impacts. However, in general, as compared to overhead lines, underground lines have greater
construction impacts, cost significantly more, and have operational limitations.
7-12
001578
7.7.1 Alternative 1 – Above Ground Placement within the abandoned railroad ROW
This alternative consists of an approximately 9-mile, 100-foot wide construction ROW and a 17-
foot wide permanently maintained ROW. The transmission line will be constructed in an existing
abandoned railroad ROW for approximately 7.5 miles, 85 percent of its entire length. At the
hamlet of Chaumont, the route turns to the northeast, approximately 750 feet north Old Town
Spring Road for approximately 0.5-mile before turning southeast and crossing the Chaumont
River. The entire length of this alternative is above ground. Exhibit 7.7.1 shows the route for
Alternative 1.
The construction right-of-way will be cleared and grubbed. The construction right-of-way will
serve as access for construction vehicles. Additional access to the work area will include use of
existing farm roads and drives. Single trees or small clusters of trees within the proposed ROW
will be avoided and will not require removal. Tree clearing adjacent to the transmission line will
be limited to “danger trees” associated with the electric transmission line conductors. “Danger
trees” adjacent to the transmission line that pose a threat to the reliability of the overhead line
include trees that could fall or strike the conductors and take the transmission line out of service.
These trees will be selectively cut by hand (i.e., non-mechanized clearing) to avoid heavy
equipment access and adverse impacts to adjacent wetlands.
An existing Development Authority of the North Country (DANC) water line (the Western
Jefferson County Regional Water Line) is located within the existing abandoned railroad ROW.
The above ground siting of the transmission line will use setbacks from the water line to avoid
disruption. The Applicant will work with DANC to identify exact locations of the water line,
weight restrictions for working on and around the water line and appropriate setbacks. The
setbacks will be based on several factors including industry standards and DANC requirements.
Siting will also consider OHSA requirements for working setbacks around transmission lines in
the event DANC needs to work on the water line during the operation of the wind farm.
7.7.2 Alternative 2 – Above Ground Placement adjacent to the abandoned railroad ROW
This alternative consists of an approximately 9-mile, 100-foot wide construction ROW
constructed approximately 200 feet from the existing abandoned railroad ROW. Approximately
two-thirds of the ROW would be north of the abandoned railroad ROW and one-third would be
south of the abandoned railroad ROW. The route would cross the abandoned railroad ROW at
Merchant Road (a.k.a. Gibbons Road). At the hamlet of Chaumont, the route turns to the
northeast, approximately 750 feet north Old Town Spring Road for approximately 0.5-mile
7-13
001579
before turning southeast and crossing the Chaumont River. The permanently maintained ROW
will be 17 feet wide. The entire length of this alternative is above ground. Exhibit 7.7.2 shows
the route for Alternative 2.
Exhibit 7.7.1 - Alternative 1 – Above Ground Placement Within the Abandoned Railroad ROW
7-14
001580
Exhibit 7.7.2 - Alternative 2 – Above Ground Placement Adjacent to the Abandoned Railroad ROW
7-15
001581
7.7.3 Alternative 3 – Underground placement of the 115 kV line in sensitive resources

This alternative consists of an approximately 9-mile, 100-foot wide ROW constructed
approximately 200 feet from the existing abandoned railroad ROW. Approximately two-thirds
of the ROW would be north of the abandoned railroad ROW and one-third would be south of the
abandoned railroad ROW. The route would cross the abandoned railroad ROW at Merchant
Road (a.k.a. Gibbons Road). At the hamlet of Chaumont, the route turns to the northeast,
approximately 750 feet north Old Town Spring Road for approximately 0.5-mile before turning
southeast and crossing the Chaumont River. The permanently maintained ROW will be 17 feet
wide. Unlike the adjacent alternative (Alternative 2), approximately 2.3 miles of this alternative
would be placed underground to avoid sensitive resources (i.e., surface water bodies and
wetlands, and Ashland Wildlife Management Area). Exhibit 7.7.3 shows the route for
Alternative 3.
7.7.4 Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1 (above ground placement within the abandoned railroad ROW) is the
environmentally preferred alternative. As discussed in Table 7-2, impacts to Geology,
Topography, and Soils; Transportation; Land Use and Zoning; Air Quality; Noise;
Telecommunications; and Safety and Security will be similar for the three alternatives
considered. However, Alternative 1 avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts, to the
maximum extent practicable, to Biological Resources and Archeological Resources. The least
amount of forested cover will be temporarily disturbed and permanently converted to
shrub/herbaceous cover under Alternative 1, because even though an underground line
(Alternative 3) is hidden from view, its ROW must be cleared and maintained in an unforested
state. Alternative 1 will also result in fewer impacts to surface water bodies and wetlands than
Alternative 2. While Alternative 1 may result in slightly greater impacts to water bodies than
Alternative 3, Alternative 3 leaves the potential for unanticipated discharges into the Chaumont
River due to fluid or sealant seepage/blowout through fractures during directional drilling; in
addition, the Project’s proposed mitigation will result in a net positive impact on wetland
acreage. Visual impacts will be similar for Alternatives 1 and 2 and reduced for those
underground portions of the ROW. No impacts to archeological sites are anticipated for
Alternatives 1 and 2; however, there is the potential for disturbance of sites in the underground
segments of the transmission line. In addition, Alternatives 1 or 2 are the only economically
feasible alternatives since underground lines are considerably more costly and environmentally
invasive than overhead lines. As a rule of thumb, the installed cost for 115 kV underground line
will be about four to six times more than 115 kV above ground line.
7-16
001582
Exhibit 7.7.3 - Alternative 3– Underground Placement of the 115 kV line in Sensitive Resources
7-17
001583
Table 7-2
Summary of Electrical Transmission Routing Impacts
Resource Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Preferred – Above Ground Transmission Above Ground Transmission Line Adjacent Underground Transmission Line
Line in Abandoned Railroad ROW to Abandoned Railroad ROW
Geology, Topography, x Nine (9)-mile overhead transmission line x Nine (9)-mile overhead transmission line x Nine (9)-mile transmission line, with 6.7
and Soils and electrical substations may result in and electrical substations may result in miles above ground and 2.3 miles
temporary erosion and sedimentation, and temporary erosion and sedimentation, and underground and electrical substations will
minor impacts to existing drainage minor impacts to existing drainage result in displacement of soils during
patterns. patterns. excavation and maintenance of horizontal
bore.
Water/Wetland x Possible temporary impacts (erosion/ x Possible temporary impacts (erosion/ x Possible temporary impacts (erosion/
Resources sedimentation) during construction could sedimentation) during construction could sedimentation) during construction could
result from clearing and grading within result from clearing and grading within result from clearing and grading near
ROW ROW streams and wetlands.
x Seven (7) streams, 20 wetlands, one pond x Seven (7) streams, 20 wetlands, one pond x Wetland and stream impacts avoided.
will be crossed by the transmission line. will be crossed by the transmission line. x Negligible impact to groundwater quality
x Construction and operation of the x Construction and operation of the x Potential for discharges into the River, due
transmission will temporarily affect 1.7 transmission will temporarily affect 11.8 to fluid or sealant seepage/blowout
acres of wetlands. Less than one acre acres of wetlands. Approximately 4.2 through fractures
(0.34 acre) of forested wetlands will be acres of forested wetlands will be
permanently converted to non-forested permanently converted to non-forested
wetland cover. wetland cover.
x Negligible impact to groundwater quality x Negligible impact to groundwater quality
Biological Resources x Approximately 17 acres of second growth x Approximately 27 acres of second growth x Approximately 18 acres of second growth
deciduous forest would be cleared for deciduous forest would be cleared for deciduous forest would be cleared for
ROW, resulting in temporary and ROW, resulting in temporary and ROW, resulting in temporary and
permanent minor habitat loss for some permanent minor habitat loss for some permanent minor habitat loss for some
forest-nesting avian species. forest-nesting avian species. forest-nesting avian species
x Less than one acre (0.34 acre) of forested x Five (5) acres of forested land in the 100-ft x Three (3) acres of forested land in the
land in the 100-ft transmission line ROW transmission line ROW will be converted 100-ft transmission line ROW will be
will be converted to open shrub cover. to open shrub cover. converted to open shrub cover.
x Minor temporary displacement of wildlife x Minor temporary displacement of wildlife x Minor temporary displacement of wildlife
associated with clearing within the ROW. associated with clearing within the ROW. associated with clearing within the ROW.
x Possible minor temporary displacement of x Possible minor temporary displacement of x Possible minor temporary displacement of
nesting birds during construction in open nesting birds during construction in open nesting birds during construction in open
nesting and foraging habitat. nesting and foraging habitat. nesting and foraging habitat.
7-18
001584
Table 7-2
Biological Resources x Individual Indiana and small-footed myotis x Individual Indiana and small-footed myotis x Individual Indiana and small-footed myotis
(continued) bats or colonies have been documented bats or colonies have been documented bats or colonies have been documented
within approximately 15 miles of the within approximately 15 miles of the within approximately 15 miles of the
proposed transmission line and clearing of proposed transmission line and clearing of proposed transmission line and clearing of
forested habitat may also remove potential forested habitat may also remove potential forested habitat may also remove potential
roosting summer roosting habitat. roosting summer roosting habitat. roosting summer roosting habitat.
Transportation x Improvements to local roads and x Improvements to local roads and x Improvements to local roads and
intersections may be required to intersections may be required to intersections may be required to
accommodate oversize vehicles used accommodate oversize vehicles used accommodate oversize vehicles used
during the construction of the ROW. during the construction of the ROW. during the construction of the ROW.
x Traffic may generally increase over local x Traffic may generally increase over local x Traffic may generally increase over local
roads during construction. roads during construction. roads during construction.
x Fugitive dust from Project construction x Fugitive dust from Project construction x Fugitive dust from Project construction
activities is possible. activities is possible. activities is possible.
Land Use and Zoning x Placement of approximately 8.6 miles of x Placement of approximately 8.6 miles of x Placement of approximately 8.6 miles of
ROW in Agricultural and Rural Residence ROW in Agricultural and Rural Residence ROW in Agricultural and Rural Residence
District, and approximately 0.3 miles in District, and approximately 0.3 miles in District, and approximately 0.3 miles in
Resort District. Resort District Resort District
x Placement of approximately 0.41 miles of x Placement of approximately 0.41 miles of x Placement of approximately 0.41 miles of
ROW within state designated Coastal ROW within state designated Coastal ROW within state designated Coastal
Zone. Zone. Zone.
x SLW has secured property agreements for x SLW has not secured property x SLW has not secured property
this route. agreements for this route. agreements for this route.
Cultural and Visual x Approximately 9 miles above ground. x Approximately 9 miles above ground. x Approximately 6.7 miles above ground.
Resources x Placement of approximately 150 wooden x Placement of approximately 150 wooden x Placement of approximately 120 wooden
monopole structures, approximately 68 to monopole structures, approximately 68 to monopole structures, approximately 68 to
75 feet in height. 75 feet in height. 75 feet in height.
x From some vantage points the proposed x From some vantage points the proposed x From some vantage points the proposed
transmission line will be visible in the transmission line will be visible in the transmission line will be visible in the
distance across open fields. distance across open fields. distance across open fields.
x The proposed transmission line will be x The proposed transmission line will be x Avoids visual impacts over the Chaumont
visible from the Chaumont River, the visible from the Chaumont River, the River, and within the Ashland Flats Wildlife
Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area, Ashland Flats Wildlife Management Area, Management Area.
7-19
001585
Table 7-2
Cultural and Visual and the Bay Breeze Golf Links near the and the Bay Breeze Golf Links near the x The proposed transmission line will be
Resources (continued) hamlet of Chaumont. hamlet of Chaumont. visible from the Bay Breeze Golf Links
x Consistent with surrounding area x Consistent with surrounding area near the hamlet of Chaumont
transmission lines transmission lines x Potential disturbance of archeological sites
x No impacts to archeological sites. x No impacts to archeological sites. within 2.3 mile underground segment.
Air Quality x Temporary minor adverse impacts to air x Temporary minor adverse impacts to air x Temporary minor adverse impacts to air
quality may result from the operation of quality may result from the operation of quality may result from the operation of
construction equipment and vehicles. construction equipment and vehicles. construction equipment and vehicles.
Noise x Temporary noise during construction. x Temporary noise during construction. x Temporary noise during construction.
Telecommunications x No anticipated impacts x No anticipated impacts x No anticipated impacts
Safety and Security x Storage and use of diesel fuels, lubricating x Storage and use of diesel fuels, lubricating x Storage and use of diesel fuels, lubricating
oils, and hydraulic fluids within the Project oils, and hydraulic fluids within the Project oils, and hydraulic fluids within the Project
boundary may create the potential for fire boundary may create the potential for fire boundary may create the potential for fire
or medical emergencies. or medical emergencies. or medical emergencies.
Cost x Installed cost for 115kV above ground will x Installed cost for 115kV above ground will x Installed cost for 115kV underground will
be about four to six times less than 115kV be about four to six times less than 115kV be about four to six times more than
underground underground 115kV above ground.
7-20
001586
Burying the transmission line within the abandoned railroad bed presents the greatest potential
for impacts to the water line because of trench digging. The placement of transmission lines
underground requires specific engineering construction measures to ensure the safe and reliable
operation of the line. Because a single transmission line circuit requires three wires, each must
be installed in an individual pipe or conduit. The three pipes are encapsulated in thermal concrete
and surrounded by special thermal backfill materials. These facilities require significant
trenching of at least five feet in depth and width. In addition, rocky ledges on the railroad bed
near Burnt Rock Road and other places closer to Cape Vincent would likely require blasting to
bury a transmission line. Blasting adjacent to the DANC water line poses public safety
challenges that the Project will not be able to overcome.
In addition, because the repair of failed underground lines can be costly, environmentally
disruptive and time-intensive, underground construction design often includes the installation of
a spare pipe that can be used to replace a damaged cable or pipe without reopening the entire
trench. The underground design also must accommodate a dedicated fiber optic cable for
operation of line protection and control devices, which protect the system during faults and other
anomalies.
While there are aesthetic benefits of placing transmission lines underground, those benefits are
offset by other drawbacks. In addition to cost, a key difference between underground and
overhead lines relates to repairs. It typically takes more time to locate, diagnose a problem and
repair an underground transmission line. The difference in repair time can take up to weeks or
months for underground repairs compared to hours or days for overhead lines.
The increased cost of installation, maintenance and repair combined with the more
environmentally invasive and disruptive consequences of installing larger trenches and conduits
along the entire route of the line make the underground alternative both unreasonable and
infeasible, given SLW’s capabilities and objectives, and environmentally less preferable
compared to installation of overhead facilities.
7-21
001587
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

This Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been developed pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR 617) under the direction of the Applicant, St. Lawrence
Windpower, LLC, with input from the following list of preparers. The Applicant’s lead consultant, Tetra
Tech EC, Inc., was responsible for many of the SEQRA required elements of the document.
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Acciona Energy North America Corporation

1000 The American Road 5 School Street
Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950 Coxsackie, New York 12051
Richard Delahunty Blayne Gunderman
Senior Scientist and Project Manager Environmental Manager, East Coast
(973) 630-8402 (518) 588-4672
Joseph Fischl
Senior Ecologist and SEQRA Technical Lead
(973) 630-8385
Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. Saratoga Associates, Inc.

2003 Central Avenue 443 Broadway
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
David Young Matt Allen, RLA
(307) 634-1756 Associate Principal
(518) 587-2550
TRC Environmental Corporation Hessler Associates, Inc.

Boott Mills South 3862 Clifton Manor Place, Suite B
116 John Street Haymarket, Virginia 20169 USA
Lowell, MA 01852
David M. Hessler, P.E., INCE
Steven P. Damiano Principal Consultant
(978) 970-5600 (703) 753-1602
Nixon Peabody, LLP Comsearch

677 Broadway 19700 Janelia Farms Boulevard
10th Floor Ashburn, Virginia 20147
Albany, NY 12207
Les Polisky
Richard M. Cogen Project Manager
Partner (703) 716-5500
(518) 427-2665
8-1
001588
9.0 REFERENCES
American Wind Energy Association, 2006a. Website a. Wind Energy Fact Sheets: Comparative Air
Emissions of Wind and Other Fuels, Wind Energy and Noise, Wind Power Myths vs. Facts.
Accessed April 2006. http://www.awea.org/pubs/ factsheets.html.
American Wind Energy Association, 2006b. Wind Energy and Climate Change. Website b. Accessed
April 2006. http://www.awea.org/policy/ccwp.html.
American Wind Energy Association, 2006c. Wind Energy and the Environment. Website c. Accessed
April 2006. http://www.awea.org/faq/.
American Wind Energy Association, 2006d. Small Wind in New York. Website d. Accessed November
28, 2006. http://www.awea.org/smallwind/newyork.html.
Arnett, E.B., W. K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J.K. Fiedler, B.L. Hamilton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D.
Johnson, R.R. Koford, C. P. Nicholson, T. J. O’Connell, M.D. Piorkowski, and R.D. Tankersley, Jr.
2008. Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America. J. Wildl. Manage.
72:61–78; 2008.
Arnett, E.B., W.P. Erickson, J. Kerns, and J. Horn. 2005. Relationships Between Bats and Wind Turbines
in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: An Assessment of Fatality Search Protocols, Patterns of Fatality,
and Behavioral Interactions with Wind Turbines. Final Report prepared for the Bats and Wind Energy
Cooperative. Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. June 2005.
Avery, M., Springer, P.F., & Cassel, J.F. 1976. The effects of a tall tower on nocturnal bird migration - A
portable ceilometer study. Auk, 93, 281-291.
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power
Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute. Washington, D.C.
Barclay, R. M. R. & Kurta, A. 2007 Ecology and behavior of bats roosting in tree cavities and under bark.
In Bats in forests: conservation and management (ed. M. J. Lacki, J. P. Hayes & A. Kurta), pp. 17-59.
Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Blehert, David S., Alan C. Hicks, Melissa Behr, Carol U. Meteyer, Brenda M. Berlowski-Zier, Elizabeth
L. Buckles, Jeremy T. H. Coleman, Scott R. Darling, Andrea Gargas, Robyn Niver, Joseph C.
Okoniewski, Robert J. Rudd, Ward B. Stone. 2008. Bat White-Nose Syndrome: An Emerging
Fungal Pathogen? Science. 1095-9203 (online).
Building Code of New York State, 2002. International Code Council and New York State Department of
State.
Cadwell, D.H, 1991. Surficial Geology of New York-Adirondack Sheet, New York State Geological
Survey. Map and charts series no: 40.
Census of Agriculture, 2006. National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002 Census of Agriculture.
Accessed November 28, 2006. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_ Agriculture/index.asp.
9-1
001589
Detect, Inc., 2005. Assessment of the Data from the Avian Radar Survey at the Proposed Town of
Orleans Wind Turbine Project Site, 2005 Orleans, Massachusetts. Prepared for: Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative. December 26, 2005.
Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (editors). 2002.
Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of
Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review). New York Natural
Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
EDR, 2007. Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Horse Creek Wind Farm.
Erickson, W.P., G. D. Johnson, D. P. Young, Jr., M. D. Strickland, R.E. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay.
2002. Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality
Information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments. Publication prepared for Bonneville
Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.
Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, D.P. Young, Jr., K.J. Sernka, and R.E. Good. 2001.
Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and comparisons to Other
Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating Committee
(NWCC). 62 pp.
ERM, 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, BP Alternative Energy, Cape Vincent Wind Power
Project, December 7, 2007.
ESS Group, Inc., March 30, 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Marble River Wind Farm
Clinton and Ellenburg, New York.
Evans, R.E., 2005. Wind Turbines and Radio Frequency Interference. North American Windpower.
November 2005, pp. 16 -18.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1992. FEMA Map Service Center. Town of Cape
Vincent, Jefferson County, NY., Flood Insurance Rate Map No: 01-06, Community No: 361062C,
Map Dated; June 02, 1992, http://www.msc.fema.gov.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1993, FEMA Map Service Center. Town of Lyme,
Jefferson County, NY., Panel 41 of 50 and 50 of 50, Community No: 360343 0041C and 360343
0050C, Map Dated; September 02, 1993, http://www.msc.fema.gov.
Fleming, T.H., and P. Eby. 2003. Ecology of bat migration. Pp. 156-208 in Bat Ecology, T.H. Kunz and
M.B. Fenton, eds. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Griffin, D.R. 1970. Migrations and homing of bats. Pp. 233-264 in Biology of Bats, Vol. II, W.A.
Wimsatt, ed. New York: Academic Press.
Gutierrez, F., A.H. Cooper, and K.S. Johnson, 2008. Identification, prediction, and mitigation of sinkhole
hazards in evaporate karst areas. Environmental Geology, 53:1007-1022.
Gwin, Stephanie E., Mary E. Kentula, and Paul W. Shaffer. 1999. Evaluating the Effects of Wetland
Regulation Through Hydrogeomorphic Classification and Landscape Profiles. Wetlands 19(3):477-
489.
9-2
001590
Hawk Migration Association of North America, 2006. Hawkcount! [Online]. http://www.hawkcount.org

[December 21, 2006].
Hicks, A. 2008. White Nose Syndrome, Background and Current Status. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, 3/30/08 Update.
Higgins, K.F., R.E. Usgaard, and C.D. Dieter. 1996. Monitoring seasonal bird activity and mortality at
the Buffalo Ridge Windplant, MN. Kennetech Windpower, Inc., Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit, South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, South Dakota.
Hoen, Ben. 2006. Impacts of Windmill Visibility on Property Values in Madison County, New York.
Bard College. Accessed on January 14, 2008. Available online at:
http://www.aceny.org/pdfs/misc/Property%20Value%20Study%20Full%20Text5_24_06.pdf.
Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slbodnik. 2007. Annual report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power
Project: Postconstruction bird and bat fatality study - 2006. Final Report. Prepared for PPM Energy
and Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Maple Ridge Project Study.
Curry and Kerlinger, LLC; Syracuse NY. 76 pp
Jain, A., P. Kerlinger, R. Curry, and L. Slobodnik. 2008. Annual report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power
Project: Postconstruction bird and bat fatality study – 2006. Final report. Prepared for PPM Energy
and Horizon Energy and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Maple Ridge Project Study.
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, 2006. Jefferson County, New York Sheriff’s Department.
Accessed November 27, 2006. http://www.co.jefferson.ny.us/jefflive.nsf/ sheriff.
Johnson, G. D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, R.E. Good, and P. Becker, 2000. Avian and Bat
Mortality Associated in the Initial Phase of the Foote Creek Rim Windpower Project, Carbon County,
Wyoming: November 3, 1998-October 31, 1999. Report to SeaWest Energy Corp. and Bureau of
Land Management. A Review of Bird Mortality at Wind Development in the United States.
Johnson, G.D, 2005. A Review of Bat Mortality at Wind Energy Developments in the United States. Bat
Research News 46:45-49.
Kerns, J., and P. Kerlinger, 2004. A study of bird and bat collision fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind
Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia: Annual report for 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy and
Mountaineer Wind Energy Center Technical Review Committee.
Kerns, J.J., Young Jr., D.P., Nations, C.S., and Poulton, V.K. 2007. Avian and bat studies for the
proposed St. Lawrence Windpower Project, Jefferson County, New York. Final report prepared for
St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC., Washington, DC.
Koford, R., A. Jain, G, Zenner, A. Hancock. 2005. Avian Mortality Associated with the Top Of Iowa
Wind Farm. Progress Report, Calendar Year 2004. Technical report. Iowa Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit and Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland, R.W.
Thresher, and M.D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: Questions,
research needs and hypotheses. Front. Ecol. Environ.
9-3
001591
Kushlan, James, A., Melanie J. Steinkamp, Katharine C. Parsons, Jack Capp, Martin Acosta Cruz,
Malcolm Coulter, Ian Davidson, Loney Dickson, Naomi Edelson, Richard Elliot, R. Michael Erwin,
Scott Hatch, Stephen Kress, Robert Milko, Steve Miller, Kyra Mills, Richard Paul, Roberto Phillips,
Jorge E. Saliva, Bill Sydeman, John Trapp, Jennifer Wheeler, and Kent Wohl. 2002. Waterbird
Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1.
Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, DC, U.S.A. 78 pp.
Isachsen,Y.W, E.Landing, J.M.Lauber, L.V.Rickard, W.B.Rogers (editors), 2000. Geology of New

York: A Simplified Account, Second Edition. Educational Leaflet No. 28. 284 pp., 169 figs.,
4 pls.(Geologic Highway Map). 2000
Larkin, Ronald P., and Barbara A. Frase. 1988. Circular paths of birds flying near a broadcasting tower in
cloud. Journal of Comparative Psychology 102:90-93.
Leddy, K.L., K.F. Higgins, and D.E. Naugle, 1999. Effects of Wind Turbines on Upland Birds in
Conservation Reserve Programs. Wilson Bulletin 1111(1):100-104.
Lighthouses of Jefferson County, 2006. Lighthouses of Jefferson County, New York. Accessed
November 28, 2006. http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/3702/jefflights2. html.
Losito, M.P., 1993. Breeding ecology of female mallards in the St. Lawrence Valley, northern New York.
Ph.D Dissertation, St. Univ. of New York, Syracuse. 110pp.
McDowell,W.E., 1989, Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service, in cooperation with Cornell University Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Morgan, C., Bossanyi, E., and Seifert, H., 1998. Assessment of Safety Risks Arising from Wind Turbine
Icing. Proceeding of the International Conference, Wind Energy Production in Cold Climate,
BOREAS IV, held at Hetta, Finland, March 31–April 2. Published by Finnish Meteorological
Institute. Accessed November 27, 2006.
http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/arcticwind/boreasiv/assessment_of_safety.pdf.
Morrison, M., W. Block, M.D. Strickland, and W.L. Kendall. 2001. Wildlife study design. Springer.
New York. 210pp
National Audubon Society, 2002. The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results [Online].
http://www.audubon.org/bird/cbc [December 20, 2006].
National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC), 2005. Technical Considerations in Siting Wind
Developments. Accessed April 2006. http://www.nationalwind.org/
Nelson, H.K. and R.C. Curry. 1995. Assessing avian interactions with windplant development and
operations. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Conf., 60:266-287
New York Natural Heritage Program, 2006. Letter dated December 12, 2006 from Tata Seoane,
Information Services, NY Natural Heritage Program to Jennifer Vitella, Biologist, Tetra Tech EC,
Inc.
9-4
001592
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2000. Assessing and Mitigating Visual
Impacts, Program Policy. Albany, NY. July 31, 2000.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2001. Assessing and Mitigating Noise
Impacts, Program Policy. Albany, NY. February 2, 2001
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2004. New York State Water Quality
Section 305b Report - 2004. Appendix A - Watershed/Basin Water Quality Summaries. Accessed 4
December 2006. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ dow/bwam/305b/appa.pdf
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2006a. 2005 Annual New York State Air
Quality Report - Ambient Air Monitoring System. Albany, NY. Accessed November 2006.
www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/baqs/aqreport/
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2006b. Mined Land Database, Accessed 6
December, 2006. http://www.dec.state.ny.us.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2006c. Endangered Species Program. Bald
Eagles in the Saint Lawrence River Region. Accessed 13 December 2006.
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/eaglestl.html
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2006d. http://www.acris.

nynhp.org/guide.php.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2008. State Environmental Quality
Review, Positive Declaration, Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS, Determination of Significance,
Name of Action, Hounsfield Wind Farm, May 21, 2008. Accessed November 18, 2008.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/hounsfieldposdec.pdf
New York State Department of Health, 2006a. Jefferson County Emergency Medical Services. Accessed
November 27, 2006. http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/ems/counties/ jefferson.htm.
New York State Department of Health, 2006b. Jefferson County Hospitals. Accessed November 27,
2006. www.hospitals.nyhealth.gov.
New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, 2006. Sales and Use Tax Exemption of Clothing,
Footwear, and Items Used to Make or Repair Exempt Clothing. March 29. Accessed on November
27, 2006. http://www.tax.state.ny.us/pdf/memos/sales/m06 6_1s.pdf.
New York State Department of Transportation, 2003 Traffic Volume Report for Jefferson County,
Accessed on December 10, 2008, https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/ engineering/technical-
services/hds-respository/jeffersontvbk.pdf.
New York State Education Department, 2006a. Overview of School Performance in English Language
Arts, Mathematics, and Science and Analysis of Student Subgroup Performance for Thousand Island
Central School. April. Accessed November 27, 2006.
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrd2005/overview-analysis/220701040000.pdf.
9-5
001593
New York State Education Department, 2006b. Overview of School Performance in English Language
Arts, Mathematics, and Science and Analysis of Student Subgroup Performance for Lyme Central
School. April. Accessed November 27, 2006. http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrd2005/overview-
analysis/221301040000.pdf.
New York State Energy Planning Board, June 2002. Energy Plan. Accessed April 2006.
http://www.nyserda.org/ Energy_Information/energy_state_plan.asp
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, 2006. State Parks. Accessed
November 27, 2006. http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/.http://nysparks. state.ny.us/parks/.
New York State Office of Real Property Services, 2006. New York Office of Real Property Services
Municipal Profile. Accessed on November 28, 2006. http://www.orps.
state.ny.us/cfapps/MuniPro/index.cfm.
New York State Office of the State Comptroller. 2006. Financial Date for Local Governments: Counties,
Towns, Villages, and Schools (Level 1). Accessed October 9, 2008 at
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/datanstat/findata/index_choice.htm.
New York State Police, 2006. Troop D Information. Accessed November 27, 2006.
http://www.troopers.state.ny.us/Contact%5FUs/Troop%5FInformation/Troop%5FD/.
New York State Public Service Commission – Renewable Portfolio Standard, 2006. Accessed April
2006. http://www.dps.state.ny.us/03e0188.htm
Nicholson, C.P. 2002. Buffalo Mountain Windfarmbird and bat mortality monitoring report: October
2000 – September 2001. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Nicholson, C.P. 2003. Buffalo Mountain Windfarmbird and bat mortality monitoring report: October
2001 – September 2002 . Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee.
North American Water Management Plan (1986), Partners in Flight (1990), U.S. Shorebird Conservation
Plan (2001) and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (2002).
Northern Ecological Associates, Inc. 1994. Waterfowl and grassland bird surveys in sheetwater wetlands
and adjacent farmlands in the St. Lawrence focus area of northern New York state. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife. Service, Hadley, MA. 44pp.
NWCC (National Wind Coordination Collaborative). 2004. Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds and
Bats: A Summary of Research Results and Remaining Questions. NWCC Fact Sheet, 2nd Edition.
Accessed from http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/wildlife.htm on Dec. 12, 2008.
Osborn, Robert G., Charles D. Dieter, Kenneth F. Higgins, and Robert E. Usgaard. 1998. Bird flight
characteristics near wind turbines in Minnesota. Am. Midl. Nat. 139:29-38.
Pashley, D.N., C.J. Beardmore, J.A. Fitzgerald, R.P. Ford, W.C. Hunter, M.S. Morrison, K. V.
Rosenberg, 2000. Partners in flight: conservation of the land birds of the United States. American
Bird Conservancy. The Plains, VA. 91 pp.
9-6
001594
Payne, H.H. and R.W. Cochran. 1972. Ecological Survey Report of the Cape Vincent Area. The Central
New York Chapter of the Nature Conservancy.
Richard, L.V. and D.W. Fischer, 1970. Geologic Map of New York, New York State Museum and
Science Service, Albany, NY, Adirondack Sheet Map and Chart series no: 15.
Rosenberg, K.V., 2001. Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Bird Conservation Region 13 –
Lower Great Lakes/St.Lawrence Plain. Draft. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 12pp.
Ruedemann, R., H.P. Crushing, H.L. Fairchild, C.H. Smyth Jr., 1908. Museum bulletin 145, Geology of
The Thousand Islands Region, Alexandria Bay, Cape Vincent, Clayton, Grindstone and Theresa. New
York State Museum/Geologic Survey, Albany, New York.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon, 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and
Analysis 1966 - 2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD
[December 20, 2006].
Stantec, 2007. Wolfe Island Wind Project Environmental Review Report, Stantec Consulting Ltd.,
November 2007.
Staudenmayer, T., 2006. Personal communication between Terry Staudenmayer, Zoning Board of
Appeals Chairperson, Town of Lyme and Shaun Brooks, Tetra Tech EC. November 28, 2006.
Sterzinger, George, Fredric Beck, and Damian Kostiuk. 2003. The Effect of Wind Development on Local
Property Values. Renewable Energy Policy Project. May. Accessed on October 9, 2008. Available
online at: http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind_online_final.pdf.
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. February 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Jericho Rise Wind
Farm Project Town of Bellmont, Town of Chateaugay, Franklin County, New York.
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. 2007. Draft Phase 1A Cultural Resources Investigation, St. Lawrence Wind Energy
Project, Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, Jefferson County, New York. Prepared by Tetra Tech EC,
Inc., Morris Plains, NJ. Prepared for St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC., Cape Vincent, NY.
Tetra Tech EC, Inc. January 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposed St. Lawrence Wind
Energy Project, Towns of Cape Vincent & Lyme, Jefferson County, New York.
The Barre Montpelier Times Argus Newspaper, 2006. Lightning strike wrecks Searsburg turbine blade.
Accessed April 2006. http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20060222/NEWS/602220326/1003/NEWS02. February 2006.
Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law, 1989. Zoning Law: Amended in 1991, 1993, and 1998. Amended in
2006 to Recognize Wind Power Facilities.
Town of Lyme, 1989. Town of Lyme Zoning Ordinance. Portions amended in 1997, 1993, and 1989.
Towns of Chateaugay and Bellmont, Franklin County, New York. August 2007. Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Noble Bellmont Windpark and the Noble Chateaugay Windpark.
9-7
001595
Towns of Ellenburg, Altona and Clinton. July 26, 2006. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Noble Clinton I Windpark.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. Towns/Villages of Cape Vincent and Lyme in Jefferson County, New York
American Fact Finder. Accessed on November 28, 2006. http://factfinder.
census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en
U.S. Deparmtent of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Soil Survey Geographic
Database (SSURGO) for Jefferson County, NY. Available for download at:
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. November 2005. Technical Note:
Development of Obstruction Lighting Standards for Wind Turbine Farms (DOT/FAA/AR-TN05/50).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 23, 2006a (Last Updated). Region II Sole Source
Aquifers. http://www.epa.gov/region02/water/aquifer/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 3, 2006b (Last Updated). Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) – Jefferson County, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008 (Last Updated). Green Book Nonattainment Areas for
Criteria Pollutants. www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/. Accessed 12/12/08.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. A Strategy for
Cooperation. 19pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001. U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, second edition - May 2001.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. National Wetlands Inventory. 12 December 2006.
http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006. Environmental Assessment for the St. Lawrence Wetland and
Grassland Management District. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Saint Lawrence
Wetland and Grassland Management District, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge
Planning and Ducks Unlimited, Great Lakes/Atlantic Region. 64pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. St. Lawrence Wetland and Grassland Management District.
ONLINE. Available: http://library.fws.gov/Refuges/St_Lawrence.pdf [10 Oct 2008]
U.S. Geological Survey, 1992. National Land Cover Database. http://landcover.usgs.gov/

natllandcover.php.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2000. Estimated Use of Water in the United States County-Level Data for 2000.
http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2000/index.html.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2006. November 15, 2006 (Last Updated). New York – Jefferson County real-
time water information. http://ny.cf.er.usgs.gov/nywin/county.cfm? countyCode=045
U,S, Geological Survey, 1958a. Cape Vincent North 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, New York
Quadrangle, Photo Inspected 1980, 1958.
9-8
001596
U.S. Geological Survey, 1958b. Cape Vincent South 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, New York
Quadrangle, Photo Inspected 1980, 1958.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1958c Chaumont 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, New York Quadrangle,
1958.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1958d St. Lawrence 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, New York
Quadrangle, 1958.
U.S. Geological Survey. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 2001. North American Breeding Bird
Surveys. Instructions for Conducting the North American Breeding Bird Survey.
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/participate/instructions.html#WHEN%20TO%20RUN
Village of Cape Vincent, 2005. Active Programs. Accessed December 11, 2006.
http://www.capevincent.org/village/activeprograms.asp.
Wells, D.L. 2000. Landbird conservation in the St. Lawrence Plain: the distribution and grassland,
shrubland, and forest-dwelling species in continuously changing landscape. U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Service. Richville, NY. 25pp.
Wisconsin Rural Energy Management Council, 2000. Wisconsin Legislative Council Information
Memorandum. Accessed April 2006. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/ lc/jlc00/im00_13.pdf
Wiser, R and B. Hoen. 2007. Do Wind Facilities Affect Local Property Values? Preliminary Results
From A Multi-Site Analysis. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/workshops/2007_summit/wiser.pdf. Accessed
12/19/2008.
Woodlot Alternatives. 2006. Summer 2006 Indiana Bat Surveys at the Proposed Clayton Wind Project in
Clayton, New York, Draft Report.
Yarnall, G., 2002. Jefferson County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan. Agriculture Plan
compiled by George Yarnall. Accessed November 27, 2006. http://www.co.jefferson.
ny.us/pdfs/farmprot.pdf.
Zhou, W., and B.F. Beck, 2005. Roadway construction in karst areas: management of stormwater runoff
and sinkhole risk assessment. Environmental Geology, (47):1138-1149.
9-9
001597

Aspect of Affected
Physiography, Geology, and Erosion and sedimentation during A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Soils construction. will be developed and implemented for the
construction period.
Construction traffic could also create A Dust Control Plan will be developed and
airborne dust. implemented.
The proposed Project, once built, could A SWPPP will be developed and implemented for
potentially cause a minor alteration to the operational period.
existing drainage patterns.
Impacts to agricultural soils during SLW will follow NYS Department of Agriculture
construction and operation and Markets Guidelines for Siting and
Constructing Wind Farms. Applicable soil
protection, erosion control and soil restoration
measures will be included in the final construction
documentation and plans for the contractor(s) and
subcontractor(s).
Shallow bedrock and other geologic Geotechnical studies will be conducted prior to
challenges (e.g., karst and problematic soils) final engineering design.
could be encountered during construction.
Release of hazardous substances A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
associated with construction or operation. Plan (SPCCP) will be developed and
implemented.
Water Resources Soil erosion during construction could impact A SWPPP will be developed and implemented for
ground water. the construction period.
Spills associated with operation of Appropriate best management procedures will be
construction equipment (i.e. diesel and used to prevent spills, limit quantities of hazardous
gasoline fuels, lubricating oils, and cooling materials used on site, and the implementation of
fluids). the Emergency Response Plan.
Potential water table reduction or pathway Impacts will be avoided through pre-construction
alteration due to dewatering. surveys and studies and re-location of turbines, if
necessary.
Streams, Rivers, and Lakes Potential temporary impacts during Clearing near surface waters will be kept to a
construction could result from clearing and minimum to prevent significant disturbance to the
grading near stream banks. habitats associated with surface waters; A
SWPPP will be developed and implemented for
the construction period.
Construction and operation of the Project will The installation of environmentally friendly culvert
result in two surface water body crossings by types (i.e., bottomless or arched culverts with a
Access Roads and Interconnects gravel base).
Construction and operation of the Project will Crossings of the Chaumont River and other
result in seven surface water body crossings streams and tributaries will be accomplished by
by the Overhead transmission line. overhead spanning. Poles will be located greater
than 50 feet from both sides of the Chaumont
River and other streams and tributaries. Cable
between these utility poles will be strung in a
manner that will not require construction
equipment to drive through shallow surface water
bodies.
Construction and operation of the Project will Wetland areas and open waters temporarily
temporarily affect 1.67 acres of wetlands; affected during the construction will be restored to
and result in the placement of 0.33 acres of pre-construction contours and re-vegetated with
fill in wetlands and the conversion of 0.34 native (non-invasive) plant material or seeds
acres of forested wetlands to non-forested immediately following the completion of regulated
wetland cover. activities at each site.
SLW will develop a Wetland Mitigation Plan to
compensate for unavoidable permanent impacts
to wetlands and proposes to compensate for the
unavoidable permanent fill of wetlands using a 2:1
mitigation ratio.
1-7
001598

Aspect of Affected
Vegetation Clearing for construction may temporarily Clearing of vegetation will be minimized in areas
impact abundant vegetation communities. that are ecologically sensitive, such as forested
uplands, forested wetlands and the banks of
creeks crossed by the overhead transmission line.
All temporary disturbances will be restored.
Potential for the introduction of invasive SLW has prepared an Invasive Species
species into areas disturbed during Management Plan to ensure that all disturbed
construction activities. areas will be returned to a native vegetative state
once construction is complete.
Non-bat Mammals Minor, temporary displacement of individuals The Project was designed to avoid significant
and disturbance of wildlife habitat will be impact to wildlife. Project infrastructure is sited
limited to the construction right-of-way and away from high quality wildlife habitat and forested
adjacent areas. Forested habitat will be clearing has been minimized.
cleared within portions of the laydown areas
at 6 turbines sites and along limited portions
of the overhead transmission line right-of-
way.
Bats Bat collision with wind turbines is a potential Post-construction monitoring studies will be
impact. implemented to estimate the mortality and habitat
displacement experienced by bats as a result of
the Project, to verify the environmental impacts
estimated by pre-construction studies, and to
provide supporting value to the overall
conservation measures that will ultimately benefit
the species or population.
Conservation measures including Project design,
seasonal restrictions on tree clearing and formal
consultation with the USFWS, USACE, and
NYSDEC will be implemented before or during
construction to avoid and minimize potential
Indiana bat mortality during construction and
operation of the Project.
Migrating Birds During operation of the Project, there is the SLW has selected the proposed Project layout to
potential that migratory birds could collide minimize impacts to sensitive Potential impacts
with wind turbines. associated with migratory bird collision with wind
turbines have been mitigated by maximum turbine
spacing, placing electrical collection lines between
turbines and the collector substation underground
rather than above ground, and implementing the
minimum FAA safety lighting requirements. SLW
will also implement a post-construction avian
fatality monitoring program.
Breeding Birds Construction and operation of the proposed The proposed Project will encourage continued
Project will likely result in minor, temporary farming activities in the area by supplementing
impacts to breeding birds. During area farmers’ income. This will also result in the
construction, clearing and work activities in maintenance of open grassland habitats since the
open habitats will temporarily displace regional climate favors traditional late season
nesting and foraging individuals from the harvest which is beneficial for grassland birds.
work area and suitable adjacent habitats. Areas associated with grassland species nesting
will be avoided until after the breeding season.
Approximately 17 acres of second growth Mitigation is not necessary because conversion of
deciduous forest will be cleared for Project forest habitat in the Project Area will benefit birds
components, which could result in temporary that nest and forage in open habitats which are
and permanent minor habitat loss for some relatively more important in the region. Mitigation
forest-nesting avian species. for habitat loss has been performed by sighting
Project components to minimize disturbance and
restoring all temporarily disturbed areas.
1-8
001599

Aspect of Affected
There is a low potential risk that local SLW is studying potential avian impact at the
breeding birds could collide with the wind Project site. The Project site is anticipated to pose
turbines. Impacts at the St. Lawrence Wind a low risk to breeding birds. SLW will fund an
Energy Project will be similar to other wind operational (post-construction) monitoring
projects; therefore, avian mortality is likely to program to estimate direct and indirect impacts of
range between 122 to 509 birds/year the wind farm on breeding grassland birds
Over wintering Birds Impacts to wintering birds, in particular SLW has selected the proposed Project layout to
waterfowl, are likely to be minimal. minimize impacts to sensitive receptors including
wintering roosting and foraging birds. Any
necessary above ground power lines will follow
the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
suggested practices for protecting avian species.
Threatened and Endangered Individual bats or bat colonies for the Indiana SLW, working with the USACE, USFWS, and
Species bat and the small-footed myotis have been NYSDEC, is in the process of preparing a
documented in Jefferson County, within Biological Assessment (BA) to evaluate in greater
approximately 15 to 40 miles of the detail the possible impacts to Indiana Bat
proposed Project. No impacts are populations due to construction and operation of
anticipated. the Project. The BA will be used to initiate formal
consultation with the USFWS under the
Endangered Species Act in connection with SLW’s
application for permits from the USACE. Results
of the consultation process will determine whether
conservation measures in addition to those
outlined herein are necessary to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate potential impacts from the Project on
Indiana bats.
There is a slight risk of collision for migrating The Project site is anticipated to pose a low risk to
raptors. threatened or endangered raptor species. SLW
will consult with the USFWS to address the
potential impacts and if any mitigation measures
are warranted.
There is a slight risk of collision for breeding To mitigate temporary impacts to breeding listed
birds. species, clearing activities will occur prior to the
breeding season where appropriate.
Potential impacts to State listed plants, Impacts to listed plant species will be avoided
Michigan lily and autumnal water-starwort. through avoidance of sensitive ecological
communities, such as wetlands, and minimizing
permanent impacts to vegetation to the greatest
extent practicable.
Potential impacts to State listed Reptiles and Barriers and culverts will be installed to either
amphibians, Blanding’s turtle prevent or to facilitate movement across Project
components. Silt fence will be installed to isolate
potential Blanding’s turtle wetlands habitat from
construction activity. In addition, barriers (silt
fence) will be installed to direct the movements of
nesting turtles in a manner that limits the potential
for road mortality.
Transportation The potential need for the Project to improve SLW will obtain all necessary permits from
transportation infrastructure to accommodate NYSDOT and local highway department(s) in
construction equipment and oversize order to make necessary road improvements and
vehicles delivering or repair damage to to operate oversized vehicles on the roads.
roads caused by construction traffic. Construction related wear and tear to County and
local roads will be discussed with the entities that
manage the transportation system and an
appropriate strategy for road restoration will be
developed.
1-9
001600

Aspect of Affected
The need for the Project to temporarily A Transportation and Traffic Plan will be created
relocate overhead lines, traffic lights, cable for the Project and will address this issue.
and phone lines to accommodate oversize
vehicles.
Traffic delays and road closures due to SLW will assess work areas two weeks ahead of
transportation improvements or construction construction and will provide schools (during the
traffic; potential disruption of tourism in the school-year), police, fire, and emergency service
Thousand Islands; and increased traffic over agencies with advance notice of lane or road
local roads during construction closures.
Increased traffic generally over local roads A Transportation and Traffic Plan will be created
during construction. for the Project and will address this issue. The
proposed Project transportation routes have been
selected to minimize impacts to roads and
surrounding communities. The number of roads
used for material and equipment transportation
has been limited to the minimum needed for
construction. Aside from the oversized vehicles
delivering turbine and tower components,
construction vehicles will be similar in nature to
vehicles currently traveling over the road network
and therefore will likely not require special
mitigation measures. Construction equipment and
the personal vehicles of construction workers will
not be parked along public roadways, but rather in
designated parking areas, so as to preserve safety
along local roadways (unless exceptions are
requested and granted by the appropriate
authorities). In consultation with appropriate local
officials, a Project speed limit will be established.
Project construction traffic may create A Dust Control Plan will be developed and
fugitive dust. implemented for the construction period.
Transportation - Cumulative If the SLW Project and BP projects are built If construction is concurrent, coordination between
during the same construction season, it is the projects may be required to ensure that
possible that similar construction responsibilities for road impacts and remediation
transportation routes may be chosen. are properly recognized and assigned. To the
extent there is any overlap in project construction
schedules, SLW will coordinate road construction
or improvements and transportation activity with
the other projects and will seek to modify its traffic
management plan, if necessary, to mitigate local
transportation cumulative effects.
Land Use and Zoning The Project will have temporary, The Project is designed to meet or exceed all of
construction-related impacts and permanent, the requirements in the Towns of Cape Vincent
long-term impacts on land use. The Towns and Lyme land use and zoning ordinances; and is
of Cape Vincent and Lyme have no specific compliant with current local zoning and land use
requirements for development of wind regulations in Cape Vincent and Lyme.
projects in their jurisdictions, but have
general zoning and land use regulations
established for development.
Construction of the Project will result in the SLW will follow NYS Department of Agriculture
temporary disturbance of approximately 425 and Markets Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation
acres of agricultural land and permanent for Wind Power Projects.
conversion of 41 acres of agricultural land to
wind turbine structures, a substation and
pervious access roads.
1-10
001601

Aspect of Affected
Utilities and Community The Project will result in minor short- and Mitigation is not necessary as neither of these
Services long-term increases in energy usage represents significant impacts on energy
associated with construction and operation resources.
of the Project.
There is a remote possibility that some SLW will collaborate with the utility owners to
overhead electrical distribution lines will reduce impacts to their facilities to the maximum
have to be temporarily relocated to extent practicable.
accommodate crane routes.
During construction, large vehicles and SLW will assess work areas two weeks ahead of
temporary roads closures could block construction and will provide schools (during the
emergency vehicle access to area farms and school-year), police, fire, and emergency service
homes. agencies with advance notice of lane or road
closures. SLW will issue press releases to local
newspapers and radio stations regarding lane or
road closures. SLW in collaboration with the Cape
Vincent Fire Department (CVFD), has developed
an Emergency Response Plan to define
prevention and emergency response measures for
hazardous materials spills, medical/fire/law
enforcement, weather emergencies, and
evacuation.
Local fire department concerns regarding SLW will maintain an appropriate level of
inexperience with the components of the preparedness and equipment for emergency
new wind facility, during construction and rescue operations involving the nacelle and tower.
operation of the wind power facility, SLW Project personnel will meet with the local
emergency service personnel (police, fire,
ambulance, and health care) to review and
discuss the planned construction process.
Impacts from Ice shedding Compliance with setbacks and measures to
control public access, such as fences and warning
signs, will minimize public safety risks associated
with ice shedding.
Cultural Resources The Project will not affect archeological Archeologically sensitive areas to be avoided
resources that are potentially eligible for the during project construction will be clearly identified
NRHP. In the event of future archeological as “No Access” on Project construction maps.
discoveries in the archeological APE, SLW Prior to the start of construction, an Unanticipated
intends to avoid impacts to archeological Discoveries Plan will be developed, describing
resources that may be potentially eligible to actions to be taken in the event that archeological
the NRHP. sites, including possible human remains, are
accidentally discovered during Project
construction.
The proposed project will have an adverse SLW will continue drafting a Memorandum of
visual effect on historic architectural Agreement for Visual Impact Mitigation, to be
resources. approved by the Towns of Cape Vincent and
Lyme and by SHPO.
Visual Resources The Project will be visible from a variety of Although the visual mitigation options are limited
locations within 5 miles of the proposed given the nature of the Project and its siting
Project Area. criteria, the following mitigation measures are
Turbines will be painted white or light grey
with non-specular material and not be used for
commercial advertising.
The turbine areas and facilities will be kept
orderly and maintained on a regular basis.
Turbines will not be allowed to rust.
1-11
001602

Aspect of Affected
To the extent practicable, the electrical
interconnect between turbines will be installed
underground. Overhead electrical transmission
from the turbines to the 115 kV transmission
line, to the greatest extent practicable, will be
sited away from where such infrastructure can
be viewed from roads. The developer will also
minimize clearing necessary for the installation
of the electrical interconnect.
The proposed turbines will maintain
appropriate buffers from property lines, nearby
residences, roads and other nearby visually
sensitive areas.
Perimeter screen plantings will be used to
minimize visibility of the proposed substations
Appropriate plantings will be assessed after
construction.
Some residences located within 10 turbine The proposed turbines will maintain
diameters will experience some degree (less appropriate buffers to minimize visual impact
than 30 hours per year) of shadow flicker in and extended shadow flicker.
the Town of Cape Vincent. Settlement agreements could be used to
purchase landscape screening (trees, shrubs),
or exclusionary treatments such as curtains or
blinds.
The United States Department of Aviation warning lighting will be limited to the
Transportation Federal Aviation minimum required by the FAA. The Project will
Administration (FAA) requires aviation purchase aviation warning lights that are shielded
warning lights on the turbines, which could or otherwise directed so that they are the least
present a potential adverse visual impact visible from the ground. Due to the height of the
from some viewing locations. proposed turbines, the FAA requires red flashing
aviation obstruction lighting to be placed atop the
nacelle on 34 turbines to assure safe flight
navigation in the vicinity of the Project.
Visual - Cumulative Construction of the SLW Project and the BP The proposed mitigation described above will be
projects in relatively close proximity to one employed.
another may have the potential to create
cumulative visual impacts. There may be
locations where turbines from projects will be
visible, either at the same time or in rapid
succession while traveling on area road-
ways. In most locations within the study
area, only small portions of either project will
be visible. However, in some open elevated
settings, it is possible that large portions of
projects will be visible.
Air Quality During construction there may be short-term Standard mitigation control measures to maintain
localized air quality impacts. Temporary air quality will include:
minor adverse impacts to air quality may Vehicles used during construction will comply
result from the operation of construction with applicable Federal and State air quality
equipment and vehicles. regulations;
Limiting engine idling time and equipment
shut down when not in use;
1-12
001603

Aspect of Affected
Dust suppression on unpaved access roads,
parking areas and staging areas, and using
water or DOT approved dust suppression
materials in compliance with State and local
regulations;
Traffic speeds on access roads will be kept to
25 mph to minimize generation of dust;
Car-pooling among construction workers will
be encouraged to minimize construction-
Disturbed areas will be re-planted or graveled
to reduce wind-blown dust; and
Erosion control measures will limit deposition
of silt to roadways.
Noise The proposed Project will generate noise The following mitigation measures will be applied
during construction. to Project construction, as necessary and
practicable:
Adhering to regular construction work hours
Mondays through Saturdays, and typically not
working on Sundays or after dark;
All construction equipment will be maintained
in good working condition in order to reduce
general noise emissions;
When practical, heavy equipment will be shut
down when not active, to minimize idling
noise;
All internal combustion engines will be fitted
with appropriate muffler systems; and
Adjacent landowners will be advised in
advance of any significant noise-causing
activities and these will be scheduled to
create the least disruption to residents.
The Project will not have significant noise It is not expected that mitigative measures will be
impacts during operation. required during Project operations; however, if
needed, a complaint resolution program will be
implemented whereby neighboring residents can
contact SLW with their concerns. Complaints will
be promptly investigated to resolve any verifiable
issue or exceedance condition, and mitigation may
be taken on a case-by-case basis.
Telecommunications It is unlikely that there will be a significant FCC's mandate to transition all off-air television
impact to television signal coverage during broadcasts from analog signals to digital signals
Project operation. by February 2009 will eliminate turbine-related
interference problems as digital signals are not
subject to interference from intervening structures.
It is unlikely that the Project will impact Should the NTIA identify any Project-related
government communications. concerns related to signal blockage following their
30-day review of the Project, SLW will mitigate
impacts as required.
There is a remote possibility that ice shed The use of buffers from roads and property lines
from turbines could cause personal or and public control measures will minimize already
property injury. low public safety risk of ice shed. All turbines will
have automatic braking and shutdown. Ice
detectors will be installed at previously determined
locations to notify maintenance personnel of icing
conditions, which will allow the operator to take
the appropriate actions.
1-13
001604

Aspect of Affected
Safety and Security There is a remote possibility that tower The use of buffers from roads and property lines
collapse or turbine failure could cause and public control measures will minimize the
personal or property injury. already low public safety risk associated with
tower collapse or blade failure. The standard
engineering design and protection systems
incorporated into modern wind turbines will
prevent and minimize problems that could lead to
tower collapse or blade failure.
Wind power facilities have the potential to Stray voltage concerns will be addressed through
create stray voltage only if the electrical proper electrical engineering design and
system is both poorly grounded and located installation of all Project electrical components.
near underground or poorly grounded metal
objects.
Due to their height, physical dimensions, and An Emergency Response Plan has been
complexity, wind turbines may present developed for the Project to ensure the safety of
response difficulties to local emergency company employees and local residents, visitors,
responders should a fire occur within or near and their property. Prior to the commencement of
the structures. Storage and use of diesel construction SLW will present, review and revise
fuels, lubricating oils, and hydraulic fluids of necessary the Emergency Response Plan in
within the Project boundary also create the cooperation with local fire departments.
potential for fire or medical emergencies.
Due the height and materials used to The standard lightning protection system installed
construct, the wind turbines are susceptible within the rotor blades will be used to prevent and
to lightning strikes. minimize problems associated with lightning
strikes.
It is not anticipated that the proposed Project SLW will design all facilities in accordance with
will be a target for any homeland security guidance and regulations of the Department of
concerns. Homeland Security.
1-14
001605

Towns
Administration of SEQRA Process, and issuance of findings (as Lead
Town of Cape Vincent Agency under SEQRA).
Planning Board Site Plan Approval for construction of wind energy project and transmission
line to Town boundary
Zoning Permit
Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance.
Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements.
Town of Lyme
Planning Board
Town of Lyme Special Use Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other land use
Zoning Board of Appeals considerations for construction of transmission line to substation
Town of Lyme Issuance of building permits.
Departments Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements.
Jefferson County
Completion of a NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-m review and
Planning Department
issuance of recommendations.
Highway Department County road work permits.
New York State
ECL Article 17 SPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges including
creation of SWPPP and SPCC/Oil Contingency Plans (6NYCRR Part 750).]
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (6NYCRR Part
Conservation
608).
Issuance of SEQRA Findings as an involved agency.
Department of State
Department of Transportation Special Use Permit for oversize/overweight vehicles. Highway work permits.
Participation in SEQRA Process as an interested agency.
Department of Agriculture & Agricultural District Law Article 25AA, Section 305-a
Markets Coordination of local planning and land use decision-making with the
agricultural districts program
Public Service Commission Participation in SEQRA Process as an interested agency.
Federal Agencies
1-15
001606

Federal Agencies
USACE Nationwide Section 10 Permit for aerial crossing of the Chaumont
River.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit for placement of fill in federal
OSHA
construction).
1-16
001607
components of the WTG, which include the drive train, a gearbox and the generator. The nacelle
sits atop the tower. A large flange protrudes from the front of the nacelle to which the hub is
bolted. The rotor blades are all bolted to this central hub. Exhibit 2.5.2 provides a detail of the
nacelle, hub and rotor Exhibit 2.5.2 - Nacelle Main Components
assembly. A transformer
will be located near the
tower base, to raise the
voltage of the electricity
produced by the turbine
generator to the voltage
level of the collection
system. The steel towers
used for this Project will
be manufactured in
multiple sections. Each
tower will have a
locked access door and
an internal safety ladder
to access the nacelle, and will be painted (off-white) to make the structure less visually obtrusive.
Specifications for the turbines are presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1
Turbine Specifications
Type: Acciona AW 82/1500 IEC IIIb T80A LM40.3P
Manufacturer: Acciona Windpower, S.A.
Rated power: 1500 kW (1.5 MW)
Rotor manufacturer: LM
Rotor blade type: 40.3P
Rotor diameter: 82.026 m (269.114 feet)
Rotor swept area: 5281 m2
Number of rotor blades: 3
Rotor rated speed: 18.25 min-1
Hub height above ground: 80 m (~262 ft)
Measurement distance R0: 113 m (~371 ft)
2.5.2 Turbine Spacing

Development of the Project layout has been an iterative process. The first step in siting the wind
turbines for this Project was to assess the wind resource and place conceptual turbine locations
where wind would appear to be the strongest and steadiest. Appropriate buffers (see Figure 2-2)
from roads, property lines, residences, and sensitive environmental resources were taken into
2-7
001608
Table 2-2
Construction and Operations Impact Assumptions
Area of Total Disturbance Area of Permanent
Project Components (temporary and permanent) Disturbance
Wind Turbines and Workspaces
150 ft per turbine 10 ft per turbine
(radius)
Included in 150 ft workspace
Crane Pads (length x width) 100 ft x 50 ft
for each turbine
35 ft (in non-public road or
Crane Paths (width) None
access road areas only)
Access Roads (width) 39 ft 17 ft
Access Roads Temporary “T”
16 ft x 200 ft -
Turnaround Areas
2 ft wide trench per cable plus
Buried Electrical Interconnects 10 ft separation between None
additional circuits
Buried Electrical Interconnect Single Cable: 100 ft -
Work Area Multiple Cables: 150 ft -
Overhead Electrical Interconnect
100 ft 17 ft1
(width)
Meteorological Towers 1 acre per tower 0.10 acre per tower
Collection Substation/
11.5 acres 11.5 acres
Operations and Maintenance Building
Transmission Owner Substation 0.6 acres 0.6 acres
Staging Areas 12.25 acres None
Concrete Batch Plant 10 acres None
1
This represents the permanent right-of-way width to be periodically maintained where required. No permanent
access road will be created.
Topsoil will then be stripped and segregated. Subsoil will then be graded, compacted, and
surfaced with gravel or crushed stone in accordance with the requirements of the wind turbine
supplier and recommendations from the geotechnical engineer. Geotextile fabric or grid may be
installed beneath the road surface to provide additional support, if engineering studies indicate it
is necessary. Permanent access roads will generally be 17 feet wide, including side slopes. Cross-
sections at turning radii and pull-offs to accommodate passing vehicles will be slightly wider, as
necessary for safety. Where needed to facilitate cross drainage, culverts will be placed in
wetland/stream crossings in accordance with state and federal permits. Appropriate sediment
2-13
001609
and soil restoration estimates were based on unit costs of $7.50 and $10.00 per cubic yard,
respectively.
Based on the above assumptions, the estimated cost of decommissioning the wind turbines will
be offset by the salvage value of the towers and the turbine components. Table 2.3 provides the
estimated decommissioning cost per tower, in current dollars, in comparison to the salvage value
of Project turbines. The estimated cost of decommissioning and expected salvage value of wind
components will be reassessed and certified by a Professional Engineer at appropriate intervals
throughout operation of the project. SLW will pay for any costs of decommissioning that are
not covered by the salvage value.
Table 2.3
Decommissioning Costs Summary
a
Component Total
Salvage Values
Turbine Components Salvage Value $4,372,500
Decommissioning Costs
Turbine Removal $0
Turbine Foundation Removal $901,000
Access Roadway Removal $199,866
Crane/Construction Pad Removal $40,977
Cable Removal $0
Earthwork & Topsoil $114,506
Subtotal Decommissioning Cost $1,256,349
Salvage Value Less Decommissioning Costs $3,116,151
Total Salvage Value Per Turbine (53) $58,795.31

a
values are based on current costs and do not assume any
inflation costs or other fluctuations.

Table 2-4.

2-26
001610
agricultural impacts can be identified during this period and follow-up restoration efforts will be
implemented.

Table 2-3.

Towns
Administration of SEQRA Process, and issuance of findings (as Lead Agency
Town of Cape Vincent under SEQRA)
Planning Board Site Plan Approval for construction of wind energy project and transmission line
to Town boundary
Zoning Permit
Issuance of building permits/certificates of compliance
Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements
Town of Lyme
Planning Board
Town of Lyme Special Use Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals) and other land use considerations
Zoning Board of Appeals for construction of transmission line to substation
Town of Lyme Issuance of building permits
Departments Review and approval of highway work permits/road agreements
Jefferson County
Completion of a NYS General Municipal Law Section 239-m review and issuance
Planning Department
of recommendations
Highway Department County road work permits
New York State
ECL Article 17 SPDES General Permit for construction stormwater discharges
including creation of SWPPP and SPCC/Oil Contingency Plans (6NYCRR Part
750)
Conservation
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (6NYCRR Part 608)
Issuance of SEQRA Findings as an involved agency
Department of State
Department of Transportation Special Use Permit for oversize/overweight vehicles, Highway work permits.
Participation in SEQRA Process as an interested agency
Agricultural District Law Article 25AA, Section 305-a
Department of Agriculture & Markets
Coordination of local planning and land use decision-making with the agricultural
districts program
Public Service Commission Participation in SEQRA Process as an interested agency
2-24
001611

New York State
Federal Agencies
USACE Nationwide Section 10 Permit for aerial crossing of the Chaumont River.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit for placement of fill in federal
OSHA
construction).

Boards and Town Planning Boards. In addition, SLW has met with various township, county
and regional agencies, and organizations throughout the project development process, including
local historians and councilman, the Cape Vincent Fire Department, Thousand Island Central
School Superintendent, Save The River, Thousand Islands Land Trust, the Development
Authority of North County (DANC), and Region 6 NYSDEC Wildlife Offices in Brownville and
Watertown.
The Applicant also opened an office in the Town of Cape Vincent in the fall of 2006 that is open
4 days a week, providing the opportunity for the general public to obtain information and ask
questions about the Project. To further inform the Public, SLW has also created a website
(www.stlawrencewind.com), which provides an additional opportunity for interested parties to
learn about the Project and submit comments. Posted on the website are the DEIS, results of
studies, a transcript of the first public hearing, and comments received during and after the first
public hearing and comment period.
The Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board held its first public hearing on the DEIS on March
24, 2007. The public comment period on the DEIS extended through June 15, 2007.
The first Open House meeting with local residents was held in June 2007 and an additional
public information session regarding the proposed Project was held on August 28, 2008. SLW
has also had numerous meetings with participating landowners and project neighbors, and the
2-25
001612

Risk of Corrosion
Water Bedrock Erosion Unified
Hydrologic Table Depth Permeability Uncoated Factors Soil Plasticity
2 3
Soil Name Group Depth (ft) ( in ) ( in/ hr ) pH Steel Concrete K Classification Index
Benson C/D >6 10-20 0.6-2.0 5.6-7.3 Low Low 0.02 SM,GM NP-10
Chatfield D >6 20-40 0.6-6.0 4.5-6 Low Moderate 0.49 SM,ML,SM-SC,CL-ML 1-6
Chaumont D 0.5-1.5 20-40 <0.2 5.6-7.3 High Low 0.49 MH,CH 15-50
4
Claverack C 1.5-2 20-40 6.0-20 5.1-8.4 Low Moderate 0.24 SM,SW,SW-SM,SP 5-30
Collamer C 1.5-2 >5 0.6-2.0 5.1-8.4 Moderate Low 0.49 ML,SM,CL-ML,SM-SC 5-10
Covington D 0.5-1.0 >60 <0.2 5.6-7.3 High Moderate 0.49 CH,MH 10-40
Dumps N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Moderate Moderate N/A N/A N/A
Elmridge C 1.5-3.0 20-40 2.0-6.0 4.5-7.8 Moderate Moderate 0.28 SM,ML NP
Farmington C >6 10-20 0.6-2.0 5.1-7.8 Low Moderate 0.28 ML,CL,SM,SC 3-15
Fluvaquents D 0 >60 N/A 4.5-8.4 High High 0.28 N/A N/A
Galen B 1.5-2 >60 0.6-6.0 5.1-7.8 Moderate Low 0.28 SM,ML NP-4
Galoo C/D >6 2-10 0.6-2.0 5.6-7.8 Low Low 0.32 CL,ML,SM,CL-ML 3-15
Galway B 1.5-3.0 20-40 0.6-2.0 5.6-8.4 Low Low 0.32 ML,SM 10-15
Guffin D 0-0.5 20-40 <0.2 5.6-8.4 High Low 0.49 MH,CH 15-20
Hudson C 1.5-2.0 >60 0.2-2.0 5.1-7.3 High Low 0.49 ML,CL-ML,OL,CL 5-19
Kingsbury D 0.5-1.5 >60 0.06-0.2 5.1-7.8 High Moderate 0.49 ML,MH 11-20
Livingston D 0-1.0 >60 0.2-0.6 5.1-7.3 High Low 0.49 CH,MH 10-40
Madalin D 0-0.5 >60 0.2-0.6 5.1-8.4 High Low 0.37 ML,MH,OL,OH 10-25
Nellis B >6 >60 0.6-2.0 5.6-8.4 Low Low 0.28 ML,SM 1-5
Newstead C 0.5-1.0 20-40 0.6-2.0 5.6-8.4 High Low 0.32 ML,SM 2-10
Niagara C 0.5-1.5 >60 0.6-2.2 5.1-8.4 High Low 0.49 ML 5-15
Reinbeck D 0.5-1.5 >60 0.2-0.6 5.1-7.3 High Low 0.49 ML,MH 10-25
Saprists D 0 >60 N/A 4.5-8.4 High Low N/A N/A N/A
Vergennes C 1-3 >60 <0.2 4.5-8.4 High Moderate 0.49 MH,CH,CL,ML 20-40
Williamson C 1.1-1.5 15-24 0.6-2.0 4.5-7.3 Moderate Moderate 0.49 ML,SM 5-15
Wilpoint D 1.5-2.0 20-40 <0.2 5.6-7.3 High Low 0.49 MH,CH 15-50
1
Descriptions apply to the surfical soil layer. Characteristics, while similar, can vary with depth.
3-11
001613

2
a) Definition
Hydrologic group is a group of soils having similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. Soil properties that influence runoff potential are those that influence the
minimum rate of infiltration for a bare soil after prolonged wetting and when not frozen. These properties are depth to a seasonally high water table, intake rate and permeability after
prolonged wetting, and depth to a very slowly permeable layer. The influence of ground cover is treated independently.
(b) Classes
The soils in the United States are placed into four groups, A, B, C, and D, and three dual classes, A/D, B/D, and C/D. In the definitions of the classes, infiltration rate is the rate at
which water enters the soil at the surface and is controlled by the surface conditions. Transmission rate is the rate at which water moves in the soil and is controlled by soil properties.
Definitions of the classes are as follows:
A. (Low runoff potential). The soils have a high infiltration rate even when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravels. They
have a high rate of water transmission.
B. The soils have a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly are moderately deep to deep, moderately well drained to well drained soils that have moderately fine
to moderately coarse textures. They have a moderate rate of water transmission.
C. The soils have a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly have a layer that impedes downward movement of water or have moderately fine to fine texture. They
have a slow rate of water transmission.
D. (High runoff potential). The soils have a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They chiefly consist of clay soils that have a high swelling potential, soils that have a
permanent high water table, soils that have a clay pan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. They have a very slow rate of water
transmission.
(1) Dual hydrologic groups, A/D, B/D, and C/D, are given for certain wet soils that can be adequately drained. The first letter applies to the drained condition, the second to the
undrained. Only soils that are rated D in their natural condition are assigned to dual classes. Soils may be assigned to dual groups if drainage is feasible and practical.
3
Unified Soil Classification, see ASTM D2487.
4
Supplemental information from http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/
3-12
001614

3.1.2.1 Potential Short-Term Impacts
Approximately 547 acres of surface soils will be disturbed during the construction of the Project.
Once construction activities are complete, approximately 92 percent of the disturbed area, or
approximately 503 acres of surface soil, will be restored. Table 3-2 provides the approximate
areas of both temporary and permanent soil disturbance.
Table 3-2
Approximate Area of Soil Disturbance
Permanent Temporary
Impact Impact
Component (acres) (acres)
Turbines 0.4 50.8
Access Roads 31.3 38.4
Buried Electrical Interconnect 0.0 282.9
Overhead Electrical Transmission Line 0.0 106.5
Collector Substation/O&M Building 11.4 0.1
Transmission Owner Substation 0.5 0.0
Meteorological Towers 0.4 3.6
Laydown Yard 0.0 12.25
Concrete Batch Plant 0.0 9.9
Based on the information reviewed and described above, the subsoils within the Project Site
consist predominantly of silt loams and loams of glacial origin. The soil survey indicates that the
soils in and around the Project Area vary from shallow to very deep and have been formed from
glacial till derived from the underlying limestone. The water table associated with mapped soils
on the Project Site is shallow. In addition, bedrock depths across the area would vary in areas
underlain by karst limestone. As stated above, due to its particular characteristics, including an
limestone presents special challenges for civil engineering projects such as wind energy projects.
The finer grained soils may have a tendency to soften on exposure to weather and would likely
require protection from weather and vehicle traffic to prevent rutting. Slopes are generally slight
to moderate in the area of the proposed wind turbines and slope stability is not expected to be an
issue for design. The overall seismic risk is low.
Based upon the topographic features (see Figure 2-1) and drainage characteristics of the
proposed Project Site, grading and other construction activities could cause the disruption of
soils and the increased potential for erosion during construction without appropriate erosion and
3-13
001615

1

Number of
Birds/Route
3-48
001616

1

Number of
3-49
001617

Number of
3-50
001618

1

Number of
1
period 1966-2005.
2
[Online].
3

1
Individuals Groups
Waterbirds
Waterfowl
Mallard 2 1 0.05
Shorebirds
Killdeer 16 10 0.4
Raptors/Vultures
T
Passerines
3-51
001619
Table 3-4
NYSDEC Streams Crossed by the Project
NYSDEC
Stream Name Stream Classification
Chaumont River C
Kents Creek C
Scotch Brook D
Shaver Creek Not Listed
Soper Creek C
Three Mile Creek C
3-23
001620
Table 3-5
Field Delineated Stream Crossings
Cowardin
1
Wetland ID Surface Water Description Project Component Classification
W26 Intermittent Stream Turbine 22 Access Road R4
W26T2 Intermittent Stream Turbine 22 interconnect R4
OT13 Three Mile Creek Overhead line R3
OT18 Soper Creek Overhead line R3
OT21 Chaumont River Overhead line R2
1
R2 = Lower Perennial
R3 = Upper Perennial
R4 = Intermittent
The locations of less prominent surface water features (i.e., centerlines or banks), within larger
wetland complexes, were not delineated separately from the larger wetland complex and were
included as a wetland feature. Such surface water features, with intermittent drainage or flow,
were included in the delineated boundaries for wetlands W9, W10, W17, W17T, W45, W47,
W54 and W60. Two ponds, delineated as part of wetlands OT11 and OT12 and one ditch,
delineated as part of wetland W49, did not meet NYSDEC definitions of a Stream or
Watercourse.
Based on the results of the field delineation, only two streams will be affected by the Project, as
interpreted from the NYSDEC definitions described in the NY Environmental Conservation Law
code Part 608 § 608.1 (t) and (v): surface water bodies W26 and W26T2. Delineated crossing
W26 corresponds with a mapped NYSDEC tributary; however, W26T2 does not. Stream
crossing W26 is associated with the access road southeast of Turbine 22 and stream crossing
W26T2 is associated with the interconnection line northeast of Turbine 20. Proposed stream
bank alteration for these features is estimated at 40 and 10 linear feet, respectively. The
remaining seven delineated streams identified in Table 3-5, are associated with the overhead
transmission line. Project related impacts to these surface waterbodies are not anticipated, as
these features are already culverted under the existing railroad right-of-way. Delineated wetlands
and surface waterbodies potentially affected by the proposed Project are provided on Figure 3-8.
Impacts, by waterbody or wetland, are presented in Table 3-6.
3-24
001621

Temporary Impact Permanent Impact

(Cable & Road Disturbance) (Roads) Stream Bank
Cowardin NYS DEC Mapped
Wetland ID Alteration
Classification 1 Wetland
(linear feet)
(square feet) (acres) (square feet) (acres)
W9 PEM1/PUBH No 560.20 0.013 0.00 0.000 -

W10 PEM1 No 2,458.92 0.056 771.31 0.018 -
W11T PEM1 No 216.38 0.005 87.02 0.002 -
W16-T1 PEM1 No 661.85 0.015 0.00 0.000 -
W16-T2 PEM1 No 238.69 0.005 0.00 0.000 -
W17 PEM1 No 2,317.81 0.053 0.00 0.000 -
W18 PEM1 No 3,924.95 0.090 962.02 0.022 -
W18T2 PEM1 No 224.94 0.005 60.98 0.001 -
W22 PSS1/PEM1 No 42,970.85 0.986 5,898.07 0.135 -
W24T PEM1 No 130.71 0.003 137.65 0.003 -
W25 PEM1 No 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 -
W26 R4/PEM1 No 589.49 0.014 453.59 0.010 40.00
W26-T1 PEM1 No 215.21 0.005 91.10 0.002 -
W26-T2 R4 No 361.79 0.008 0.00 0.000 10.00
W26-T3 PFO No 1,360.83 0.031 13612 0.031 -
3
W31 PFO1 No 9,761.75 0.224 17078.96 0.392 -
W34-T1 PEM1 No 48.57 0.001 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T12 PFO1 No 800.00 0.018 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T2 PEM1 No 103.36 0.002 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T3 PEM1 No 157.22 0.004 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T4 PEM1 No 650.96 0.015 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T5 PEM1 No 1,825.16 0.042 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T6 PEM1 No 697.30 0.016 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T7 PEM1 No 356.38 0.008 0.00 0.000 -
3-25
001622

Temporary Impact Permanent Impact Proposed
Cowardin NYS DEC Mapped (Cable & Access Road Disturbance) (Access Roads) Stream Bank
Wetland ID
Classification 1 Wetland Alteration
(square feet) (acres) (square feet) (acres) (linear feet)
W34-T8 PEM1 No 568.43 0.013 0.00 0.000 -
W34-T9 PEM1 No 228.52 0.005 180.05 0.004 -
W34-T10 PEM1 No 1,220.34 0.028 362.11 0.008 -
W34-T11 PEM1 No 4,026.79 0.092 999.20 0.023 -
W35 PEM1 No 1,731.83 0.040 0.00 0.000 -
W41 PFO1/PEM1 No 877.00 0.020 0.00 0.000 -
W42T PEM1 No 251.60 0.006 136.94 0.003 -
W45 PEM1 No 276.96 0.006 92.49 0.002 -
W47 PEM1 No 0.92 0.000 0.00 0.000 -
W48 PEM1 No 746.52 0.017 299.95 0.007 -
W49 PEM1 No 642.13 0.015 0.00 0.000 -
W52 PEM1 No 357.14 0.008 0.00 0.000 -
W53 PSS1/PEM1 No 258.09 0.006 0.00 0.000 -
W54 PEM1 No 158.64 0.004 0.00 0.000 -
W55 PSS1 No 725.87 0.017 0.00 0.000 -
W59 PEM1 No 180.72 0.004 161.33 0.004 -
W60 PEM1 No 208.24 0.005 0.00 0.000 -
OT-12 PUBH/PEM1 No 625.00 0.014 10.00 0.000 -
OT-13 R3/PEM1 No 625.00 0.014 10.00 0.000 -
OT-18 R3/PSS1 No 625.00 0.014 10.00 0.000 -
Total 84,968.06 1.95 10,723.81 0.67 50.00
1
Covertype Definitions
3-26
001623
Table 3-7
Number of
Wetlands
I 6 304
II 42 3666
III 18 470
IV 4 62
Total 70 4,501
Table 3-8
1 Number of Wetland
Polygons
PFO 172 2396
PFO/PSS 20 228
PFO/PEM 31 358
PFO/PUB 2 31
PSS 105 265
PSS/PEM 69 515
PSS/PUB 1 2
PEM 336 863
PEM/PUB 10 12
PUB 253 181
PUS 4 2
Total 1,024 4,919
1
3-30
001624
Table 3-7
Number of
Wetlands
I 6 304
II 42 3666
III 18 470
IV 4 62
Total 70 4,501
Table 3-8
1 Number of Wetland
Polygons
PFO 172 2396
PFO/PSS 20 228
PFO/PEM 31 358
PFO/PUB 2 31
PSS 105 265
PSS/PEM 69 515
PSS/PUB 1 2
PEM 336 863
PEM/PUB 10 12
PUB 253 181
PUS 4 2
Total 1,024 4,919
1
3-30
001625
Table 3-9
Delineated Wetlands Overhead Transmission Line
NYS DEC
Cowardin
Wetland ID Mapped Location
Classification 1
Wetland ID
OT3 PSS1 N/A Along railroad bed and Kents Creek
OT4 PEM1/PSS1 N/A Along railroad bed and Kents Creek
OT11 PUBH N/A Railroad bed
OT12 PUBH/PEM1 N/A Golf course
OT13 R3/PEM1 N/A Intersection of railroad bed and Three-mile Creek
OT18 R3/PSS1 N/A Upstream of NY State Hwy 12E
OT19 PEM1 N/A Along railroad bed
OT20 PFO1 N/A Along railroad bed
OT21 R2OW X-5 Chaumont River
1
Cover Class Definition
OW - Open Water
R2 - Riverine, lower perennial
R3 – Riverine, upper perennial
Although wetland impacts will be avoided if practicable, any clearing through forested wetlands
could result in a change from tree species to shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Non-forested
wetlands within the proposed overhead transmission line right-of-way consist of emergent and
scrub-shrub wetlands. Impacts to non-forested wetlands are expected to be short term and
vegetation is expected to return to pre-construction conditions in one to two growing seasons.
The NYSDEC considers the conversion of forested wetlands to non-forested wetlands a

permanent change in wetland vegetation composition. While this conversion from one cover
class to another does not constitute a net loss of wetlands, it may alter the structure and function
3-33
001626
Table 3-10
Hawk Observations for the Braddock Bay1, Franklin Mountain2 and
Derby Hill3 Bird Observatory: 20064
Braddock Bay Franklin Mt. Derby Hill
Spring Spring Fall Fall Spring Spring
Common Name Scientific Name 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007
Black Vulture Coragyps atratus 0 0 0 0 1 2
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 4671 15097 393 483 11375 8291
Osprey Pandion haliaeetus 1 150 121 140 503 365
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 20 267 121 141 363 244
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 89 1134 70 109 474 590
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 49 4060 573 835 2706 2413
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperi 43 889 115 162 349 413
Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 4 26 8 25 29 16
Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 187 750 115 93 578 363
Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus 0 24445 774 1639 9442 8349
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 419 4384 2711 2146 4859 3366
Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 37 278 4 10 251 254
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 5 55 207 164 41 47
American Kestrel Falco sparverius 44 544 85 89 216 325
Merlin Falco columbarius 0 46 39 38 33 39
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 1 14 14 25 11 9
Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni 0 1 0 1 0
Unknown 3 0 56 61 39 21
Total Number of Hours 157.75 378 847.25 516.42 485.6 444.25
Total Number of Individuals Observed 5573 52140 5406 6160 31271 25107
1
Located on the southern shore of Lake Ontario in the town of Greece, just outside of Rochester, NY.
2
Located on the Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society Sanctuary, two miles south of Oneonta, NY, overlooking the Susquehanna
River Valley, on the western edge of New York’s Catskill Mountains.
3
Located on the southeastern shore of Lake Ontario in Oswego County.
4
Source: Hawk Migration Association of North America (2006-2007). Hawkcount Results [Online].
American black ducks, Canada geese and to a lesser extent, ring ducks, green-winged teals,
gadwalls, American widgeons, and hooded mergansers use these areas as migratory stopovers
(Northern Ecological Associates, 1994; Losito, 1993). Other migratory waterfowl documented
in the region, include snow goose, northern pintails, northern shoveler, American coot,
bufflehead, common merganser, lesser scaup, canvasback and goldeneye.
Surveys for migrating birds within the Project Area were conducted in 2006 and included spring
and fall radar surveys for nocturnal avian migrants, and spring and fall surveys for migrant
raptors (see Appendix E – Avian and Bat Studies). The objective of these surveys was to record
and estimate the use of the site by migrant raptors, other diurnal migrants (i.e. waterfowl), and
other large birds possibly utilizing this migration corridor. Point counts, as prescribed by the
Hawk Mountain Association of North America (HMANA), were conducted by observers
3-41
001627

Raptor Migration Data for Proposed Wind Sites in New York State 1
Number
Seen
Spring
Cape Vincent, Jefferson County 3/21-5/1 7 21 232 15.4 8 not calc 125 m 9-5 2007
2
Clayton, Jefferson County 3/30-5/7 10 58 700 12.1 14 61% 150 m 9-3 2005
3
Altona, Clinton County 5/4-5/6 3 (21) 2 0 0 1 not calc n/a 9-4 2005
4
Clinton/Ellenburg, Clinton County 4/18-4/20 3 (21) 2 0 0 1 not calc n/a 9-4 2005
Windfarm Prattsburgh, Steuben Co. not reported 10 (60) 2 314 5.23 15 83% 125 m not reported 2005
Howard, Steuben County 4/3-5/14 9 52.5 260 4.95 11 64% 125 m 9-3 2006
Dairy Hills, Wyoming County 4/15-4/26 5 20 50 (2.5) 2 6 (94.7%) 2,5 125 m 9-3 2005
Bliss, Wyoming County 4/21-4/28 3 (21) 2 19 (0.9) 2 4 not calc n/a 9-4 2005
Wethersfield, Wyoming County 4/22-4/29 3 21 5 0.1 3 not calc n/a 9-4 2005
High Sheldon, Wyoming County 4/2-5/14 7 37 119 3.2 7 not calc n/a 9-5 2005
Spring Mean 6.4 35.3 170.2 4.7 8.1
Fall
2
Clayton, Jefferson County 9/9-10/16 11 63.5 575 9.1 13 89% 150 m 9-3 2005
Altona, Clinton County 9/24-9/30 3 (21) 2 0 0 0 0 n/a 9-4 2005
Clinton/Ellenburg, Clinton County 9/23-9/28 3 (21) 2 0 0 0 0 n/a 9-4 2005
Jordanville, Herkimer County 10/13-11/30 44 234.7 629 (2.7) 2 12 (67%) 2 125 m ~7:30-3 2006
Windfarm Prattsburgh, Steuben Co. not reported 13 73 220 3.01 10 62% 125 m not reported 2004
3-43
001628

Raptor Migration Data for Proposed Wind Sites in New York State
Number
Seen
Fall
Howard, Steuben County 9/1-10/28 10 57 206 3.6 12 85% 125 m 9-3 2005
Dairy Hills, Wyoming County 9/11-10/10 4 16 48 (3) 2 6 (94.7%) 2,5 125 m 9-3 2005
Bliss, Wyoming County 9/12-9/17 3 (21) 2 0 0 0 0 n/a 9-4 2005
Wethersfield, Wyoming County 9/21-11/1 3 (21?) 2 231 9.7 11 27% 400 ft 9-4 2006
Wethersfield, Wyoming County 9/13-9/18 3 21 0 0 0 0 n/a 9-4 2005
High Sheldon, Wyoming County 8/29-11/4 8 53.5 168 3.1 9 not calc n/a 9-5 2005
Fall Mean 8.9 49 189 3.8 7.7
1
Source: New York State Department of Environmental Protection 10/1/07
2
(#) = value not reported in results, calculated by DEC based on report text and tables
3
Four turkey vultures were observed but not deemed migratory; not included in overall mean calculation
4
Two broad-winged hawks were observed but not deemed migratory; not included in overall mean calculation
5
Calculated for spring and fall combined
3-44
001629

1

Number of
Birds/Route
3-48
001630

1

Number of
3-49
001631

Number of
3-50
001632

1

Number of
1
period 1966-2005.
2
[Online].
3

1
Individuals Groups
Waterbirds
Waterfowl
Mallard 2 1 0.05
Shorebirds
Killdeer 16 10 0.4
Raptors/Vultures
T
Passerines
3-51
001633

1

Number of
1
period 1966-2005.
2
[Online].
3

1
Individuals Groups
Waterbirds
Waterfowl
Mallard 2 1 0.05
Shorebirds
Killdeer 16 10 0.4
Raptors/Vultures
T
Passerines
3-51
001634

Individuals Groups
Passerines
American goldfinch 23 15 0.575
American robin 30 25 0.75
Baltimore oriole 6 3 0.15
Barn swallow 23 6 0.575
Black-capped chickadee 5 3 0.125
Bluejay 2 2 0.05
BobolinkBCC 76 32 1.9
Brown-headed cowbird 11 4 0.275
Cedar waxwing 4 1 0.1
Chestnut-sided warbler 1 1 0.025
Common grackle 29 3 0.725
Common yellowthroat 29 20 0.725
Eastern bluebird 2 2 0.05
Eastern kingbird 4 3 0.1
Eastern meadowlark 32 28 0.8
Eastern towhee 1 1 0.025
Eastern tufted titmouse 1 1 0.025
Eastern wood peewee 5 5 0.125
Empidonax spp. 1 1 0.025
European starling 235 19 5.875
Grasshopper sparrowSC 1 1 0.025
Gray catbird 6 5 0.15
SC
Horned lark 6 2 0.15
House wren 3 3 0.075
Indigo bunting 1 1 0.025
Northern cardinal 2 1 0.05
Ovenbird 11 11 0.275
Red-eyed vireo 7 7 0.175
Red-winged blackbird 136 49 3.4
Rose-breasted grosbeak 1 1 0.025
Savannah sparrow 37 26 0.925
Scarlet tanager 2 2 0.05
Song sparrow 48 35 1.2
Tree swallow 13 3 0.325
Unidentified passerine 1 1 0.025
Unidentified sparrow 1 1 0.025
Veery 1 1 0.025
Willow flycatcher 4 4 0.1
BCC
Wood thrush 6 5 0.15
Yellow warbler 31 18 0.775
3-52
001635

Individuals Groups
Upland Gamebirds
Ruffed grouse 1 1 0.025
Wild turkey 4 1 0.1
Doves
Mourning dove 10 6 0.25
Rock pigeon 14 5 0.35
Other Birds
Hairy woodpecker 1 1 0.025
Northern flicker 2 2 0.05
Unidentified woodpecker 3 3 0.075
1
T=State Threatened, SC=State Species of Concern, BCC=USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
were the most common passerines observed. Most of the observed species are associated with
agricultural, grasslands, and/or edge habitat. The northern harrier, a NYS threatened species; the
horned lark and grasshopper sparrow, NYS species of concern; and bobolink and wood thrush,
USFWS 2002 Birds of Conservation Concern, were recorded during the surveys.

Construction and operation of the proposed Project will likely result in minor, temporary impacts
to breeding birds. During construction, clearing and work activities in open habitats will
temporarily displace nesting and foraging individuals from the work area and suitable adjacent
habitats. Approximately 41 acres of pasture/hay fields, which represent much less than one
percent (approximately 0.003 percent) of pasture/hay fields in the Town of Cape Vincent, may
be displaced by Project infrastructure. Similarly, 17 acres of second growth deciduous forest
(approximately 0.001 percent of forested cover in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme) will be
cleared for the Project. Of this total, less than 1 acre will be permanently cleared for Project
infrastructure and 16 acres will be temporarily cleared for construction. This will result in
temporary and permanent minor habitat loss for some forest-nesting avian species. However,
unlike most of the northeast where forest habitats remain a high priority, grasslands are more
important in the St. Lawrence River Valley and forested areas temporarily disturbed will be
initially converted to grassland habitats.
Some grassland species may be disturbed or displaced by turbine noise and movement. Studies
have shown small scale reductions in density for some nesting grassland bird species close to
operating wind turbines (Leddy et al. 1999, Johnson et al. 2000). In general, use by grassland
birds was lower in areas with turbines than in areas without. At Buffalo Ridge, Montana, areas
3-53
001636

1
Survey Date
18 Dec 2004 28 Dec 2005
Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 11 --
Canada Goose Branta canadensis 4523 913
Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus -- 7
American Black Duck Anas rubripes 16 3
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 407 84
Greater Scaup Aythya marila 4 --
Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis 4 --
Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 1 170
Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 14 --
Common Merganser Mergus merganser 39 100
Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus -- 2
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus -- 1
Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 93 290
Great Blue Heron (Blue form) Ardea herodias -- 2
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 1 2
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 17 --
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 2 2
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii 3 3
Accipiter sp. Accipiter -- 1
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 52 84
Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 13 11
American Kestrel Falco sparverius 1 3
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 34 11
Herring Gull Larus argentatus 38 17
Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus 14 12
Rock Pigeon Columba livia 547 1002
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 284 638
Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 2 2
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 15 13
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 6 7
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus -- 5
Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 1 1
Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor 2 6
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata 74 163
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 2601 1330
Common Raven Corvus corax 1 4
Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris 55 120
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus 227 206
Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor 1 --
3-56
001637

1
Survey Date
18 Dec 2004 28 Dec 2005
Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta Canadensis 1 1
White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 18 18
Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis -- 2
American Robin Turdus migratorius 181 2
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 931 1672
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 32 --
American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea 69 121
White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis -- 3
Dark-eyed (Slate-colored) Junco Junco hyemalis 14 20
Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus -- 3
Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 614 51
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 31 41
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 1 --
Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 1 --
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 145 66
American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 46 35
House Sparrow Passer domesticus 373 711
Total Number of Species 47 47
1
Source: National Audubon Society (2002). The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results [Online].
Canada geese, American crows, European starlings, rock doves, and house sparrows. It is
important to note that the Audubon Christmas Bird Counts were conducted in different areas
than the Project Area surveys and reflect different years, locations, and habitats. However, they
provide a general indication of birds that might be expected in the area absent site-specific data.
Winter surveys were conducted for SLW in 2006-2008 within the proposed Project Area. All
waterfowl and raptor observations were plotted for six fixed survey points (Appendix E – Avian
and Bat Studies). In addition, other large birds such as waterbirds, upland game birds, and
species of interest were also recorded during the surveys. Survey results are presented in Table
3-15. Mean use is calculated as the number of individuals observed within 800 meters of the
survey point per 60-minute survey. Frequency of occurrence is calculated as the percent of
surveys in which a species was observed.
In comparison, a total of 2,230 individuals in 280 groups of waterbirds, waterfowl, and raptors
were recorded during the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 Audubon Christmas Bird Count surveys
(Table 3-14), while Project surveys counted 2,867 individuals in 417 groups (Table 3-15). Four
species of waterfowl (all gull species), five species of waterfowl, and ten species of raptors
3-57
001638

2007 2008
Percent Percent
Waterbirds 49 17
Great Black-backed Gull - - - - 4 2 0.04 2.22
Herring Gull - - - - 2 1 0.02 1.11
Ring-billed Gull 4 2 0.19 9.52 37 12 0.41 7.78
Unidentified Gull 250 1 11.90 4.76 6 2 0.07 2.22
Waterfowl 1946 47
Canada Goose 115 4 5.48 19.05 1932 45 21.47 16.67
Mallard 24 1 1.14 4.76 - - - -
Tundra Swan 3 1 0.14 4.76 - - - -
Unidentified Scaup 131 2 6.24 9.52 - - - -
Common Merganser - - - - 14 2 0.16 2.22
Raptors 235 216
Accipiters - - - - 5 4
Coopers Hawk - - - - 2 2 0.02 2.22
Sharp-shinned Hawk - - - - 1 1 0.01 1.11
Unidentified Accipiter - - - - 1 1 0.01 1.11
Buteos 201 185
Red-tailed Hawk 15 11 0.71 80.95 72 62 0.80 52.22
Rough-legged Hawk 63 56 3.00 47.62 114 109 1.27 68.89
Unidentified Buteo 6 4 0.29 9.52 15 14 0.17 13.33
Northern Harrier 19 16 0.90 42.86 12 10 0.13 10.00
Bald Eagle - - - - 2 2 0.02 2.22
Falcons 15 15
American Kestrel 1 1 0.05 4.76 11 11 0.12 12.22
Merlin - - - - 4 4 0.04 4.44
3-58
001639

2007 2008
Percent Percent
Vultures 5 4
Turkey Vulture 8 3 0.38 4.76 5 4 0.06 3.33
Upland Gamebirds 309 16
Wild Turkey 21 3 1.00 14.29 309 16 3.43 17.78
Passerines 323 117
American Crow 129 0 6.14 85.71 322 116 3.58 74.44
Common Raven 1 1 0.05 4.76 1 1 0.01 1.11
Total 70 146 37.62 2867 417
3-59
001640

Suitable
Suitable Habitat in
Vascular Plants
Wet meadows, floodplain forests,
Michigan Lily Lilium michiganense Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes
swamps
Autumnal Water-
Callitriche hermaphroditica Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes Lakes and streams
Starwort
Fish
S2-Imperiled
Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus NHP No Yes Rivers and lakes
(NHP listing)
Reptiles
Shrub swamps, marshes, and
Blanding’s Turtle2 Emydoidea blandingii Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes
shallow ponds
Birds3
Marshes, grasslands and
Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes
croplands
Black Tern Chlidonias niger Endangered (St.) NHP No Yes Freshwater marshes
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Endangered (St.) NHP Yes Yes Agricultural areas
Grasslands and rocky inland
Common Tern Sterna hirundo Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes
shores
Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Threatened (St.) NHP No Yes Marshes
Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Grasslands
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Agriculture fields, grasslands
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened (St.) NHP No No Lakes, rivers, reservoirs
Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Threatened (St.) NHP No Yes Streams, ponds, lakes, marshes
3-63
001641

Suitable
Suitable Habitat in
Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Marshes and wet meadows
Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Threatened (St.) NHP Yes Yes Grasslands
Common Loon Gavia immer Special Concern (St.) NHP No Yes Lakes
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Special Concern (St.) NHP Yes Yes Marshes and swamps
Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida Special Concern (St.) NHP Yes Yes Grasslands
4
Mammals
Caves, mines, under rocks and
tree bark, floodplain forest,
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered (St./Fed.) NHP Yes Yes
beech-maple forest, limestone
woodlands
Eastern small-footed Caves, mines, under rocks and
Myotis leibii Special Concern (St.) NHP No Yes
myotis tree bark, forest and forest edge
1
Project Area is defined as the larger area of leased parcels equal to approximately 7,900 acres, and the term Project Site is defined as the area required for
construction of the Project which includes both the permanent and temporary footprint of disturbance.
2
Documented within 0.6 mile of project site (NHP)
3
Avian species that may be located within a 10-mile buffer of the project boundary
4
Bats that may be located within a 40-mile buffer of the project boundary but have been documented beyond the boundaries of the project site
3-64
001642
Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region). Winter raptor surveys did not record short-eared owls;
however, two stated listed species of concern, Cooper's hawk and sharp-shinned hawk, were
documented.

Potential effects associated with major construction projects on threatened and endangered
species include both direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are results of the proposed action
and would include effects such as loss of habitat and mortality of individuals. Indirect effects are
those caused by the proposed action that are reasonably certain to occur and may include effects
such as disturbance and/or displacement of individuals, change in habitat suitability or habitat
degradation, and change in population density or distribution. Effects may be temporary (short-
term), for example during the project construction period, or long-term, such as effects arising
from long-term operation and maintenance of the facility (Table 3-17). Also, effects may be
cumulative, arising from the total impact of development, management, and use of the
surrounding land.
Table 3-17
Potential Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species from the Project
Impact Type
Impact Duration Direct Indirect
Short-Term x Temporary loss of habitat from x Prohibiting or altering
(e.g., during construction areas that will be (displacement) use of the area due
construction) reclaimed to construction activity.
x Potential mortality from construction x Altering or disturbing species
or related activity. behavior patterns due to
construction activity.
Long-Term x Permanent loss of habitat to wind x Prohibiting or altering
(e.g., during project. (displacement) use of the area due
project operation x Potential mortality due to wind plant to the wind project.
and maintenance) operation. x Altering or disturbing species
behavior patterns due to wind
project operation.
x Altering or changing species
distribution patterns due to the wind
project.
Plants: Michigan lily and autumnal water-starwort have not been documented within the Project
Area during wetlands surveys. Suitable habitat for these species within the Project Area is either
limited or not available, as the site is primarily agricultural land with limited undisturbed wetland
and aquatic habitats to support these species. As wetlands have been avoided or minimized,
impacts to Michigan lily and autumnal water-starwort are not anticipated.
3-66
001643
Table 3-18
Coastal Zone Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitats in Project Vicinity
Will
Will Project
Distance Project Impair
From Activities That Impair Habitat Destroy Habitat
Habitat Project Viability Habitat? Viability?
St. Lawrence River Shoreline Bays 0.5-2 miles Activities that substantially degrade No No
or increase water level fluctuations
French Creek Marsh 1-2 miles Activities that substantially degrade No No
alter flows, or alter water level
fluctuations, or eliminate wetland
habitats, or result in significant
human disturbance of the area
Carlton Island – Featherbed Shoals 1.5 miles 1 Activities that substantially degrade No No
water quality, or result in
substantial alteration or fluctuation
of water levels
Fox Island – Grenadier Island Shoals 6-8 miles 2 Activities that degrade water quality No No
Point Peninsula Marsh 8-10 miles 3 Activities that degrade water No No
quality, reduce water levels, or
increase water level fluctuations
Point Peninsula 8-10 miles 3 Waste disposal, and discharges of No No
sewage or stormwater runoff
containing sediments or chemical
pollutants and decrease of
available habitat
Wilson Bay and Marsh 2-3 miles Activity that degrade water quality, No No
increase turbidity or sedimentation,
reduce water levels, or increase
water level fluctuations, or
eliminate wetland habitats, or result
in significant human disturbance of
the area.
1
In St. Lawrence River
2
In Lake Ontario
3
Across Chaumont Bay
3.4 Transportation/Traffic
The proposed St. Lawrence Windpower Project Area would be located in the Towns of Cape
Vincent and Lyme, and would be surrounded by an extensive network of local, county and state
managed roads (see Figure 2-1). This section describes the network of roads that may be used
during construction of the proposed wind energy project, the potential impact of construction
traffic on the existing transportation system, and measures to mitigate potential impact. This
section has been prepared based on consultations with the New York State Department of
Transportation, Region 7.
3-77
001644
improvements or construction traffic; potential disruption of tourism in the Thousand Islands;

and increased traffic over local roads during construction.
SLW investigated several routes throughout the Project Area that could be used for delivery of
turbine components and related construction materials. The turbine component delivery vehicles
would be oversized, requiring modification to intersections along the preferred routes. Since
preparation of the DEIS, the roads proposed for material and equipment transport have been
minimized. It is expected that delivery of turbine components and materials would come from
the north or south along Interstate Route 81. From Interstate Route 81 (Exit 48), the primary
route is Route 342 West to NYS Route 12 to Route 9. From Route 9 local roads will be used
including Pelo, McKeever, Mason, Peo (Gosier), Favret/Cold Spring, Hell, Constance, Swamp
(Wilson), Deer Lick and State Route 12E (between Favret and Deer Lick Roads only). County
Roads 8 (Johnny Cake Road), 9 (Sandy Bay Road/St. Lawrence Road), 4 (Rosiere Road), 5
(Church Street/Three Mile Creek Road), and 179 (Evans St/Caroline St.) and local roads Wells
Settlement (Ashland), Gibbons (Merchant), Cheever and Old Town Springs will be used as
secondary routes for civil works vehicles and transport of electrical equipment associated with
the overhead transmission line.
This route has been selected to minimize impacts to traffic on the local roads and surrounding
communities. Specifically, the route has been designed to reach the largest number of wind
turbine locations while minimizing potential impacts and potential disruption to tourism by
avoiding route 12E. Existing local road and the turbines, or Project facilities they provide access
to, are listed in Table 3-19. Final construction transportation plans would be approved by state
and local officials.
Table 3-19
Existing Local Roads and Proposed Wind Turbine Facility
Local Road Name Turbine Number/Facility
Deer Tick Road 1-2, 3-4
Favret Road 5-8, 9, 10
Swamp Road Substation, O&M Building, Temporary work area and parking
Cold Springs Road 12-13, 14-15
Hell Street 16-19, 26, 27, 29, 30
Constance Road 20-25
Peo Road 28, 31
Mason Road 33, 34-35
Johnny Cake Road 32, 36-37, 38, 39-41, 42
McKeever Road 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48-49,
Sand Bay Road 50-53
3-79
001645
001646
001647
001648
001649
001650
001651
N
LAKE
ONTARIO
s
POINT
KRING
s 12
RD
c111
GOUVERNEUR
RD
c 1
OGA
BAY
CALAB
RD
RD
GOOSE
SETTLEMENT
RD
BAY
s 12
c 1 c 111
DUTCH
GOOSE
NO
NAME
NO
RD NAME
c 1
c 111
RD
DUTCH
s37
s 12
LIMEST
RD
SETTLEMENT
BAY
ONE
RD
POINT
GOOSE
c100
DORR
RD
DINGMAN
BAY
DINGMAN
GIE
CARNE
RD
RD
RD
i
POINT
81
RD BAY
LOG
1
GOOSE
RD
BAY
DUMP RD
HILL
HUNNEYMAN
GOOSE
PIERCE
RD
RD
RD
RD
s
RD
c 191
e
971
K
c111
RD
RD
c
58
1
ALNEY
STUMP
i
s
SWAN
12
LANDON
s
81
37
LAKE
ROSSIE
971
K
RD
PARK
RD
HOLLOW SPIES
RD
OF
THE
RD
INSTER
s
RD
37
s
12
SON
WESTM
RD
ISLES
WATER
RD
s 26
c 100 RD
RD
OTTER
ST WIMMER
26 RD
RD
c TAYLOR RD
100
RD
RD
i
CROSS
VIVIAN
RD
81
c
191
POINT
ALEXANDRIA
VIVIAN FLATS
OLD
LAKE
STATE HARD
POINT
RD RD
ISLAND RD
PARK HANSON
WESTMINSTER
L
FARREL
GRASS
BRIDGE RD
BURNS
PARK
NCE
CARR
RD FLATS
BRIDGE
RD
LAWRE
RD
RD
NUMBER
s 26 6
CENTER
RD
s 12 HARD
SAINT
WILLS
SAINT
HANSON
s
LAWREN
RD c
21
RD
COTTAG
12
CE
RD
RD
RD
RD
PARK
E
THOUS
RD
SETTLEMENT
HILL
AND
RD
c100
c 2 RD H
PROJECT LOCATION
RD PINEHU
ENGLIS
ISLAND
RST
CARPEN
STEIN
6
RD
NEWMAN
TER
26B
2ND
PEEL
1ST
SHOULETT NY
BRIDGE
LDS
NUMBER
DOCK 3RD ST
E
RD
4TH
REYNO
ST
COLLIN
s 12 ELM ST
ST
i
ST
ST
81
ST
LAKE
PINE
S
s
c 3 RD
LANDIN
OLD
BUTTERFIELD
11
LAKE RD
G
RD NY OLD
26B
MILL
OLD ST
RD
RD
SCHOOL
STATE HILL
PARK
I
AVE
c 25
s 26
NO NAME
COTTAGE
ALLEN
HOUSE
INSTER
SEAWAY
RD
WESTM
RD
c 100
s 37
c
CROSS
25
RD
c
22
SETTLEMENT
CHURCH
RD
FOWLER
LOWER
RD
RD
c24
CAMEL
RD
ISLAND
s
HANNI
s 12
RD
TOWN
c 21
T
26
CONNECTICU
RD
TURNBULL
CHALK
SHORE
RD
BAILEY
LANDING
RD
RD
N
RAMP
HILL
POINT
BOATRD s 180
c2
REED
STATE
RD
OLD
RD
RD
RD
RD
SCHOOL
ST
FITCHETTE HUNTER
RD
RD
c
NEW
RD
3
GORE
s 180
LAKE
RD
NGE
RD
JOYNER
MUSKALO
WILLIAM ENT
LEDGES
CLEAR
u 11
BREEZY
GORE S SETTLEM
N
RD
SIMPSO
MIDDLE
RD
RD
PINES
MASON
s
GORE
c
BEARUP
24
ROBINSO
c c15
RD
POINT
13
i
12
81
N
RD
ENGLISH
COUNTY
RD
MAY IRWIN
ENT
12
MAY
RD
SETTLEM
RD
RD
c 3
s c
RD
IRWIN
MOON
26 21
BLANCHARRD
LINE
RD
RD
LAKE
RD
RD
180
RD
D
c
RD
22
FONTAIN
c
26
HULL
RD
AVE
c
POTTER
22
E
BLVD
RD
RD
CROSS
RD
GE
HILL
MOON
BAILEY
MUSKALON
VROOMAN
FOX
RD
RD
c 13
LAKE
RANCH
N
HALL
WORDE
ROCK
i 81
RD
SETTLEMENT
c 2
MIDDLE
RD
COX
RD
RD
RD
HILL
S
DICKSON
s 12
c
15 BEART
LAKE
RD
c
VROOMAN
13 TANNER OWN
IDGE
RD PULPIT
BAKER
S DICKSON
PARTR
DELPHI
LINE
e970
L
CREEK
CORNER
ST
s
HOUGHTON
12
ENGLISH
c 3 EAST
NNY
LAKE
ROY
s 180
c RD
KILLKE
RD 3
HAX
RS
s37
c
23
s
c
RED
LINE 22
CORNE
c u11
RD
15
RD
c
EAST RIDGE
POOLE 24
s
LINE RD
37
EAST 26
RD
c c
RD
EAST 21 26
MIDDLE
HYDE
c
JACK
CORNERS 13
RD
TANNERS RD
e c
RD
970
L 3 RD SCHNEIDER
KELSEY
RD
RD
BALDWIN RD
POOLE
HAX RD DICKSON
e 970
L
s 12
c3 SCHNEIDER RD
c 22
c c 21
c 23
c 24 RD
c 26
EAST
15 COUNTY
c 13
i
BEARTO
u 11
RD
RD
81
RD
STONE
s 37
s THERESA
WN
RD
ST
RD
BLACK
RD
RD
RD
s
26
RD
12E
s 180 RD
s26
RIDGE
RD
RD LINE
HYDE
HILL
LAKE
RD
KELSEY
RD
RD
c 3
VROOMAN
c 23
CREEK
s12E
SAMPSON
SETTLEMENT
RD
RD
WILSON
KS
OLD
s
RD
FREDERIC
ON
HOUGHT
i
ENGLISH
c c
CREEK
194 194
RD
12
LAKE
BALDWIN
81
QUAKER
NY
s12
ANTWERP
26
NY
26
193
c 21
RD
FACTORY
13
RD
OLD
RED
c 4
RD
c22
RD
HIGHLA
BLACK CREEK
RD
STAR
s 12E
RALSTON
ND
AUSTIN
AVE
RD
ST
MAIN
ST
ST SPICER
RD
FOX
BRIDGE
26
GE
STATE
c
RD
c 194
11
PARTRID
193
NY
ST
ST
PINE ANTWERP
US
s
ST
181 26
c
NT
ST MILL 24
RD OLD
PLEASA
RD
RY
OXBOW
AVE
s
HILL
ORLEAN
RD
ST
RD
CEMETE
s
PARK
RD
AVE
CHURCH ST
KEYES
HIGH
ST
S
ST EVILLE
411
HAYES
12 E
RD MILLER
DANO LAFARG
c46
MORGAN
WHISKEY RD
SIDE
OLD
CLAYTON
RIVER
RD
SYLVESTER
BALD
RD
OLD
CEMETE
411
COMMERCIAL
LA
RY
RD
RD
NY
BED
KILLKEN
c
RIDGE
194
c 10
s 12E
GRANT
c
RD
181
LOVERS
RD
c26
c 28
OLD c194
ORE
EAST
s
ROCK
BREEZY ST RD WAITE
c 13
411
POINT BACON
ST
c 28
RD
c
RD
136 ST
RD
AVE
NY
RD
RD
REESE
26
MIDDLE
c 13
s
DEFERNO
c
CLAYTON 411
DANNEWALD 194
DEPOT
s12E RD
c194
AVE
RD
RIDGE OLD ST
i
81 US 11 MAPLE
HOYT
ACADEMY
EAST WASHINGT
WILLOW
CARPEN MAIN
CATFIS
POINT
ST
COMMOD ON BUREN
TER
ST VAN
H RD
RD
c
ST
E
RD
c 10
ST 181
s 411
CARPEN
BED
MECHANIC
SUNRISE
c
AMEND
9 RD TER
RD
JACK
c
ST
5 AVE
AVE
MILL
ST
RD
s 37 LEXINGTON
FULTON
c 5 FORD STEACEY
ORE
s 411
s AVE
RD
26 RD
RD
ST
RD
UNDERBLUFF RUDES
RD
RD
N
MADISO
s 12E
MC ALLISTER
BEVINS c 11
RD u 11
RD AVE
ELLIS
s 180
RD
RD
RD
c
PELO
194
RD
RD
RD
12
SHIMEL
11
c
US
4
c136
HOUSE
RD
RD
s
15
GE
OLD
PERCH
COOLID
c
26
RD
7
RY
RD
ZANG
CEMETE
RD
HOLKIN
CREEK
SNELL
SCHELL
c
7 RD RD
GROVE
DIXON
c 5
LAKE
LA
FLAT
c
8
GLASS

St. Lawrence Wind SDEIS I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

St. Lawrence Wind SDEIS I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WINDPOWER PROJECT

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Revised Wind Turbine Locations

2. Selection of Acciona AW-82/1500 Turbines Wind Turbines

3. Revised Underground Electrical Collection Line Configuration

4. Revised Access Road Configuration

5. Revised Substation Locations

7. Five Meteorological Towers

8. Additional Wetlands Delineation Data

9. Additional Avian and Bat Impact Data

10. Additional Rare Species Impact Data

11. Additional Cultural Resources Studies

12. Supplemental Visual Assessments and Shadow Flicker Study

13. Noise Studies

14. Revised Construction Schedule

1.1 Project Description

1.2 Project Applicant

St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC

1.3 Summary of Project Purpose and Need

1.4 Summary of Environmental Effects and Proposed Mitigation

1.5 Summary of Alternatives Analysis

1.6 List of Required Permits and Approvals

Table 1-1 (Sheet 1 of 8)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 2 of 8)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 3 of 8)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 4 of 8)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 5 of 8)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 6 of 8)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 7 of 8)

Table 1-1 (Sheet 8 of 8)

Table 1-2 (Sheet 1 of 2)

NYSOPRHP (SHPO) Cultural Resources Consultation.

FAA Notice of Construction and Aviation Lighting Plan.

Table 1-2 (Sheet 2 of 2)

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

The Applicant, SLW, is proposing to develop a wind-powered electrical-generating facility of up

2.2 Purpose and Scope of Environmental Impact Statement

x SLW prepares the Final EIS (FEIS);

2.3 Project Purpose, Public Need and Benefits

2.4 Project Description and Location

2.5 Proposed Facility Layout and Design

2.5.1 Wind Turbines

2.5.2 Turbine Spacing

2.5.3 Access Roads

2.5.4 Underground Interconnect Line

2.5.5 Overhead Interconnect Line

2.5.6 Substation and Interconnection Facilities

2.5.7 Meteorological Towers

2.6.1 Geotechnical Investigation

2.6.2 Design and Construction Specifications

2.6.3 Access Road Installation

2.6.4 Foundation Construction

2.6.5 Underground Interconnect Line Installation

interconnection line is required, as the opening

Although not currently anticipated, portions of the

2.6.6 Wind Turbine Assembly and Erection

transmission owner interconnection substation include a control house, utility-quality metering,

2.6.8 Overhead Transmission Line

2.6.9 Operations and Maintenance Facility

2.6.10 Environmental Construction Compliance

2.7 Operations and Maintenance Plan

Wind turbines will receive scheduled preventative maintenance inspections. In certain