January 29, 2013 Honorable Jeffrey C. Cohen Acting Secretary, NYS Boar of !lectric "o#er $eneration Siting an !n%iron&ent 3 !

&'ire State "la(a Albany, NY 12223)13*0 Re: Case12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power +ear Acting Secretary Cohen, -n January 22, 2013 .o#n/ of Ca'e 0incent an 1y&e electe an a''ointe official/ &et #ith re're/entati%e/ of B" Alternati%e !nergy to i/cu// ite&/ that #ere inclu e in B"2/ re%i/e "ublic 3n%ol%e&ent "lan 4"3"5. .he bul6 of the &eeting focu/e on the .o#n 'ro%i ing a li/t of i//ue/ that #e e7'ect #ill be inclu e in B"2/ "reli&inary Sco'ing State&ent 4"SS5. A e8uacy of en%iron&ental /tu ie/ #a/ al/o inclu e a/ 'art of the li/ting. .he thir 'art of the i/cu//ion focu/e on our (oning la#9 /'ecifically tho/e /ection/ that B" #ill re8ue/t the Siting Boar to /et a/i e. -ur li/t of i&'act/ are attache in the acco&'anying file to thi/ letter, Additional Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts & Other Recommended Studies & Issues. :e re8ue/t that thi/ li/t beco&e 'art of the official recor for the .o#n of Ca'e 0incent. :e /houl li6e to 'oint out that .o#n of Ca'e 0incent official/ a//e&ble 'a/t re%ie#/ an co&&ent/ by in%ol%e agencie/ uring the S!;<A 'roce//, inclu ing +"S="SC, an u/e the reco&&en ation/ by the/e agencie/ a/ a ba/i/ for the 're'aration of our li/t of a %er/e i&'act/. Becau/e our li/t of i&'act/ #ere in%ol%e agency reco&&en ation/ that #ere 're%iou/ly ignore , #e feel our li/t ha/ /'ecial #eight an /houl be inclu e #ith fe# if any e7ce'tion/ in B"2/ "SS. +uring our i/cu//ion there #ere a nu&ber of a itional 'oint/ that #ere &a e by &any of the 'artici'ant/. .ho/e i//ue/ an /ugge/tion/ #ill ho'efully be inclu e in the recor by B". .he i/cu//ion of our (oning la# #a/ i/a''ointing. Becau/e #e 're'are an e7ten/i%e, #ell ocu&ente li/t of 'otentially a %er/e i&'act/ for B"2/ con/i eration, #e e7'ecte /o&e li/ting or 'rinte ocu&ent fro& B" outlining tho/e /ection/ of our la# that they con/i ere

'roble&atic. <ather than 'ro%i ing a li/t, B"2/ attorney John Harri/ 'ulle out hi/ 'hone an began /crolling o#n through a co'y of our la# on hi/ 'hone calling out /ection/ of the la#. 3n the beginning he &entione the na&e an nu&ber of the /ection, but later >u/t 8uic6ly calle out the /ection nu&ber/. :e ha to re8ue/t B" /en u/ a #ritten co'y, but gi%en B"2/ attitu e at the ti&e #e #oul be /ur'ri/e if #e recei%e a har or igital co'y. :e #ere all i/a''ointe in B" by the &anner in #hich they faile to engage u/ on thi/ critical i//ue. Secretary Cohen coul you 'lea/e 'ro%i e u/ #ith an/#er/ to /o&e 8ue/tion/ #e ha%e relate to B"2/ filing their "SS? 3f B" choo/e/ to ignore a nu&ber of ite&/ on our li/t of 'otential i&'act/ #hen they /ub&it their "SS an #e ob>ect uring the co&&ent 'erio an argue for their inclu/ion, can the hearing e7a&iner co&'el B" to inclu e the/e i&'act/ in a re%i/e "SS? Can B" be &a e to re%i/e an re/ub&it their "SS? 3f not, then #hat recour/e #oul the .o#n ha%e in thi/ ca/e? 3f B" cho/e not to re%i/e an con/i er any /ugge/tion/ uring the "SS co&&ent 'erio , i/ it 'o//ible they coul &o%e onto the a''lication 'ha/e #ithout re/'on ing to the .o#n an the hearing e7a&iner? :e #oul a''reciate hel'ing u/ un er/tan #hat o'tion/ #e &ight ha%e uring the/e u'co&ing 'ha/e/ of the Article 10 'roce//. <e/'ectfully your/, @rban Hir/chey A .o#n Su'er%i/or Broo6/ Bra gon A +e'uty Su'er%i/or John Byrne A .o#n Council

Cliffor Schnei er A .o#n Council Bichelle -/#al A .o#n Council <ichar Bac/herry A "lanning Boar Chair&an <obert S. Bro#n A "lanning Boar Cyril Cullen A "lanning Boar "aul +octeur A "lanning Boar +enni/ Caul6nha& A DBA Chair&an ! Hlu (en/6i A Doning Boar

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

Additional Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts & Other Recommended Studies & Issues
BP Article 10 Cape Vincent Wind Farm Proposal – 2012 I. Health, Sa et! and "eneral Wel are
1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – Article 10 rules state, “A statement as to whether the municipality has an a opte comprehensive plan an whether the propose lan use !win pro"ect# is consistent with such comprehensive plan$% &'(s 12)*tur+ine pro"ect proposal is stri,in-ly incompati+le with the 2003 an 2012 Joint Comprehensive 'lan for the Town an Villa-e of Cape Vincent$ &' shoul provi e an e.planation as to why they are proposin- a pro"ect so counter to the values espouse +y the Town an Villa-e(s Joint Comprehensive 'lan$ 2. SLEEP DEPRIVATION – /leep eprivation is now a well esta+lishe health ris, associate with the noise pro uce +y in ustrial win tur+ines !&$ &er-lun et$al$ 1000, C$ 1annin- 2 3vans 2012, 4$ 5issen+aum et$al$ 2012, 3$ 'e ersen et$a$l 2006, 'e ersen 2 7aye 200), 5$ 'ierpont 2000, 8$ /hepher et$a$ 2011 an 9$ van en &er- et$al$ 200:#$ &' shoul provi e a comprehensive analysis of the scientific literature, inclu in- the aforementione papers, to escri+e the ne-ative health impacts associate with sleep istur+ance re-ar less of the cause, an then to also assess the potential for sleep isruptions, an other irect an in irect health effects, with &'(s propose 12)* tur+ine pro"ect$ Assessin- the potential for sleep isruption in Cape Vincent from in ustrial win evelopment shoul +e ,eye to &'(s pre icte soun levels$ The restrictions impose in Cape Vincent(s ;onin- law were formulate with the e.presse purpose of minimi;in- health impacts, such as sleep eprivation$ Ali-nment with those restrictions shoul help ensure &' that potential a verse health effects from their propose evelopment will +e minimi;e $ 3. WIND TURBINE NOISE < Amon- all the issues relate to in ustrial win evelopment, tur+ine noise is li,ely the issue that has the -reatest potential for annoyance an a verse health impacts on Cape Vincent(s population$ After a careful review +y ,nowle -ea+le acoustic professionals, inclu in- Town(s en-ineerin- consultants, Cape Vincent 1

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

a opte a ;onin- law that limits ni-httime in ustrial noise to no more than 3= &A, )0 &A an )= &A> an == &C, =: &C an ?3 &C, for ni-ht, evenin- an aytime perio s, respectively$ 're ictive mo elin- shoul furnish octave +an soun pressure levels, +asin- these pre ictions on a win tur+ine mo el that reflects worst case noise impacts$ 4o elin- shoul provi e an appropriate a "ustment for mo el an tur+ine varia+ility an with 9s@ 0, 9m@ 0, an 9r@ 0$0$ An the preparation of maps to escri+e potential noise impacts, property lines shoul +e clearly efine so that lan owners, those with leases an -oo nei-h+or a-reements as well as non*participants, can e.amine noise impacts on their property$ An a ition, the pre ictive analysis shoul inclu e a ta+le format of soun levels for all resi ences ,eye to the the soun level map$ The ta+le pro"ections shoul provi e pre icte A*7ei-hte an C* 7ei-hte soun levels at each resi ence an some esi-nation as to whether the resi ent is a participant, either lessee or -oo nei-h+or, or non*participant$ The noise impact analysis shoul inclu e three operational scenariosB 1# noise levels at cut*in spee s, 2# noise levels at C power output an 3# noise levels at full output of the win tur+ine$ Dinally, a summary tally shoul +e complete to estimate the num+er of Cape Vincent properties where tur+ine noise levels will e.cee 3= &A$ 4. INFRASOUND & LOW FREQUENCY NOISE (LFN) < The 7isconsin 'u+lic /ervice Commission "ust recently release an poste on their we+site1 a -roun *+rea,in- stu y of win tur+ine infrasoun noise impacts at the /hirley 7in pro"ect, &rown County, 7isconsin$ The stu y, authore +y four in epen ent acoustic consultin- firms with e.perience in assessin- win tur+ine noise impacts, conclu e B “The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry.” &ecause infrasoun levels were inau i+le, +ut nevertheless pro+lematic for some resi ents of the /hirley 7in pro"ect, the acoustical en-ineers also recommen e con uctin- a follow*up stu yB “A Threshold of Perception test with participating and non participating !hirley residents$% Entil the perception stu y is complete a conservative recommen ation in their report was win tur+ine noise levels shoul not e.cee 33$= &A$
1

A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and nfrasound at t!e S!irley "ind Farm in #rown County$ "isconsin %"isc. &SC 'eport (um)er 122412*1 ssued+ ,ecem)er 24$ 2-12..

2

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

/ection 1001$10 !,# of the Article 10 rules outline issues to evaluate that may have “potential community noise impacts$% Anclu e in the list to evaluate are “in ustrial or me ical activities that are sensitive to vi+ration or infrasoun $% The Town wants the followin- evaluation a e to in ustrial an me ical activities reference in the rulesB resi ences, schools an other facilities where people live, -ather or con-re-ate$ An a ition, &' shall provi e an evaluation of low freFuency noise annoyance an epi emiolo-ical evi ence that low freFuency soun -enerate +y the tur+ine mo el selecte for the propose pro"ect is not, an will not +e associate with the a vent of a verse health effects such as sleep an moo isor ers, ina+ility to concentrate, tinnitus, vesti+ular pro+lems an hypertension in resi ents livin- within or in close pro.imity to the pro"ect$ A-ain, the criterion shoul +e 33$= &A, as su--este from the 7isconsin '/C report$ The pre icte levels of infrasoun shall then +e compare with those reference in the recent 7isconsin '/C stu y$ /. TURBINE FAILURE * “"y far the biggest number of incidents #turbine accidents$ found was due to blade failure. "lade failure can arise from a number of possible sources, and results in either whole blades or pieces of blade being thrown from the turbine.2% 'ieces of +la e have +een ocumente as travelin- up to one mile$ Dor this reason some municipalities have a opte set+ac,s for win tur+ines to account for the ris, of fra-ments thrown from the rotor rather than ar+itrarily a optin- a win in ustry stan ar evelope for optimi;in- a pro"ect layout$ The win tur+ine set+ac,s escri+e in Cape Vincent(s ;onin- law were esi-ne for safety an are si. times !?G# the total hei-ht of a tur+ine from property lines of non* participants, homes, roa s an pro"ect +oun aries$ &' shoul provi e a comprehensive assessment of rotor failure an e+ris scatter for mo ern in ustrial scale win tur+ine failures as well as a well reasone e.planation for set+ac,s they may use that are not compliant with the Cape Vincent ;onin- law$ An the Article 10 rules !3.hi+it 31# they note, “!etbac%s re&uirements would have to be considered on a case by case basis by loo%ing at the purpose for their establishment and the circumstances of a specific site or case Hp$6:I$% Durthermore, also in the Article 10 rules !3.hi+it 1:# '...setbac% considerations for facility components which may present ha(ards to public
2

!ttp+00www.cait!nesswindfarms.co.u10accidents.pdf

3

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

safety.” The town(s purpose in esta+lishin- tur+ine set+ac,s is pu+lic safety an these limits are compati+le with the intent of Article 10 rules$ 2. SHADOW FLICKER – &' shall provi e epi emiolo-ical evi ence that sha ow flic,er cause +y win tur+ines of the mo el chosen +y &' oes not an will not in uce photosensitive sei;ures in in ivi uals with pro-ressive neuro* e-enerative isor ers livin- within or in close pro.imity to the propose pro"ect$ Cape Vincent(s ;onin- law provi es -ui ance for evaluatin- the impacts of sha ow flic,erB The applicant shall con uct a stu y on potential sha ow flic,er$ The stu y shall i entify locations where sha ow flic,er may +e cause +y win tur+ines an the e.pecte urations of the flic,er at these locations$ Dor resi ences, the ;one for pre ictin- sha ow covera-e shall inclu e the area within a 100*foot ra ius of the center of the resi ence$ The stu y shall i entify areas where sha ow flic,er may interfere with resi ences or hi-hways an etail measures that will +e ta,en to miti-ate or eliminate such interference$ The universal software use to pre ict sha ow flic,er impacts calculates sha ow effects +ase on tur+ines within 1,000 meters of a receptor an a receptor of 1 sFuare meter place 1$= meters a+ove -roun $ The universal stan ar of sha ow impact use +y consultants is 30 hrsJyrJreceptor$ 9iven that most resi ents of Cape Vincent o not hover aroun a one sFuare meter win ow, +ut occupy a far -reater livin- space that inclu es area outsi e the home itself, the 7in 'ro mo el shoul consi er an alternative analysis that inclu es tur+ines within 2,000 meters of a receptor an assumin- that each receptor is = m wi e +y 10 m lon-$ 3. FIRE PROTECTION & EMERGENCY RESPONSE – &' shoul provi e a Dire 'rotectionJ3mer-ency Response 'lanB A fire protection an emer-ency response plan, create in consultation with the fire epartment!s# havin- "uris iction over the propose in ustrial win pro"ect shall a ress coor ination with local emer-encyJfire protection provi ers urin- any construction or operation phase emer-ency, ha;ar , or other event$ 4. COST OF FACILITIES – Article 10 rules !3.hi+it 1)# reFuire “that etaile financial ata shoul accompany any reFuest for an application$ Dor e.ample, such information may +e relevant to the reFuire consi eration of alternatives, the reasona+leness of local laws, or whether the propose 4

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

facility is in the pu+lic interest$% &' has +een e.tremely reluctant to provi e any information, let alone relevant, important financial assumptions$ As state in the rules, the Town un erscores this reFuirement of the rules$ 5. STRAY VOLTAGE - The applicant shall provi e epi emiolo-ical evi ence that stray volta-e -enerate +y the tur+ine mo el selecte an transmission components o not pose a verse ris,s to the nervous an immune systems of resi ents livinwithin or in close pro.imity to the pro"ect$ /imilarly, the applicant must +e a+le to rule out the possi+ility that stray volta-e or electroma-netic fiel s -enerate +y the tur+ines or transmission components will not a versely effect the function of pacema,ers or similar implante evices inten e to re-ulate human or-an functions$ The applicant shall also provi e evi ence that stray volta-e -enerate +y the tur+ine mo el an transmission components shall not a versely affect mil, pro uction in airy cows an -oats in farms within or in close pro.imity to the pro"ect$ Durther, Cape Vincent ;onin- law reFuires an assessment, pre* an post*installation, of possi+le stray volta-e pro+lems on the site an nei-h+orin- properties within one !1# mile of the pro"ect +oun ary to show what properties nee up-ra e wirin- an -roun in-$ The applicantJoperator is responsi+le for assessment an any correction reFuire $

2. In#ol#ed A$enc! S%&'A 'e#ie(s o BP and Acciona Pro)ects S*+mitted to Cape Vincent Plannin$ Board 200,-200.
1. KARST GEOGRAPHY - Con uctin- a comprehensive assessment of the ,arst -eolo-y in the Town of Cape Vincent was pro+a+ly the most e-re-ious lapse in oversi-ht +y the Kea A-ency urin- the /3LRA review of the &' an Acciona pro"ect proposals$ The Town(s en-ineerin- consultant recommen e at the time that the applicants inclu e an evaluation of the +e roc, -eolo-y, in particular the ,arst -eolo-y$ They state , “This wor, is critical to maintain suita+le foun ations for future tur+ines, as well as to protect an maintain any re-ional -eolo-ical an hy ro-eolo-ic con itions of the ,arst -eolo-y$% Re-retta+ly, the ,arst assessment was never complete , +ut it nevertheless shoul +e a part of &'(s list of issues that reFuire stu y urinthe application phase of Article 10$ /

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

6a7 &3R5A3R CARR A//MCAAT3/ TOWN CONSULTANT ?J2:J06 /K7D Review * “7e recommen that the applicant, /t$ Kawrence 7in , inclu e an evaluation of the +e roc, -eolo-y in their efinition as well as the 3nvironmental Ampact Analysis$ This wor, is critical to maintain suita+le foun ations for future tur+ines, as well as to protect an maintain any re-ional -eolo-ical an hy ro-eolo-ic con itions of the ,arst -eolo-y$% “Mur challen-e urinthe /3LRA review is to i entify the potential impacts which will limit tower locations within sensitive areas of the ,arst -eolo-y$% !+# E/D7/ ?J1=J06 /K7D Review <Narst lan scapes are typifie +y un er-roun raina-es, caverns, an on the surface shallow, linear patterns of ve-etation$ The issolution crac,s, caves an caverns provi e heretofore un,nown hi+ernacula for +ats an that these areas shoul +e avoi e $ !c# 5O/83C 2J20J0: CV7'' Review < 83C recommen s that a more complete iscussion of ,arst features +e inclu e in the /83A/$ The location of +e roc, fractures an sin,holes shoul +e shown relative to propose pro"ect activities$ 7here car+onate roc,s are e.pose at lan surface, solution features create ,arst topo-raphy, characteri;e +y little surface raina-e as well as +y sin,holes, +lin valleys an sin,in- streams$ &ecause water enters the car+onate roc,s rapi ly throu-h sin,holes an other lar-e openin-s, any contaminants in the water can rapi ly enter an sprea throu-h the aFuifers$ An a ition, a etaile construction plan nee s to +e evelope to incorporate strin-ent containment of construction materials, particularly concrete slurry$ This woul inclu e such practices as the use of waterti-ht forms, siltJstorm*water fencin-, controlle concrete truc, washout areas, an covere stora-e of eFuipment an construction chemicals$ 3n-ineerinspecifications to escri+e these propose practices nee to +e etaile in this plan$ ! # 5O/83C ?J1=J06 /K7D Review < “83C recommen s that a plan +e prepare that specifies proce ures for con uctinetaile su+surface investi-ations at tur+ine site locations an other pro"ect components that may interface with limestoneJ,arst features$ The plan shoul specify actions to +e ta,en if ,arst features are i entifie or suspecte , inclu in- further investi-ation !e$-$, ye 2

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

testin-#, tur+ine relocation, etermination of the effects of +lastin-, or en-ineerin- construction controls$% !e# 5O/83C =J20J00 /K7D Review * “An comments on the 83A/ for this pro"ect ate June 1=, 2006, 83C recommen e that a comprehensive survey of ,arst features +e con ucte in the pro"ect evelopment area, an a plan +e prepare that specifies proce ures for con uctin- a etaile su+survace investi-ations at tur+ine locations an other pro"ect componsent that may itnerface with limestoneJ,arst features$ 83C further recommen e that an environmental monitor Fualifie to wor, in ,arst envrionment +e on site for all pre*construction surveys an any construction activities that involve e.cavation to +e roc, or are locate in pro.imity to a ,nown ,arst feature$% The /83A/ inclu e an outline of propose ,arst investi-ations, +ut 83C recommen s the stu ies +e complete prior to construction in or er to assess the a eFuacy of propose miti-ation measures$ !f# 435TMR, RE&A5 2 TRAV3K'A3C3 ?J13J06 /K7D Review *%The 83A/ provi es to construction, a -eo*technical investi-ation “woul +e performe % to i entify su+surface con itions necessary for en-ineerin- the final esi-n of the 'ro"ect$ < 83A/ contains no technical investi-ation$ !-# 'R3//O 2 A//MCAAT3/ =J20J06 /K7D Review < “The potential to impact receptors, e$-$, omestic wells, sprin-s etc$, will +e increase ue to the presence of ,arst limestone +e roc, across the pro"ect area an the nee to construct lar-e concrete foun ations$% 2. CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS – All resources a-encies recommen e a comprehensive impact analysis on +ir s an +ats from the potential evelopment of nearly 600 win tur+ines within our re-ion$ Durthermore, estimates of mortality !which were lac,in- in the &' /83A/# shoul utili;e the 7olfe Aslan 7in Darm e.perience an a time frame of at least 20 years$ An a ition to Fuantifyin- tur+ine*in uce avian an +at mortality there shoul also +e some consi eration for isplacement impacts from a re-ional +uil *out of in ustrial win facilities$ !a# E/D7/ ?J1=J06 /K7D Review < D7/ recommen s a cumulative impact analysis of other win pro"ects un er consi eration which inclu es +oth &' an Acciona pro"ects as well as 1orse Cree,$ The analysis shoul consi er all 3

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013 +at species

potential pro"ects an effects on avian an over pro"ect lifespans of 20 years$

!+# E/D7/ 3J10J0: CV7'' Review < Mther win farm proposals a e to the mi. +esi es /K7D an CV7''B 7olfe Aslan , 9alloo As$ Roarin- &roo,, 4aple Ri -e for a total of nearly 600 tur+ines in our re-ion$ A cumulative analysis shoul consi er this ma-nitu e of tur+ine evelopment in the analysis$ 6c7 5O/83C R*? )J16J06 /K7D Review * “An overall concern from re-ional staff is the potential cumulative impacts of the numerous propose win power pro"ects to +e locate in the Ka,e MntarioJ/t$ Kawrence River plains$$$ The /t$ Kawrence 7in 3ner-y 'ro"ect is locate in a ma"or flyway, important raptor winterin- -roun , important -rasslan +ir nestin- area !not only in 5ew Oor, state, +ut in 5ortheast America# an in close pro.imity to a winter hi+ernaculum an ispersal area for +oth fe eral an state*liste +at species$ /ince natural resources ,now no +oun aries, it is +elieve that the stu y area shoul +e e.ten e to inclu e all of the la,e an river coastal areas for a clearer assessment of the potential impacts$ “ ! # 5O/83C ?J1=J06 /K7D Review < The /83A/ also nee s to consi er a cumulative assessment of visual impacts of this pro"ect an the two other win power pro"ects propose in the -eneral area, the &' proposal for the Towns of Cape Vincent an Kyme, an the ''4 Atlantic pro"ect in the Town of Clayton$ &oth of these pro"ects have formally su+mitte applications for review an ata are availa+le sufficient to con uct a cumulative visual assessment$ !e# 5O/83C 0J1)J06 CV7'' Review * “The cumulative impact analysis shoul inclu e consi eration of impacts from all win pro"ects ,nown to +e un er evelopment or review in the re-ion, inclu in- /t$ Kawrence 7in 'ower 'ro"ect in the Town of Cape Vincent, the 1orse Cree, 7in 'ro"ect in the Town of Clayton, an the 7olfe Aslan 7in 'ower 'ro"ect in 7olfe Aslan , Mntario$ /pecific resources of primary concern to 83C that warrant cumulative analysis are +ir J+atJwil life impacts !inclu in- impacts to en an-ere , threatene an special concern species#, wetlan Jwatershe impacts an visualJhistoric impacts$% !f# '/C < 02J2:J0: &' * 'ro"ect must +e 4 iscusse in

Town of Cape Vincent Review relation to nei-h+orin- pro"ect!s# an

January 20, 2013 propose pro"ects$

3. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS < Alternative pro"ect layouts an arran-ements in the Acciona D3A/ an &'(s /83A/ were woefully ina eFuate in relation to e.tensive comments ma e +y involve a-encies un er /3LRA$ Asi e from &'(s propose pro"ect, which is incompati+le with the Town of Cape Vincent Comprehensive 'lan an Ponin- Kaw, &' shoul inclu e for consi eration a renewa+le ener-y evelopment alternative that is compati+le with the Town(s plan an law$ The analysis shoul also inclu e alternative options !e$-$, +urie line# for the transmission line +isectin- the Town of Kyme$ !a# E/D7/ ?J1=J06 /K7D Review < The 83A/ notes that the eveloper has a ran-e of tur+ine si;es un er consi eration$ The eveloper shoul +e reFuire to also -ive serious consi eration to a ran-e of alternative facility arran-ements to ena+le the a vancin- of a pro"ect esi-n that is responsive to the many si-nificant resources of /tate interest in the pro"ect area$

!+# E/D7/ 3J10J0: CV7'' Review < 5o e.planation is provi e as to whether a smaller pro"ect is feasi+le$ The 83A/ shoul provi e an e.planation on the minimum num+er of tur+ines nee e to ma,e a via+le pro"ect$ 1ow can alternatives +e consi ere without ,nowle -e of win resources an avian concentrations within the pro"ect footprint$ 6c7 5O/83C 2J20J0: CV7'' Review < QThe lac, of any etail in the pro"ect scope preclu es any meanin-ful iscussion of alternatives, as there is no “pro"ect% to compare alternatives to$ /3LRA re-ulations state, “The escription an evaluation of each alternative shoul +e as a level of etail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives iscusse $ “ The pro"ect escription in this 83A/ fails to o this$ 8etails to inclu e in these evaluations shoul inclu e the factors that le to the specific tur+ine layout for each alternative, such as win resource evaluation, tur+ine spacin- an Jor orientation, win tur+ine mo el selection, site constraints !set+ac, reFuirements, avoi ance of wetlan s, lan owner preference, etc$#, access roa an interconnect esi-n consi erations, an avoi ance of i entifie a verse environmental impacts !e$-$, archeolo-ical sites#$ The ran-e of alternatives may also inclu e, as appropriate, alternative sites, technolo-y, 5

Town of Cape Vincent Review scale or ma-nitu e, action$%

January 20, 2013 esi-n, timin-, use, an types of

! # '/C < 1J12J06 &' * /houl inclu e alternative scales an layouts to avoi si-nificant impacts$ !e# '/C < 02J2:J0: &' * “83A/ oes not provi e alternatives that avoi or minimi;e environmental impacts to -reatest e.tent practica+le$% 6f7 '/C < 0?J13J06 /K7D * “The location of !transmission line# facilities shoul +e specifie , an alternatives, inclu in- consi eration of the costs an +enefits of un !"#"$un location for all or part of the line shoul +e a resse in the /83A/$% The alternatives analysis shoul a ress routin- alternatives for 11=,V transmission line, inclu in- facility routesB within the a+an on railroa RM7, a "acent to a+an on railroa RM7, an other alternative locations$% “Consi eration of un !"#"$un placement shoul a ress at a minimum, the crossin- of the Chaumont River, any re-ulate wetlan s or 7il life 4ana-ement Areas, Amportant +ir areas, locations visi+le from the /eaway Trail /cenic &yway, 1istoric 8istricts, an other locations as appropriate$% 687 '/C < 0?J13J06 /K7D * “The iscussion of pro"ect alternatives shoul consi er pro"ect alternative re uce scale, an alternative layout an pro"ect arran-ement, which woul remove tur+ines fromB the most prominent locations near the Coastal Pone an Kocal 7aterfront Revitali;ation Areas, the /eaway Trail /cenic &yway, /tate 'ar,s, 1istoric 'roperties liste or eli-i+le for listin- on the /tate or 5ational Re-ister of 1istoric 'laces, an other resources of recreational, scenic an aesthetic importance to the /tate, from esi-nate /i-nificant Coastal 1a+itat areas, Amportant &ir Areas, 7il life 4ana-ement Areas an 5O/ re-ulate wetlan s$% !h# '/C < 0?J13J06 /K7D * “Alternative /cenarios that shoul +e a resse inclu e, at a minimumB Re uce pro"ect footprint, Ancrease set+ac,s from shoreline areas an the /eaway Trail, Ancrease set+ac,s from visual an cultural resources, Ancrease set+ac,s from /i-nificant Coastal Dish an 7il life 1a+itats, Ancrease set+ac,s from 74A an Amportant &ir Areas, A58 Remove facilities from 5R1' liste properties$% 6i7 435TMR, RE&A5 2 TRAV3K'A3C3 ?J1)J06 /K7D Review * “The 83A/ shoul contain a meanin-ful iscussion of 1-

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

alternatives an not "ust the conclusory assertions that it presently contains$ An 3nvironmental Ampact /tatement must contain “a escription an evaluation of the ran-e o reasona+le alternatives to the action that are feasi+le, consi erin- the o+"ectives an capa+ilities of the sponsorRat a level of etail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives iscusse $% 5OCRRS?16$0!+#!=#!v# /i-nificant further assessment of alternatives is warrante $% 4. MULTIPLE YEARS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY RECOMMENDED < Althou-h past +aseline stu ies of +ir an +at populations associate with /3LRA efforts may appear e.tensive an complete, involve resource a-encies consi ere the effort ina eFuate an recommen e three years of stu y$ Therefore, a itional wor, is nee e for nocturnal ra ar stu ies !1 yr$ sprin- 2 fall#, raptor mi-ration !1 yr$ fall#, +ree in- +ir s !2 yrs$#, an winter raptor 2 waterfowl !1 yr$# stu ies$ !a# E/D7/ KA58*&A/38 7A58 353R9O 9EA83KA53/ * “An or er to esta+lish a tren in site use an con itions that incorporates annual an seasonal variation in meteorolo-ical con itions, +iolo-ical factors, an other varia+les, pre*construction stu ies nee to occur over multiple years$ To a ress this nee , an in li-ht of evelopment timelines, three years of pre*construction stu ies may +e appropriate in many circumstances$ 1owever, the level of ris, an the Fuestion of ata reFuirements will +e +ase on site sensitivity, affecte species, an the availa+ility of ata from other sources$% !+# 5O/83C 9EA83KA53/ CM58ECTA59 &AR8 &AT /TE8A3/ :J00 * “ An particular, a proposal to site a win ener-y pro"ect in pro.imity to an An iana +at hi+ernaculum !)0 miles#, wil life concentration area !2 miles#, alon- a coastline != miles#, or on a prominent ri -eline may result in a recommen ation to con uct e.pan e pre*construction stu ies$% “Af a eveloper proposes to construct a win ener-y pro"ect in or near one of the features or resources of concern i entifie in section 2!+#, then two to three years of pre*construction stu y may +e recommen e incorporatin- one or more e.pan e pre* construction stu ies to provi e in* epth information on the +ir an +at resources of the site$% !c# 5O/83C R*? )J16J06 /K7D Review * “This is only a one 11

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

!1# year protocol an is too short +ase on the E/D7/ -ui elines an the local ,nowle -e of the mi-ratory +ir s an +ats of the area$ This plan shoul follow the E/D7/ -ui elines of three !3# years as a minimum to esta+lish pre*construction +ase line ata$% The sin-le year of ata on mi-ratin- raptors is also ina eFuateB “The num+er of points, amount of time !i$e$ ?0 minutes# per point, the num+er of ays an uration of samplin- perio are all ina eFuate to capture the raptor !4i-ration# ata nee e to fully a ress potential impacts$ “ ! # /AV3 T13 RAV3R 2J20J0: Ketter * “The 83A/ must inclu e stu ies of at least three years in uration to account for natural annual varia+ility of +ir an wil life ha+itat$ Currently, the 83A/ inclu es only one year of stu y an ata collection$% 6e7 435TMR, RE&A5 2 TRAV3K'A3C3 ?J13J06 /K7D Review * “An a ition, the propose one*year avian an +at stu y is not a eFuate to etermine the value an usa-e of the 'ro"ect area +y wil life$ Accor in- to Enite /tates Dish an 7il life /ervice a three year pre*construction stu y shoul +e con ucte to assess such impacts$% 6f7 /4AT1, 3CMKM9A/T ?J:J06 /K7D Review * “At +est the stu ies to ate must +e consi ere pilot efforts reFuirin- 3*= years of intense further stu ies of many -roups +efore any conclusions of value may +e rawn$%$ /. MIGRATION STUDIES – An the Joint Comprehensive 'lan for the Town an Villa-e of Cape Vincent the avian mi-ration corri or was reco-ni;e as one of the Town(s most important natural resource assets$ The spatial conte.t an ynamics of the avian mi-ratory corri or throu-h the Town of Cape Vincent shoul +e escri+e in far -reater etail !see +elow# than the one year of stu y con ucte +y &' in 200?* 2006$ 4ore effort is reFuire to ocument annual variation in num+ers, specie composition, escription of the spatial -ra ient within the corri or, an the vertical istri+ution of mi-rants over the pro"ect footprint !=00 ft tur+ines are 100 ft hi-her than those previously consi ere an therefore reFuire a new assessment#$ !a# E/D7/ 3J10J0: CV7'' Review < As we have in icate +efore, startin- the ra ar stu y in mi*April misses a su+stantial portion of the sprin- avian mi-ration an li,ewise, en in- the ra ar stu y on Mcto+er 1= in the fall will un erestimate the mi-ration urin- that season, 12

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

particularly some raptors an passerines an most waterfowl$ Durther, collectin- ata in only one year is ina eFuate$ !+# E/D7/ =J20J00 /K7D < Review < The close pro.imity of tur+ines to these !-rasslan s etc$# ha+itats as well as Ka,e Mntario an the /t$ Kawrence River are cause for -reat concern, +ecause these ha+itats are ,nown to attract waterfowl, water+ir s, an shore+ir s to the area urin- the +ree in- an mi-ratory perio s$ !c# E/D7/ =J20J00 CV7'' Review * “7e fin insufficient ata were collecte at the pro"ect site to etermine the spatial an temporal use of the pro"ect air space +y flyin- animals$ Mur recommen ation for wil life stu ies at win pro"ects -enerally specifies that the ata shoul +e collecte over multiple seasons an years to etermine avera-e annual con itions$ &ecause of the varia+ility in mi-ration an weather patterns, collectin- ata for 1 year li,ely oes not reflect typical wil life use in the pro"ect area$ Therefore, we fin insufficient ata currently e.ists to a eFuately con uct a ris, assessment an pre ict wil life mortality for this pro"ect$% 6d7 ARTACK3 10 3G1A&AT 31 * “ /et+ac,s reFuirements woul have to +e consi ere on a case +y case +asis +y loo,inat the purpose for their esta+lishment an the circumstances of a specific site or case$ A set+ac, mi-ht +e unreasona+le for the purposes of preventinconstruction encroachments +ut reasona+le to protect mi-ratory fli-ht*paths$% Hour emphasisI !e# 5O/83C =J20J00 /K7D Review < /83A/ su--ests winter ensities were low an that “the relative ris,s to these species are very low$% 83C staff, on the other han , have ocumente hi-h num+ers$ “To overcome this inconsistency in reportin- +etween the 83C an the pro"ect consultant, a itional survey effort irecte towar s the short*eare owl is recommen e +oth pre* construction an post*construction, to +e sure this species( istri+ution an a+un ance is accurately ocumente as a +asis for future pro"ect evaluation an plannin- efforts$% At is also ,nown that “the pro"ect area lies within one of the most important raptor winterin- -roun s in 5ew Oor, /tate$ A more thorou-h analysis of raptor mi-ration within the pro"ect area is nee e to support the conclusions ma e in the /83A/$% “At is clear from Ta+le 3*11 that the num+ers of +ir s 13

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

per hour for Cape Vincent are not similar to the other win facilities, +ut hi-her than all of the other sites$% !f# 5O/83C 12J31J0) ChautauFua 7in Darm Review !N$ Nispert# * “The eastern an southern shore of Ka,e Mntario an the eastern shore of Ka,e 3rie are ocumente an well reco-ni;e mi-ratory +ir pathways, which are important within 3astern 5orth America on a re-ional scale, particularly urin- sprin- mi-ration as +ir s move north$% !-# '/C 2J2:J0: CV7'' Review * “A more thorou-h e.planation of the nature of mi-ration throu-h the pro"ect area, an consi eration of potential impacts of the pro"ect on mi-ratin- raptors is warrante $% !h# /4AT1, 3CMKM9A/T ?J:J06 /K7D Review * “The fact no other waterfowl than Cana a 9oose an mallar were i entifie is of particular concern as it su--est at +est mar-inal competence of o+servers an ina eFuate samplin- time$% !i# AE8E&M5 ?J11J06 /K7D Review * “7e have concerns a+out evelopment of win power at sites that are ,nown mi-ratory corri ors or provi e ha+itat to at*ris, species$%

!"# MK8 &AR8, A5C$ ?J1)J06 /K7D Review * “9iven that win tur+ines are ten in- to -et lar-er an that this pro"ect, as with many win pro"ects, ta,es lon-er to +e +uilt than pro"ecte , +ir J+at mi-ration altitu e information shoul +e provi e at 2=*m resolution up to 200 m a+ove -roun level$ The 7est ra ar report, however, oes not provi e information on movements alon- the shoreline, an inlan areas of covera-e are simply summe to-ether to pro uce a sin-le passa-e rate for the whole ra ar survey area$% !,# MK8 &AR8, A5C$ ?J1)J06 /K7D Review * “The most si-nificant pro+lems A fin with the 7est Anc$ ra ar stu y involve the location they chose to carry out their ra ar stu y an their lac, of analysis of mi-ration ensity ynamics within the ra ar stu y area$ The /t$ Kawrence 7in pro"ect area is currently propose to +e locate within :00 m of the /t$ Kawrence River$ The ra ar stu y site is apparently only a+out =00 m from the shoreline, in fact outsi e the win pro"ect area$ 4y interpretation of the 5O/83C an E/D7/ comments is that the ra ar site woul i eally +e locate 1=00 m from the shoreline$ 7est(s placement of the ra ar unit 14

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

appro.imately one ,ilometer closer to the shoreline than ha apparently +een recommen e lea s to the fact that a+out one thir of the ra ar etection area was locate over the /t$ Kawrence River an less than half of their ra ar covera-e was actually over the propose win pro"ect site$ !l# MK8 &AR8, A5C$ ?J1)J06 /K7D Review * “The Fuestion of mi-ration corri or alon- the south shore of the /t$ Kawrence River is not a resse as was su--este it woul +e in the stu y plan$ 7hat woul +e useful to see in evaluatin- potential impact to ni-ht mi-rants is a =00 m resolution representation of flyin- tar-et ensity as one moves away from the /t$ Kawrence River$ An other wor s, what is the mi-ration ensity within =00 m of the riverT 7hat is the mi-ration ensity in the ;one +etween =00 m an 1 ,m from the riverT 7hat is the mi-ration ensity in the ;one +etween 1 ,m an 1$= ,m from the riverT 7hat is the mi-ration ensity in the ;one +etween 1$= ,m an 2$0 ,m from the riverT /uch ata can +e o+taine from a properly esi-ne marine ra ar stu y or with other metho olo-ies$% 2. WIND TURBINE OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT – As per the recommen ations of the E$/$ Dish 2 7il life /ervice &' shoul provi e an operational plan that inclu es the increase in cut*in spee an the provision for shut own urin- the mi-ration season as outline +elow$ !a# E/D7/ ?J1=J06 /K7D Review < “Af tur+ines will +e locate in +loc,s of -rasslan ha+itat, we recommen that information +e -athere on the isplacement of -rasslan nestin- +ir s$ To miti-ate potential impacts to +ats, tur+ines shoul not have a cut*in spee of less than ? mJs, an operation shoul +e curtaile +etween July 1= an /eptem+er 1= for = hours after sunset$% !+# E/D7/ =J20J00 /K7D < Review * Mur previous recommen ation to miti-ate potential impacts to +ats was not inclu e in the /83A/$ The pro"ect sponsor shoul commit to a "ustin- tur+ine cut*in spee s urin- low win perio s to re uce +at fatalities$ This is the perio when most +ats are ,ille as ocumente +y recent research, e$-$, Arnett 200=$ Cut*in spee shoul +e ? mJs or more an operation shoul +e curtaile for = hours after sunset from July 1= to /eptem+er 1=$ !c# 5O/83C =J20J00 CV7'' Review * “The /83A/ shoul 1/ further

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

state that +ase on the results of these stu ies, a "ustments to the pro"ect(s operational confi-uration an or time*ta+le may +e necessary to affect avoi ance or minimi;ation of the ta,e of +ir s an +ats, with liste species receivin- the hi-hest consi eration$% 3. RISK ASSESSMENT – Anclu e in the assessments liste +elow +y the E/D7/ is avian mortality$ As in icate in Cumulative Analysis section a+ove, pro"ecte avian mortality shoul use the mortality ata comin- from the 7olfe Aslan 7in 'ower pro"ect locate 2 miles north of the Villa-e of Cape Vincent$ Ris, assessments shoul also inclu e avian avoi ance or isplacement, i$e$, those +ir s an +ats riven away from tra itional ha+itats +y the propose in ustrial evelopment$ 6a7 E/D7/ ?J1=J06 /K7D Review < Typically, environmental assessments of impacts on wil life from win pro"ects shoul inclu e a ris, assessment$ 5one was provi e in the 83A/$ These assessments shoul consi er population a+un ance, istri+ution in the pro"ect airspace over multiple years an seasons, avian avoi ance, weather impacts as well as information on +ree in-, winterin- an stopover ha+itat$ 6)7 E/D7/ 3J10J0: CV7'' Review * “Durther, it appears that the site has hi-h avian use as well +ut these resources were not fully consi ere in the f%&%'-('%) %n%'*+,+$ &ase on the ata collecte so far, the Cape Vincent area has hi-h concentrations of waterfowl an water+ir s, mi-ratin- passerines an year roun raptor use$% 4. LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN – Anclu e in a lon-*term mana-ement plan shoul +e an a aptive mana-ement component that woul outline steps an actions that woul +e ta,en in response to potential a verse impacts that may arise from pro"ect operations$ 6a7 5O/83C ?J1=J06 /K7D Review < The /83A/ shoul inclu e a pro"ect*wi e lon-*term environmental mana-ement plan that incorporates plans for restoration of environmental impacts urin- an followin- pro"ect construction !inclu in- -ra in-, slope sta+ili;ation, re*plantin- with appropriate in i-enous plant species, control of invasives, an restoration of istur+e ha+itats#, environmental consi erations to +e inclu e in the on-oin- maintenance of the facility !inclu inmaintenance an repair of roa s an transmission 12

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

corri ors, a contin-ency plan to assess an minimi;e environmental impacts urin- ma"or repairs, an assessment an miti-ation of environmental impacts urinthe ecommissionin- process$ An % %-&,.! /%n%#!/!n& component is a necessary feature of an environmental mana-ement plan, to respon to environmental impacts that arise urin- pro"ect operation !such as potential impacts to +ir s an +ats, istur+ance to &lan in-(s turtle nest sites#$ 5. INADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES * The followin- e.cerpt from the Cape Vincent ;onin- law reFuires a eveloper shall ta,e to properly evaluate wil life an other environmental issues% “The scope of such assessment shall +e evelope in consultation with the 5ew Oor, /tate 8epartment of 3nvironmental Conservation an the Enite /tates Dish an 7il life /ervice an shall a here to the “E/D7/ Kan *&ase 7in 3ner-y 9ui elines, 4arch 23, 2012% to assess suita+ility of the site, an , if application is approve , outline post*Mperational stu ies to assess impacts$% !a# 5O/83C 2J20J0: CV7'' Review < “An or er to a eFuately assess the potential impacts to the 'ro"ect Area(s threatene an en an-ere species, the 'ro"ect nee s to fully characteri;e seasonal use of the area +y these species$ As su+mitte , the /83A/ is ina eFuate to allow a thorou-h evaluation of the potential impacts to these species$% Re-ar in- +ree in- +ir surveys they state, “/urveyin- urin- only one year an two ays the entire +ree in- season is far from a eFuate$ Nnowin- that +oth en an-ere an threatene -rasslan +ir species have the potential to nest in this area shoul have tri--ere a more thorou-h &ree in- &ir /urvey consistin- of more than one year of stu y$% !+# E/D7/ 3J10J0: CV7'' Review < “&' state that the avian an +at stu y protocols were approve +y the /ervice$ 7e reviewe the stu y protocols an provi e input to the sponsor !&'#$ 7e also provi e recommen ations to the Town of Cape Vincent$ 1owever, many of our recommen ations have not +een implemente , such as con uctin- surveys over multiple years to account for annual variation in weather an mi-ration$% !c# 5O/83C =J20J00 /K7D /83A/ Review * “An or er to a eFuately assess the potential impacts to the pro"ect area(s threatene an en an-ere species, the pro"ect nee s to fully characteri;e seasonal use of the area +y 13

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

these species$ As su+mitte , the /83A/ is ina eFuate to allow a thorou-h evaluation of the potential impacts to these species$% 6d7 435TMR, RE&A5 2 TRAV3K'A3C3 ?J13J06 /K7D Review * “&ase on material omissions escri+e +elow, we reFuest that the 'lannin- &oar , as the Kea A-ency un er /3LRA, re"ect the 83A/, reconsi er its previous etermination that the 83A/ is complete an a eFuate for pu+lic review an return the ocument to the Applicant for si-nificant a ition an revision$ “ 1-. INADEQUATE MAPPING & WETLANDS INFORMATION – The reviews +elow +y involve a-encies were very critical of past attempts at epictin- in ustrial win pro"ect layouts ue to the lac, of sufficient etail with the un erlyin- maps$ &' shoul use a map similar to that provi e in the Town(s comprehensive plan that escri+es state an fe eral wetlan s, archeolo-ical an historical resources, natural herita-e assets, an the mi-ratory corri or to name a few$ 4oreover, pro"ect maps nee +etter etail than what is currently availa+le to allow lan owners to locate their property to +etter un erstan win tur+ine set+ac,s from their property lines an potential a verse environmental impacts$ !a# '/C < 02J2:J0: &' * “'ro"ect maps shoul inclu e sensitive environmental features$, e$-$ wetlan s, rare plants, coastal ;one protections, cultural an historical features, as well as the pro"ect layout$% !+# '/C < 02J2:J0: * 83A/ TG line an resources$ oes not have a eFuate mappin- of

!c# E/D7/ 3J10J0: CV7'' Review < Kac, of sufficient information to properly assess impacts on wetlan s$ An fact no estimates are provi e $ 7ithout an un erstan inof wetlan s e.tent, it is not possi+le to evaluate or provi e recommen ations$ ! # '/C 2J2:J0: CV7'' Review * “The representation of the wetlan s$$$o+scures relevant cover type information +y use of soli colors for “Diel Verifie 7etlan Area$ The scale of the mappin- inclu e is too -ross to ena+le iscernment of etails$ 4ore etaile mappin- with pro"ect layout shoul +e provi e in a supplement$% !e# 'R3//O 2 A//MCAAT3/ =J20J06 /K7D Review < 83A/ notes “wetlan impacts will +e avoi e if practica+le$$$ an 14

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

where impacts coul occur, if practica+le, pro"ect components will +e move to avoi or minimi;e impacts to wetlan s$% The propose pro"ect, however, has place many tur+ines a "acent to wetlan s an streams$ Therefore, the liste tur+ines shoul +e move or eliminate $ !f# E/D7/ 3J10J0: CV7'' Review < 7ithout fiel surveys, the escription of reptiles an amphi+ians may +e un erestimate $ 8ue to the a+un ant aFuatic ha+itat foun in the area, these animals may represent an important part of the ecosystem$ Durther, the iscussion of affecte mammals is ina eFuate, as no survey ata or e.istin- information sources were provi e $

11. PRO0ECT BENEFIT – The E$/$ Dish 2 7il life /ervice ma,es a valua+le point in their June 2006 review, that pro"ecte +enefits shoul +e erive from a realistic analysis an not a sales +rochure$ Dor e.ample, estimate electric ener-y pro uction from the pro"ect shoul +e +ase on realistic pro uction fi-ures rather than ma.imum rate output which a pro"ect never elivers !capacity factor#$ Real worl +enefits are important un erstan in or er to accurately assess an wei-h potential a verse impacts$ !a# E/D7/ ?J1=J06 /K7D Review < D7/ recommen s an analysis of the environmental +enefit from the pro"ect$ Esinrealistic pro uction ata, e$-$, capacity factor an seasonal pro uction fi-ures, an other -eneratinfacilities operatin- as +ac,up an to meet eman urinintermittent win perio s, analy;e the pro"ecte air Fuality +enefits$ !+# E/D7/ 3J10J0: CV7'' Review < Reiterate comment a+ove from /K7D review$ 'ro"ect +enefits cannot "ustify the unavoi a+le a verse impacts if all the a verse impacts are un,nown or ina eFuately treate , an if pro"ect +enefits are insufficiently ocumente $ 6c7 M'R1' < 0=J2:J0: /K7D * “$$the pro"ect will have an A)*+,!+ -.PA/T on cultural resources$% ! # /AV3 T13 RAV3R 2J20J0: Ketter * “A cost*+enefit analysis of the pro"ect must +e consi ere so that ecision*ma,ers have a thorou-h un erstan in- of economic an environmental costs an +enefits to the re-ion$“ 12. MITIGATING VISUAL IMPACTS – A -reat eal of effort shoul +e e.pen e in assessin- the impact of in ustrial 15

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

win tur+ine placement within the si-ht planes aroun the Town(s historical assets$ 4iti-ation shoul inclu e removin- or movin- tur+ines out of the line of si-ht$ 4oreover, tra itional screenin- treatments shoul also +e consi ere to minimi;e the visual impact of tur+ines on these historic homes an structures$ An a ition, &' shoul ,eep any planne evelopment well away from the /cenic &yway an /eaway Trail$ !a# 5O/83C ?J1=J06 /K7D Review < “83C isa-rees that these “tra itional% treatments woul +e infeasi+le in all cases$ 83C recommen s that the visual settin- of each affecte si-nificant resource in the pro"ect area an five*mile visual impact area, inclu in- newly i entifie si-nificant historic resources, +e analy;e , an where feasi+le at specific impacte resources, irect miti-ation options such as screenin- or selective tur+ine re*location shoul +e applie $% !+# '/C < 1J12J06 &'* 4iti-ation to inclu e relocation, screenin- an re uce scale of pro"ect$ !c# '/C < 00J12J06 &' * “Ese scale re uction, avoi ance of important areas an increase set+ac,s to miti-ate as well as entire set if miti-ation measures mentione in 83C visual policy$% ! # '/C < 0?J13J06 /K7D * “The stri,in- appearance of multiple tur+ines, with rotors turnin-, in the fore-roun istance ;one from the /cenic &yway will have the potential to istract rivers attention an careful vehicle operation$% “The 83A/ oes not a ress in a comprehensive manner the relation of the /eaway Trail /cenic &yway to the lan scape an the various resources which contri+ute to the corri or a "acent to the Trail$% 13. HISTORICAL & CULTURAL – An a ition to the concerns for historic an cultural resources outline in /ection 12, past reviews associate with the Town(s /3LRA process recommen e warne that in ustrial win tur+ine evelopment ha a very su+stantial visual impact on historic an cultural resources$ 4ore attention has to +e irecte to minimi;in- these impacts$ !a# '/C < 0?J13J06 /K7D * “The 83A/ in icates the location of the 'ro"ect su+station on four acres near /wamp Roa $ The location in icate on the pro"ect facilities layout map is within or irectly a "acent to the 7arren 7ilson 1ouse 1istoric 8istrict, which is liste on the 5ational 2-

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

Re-ister of 1istoric 'laces$ This location presents a potential conflict with the 1istoric 8istrict, is li,ely to a versely affect that 8istrict$ Alternative locations shoul +e e.plore $$$% !+# '/C < 0?J13J06 /K7D * “A verse effects !tur+ines in view# on the Cape Vincent Villa-e &roa way 1istoric 8istrict will conflict with Coastal Pone 4ana-ement 'olicies$% “/upplemental surveys shoul inclu e all component resources an lan scapes within liste , eli-i+le or potentially eli-i+le historic properties or istricts, as appropriate, to emonstrate the e.tent of impacts of the pro"ect on those resources$% “The iscussion of Visual Resources an Community Character oes not a eFuately a ress the scale an scope of potential pro"ect impacts on the pro"ect area, the affecte community, or several resources of re-ional an statewi e si-nificance$% !c# 435TMR, RE&A5 2 TRAV3K'A3C3 ?J13J06 /K7D Review * “8etermine how presence of each tur+ine affects each “+uil in- that meets criteria for inclusion in the 5ational 1istoric Re-istry% 14. INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN – An the recent past the Town has trie to control the invasive plant /wallowwort, +ut it still remains a invasive that reFuires careful mana-ement urin- any construction perio $ An invasive plan shoul +e evelope an approve +y 83C staff prior to the onset of any construction$ !a# 5O/83C ?J1=J06 /K7D Review < “83C recommen s that the /83A/ inclu e an Anvasive /pecies Control 'lan !A/C'# to minimi;e the sprea of invasive propa-ules throu-hout the pro"ect evelopment area, an particularly in re-ulate wetlan an stream areas$% 1/. NATURAL HERITAGE VEGETATIVE LANDSCAPES – A-ain a eFuate mappin- is nee e to ocument an hi-hli-ht those areas within the Town an the propose pro"ect footprint that have important plant resources$ These ata are availa+le from the 83C(s mappin- section an shoul +e inclu e as an overlay on any pro"ect layout mappin-$ !a# E/D7/ ?J1=J06 /K7D Review < 'ro"ect area has many uniFue plant ha+itats that are protecte an others that shoul +e avoi e $ /K7D 83A/ ma,es no mention of these areas an therefore when an where they shoul +e avoi e $ 21

Town of Cape Vincent Review

January 20, 2013

!+# E/D7/ 3J10J0: CV7'' Review < Assessment con ucte in fall when most plants were unavaila+le an Jor ifficult to o+serve$ &etter assessment nee e at an appropriate time$ 12. COASTAL 1ONE CONSISTENCY REVIEW – As su--este +y the '/C a Coastal Pone Consistency Analysis shoul +e complete an not i-nore as was the case in the past$ 6a7 '/C < 0?J13J06 /K7D * “8'/ informe the Kea A-ency, +y letter of 8ecem+er :, 200? that the Coastal Pone Consistency Analysis must +e presente for review +y the '/C !Kea A-ency i not reFuire review in 83A/#$ The /83A/ shoul inclu e a complete Coastal Pone Consistency Review an shoul ocument an a ress the full ran-e of Coastal 'olicies as liste in 10 5OCRR U?00$=$% 13. DECOMMISSIONING – Towns of Cape Vincent an Kyme are uncertain as to who, other than the towns, have responsi+ility for ensurin- that after the life of any in ustrial win pro"ect has +een complete that the communities are restore to their pre* evelopment states$ A plan shoul +e provi e to ensure that insolvency of either the pro"ect KKC or the /tate oes not preclu e our towns +ein- ma e whole at the pro"ect(s en *of*life$ !a# 8M/ < =J2?J00 Review * “At may +e useful to reFuire a performance +on or e icate fun esta+lishe to ensure the complete ecommissionin- of the pro"ect$% !+# 435TMR, RE&A5 2 TRAV3K'A3C3 ?J13J06 /K7D Review * “The 'lannin- +oar must eman financial assurance to fun ecommissionin- of all of these towers, in the event that the Applicant is no lon-er financially via+le refuses to properly remove the facility$%

22

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful