BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Dawn Munk's ~ Critique of Dr. Ralph H. Janicki's letter

low-frequency noise may be related to heart attacks

Update June-30-2011, 10:57 AM
Additional response following Munks letter

In an Oct. 9, 2008 letter to the Watertown Daily Times, I presented an article from the European Heart Journal authored by Dr. Stefan Willich et al. that suggested low-frequency noise may be related to heart attacks and that women seemed disproportionately at risk.

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

So the respective research teams agree that there is evidence linking low-frequency noise and heart attacks. Dr. Babish concludes his critical letter (cited by Ms. Munk) with: "This supports the hypothesis that chronic exposure to traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular disorder, particularly myocardial infarction (heart attack)." So the important message is: They quibbled about some details, but largely agree with one another that low-frequency noise may have implications for our health.

Dr. Babish also participated in the World Health Organization conference in Stuttgart, Germany, June 23-24, 2005. Quoting from the Cardiovascular Section which Dr. Babish led, page 21: "There is sufficient evidence of an association between road traffic noise and ischemic heart diseases."

Ms. Munk furthermore criticizes my letter with, "There has never been a single peer-reviewed study linking wind turbines to ill health effects in those living nearby." This statement is at odds with our National Institutes of Health (NIH), since its representatives have stated, "Wind energy will undoubtedly create noise, which increases stress, which in turn increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer." (Environmental Health Perspectives, volume 116, pages A237-238, 2008.) The NIH is not known to make strong statements without sufficient evidence.

There are valuable lessons to be learned from the WHO and our NIH. But we need to keep an open mind. And the complexity and importance of the issues before us underscore the need for a comprehensive review by an impartial medical consulting firm. The last word on this issue should not be a few letters to the editor of the WDT, mine included.

Dr. Ralph H. Janicki

Cape Vincent

Dr. Janicki, M.D., Ph.D., is a fellow of the American College of Cardiology.

Dawn Munks Letter

Wind turbines not hazardous to health

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

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

"All noise assessments of the NaRoMI study were carried out by experienced acoustical engineers from our two institutions. The authors of the article have seriously mistreated our noise data, which results in false interpretation of the findings." The letter further goes on to state, "The funding institutions disapprove the way our noise data were treated in the statistical analyses and how they were interpreted by Willich et al."

What's more, despite Dr. Janicki trying to make people believe so, there has never been a single peer-reviewed study linking wind turbines to ill health effects in those living nearby. Conversely, there is a significant body of evidence linking coal and other fossil-fuel based electricity generation to health problems in humans, particularly in infants.

We need to get serious about changing the way we get our energy. Our economic and environmental health is at risk, and the situation is growing worse. Misrepresentation of the facts does us all a disservice. We need to begin embracing wind energy and other renewables before it is too late.

Dawn M. Munk

Three Mile Bay


Additionally, I found this response to Dawn Munks Letter in my mail box dated
October 27, 2008

Regarding Ms. Dawn Munk’s 10/25/08 letter, “Wind turbines not hazardous to health”: May I suggest she read the peer-reviewed report soon-to-be-published as a book by Dr. Nina Pierpont. “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment” (Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books).

A large portion of the report is available on www.windturbinesyndrome.com. The five peer reviewers are:

1. Lord Sir Robert May, PhD, past Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and Head of the UK Office of Science and Technology, past President of the Royal Society, Professor at Oxford University

2. Jerome Haller, MD, Professor of Neurology & Pediatrics, Albany Medical College

3. Joel F. Lehrer, MD, Clinical Professor of Otolaryngology, Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ

4. Ralph V. Katz, DMD, MPH, PhD (Epidemiology), Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology & Health Promotion, NYU College of Dentistry

5. Henry S. Horn, PhD, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Associate of the Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University

Calvin Luther Martin, PhD
19 Clay
Malone, NY

Monday, June 27, 2011

BP $ Voters For wind

It's a family affair

Dawn Munk , a Spokes Person For Voters For Wind Or BP?
MS. Munk Was quoted in the Watertown Times in Regard to Cape Vincent's economic report and the subsequent evaluation of the report by M. McCann an appraisal expert

"The studies that we have seen have reported pretty much across the board insignificant property value decrease," said Dawn M. Munk, a Three Mile Bay member of Voters for Wind. And in those cases where there was a decrease in property value, it was usually before the installation of the wind farm or immediately thereafter. Then, property values went back up very quickly."
Dawn Munk is a member of Voters For Wind But who are Voters For Wind Their beginnings date back to 2007 here is a little history about Voters For Wind~

Saturday Oct. 13 2007
BP’s Cape Vincent Wind Farm open house in Chaumont brought out citizens from the community gathered to protest BP’s Industrial wind project. However, the protesters were not the only ones there
BP had their representatives as well.
Representatives from the Cape Vincent Wind Farm were unfazed by the people who chose to walk in protest outside the fire hall.

“Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion and their own concerns,” said Marion Trieste, of Green Energy Outreach Services. “This is America.” .
Coincidentally this open house for Cape Vincent Wind farm was the public debut for a new “Grass Roots” organization Voters for Wind according to Chairwoman Beth A. White. Voters for Wind’s twenty members had been meeting quietly in Three Mile Bay since June
"We thought this open house was a perfect forum for us to start promoting our group," Mrs. White said.
The group's mission is to promote the Cape Vincent Wind Farm. While Voters for Wind is concerned only with the proposal put forward by BP Alternative Energy, it may one day expand its mission statement to include supporting other wind farms, Mrs. White said. And, that it has. Voters For Wind has become an incestuous organization ~ Jim Madden stated to a Watertown Times reporter that Marion Trieste was hired by BP to do outreach work . After reading Dawn Munk’s testimonial letter it is obvious what Madden meant by outreach work.

Marion Trieste managing director of Geo’s Global, helped Voters For Wind develop their mission statement, elect officers develop bylaws, and begin the task of reaching out to others. Marion Trieste has been guiding Voters For Wind every step of the way, providing VFW with information suggestions and technical and moral support. Marion Trieste has assisted in planning and organizing community events, fund raising events and have assisted us in learning how to utilize the media to spread our message. Marrion Trieste attend their monthly meetings. Dawn Munk: “On a personal level, I am grateful to Maz and all of the staff at GEOS who have encouraged me and introduced me to grassroots organization, where a committed group of diverse individuals really can come together and make a difference. A voter for wind is like a family and GEOS is very definitely part of our family.

Sincerely, Dawn M.Munk

Dawn Munks Testimonial letter written to Geos Global

BP's ~ New Guy On The

Chopping Block ~ Video

Update 11:53PM
June 26, 2011

I posted this previously but it has been updated with videos of Mr. Gross speaking at the Planning Board Meeting of June 8,2011 and the Town Board Meeting June 9, 2011

"The new Guy on the Block"

from the Planning Board Meeting

Mr. MacSherry:
Introduced Mr. Gross he then gave a brief rundown of Mr. Grosses experience and education
MacSherry said that the Town was in possession of a brief letter from Madden RE: BP’s compliance to the Attorney Generals code of conduct, and that he "suspected" that the leaseholders and individuals with good neighbor contracts had received the same letter. Mr. MacSherry then said to Mr. Gross
“At some point, I would like you to discuss, with at least me, the code of conduct agreement that Bp signed with the State of New York and what it says in your lease agreements as far as the conflicts of interest.” “Because, I have yet to really understand what the leases say and what the intent of this code of conduct agreement says. I find it a little disparaging and I don't understand it.”
Mr. Gross said Thank you very much for ah paraphrasing the letter umm it takes away a few of the things that I was supposed to, or planning on saying.

What Mr. Gross did with this first statement was to deflect the topic of the letter. The wording Gross used was deceptive so that he could avoid talking about the letter.
Why did Gross derail the questions that Mr. MacSherry had about the letter regarding BP’s wind contracts?

The letter in question dated July 30,2009

Ms. Mason,
This letter is to inform officials and residents of the town that BP Wind Energy joined 14 other wind companies and Attorney General Cuomo this week in signing the enclosed code of conduct agreement for wind energy development in New York that the wind industry is avoiding conflicts of interests related to town and county officials. The State of New York is committed to the continued development to clean, wind energy and BP Wind Energy is committed to upholding the highest standards of development as outlined in this agreement.
If there are any questions about this, please feel free to contact me at (434) 220-9428
James H. Madden
Business Developer

The NY State Wind Code of Conduct link [here]



1. General Standard: The Wind Company shall not knowingly, directly or indirectly offer to, or confer on, a Municipal Officer, his or her Relative, or any third party on behalf of such Municipal Officer, any benefit under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that the benefit would influence such Municipal Officer to commit an official act or to refrain from performing an official duty in connection with the Wind Company's Wind Farm Development, unless such Municipal Officer recuses him- or herself from any official duties in connection with the Wind Company's Wind Farm Development. For the purpose of this paragraph only, "official duties in connection with the Wind Company's Wind Farm Development" do not include the non-discretionary duties of a Town Clerk or Tax Assessor.

6. Restrictions on Easements/Leases with Municipal Officers: The wind company shall not knowingly enter into any agreement with any Municipal Officer that requires the Municipal Officer to support or cooperate with the Wind Company’s Wind Farm Development in any manner that relates to the Municipal Officers official duties
There have been questions about what are in the leases

Both BP $ Acciona have two versions of the loyalty clause in each lease
BP loyalty clause
7.2 Requirements of Governmental Agencies. Grantee, at its expense, shall comply in all material respects with valid laws, ordinances, statutes, orders and regulations of any governmental agency applicable to the Wind Power Facilities. Grantee shall have the right in its sole description, to contest by appropriate legal proceedings, brought in the name of Grantee or in the names of both Grantee and Owner where appropriate or required, the validity or applicability to the property or Wind Power Facilities of any law, ordinance, statute, order, regulation, property assessment or the like now or hereafter made or issued by any Federal, state county, local or other governmental agency or entity. Owner shall cooperate in every reasonable way in such contest, at no out- of - pocket expense to owner. Grantee shall control and direct any contest or proceeding, including any maintained in the name of owner

8.4 Requirements of Government agencies, Cooperation:

Requirements of Government agencies Cooperation:
Owner shall assist, cooperate with grantee, at no out of pocket expense to Owner
in complying with or obtaining any land use permits and approvals, tax- incentive or tax -abatement program approvals, building permits, environmental impact reviews, or any other permits or approvals required for the financing , construction, installation, relocation, replacement, maintenance, operation or removal of Wind power Facilities in the project (whether located on the Property, on adjacent property or elsewhere), including execution of applications for such permits or approvals if required . In connection with any applications for such approvals, Owner agrees at Grantee’s request to support such application (at no out- of - pocket expense to Owner) at any administrative, judicial or Legislative level. In the event that any laws, rules, regulations or ordinances of any governmental agency provide for setbacks or otherwise restrict the location of any Wind Power facilities to be installed on the property or adjacent properties, Owner shall cooperate with Grantee to evidence waiver of such setbacks.
Acciona Loyalty clause

7.5 Requirements of Government agencies. NYW, at its expense, shall comply in all material respects with valid laws, ordinances, and regulations of any governmental agency applicable to the wind power facilities. NYW shall have the right , in its sole discretion, to contest by appropriate legal proceedings , the validity or applicability to the property or Wind power facilities of any law, ordinance, statute, order, regulation, property assessment, or the lie now or hereafter made or issued by an Federal, state or local or other governmental agency or entity. Owner will not interfere or may choose to cooperate in every reasonable way in such contest, at no out- of -pocket expense to the Owner. Any such contest or proceeding shall be controlled and directed by NYW

8.3 Requirements of Government agencies. Owner shall assist and fully cooperate with NYW, at no out- of – pocket expense to Owner , in complying with or obtaining any land use permits and approvals, building permits, environmental impact reviews or any other approvals required for the financing, construction, installation , replacement relocation maintenance, operation or removal of Wind Power facilities, including execution of application for such approvals.
1. By signing these contracts they are bound to act as agents to facilitate wind development at the detriment of the community they were sworn to represent. If Acciona and BP signed "certain" municipal officers to these contracts than they in turn are guilty of willfully compromising our municipal officers additionally they would not be complying with the Attorney Generals Wind Development Code of Conduct, in order to subjugate our community and facilitate their greed based ambition, turning Cape Vincent into an industrial wind complex.

BP Cape Vincent wind project lease document link [here]

BP Wind Energy ~ Good Neighbor Agreement link [here]

Acciona's St. Lawrence updated Wind lease document link [ here]

Acciona St. Lawrence early addition Wind Lease lease document link [here]

Acciona signed code of conduct document link[here]

Wind lease disclosures

quoted Acciona North Americas Development director

Acciona Energy North America’s development director, Chip Readling, made a statement about the Attorney generals investigation in Cape Vincent.
"Acciona Energy has always been and remains fully committed to the ethical and transparent development of renewable energy projects. Acciona Energy has signed and complied with the New York State Attorney General's Code of Conduct Agreement."

The attorney general’s office and BP did not return Windpower Monthly’s calls for confirmation and comment.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Cape Vincent ~Asbestos Abetement

Recently I have been hearing about Asbestos buried at the former Pump house in the Village of Cape Vincent. I do not know the history behind the Asbestos . But I do know that it is fairly expensive to remove
Below is a PRE ~ Bid Estimate for the Asbestos removal
Link to document here
Village of Cape Vincent Board of Trustees November 9, 2010
Mayor Timothy D. Maloney opened the meeting at 5:30 PM with Trustees Joseph Gould, Douglas Putnam, Alan Ada and Pam Youngs present.
Mary Cecil, Bernier and Carr updated the Board on what steps need to be taken for the incidental disturbance at the former pump house site on Real Street. Ms. Cecil explained the Village must now have the asbestos abatement procedure followed which began with a variance filed and now the Village needs to move forward and clean up the site. She recommends the project be put out to bid for the most competitive price. There are not many options available to the Village to curtail costs due to State regulations. Trustee Gould made the motion to bid the project with Trustee Youngs seconding the motion and all voting yes. The bids will be opened and read on Thursday, December 2, 2010 at 2:00 PM.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Article X ~ The price of Power

I received this interesting commentary in an email from a reader.


My latest concern is the current article regarding CUOMO, Not the GAY issue, although it certainly is a timely distraction. As follows:

" ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the Legislature are on the cusp of passing the most important bill most New Yorkers never heard of.

The so-called Article X bill would allow new and improved power plants to be built in New York state again. The law that specifies several environmental protections lapsed nearly 10 years ago. Cuomo has said New York needs more power as it tries to emerge from the recession. More power plants could also reduce the need to keep some of New York's aging nuclear power plants on line. The bill could be passed as early as Thursday

" The fact that ACCIONA needs environmental restrictions removed to gain access to wetlands and avoid further delays in their planning means that Cuomo is well within the circle of insiders who will give them what they want. Cuomo gains a homogenized constituency. Considering the already rampant conflict of interest involved, I'd say he stands to gain quite well financially. Evidently, this conflict of interest has gone from a handful of local Town Board members to a much larger political cabal. I'd say the average homeowner and energy user will learn much too late the added burden it will cost them. To those who rejoice in the GAY marriage issue, I hope you take the time to be socially responsible. It may already be too late to change the course NY is on along with so many other parts of the country. There is a power struggle , and it involves more than just electricity and wind power. It's the power of the people that is disappearing as one group gets a petty gain in this "Liberal" distraction. Now you know why liberal is such a dirty word.


As Article X nears passage, the issue regarding eminent domain gets more likely. Wind power is about to become a "necessary public project" and landowners will find themselves powerless. Pun Intended.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011


Letter To Richard J. Edsall, Chairman

THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 12223-1350Internet Address: http://www.dps.state.ny.us
GARRY A. BROWN PETER McGOWAN Chairman Acting General Counsel

February 28, 2008

Richard J. Edsall, Chairman
Town Planning Board
Town of Cape Vincent1964 NYS Route 12 E
PO Box 680Cape Vincent, New York 13618

Town of Cape Vincent, Jefferson County BP Alternative Energy Wind Project
Dear Mr. Edsall:

The Department of Public Service (DPS) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the BP Cape Vincent Wind Energy Project, as accepted and issued for comment by the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board. The DEIS for the application by BP Alternative Energy North America Inc., (BP) to develop a 210 megawatt (MW) wind energy project in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, Jefferson County is insufficient to document the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.
The DEIS is essentially a status report, listing many studies to be prepared and analyses to be developed in the future. Rather than providing the studies and information identified in the Scoping Document, the DEIS instead relies on documents to be presented in a future Final Environmental Impact Statement. The DEIS does not provide the relevant and material facts upon which decisions are to be made. Such information is critical for adequate public review and comment, and for the identification and consideration of reasonable alternatives and reasonable mitigation measures.
The DEIS does not comport with the Scoping document, which was intended to guide the contents and methodologies of various studies to be undertaken in development and reporting of the DEIS. At this point, DPS recommends that the Lead Agency direct the project developer to proceed with development of significant efforts to develop a Supplemental DEIS which must:

1. Identify specific project component locations, including turbine sites, interconnection facilities, access roads, substations, operations and maintenance facilities, any permanent meteorological tower sites, and any other equipment essential to operation of the proposed project; locations of temporary facilities, such as concrete batch plants and construction yards should also be assessed;

2. Provide detailed analysis of the potential impacts, positive and negative, of the proposed project;

3. Provide analysis of alternative project layouts and scales, and identify the project layout which avoids or minimizes environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable;

4. Identify potential mitigation measures to minimize relevant impacts.

The Supplemental DEIS must address the scoping document requirements, and should specifically provide additional documentation, as requested in prior correspondence including DPS consent to the Town acting as Lead Agency, dated January 12, 2007; and DPS Comments on Draft Scoping Document dated September 12, 2007. (
Those documents are attached for your information.) The Supplement must include all the information required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act regulations (6 NYCRR part 617.9) and specifically include an evaluation of consistency with applicable coastal zone policies contained in 19 NYCRR 600.5; and an analysis of cultural resources in the project area of potential effect, and potential impacts of the project on those resources and evaluation of alternatives and reasonable mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts.
DPS acknowledges that the process of analyzing a major project such as the proposed wind power projects within the Town of Cape Vincent is in itself a major undertaking for the project developer to produce, and for the Lead Agency to analyze and review. Further, the need to provide information to the public during a lengthy development process is an important responsibility of both. The acceptance and publication of a DEIS is not, however, the appropriate mechanism for conveying a status report on on-going studies.

Additional specific comments on the DEIS are attached to this letter, please contact Andrew Davis at (518) 486-2853 if you have any questions regarding this correspondence, or if you would like to discuss cooperation on additional environmental reviews.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

James D. Austin,

Chief Environmental Certifications & Compliance
Office of Energy Efficiency and the Environment

cc: A. Davis, NYS DPS
J. Bonafide, OPRHP
S. Tomasik, NYS DEC
M. Brower, NYS Ag. & Mkts.
P. Penobshek, ERM

New York StateDepartment of Public Service
Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Cape Vincent Wind Power Project
February 28, 2008 The project description and scale identified in the DEIS is not specific, indicating at various locations in the document that from 86 to 140 wind turbines are under analysis, and that a range of turbine sizes from 1.5 to 2.5 megawatts are under consideration. There is no map of project turbine array location or individual turbine sites under evaluation. Some assumptions regarding facilities locations must have been made to develop the visual assessment visibility mapping and photographic simulations. It is not possible to adequately assess environmental and infrastructure impacts including, but not limited to, wetlands impacts, visual impacts, noise impacts, microwave beam interference, turbine lighting, and related factors, without identifying footprint locations of turbines, interconnection lines, access roads, and other facilities with some degree of specificity. DPS recognizes that actual site plan details may not be available at the stage of siting studies. The DEIS needs to be supplemented to identify facilities locations and predictable environmental impacts associated with study locations.

Table 1.1 should be amended to include parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law §14.09 review of archaeological and historic resources.
Section 1.1.3 discussion of power generation facilities should be supplemented to identify the range of turbines and specifications under evaluation. Turbine size and noise generation vary by make and model. Larger output turbines can achieve similar or greater project generation output with a smaller number of turbines.
Section 1.2.2 Site preparation discussion suggests that tower and access roadway locations will be developed based on data which will be collected during ecological, geotechnical, and cultural resource surveys. These are the type of studies and data which are intended to be identified and analyzed in a DEIS, which is then subject to agency and public review and comment. The generic discussion of resources and possible project dimensions in the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project document proffered for review is not sufficient to predict impacts with any specificity. Supplemental DEIS information should be required.

Section 1.2.4 describes installation of collection and transmission system components. Soils information should be characterized and presented on project mapping, relating soils depth and soils wetness to the location of the proposed electrical system and project turbine and access road locations. This mapping will enable assessment of routing and alternatives to minimize impacts on vulnerable wet soils, and identify areas where shallow depth to bedrock may limit the installation of underground electric facilities. Locations where overhead electric lines are proposed should be identified and addressed as necessary in review of project visual and cultural resource impacts. Access to the proposed 115 kV line for construction and maintenance must consider limitations such as streams, wetlands and other factors. More detailed mapping and analysis is warranted in evaluating project impacts and available alternatives to avoid or minimize impacts.

Section 1.3.2 suggests that “the design and layout of the proposed Project components has been continuously evaluated since the decision was made to pursue a project in the Town of Cape Vincent.” The DEIS should have included the proposed layout and design, if not a reasonable range of alternative project layouts under consideration, with an indication of the constraints posed by setback requirements, resource locations, and other information relevant to facility siting.
The discussion of transmission line alternatives should explain the statement that an underground 115 kV line would require concrete encasement (page 22). The conclusion that all wetlands can be spanned by overhead construction (page 22) is questionable given the identification of a wetland crossing distance of over 1200 feet (Table 2.8, page 58). A detailed map of the transmission line route showing relevant environmental information should be provided, along with more detailed assessment of potential impacts.

The conclusion (at page 23) regarding an “additional consumption of fossil fuels” suggests that power generation must increase above existing levels to somehow offset the “no-project” alternative. This statement should be revised to indicate that the no-project alternative would not result in a potential limited decrease of fossil fuels due to the increase in power available to the grid from the wind-powered generation proposed.

Section 2.3.1 indicates that soils at each turbine site will be determined and summarized in the Final EIS (page 33). The mapping of soils constraints should be provided in a Supplement to the DEIS, and should address all project components, not just the turbine sites. Depth to bedrock, soil wetness characteristics are important considerations in siting individual turbines, access roads, electric lines, and substations, and can be useful information in analyzing alternatives and mitigation needs and project schedules. Section 2.4.2 repeats the assertion that potential impacts will be evaluated and presented in the Final EIS. The DEIS is the appropriate document for reporting potential impacts and mitigation options, and analysis of specific project alternatives.

Figure 2.5, entitled “Land Use Map” based on ca. 2001 data, should be compared with a similar but different Figure 2, “Land Use Land Cover” map at Appendix F, based on ca. 1997 data. The degree and nature of various cover types including agricultural lands, wetlands, open water, and forest cover types differs significantly as mapped on these two figures. Even the project area boundary is significantly different between the two representations. The DEIS should be supplemented with current land cover and land use information.

The representation of wetlands in Section 2.7, map Figure 2.7, obscures relevant cover type information by use of solid colors for “Field Verified Wetland Areas”. The scale of the mapping included is too gross to enable discernment of details. And with no project layout information, the information is essentially a potential constraint demonstration with no analytical value in terms of project siting impact assessment. More detailed mapping with project layout should be provided in a supplement. The mapping should extend to address the location of the proposed 115 kV transmission line route and alternatives. Additional analysis of impacts should be provided.
Discussion of impacts to other ecological resources and natural communities should include mapping of resources in relation to proposed project layout. Section 2.9 generally warrants additional information and supplementation including a project layout. Discussion of rare plant species and vegetation communities of ecological significance does not indicate where the project components are located in respect to the community types identified, or whether there is any avoidance of the habitats.
The discussion of wildlife species and raptor winter concentration area at Section identifies the Point Peninsula areas as hosting “the most significant concentration of wintering raptors documented in new York State” (page 73). Given the noted significance of this area, it is curious that the analysis does not address this location or its specific relation to the project area or the raptor studies performed to date. The raptor studies appear to have specifically avoided this area, having been limited strictly to the study area. Additional explanation and analysis seems appropriate for a supplement to the DEIS.
The array plan and location of access roads and interconnection lines as discussed in Section should be developed for analysis and presentation in a supplement to the DEIS.
Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species are not presented: section 2.12.4 reports that “further evaluation and consultation” is on-going. This status report is not sufficient to address potential impacts, alternatives or mitigation measures as appropriate to the content of a DEIS.
The discussion of Raptor Migration Surveys concludes with the statement that “it is difficult to conclude the magnitude of spring and fall migration in the Project Area” and suggests that “additional surveys may be warranted during spring migration” (Section 2.12.5, page 86). The questionable conclusion regarding the adequacy of surveys to date suggests that the addition of only one additional season of data may be insufficient to document the migration magnitude. A more thorough explanation of the nature of migration through the project area, and consideration of potential impacts of the project on migrating raptors is warranted.
The discussion of visual resources (Section 2.13) and impacts cannot be adequately represented and assessed without the identification of resources and a project layout. The location of National Register of Historic Places listed and known eligible historic resources which may be potentially affected by the location of project components should be mapped, with the relation to project components clearly identified.
The definition of the assumed 5-mile area of potential effect for the visual assessment (Section 2.14.2), and the photo-simulation views of certain turbine locations (Appendix G, Visual Resource Assessment) must be based on some specific turbine location arrangement which has not been represented for review or analysis in the DEIS. The project scale - from 86 to 140 turbines -- under consideration (page 91) warrants representation on project mapping and analysis under a variety of conditions.
The representation of the numbers of turbines visible in Table 2.14-1 (page 93) can only have been developed from consideration of a specific turbine arrangement. That array should be represented in the DEIS.
The discussion of potential impacts at specific resources reports that analysis of certain visibility and impacts will be reported in the FEIS, “once the turbine array plan has been finalized”. The visual impact potential of the project from a variety of viewer locations is likely to vary significantly within the scale of turbine array alternatives under consideration. Additional information must be provided in a supplement to the DEIS to represent the project proposal, assessment of specific impacts presented, and alternatives available to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts.
Criteria for an environmental management plan for the project (page 152) should be listed and available for public comment. Adaptive management concepts for potential effects on wildlife, birds and bats would be an important consideration in developing an environmental management plan.
Historic and cultural resources surveys (Section 2.29.5, page 160) must be advanced for consideration in a supplemental DEIS. The DEIS should address impacts, alternatives and mitigation options. The consultation process suggested at page 163 should be ongoing as drafting of a supplemental DEIS proceeds.
Impacts to resources cannot be specified to a reasonable degree without a definition of the project scope and location of project components. The DEIS must be supplemented in many respects and presented to involved agencies and to the public for review and comment. Impacts to many resources of interest to the State of New York cannot be adequately identified, analyzed, characterized, avoided or minimized without the project being defined as a specific arrangement of a specific number of turbines. Locally important impacts, such as noise, impacts to land use, turbine flicker, community character, and traffic effects on local roads, can only be assessed following definition and analysis of a specific project.

The discussion at Section 4.0 presumes that development pressure is forcing farmers to sell farmland for development. The DEIS to date does not provide any information regarding such pressure in the project area. If there is significant development pressure on farmland, and this is an important basis on which the developer or the Town is advancing the project, then a supplement should document this pressure, and analyze other alternative strategies to preserve productive farmland such as conservation easements or rezoning.
Section 6.0 discussion of cumulative impacts must be revised and based on a project layout in relation to other projects in the area. The DEIS for the St. Lawrence Windpower and for the Horse Creek Project both included project analysis arrays. The Cape Vincent project should present its various layout scenarios to demonstrate the projects under consideration at 86 turbines, at 140 turbines, and at an intermediate number as appropriate to demonstrate this project alone, and its relation to other proposed projects in the vicinity. The massive scale of combined projects as described at Section 6.1 should be represented. Economic effects as mentioned at page 172 should be reported in a supplement to the DEIS.
The following appendices should be supplemented in the DEIS, and not left to final reporting in a Final EIS as suggested in the DEIS:
Appendix A – Construction drawings – should be amended to represent study turbine sites, connection lines, access roads, staging sites, substation and transmission line locations, operations and maintenance facilities.
Appendix C and D– Wetland Delineation report and Mitigation plan – should be provided with an analysis of wetlands impacts based on project layout.
Appendix F – Avian and Bat Studies – should be amended to add the spring ’08 studies recommended.
Appendix G – Visual Impact Assessment – should be amended to address specific turbine arrangements and project scales, and should address the transmission line routing alternatives.
Appendix N – Architectural Survey Report – should be provided as an amendment to address the APE for specific turbine array under evaluation.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Turbines Shut down over Noise

June 17, 2011 by Richard Alleyne
in The Telegraph

Residents living near the 23 turbines won an order making the operators turn off the generators after claiming their lives were being made a misery.
The unprecedented banning order only lasted a few days and was designed to force the power company to make provisions to reduce the problem.

If they do not come to an arrangement with the locals then the ban could be re-imposed.

It is believed that the closure, which cost Scottish and southern Electricity thousands of pounds, could lead to similar action being taken by residents living near other wind farms. More [here]

Acciona ~Complaint resolution plan ~

Excerpts from Acciona's Complaint plan
link to complete complaint resolution document [here]

Written complaints shall be directed to SLW and responded to by SLW or their duly authorized representative within 5 calendar days after receipt of any such complaint.

1. If the complaint includes the character or quality of Wind Turbine sound, then any subsequent investigation shall use best practices to evaluate the overall level, tonal, and/ or temporal nature of the wind complaint.

2. Any complaints which cannot be resolved during the initial response shall be subsequently directed to the Town designee, or if there is no Town designee to the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board for investigation and any such investigation shall be with full cooperation of SLW.

3. If testing is necessary....

4.test results....

5. After the investigation, if the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board reasonably concludes that operational violations of any applicable permit conditions are shown to be caused by the WMD, SLW shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such problems.

6. Continued complaints from the same landowner will trigger additional investigation only if the Town determines that nearby Wind Turbine operational characteristics have changed since the first complaint.

This means that if Acciona had a special use permit in RE: to noise for its Wind Mill Development (WMD) project in Cape Vincent,
and you had a complaint about wind turbine noise, your complaint would be directed to the Town Planning Board and after an investigation if it is found that there is a noise problem and Acciona is in violation the special use permit then they will use”Reasonable efforts to mitigate such problems" What does that mean?
Do they say if it is found that if we are in violation of our permit we will shut the offending turbine down?
This document states that they will use what they deem as reasonable efforts to mitigate such problems however they do not define reasonable efforts.

What happens if these reasonable efforts do not solve the problem?

Back to part 6 ~ apparently you are done,

6. Continued complaints from the same landowner will trigger additional investigation only if the Town determines that nearby Wind Turbine operational characteristics have changed since the first complaint
but there is the complaint appeal procedure

This how it works
The complainant may appear before a complaint resolution board
This board will consist of three members: an SLW designate, a Town Officer or employee appointed to the position annually, and an independent third party expert.
Note: The decision of the complaint resolution board shall set forth the manner in which the complaint shall be resolved and the reasons why such resolution is appropriate. In making such a decision, the Complaint resolution board shall take into account the terms and conditions of the special use permit and approved site plans, and shall not require any resolution that is inconsistent with such terms. The decision of the complaint Resolution Board shall be final and binding.

Things could be worse ~~~~

Monday, June 13, 2011

Dog and Pony Show

Animal farm

or Wind Farm?

February 20, 2008, Cape Vincent hosted a Dog and Pony Show ~ The words that former Town Supervisor ~ Thomas Reinbeck used to describe the BP DEIS meeting after citizens of Cape Vincent exerted some authority and refused to be pushed around at this meeting.

A public meeting was held to allow the public to comment on BP Alternative Energy’s Cape Vincent Wind Farm DEIS report.
However, the meeting was not the problem the problem was the people attending. Citizens from the community stood up and made their voices heard much to the dismay of the certain members of the Town and Planning boards. Residents of cape Vincent exerted some authority and refused to be pushed around.

Some speakers addressed the planning board with their concerns over the DEIS, Councilman Donald Mason said that he had many complaints from people over the way it was organized.

“People were giving their three minutes to friends or other speakers. The gentlemen from Lowville did not say anything about the DEIS. He only talked about his problems. A lot of people didn’t talk about the DEIS and I think that should be addressed if they do this again, “he said.
The board felt that the public hearing was supposed to be specifically about the DEIS and not personal feelings about the wind project itself.

Beth White, a resident of Cape Vincent, said that speakers should have only addressed the planning board and not have been allowed to grandstand. “A microphone or speaker system should’ve been set up in the recreation center if they couldn’t be heard, “she said.
Mrs. White was upset that she felt people were able to take over the meeting with comments not pertaining to the DEIS discussion. “You get three minutes to address the board and when those are up you go to the end of the line and wait to go through again.” She added.

Supervisor Reinbeck said that the chair of the planning board,Richard Edsall would likely have intervened in the process if he had not felt threatened by the people who felt he had a conflict of interest when it came to wind farm development.


“He felt that he should abstain and he just accepted the process, but I think other members of the planning board should have said lets tighten up here, “he said. The board felt that town attorney Mark Gebo did the best he could to monitor the event, but felt that the boards, town and planning, should have given him some guidance to assist in the hearing’s proceedings.

Councilman Marty Mason said that overall a microphone system should be set up in the recreation center to avoid future issues. The forced air system in the center was loud and conveniently used as an example for noise levels. “Its 14 decibels, by the way, “he joked.

Barbara Steinhouse, resident of Cape Vincent, asked the board about zoning laws EX Supervisor Reinbeck said would be revisited in 2008. She was curious as to what the board would be able to do if not all the council members could vote.
“I’m not trying to stir anything up, but I just want to know what we’re looking at, “she said. With two of the two council members, Marty Mason and Joe Wood, accused of having conflicts of interests.
Supervisor Reinbeck stated that while he did not have anything legal to back up his assumption, he thought that once someone accused of having a conflict of interest was re-elected to the same position, the conflict of interest was void.
“Mind you I’m not one- hundred percent about that, but I speak for the board when I say that if we had not folded under the threats of lawsuits, we’d have zoning laws right now,” he said.
~ TOM REINBECK ~ would not lie WOULD HE?

Source TI Sun and
document foiled from Town records

Friday, June 10, 2011

Turbine ‘gag orders’

It has almost become a chant of the wind industry; There is not enough scientific information to warrant a study that living in close proximity to wind turbines causes health problems.

The wind industry does not want a valid study. What this statement is saying is ~ It would take a scientific study to get the information required to prove that a study is warranted.

Part of the problem with the scientific evidence and the deniability of the wind companies may be the GAG order this may be silencing many voices keeping them from speaking out.

We need an independent study without the veil of GAG orders, possibly skewing the results. But until there is a study done the wind companies can weasel out by saying there is no conclusive data. If there were an honest scientific study done this most likely would be the death of the wind industry, not because they may not have places to develop that are away from people’s homes, but because of the costs that would be incurred as a result of a study and what this would mean for existing turbines that have to be shut down and the wide ranging financial implications that would result…

Turbine ‘gag orders’ taken to Superior Court | www.citizen.on.ca | Orangeville Citizen

By WES KELLER Freelance Reporter
The issue of “gag orders” that former Melancthon resident Barbara Ashbee refers to from time to time could soon evaporate if a Toronto lawyer succeeds in his arguments that the non-disclosure clauses in certain contracts are too far-reaching to be legal.

Julian Falconer, better known as the attorney for the family of Ashley Smith who committed suicide while in custody, is representing a Goderich-area farming couple in a Superior Court challenge of the clauses.

read complete story here

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Torts more than Just Desserts

Torts are civil wrongs or breaches of duty owed under the law that cause physical, psychological, emotional or legal harm or injury to another party. A tortfeasor is the one that commits the wrongful action. Tort claims are filed by injured parties or plaintiffs in court against individuals or businesses that commit civil wrongs, known as tortfeasors or defendants. Examples of injuries include physical pain, suffering, loss of wages and medical costs. Torts are classified into three categories:

Strict or absolute
Types of Torts--Defined
An intentional tort is one that is committed on purpose with the intention of harming another person, such an assault, battery, misrepresentation, fraud or false imprisonment. A negligent tort is one that is caused by negligent conduct of the tortfeasor towards another, such as injuries caused by the tortfeasor's recklessness and carelessness. Strict or absolute liability occurs when a manufacturer manufactures a product that is dangerous or defective and causes physical harm or injury to another.

Causing Harm
Environmental or noise pollution that causes harm to the public is also part of tort law. Tort laws seek to compensate victims who are injured or harmed and punish the tortfeasors by awarding plaintiffs judgments against tortfeasors that include punitive damages. They are also designed to discourage tortfeasors from committing further acts of similar injuries.

Getting Help
Tort laws are complex. It is recommended that you hire an attorney to represent you in a tort action and to assert legal defenses on your behalf in court. The attorney is an expert on tort laws and can explain them to you and how they relate to your case. The attorney can advise you of your legal rights and remedies.

Source Personal injury Lawyer.com

Torts vol.1 link here

Torts Vol. 2 link here

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Attorney General Schneiderman Ignores Corruption to Pursue New York's Aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard

This note and article about New York State Attorney General Schneiderman were sent to me in an email this morning.
I always hope I am wrong about this. I would love to be surprised. But signs do indicate that the current Atty. Gen is even less concerned about wind development related small town corruption than was his predecessor. Signs suggest that he will not tread into the conflicts-of-interest problems that afflict many small towns in NY and seem to be part of wind development standard practice. But the Atty. Gen does seem very interested in halting one of the biggest sources of income to come NY’s way in a long time (see below) and (coincidentally?) the biggest thing to fly in the face of Big Wind since Big Wind was conceived.
Intolerance for local corruption – at least that involving conflicts of interest over wind development -- is going to require a local response ----- at the polls.

Signed Anonymous
State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed suit against the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies for disregarding his demand they enforce national environmental reviews of proposed regulations that would permit a controversial form of horizontal drilling underground for natural gas. More From Albany Times Union Blog Here
Anonymous is right we do not have the luxury of waiting for the State to intervene in our problems New York State has a very aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard with no strings attached. New York State is pushing an agenda without being concerned about the consequences that this agenda will have on its citizens. The political powers in our state have been interested in developing renewable energy, but they have failed to look at the results or to regulate the process. Renewable energy is not a benign process; it may be called green but it is not. There are human consequences when turbines are improperly sited.

The note that I received from Anonymous coupled with the article about Schneiderman’s suit against the Army Corps of Engineers reminded me of a letter that I wrote to the Attorney General’s office, describing what has been happening in Cape Vincent, and AG Schneiderman’s insulting response to my letter.

Excerpts from my letter
The town of Cape Vincent is facing an issue of a magnitude never seen before in the history of this tiny community. Two industrial power giants have approached the towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme proposing to erect approximately 137 turbines over, 400’’ feet tall each, amongst our homes. Cape Vincent does not currently have zoning laws in place to protect its citizens and the turbines have been cleverly designated as utilities to avoid any future zoning restrictions. Deals were made, contracts signed and plans set before the public was informed. Town officials having signed contracts with wind developers creating conflicts of interests, proposed zoning regulations framed to benefit the wind companies and stakeholders, not the public. There has been talk of officials holding secret meetings. Our town government has been conducting business as though they have their own secret society.

My letter to the AG went into more detail about what has been happening in Cape Vincent and our struggles to date. The response that I received from Schneiderman's office was both disappointing and insulting, it demonstrates that our government is out of touch with the realities that citizens in this state are dealing with.
I am representative of a community in distress a community under siege and we are being ignored.

Apparently Schneiderman thinks corruption is not worthy of his time …

Below is a copy of ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN’s form letter that was sent to me by his dysfunctional office.
Clearly, Schneiderman’s letter represents New York States unbalanced agenda...