Attorney Todd Mathis Editor in Chief for Acciona's SDEIS

 Todd Mathis

  The Cape Vincent Planning Board's attorney,Todd Mathis  formerly of (Whiteman Osterman & Hanna) denied a freedom of information Law (“FOIL”) request submitted on behalf of Town residents for a copy of comments made By Mr. Tocci, sound consultant hired by Cape Vincent’s Planning Board.Consequently, the community had been unable to examine the full extent of Mr. Tocci's concerns over the sound study conducted by Hessler and Associates, for Acciona’s St. Lawrence wind project.
This denial was in violation of New York’s Freedom of Information Law.
The eventual release of the engineering documents revealed that Hessler ‘s sound study, prepared for Acciona and BP , underestimated noise from the proposed turbines, inadequately addressed noise mitigation , and exceeded the noise threshold contained in the towns noise “guidelines” (established in the original draft wind law ), which Acciona had previously agreed to abide by.

Mr. Mathis’s denial of this FOIL request also denied the community the opportunity to observe the extent of Mr. Mathis’s involvement in the preparation of Acciona’s SDEIS document.


OIIIMarch 20, 2009, before the community was allowed to see Acciona’s SDEIS Mr. Mathis sent an email to various representatives of (Acciona), and the subject of this memo was “Comments on St. Lawrence SDEIS.” This email is not just a comment letter about Acciona’s SDEIS. among other things the Mathis memo, addressed the noise portion of Acciona’s SDEIS and Mr. Mathis actually directed  Acciona as to what wording to use, what to eliminate and actually rewrote selected sentences to sanitize the SDEIS, thereby making it a more palatable document for the general public.

Mathis advised project manager Zedick to do the following.
section ~ 3.10.1
NOISE

• Eliminate “Based on this constancy, there is no reason to believe that the sound levels at points in between the monitoring locations would be substantially different”


• 
  Eliminate “typical” “From a statistical perspective the Leq is the mean sound level that is most likely to be observed at any given moment; consequently, it is called the “typical sound level,” and replace with definition of Leq deleted from prior revision.


• 
  Eliminate “very conservative” from “The L90 measure is considered a conservative to very conservative sound level for assessing…”


• Eliminate “Using only the L90 would give a biased result,” and replace with “Using the L90 is appropriate to evaluate impacts at sensitive receptors, such as residences.”


• 
  Eliminate the paragraph that starts “A regression analysis was performed…” and replace with “A regression analysis was performed using the measured baseline statistical sound levels and wind speed. The wind speed was measured in 10- minute intervals by an anemometer 40m (131ft.) above the ground, located within the site area. Sound levels were then plotted against the measured wind speed, which was normalized to a height of 10m (33ft). The distances from the anemometer location to sound monitor locations ranged from _to_ Results of this analysis show… [Provide discussion].”
• Eliminate "There are no local ordinances or regulations that govern potential noise associated with the Project;" and replace with "There are no local ordinances or regulations that govern the methodology for assessment of potential noise associated with the Project"
  section ~ 3.10.2.1
• Eliminate “…but as a temporary, daytime occurrence, construction noise of this magnitude may go unnoticed by many in the project area,” and replace with “but the noise will be temporary, occur during the daytime and be limited in duration.”


• Prior to “Modeling results were compared to the NYSDEC cumulative incremental increase guidelines of 6dBa, which conservatively equates to a project- only sound level of 42dBa, as a basis for impact analysis,” insert:
  
  1. A description of parameters used in the CADN/A modeling which mitigate modeled sound levels; and
  2. Insert paragraph from section 2 of Hessler Report regarding veracity of modeled and potential variability.
  
• Eliminate “conservatively” from “Modeling results were compared to the NYSDEC cumulative incremental increase guideline of 6dBa, which conservatively equates to a Project- only sound level of 42dBa, as a basis for impact analysis.”


• 
  Eliminate “nominal from “Only three residences on CR8 (between Route 12E and McKeever Road) and one at the intersection of Route 12E and Deerlick Road were found to have nominal Project sound level that was slightly above the 6 dBA potential threshold.”


• 
  Eliminate: “All remaining homes in the project area, and particularly the numerous houses along the St. Lawrence River shoreline, are well outside the area in which adverse Project noise impacts may occur,” and replace with “All remaining homes in the Project Area, and particularly the numerous houses along the St. Lawrence River Shoreline, are well outside of the area in which adverse Project noise impacts have been modeled based upon the L90 analysis.”


• 
  Eliminate: “An increase of less that 6dBA is not considered to be significantly adverse”
• 
  Eliminate: “Field experience indicates that these unavoidable and inevitable excursions are infrequent, and short-lived. For the vast majority of the time, sound levels will be close to the mean predicted value.”


• 
  Eliminate: “A change of at least 3 dBA is normally required before any real difference in sound level begins to be perceptible, so the cumulative increases of 2 dBA or less at some residences in the Project Area are fairly minor and do not represent a substantial change in the potential impact from the project when combined with the adjacent project. In summary, the reaction to noise would essentially be the same if only the St. Lawrence Project or if both projects were constructed.”
  3.10.3


• 
  Add mitigation bullet points as follows: “Additionally, turbine location will continue to be evaluated based upon potential noise impacts from the St. Lawrence project, as well as potential cumulative impacts from the St. Lawrence and BP projects.”


• 
  Miscellaneous:
  Confirm whether sound power level used in CANDA/A input is Acciona’s guaranteed spl or monitored spl.

MATHIS MEMO



Link here to Watertown Daily Times story ~
CAPE BOARD OKS REVISIONS TO WIND FARM IMPACT REPORT