New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, 4th

Floor625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-1750Phone: (518) 402-9167 • FAX: (518) 402-
9168Website: www.dec.state.ny.us

Alexander B. Grannis

Commissioner

February 29, 2008

Mr. Richard Edsall, Chairman

Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board

1964 NYS Route 12 E

PO Box 680

Cape Vincent, New York 13618

Re: State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)

Cape Vincent Wind Power Project

BP Alternative Energy

Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, Jefferson County

Dear Mr. Edsall:

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Power Project, Towns of
Cape Vincent & Lyme, Jefferson County, New York, December 7, 2007, prepared by Environmental
Resources Management (ERM). The project sponsor, BP Alternative Energy, proposes construction and
operation of an approximately 210 megawatt (MW) wind power project consisting of up to 140 wind
turbines with a nameplate capacity of 1.5 MW to 2.5 MW, construction of approximately 18 miles of
gravel access roads, installation of 18 miles of electric collection line, construction of an operations &
maintenance (O&M) center on a 5-acre site, construction of a collection substation on a 3-acre site, and
a 115kV transmission line to the existing electrical substation in the Town of Lyme. The project includes
2-3 meteorological (met) towers to be spaced across the project area, and temporary ancillary
construction facilities, including two concrete batch plants, and cleared areas for equipment laydown,
construction parking and construction management trailers.

DEC's review of the DEIS has found serious deficiencies in terms of the proposed project scope, location
of proposed project components, characterization of natural resources in the project development area,
assessment of potential environmental impacts, and discussion of mitigation options. Additionally, the
intention to defer completion of the proposed project layout, basic resource studies and other
development plans until the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS), or later, limits meaningful review and comment on the proposed action by involved agencies and
the public, and does not allow for a full public discussion of reasonable alternatives. Review of the DEIS
shows that at least 21 plans, studies or reports necessary to adequately assess the potential
environmental impacts of the project have been deferred to the FEIS or later. Several of these are
important for DEC's consideration of permit applications that are anticipated to be required for
construction of the project. These include a detailed map of the turbine array and project components,
turbine specifications, wetland delineations, transportation study and routing plan, final visual analysis,
archeology and architectural surveys, Indiana bat survey, Blanding's turtle trapping study, stormwater
and erosion control plans, including a survey of karst features, and an environmental monitoring plan.
Further, the DEIS does not anticipate that a number of items recommended by DEC in comments on the
Draft Public Scoping Document will be discussed even in the FEIS, including source location(s) for
aggregate materials, an environmental restoration plan, an operations & maintenance plan, a
compensatory wetland mitigation plan, an invasive species control plan, or a plan for offsets to impacts
to visual and historic resources.

DEC strongly recommends that a Supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) be prepared to include more complete
data pertaining to these resources, in order that involved agencies and the public have the opportunity
to comment on potential impacts to these resources. As an involved agency under the State
Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), DEC must make findings based on the record in the FEIS prior to
approval of any agency permits that may be required for project construction. A complete EIS record is
critical to the DEC, and without it the Department will have limited ability to make the required findings
as an involved agency.

DEC provided comments on the DEIS Draft Scoping Document, dated August 13, 2007 in a letter
to the Planning Board dated September 14, 2007. The Draft Scoping Document proposed the EIS process
"will take place in two phases. In the first phase, wider corridors of potential impact throughout the
Project will be studied" and "will be presented in the Draft EIS." Then, following a "more detailed
turbine plan which will specify the final placement of turbines, roads, a substation, electrical
interconnects, transmission line, and a permanent maintenance facility…a revised Draft EIS will be
prepared…" (Draft Scoping Document, page 2). In comments on the Draft Scoping Document, DEC stated
that, "SEQR regulations at 617.9(a)(7) provide an existing process for the lead agency to require a
supplemental EIS, subject to the full set of procedural requirements for the DEIS." In order to ensure
that all phases of the DEIS process allow for ample review by involved agencies and the public, DEC
further recommended that "…a formal scoping process be conducted again prior to preparation of a
SDEIS, in order that the full range of issues of concern to involved and interested parties can be
addressed." DEC is disappointed that the Final Public Scoping Document, dated October 8, 2007, fails to
include the "revised" DEIS, and defaults to a schedule that defers a full discussion of project details and
potential impacts to the FEIS.

The following comments on the DEIS represent DEC's concerns for the proposed Cape Vincent Wind
Power Project specifically and for cumulative impacts on the region from all proposed wind power
projects in the general area. These comments include recommendations for further discussion of these
issues in the

Project Description.

The DEIS states that "BP Alternative Energy will determine final placement of the turbines and
roads once it has completed its analysis of the wind resource and wetland and archeological surveys"
(DEIS pages E-2, 6). It is also stated that the final turbine layout is dependent on the type of turbine
selected. "Once a final decision is made on the turbines to be used, siting of individual turbines, as well
as the associated roads and electrical collection system, will be performed. These detailed maps will be
included in the FEIS" (DEIS page 20). Additionally, the DEIS states that, "The FEIS will include the
drawings, specifications and power curves of the turbines" (DEIS pages 6, 10).

Other project components include: A concrete batch plant (up to 10 acres), Project substation (3 acres),
operations & maintenance (O&M) facility (5 acres), and construction staging and laydown areas (DEIS
page 8). In addition, the DEIS states that the project scope will include two central parking areas at each
end of the project and 3 acres cleared for site construction management trailers and parking (DEIS page
15). Other than an approximate substation location (Figure 1.1-3), and an indication that the substation
is expected to be "along the abandoned railroad bed between Rosiere and the Lyme town line" (DEIS
page 7), there is no information in the DEIS regarding the location of any other project components. The
project description also states that "2-3 meteorological towers will be spaced across the project area" at
the completion of the project. The DEIS provides no additional information regarding the type or
location of these towers.

DEC recommends that the SDEIS include proposed specifications and locations for all of the
project components above, or if a decision regarding choice of turbine model has not been finalized, the
potential arrays for the configuration of the wind turbine placement. This should include a map for the
location most likely to be used for turbine placement based on the turbine size and types available. For
example, if the smaller 1.2 – 1.5 MW turbines are going to be used and 140 turbines are needed for the
project, then a map showing the potential locations for the 140 turbine array should be included in the
SDEIS. Likewise, if the Project requires 100 of the 1.65 MW turbines then a map show the potential
location of the 100 turbines should be included in the SDEIS. The Project boundary, turbine placement
array, concrete turbine pads or footprints, routes of transmission lines, roads requiring construction
upgrades, project substations, and any other constructed buildings such as maintenance facilities should
be included. These maps should also be made available in an electronic format such as shapefiles,
coverages, geodatabases, and/or geometric networks, to facilitate review of project impacts by involved
agencies and the public.

Project Alternatives.

This section of the DEIS includes criteria for project site selection (DEIS Section 1.3.1) and project
alternatives evaluated (DEIS Section 1.3.2). DEC guidance provides that the alternatives described

should include those that avoid or reduce adverse impacts identified in the environmental review of the
proposed action (e.g., can these impacts be avoided or reduced by reducing the project scale, re-
configuring or re-locating project components?) While the DEIS adequately discusses the factors that
make the project development area conducive to a utility-scale wind power project, the lack of any
detail in the project scope precludes meaningful discussion of alternatives, as there is no

-3-

"project" to compare alternatives to. SEQR regulations at 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v) states, " The
description and evaluation of each alternative should be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a
comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed."[1] The project description in this DEIS fails to do
this.

DEC recommends that the SDEIS include a proposed project layout that includes specifications
and locations of all proposed project components sufficient to permit a reasonable comparison of
alternatives. Details to include in these evaluations should include the factors that led to the specific
turbine layout for each alternative, such as wind resource evaluation, turbine spacing and/or
orientation, wind turbine model selection, site constraints (setback requirements, avoidance of
wetlands, landowner preference, etc.), access road and interconnect design considerations, and
avoidance of identified adverse environmental impacts (e.g., archeological sites). The range of
alternatives may also include, as appropriate, alternative sites, technology, scale or magnitude, design,
timing, use, and types of action.
 DEIS Section 1.3.2, Project Alternatives Evaluated, again includes a discussion of factors that are
used in planning a wind power project, but no specific alternatives are described other than that the
project is sized to be a 210 MW project. In the discussion of project size alternatives (DEIS page 20), the
DEIS states that "a significant reduction in the Project's generating capacity would jeopardize its
financial viability" and, "Some smaller wind energy projects that have been built have only been made
possible because of large financial grants." These statements are not accompanied by any supporting
data or references. DEC has reviewed a variety of wind power projects in New York State, including
those with fewer than 20 turbines to those with more than 200. While DEC does not seek details
regarding the financial structure of a project sponsor, a statement dismissing an alternate project scale
on the basis of financial hardship requires better supporting rationale.

The Alternative Project Design section (DEIS pages 21-22) states, "Impacts on wetlands will result
from some stream crossing and some unavoidable wetland areas that are crossed by roads and/or
collection lines. It is unlikely that the project layout will be able to eliminate all impacts to wetlands,
since complete avoidance would likely result in the need for increased impacts due to additional lengths
of roads and trenching for electrical interconnects…" Again, this conclusion cannot be verified, or
alternatives evaluated, in the absence of a specific proposed project layout, and an alternative project
layout that shows maximum avoidance of wetlands.

Project Site Geology and Topography.

This section states that depth to bedrock in the project development area varies from exposed at
the surface to an estimated maximum of 7 meters below ground surface, and the depth to bedrock in
much of the study area is generally less than two meters (DEIS page 28). With the typical foundation
anticipated for the wind turbines in this project extending to a depth of 10 feet below ground, or placed
on top of and anchored into bedrock (DEIS page 6), it can be expected that a substantial number of the
proposed turbines will interface with bedrock. The project area is underlain by Kirkland Limestone,
Rockland Limestone, and Chaumont Limestone. All three bedrock formations exposed in the study area
are regularly fractured by joints, with solution enlarged joints of up to 30 centimeters in the Chaumont
formation at the extreme northeastern part of the study area (DEIS page 29). The DEIS states further in
Section 2.4.5, Drainage Features, that detailed mapping of solution-enlarged joints that may represent
conduits for surface water flow will be gathered and presented in the FEIS (DEIS page 38). Further, in
DEIS Section 2.5.1, Ground Water, it states that detailed geologic and ground water investigations will
be conducted prior to construction to determine site-specific features including direction of ground
water flow and depth to ground water, and fracture type, orientation, distribution and geometry (DEIS
page 40).
 DEC recommends that a more complete discussion of karst features be included in the SDEIS. The
location of bedrock fractures and sinkholes should be shown relative to proposed project activities.
Where carbonate rocks are exposed at land surface, solution features create karst topography,
characterized by little surface drainage as well as by sinkholes, blind valleys and sinking streams.
Because water enters the carbonate rocks rapidly through sinkholes and other large openings, any
contaminants in the water can rapidly enter and spread through the aquifers.[2]

The SDEIS should also include maps and a summarization of soil types at each turbine location,
including hydric and prime farmland soils. An estimate of the potential areas which may be impacted
from the construction of the project components should also be incorporated into the SDEIS by
including maps and information from the Jefferson County soil survey and the USDA SSURGO databases.
This will allow a more accurate assessment and review for the identification of slopes exceeding 15%.
Maps produced from this assessment should be included in the SDEIS.

DEC recommends that a plan be prepared that specifies procedures for conducting detailed
subsurface investigations at turbine site locations and other project components that may interface with
limestone/karst features. The plan should be prepared by an engineering firm with expertise and
experience in developing construction projects in karst areas. The plan should specify actions to be
taken if karst features are identified or suspected, including further investigation (e.g., dye testing),
turbine re-location, determination of the effects of blasting, or engineering construction controls.

In addition, a detailed construction plan needs to be developed to incorporate stringent

containment of construction materials, particularly concrete slurry. This would include such practices as
the use of watertight forms, silt/stormwater fencing, controlled concrete truck washout areas, and
covered storage of equipment and construction chemicals. Engineering specifications to describe these
proposed practices need to be detailed in this plan.

The DEIS recognizes that additional impacts may result from spills of petroleum and other
chemicals during construction and operation of the project, and that implementation of the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared to comply with the SPDES Stormwater General Permit for
Construction Activities should prevent or minimize spill incidents and

maximize control and cleanup of any of these incidents (DEIS page 44). DEC will review the SWPPP
prepared for the project to ensure that plans for site characterization, project construction and
construction monitoring have been included and adequately address these concerns.

Surface Water.
 Three streams in the project development area are designated "navigable water," and therefore
protected under Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law. These include portions of Kent's
Creek, Three Mile Creek, and the Chaumont River (DEIS page 43). DEC recommends that the SDEIS
include a map showing proposed project components in relation to regulated portions of these water
bodies. A DEC permit is required for any project component that will disturb the bed or banks of these
streams.

Wetlands.

The DEIS states that wetlands in the project development area were identified by a desktop
assessment involving review of National Wetland Inventory (NWI), DEC wetland maps, and other
mapping sources (DEIS Section 2.7.1.1), and through field reconnaissance resulting in approximate
wetland boundaries (DEIS Section 2.7.1.2). Approximately 77 % of the wetlands within the project
development area are classified as palustrine forested wetlands (DEIS page 56). DEIS Section 2.8,
Wetlands Impacts, reiterates that the configuration for the wind turbine array is not complete at this
time, but that the project "is being designed to avoid permanent impacts on wetlands" (DEIS page 57).
As stated previously, in the absence of a proposed project component layout, showing turbine locations,
access roads, electrical interconnects, and other project components, there is no way to meaningfully
comment on this conclusion. This section further states that there "…may be turbine locations which,
while upland, require access that will necessitate wetland crossings. Impacts to these wetlands will be
short-term and followed by restoration of the affected areas, as recommended by local, state and
federal wetland authorities."

Projects that propose to disturb regulated wetland areas, buffer areas and protected streams
require permits from DEC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). DEC wetland permit
regulations at 6 NYCRR 663.2(z) define a "regulated activity" as any form of draining, dredging,
excavation, or mining, either directly or indirectly; any form of dumping or filling, either directly or
indirectly; erecting any structures, constructing roads, driving pilings, or placing any other obstructions
whether or not changing the ebb and flow of the water; any form of pollution, including but not limited
to installing a septic tank, running a sewer outfall, discharging sewage treatment effluent or other
liquefied wastes into or so as to drain into a wetland; or any other activity which substantially impairs
any of the several functions or benefits of wetlands which are set forth in section 24-0105 of the
(Freshwater Wetlands) Act. These activities are subject to regulation whether or not they occur upon
the wetland itself, if they impinge upon or otherwise substantially affect the wetland and are located
within the adjacent area.

Before DEC can consider a permit application, wetland delineations prepared for the project
must be verified by agency staff. DEC jurisdiction and resulting acreage impacts may vary based on DEC
verification of wetland delineations. It is DEC policy that wetland impacts are not permitted, even with
mitigation, until other alternatives have been explored, including avoidance, minimize or reduction of
impacts. Generally applicants are required to: 1) Examine alternative project designs that avoid and
reduce impacts to wetlands; 2) Develop plans to create or improve wetlands or wetland functions to
compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands; 3) Demonstrate overriding economic and social needs
for the project that outweigh the environmental costs of impacts on the wetlands. These factors need to
be thoroughly discussed in the SDEIS.

DEC recommends that the SDEIS include wetland delineation reports for any areas that would be
impacted by project construction, including project components as described above, and road
improvements necessary to deliver project materials, such as road widening, increasing turn radii, and
modifications to culverts, both within the project development area, and along delivery routes identified
in a transportation plan. Additionally, the SDEIS would appropriately include discussion of how the
proposed project will accomplish wetland avoidance and impact minimization. As stated in DEC's
comments on the DEIS Draft Scoping Document, this discussion would include alternative project
designs that were examined to avoid and reduce impacts to wetlands, and demonstrate overriding
economic and social needs for the project that outweigh the environmental costs of impacts on the
wetlands.

The distinction between "temporary" and "permanent" wetland impact needs to be clarified in
the SDEIS, keeping in mind that simple re‑grading to pre‑construction contours following excavation in
a wetland area may not be enough to restore the full function of the existing wetland area, and
therefore would be a permanent rather than a temporary impact. Additionally, DEC considers the
clearing of a forested wetland to be maintained as a non-forested wetland (such as the corridor of an
overhead or underground interconnect line) to be a permanent impact, even if there is no fill, drainage
or other physical disturbance of the wetland. This could be a significant impact in the project
development area (including the transmission line), as forested and shrub-scrub wetlands are the
dominant wetland type (DEIS page 57) and construction of the transmission line anticipates that
forested wetland will be permanently impacted due to clearing (DEIS page 58). The DEIS statement that
"all efforts will be taken to avoid temporary impact to forested and scrub-shrub wetlands" (DEIS page
58) is insufficient to adequately describe wetland impact minimization and allow for meaningful
comment. All permanent impacts, including those described above, must be factored into the total area
of wetland impacts for which permits and mitigation are required.

The SDEIS should discuss the control of invasive species to minimize the spread of invasive
propagules throughout the project development area, and particularly in regulated wetland and stream
areas. The DEIS includes no consideration of invasive species issues as recommended by DEC in
comments on the DEIS Draft Scoping Document. The discussion should include measures to ensure no
net increase in the areal coverage of invasive species in the
 project development area. Post-construction monitoring and periodic management, including invasives
control and re-planting of preferred indigenous species to ensure survival should also be included in the
discussion. An Invasive Species Control Plan will be a requirement of any permits issued by DEC.

DEIS Section 2.8.3, Mitigation Measures, fails to include any activities that can be described as
mitigation. This section states that "access roads and electrical interconnects may all be re-routed to
varying degrees in order to avoid or minimize the impacts to sensitive or protected wetland features"
and "a complete wetland delineation will be conducted" and "additional re-routing may take place
based upon these further delineations" (DEIS page 59). For unavoidable construction within wetlands,
the only remedy offered is "best management practices" and "training of construction staff" (DEIS page
59). If unavoidable wetland impacts are expected to result from project construction activities, the SDEIS
must describe the location, type and areal extent of impacts anticipated from each project component,
options under consideration for compensatory mitigation that conform to DEC wetland mitigation
guidelines[3], and proposed locations for wetland mitigation areas. Proposed wetland mitigation sites
need to be included as a project component.

Mitigation to offset permitted permanent impacts to wetlands must be developed in consultation

with DEC and USACE. Mitigation activities must be conducted concurrently with other construction
activities; not after other construction activities have been completed. For any proposed wetland
compensatory mitigation sites, the anticipated legal mechanism to secure long term access and
management of the property should be discussed (e.g., ownership, permanent easement, transfer to
third-party conservancy organization). For DEC permits, the structure of this agreement will be required
to be in a form acceptable to the Department.

Terrestrial Ecology.

DEIS Section 2.9.1.2, Vegetation: Rare Plant Species and Vegetation Communities of Ecological
Significance, states that, “the project boundary has been expanded from the boundary described in the
initial consultation letters provided to NYSDEC, the NYNHP, and the USFWS regarding threatened and
endangered species and communities of ecological significance” (DEIS page 61). This expanded
boundary should be provided, and any unique communities, or rare, threatened, or endangered species
that are included in that boundary be identified in the SDEIS.

Table 2.9-1 (DEIS page 61) does not include a state listed threatened plant species known to occur
in the area, the troublesome sedge (Carex molesta). The table and all other textual references to listed
plant species should be corrected to include this species in the SDEIS.
 DEIS Section 2.9.2.3, Wildlife: Wildlife Communities of Ecological Significance, Ashland Flats
Wildlife Management Area, states that a 2,037 acre state wildlife management area (WMA) is located
adjacent to the Project Area and contains both wetland and upland

habitats (DEIS page 72). The SDEIS should include a map depicting the WMA and the habitat types
therein with relation to the current project boundary, turbine locations, roads, transmission corridor(s)
and other aspects of the proposed project.

The Waterfowl Winter Concentration Areas section states that, “there are no federal or state-
listed rare, threatened or endangered species that occur in the Fox Island-Grenadier Island Shoals...”
(DEIS page 72). Although the Natural Heritage Program’s database is a valuable resource for identifying
the presence of unique communities and rare, threatened and endangered species, the absence of a
record is not conclusive evidence that such a community or species does not exist in a particular area.
The SDEIS should include results of ecological surveys that may provide evidence of rare, threatened or
endangered species, or ecological communities that were previously unrecorded. It should also be
mentioned in this section that state listed species such as the endangered black tern (Chlidonias niger)
are known to occur in the Wilson Bay Marsh, which is located within the project area.

DEIS SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Section 2.10, Terrestrial Ecology: Impacts--Project Components,

reiterates that the configuration of the wind turbine array is not complete at this time, but the project is
being designed to minimize permanent impacts to threatened and endangered (T&E) species or
significant ecological habitats (DEIS page 73). It is also stated that temporary impacts to these resources
are likely to occur during construction, and that these areas will undergo restoration as recommended
by DEC. The SDEIS should include a full discussion of the terrestrial ecology investigation and show
where impacts may occur along the proposed project layout. Actions that will be taken during
construction to avoid or minimize habitat disturbance or impacts to T&E species should also be
discussed. Finally, activities to restore habitat areas following construction should be described,
including measures to ensure that preferred indigenous species are successfully re-established in
disturbed areas. DEC Fish & Wildlife staff should continue to be consulted as appropriate to provide
guidance on development and implementation of these activities.

The DEIS states in SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Section 2.10.2.1, General Impacts on Vegetation and
Wildlife, that less disturbance-tolerant species common to upland forests may experience permanent
displacement from areas developed by the project. Although recognizing that this may result in
population stress and possibly minor decreases in local wildlife populations, this impact is not expected
to significantly affect the viability of any wildlife species” (DEIS page 75). This conclusion is not
supported by any data or reference. The SDEIS should provide a fuller discussion of this potential
impact, citing habitat survey reports prepared for the project, and an analysis of how the proposed
project would affect the species identified. The discussion should also note that less common species
found in the project development area that are not tolerant of disturbance could also be permanently
displaced, and subject to the same stresses as more common species when seeking suitable habitat and
available mates. No references are given to support the assumption that bird species will reestablish
perches in the project area, that most species will repopulate the project area after construction is
complete, and that the effects of the project on the availability of food, mates, and migration corridors
will be minor. Although the degree of any population decreases to wildlife species caused by this project
cannot

determined at this time, the cumulative effect of several proposed wind projects in the region may have
an adverse impact on one or more species that winter, breed, or migrate through the project area. This
should be included as a component of the cumulative impact analysis.

In DEIS, Section 2.10.2.2, Threatened and Endangered Plant Species and Significant Ecological
Habitats, it is stated that, “project facilities would not be sited in, or require permanent modification to”
any of four significant ecological plant communities or five state-listed plant species (DEIS page 76). This
should be revised to reference six state-listed species, including troublesome sedge (Carex molesta), as
stated above. This section needs to be further clarified in the SDEIS to describe any temporary
modifications or impacts that may occur to these resources; not only permanent modifications and
impacts.

The DEIS indicates that results of a preliminary Blanding's turtle survey determined that potentially
suitable habitat exists in and around the project development area, and that the largest potential impact
on populations would likely occur during the construction phase (DEIS page 76). DEIS Section 2.10.3,
Mitigation Measures, states that once an array plan is proposed, a complete wetland delineation and
Blanding's turtle assessment will be conducted (DEIS page 77). Several construction-related activities are
listed as mitigation (e.g., a trapping program to determine the presence of Blanding's turtles at Wetland
B), but the list does not include the type of mitigation that DEC considers most effective in reducing
losses from construction during the nesting season, which occurs prior to July 1. DEC recommends that
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1springtime construction activities in areas where Blanding's turtles may potentially
be impacted be delayed until after July 1 to avoid adverse impacts to turtles moving across the
landscape during nesting season. The SDEIS needs to include the results of proposed subsequent studies
(trapping program, habitat assessment), the proposed project layout, a full discussion of where impacts
to this species may occur, and a more complete discussion of mitigation options, including DEC's
recommendation to delay construction where these impacts are determined likely to occur.

Avian and Bat Resources.

 DEIS Section 2.11: Avian Resources, Environmental Setting, discusses the Point Peninsula and
Perch River Important Bird Areas (IBA) and the Ashland Flats Bird Conservation Area (BCA) located
within and adjacent to the project area. These areas are significant to a number of listed bird species
that breed, winter, and migrate through the region. In addition to the species mentioned, long-eared
owl and northern shrike should be included as regularly using the grassland and wetland habitats that
encompass the project area.

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The Study Protocol and Consultation section discusses the one-year pre-
construction protocol used to study bird and bat resources in the vicinity of the project area and states it
was “approved” by DEC (DEIS page 79). It should be clarified that DEC does not have approval authority
over avian and bat study protocols. DEC provides recommendations in consultation with project
sponsors to develop protocols that provide data to characterize existing use of the project development
area (including airspace) by birds and bats. DEC has not determined that the proposed first year of
studies at this site are the only set of studies that may need to be conducted. DEC did agree that the
proposed protocol for taking a first-year look at the bird and bat resources of the area was valid, and
based on results of these studies, may make recommendations for additional studies. It should be noted
that since the time of our comments on the Draft Scoping Document, DEC has released for public review
proposed Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects.[4] The
SDEIS should include reference to conformance with these guidelines.

DEIS SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Section 2.11.1.1: Fall and Spring Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey, states
that, “The nocturnal marine radar survey is designed to characterize migration over the Project Area and
determine the relative magnitude of the migration in comparison to other sites” (DEIS page 79).
Although this is true, radar is also important for measuring the density and altitude of birds and bats at a
particular location, which is important in estimating the impact that a particular project may have. It is
also stated in this section that, “The percentage of avian and bat migrants that flew through the zone of
risk (the rotor swept area) was low, averaging eight percent in the fall and 14 percent in the spring.”
Compared with data collected at other proposed wind energy projects in New York, the percentage of
animals flying in the rotor swept area at Cape Vincent is not low, but about average. Passage rates were
below the state average in spring and above the state average in fall (Table 1: Publicly Available Radar
Results for Proposed Wind Sites in New York). The second paragraph of DEIS Section 2.11.1.2: Fall and
Spring Raptor Migration Survey, states that, “typical raptor species for central New York were
observed.” This is an ambiguous conclusion; the species that are considered “typical” should be
identified here. Additionally, Cape Vincent and western Jefferson County are generally not considered
to be a part of “central” New York. These statements need further clarification in the SDEIS.

The second paragraph of SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Section 2.11.1.3: Breeding Bird Survey, states that
the breeding bird surveys indicates the site does “not appear to have any large or unusual populations
of breeding resident birds.” DEC disagrees with this statement. The grassland and wetland habitats in
the Cape Vincent area are known to harbor the largest breeding population of threatened Henslow’s
sparrows in the state, as well as northern harriers, upland sandpipers, grasshopper sparrows, vesper
sparrows, horned larks, numerous species of waterfowl and marsh birds, and endangered short-eared
owls have been seen in the region during the breeding season. Due to the presence of numerous state
listed species in and surrounding the project area, and the pending finalization of the exact location of
most project components, including turbines, roads, and transmission lines, DEC recommends an
additional breeding bird survey be conducted to target listed species and their potential nesting
locations, and results reported in the SDEIS. Having more specific data on where Henslow's sparrows,
grasshopper sparrows, bobolinks, northern harriers, and other grassland birds may be nesting within the
project boundary will be very helpful in appropriately siting various aspects of the project to minimize
adverse impacts to these species. To determine the impact of wind development in such critical habitat
on these and other species of grassland-dependent birds, it is necessary to conduct a minimum of three
years of post-construction studies, including daily ground searches, habitat displacement/habituation
surveys, and breeding bird surveys. The SDEIS should include discussion of a post-construction
monitoring plan that includes protocols to study displacement of breeding birds.

DEIS SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Section 2.12.3: Potential Impacts to Bats, discusses results of AnaBat
surveys at the met tower and at a riparian location. At the met tower location, bat activity suggests that
operation of the project might result in lower mortality rates than average for a wind project; and at the
riparian location, bat activity predicts mortality rates similar or higher than those experienced at wind
projects in West Virginia or Tennessee. Although these predictions are based on some identified
correlation between bat acoustical activity and mortality rates, predicting risk to migratory and breeding
bats using acoustic monitoring is limited in its utility and results are conflicting (DEIS page 84). It has
been suggested that bats are attracted to turbines, and even areas where pre-construction acoustical
surveys indicated low use of the area by bats had unexpectedly high mortality rates.[5] The presence of
endangered Indiana bats within the project area could result in direct or indirect mortality to this
species. To evaluate the impact this project will have on bats in the region, a minimum of three years of
post-construction studies should be conducted and include daily ground searches and extensive
acoustical monitoring. The SDEIS should include discussion of a post-construction monitoring plan that
includes protocols to study bat mortality.

DEIS SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Section 2.12.5: Comparison with Other Wind Projects–Raptor
Migration Surveys, states that on-site surveys at the Cape Vincent Project Area “were initiated late in
the season and only four counts were conducted” (DEIS page 85). With so few survey days, and less than
21 hours of observations made during both spring seasons, it is not likely that the survey captured the
full extent of raptor migration in the area. Additionally, although surveys at this location may have
recorded “less traffic than the known hawk watch sites in New York,” the number of raptors per hour
observed at this site was much higher than what has been reported at other proposed wind projects in
the state (Table 2: Publicly Available Raptor Migration Data for Proposed Wind Sites in NYS). When
evaluating the potential impact a specific project might have on migrating raptors, the results of on-site
surveys need to be put into context with observations from other potential wind development areas,
not just locations known for their high concentration of raptors. This further analysis should be
discussed in an SDEIS.

Cape Vincent’s coastal location at the confluence of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, and
the expansive grassland and wetland habitats, concentrate raptors in the vicinity of the proposed wind
project in greater numbers than has been seen elsewhere in the state at wind projects located further
from the shoreline. Although it is stated that, “based on the spring and fall raptor surveys, it is difficult
to conclude the magnitude of spring and fall migration at the Project Area,” for the reasons stated
above, it is likely that the Cape Vincent area has a higher concentration of raptors migrating through,
especially in spring, than any other proposed wind development site in the state. DEC recommends an
additional year (spring and fall) of raptor migration surveys be conducted to better quantify the extent
and timing of birds moving through the area. Surveys should take place weekly starting in mid-March
until the end of May to cover the spring migration period, and from the beginning of September until
the end of November to

cover the fall migration period. Post-construction studies should take place for a minimum of three
years at the Cape Vincent Wind Project. In addition to ground searches, visual surveys should be
conducted during spring and fall migration seasons to evaluate how birds react to the turbines as they
move through the area.

In DEIS Section 3.0: Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts, habitat fragmentation should
be included as an identified unavoidable impact caused by the presence of many turbines spread out on
the landscape, in addition to fatalities of birds and bats caused by direct collision with the turbines. This
is a very important issue surrounding wind energy development, especially in the Cape Vincent area,
where this indirect impact has the potential to result in significant effects on wintering raptors and
grassland nesting birds.

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Appendix F: Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Power
Project.

The sixth paragraph of the Executive Summary incorrectly identifies Henslow’s sparrow and northern
harrier as New York State species of special concern (Appendix F, page ii). These birds are both
considered NYS threatened species. The SDEIS should include this correction.
 DEC disagrees with the statement in the ninth paragraph that, “based on the topography and
landform of the Jefferson County area, there is little to concentrate raptor movement though the study
area” (Appendix F, page iii). As mentioned above, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River are major
influences on migrating raptors, especially in the spring as birds are moving north. Raptors will not fly
over large bodies of water, preferring to utilize thermal updrafts of warm air over land to soar long
distances with little energy expenditure. It is unclear what area is being compared in the statement, “the
study results appear to indicate that migrant raptors are more dispersed when they pass through the
proposed project area region.” More dispersed than where? The entirety of western Jefferson County is
shoreline, and large numbers of birds move through the area during spring and fall migrations, as well as
overwinter in the expansive grasslands along the coast.

In addition to the information reported in the Nocturnal Marine Radar Survey (Appendix F, page
iii), the range of recorded passage rates and flight heights should be provided on a nightly and seasonal
basis. Knowing maximum and minimum values for these parameters, in addition to the means and
medians, will provide a clearer picture of how animals are using the airspace over the radar unit.

With a different location of the radar unit for the spring and fall sampling seasons, it is difficult to
determine how much of the difference in recorded passage rates and flight heights is due to differences
between the spring and fall, and how much is a result of differences between the coastal (and more
northerly) site and the more inland (and southerly) site. Collection radar data at two separate locations
adds uncertainty to the reliability of the estimation of nocturnal bird and bat movement through the
project area. Although the results from this radar survey may not support the hypothesis that migrants
concentrate along the shoreline, caution should be used when making conclusions based on this data
set. Variables such the proximity to the coast line, habitat surrounding the radar, dates sampled,
amount of time sampled each night, yearly variation, and weather trends/conditions all effect the
resultant numbers of birds and bats detected at a site.

Raptor Migration Surveys–Results and Discussion.

The list of raptor species in the second paragraph and in Appendix F, Table 1 does not include the
endangered short-eared owl, yet this species is present in Appendix F, Table 2. If short-eared owls were
observed during diurnal raptor migration surveys, information on how many individuals were seen, the
date(s) of observation(s), the location(s) of the sightings, and any other relevant observations should be
included in the report. The information presented in Appendix F, Table 2 should be calculated for each
season separately, rather than combining one fall and two spring seasons of data. Information such as
exposure indices and the percentages of birds flying below maximum turbine height may vary between
spring and fall and from one year to the next. This would be better portrayed for each season
independently.

As mentioned previously in this letter, the comparison of raptor migration data collected at Cape
Vincent should not only be compared with local hawk watch sites, but also with data from other
proposed wind development projects. Recording fewer birds at a proposed project site than what are
seen at established hawk watches is not necessarily indicative of a low potential impact from turbines at
the wind site. Evaluating potential wind projects in context with each other is important when
determining likely impact to birds and bats.

Breeding Bird Surveys.

Several common species and some state listed species were observed on the breeding bird
surveys. Western Jefferson County harbors the largest population of breeding Henslow’s sparrows
in the northeast.[6] The potential for habitat fragmentation and avoidance of otherwise suitable
nesting areas due to the presence of turbines on the landscape could adversely impact Henslow’s
sparrows, northern harriers, and other grassland-dependant species. To reduce the potential for
construction-related impacts, pre-construction surveys should be conducted to identify nesting
habitat for these species. In those areas where it is determined that significant impacts would
likely occur from construction activities, these activities should be minimized during the nesting
season, from mid-May through July. A minimum of three years of post-construction surveys
should be conducted to evaluate the impact turbines have on breeding birds. Along with ground
searches, surveys should be done to determine the degree and duration of displacement and
habituation of breeding birds in the vicinity of the project area. The SDEIS should discuss plans for
these recommended studies and construction scheduling.

Winter Waterfowl and Raptor Surveys--Results and Discussion.

Appendix F, Table 8 includes two individual short-eared owls observed during fixed point surveys,
though Appendix F, Figure 17 does not show the location from which these birds were seen. The
text also mentions that six raptor species were recorded, yet only red-tailed hawk, rough-legged
hawk, American kestrel and northern harrier are portrayed in Appendix F, Figure 17 and Appendix
 F, Table 7. These discrepancies should be clarified.

Although the DEIS does not discuss the presence of short-eared owls on the site, they are known
to winter in the area, sometimes in large numbers. Data collected by DEC in the winter 2006-2007
recorded at least 17 short-eared owls in five separate roost locations, one within the project area
and four within 1.3 miles or less of the project area. Short-eared owls typically roost on the
ground during the day and may begin actively flying and hunting in early evening. The survey
methods used for the winter waterfowl and raptor surveys were inadequate for targeting this
species, with observations made too early in the day and not enough survey days conducted to
fully estimate the number of owls.

Post-construction Monitoring.

Plans for a post-construction monitoring survey should be developed prior to the start of
construction of the project. Post-construction should take place for a minimum of three years
after the start of project operation and include daily ground searches, scavenger removal tests,
searcher efficiency tests, bat acoustical monitoring, breeding bird displacement/habituation
surveys, and raptor migration surveys. The use of radar during post-construction studies may be
recommended to further quantify the impact turbines are having on birds and bats using the
area. Details of the post-construction monitoring survey should be discussed with DEC and
USFWS to develop a plan agreeable to all parties. A discussion of this issue needs to be included in
the SDEIS.

Visual resources.

DEIS Section 2.14 describes the Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) conducted for the project. The
study area for the VRA extends to a five-mile radius from the outermost turbines, in accordance
with DEC Visual Policy (DEIS page 91). Consideration is also given to resources of high cultural or
scenic importance located beyond the five-mile radius, as recommended by DEC. Visual mapping
was conducted on a "hypothetical" layout of 86 Vestas 1.65 MW turbines. Since these turbines
were distributed over the entire study area, the VRA was able to establish whether turbines
would be visible to affected visual resources, even if a larger turbine array (up to 140 turbines)
would result in a larger number of turbines ultimately being visible (DEIS page 92). The vegetated
viewshed analysis prepared for the VRA (Appendix G, Figure 2) indicates that one or more
 proposed turbines would potentially be visible from approximately 77 percent of the five-mile
study area (DEIS page 92). This includes portions of the Villages of Cape Vincent and Chaumont,
the hamlet of Three Mile Bay, many shoreline areas throughout the study area (DEIS page 93), 44
resources of Statewide Significance, and approximately 20.6 miles of the 22.8 portion of the
Seaway Trail (NYS Route 12E) that traverses the five-mile study area (DEIS page 108).

The DEIS fails to provide an adequate assessment of the potential impacts to the receptors
identified above. The DEIS references a portion of DEC Visual Policy (Section V(C), Significance),
noting that the policy defines a significant aesthetic impact as one "that may cause a
diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or one that
impairs the character or quality of such a place." The DEC Visual Policy is further referenced where
it states, "Proposed large facilities by themselves should not be a trigger for a declaration

of significance. Instead, a project by virtue of its siting in visual proximity to an inventoried

resource may lead staff to conclude that there may be a significant impact" (DEIS page 108). On
the basis of this reference, the DEIS concludes, "it is reasonable to conclude that simple visibility
of the proposed wind farm (albeit a large facility) from any of these affected resources of
statewide significance does not result in detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of the place
or structure; nor will the Project cause the diminishment of public enjoyment and appreciation of
an inventoried resource, or impair the character or quality of such a place" (DEIS page 109). This
conclusion is unsupported by any analysis of the "character or quality" of the identified visual
resources, or the siting of proposed project components "in visual proximity" to them. In
referencing Section V(C) of the DEC Visual Policy, the final sentence in the section was left out,
which states, "Staff must verify the potential significance of the impact using the qualities of the
resource and the juxtaposition (using viewshed and or line-of-sight profiles) of the proposal as the
guide for the determination."[7] In DEC's comments on the DEIS Draft Scoping Document, it is
stated, "a complete analysis of visual impacts to specific affected resources is necessary to
characterize the nature and extent of visual impacts to specific sensitive receptors." The DEIS

fails to provide the level of analysis necessary to "verify the potential significance of the impact
using the qualities of the resource and the juxtaposition…of the proposal" to the resource in
accordance with the DEC Visual Policy. This needs to be rectified in the SDEIS by the inclusion of
site-specific analyses of individual visual resources to determine whether the visual character or
quality of each resource may be impacted by the introduction of the proposed visual elements.

Additionally, as recommended in DEC's comments on the DEIS Draft Scoping Document, the list of
affected visual resources should include state and national register eligible properties that may be
sensitive visual receptors within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) identified by the survey for
historic buildings (Public Scoping Document, October 8, 2007, page C-2).
 DEIS Section 2.14.10, Mitigation Measures, includes a range of direct mitigation options as
recommended in DEC's comments on the Draft Scoping Document, including some repositioning
of turbines to reduce impacts to "specific high value resources" (DEIS page 110) and screening of
some receptors through "strategic planting of vegetation" (DEIS page 111). On the basis of the
impact determinations made in the site-specific impact analyses recommended above, options
available for direct mitigation of impacts to specific visual resources should be presented in the
SDEIS. This is consistent with DEC Visual Policy, referenced in DEC's comments on the Draft
Scoping Document, which states, "if all mitigation options available from the menu are
considered, applied where appropriate, and those applied are cost-effective, it can be considered
that visual impacts have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable." However, the DEIS
fails to include discussion of offsets as recommended in DEC's comments on the Draft Scoping
Document, which state, "Where it is determined that direct mitigation is not practicable, specific
options available for employing offsets should be identified and described, or if specific
opportunities for employing offsets have not been identified, criteria that will be used to select
offset-funded activities should be described." This discussion should be included the SDEIS.

Cultural Resources.

DEIS Section 2.29 includes a discussion of cultural resources in the project area and the Area of
Potential Effect (APE) for visual impacts to historic resources. Because the potential visual impacts
to historic resources are closely linked to the visual assessment referenced above, DEC's
comments regarding identification of sensitive receptors, impact assessment and mitigation also
apply here. In the Final Public Scoping Document, October 8, 2007, it states that cultural resources
reviews would be conducted in accordance with Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation (OPRHP) guidelines and results summarized in the DEIS (Public Scoping Document,
page 17). Appendix C of the Public Scoping Document includes Cultural Resources Assessment
Methodology, and includes Phase 1A and 1B archeological surveys, and a survey for historic
buildings (Public Scoping Document, pages C-1, C-2). The DEIS includes only the results of a Phase
1A archeology survey, and states that the results of the Phase 1B survey and historical structures
and properties survey will be included in the FEIS. DEC recommends that these survey reports be
included in the SDEIS, as well as results of consultation with OPRHP regarding assessment of
impacts. As discussed above, the list of affected visual resources should include state and national
register eligible properties that may be sensitive visual receptors.

Section 2.30.4, Mitigation Measures, describes options for mitigation of impacts to historical
 resources that are essentially the same as those described in the visual assessment section,
including screening and relocation (DEIS page 163). As stated above in the visual assessment
section, these direct mitigation options need to be more fully described in the SDEIS, together
with a discussion regarding the application of offsets to address residual impacts, following a
detailed analysis of impacts to specific resources.

Cumulative Impacts.

DEIS Section 6.0, Cumulative Impacts and Benefits, does not provide an adequate assessment of
the potential cumulative impacts of several hundred turbines along the eastern shore of Lake
Ontario and St. Lawrence River on birds and bats. The SDEIS should include a thorough analysis of
the cumulative impacts of wind development around the eastern end of Lake Ontario for
migrating, breeding and wintering birds; and bats. Proposed projects in the region include this
140-turbine Cape Vincent Wind Power Project, the 96-turbine St. Lawrence Wind Power Project,
the 62-turbine Horse Creek-Clayton Wind Project, and the 77-turbine Galloo Island Project, all in
Jefferson County; the Wolfe Island Wind Power Project, in Ontario, Canada; the 39-turbine
Roaring Brook Wind Power Project, and the operational 195-turbine Maple Ridge Wind Power
Project in Lewis County. Each of these projects has publicly available information on bird and bat
movements, habitat use, and estimated mortality rates within their respective project areas that
should be taken into consideration when evaluating the contribution of the Cape Vincent Wind
Power Project to the total impact of wind energy development in the region.

DEIS Section 6.2, Impacts on Avian and Bat Species, discusses the concern that a semi-continuous
swath of turbines in the region, resulting from construction of multiple wind power projects, may
make it difficult for migrating birds to bypass any given project without the being

at risk from collision with another wind project. The DEIS states that concern is "unlikely" given
that "migrating birds fly at altitudes well above the top of a wind turbine blade." Nonetheless, the
DEIS states that the project sponsor "will continue to gather data on this possible impact" (DEIS
page 171). The conclusion that this concern is "unlikely" is not supported by existing data. DEC
agrees that additional research is necessary to characterize this concern.
 Additional issues.

DEC's comments on the Draft Scoping Document included recommendations that the DEIS include
discussion of site restoration activities to be conducted at the conclusion of project construction, a
discussion of an operations & maintenance plan describing environmental considerations to be
included in the ongoing maintenance of the facility, and an environmental monitoring plan to
ensure that project construction proceeds in accordance with regulatory requirements and
mitigation measures identified in the environmental review. None of these issues are discussed in
any detail in the DEIS, and should be more fully described in the SDEIS.

In conclusion, DEC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIS for this project. We look
forward to continuing to work with the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board as Lead Agency
throughout the remainder of the SEQR and permit review processes. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact me at (518) 486-9955.

Sincerely, Stephen Tomasik

Project Manager

att: Table 1: Publicly Available Radar Results for Proposed Wind Sites in New York

Map: Proposed and Existing Wind Farms in New York with Public Radar Data

Table 2: Publicly Available Raptor Migration Data for Proposed Wind Sites in NYS

Map: Proposed and Existing Wind Farms in New York with Public Raptor Migration Data
 cc: J. Madden, BP Alternative Energy

T. Rienbeck, Supervisor, Town of Cape Vincent

M. Gebo, Hrabchak Gebo & Langone

L. Ambeau, NYSDEC Region 6

A. Davis, NYS DPS

M. Brower, Ag. & Mkts.

T. Sullivan, USFWS

J. Bonafide, OPRHP

M. Crawford, USACE

E. Boysen, Ontario MNR

DEC Review Team

-18-

[1]
617: State Environmental Quality Review, Available:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4490.html#18098 [29 Feb. 2008].

-4-
[2]
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Aquifer Basics. ONLINE. 2005. Available:
 http://capp.water.usgs.gov/aquiferBasics/carbrock.html [29 Feb. 2008].

-5-
[3]
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Freshwater Wetlands Regulation
Guidelines on Compensatory Mitigation. ONLINE. 29 Oct. 1993. Available:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/wetlmit.pdf [29 Feb. 2008].

-8-
[4]
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Guidelines for Conducting Bird and
Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects. ONLINE. Dec. 2007. Available:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/drwindguide1207.pdf [29 Feb. 2008].

-11-

[5]
Arnett, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J.K. Fieldler, B.L. Hamilton, T.H. Henry, A. Jain, G.D.
Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R. Koford, C.P. Nicholson, T.J. O’Connell, M.D. Piorkowski, R.D. Tankersley,
Jr. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. The Journal of
Wildlife Management 72(1):61-78.

-12-
[6]
New York Natural Heritage Program. 2008. Online Conservation Guide for Ammodramus
henslowii. ONLINE. Available: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=7106. [29 Feb. 2008].
 -14-
[7]
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Assessing and Mitigating Visual
Impacts. ONLINE. 31 Jul. 200. DEP-00-2. Available:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/visual2000.pdf [29 Feb. 2008].

-16-

Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.

Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. Play now!

Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.

No virus found in this incoming message.

 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1315 - Release Date: 3/6/2008 9:07 AM

image001.wmz
2K Scan and download