Professional Documents
Culture Documents
15-F-0327
Date: April 13, 2017
Document title: Comments on Galloos Final Stipulation
Submitted by:
Clifford P. Schneider, pro se
47243 Wood Cliff Drive
Wellesley Island, NY 13640
(315) 215-4019
clif.schneider@gmail.com
June 8, 2017
and
1
Affiliate defined as when one company has control over the other or if both
are controlled by a third company. Apex Clean Energys website lists Galloo
site as a project and Galloo Island Wind LLCs PSS submission describes the
affiliation with Apex Clean Energy.
other sites for wind, since Apex has a number of projects at different
locations that would meet the requirements of the Article 10 rules.
Finding a wind development site that has less environmental risk leads
to the question of whether there is sufficient public need that would
warrant developing Galloo Island vs other sites available to the
Applicant, both in-state and out-of-state. Aside from casual
references to a greater public need for renewable energy to combat
climate change, one case may provide some insight in how the Siting
Board considers Apexs argument for public need.
2
New York Public Service Commission. Staff White Paper on Clean Energy
Standard. Case 15-E-0302. Jan. 25, 2016. 70pp.
3
Newsday Editorial, May 6, 2017.
4
Schneider, C.P., Case No. 15-F-0327 Letter to the Parties. Unfair Clean
Energy. October 3, 2016. 3pp.
5
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department 8 A.D.2d
523; 188 N.Y.S.2d 717; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7616.
that it was necessary for the petitioner to build its substation
upon the particular site which it had selected. No proof was
offered by the petitioner of the unavailability of other sites
which might cause less disruption of the community zoning plan or
might cause less detriment to neighboring property, but which at
the same time could serve the public need with reasonable
adequacy. Tested by that standard, the proof in this case was not
sufficient. There was proof that the site selected was the
"ideal" one from the standpoint of operating efficiency but there
was no proof that any consideration had been given to the other
factors. (emphasis added)
In other words, these broad notions of need were not good enough for
Niagrara Mohawk and it could be argued they are not good enough for
Galloo Island Wind LLC or Apex Clean Energy, as well. Galloo needs to
make the case that developing a wind project on Galloo Island is
essential and that other less sensitive sites, or other sources of
renewable energy, are unavailable or have more severe environmental
impacts than Galloo Island. Moreover, resolving this issue is
important for every project currently under Article 10 review, because
all applicants have taken the same position as Galloo, that they, as a
private facility applicant, are exempt from this analysis even though
all have affiliates and/or parent companies.
The issue of dated, stale studies from the Hounsfield project was a
concern of Presiding Examiner Casutto and Associate Examiner Caruso
and one that was discussed at length at the July 28, 2016 Galloo Pre-
Application Conference. The transcript documented the discussion and
what follows are excerpts in that discussion that relate to the
previous Hounsfield studies:
ALJ CARUSO: the PSS references and relies upon the SEQRA record
from the previous Hounsfield wind project the examiners would
like to know what -- whats the intention of the applicant here
in bringing in all -- all these previous documents?
MR. MUSCATO: Right. And those scopes have been discussed with the
agencies and their -- there, you know, ongoing process with
respect to refining those and ensuring that theyre adequate for
the Article 10 application.
The record indicates the examiners read Galloos PSS, noted the
reference to the old Hounsfield studies and asked if Galloo was going
to update studies from 8-10 years ago (examiners noticed the dates
associated with the studies). Mr. Muscato responded Right,
suggesting to the examiners that other studies would be included in
Galloos application.
Recommended Studies
The 2008 radar studies are not only outdated, but have deficiencies
that limit the surveys use and interpretation: The timing of the
spring and fall surveys was too narrow and did not include the
complete migration; the metric used (e.g., t/km/hr) obscured
understanding the extent of numbers of birds and bats that flew over
Galloo, the height of Galloos turbines is 50% greater than those
turbines considered in 2008; and the discussion section in comparing
Galloo results with other studies understated its significance, and in
my mind, thereby exposed the reports intent to diminish potential
adverse impacts.
6
NYSDEC. Guidelines for conducting bird and bat studies at commercial wind
energy projects. June 2016. NYSDEC Div. Fish & Wildlife. 35pp.
From my personal experience as NYSDEC biologist I find it hard to
understand why the agency is willingly accept a single, decade-old
survey to assess the magnitude of landbird migration over Galloo
Island, particularly when the 2008 spring survey showed Galloo had the
highest number of targets compared to 31 similar radar studies .
The 2009 Avian Risk Assessment for the Hounsfield Wind Energy Project7
concluded: Based on the 2008 data, Galloo may have the highest usage
of wintering Bald Eagles of any currently proposed or existing wind
7
Old Bird Inc. 2009. Avian Risk Assessment for the Hounsfield Wind Energy
Project on Galloo Island, Jefferson County, NY. Report prepared for Upstate
New York Power Corp.
project site in New York State. Yet, the following winter survey
(2008-2009) noted Bald Eagle winter abundance was reduced nearly 80%,
and other raptor abundances reduced by about half. These two surveys
showed a wide range in abundances, something biologists recognize as
requiring further study to understand what represents normal, average
conditions. Added to the problem of wide variation in abundance is the
fact the surveys are nearly a decade old. Obviously, more effort and
study is needed to document winter usage of Galloo by eagles and other
raptors. How else can anyone understand and estimate adverse impacts
to a species if abundance, habitat preference and behaviors are not
current and not well understood. Who would undergo a serious medical
procedure based on a decade old x-ray or MRI?
It is hard to imagine that Apex and the regulatory agencies did not
consider another series or two of winter bird surveys, since the
habitat is exceptional for wintering raptors, and Bald Eagles could be
more abundant at Galloo than any other site considered for a wind
project in New York State. At worse, Galloos raptors will be
susceptible to potential collision mortality and at best will be
displaced (i.e., driven away by development). More up-to-date
information is required in order to better understand potential
impacts from development and to create a wind farm operational plan
that can adjust operations to avoid collision risk and mortality and
minimize displacement from Galloo Island and surrounding habitats.
8
Schneider, C.P. Case No. 15-F-0327. Infrasound and Little Galloo Island. Sept
21, 2016. 10pp.
a number of wildlife studies that supported my concern that infrasound
produced by Apexs proposed facility could possibly destabilize and
de-populate Little Galloos nesting populations of colonial
waterbirds.
Conclusion:
In examining Apexs Final Stipulation, it is apparent Apex has largely
ignored any requests or suggestions from examiners and others to build
on the previous work done for the Hounsfield Wind project. If Apex is
allowed to move ahead in this process using out-dated, stale
assessments of potential avian impacts, while ignoring important work
that must be done to complete the record, then I would urge the
examiners and the Siting Board to declare Apexs application
incomplete. As I noted in my previous letter in this case10 Galloo
9
Lattin, C.R., Reed, J.M., DesRochers, D.W., and L. M. Romero. 2011. Elevated
corticosterone in feathers correlates with corticosterone-induced decreased
feather quality: a validation study. J. Avian Biol. 42: 247-252, 2011
10
Schneider, C.P. Case No. 15-F-0327. Letter Regarding Clean Energy Standard.
April 4, 2017. 5pp.
Island is a sensitive environmental site that regulators recommended
be avoided by wind developers. For that reason, if Apex persists in
its application, then it has a responsibility for doing more to assess
environmental impacts, not less.
Sincerely yours,
Clifford Schneider
Pro Se
Wellesley Island, NY