BP SDEIS Feb 2011 Part 3 of 3 Cape Vincent

Figure 2.
16-2: Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Noise Impact Modeling, 4 m/s wind
ERM-Southwest, Inc. 183 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393
This page left blank for printing purposes.

Figure 2.16-3: Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Noise Impact Modeling, 5 m/s wind


Figure 2.16-4: Cape Vincent Wind Power Project Noise Impact Modeling, 7 m/s wind


The WHO also considers average sound pressure levels in the 65-70 dB(A) range
to represent a “cardiovascular effects” threshold.
These thresholds reflect levels of sound which may begin to cause some of the
more acute health effects noted above, including speech interference, noise-
induced hearing loss, task interference, damage to organs, and detectable body
vibration.
It is possible that someone standing directly beneath an operating turbine might

be subjected to sound pressure levels in the range of 65-70 dB(A). However, the
modeling results for the Project demonstrate that operation of wind turbines will
not expose anyone on non-participating properties to sustained sound pressure
levels in excess of 48 dB(A), nor participating landowners to sound pressure
levels in excess of 50 dB(A) at their residences.
While not constituting an acute health effect risk, sound pressure levels in the
40 – 50 dB(A) range can be considered a potential nuisance, particularly during
those times (low wind conditions during the winter) where low background
noises will cause the wind turbine noise to be more noticeable. The NYSDEC
provides a goal for non-industrial settings like Cape Vincent of the SPL not
exceeding ambient noise by more than 6 dB(A) at the receptor in order to avoid
nuisance complaints. The agency does note, however, that “There may be
occasions where an increase in SPLs of greater than 6 dB(A) might be
acceptable.”
Nuisance effects can include effects noted above such as annoyance, sleep
disturbance, and stress. One major difference between acute health effects and
nuisance effects is that the evidence shows that the perception of the significance
of nuisance effects by an individual are often related to that individual’s overall
perception of the project. For example, Guski notes that noise annoyance is
partly due to acoustic factors, and partly due to personal and social moderating
factors.120 Personal factors that affect whether a noise is perceived as a nuisance
may include: sensitivity to noise; anxiety about the source; personal evaluation of
the source; and individual coping capacity. Social factors may include:
evaluation of the source; suspicion of those who control the source; history of
noise exposure; and expectations.
For this reason, it is likely that a goal of completely eliminating any nuisance
complaints post-construction would not be practical. Under certain atmospheric
conditions, it is a certainty that turbine noise will be audible above background
noises along public byways and outside non-participant residences, and for some
local residents this nuisance level (triggered by auditory awareness) will be
unacceptable.
120Guski,Rainer (1999): Personal And Social Variables As Codeterminants Of Noise Annoyance.

Noise and Health 1, 45-56.

Impacts to Site Specific Receptors
Based on modeling of the array plan at winds of 7 m/s, operation of wind
turbine generators will meet the following conditions:
• predicted noise levels will not exceed 48 dB(A) at any property lines for non-
participating property owners
• predicted noise levels will not exceed 47 dB(A) at the current residential
structures of any non-participating property owners
• predicted noise levels will not exceed 50 dB(A) at the current residential
structures of any participating property owners
Table 2.16-3 provides a count of the number of residences that may be subject to
specific threshold sound pressure levels at worst case (7 m/s or higher wind
speed) conditions:
TABLE 2.16-3: Turbine-Induced Sound Pressure Levels Predicted for Participating and Non-
Participating Residences During a 7 m/s or Greater Wind
Sound Pressure Level Number of Impacted Number of Impacted
at 7 m/s wind Residences on Participating Residences on Non-
Properties Participating Properties
(cumulative) (cumulative)
<48 dB(A) 3 0
<47 dB(A) 14 3
<46 dB(A) 25 14
<45 dB(A) 32 25
<44 dB(A) 40 47
<43 dB(A) 46 79
<42 dB(A) 55 118
These data are directly correlated to the sound power level/wind speed data
reported in Table 2.16-2. Accordingly, it is possible to use both of these tables to
estimate the maximum sound pressure level at these residences at different wind
speeds. For example, the wind turbine sound power level during a 6 m/s wind
is 100 dB(A), a decrease in 3 dB(A) from the 103 dB(A) output at 7 m/s. As a
result, each of the sound pressure levels experienced at the residences tallied in
Table 2.16-3 will drop by 3 dB(A) when wind speeds decrease from 7 m/s to 6
m/s.

TABLE 2.16-4: Maximum Turbine-Induced Sound Pressure Levels Predicted for Participating
and Non-Participating Residences at Varying Wind Speeds
Wind Maximum Turbine Induced Sound Pressure Measured Background

Speed at Level at Residences on: L90 Sound Levels
10m Participating Non-Participating Winter Summer
Properties Properties
10 m/s 50 dB(A) 47 dB(A) 47 51
9 m/s 50 dB(A) 47 dB(A) 44 51
8 m/s 50 dB(A) 47 dB(A) 40 50
7 m/s 50 dB(A) 47 dB(A) 37 49
6 m/s 48 dB(A) 45 dB(A) 34 48
5 m/s 46 dB(A) 43 dB(A) 30 47
4 m/s 42 dB(A) 39 dB(A) 27 46
Indoor noise levels associated with the Project may be evaluated based on typical
noise attenuation from building walls with open and closed windows. Different
entities have different recommendations for appropriate noise limits and
attenuation factors.
The WHO recommends that the “equivalent sound pressure level should not
exceed 30 dB indoors, if negative effects on sleep are to be avoided.”121 The EPA
document Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public
Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety122 recommends that indoor
day-night-level (DNL) not exceed 45 dB(A). DNL is a 24-hour average that gives
10 dB extra weight to sounds occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., on the
assumption that during these sleep hours, levels above 35 dB(A) indoors may be
disruptive.
TABLE 2.16-5: Predicted Attenuation from Residential Building Walls/Windows
Organization/Agency Attenuation with Attenuation with

Windows Open Windows Closed
WHO (2000) 15 dB(A) --
US EPA (1978) 17 dB(A) 27 dB(A)
(Cold Climates)
NYSDEC (2001) 5 dB(A) 15 dB(A)
The average Leq measured during operational conditions during the winter
monitoring period was 41 dB(A), so adding 6 dB(A) to this produces an average
of 46 dB(A) (because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, when adding 6 decibels
to background the product is a five decibel increase in the noise meter reading).
This result, 46 dB(A), is slightly lower than the <47 dB(A) modeled as the worst
case sound pressure level at any non-participating residence. During summer
months, the average operational background level (Leq) was substantially higher
121WHO Guidelines for community noise. World Health Organization, Geneva. 1999
122USEPA; Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare
with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA 550/9-74-004, March 1974.

at 49.5 dB(A), which is higher than the maximum average sound pressure level at
any non-participating residences, and roughly equivalent to the maximum
average sound pressure level at any participating residences.
Considering the NYSDEC guidance, during the summer months, the lower
attenuation factor resulting from open windows would indicate that 35 dB(A)
could result in negative impacts to sleep. However, 99.9% of the background
readings collected during summer monitoring were in excess of 35 dB(a), and the
average background reading measured during times when wind speeds were in
excess of an anticipated 3.5 m/s cut-in speed was 49.7 dB(A). It is therefore
predicted that on the average there will be no disruption of sleep during the
summer months for the participating or non-participating landowners due to
turbine sound pressure levels.
During the winter months, the higher attenuation factor resulting from closed
windows would indicate that sound pressure levels greater than 45 dB(A) could
result in negative impacts to sleep. Using EPA factors, this threshold would be
57 dB(A).
Relying on the more conservative DEC attenuation factor of 15 dB(A) for

windows closed, some number of non-participating landowners may be subject
under wind conditions in the 7-9 m/s range indoor sound pressure levels
incrementally higher (1 dB(A)) than the WHO guidelines, while at the same time
background levels caused by the higher wind speeds are below the sound
pressure levels. At 7 m/s this impact will also be greater than the NYSDEC
recommended 6 dB(A) increase in SPL over background.
Uncertainty
Discussion of sound pressure levels and their potential nuisance and sleep
disruption effects would not be complete without noting some of the
uncertainties inherent not only in modeling, but in atmospheric conditions. Any
actual post-construction monitoring data would produce a scatter around the
model prediction at different wind speeds. While testing has suggested that the
modeling methodologies used in this exercise are conservative (approximately
90% of post-construction readings are expected to be below or equal to the
modeling prediction), it is likely that there will be times during the operation of
the Project when noise impacts greater than those described above will be
observed.
Greater buffer distances would reduce but not eliminate this possibility of
infrequent nuisance conditions. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a
goal of complete elimination of any potential nuisance complaints that could
arise from operation of a wind farm would functionally eliminate the ability to
develop commercial scale wind power projects in the Town of Cape Vincent.

2.16.3 Pure Tones
Concerns about pure tones are commonly expressed for proposed wind turbine
farms. Modern wind turbines do not generate tonal noise to any significant
extent. Therefore, the tonal noise from the turbines (if any) is not expected to be
an issue for the Town of Cape Vincent. In fact, at the reference measuring point
one times the height of the turbine away from the base of the turbine, the GE 1.6-
100 has a value for tonality less than or equal to 4 dB, irrespective of wind speed,
hub height and grid frequency.
2.16.4 Proposed Mitigation
Construction Noise
The impacts of construction noise levels will be of limited duration, but may
create a nuisance over the time period construction takes place. Mitigation
measures to reduce the impacts of construction noise include:
• scheduling of construction, blasting, and equipment hauling activities to
daytime hours so as to avoid sleep disturbance.
• Implementing best management practices for noise abatement during
construction, including use of appropriate mufflers and limiting the hours of
construction; and
• Notifying landowners of certain construction noise impacts in advance (e.g.,
if blasting becomes necessary).
Substation Operational Noise

Structural elements may be incorporated into substation design, including walls,
sound-absorbing panels, or deflectors. Earth berms may also be effective, and BP
will limit the cutting/clearing of vegetation surrounding the proposed substation
to the minimum amount necessary in order to maintain a greater sound buffer
due to natural attenuation by vegetation. Since it is difficult to perfectly
characterize substation noise prior to operation, BP Wind Energy will conduct
post-construction monitoring of substation noise, and will design and implement
mitigation measures as needed to reduce substation noise to below 46 dB(A) at
any non-participating residences.
Turbine Operational Noise

Mitigation for noise impacts due to turbine operations have already been built
into the design of the Project. The original array plan was developed in 2008
following receipt of comments from the original DEIS, and has gone through
numerous revisions based in part on reducing the maximum modeled noise
impact throughout the Project. In particular, the number of turbines within the
array has been substantially reduced, down from a maximum of 140 in the
original DEIS, to 84 turbines in the most recent version. The smaller number of
turbines allows for greater spacing between turbines, as well as greater distances
both between turbines and property boundaries with non-participating
landowners as well as between turbines and residences, reducing the maximum
impacts to both.

Another mitigation measure is the selection of the newer GE 1.6-100 turbines
over the GE 1.5 sle turbines which had been originally contemplated. The GE
1.6-100 produces measurably less noise than the GE 1.5 sle during the majority of
operational conditions, as shown below:
10m Wind Sound Power Level at Given Wind Speed in dB(A)

Speed (m/s) GE 1.5 sle GE 1.6-100
3 <96 <94
4 <96 <94
5 99.1 <96
6 103 <100
7 104 <103
8+ 104 105
If there is evidence that machine noise from operating turbines is causing a local
nuisance, BP will work with the vendor to develop appropriate remedies,
including addition of sound dampening materials to nacelles to mask generator
noise.
Post-Construction Dispute Resolution

BP Wind Energy will implement a complaint resolution procedure to assure that
any complaints regarding operational noise will be adequately and efficiently
investigated and resolved.
2.17 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.17.1 Climate
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maintains and monitors

National Water and Climate Centers (NWCC) in numerous locations throughout
the United States. The closest monitoring center to the Project Area is located in
Watertown, approximately 25 miles south of the Project site. Based on
information from “The Weather Underground” website, the Town of Cape
Vincent and the City of Watertown in New York State are located at elevations of
265 ft and 325 ft, respectively above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The Watertown
NWCC station has collected temperature and precipitation data from 1971
through 2000. Based upon the 30-year averages calculated from this timeframe,
the average daily maximum temperature in Watertown is 54.9 degrees
Fahrenheit (ºF), and the average daily minimum is 36.5 ºF. Historically, January
is the coldest month with an average daily temperature of 18.9 ºF and July is the
warmest with an average daily temperature of 70.4 ºF 123. Since the difference in
elevation from both areas is small (~60 ft), it can be assumed that the average
temperatures at Watertown would be representative of the average temperatures
at the Project site.
123 National Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey for Jefferson County New York

The 30-year annual average precipitation recorded in Watertown is 42.7 inches.
September is historically the wettest month of the year, with an average monthly
precipitation of 4.59 inches and February is the driest, with an average monthly
precipitation of 2.50 inches. The 30-year average snowfall recorded in
Watertown is 111.9 inches annually. January and December are historically the
snowiest months of the year, with monthly averages of 33.6 inches and 29.0
inches, respectively.
2.17.2 Air Quality
Air quality data for New York State are published annually by the NYSDEC
Division of Air Resources. The most recent summary of air quality data available
for the state is the 2009 Annual New York State Air Quality Report – Ambient
Air Monitoring System 124. The report also includes the most recent ambient air
quality data through 2005, as well as long-term air quality trends derived from
data that have been collected and compiled from numerous state and private
(e.g., industrial, utility) monitoring stations across the state. These trends are
assessed by NYSDEC regions. The Project site is located in NYSDEC Region 6.
Air quality sampling points for Region 6 occur in Nick’s Lake, south of Old Forge
(Herkimer County), unspecified locations in Utica (Oneida County), Potsdam (St.
Lawrence County), Camden (Oneida County), and along the Perch River north
of Watertown (Jefferson County). During the most recent year for which data
were available (2005), all of the Region 6 monitoring stations were within the
acceptable levels (i.e. in attainment) established by the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all tested parameters: sulfur dioxide (SO2),
inhalable particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) and ozone. The 3-year average (2003,
2004, and 2005) for ozone (8-hour standard) was 0.08 ppm, which is the limit not
to be exceeded. Where some inhalable particulate (PM10) data were not yet
available for 2005, the 2004 report was checked and compliance was also
indicated.
The Project site is located immediately upwind of NYSDEC Region 7; therefore,

air quality data for that region were also examined. Air quality sampling points
for Region 7 occur in East Syracuse (Onondaga County), Camp Georgetown
(Madison County), Binghamton (Broome County), Syracuse (Onondaga County),
and Fulton/Granby (Oswego County). The most recent data (2005) collected
from these sampling points were within acceptable levels established by the
NAAQS for SO2, PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO), and ozone level, with the
exception of the Fulton/Granby sampling point, which exceeded the NAAQS for
8-hour ozone level (0.08 ppm) by 0.002 ppm.
The EPA Green Book125 lists Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All
Criteria Pollutants by county for the entire United States. As of its last update on
124 New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2009,
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8536.html
125 USEPA. 2007. Green Book: Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria
Pollutants website. http://www.epa.gov/airprogm/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html. Accessed

January 2007.

January 5, 2007, Jefferson County is designated as a moderate nonattainment
area for the 8-hour ozone standard. The county is in attainment of the NAAQS
for all other criteria pollutants [CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, lead (Pb),
PM10, PM2.5, and SO2]. However, the surrounding counties (i.e., St. Lawrence,
Lewis, and Oswego) are listed as being in attainment for all criteria pollutants,
including the 8-hour ozone level.
It should be noted that the Adirondack region of New York State, which includes
Jefferson County, is recognized as one of the regions in the United States most
severely affected by acid deposition from precipitation. Most of the deposition
that occurs in this region originates outside of New York State126 127 and has
resulted in the sterilization of approximately 350 Adirondack Lakes128.
2.17.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
According to the DEC document “Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements” emissions of CO2 account for
89% of the total annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in New York State.
CO2 emissions result overwhelmingly from the combustion of fuel, and it is
estimated that 250 million tons of CO2 per year are emitted from fossil fuel
combustion in the state.
2.18 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY: IMPACTS
2.18.1 Construction
During the site preparation and construction phases of the Project, minor
temporary adverse impacts to air quality could result from the operation of
construction equipment and vehicles. Such impacts could occur as a result of
emissions from engine exhaust and from the generation of fugitive dust during
earth moving activities and travel on unpaved roads. Dust could cause
annoyance and impact property at certain yards and residences that are adjacent
to unpaved town roads or Project access roads. These impacts are anticipated to
be short-term and localized and will be avoided or corrected quickly, as
addressed below.
2.18.2 Operations
The operation of this Project is anticipated to have a positive impact on air

quality by producing approximately 410,000 MWh129 of electricity every year
126 Driscoll, C.T., Newton, R.M., Gubala, C.P. et al.; Adirondack Mountains; D.F. Charles, Ed. 1991.
Acidic Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems, Regional Case Studies, Springer-Verlag, New York;
pp. 132-202.
127 Simonin, H. 1998. The Continuing Saga of Acid Rain. The Conservationist. Wild in New York.
128 Feyerick, D., 2000. Acid rain still endangers Adirondacks. CNN.com, April19, 2000.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/04/19/acidrain.adirondacks/index.html
129Proposed annual electric power generated 134 MW project operating at approximately 35% load
factor over the course of a year.

with zero emissions to the atmosphere. Power delivered to the grid from the
Project would directly off-set the generation of energy at existing conventional
power plants.
Regional Impacts
The NYSDPS has estimated that achievement of the State’s renewable portfolio
standards (RPS) goal will reduce in-State emissions of NOx by approximately
4,000 tons per year, and emissions of SO2 by approximately 10,000 tons per
year.130
The region is subject to emissions transported from fossil-fuel burning sources.

Resource Systems Group, Inc. (RSG) conducted a study for the Flat Rock Wind
Power Project (now known as Maple Ridge Wind Power Project) in Lewis
County, NY, to assess the effects of that project in reducing air emissions.131 The
analysis projected potential reductions in contaminants resulting from that
project’s power generation. Since the two projects are not far apart
(approximately 100 miles apart), the emission factors determined by RSG based
on the regional average fuel mix are considered representative for the proposed
Project and are presented in Table 2.18, along with estimated emission
reductions that would result from the proposed Project.
TABLE 2.18-1: Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions That Would Result from the Proposed
Project
Total Annual
Emission Factor [pounds Reductions
Pollutant (lbs)/MWh]1 (tons/year)2
Nitrogen oxides 1.363 280
Sulfur oxides 1.765 360
Carbon dioxide 1,274 260,000
Particulate matter less than 10
microns in diameter 0.041 8.4
Volatile organic compounds 0.035 7.2
Mercury 2E-06 1 lb/year
1. Emission factors based on the regional average fuel mix.
2. Proposed annual electric power generated of 410 GWH/year.
A recent preliminary modeling study conducted by Roy, et al (2004)132 suggests

that a large scale wind turbine installation (10,000 turbines) in the Great Plains
region (Oklahoma) may have a slight summertime warming effect (a mean of 0.7
degrees Celsius (ºC) during the 15-day period in July 1995) and drying effect on
130 NYSDPS. 2004.

131 RSG. 2003. Resource Systems Group, Inc.: Air Emissions Reductions Analysis for the Proposed
Flat Rock Wind Power Project. Prepared for Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation. October 31,
2003.
132 Roy S.B., Pacala S.W., and R.L. Walko. 2004. Can Large Wind Turbines Affect Local
Meteorology? Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D190101, American Geophysical Union.

the local climate by creating turbulence that brings warmer, drier air down to the
ground.
During the environmental review process for a project in Chautauqua County,

NY, a study group analyzed the Roy, et al (2004) study with respect to local
conditions to determine its applicability to impacts of wind turbines on vineyard
microclimates.133 The specific concern addressed was whether the 31 – 34
proposed wind turbines with rotor diameters of 240 feet would cause local
ground-level cooling, which has the potential to damage grape vines during the
coldest days. The study group concluded that results of the Roy, et al (2004)
study did not apply to the Chautauqua County project due to the much smaller
number of turbines in the proposed installation, and the generally wetter climate
in New York State. Additional analysis by the study group concluded that the
wind turbines would likely not cause any ground-level cooling, but might have a
slight, unquantified ground-level warming effect within one-half mile of the
turbines. The final conclusion of DeGaetano, et al (2004) was that the
Microclimate Study Group did not believe the proposed Project would have “a
significant impact (adverse or beneficial) on local microclimatic conditions and
grape productions.”
Based on Degaetano, et al (2004), it is therefore concluded that the operation of

the Project (with 84 turbines vs. 10,000 turbines used in Roy, et al’s study) will
also not have any discernable effect on local climate.
Climate Change
In August of 2009, Governor David A. Paterson signed Executive Order No. 24,
setting a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New York State by 80
percent below the levels emitted in 1990 by the year 2050.
Project operation has the potential to reduce current emissions from existing
power plants or delay increased use of fossil fuels. A detailed analysis by the
Department of Energy’s (USDOE) Pacific Northwest Laboratory in 1991
estimated the energy potential of the United States wind resource at 10.8 trillion
kilowatt-hours (kWh) annually, or more than three times total U.S. electricity
consumption in 1996. 134 135 Every 10,000 MW of wind power generation
installed can reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 33 million metric tons
(MMT) annually if it replaces coal-fired generating capacity, or 21 MMT if it
replaces generation from the United States average fuel mix.136
133 DeGaetano, A., Bates, T., Davenport, T., Hecklau, J., and H. Walter-Peterson. 2004. Chautauqua
Windpower Project: Report on Potential Microclimatic Impacts to Vineyards. Report prepared for
the Towns of Ripley and Westfield, New York. December 8, 2004.
134 Elliot, D.L., L.L. Wendell, and G.L. Gower. 1991. An Assessment of Windy Land Area Wind
Energy Potential in the Contiguous United States. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
135 USDOE. 1997. Total U.S. Consumption for 1996 is estimated at 3.2 trillion kWh. Annual Energy
Review 1996. United States Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration, July 1997.
136 San Martin, R. 1989. Environmental Emissions from Energy Technology Systems: The Total Fuel
Cycle. U.S. Department of Energy, spring 1989.

The NYSDPS has estimated that achievement of the State’s RPS goal will reduce
in-State emissions of CO2 by approximately 4.2 million tons per year.137
DEC Guidance on Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in EISs states
that total annual emissions should be presented as short tons of CO2.
Substitution of wind energy generation for fossil fuel combustion is expected to
result in a reduction of approximately 260,000 tons per year of CO2 emissions.
This represents a reduction of 0.1% of the total CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
combustion statewide.
2.18.3 Proposed Mitigation
Except for minor, short-term impacts from construction vehicles and operation of
the temporary concrete batching plants, the proposed Project would have no
adverse impact on air quality. The following mitigation measures for
construction-related air emissions and dust are proposed and will be standard
operating policy for the Project construction contractors:
• All vehicles used during construction will comply with applicable federal
and state air quality regulations;
• Idling time for construction vehicles/equipment engines will be limited, and
this equipment will be shut down when not in use;
• Necessary air quality permits or clearances will be obtained for temporary
concrete batching plants;
• The site environmental monitor will identify any dust problems during
construction and report them to the construction manager and the contractor;
• Active dust suppression will be implemented on unpaved construction
access roads, parking areas, and staging areas, using water-based dust
suppression materials in compliance with state and local regulations. In
more severe cases, temporary paving (e.g. oil and stone) may be used to
stabilize dusty road surfaces in certain locations;
• Traffic speeds on unpaved access roads will be kept to 25 mph or lower to
minimize generation of dust;
• Carpooling among construction workers will be encouraged to minimize
construction-related traffic and associated emissions;
• The extent of exposed or disturbed areas on the Project site at any one time
will be minimized;
• Disturbed areas will be re-planted or graveled to reduce windblown dust;
• Erosion control measures will be implemented to limit silt deposit to
roadways; and
• The Project will implement a Complaint Resolution Procedure to establish an
efficient process by which to report and resolve any construction (or
operational) related impacts.
137 NYSDPS. 2004.

In addition, by contributing to the success of the New York State Climate Action
Plan through the reduction in the need for fossil fuel consumption within the
state, the Project will have a long-term beneficial impact on climate. This benefit
can be viewed as mitigation for other environmental impacts associated with the
Project.
2.19 COMMUNICATION SIGNAL FAA OBSTRUCTION STUDY: METHODOLOGY

AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Microwave and TV/Radio Transmission Search

BP Wind Energy commissioned Comsearch to evaluate the potential effects of
the Project on existing non-Federal Government microwave telecommunications
systems. These systems include:
• narrow beam microwaves; and
• omni-directional broadcast microwaves (AM/FM, TV, Land Mobile Radio,
Mobile Phones, Communication Towers).
Microwave path data were overlaid on topographic basemaps, and 3 microwave

paths were identified that intersect the Project Area (See Figure 2.19-1). A Worst
Case Fresnel Zone was then calculated for each microwave path in the Project
Area. The resulting information plotted graphically shows the portions of the
Project Area where microwave pathways could be interfered with due to wind
turbine placement.
The results of the Comsearch study is included as Appendix I.
In addition to microwave pathways, FAA databases were consulted in order to

determine what broadcasting takes place in the immediate vicinity of the Project
Area, so that an assessment of potential interferences could be completed. Local
broadcasting towers are included in Table 2.19-1.

o
GIS File: Prepared by: Date: Project No.
Cape Vincent\GIS\projects\microwave_zm.mxd M. Jones/S. King 1/17/2011 0092352

CANADA

St Lawrence River

Cape Vincent
Georg
Lake

r

ve

Ri
nt

mo

au
Lake Ontario
Legend
Ch

Proposed Turbine Array

Radio Transmission Tower
Microwave Path
Chaumont Bay Proposed Project Boundary
2 1 0 2 Figure 2.19-1
Miles Microwave Pathways and Radio Transmission Towers in Vicinity of
Cape Vincent Wind Project
BP Wind Energy

Table 2.19-1: Broadcasting Towers in Vicinity of Cape Vincent Project
Tower
FCC Latitude/
Ref Status Owner Name Height
Reg. No. Longitude
(ft AGL)
1 1006176 Constructe ST LAWRENCE 44-07-03.1N 56.1
d SEAWAY RSA 076-20-01.0W
CELLULAR
PARTNERSHIP DBA
VERIZON WIRELESS
2 1006951 Constructe CAPE AL 44-06-58.0N 89.0
d BROADCASTING INC 076-20-20.0W
DBA = WKGG FM
3 1016348 Constructe MARS HILL 44-04-42.0N 85.9
d BROADCASTING CO 076-15-25.0W
INC DBA = MARS HILL
NETWORK
1 1004173 Constructe SBC TOWER 44-15-03.2N 98.1
d HOLDINGS LLC 076-01-49.4W
2 1006117 Constructe ST LAWRENCE 44-15-22.2N 78.6
d SEAWAY RSA 076-00-11.6W
CELLULAR
PARTNERSHIP DBA
VERIZON WIRELESS
FAA Obstruction Analysis

The nearest public airport to the Project Area is the Watertown International
Airport, 10 miles southeast of the Project boundary. The Project is located
outside the boundaries of Military Operations Areas and Restricted Areas; and
no Long Range Joint Use Radar Sites are within 60 miles of the Project boundary.
Aviation Systems Inc. was contracted to perform an initial FAA feasibility study
for the Project Area, and the study results are included in Appendix J.
2.20 COMMUNICATION SIGNAL STUDY: IMPACTS
2.20.1 Types of Potential Impacts
There are four distinct mechanisms that can potentially cause interference to
local communications:
• Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) – due to generation and radiation of radio
frequency energy in a frequency band used by a radio service.
• Near-Field Effects – due to an obstacle located so close to an existing antenna
that it modifies the radiation characteristics of the antenna.
• Diffraction - partial blocking of radio waves, causing some signal power loss.
• Reflection (or Scattering) – a result of radio waves being reflected from a
moving surface.

Data has shown that wind turbines are not significant emitters of EMI. The
electric motors and generators used in the turbine may emit a small amount of
low frequency electromagnetic noise, but this is outside of the high frequency
band used by communication and broadcast systems, so they would not be
expected to cause system interference.138
The services most likely to be affected by near field effects are those with mobile
receivers that might be operated a few meters from a tower. The distance of an
antenna from a tower that would cause near-field problems is dependent on the
operating frequency and directivity. However, in general, VHF (e.g. land
repeaters) and UHF (e.g. cellular) services more than 10 - 20 meters from the
tower structure are unlikely to suffer from near field effects.
Obstruction or diffraction occurs when the wind turbine partially or totally

blocks a radio wave. The effect of diffraction is to reduce the amount of energy
available at the receiving antenna. The distances between the transmitter,
turbine and receiver determine the level of loss of the signal strength. Turbines
located farther than 115 m from the transmitters will not obstruct the signal if the
next receiver is within 40 km of the transmitter.139
Scattering occurs as the consequence of the reflection of waves from an object

that has reflective properties. The wind turbine tower and blades are relatively
slim and curved, so they tend to disperse rather than obstruct the waves.
Additionally, typical blades are made from fiber-glass that is essentially
transparent to electromagnetic waves.
Microwave Impacts
To evaluate the potential for the Project to impact existing microwave
telecommunication signals, Comsearch was retained to conduct a Microwave
Path Analysis to evaluate the potential effect of the Project on existing non-
federal government telecommunication systems. These systems require a clear
line-of-sight between transmitting and receiving antennas in order to complete a
wireless point-to-point link. The report may be found in Appendix I. The
Comsearch study identified three microwave pathways currently intersecting the
Project area, operated by Border International Broadcasting Co, Mars Hill
Broadcasting Co, and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. The original proposed
turbine locations had one turbine that was identified as potentially interfering
with a microwave pathway. The turbine was relocated and all proposed turbines
are now sited such that it is unlikely to interfere with the microwave pathways.
138 Stoilkov, Vlatko, 2008. The Emc/Emf Intrusion Assessment Of Wind Generators, The Second
Symposium on Applied Electromagnetics & PTZE, Zamosc, Poland, June 1–4, 2008.
139 Stoilkov.

Television Impacts
In the past, interference of analogue TV signals resulting from wind turbines was
a concern due to: the potential for noise generation at Low VHF Channels; flicker
correlated to turbine blade motion on older television sets; picture ghosting due
to multipath signals caused by reflections from turbine structures; and television
signal blockage and reduction in signal strength.
With digital transmissions, television signal will still be attenuated by the

presence of the wind turbines. However the digital modulation can withstand
the attenuation affect to a greater extent because it requires a much lower signal
level to produce excellent video.140
The nearest TV transmission tower is located approximately 10.5 miles to the

northwest of the Project boundary (this is the transmitter for station CKWS-TV in
Kingston, Ontario); the closest US TV transmission tower is approximately 12
miles southeast in Watertown (WBQZ-LP). These stations are both located far
enough from the Project that near-field disruption of the broadcast signal is not a
concern.
It will be impossible to adequately gauge any impacts to local residents until the
Project is constructed and operational. However, as discussed below, impacts to
digital TV reception can be mitigated on a site-by-site basis.
AM Impacts
The closest AM broadcasting tower is CKLC AM 1380, located approximately 12
miles to the northwest from the Project boundary in Kingston, Ontario. Because
there are no proposed turbines located within one mile of a non-directional AM
broadcast station or three miles from a directional AM broadcast station, it is
unlikely that the Project will disturb existing AM radio transmissions.
FM Impacts
In order for an FM signal at a given receiver to be affected, it needs to both have
a turbine directly between it and the transmission tower and be towards the limit
of the signal range. In the worst case, FM signal attenuation can be up to 40%
due to the presence of a structure such as a turbine (assuming a normal
transmitting range of 30 miles, a turbine directly in the pathway of a
transmission would cut this to 18 miles.)
There is little effect from turbines close-in to the transmitter, except for very low-
power FM signals. Meanwhile at distances, reception behind a turbine may be
impacted within about a 5 degree wide “shadow”. These effects may also vary
in degree due to terrain.
There are ten FM transmitter towers located within 10 miles of the Project Area,
the closest of which is operated by Mars Hill Broadcasting Company, which is
140Polisky, Lester E. Post Digital Television Transition -The Evaluation and Mitigation Methods
for Off-Air Digital Television Reception in-and-around Wind Energy Facilities, , COMSEARCH

located in the Project Area (See Figure 2.19.1). Potential effects to Mars Hill
Broadcasting and appropriate mitigation measures are discussed below.
Cellular/PCS Telephone Analysis

A search of FCC data determined that there currently are three cellular telephone
operators within approximately six miles of the center of the project array,
including an SBC tower and two towers of the St Lawrence Seaway RSA
partnership with Verizon Wireless.
PCS and cellular signals are unlikely to be affected unless within less than one
mile from a turbine to the transmission tower. For this reason, it is not expected
that any negative impacts will result to local cell or PCS service.
Aviation Impacts
Based on Aviation Systems calculations, a 420 foot tall tower could be built
anywhere within the Project Area without causing an impact to either en-route
low altitude airways, or to minimum vectoring altitudes. There will be no
impact to Department of Defense operations, and the Project is unlikely to
impact Air Defense and Homeland Security radars, although a standard radar
impact study will be conducted.
Mitigation
To the extent possible, turbines will be located away from existing microwave
pathway Worst Case Freznel Zones (WCFZs). The array plan has been designed
to include a setback from identified WCFZs of 1.2 x rotor radius to ensure the
turbines do not interfere with microwave transmissions.
For FM transmissions from the Mars Hill broadcasting site, BP Wind Energy will
work with the station operator after construction to determine if there has been
any impact to their broadcasting range due to the Project. If an impact is noted,
potential available mitigation measures (all would require some form of FCC
approval process) may include:
• constructing a taller tower. A transmitter tower which is taller than the tallest
turbine will be able to reach receptors at the current edge of the signal
strength which might see reductions in broadcast signal due to broadcasting
around a wind turbine;
• increasing the signal strength in order to facilitate providing a stronger signal
to receptors at the current edge of broadcasting range; and
• using repeaters outside the turbine array. For Cape Vincent, this could mean
placing supplemental antennae both to the northeast and the southeast of the
site, so that signals can travel unimpeded by the Project wind turbines.
BP Wind Energy will also work with local residents following site start-up to
assess impacts to local TV reception. These impacts are expected to be very
localized, potentially different for each local resident. Alternatives will be
evaluated to ensure that TV viewing is not restricted due to the Project.

If there is a claim made by a local cellular or PCS provider that coverage has been
affected by the presence or operation of the project, this can be mitigated by
restoring the signal through additional cells or sector antennae being positioned
in the affected area. This can often be achieved by utilizing project infrastructure
(such as utility towers, meteorological towers, or turbine structures themselves)
as a platform for additional cellular or PCS base station placement.
2.21 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Cape Vincent Wind Power Project will require extensive usage of the road
systems throughout the Town of Cape Vincent, where turbines and supporting
infrastructure will be placed. In addition, transportation patterns are highly
seasonal, affected both by weather and by tourism.
Interstate Highway 81 (IH 81) is the primary transportation corridor on a

regional level. IH 81’s northern terminus is at the Thousand Islands Bridge
where it connects with Ontario Highway 137 (also known as King's Highway)
entering Canada. To the south IH 81 passes through Watertown approximately
10 miles east of the Project, and continues through Syracuse and southward. In
Syracuse IH 81 intersects with IH 90.
Additional transportation resources at a regional level include the Port of

Oswego to the south of the Project on eastern shore of Lake Ontario, and the Port
of Ogdensburg northeast of the Project on the southern shore of the St. Lawrence
River. CSX Transportation operates a freight haul rail line which enters Jefferson
County from the south paralleling IH 81 from Syracuse to Watertown, and from
the northeast paralleling US Rt. 11 from Massena to Watertown.
The primary local transportation route through the study area is NYS Route 12E,
which travels north from Watertown to Cape Vincent, then northeast along the
St. Lawrence River to Clayton County.
Major local roads include Route 4 (Rosiere Road) which runs east/west
bordering the turbine area to the south, and CR 6 (Pleasant Valley Road), CR 8
(Millens Bay Road), and CR 9 (St. Lawrence Road) which provide north-south
access through the Project area. Numerous local roads traverse Cape Vincent.
Roads are typically two-lane with asphalt pavement, however some gravel
surfaced seasonal roads exist. Due to the rural location, many roadways within
the Project area are relatively lightly traveled.
The Village of Cape Vincent has developed and maintained a modest grid street
pattern including residential houses, churches, a small hospital, and an
assortment of commercial establishments (service facilities and offices). Retail
and commercial services are generally located along Broadway (NYS Route 12E),
two blocks south of the waterfront. A ferry carries passengers and vehicles
northward from the waterfront across the St. Lawrence River to Wolfe Island.

Table 2.21-1 summarizes the average annual daily traffic (AADT) for NYS Route
12E within the study area.
Table 2.21-1: AADT Volumes for Study Area Highways (2004 Data)
Route Section AADT

NYS Route 12E CR 9 (St. Lawrence) to CR 4 (Crystal Spring Rd.) 2,122
NYS Route 12E CR 8 (Chaumont) to CR 57 2,758
NYS Route 12E CR 57 to CR 6 (Cape Vincent) 1,355
NYS Route 12E CR 6 (Cape Vincent) to CR 9 (St. Lawrence) 1,301
NYS Route 12E CR 179 (Chaumont) to CR 8 (Chaumont) 4,729
IH 81 NYS Route 382 to NYS Route 12 (Watertown) 19,844
2.22 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION: IMPACTS
Potential impacts to traffic and transportation will primarily occur during the
construction phase for the Wind Power Project. Impacts during operation would
be minimal.
2.22.1 Design Criteria
The heavy equipment and materials needed for site access, site preparation, and
foundation construction are typical of road construction and high rise building
projects and do not pose unique transportation considerations. The types of
heavy equipment and vehicles required would include cranes, pile drivers,
bulldozers, graders, excavators, front-end loaders, compactors, dump trucks,
electric line trucks, water trucks, and heavy equipment maintenance vehicles.
Typically, the equipment would be moved to the site by flatbed combination
truck and would remain on site through the duration of construction activities.
Typical construction materials hauled to the site would include gravel, sand,
water, steel, electrical cable and components, fencing, and lumber, which are
generally available locally. Ready-mix concrete might also be transported to the
site. The movement of equipment and materials to the site during construction
would cause a relatively short-term increase in the traffic levels on local
roadways during the 9 month long construction period.
Transportation logistics for the project will require modifications to local

roadways. The GE 1.6-100 model has a hub height of 262 feet and a blade length
of approximately 160 feet. Transport will require a 2-axle stretch flatbed, up to
186 feet long. Other trailers hauling tower components will be up to 191 foot in
length. As a result, the transportation plan specified access road design criteria
which exceeded many local roads and intersections, as noted in Table 2.22-1.

TABLE 2.22-1: Design Criteria to Accommodate Oversize/Overweight Load Vehicles
Element Design Criteria

Maximum Grade 10%
Maximum Turning Cross Slope 2%
Vertical Curves Max 6” in 50’
Minimum Vertical Clearance 15’-8”
Minimum Lateral Clearance 15-0”
Minimum Turning Radius 145’
(steerable rear axles)
The weight of the nacelle and certain tower components will require a
vehicle/load combined weight of up to 232,000 pounds, also requiring special
permitting.
As such, the size and weight of these components will dictate the specifications
for site access roadways, ROW’s and bridges. It is estimated that with
components, and foundation and road materials, each wind turbine generator
would require approximately 100 truck shipments, some of which could be
oversized or overweight. Eleven of these deliveries will include turbine
components, while approximately 20 truckloads will be required for assembly of
the crane at the location.
During construction, a peak of 150-200 workers will be working at the site at any
given time.
2.22.2 Coordination with Transportation Officials
Issues such as the regular flow of oversized equipment and vehicles on the local
roadway network, workforce transportation within the project area, temporary
closure or traffic restrictions on roadways being improved to handle overweight
and oversized vehicles, and the temporary closures or traffic restrictions in order
to cross area roadways with utility lines will need planning to minimize
disruptions to motorists and local residents. The movement of equipment and
materials to the project area during construction will cause a relatively short-
term increase in the traffic levels on local roadways during the 9 month long
construction period.
The construction season will coincide with increased seasonal traffic in the area.
Therefore, a construction routing plan, road improvement plan, traffic safety
plan and complaint resolution plan will be coordinated and agreed upon prior to
construction.
BP’s transportation contractor, Greenman-Pederson, Inc (GPI), has met with the
Highway Superintendents from Jefferson County and the Town of Cape Vincent
to discuss transportation activities related to the project. The Town and County
identified requirements for roadway and intersection improvements, hauling
and right-of-way acquisition and the maintenance requirements associated with
such activities. Town and County representatives expressed concern about

degradation of the roadways as a result of construction activities and noted that
damage to the roadways could be accelerated with construction activities
occurring during the wet spring and fall seasons. BP Wind Energy will work
with the town on a road maintenance agreement that will ensure that the roads
used are maintained through construction and are left in good condition at the
completion of construction.
GPI has also met with the NYSDOT to discuss the nature of the project and
determine possible regional haul routes to the proposed project area.
2.22.3 Regional Transportation Issues
The exact origin of the turbine components is not currently known, but four
likely origins were identified for analysis of regional haul routes. The four
assumed origins are:
• north from Canada;
• south from the Port of Oswego;
• east from the Port of Ogdensburg; and
• from the south traveling along Interstate 81.
A primary regional haul route was established from each origin to the proposed
staging area. The project area is remote in nature so there is not an extensive
transportation network capable of accommodating the oversized loads expected.
Several alternate routes, including regional routes which utilized NYS Route 12E
from the south and NYS Route 12 from the northeast to access the project area
were omitted from this assessment due to posted bridge weight restrictions or
vertical clearance restrictions which would require extensive modifications and
upgrades to bridges. The regional haul routes established are for use by the
oversized/overweight loads expected during construction. Typical construction
vehicles transporting equipment and material loads which are not considered
oversized/overweight will likely use the shortest route to the proposed staging
area.
The regional haul routes selected avoided weight and clearance restrictions and
attempted to minimize impacts to the roadway network, intersections, motorists
and local residents while minimizing the scale of the improvements required for
transporting oversized/overweight loads to the project site. Table 2.22-2
provides a description of the roadways expected to be used for deliveries of
oversized/overweight components.

TABLE 2.22-2: Description of Highways along Regional Haul Routes
Shoulder Number of Pavement

Highway Name Width Width Lanes Condition
NYS Route 3 20 – 24 6-7 2 fair to good
NYS Route 12 24 8 2 fair to good
NYS Route 12E 22 – 24 4-8 2 fair
NYS Route 12F 24 8 2 fair to good
NYS Route 13 20 6-8 2 fair to good
NYS Route 37 22 – 24 6-10 2 fair to good
NYS Route 104 20 42 2 fair to good
NYS Route 104B 24 10 2 fair
NYS Route 342 24 8-10 2 fair to good
Interstate 81 48 10 4 good to excellent
Figures 2.22-1 through 2.22-4 show the 4 proposed regional haul routes.
Improvements to bridges along the proposed regional haul routes are not
expected to be required. NYSDOT provided input on established
oversized/overweight haul routes which avoid bridges along state highways
that have size or weight restrictions, and the selection of proposed haul routes
and local delivery routes considered bridges that were posted with restricted
capacities and alternative routes were subsequently chosen.
FIGURE 2.22-1: Proposed Regional Haul Route 1




2.22.4 Local Transportation Issues
Design
The proposed staging area for the Cape Vincent Project was selected based on a
centralized location within the project area and trying to minimize the number of
vehicles entering the major highways within the area. The staging area selected is
located north of County Route 4 east of the intersection with Favret Road. This
location is suitable for the proposed staging area based on the existing
topography, centralized location and other transportation related considerations.
There are two temporary concrete batch plants proposed to serve construction
activities.
Several local town and county roads will be used to transport equipment and
materials, including oversized/overweight loads, from the staging areas to
various internal access road locations throughout the project area. Workers will
also utilize local town and county roadways.
Some of the local roads may not be wide enough for two-way traffic when
oversized/overweight turbine components are being delivered to individual
turbine locations. The vehicles used to transport the lower tower sections are
estimated to be approximately 15 feet wide, which would utilize the majority of
the available pavement width on many of the county and local roadways.
Roadways which are 18 feet wide or less would require additional roadway
width to accommodate two-way traffic or require that flagmen be stationed at
each end of the road to prevent traffic from traveling on the road during the
short period of time it takes for the oversized/overweight (OS/OW) transport
vehicle to exit the roadway to the turbine location.

The roadways likely to be used to transport equipment and materials to turbine
access roads are as follows:
• County Route 4 (Rosiere Road)
• Cemetery Road
• County Route 8 (Millens Bay Road)
• Burnt Rock Road
• Swamp Road
• Hell Street
• Dezengremel Road
• Favret Road
• Wilson Road
• County Route 56 (Bedford Corners Road)
• Fox Creek Road
• Bates Road
• Huff Road
• Merchant Road
• County Route 6 (Pleasant Valley Road)
• NYS Route 12E
Table 2.22-3 provides a description of the roadways expected to be used for

deliveries of OS/OW components.
TABLE 2.22-3: Description of Roadways along Local Haul Routes
Width Shoulder Number Pavement

Highway Name (feet) Width of Lanes Condition
Jefferson County Highways
CR Route 4 20 4 2 poor to fair
CR Route 6 20 4 2 fair to good
Town of Cape Vincent Roadways
Cemetery Road 18 5 2 fair
Burnt Rock Road 18 5 2 fair
Swamp Road 18 5 2 fair
Hell Street (Gravel) 12 - 16 4-5 2 fair
Dezengremel Road 18 5 2 fair
Wilson Road (Gravel) 10 - 16 5 2 seasonal road
Fox Creek Road 18 5 2 fair
Bedford Corners Rd 18 5 2 fair
Huff Road 18 5 2 fair
Merchant Road (Gravel) 10 – 16 2-4 2 seasonal road
Bates Road 16 - 18 4-5 2 fair
Favret Road 18 5 2 fair

Secondary alternatives for local delivery routes were examined which included
making upgrades to the Kent’s Crossing Bridge located along County Route 4
(which was recently rebuilt) and creating a temporary construction road between
Burnt Rock Road and NYS Route 12E which would allow OS/OW vehicles to
access NYS Route 12E from the proposed staging area without traveling around
Favret Road. These options may re-emerge as feasible alternatives as the project
progresses and turbine locations are finalized.
Local traffic patterns are subject to seasonal influences. During the winter,
severe weather conditions can limit road access, as well as functional roadway
width. During the summer, the Towns of Lyme and Cape Vincent see a
significant increase in tourism-related traffic.
In addition, the main artery through Cape Vincent, NY Route 12E, is also used
extensively for commuting for local residents going into Watertown for work.
BP Wind Energy will also work with state, county, and village transportation
departments to establish schedules for equipment delivery and worker shifts that
minimize the impacts on commuting traffic.
The study will address all necessary studies and permits needed for roadway
improvements and use, including wetland permits, stormwater notification,
applications to improve bridges and culverts, and other related issues.
Maps of local delivery routes are provided in Appendix C, Transportation Plan.

The local delivery routes were selected to minimize weight restrictions and
vertical clearance obstructions. Although efforts were also made to minimize the
impacts to intersections and roadways, it is anticipated that several intersections
and roadways will require improvements and modifications to accommodate the
oversize/overweight loads necessary for the construction of the turbines. The
modifications are expected to include:
• pavement widening;
• intersection widening;
• flattening short steep vertical curves;
• temporary removal of signs and structures;
• temporarily lifting overhead obstructions such as utility lines;
• improving the structural integrity of certain roadways;
• upgrading culverts;
• extending culverts in areas of pavement widening;
• increasing pavement thickness;
• temporarily raising, relocating, or removing overhead utility lines including
electric, telephone and cable television; and
• trimming of trees and vegetation along local roads having a narrow right-of-
way

BP Wind Energy may need to acquire property or easements in certain locations
to perform some of the improvements required to accommodate
oversize/overweight vehicles. Table 2.22-4 provides a listing of anticipated local
roadway improvements.
TABLE 2.22-4: Required Roadway Modifications along Local Haul Routes
Roadway Town Modification

Merchant Rd Cape Vincent Additional gravel roadway width, trim vegetation,
flatten profile
Wilson Rd Cape Vincent Additional gravel roadway width, trim vegetation
Hell Street Cape Vincent Additional gravel roadway width, trim vegetation
Huff Rd Cape Vincent Flattening steep grade near intersection with NYS
Route 12E
Swamp Rd Cape Vincent Flattening short crest vertical curves
The Transportation Plan in Appendix C also provides detailed information,

including maps showing areas of impact, for 31 intersection improvements along
local roadways. The additional impacts from these improvements, including
potential impacts to wetlands and waterbodies, are included in assessments in
individual resource sections.
It is not expected that any improvements to bridges along the proposed local
delivery routes will be required. Jefferson County and the Town of Cape Vincent
provided input on posted or restricted bridges along their roadways within the
project area. The selection of local delivery routes considered bridges that were
posted with restricted capacities and alternative routes were subsequently
chosen, and the proposed local delivery routes do not traverse any bridges that
are posted with weight restrictions.
Scheduling
Scheduling considerations must consider seasonal influences on local travel
patterns. During the winter months, severe weather conditions can limit road
access, as well as functional road width. During the summer months, the region
experiences a significant increase in tourism-related traffic. In addition,
commuting traffic and school bus schedules will be considered to avoid potential
impacts to these time-sensitive motorists.
Construction activities related to the project will coincide with the peak seasonal
travel with some overlap with the school year.
It is expected that equipment and materials will be delivered to the site during
normal construction hours. The heavy equipment and materials needed for site
access, site preparation and foundation construction are typical of road
construction and do not pose unique transportation considerations. The delivery
of oversize/overweight turbine components will create the greatest impact to
motorists as these large transport vehicles will be slow moving and will require
additional time to navigate turns.

2.22.5 Mitigation
The required improvements including intersection widening, extending culverts

and transporting oversized/overweight loads will require various permits.
Permits from NYSDOT, Jefferson County and the Town of Cape Vincent will be
required to complete the improvements and transport the components. Permits
which will be required are as follows:
• Environmental Permits – site specific analyses of environmental conditions
will determine the need for permits at a particular location. This will include
expanding the USACE Section 404 Permit to add anticipated wetland and
waterbody impacts at several locations.
• Highway Work Permit – a highway work permit will be required for
intersection improvements and proposed entrances to State, County and
Local roadways.
• Special Hauling Permits – special hauling permits will be required for
transporting the oversize/overweight components to the project area.
Permits will be required from NYSDOT and Jefferson County.
BP will enter into an agreement to detail the roadway modifications and

improvements required to complete the project. The agreement will include a
pre-construction and post-construction survey which documents roadway
conditions, and will identify how post-construction roadway repairs will be
completed by BP. In addition, access road entrances to state, town and county
roadways will require highway work permits and right-of-way acquisition.
Additional studies which may be required prior to commencing the Project

include:
• Pavement Evaluation – a pavement evaluation could be used to determine
the condition of the existing roadways by establishing a baseline for
measuring impacts caused during construction.
• Culvert Evaluation – a culvert evaluation could be performed to determine
the existing condition of culverts and ensure the safety of
oversize/overweight loads traveling over the culverts.
• Bridge Evaluation – a bridge evaluation could be performed to determine the
existing condition of bridges and ensure the safety of oversize/overweight
loads traveling over the bridges.
To the maximum extent feasible, BP Wind Energy will construct roadway and
intersection improvements along major arterials during the non-recreational
season and establish an equipment staging area that contains enough capacity to
minimize the amount of equipment deliveries into the area which would take
place during the recreational season.
The delivery of oversize/overweight components and materials will likely

follow one of the proposed regional haul routes to access the project area. The
proposed haul routes for oversize/overweight components and materials were

selected to minimize disruptions to motorists and residents. Local school officials
and emergency response representatives will be notified in advance of
temporary closures or traffic restrictions required to improve intersections to
accommodate oversize/overweight loads or cross roadways with utility lines.
The deliveries of oversize/overweight components have the potential to inhibit

operations along the major two-lane highways (NYS Route 12) during peak
hours and deliveries of such oversize/overweight turbine components should be
limited to off-peak hours to minimize the disruption to motorists. According to
NYSDOT Traffic Count Hourly Reports for NYS Route 12, which is located along
the regional haul routes, the peak hours occur on weekdays from 7-9 AM and 4-6
PM.
2.23 LAND USE AND RECREATION: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.23.1 Land Use
The Project site is located on the western side of Jefferson County in New York’s
“North Country”. With the exception of the City of Watertown, Fort Drum and
some of the larger villages, Jefferson County is primarily rural and characterized
by open spaces, agriculture, and forests. Jefferson County comprises a total area
of 801,878 acres, of which approximately 13 percent is occupied by Fort Drum
and 7 percent is managed by the NYSDEC.
Forty-one percent of the land in Jefferson County is dedicated to agriculture.

Jefferson County ranks 8th in the state for number of farms and 3rd for land in
farms.141 The County has three agricultural districts comprising 1,020 farms and
164,134 acres of land in 19 towns.142 Agricultural Districts are established under
the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law to provide agricultural
landowners certain benefits and to strengthen the identity of the agricultural
community in which they are located.
Figure 2.23-1 shows land in Agricultural Districts within Jefferson County. Table
2.23-1 lists acreages of farmed land by type of use.
TABLE 2.23-1: Land in Farms – Jefferson County
Total
Land in Total Permanen Woodlan
Number Farms Cropland t Pasture d Other
Year of Farms (Acres) (Acres (Acres) (Acres) Land
2007 885 262,331 166,233 27,381 41,177 27,090
2002 1,020 330,600 218,727 25,381 51,682 34,410
1992 1,050 330,500 204,700 41,800 52,500 31,500
1982 1,245 368,352 230,089 43,175 54,653 40,435
Source: NYASS, 2007.
141 NYASS. 2007. Jefferson County Farm Statistics. New York Agricultural Statistics Service.
www.nass.usda.gov/ny.
142 NYASS, 2007.

Between 1982 and 2007, Jefferson County lost approximately 30 percent of its
land in agricultural production. In a survey of agricultural land owners, about
30 percent indicated that it was very likely that they would sell agricultural land
within five years.143 In an effort to try to preserve and protect agricultural lands,
the State and County have developed a number of programs to assist agricultural
land owners including: purchase of developed rights; conservation easements;
Right to Farm Law; Conservation Reserve Program; and tile drainage revolving
loans.
Recognizing the importance of agriculture to its economy and lifestyle, Jefferson

County prepared an Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan in 2002. The
Plan identifies objectives and strategies to “protect and conserve viable
agricultural land and improve the overall profitability of the agriculture industry
in Jefferson County.” The strategies include:
• Promote agricultural protection programs:
- Increase local agency and organization involvement in promoting and
enrolling land owners in Agricultural Districts;
- Have all townships in Jefferson County acknowledge Jefferson County’s
Right to Farm Law; and
- Encourage participation in established land resource protection programs
and investigate future initiatives that are proven to maintain the viability
of agricultural land.
• Increase educational awareness programming in agriculture:
- Develop an educational outreach program using existing resources to
educate agricultural and non-agricultural communities about the social
and economic value of agriculture and natural resources in the county;
- Continue to inform county officials about the economic importance of
agriculture in Jefferson County; and
- Educate landowners about agricultural land use programs that are
available.
• Support the local dairy industry:
- Support the local dairy industry and look for ways to help adopt new
technologies to maintain the viability of the industry.
Within the Project Area, the primary land use is agriculture. Pasture lands
predominate with some row crops and forested areas intermixed.
Figure 2.23-2 shows land use within and adjacent to the Project Area. Table 2.23-
2 identifies land use acreages within the Project Area.
Jefferson County. 2006. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy: A “Blueprint” for

143
Local Action. Jefferson County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CDES)

Committee.

TABLE 2.23-2: Land Use within the Project Area
Percent of Project
Land Use Classification Area
Agricultural 64
Year Round Residential 16
Seasonal Residential 0
Vacant 18
Commercial 0
Community Services 0
Industrial 0
Public Services 0
Wild, Forest, Conservation 1
As shown on Figure 2.23-1, the Project site includes lands in County-designated

Agricultural Districts. In addition to agricultural activities, residences are
interspersed throughout the Project Area.
Located with Lake Ontario and Chaumont Bay to the west and the Saint
Lawrence River to the north, the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme each have
substantial coastline and lands within the designated Coastal Zone.
Figure 2.13-1 shows the designated Coastal Zone boundary.
2.23.2 Recreation
Cape Vincent is part of the “Thousand Islands Region” in the St. Lawrence River
Valley, which contains over 1,800 islands. The region offers numerous
opportunities for recreational activities including sport fishing, boating and
winter recreation.
The Seaway Trail, a 518-mile long National Scenic Byway, runs along the banks
of Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and St. Lawrence River with termini at the
Ohio/Pennsylvania border and in Massena, NY. In the general vicinity of the
Project Area, the trail follows State Route 12-E through the Village of Chaumont,
the Village of Cape Vincent and to the Village of Clayton. Figure 2.13-1 shows
the route of the Seaway Trail relative to the Project Area. The National Scenic
Byways Program, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, was established to help recognize, preserve and
enhance selected roads throughout the United States. Roads are recognized as
“All-American Roads or National Scenic Byways” based on one or more
archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational and scenic qualities.

o
Cape Vincent\GIS\projects\ag_districts.mxd M. Jones/S. King 1/17/2011 0092352
CANADA

Legend

Proposed Project Boundary
Agricultural Districts
6 3 0 6 Figure 2.23-1
Miles Agricultural Districts in Jefferson County
BP Wind Energy

o
Cape Vincent\GIS\projects\landcover.mxd M. Jones/S. King 1/17/2011 0092352
CANADA

Cape Vincent

Legend

Wind Turbine

Landcover/Landuse

Water

Agriculture

Developed Areas/Transportation
Forest
Grassland/Pasture
Wetlands
Shrubland
Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland data layer
1 0.5 0 1 Figure 2.23-2
Miles USDA NASS Landcover/Landuse
BP Wind Energy

Tourist destinations in the area include the Village of Cape Vincent; Tibbets Point
Lighthouse; Three Mile Bay and Chaumont Bay, the largest fresh-water bay in
the world; and the only automobile and passenger ferry to Canada in the region.
Five state managed properties are located in the vicinity of the Project Area: two
wildlife management areas and three State Parks. Figure 2.23-3 shows the
location of these properties relative to the Project boundary. Resources and
activities within each property include:
1. Ashland Flats, a 2,037 acre State WMA is located southeast of the Project site.
Activities allowed in the WMA include birdwatching, cross-country skiing,
snowshoeing, hunting and trapping.
2. French Creek, a 2,265 acre State WMA located to the northeast of the Project
site. Activities permitted within the WMA include birdwatching, cross-
country skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, fishing and trapping.
3. Long Point State Park, named one of the Top 100 Campgrounds in the nation
in 2005, is located on a peninsula facing Chaumont Bay to the south of the
Project site. The Park is almost completely surrounded by water and
includes campsites, fishing pavilions, boat launch sites, a playground and
picnic areas. Total attendance for the park from 4/1/2009 to 3/31/2010 was
27,402.
4. Burnham Point State Park, located on the St. Lawrence River off of State
Route 12E about 4 miles northeast of the Village of Cape Vincent contains
lightly-wooded tent and trailer campsites, boat docks, a playground and
picnic areas. Total attendance for the park from 4/1/2009 to 3/31/2010 was
11,453.
5. Cedar Point State Park, one of the oldest state parks in New York. Located
on the St. Lawrence River about 6 miles west of Clayton, this Park offers
camping, fishing, boating, and swimming. Facilities include boat docks, a
fishing pier and campsites. Total attendance for the park from 4/1/2009 to
3/31/2010 was 67,701.
The only federal land in Jefferson County is the property occupied by Fort Drum.
Fort Drum is a U.S. Army military base, which is home to the 10th Mountain
Division and encompasses 107,265 acres of land.
2.23.3 Zoning
The Project Area includes properties in the town of Cape Vincent. Figure 2.23-4
shows zoning designations within and adjacent to the Project boundaries.
All land within the Project boundaries in the town of Cape Vincent is zoned
Agricultural Residential (AR). The stated intent of this zone is “to promote all
types of development in the interior portions of the Town in a manner that
preserves the rural character and promotes active farming operations”.144 There
144 Town of Cape Vincent. 1998. Zoning Law, 1989. As amended 1998.

are no regulations inhibiting wind energy developments or turbines within the
Town’s Zoning Ordinance. Under the Town’s zoning law, utilities within
Agricultural Residential Districts must undergo a Site Plan Review by the Town
Planning Board prior to receipt of a Zoning Permit and Certificate of Compliance
is required from the Code Enforcement Office. A Building Permit from Jefferson
County is required after finalizing all permits with the Town.
2.23.4 Coastal Zone Management
The NY Coastal Management Program serves as both an advocate for specific

desired coastal actions and as a coordinator of existing State programs, activities
and decisions that affect the coastal area. Areas of specific attention include:
promoting waterfront revitalization; promoting water dependent uses;
protecting fish and wildlife habitats; protecting and enhancing scenic areas;
protecting and enhancing historic areas; protecting farmlands; protecting and
enhancing small harbors; enhancing and protecting public access; and providing
solid and useful data and information on coastal resources and flood hazards.
Figure 2.13-1 shows the boundaries of the Coastal Zone relative to the Project
boundaries.
The lands abutting Lake Ontario, Chaumont Bay and the Saint Lawrence River in
the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme are within New York State’s Coastal Zone
and protected under the State’s Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal Areas and
Inland Waterways Act. While these are in the vicinity of the Project Area, they
are outside the Project boundaries. As evident in Figure 2.13-1, all turbines,
support facilities, access roads, and 34.5 kV electrical interconnects for the Project
will be outside the New York Coastal Zone boundary.
A small portion of the 115 kV transmission line which BP Wind Energy will co-
locate with the St. Lawrence Wind Project transmission line will be suspended
across the Chaumont River, which at that location is included in the New York
Coastal Zone.
2.24 LAND USE AND RECREATION: IMPACTS
2.24.1 Land Use
Development of the Project will directly affect existing land use within the
Project Area and indirectly affect uses of adjacent and proximate properties. As
noted in Section 2.23.1, agriculture is the predominant land use within the Project
boundaries and comprises 64 percent of the Project Area. Approximately 36
percent of the Project site is within a Jefferson County designated agricultural
district.

o
Cape Vincent\GIS\projects\state_managed_lands.mxd M. Jones/S. King 1/17/2011 0092352
Cedar Point State Park
St Lawrence River French Creek State Wildlife Management Area
CANADA
Burnham Point State Park
Cape Vincent Georg

Lake
Ashland Flats State Wildlife Management Area
@
?
r
ve
Tibbets Point
Ri
Lighthouse
t
on
Ashland Flats State Wildlife Management Area
aum
Ch
Lake Ontario
Chaumont Bay
Long Point State Park Legend

State Land
1 0.5 0 1 Figure 2.23-3

Miles State Managed Lands Map
BP Wind Energy

o
Cape Vincent\GIS\projects\zoning.mxd M. Jones/S. King 1/17/2011 0092352
St Lawrence River
CANADA
Cape Vincent Georg

Lake
r
ve
@ Tibbets
? Point
Ri
Lighthouse
t
on
um
a
Ch
Lake Ontario
Legend
Chaumont Bay
Zoning
Agricultural
Lake Front
River Front
1 0.5 0 1 Figure 2.23-4

Miles Zoning Designations
BP Wind Energy

Farmland within the Project boundary is used primarily for grazing, although
some of the land is used for crops. Impacts from Project construction and
operation in areas used for grazing will be minimal, with access to cattle allowed
to all but the immediate wind turbine footprint when construction is completed.
Construction in croplands, however, has the potential to have long-term adverse
effects on production if not managed properly.
Recognizing that construction activities can damage and compact soils, as noted
in Section 2.4 of this SDEIS, BP Wind Energy has generally followed the
“Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Wind Power Projects”, issued by the
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. Modifications to these
measures may be made in consultation with the individual landowner(s).
The soil conservation practices described in Section 2.4 are designed to reduce
impacts to normal farming operations during construction and operation of the
Project.
2.24.2 Recreation
No state parks are located within the Project boundaries. As a result, the Project
will have no direct effect on the use of state parks in the Project region. See
Section 2.14 for a discussion of visual impacts associated with Project
development.
The Seaway Trail, a National Scenic Byway, follows Route 12E through the
Towns of Lyme and Cape Vincent and will be within or adjacent to the Project
Area for much of its length in these towns. While as described in Section 2.14.12
there will be a visual impact to those passing through the area on the Seaway
Trail, the primary focus of the trail is the views of Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River and not the lands more inland of the coast. Therefore, the
Project should not result in a significant impact to the primary recreational value
of the Seaway Trail. Figure 2.13-1 shows the location of the Seaway Trail.
Figure 2.23-3 shows the other State managed recreation resources in the vicinity
of the Project. As noted in Section 2.23.2, in addition to the Ashland WMA, three
state parks and the French Creek State WMA are located in close proximity to the
Project Area. None of these resources will be directly impacted by the Project,
although views facing toward the Project from these areas will change. See
Section 2.14 for a discussion of visual impacts.
2.24.3 Zoning
The Project will require Site Plan Reviews by the town of Cape Vincent prior to
receiving a zoning permit for turbine construction. BP Wind Energy will
develop and submit a detailed Site Plan application if and when the Final EIS is
approved by the Lead Agency.

2.24.4 Coastal Zone Consistency
The Project Area lies outside of the NY Coastal Zone. However, the transmission
line crossing of the Chaumont River (co-located on the transmission towers
constructed for the St. Lawrence Wind Project) will enter into the Coastal Zone
Boundary. In addition, The NY Department of State will complete a Coastal
Zone Consistency Review as part of its participation in the USACE Section
404/Section 10 process.
Therefore, in accordance with agency requirements, a Coastal Assessment Form

has been completed and will be submitted to the NY Department of State,
Division of Coastal Resources at the time of submittal of the Joint Application for
impacts to waters of the US and of New York.
2.25 SOCIOECONOMICS: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.25.1 Population and Housing
The Power project site is located within the town of Cape Vincent, in Jefferson
County, New York. Figure 1.1-1 shows the general location of the project site.
Table 2.25-1 lists populations of the County, Cape Vincent, and the adjoining
town of Lyme from 1980 through 2005.
TABLE 2.25-1: Population in the Project Area
Estimated
July 2005 2000 1990 1980
Place Population Population Population Population
New York State 19,254,630 18,976,457 17,990,455 17,558,165
Jefferson County 116,384 111,738 110,943 88,151
Cape Vincent Town 3,014 3,345 2,768 1,823
Lyme Town 2,096 2,015 1,701 N/A
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000a; Jefferson County Job Development Corporation,
2007.
Jefferson County was the fastest growing County in New York State from 1980-
1990. The County population grew from 88,151 to 110,943, a 26% increase,
largely due to the assignment of the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division (Light)
at Fort Drum. Between 1990 and 2000, the County’s population has grown by
about 4%, representing the 8th largest percentage gain among all 62 counties in
New York State. The addition of the 3rd Brigade at Fort Drum, starting in 2004,
added 6,000 additional military personnel and 6,000 military dependents to the
County’s population in this decade.
The recent military population growth in the County has triggered private
housing market changes. No new on-base units are being built to accommodate
the growth. As a result, market supply and demand have depleted the existing
community housing stock and driven up sale and rental costs, with public and

private sectors working to create new opportunities for single and multi-family
housing construction and rehabilitation.145 Less than 0.5% of individuals
employed by Fort Drum reside within the Towns of Cape Vincent or Lyme.
Approximately 23 percent (27,220 people) of Jefferson County’s population

resides in the City of Watertown, and about 10 percent of the population (12,123)
resides on Fort Drum. Only about four percent of the County’s population
resides within the towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme.
The Project Area is rural in character, with population densities of approximately

53 people per square mile and 37 people per square mile, respectively, in the
towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme. In contrast, Jefferson County and New York
State contain average densities of approximately 91 and 402 people per square
mile, respectively 146.
Seasonal and recreational visitors to the area add to the overall population size.
Cape Vincent and the town of Lyme contained a combined total of 4,966 housing
units in 2000, of which only 33.8 percent were occupied year-round. As noted in
table 2.25-2, over 50 percent of the housing in the towns of Cape Vincent and
Lyme is used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use.147 The area also
contains numerous motels, cottages, camping and RV sites for short-term
visitors.
TABLE 2.25-2: Housing in the Project Region in 2000
Total Number of
Housing Seasonal Percent
Place Units Units Seasonal
Jefferson County 54,070 9,939 18.3
Cape Vincent Town 2,783 1,830 65.8
Lyme Town 2,183 1280 58.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b.
2.25.2 Economy and Employment
The Jefferson County economy has traditionally been served primarily by

contributions from the manufacturing, agriculture, tourism and commerce
sectors. Recently, although the tourism and agriculture sectors remain
significant economic contributors, the growth of Fort Drum has made it and its
related economic activity the most significant economic influence in the
County.148 In the year 2000, Jefferson County contained a labor force of 44,556.
Table 2.25-3 lists employment by occupation in the County and Project Area
towns.
145 Jefferson County, 2006.

146 Jefferson County Job Development Corporation / Jefferson County Industrial Development
Agency / Watertown Industrial Center Local Development Corporation; Annual Report 2005/2006
147 U.S Census Bureau. 2000b.

TABLE 2.25-3: Project Area Employment by Industry and Class of Worker in 2000
Percent of employed civilian population

Cape Vincent Jefferson
Industry town Lyme County
Agriculture, forestry, fishing &
hunting, & mining 6.0% 2.2% 3.4%
Construction 11.4% 9.2% 5.8%
Manufacturing 4.6% 11.1% 9.6%
Wholesale trade 1.8% 2.8% 2.7%
Retail Trade 10.6% 14.4% 14.2%
Transportation & warehousing, &
utilities 4.2% 5.0% 4.5%
Finance, insurance, real estate, and
rental & leasing 4.5% 3.6% 3.4%
Professional, scientific, management,
administrative, and waste management 5.6% 2.9% 4.6%
services
Educational, health & social services
21.8% 23.6% 24.4%
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation & food services 10.2% 4.3% 9.1%
Other services (except public
administration) 3.4% 4.6% 5.1%
Public Administration 12.6 12.9% 10.4%
Class of Worker
Private wage & salary workers 57.8% 63% 67.4%
Government workers 28.1% 28.2% 23.9%
Self-employed workers in own not
incorporated business 13.5% 8.1% 8.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000c; Jefferson County Job Development Corp. 2000b.149
Agriculture is a significant contributor to the overall economy of Jefferson

County. The County is one of the major milk producing counties in the state.
The main crops are hay, corn and small grains. Other important agricultural
enterprises include raising chickens for eggs; beef production and maple syrup
production. The County ranked number one in the State in total sales for
colonies of bees and honey in 1997.150 Table 2.25-4 lists the value of leading
agricultural products in Jefferson County.
149 Jefferson County Job Development Corp. 2006b. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics:
2000, Jefferson County, NY. http:///www.jcjdc.net/quickfacts.asp?mm-7
150 U.S Census Bureau. 2000b.

TABLE 2.25-4: Leading Agriculture Products in Jefferson County, 2002
2002 Sales Percent of

Product (Millions) Total
Dairy Products $74.7 75%
Cattle and Calves $12.8 13%
Hay and Silage $6..0 6%
Colonies of Bees & Honey $2.4 2%
Corn for Grain $1.2 1%
Other Products $2.4 3%
Total Sales $99.5
Source: Jefferson County, 2002.
The dairy industry is Jefferson County’s largest agricultural contributor to the

region. In 1999 there were 329 dairy farms in Jefferson County, selling
520,678,471 pounds of milk valued at over $72.5 million for the year. While the
number of dairy farms is declining, the size of the farms is increasing and milk
production per farm in the County has grown approximately 78 percent since
1987.151
In addition to farming, Jefferson County has a large agribusiness base that

includes agricultural lending, equipment dealers, feed dealers, crop input
suppliers, veterinary services, milk hauling, agricultural supply dealers and milk
processing facilities. Issues critical to these businesses include: loss of farm
customers; the high cost of doing business; government regulations; the
availability of skilled labor; fuel cost; the availability of capital; insurance costs;
and utility costs.152 Overall, the total income multiplier effect of the Dairy sector
within Jefferson County is estimated at 2.29. Based on rough estimates, the
agriculture industry in Jefferson County contributes over $150 million to the local
economy each year.153
In the vicinity of the Project, agriculture and tourism are the primary focus of the
economy. As noted in Table 2.25-3, the Town of Cape Vincent employs a larger
number of workers in the arts, entertainment, recreation accommodation and
food services industry relative to its overall labor force than either the town of
Lyme or Jefferson County as a whole, reflecting the recreational and tourism
aspect of its economy. Of the three areas, Cape Vincent also has the largest
portion of its work force involved in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining sectors of the economy.
The average unemployment rate for the year 2009 in Jefferson County was 9.6%.
The 2009 median household income for the County was $43,080; per capita
income was $21,433. 16.2% percent of the population had an income below the


federal poverty level. As shown in Table 2.25-5, both towns report lower per
capita, but higher median household incomes than the County.
TABLE 2.25-5: Unemployment and Income in the Project Area
Median Percent
Unemployment Household Per capita below
Place rate income income poverty level
Jefferson County 9.6% $43,080 $21,433 16.2%
Town of Cape 2.2% $37,330 $16,375 12.3%
Vincent
Town of Lyme 4.2% $37,569 $19,522 10.2%
Source: Jefferson County data from American Community Survey 2009; Towns of Cape Vincent
and Lyme data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000c (no recent data found). Wikipedia, 2006.
2.25.3 Municipal Taxes
In New York State, the real property tax is based on the value of real property.
Counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts, and special districts each raise
money through the real property tax to pay for schools, police and fire
protection, to maintain roads and to fund other municipal services. The amount
of an annual property tax bill is determined based on the total assessed property
value, including the value of the land and the improvements, and the tax rates of
the jurisdiction in which the property is located. Municipal tax rates and levy
data are provided in Table 2.25-6.
TABLE 2.25-6: Municipal Tax Rate and Levy Data
Municipal Municipal County Tax

Municipality Levy Year Tax Levy Tax Rate* Rate*
Town of Cape Vincent 2005 276,000 1.35 8.96
Town of Lyme 2005 240,750 2.79 17.38
*per $1000 assessed value.
Source: NYS ORPS, 2006.154
The school districts receive the largest portion of the property tax revenues that
are collected, with the two school districts in Cape Vincent collectively receiving
more funds than the Town or the County. The average tax bill for residential
properties within the Cape Vincent School District in 2004 was $2,016. In the
town of Lyme, the average tax rate was $1,575.
154New York Department of Taxation and Finance, Tax Mapping in New York State,
http://www.orps.state.ny.us/gis/taxmap/index.htm

2.26 SOCIOECONOMICS: IMPACTS
2.26.1 Population and Housing
Construction of the Project will require a maximum of 200 workers over a period
of 7-9 months. To the extent that qualified workers are available, BP Wind
Energy will hire construction workers from within the local community. To the
extent that workers are hired locally, it will reduce the temporary in-migrating
workforce and their potential impacts on temporary accommodations and
housing.
Since the construction period will be of relatively short duration, workers hired
from outside of the region are not expected to permanently relocate into the area.
Jefferson County and the surrounding region within a reasonable commute
distance contains numerous opportunities for housing in motels, guest houses
and campgrounds that could accommodate any workers that are brought in for
the Project from outside of the region. The Cape Vincent Chamber of Commerce
lists six motels, nine facilities for camping, travel trailers and RVs, and cabins
and Bed and Breakfasts within the Town of Cape Vincent alone.
Project operation will require 10 employees. Because they will be long-term

employees, those not hired locally or from within a reasonable commuting
distance are likely to relocate to the area. Adequate housing is available in the
area to accommodate this potential influx and, if not, the minimal amount of
housing required could be built with no impact to the area.
Given the short duration of the construction period and the fact that only ten full
time employees will be required on-site during operation, construction and
operation of the Project should have no significant long-term effect on area
population or housing.
2.26.2 Local Economy and Employment
The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for Jefferson County 155

identifies and describes five emerging trends (Globalization, Aging Populations
and Healthcare, the Fort Drum Expansion, Government Services and Tax
Revenues, and Entrepreneurship Growth) that it anticipates will continue to
significantly influence the County’s approach to economic development. It also
identifies opportunities in Manufacturing, Agriculture, and Tourism that it
considers critical to the County’s future economic development and assesses
them relative to the key development issues of Entrepreneurship, the Fort Drum
Expansion and Workforce Development.
The County and Towns that comprise the region recognize the overall
importance of agriculture to the economy and lifestyle of Jefferson County and
are concerned about the turnover of agricultural lands to other uses. The

County’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 156 identifies the
challenges facing the agricultural community as the availability of skilled labor,
aging of its current workforce, high cost of production, national and international
competition, availability of competitive financing resources and competition for
land resources.
Construction of the Project will permanently remove less than 50 acres of

agricultural land, and the location of the turbines within farmed fields will
marginally decrease productivity by requiring farmers to maneuver farm
machinery around them. Upon completion of construction, however, land
surrounding the wind turbines within the Project boundary will again be
available for agricultural use and the financial remuneration paid to farmers for
locating the turbines on their properties will provide a dependable baseline
income that is removed from the fluctuations of the agricultural markets. As a
result, the presence of wind turbines on agricultural lands is likely to have a
long-term beneficial effect on agriculture by enabling farmers to remain
economically viable. The secondary effect should be the reduction in farmland
that is converted to other non-farm uses.
Although the most recent unemployment data for Cape Vincent and Lyme are
unavailable, unemployment in Jefferson County was at 9.6% in 2009. The
construction workforce will be comprised of electricians, crane operators,
equipment operators, carpenters, and others. It is estimated that the payroll and
benefits for the Project construction workforce will total $4.0 million. At least a
portion of this income will be spent on housing, food, and other living expenses
in Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, and the surrounding area.
The operational workforce will be comprised of skilled operators, management,

and administrative personnel. It is estimated that the payroll and benefits for
this workforce will total about $800,000 per year. A greater share of this income
will remain in the area because the operational workforce will likely relocate to
the area and will spend more within the area. Secondary indirect benefits will
accrue in additional jobs resulting from increased expenditures by Project
workers during construction and operation for retail, restaurant, housing and
other services within the County.
BP Wind Energy anticipates that approximately $15 million will be spent locally
in the form of construction contracts and supplies required for project contracts
for trucking, gravel, concrete, other services and supplies required for Project
construction. This will lead to additional revenues for area businesses, and
possibly hiring of additional temporary employees. The expenditures will also
represent a temporary boost in the area as those funds circulate through the
economy.
Jefferson County. 2006. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy: A “Blueprint” for

156
Local Action. Jefferson County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CDES)

Committee. .

Although no recreation or tourist facilities will be displaced by the Project, the
wind turbines will be visible throughout the area and could affect the area from a
recreational and/or tourist perspective. Section 2.14 describes potential impacts
to the visual resources within the area and Section 2.24 provides a discussion of
land use impacts. As noted in Table 2.25-3, approximately 10.2 and 4.3 percent of
the Cape Vincent and Lyme workforce, respectively, are directly employed in
tourist related activities (arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and
food services).
2.26.3 Municipal Budgets and Taxes
BP Wind Energy will provide revenues to the town of Cape Vincent, the
Thousand Island School District, the Lyme School District, and Jefferson County
in the form of PILOTs. The PILOT agreement has not been negotiated with the
taxing jurisdictions yet but will likely exceed $1 million per year on average
during the first 20 years of the Project. This would represent a significant
increase in revenues to these jurisdictions. For the remaining life of the project,
BP Wind Energy will continue to contribute significantly to these jurisdictional
tax revenues based upon a full taxation formula using the assessed property
value and tax rates in effect during that period. These payments should prove to
be beneficial to town residents by potentially reducing local property tax rates
and increasing services.
BP Wind Energy proposes to bring equipment and components of the wind

turbines to the site over local highways and roads. To accommodate
construction loads and vehicles, road improvements would be made by BP Wind
Energy under road maintenance agreements to be negotiated with the town and
county. Section 2.22 provides some information on the potential regional haul
routes and road upgrades needed. However, further investigation will be
required to identify the specific improvements that will be required and the
overall economic value of those changes to the community.
BP Wind Energy will verify the condition of all roads prior to construction and
financially commit to maintenance during construction and improvements post
construction. It is expected that overall road conditions after BP Wind Energy
completes construction will be improved over their current status. This will have
no impact on municipal budgets.
2.26.4 Impact of Project to Local Real Estate Prices
The Wind Turbine Economic Impact Committee submitted a report on October 7,

2010 to provide the Planning Board with information on the economic impacts of
wind turbine developments in and around Cape Vincent. Potential direct
impacts on residential property values and indirect impacts were generally
found to be negative based on a written testimony by a professional real estate
appraiser. Impacts were assessed depending upon property proximity to turbine
sites and views of turbines from a property. A 10 to 20 percent loss in value was
suggested for properties located from 1,000 to 3,000 feet of turbine sites. Indirect

impacts related to decreasing property values included effects on the City’s tax
income and other costs to residents and the City, such as the need to reappraise
the entire tax base. In conclusion, the report presented economic risks of large
wind farms, and a list of recommendations to consider prior to plan review
action.
These conclusions differ in substance from the conclusions of a 2009 study for the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Wind & Hydropower
Technologies Program) of the U.S. Department of Energy.157 Hoen, et al
completed a study which collected sales data from 10 study areas surrounding 24
wind facilities in 9 states, including two wind farms in New York (Madison and
Fenner). Hoen applied a Hedonic Pricing Model which measured marginal price
differences between homes that vary by variables of interest, controlling for
factors such as square footage, acreage, age, condition, location, and pre-sale
scenic vista. Variables of interest included view of turbines, distance from
turbines, and development period (before or after project construction). The
report considered three distinct impacts, or stigmas, that, prior to construction of
facilities, local stakeholders view as having the potential to negatively influence
their property values:
• Area Stigma: Wind farms will create the perception that the general area is
more developed, and will reduce property values. This is considered
regardless if a property has a view of a turbine.
• Scenic Vista Stigma: The view of a wind turbine interfering with an
otherwise scenic view has the potential to decrease property values.
• Nuisance Stigma: Factors that could exist within close proximity to a wind
turbine, such as sound and shadow flicker, have the potential to adversely
affect property values.
A base model was used to analyze data from sales transactions of 7,500 single
family homes in the area of a wind energy facility. The report concluded that “no
evidence is found that home prices surrounding wind facilities are consistently,
measurably and significantly affected by either the view of wind facilities or the distance
of the home to those facilities.”
Seven other models developed for the study confirmed that property values
were not affected by one or more of the stigmas. Additionally, the models
together support that properties within a mile of wind turbines are not affected
compared to residential properties that are either five miles from the nearest
turbine or that were sold well before the wind farm developments.
Many of the wind farms used in the study are comparable to the Project in terms
of number of turbines, height of turbine and total megawatts. Mean value of
owner occupied houses are also comparable. Therefore, it can reasonably be
expected that the results from the study are transferable to the Town of Cape
Vincent and that, after construction of the wind turbines, local property values
will not be adversely affected by the Project.
157 Hoen, et al., 2009.

2.27 DECOMMISSIONING
The Project is proposed to be developed on leased land that together comprises

significant acreage. Over the 20 plus year life of the Project, the company will
effectively be involved with property owners to cooperatively manage natural
resources within this area. The FEIS will include criteria for the development of
a long-term environmental management plan should be considered to
incorporate plans for assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts
during the decommissioning process.
The FEIS will include a Decommissioning Plan for the Project. A

Decommissioning Plan provides the financial assurances to guarantee that, in the
unlikely event that the Project ceases operation and BP Wind Energy becomes
insolvent, the general public will not be subject to views of inoperable equipment
or costs to remove such equipment.
The decommissioning itself (or major repairs) is a construction process with the
same impacts as described in the DEIS. Decommissioning is the construction of a
tower in reverse; it includes disassembly of the turbine blades, nacelle, and tower
sections, removal of the turbine foundation to a depth of 3-4 feet below grade,
removal of access roads where requested by the landowner, removal of materials
to an off-site location, regrading, and reseeding.
No action occurs as part of decommissioning or major repairs that is not

considered in the DEIS. Any impacts to sensitive areas during decommissioning
would be the same as identified in the DEIS and would be mitigated in the same
manner. No additional wetlands could be impacted without obtaining proper
permits after supplemental SEQRA review. Compliance with the SWPPP, as in
construction, would prevent runoff and erosion. Spill measures remain in effect
until decommissioning is done, as do limits on traffic routes. The process has
fewer impacts than construction, as in the end the land will be fully restored.
2.28 HEALTH AND SAFETY
The overall Health, Safety, Security and Environment (HSSE) requirements for
the Project are set by BP Wind Energy’s HSSE Policy and by Getting HSSE Right
(GHSSER). The Project HSSE Philosophy has been prepared in line with the BP
Wind Energy Group expectations. It sets out the basic HSSE framework and
objectives required for the Project.
Everybody who works for the Project, anywhere, is responsible for getting HSSE
right. Good HSSE performance and the health, safety and security of everyone
who works for the Project are critical to the success of our business. Contractors,
suppliers and others are key to the business performance and the company will
assess their capabilities and competencies to perform work on its behalf.

BP Wind Energy will work together with them to ensure our HSSE expectations
are aligned. BP Wind Energy will monitor contractors’ and partners’
performance and ensure its procurement processes contain the rigor to deliver
against its Standards.
New facilities and modifications to existing facilities will be designed, procured,

constructed and commissioned to enable safe, secure, healthy and
environmentally sound performance throughout their operational life, by using
recognized standards, procedures and management systems.
BP Wind Energy will periodically assess the implementation of and compliance

with these Standards to assure stakeholders and the company that management
processes are in place and working effectively. This will involve both internal
self-assessments, and appropriate external assessments. BP Wind Energy will
use this information to improve its performance and processes.
The Project goals are simply stated - no accidents, no harm to people, and no
damage to the environment.
2.28.1 Emergency Services
BP Wind Energy will work with the following local emergency responders and
fire departments to develop a plan specific to the nature of the risks posed by
wind turbine project construction and operation:
• River Hospital
• Samaritan Medical Center
• Troop D (NY State Police)
Coordination with local responders may include conducting specialized training.
The Project will maintain an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) (See Appendix K)
to be posted in all of the offices at the site and carried in all service vehicles. The
plan outlines all possible types of emergencies—medical, hazardous materials
release, catastrophic events and security threats—and the procedures necessary
to ensure a timely response and appropriate handling of the situation.
In particular, the ERP identifies the following types of emergencies that can
occur during operation:
A. Medical - Examples: Worker injury, heart attack
B. Hazardous Material Release - Examples: Chemical storage spill,
ruptured hydraulic hose
C. Catastrophic - Examples: Earthquake, tornado, hurricane or other high
wind event
D. Security - Threats to personnel or the facility

Specific emergency response procedures are included for each type of
emergency, proportionate to the hazard posed by the emergency. Specific to
security, protocols are specified for response to sabotage or terrorist threats to the
facility.
Included in the ERP are also specific documents to be completed following any
emergency situation, which are required to be retained for a minimum of 36
months following the incident.
Also, the ERP includes information for all emergency contacts – including:
• local fire and police services;
• medical response units including medical helicopters;
• local hospitals;
• a chemical leak/spill response contractor (Safety-Kleen);
• the BPWE Remote Operations Center;
• the BP Group Security 24 Hour Communication’s Center; and
• the US FBI.
2.28.2 Health and Safety Planning
The Project will maintain a Site Specific Health Safety Security & Environmental
(HSSE) Plan (See Appendix L) to address work practices and responsibilities
during construction and operation. The attached plan will be an evolving
document throughout the Project life, being updated regularly to address current
management structure, work practices, technology, and local conditions.
Elements of an HSSE Plan will include:
• Substance Abuse Policy (Non-DOT);
• Hazard Communication / Right-to-Know;
• Hazardous Materials;
• Hazard Communication Training Log;
• Fire Protection and Hot Work Permits;
• Lock Out / Tag Out / Check Out;
• Fall Protection;
• Respiratory Protection Program;
• Voluntary Respirator Use Form;
• Confined Space Program;
• Scaffold Standards;
• Blood Borne Pathogens;
• Electrical;
• Environmental;
• Snake / Insect Bites and Dangerous Animals;

• Project Signs;
• Accident / Incident Reporting Procedures;
• Site Security; and
• Severe Weather Policy.
2.28.3 Fire Safety Planning
During Project construction, there is a risk of unintentional or accidental fire or

explosion. Natural risks of unintentional fire or explosion (e.g. from a lightning
strike) would be the same regardless of Project scenario. There is in addition a
risk from human activities such as ground disturbance and welding that could
lead to accidental fire or explosion.
BP Wind Energy will develop a Fire and Explosion Risk Mitigation Plan listing
sources of potential fire and explosion during Project construction along with
measures to mitigate these risks. Implementation of these programs would
significantly reduce the risk of a fire or explosion risk due to Project construction
impacting human health and safety or the environment.
Due to the rocky conditions on site, blasting may be required to excavate

foundations for some of the proposed wind turbines. If solid rock is encountered
close to the ground surface while installing the underground cables, blasting
may also be performed to excavate the cable trench to the required depth. It is
anticipated that wind turbine foundations in these situations would require one
to two blasts each. Implementing safety measures to be developed as part of the
Fire and Explosion Risk Mitigation Plan during blasting activities would
minimize risks associated with use of explosives.
There is also a risk of unintentional or accidental fire or explosion during Project

operations and maintenance. The risk includes accidental fires from human
activities such as cigarette smoking and use of vehicles off established roadways,
and mechanical fires. There is some potential for fire caused by mechanical
malfunction inside the wind turbine generators and at other Project facilities.
Specific design and operational procedures would reduce the risk that a
mechanical fire in Project facilities would pose a risk to health and safety or the
environment. There should be no risk of explosion. The majority of the
proposed electrical collection system would be buried underground, although a
small portion (approximately 10%) may be constructed as overhead cables.
However, a brush fire could occur in the rare event that a conductor on a portion
of the overhead cable parted and one end of the energized wire fell to the
ground. Under this circumstance, fire-fighting capabilities of local fire districts
would be called upon according to pre-arranged agreements to respond to the
situation. The wind turbine generators and other mechanical equipment at the
substation and meteorological towers would be equipped with specially

engineered lightning protection systems that would minimize the risk of
lightning-induced fire during Project operations.
2.28.4 Design Requirements
Geotechnical analysis, turbine foundation design and construction practices, and

materials and procedures for turbine construction are all focused eliminating any
risk of turbine tower collapse. BP Wind Energy is confident that the structures to
be used at Cape Vincent will last until decommissioning, although periodic
inspections will be performed to ensure structural stability over time.
Similarly, unit design, selection of materials, and construction work practices will
eliminate the risk of blade throw (defined as blade fragments thrown from a
rotating machine). Historically within the wind power industry, the risk of blade
throw has been continually reduced as turbine technology has improved.
Again, minimum setbacks incorporated into the proposed Project layout, along
with compliance with engineering design and manufacturing safety standards,
would reduce safety risks associated with blade throw and other safety and
nuisance concerns. The current array plan uses a minimum setback of 1000 ft
from non-participating properties and 1,320 feet from non-participating
residences, as well as a minimum of 1,000 ft from participating residences to
reduce safety risks.
2.28.5 Ice Shed
Worldwide, there has been no reported injury from ice thrown from wind
turbines. Under icing conditions, all exposed parts of the wind turbine are liable
to build up ice. However, it has been observed that a moving turbine rotor is
liable to accrete significantly heavier quantities of ice than stationary
components. Rime icing occurs when the structure is at a sub-zero temperature,
and ice throws are most likely to occur as stationary turbine blades begin to
rotate.
Any ice shed prior to blade rotation would fall directly below the blade. Blades
with ice build up turn slowly (only a few revolutions per minute) because the
blade airfoil has been compromised by the ice, and the blades are unable to pick
up any speed until the ice is shed. Reported data on ice throws at other projects
indicate that ice fragments were found on the ground from 50 to 328 feet from
turbines (<33 to 197 feet blade diameter) and were in the range of 0.2 to 2.2
pounds in mass.158 Based on the results of the Morgan et al 1998 study, potential
public health and safety risks caused by ice falling off rotating blades could occur
within 50 to 328 feet of an operating turbine tower.
Minimum setbacks with residences and public roadways incorporated into the
proposed project layout reduce the safety risks associated with ice throw and
other safety and nuisance concerns.
158 Morgan et al. 1998.

2.28.6 Other Safety Considerations
Wind towers are sturdy and resilient to vandalism. The project design includes
extensive site security measures to ensure that vandalism does not pose a health
or safety threat to workers at the Project site or residents or visitors in the Project
vicinity, nor adversely affect Project operations. This will include fencing of the
Project substation, and gating access roads to reduce the risk of unauthorized
access to turbine sites.
The electrical system at the substations could be susceptible to ground faults,

lighting, and switching surges that may result in high voltage, which can
constitute a hazard to site personnel and electrical equipment, including
protective relaying equipment. The substations would be designed and
constructed with systems that would protect Project personnel and minimize
potential risks associated with accidental exposure to high voltage electrical
equipment.
Project operations would not result in the generation of regulated quantities of

hazardous wastes. Because no fuel is burned to power the wind turbine
generators, there would be no spent fuel, ash, sludge or other process wastes
generated. Project operations would not require the use or storage of significant
quantities of fuel or other materials that could cause a spill or other accidental
release.
Periodic changing of lubricating oils and hydraulic fluids used in the individual
wind turbine generators would result in the generation of small quantities of
hazardous waste. These waste fluids would be generated in small quantities
because they need to be changed only infrequently and the changing of these
fluids is not done all at once, but rather on an individual turbine by turbine basis.
Oils and fluids generated during Project operations may include glycol water
mix, hydraulic oil, and lubricating oil. Pad-mounted transformers at the turbines
would contain mineral oil that acts as a coolant.
Based on the limited quantities of fluids contained in any individual wind

turbine generator (approximately 50 gallons/turbine glycol-water mix, 85
gallons/turbine hydraulic oil, 105 gallons/turbine lubricating oil, 500 gallons for
transformer coolant), and regular inspections that will take place at each turbine,
the potential for any environmental damages due to an accidental spill from
wind turbine malfunction is low.
The Project would include a substation that would be equipped with either one
or two transformers. Each substation transformer would contain up to 12,000
gallons of mineral oil for cooling. Mineral oil used to fill substation transformers
is a potential source of hazardous materials that could accidentally be spilled
during Project operations. The substation transformers would have a specifically
designed containment system to ensure that any accidental fluid leak does not
result in discharge to the environment. Waste fluids would be stored for short

periods of time during Project operations at the operations and maintenance
facility. Measures incorporated into facility design would ensure that the risk of
accidental spill or release of hazardous materials at the facility would be low and
would not be a risk to health and safety or the environment.
2.29 CULTURAL RESOURCES: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
In compliance with state and federal environmental review procedures,

including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NYSHPO
has established guidelines for assessing the impact of proposed actions on
cultural resources (Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation
of Archaeological Collections in New York State, 1994, and the NYSHPO/ New York
State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) Phase I
Report Format Guidelines, 2005). These guidelines involve completing a survey
for historic buildings within a visual APE consisting at least of all areas within a
five-mile distance of the Project where at least one turbine will be visible. A
field survey is limited to an archeological APE consisting of areas that will
experience ground disturbing activity during the construction phase of the
project. Identifying resources which may be affected by wind power
development at Cape Vincent involves understanding the pre-historic and
historic context at the site, in order to more completely assess the sensitivity of
the resources and for identifying means of protecting them.
While NY State normally requires proponents to follow a separate set of

guidelines for the assessment of historical and cultural resources associated
with the development of wind power projects, the SHPO specifically requested
(after consultation with the Onondaga tribe) that BP utilize normal state
archaeological guidelines, rather than the wind power project guidelines,
during survey design. This is discussed later on in this section.
BP Wind Energy has contracted a number of parties to assist in this cultural

resources survey. The Public Archeological Facility (PAF) at SUNY in
Binghamton was engaged to assist in the archeological background research,
field surveys, and reporting, often referred to as a 1A. Historical Perspectives, a
private firm, was contracted to perform the Phase 1B field archaeological
surveys for the project.
The broader historical APE to be evaluated for historical architectural review is

notable in that much of the five mile buffer around the Cape Vincent Project is
currently under planning for the adjacent “St. Lawrence Wind Power Project”,
and that much of the five mile buffer for the St. Lawrence Wind Project also
includes the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project. Therefore, there is a substantial
overlap in historical properties between the two projects. Accordingly BP Wind
Energy and the developer for the St. Lawrence Project hired a single contractor,
TRC, to perform the original historic buildings survey and to submit a list of
potentially affected properties to SHPO for their review. Following SHPO’s
response (described in more detail below) ERM conducted follow-up surveys.

Support for determination of visual impacts was provided by Saratoga
Associates who performed the visual analysis for this EIS.
2.29.1 Setting
The Project Area is part of the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowland province of
northern New York State. In the Cape Vincent area, the land is flat to gently
sloping, with numerous southwest oriented low ridges. Streams and creeks
running through the area run southwest toward Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River. The county is largely agricultural.
The prehistory of New York began late in the Wisconsin glaciation. These initial
residents of New York can be characterized as pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers,
who followed a nomadic lifestyle during the Paleo-Indian (10,000 BC) through
the Middle Archaic (4000 BC) periods. While there is some evidence of use of
northern New York during these early periods, the utilization appeared to have
been sparse, possibly due to the environment being in flux at that time. As the
environment settled into deciduous woodland, human exploitation of the
environment increased. During the Late Archaic (4000-1500 BC), the transition to
less mobile populations began, culminating in early agriculture during the Late
Woodland (AD 900-1650). As populations became less mobile, settlement sizes
and social complexity increased. Material culture also evolved, with Woodland
cultures producing ceramics, not previously seen in this part of the world.
Jefferson County was organized in 1805, but had been inhabited by European
settlers as early as 1797. Initial settlement centered around what is now the
Town of Port Putnam, with Abijah Putnam as the first settler. Although land
speculators John Macomb and Peter Sternberg planned a village, the site was
abandoned in 1811. James LeRay founded a new town upriver, which was
settled as the Village of Cape Vincent. Many of the early settlers were French or
German. After the end of the War of 1812, lumber and available farm land
attracted settlers, and a spurt in growth occurred.
2.29.2 Documented Prehistoric and Historic Archeological Sites
A site file search performed by SUNY at the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) listed 28 prehistoric-era sites and
six historic-era sites within the regional vicinity of the Project Site. Information
pertaining to the recorded archaeological sites and inventoried structures is
presented in Tables 1-3, Appendix M (SUNY report). At least four of these
previously recorded sites appear to be immediately adjacent to or within the
Project APE.
Most of these sites were identified in the 1920s – 1930s by Arthur C. Parker,
Director of the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, and have not been
subjected to further study since that time. The exact location of these sites on
today’s landscape is not known and the New York State Museum cannot provide
detailed information on the recoveries. Sites that can be attributed to a specific

time period include three Late Woodland villages. In addition, one Late Archaic
projectile point was identified. Four sites were identified as potential burial
locations. As of 2007, none of the prehistoric archaeological sites were listed on
or determined eligible by SHPO for listing on the NRHP.
SUNY found six historic archaeological sites in the OPRHP site files within or
adjacent to the Cape Vincent Project Area. Of these, five sites are residential in
nature, and one is the remains of a church. The Menzo Wheeler site and the Old
Stone Store site are listed in the NRHP, along with associated structural remains.
As of 2007, there was no SHPO determination of eligibility on file for the
remaining historic-era archaeological sites.
2.29.3 Documented Historic Structures/Properties
There are forty-one structures and two historic districts within the five-mile
radius study area, which encompasses all of the Town and Village of Cape
Vincent as well as portions of the adjacent Towns of Lyme and Clayton. A
portion of the Village of Chaumont is also located within the five-mile radius
study area. There are nineteen NRHP-listed structures/properties within the
viewshed of the Project Area.
2.29.4 Archeological Survey
SUNY’s 1A technical report provided an assessment of the archaeological

potential of the APE. In the prehistoric sensitivity assessment, SUNY found that
the APE contains many locations with high potential to include intact buried
prehistoric cultural resources. The following predictive factors were identified:
• Close proximity and good access to water source;
• Level to gently sloping terrain;
• Well drained soils;
• Productive and workable soils;
• Accessibility; and
• Availability of resources.
The greater the number of these characteristics intrinsic to a location, the greater
the likelihood of encountering a prehistoric archaeological site.
Conversely, for historic-era archaeological sites, SUNY considers the area to have
low potential overall, with higher sensitivity along transportation routes and
lake bays.
The recommended 1B testing has been initiated by Historical Perspectives, Inc.

(HPI) based on the preferred turbine and infrastructure design (10/25/10).
Proposed staging and storage areas are included in the APE, too. HPI, in
consultation with SHPO, developed a testing plan based on the expressed
request of members of the Onondaga Tribe (5/19/09). The protocol, or testing

plan, combines a surface survey of plowed and disked corridors and 15-meter
interval shovel testing. The HPI team of twelve archaeologists has been
following standard field procedures (photography, screening, compiling field
forms, artifact management, etc.). The lab analysis is ongoing.
As of 12/10/2010, the field survey is about 60% complete. Of the 84 proposed

turbine locations, 70 (83%) have been thoroughly investigated. Of the roughly
69.96 kilometers of linear impact areas – that include both proposed roads and
connectors – approximately 51% have been tested. Of the 31.6 acres of ancillary
structures/storage lay down impact areas, roughly 13% have been tested.
Limited prehistoric artifacts have been identified at thirteen locations, including
projectile points, pottery, and smoking pipe fragments. However, of these
thirteen locations, only an isolated artifact is recorded for four of them. In
addition, one precontact site that has been previously inventoried with the NY
State Museum (#3595) falls immediately adjacent to one of the linear segments.
A total of ten potential historic-era archaeological sites have been identified in
the APE, although several of these are relatively late dump sites and have no
apparent association at this time and may not require further investigation. The
final number of precontact and historic sites will be determined when field
testing is completed and all collected material has been analyzed in the lab.
The full results of the 1B field survey, including recommendations for future
action, will be forwarded to SHPO for review and included in the FEIS.
2.29.5 Historic Structures/Properties Survey
In November 2007, TRC met with SHPO staff in Albany to consult on the historic
buildings survey for the project. The survey involved an assessment of buildings
eligible for listing on the NRHP located within a 5-mile APE of the wind turbine
locations. Upon completion of the survey, a report was submitted to the SHPO
for review and comment.
The historical structures and properties assessment required a multi-phase

approach. This included first, checking records to identify sites already recorded
on the NRHP or by the state of New York. Second, trained architectural
historians drove around the historical APE to look for any structures or sites
which appeared to have potential historical significance. Photographs were
taken of any such resources, and additional information was documented such
as the style and architecture of a building, materials of construction, condition of
the structure, and the nature of any associated outbuildings. If there were
uncertainties as to the historical period to which a structure belongs, tax records
were checked for confirmation of construction and alteration dates.
Finally, this information was collected and presented to the SHPO staff, to
review and comment on the evaluations. SHPO review included an assessment
of effects on the historic setting for the site, and a determination was made as to
whether the structure or property is potentially NRHP eligible. SHPO then sent
out a sublist of properties which should undergo additional study to determine if

there were potential significant adverse impacts that would result from
construction and operation of the Project. This list is discussed further in Section
2.30.
2.30 CULTURAL RESOURCES: IMPACTS
Direct impacts to archeological resources would result from activities that would
physically disturb a cultural resource. Indirect impacts would be caused by
development located near a cultural resource that does not directly disturb the
site, but changes the setting of the area or offers increased opportunities for
human disturbance. These types of direct and indirect impacts could be
associated with construction, operations and maintenance, or decommissioning
of any of the Project elements, including the wind turbines and meteorological
towers, new gravel access roads, additional power lines, temporary laydown
yards or concrete batch plant, operation and maintenance facility, substations,
and local roadway improvements. Indirect impacts on offsite cultural resources
are not anticipated because the Project is not expected to substantially induce
regional growth to the extent that it would result in significant changes to offsite
cultural resources.
2.30.1 Impacts to Archaeological Resources
Construction Impacts
As discussed in Section 2.29.4 the Project Area includes locations with high
potential to host intact prehistoric cultural resources. Ground-disturbing activity
during construction could potentially affect any prehistoric or historical
archaeological sites located within the archeological APE. Potential direct
impacts would be most likely to occur during excavation activities such as
turbine foundation preparation, and laying of 34.5 kV interconnect cables,
although surface activities such as road grading and right-of-way clearing could
also cause damage to archaeological sites.
Direct Operations and Maintenance Impacts

Direct impacts to cultural resources are not expected to occur during normal
operation and maintenance of the project. Assuming that resources are identified
but adverse effects are successfully avoided during construction or through
mitigation, direct harm to those same avoided cultural resources during
operation and maintenance activities is unlikely.
Decommissioning Impacts
Impacts from decommissioning of the Project would be similar to those
described above for construction activities, with the exception that existing
infrastructure that was built to support the Project will already be in place,
reducing the overall impacts.

2.30.2 Impacts to Historical Resources
There are both visual impacts and cultural resource integrity impacts in the
visual APE, which includes the Project Area and a five-mile buffer around the
site. As identified in Section 2.14, the Project has the potential to impact a
number of historical resources. The proposed wind turbines will change daytime
views from the historic districts and scenic byway to the larger landscape. Many
of these broader views have mostly remained unchanged since the 18th century
and may be considered significant character-defining features of these
properties. Depending on the number and proximity of turbines to any specific
resource, the Project could alter landscapes that heretofore had extremely limited
utility lines, cell towers and other vertical modern objects seen against the
skyline.
In this area, impacts to historic resources must be considered not only in the
context of the Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law (PRHPL)
§14.09, which requires agencies to explore fully all feasible and prudent
alternatives and to give due consideration to feasible and prudent plans which
will avoid or mitigate adverse impacts to historically significant resources, but
also to State Coastal Policy 23 which has the goal of protecting, enhancing, and
restoring structures, districts, areas, and sites that are of significance.
A Local Waterfront Revitalization Program has been developed for the Village of
Cape Vincent aimed at improving the aesthetics of the waterfront, including
maintaining unobstructed views of the St. Lawrence River waterfront. This
criterion would be expected to apply to historical as well as community
resources. To this extent, the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project will have
minimal visual impacts as it is will not diminish the waterfront view within the
Village.
Similarly, Sackets Harbor has a Waterfront Revitalization Program under

contract with the NY Department of State. Protected scenic vistas included in the
program are generally those facing the Village from Black River Bay, a viewline
which faces southeast, or directly away from the Cape Vincent Project. One
exception is a scenic vista from the Seaway Trail within the Village (along W.
Main Street) looking northward at the harbor, and further towards Black River
Bay. However, at this point due to the distance from the Cape Vincent Project
(10 miles or greater) and the effects of intervening landforms it is not expected
that the Cape Vincent Project will be visible from Sackets Harbor.
The historic properties from which the turbines would be visible placed into four
categories based on an assessment of the visual impact that the Project might
have on the quality and integrity of the resource. Visual Resource Impact
Categories include:
1) properties from which the turbines will not be visible when facing the
properties, but only when facing away from the properties;

2) properties from which the turbines will be visible to the left or right when
facing the properties;
3) properties the turbines will be visible from when facing the property; and
4) properties the turbine will be visible from when facing the property and
away from the structure.
Table 2.30-1 provides a summary of the findings based on a field visit conducted
September 30 – October 1, 2010. The methodology from the Initial Report was
replicated for this effort. Additional photographs of the subject properties were
taken from the public right of way. No private property was accessed for this
assessment.
In addition to the historic properties, the field survey visited Long Point State
Park, Burnham State Park, and Cedar Point State Park. Wind turbines will be
visible from all three parks. OPRHP will be provided with the results of this
analysis, and asked to comment on whether the impacts to these parks are
significant and require mitigation.
As shown in Table 2.30-1, no wind turbines would be seen from NRL-6. Field
survey found that the Anthony Levi Building (NRL-22) is no longer extant;
therefore, potential impacts need not be considered for these properties. The
table lists the identifiers for each site (Map Code, SHPO Inventory, Address), the
status with respect to listing on the NRHP, the findings from the surveyors visit
to the site, and the Visual Resource Impact Categories determined to be
applicable to the site.
Due to the number and the proximity of turbines to the specific resource(s), the
Project will alter the landscape (context) which is a significant character defining
feature to all these properties.
The impact to those properties falling into categories 1 and 2 are considered less
intense than categories 3 and 4, since the views of the proposed turbines are
limited to looking away from the properties or looking from a secondary
elevation, not the main façade.
Some of the properties falling into category 1 that are closest to the shoreline (26,
NRL-10, NRL-36, NRL-21, NRL-19, NRL-26, NRL-28, NRL-35, three state parks),
as well as 484, are already visually impacted by the existing wind turbines on
Wolfe Island; however, these turbines are not easily visible when looking at the
structure’s main façade but from the sides or rear of the properties; or in the
cases of the state parks from the areas closest to the shorelines.

TABLE 2.30-1: Summary of Historic Structures Requiring Additional Evaluation
Map SHPO Inventory Address NRHP Number Visual

Code Number& Name Village/Location Status of Impact
Turbines Category
Visible (see text)
from
Location
26 4547.000036 523 W. Broadway, NRE 31 1
Cape Vincent
421 4505.000139 St. Lawrence Union NRE 2 1
Cemetery
Cape Vincent
471 N/A 5477/5553 Constance NRE 84 1
Rd.
Cape Vincent
479 N/A 32175 Hell Street NRE 84 2
Cape Vincent
484 N/A 4609 Favret Road NRE 84 1
Cape Vincent
HR- N/A 30485 Rosiere Road NRE 66 4
18 Cape Vincent
HR- N/A Intersection of Rosiere NRE 80 4
20 & Dezengremel Roads
NRL- 90NR01173 313 James Street NRL 47 2
1 Jean Philipe Galbrand Cape Vincent
du Fort House
NRL- 90NR01168 127 Joseph Street NRL 39 2
2 John Borland House Cape Vincent
NRL- 90NR01181 9500 Point Street NRL 41 2
3 Otis Starkey House Cape Vincent
NRL- 90NR01130 4670 Favret Road NRL 78 3
4 Warren Wilson House Cape Vincent
NRL- 90NR1126 32115 County Road 6 NRL 46 3
5 Captain Louis Peugnet Cape Vincent
House
NRL- 90NR01127 34191 Route 12 E NRL 0 N/A
6 George Reynolds Cape Vincent
House
NRL- 90NR01124 22902 County Road 4 NRL 84 4
7 Reuter Dyer House Cape Vincent
NRL- 90NR01121 2867 Favret Road NRL 84 2
8 Nicholas Cocaigne Cape Vincent
House
NRL- 90NR01125 33701 Tibbetts Point NRL 6 3
9 Johnson House Cape Vincent
NRL- 90NR01169 Village of Cape NRL 26-44 3
10 Broadway Historic Vincent
District
NRL- 90NR01170 169 Joseph Street NRL 39 1
11 James Buckley House Cape Vincent

Turbines Category
Visible (see text)
from
Location
NRL- 90NR01122 30538 Rosiere Road NRL 70 4
12 Remy Dezengremel Cape Vincent
House
NRL- 90NR01123 31469 Rosiere Road NRL 64 4
13 Joseph Docteur House Cape Vincent
NRL- 90NR01120 6338 Gosiere Road NRL 30 2
14 Xavier Chevalier Cape Vincent
House
NRL- 90NR01129 33110 Mason Road NRL 78 3
15 Claude Vautrin House Cape Vincent
NRL- 05NR05454 38289 State Route 12E NRL * N/A
16 Fairview Manor Clayton
NRL- 90NR01180 139 Kanady Street NRL 31 2
17 St. Vincent of Paul Cape Vincent
Catholic Church
NRL- 90NR01128 6433 Millen Bay Road NRL 75 1
18 Union Meeting House Cape Vincent
NRL- 90NR01171 565 Broadway NRL 54 1
19 Burnham House Cape Vincent
NRL- 90NR01178 467 James Street NRL 22 2
20 Gen. Sacket House Cape Vincent
NRL- 90NR01175 230 Market Street NRL 59 1
21 Lewis House Cape Vincent
NRL- 90NR01166 580 Broadway NRL ** N/A
22 Anthony Levi Cape Vincent
Building
23 Aubertine Building Cape Vincent
24 Glen Building Cape Vincent
25 Roxy Hotel Cape Vincent
26 Cornelius Sacket Cape Vincent
House
NRL- 90NR00907 27658 Dablon Point NRL 54 3
27 Rogers Brothers Road
Farmstead Cape Vincent
NRL- 90NR01119 Tibbetts Point NRL 66 1
28 Tibbetts Point Cape Vincent
Lighthouse
NRL- 90NR01179 352 Market Street NRL 36 2
34 St. Johns Episcopal Cape Vincent
Church
35 Dullivard Mill Cape Vincent

Turbines Category
Visible (see text)
from
Location
36 Vincent Le Ray House Cape Vincent
NRL - National Register Listed

NRE - National Register Eligible
* Since the initial report submitted in 2008, the proposed turbine locations have changed,
thus this property falls outside the 5 mile visual buffer area
** Building no longer extant
The existing wind turbines on Wolfe Island are also visible from three properties
falling into category 3: NRL-5, NRL-9, and NRL-27. Thus the adverse impact to
these properties is considered less intense than those from which the existing
wind turbines on Wolfe Island are not visible.
The most significant impacts are to the properties falling into category 4 where
the entire surrounding landscape (context) has very few, if any, utility lines, cell
towers and other vertical modern objects. For those sites following development
of the wind resource the skyline will be substantially altered. Any mitigation
efforts should focus primarily on the properties falling in category 4.
Because of the proximity of the two wind farms to one another, all of the
historical properties which will be visually impacted by the Cape Vincent Project
will also undergo visual impact from the adjoining St. Lawrence Wind project.
For the majority of those properties, the St. Lawrence Wind Project will lie
between the historical property and the Cape Vincent Wind project. As a result,
if the St. Lawrence Wind Project is constructed this will reduce the magnitude of
the visual impact at these locations.
These findings are being submitted to OPRHP for concurrence, and following
consultation appropriate mitigation measures will be proposed for those which
are considered to be incurring a significant impact as a result of the Project.
Options for mitigation are discussed in Section 2.30.5 below.
2.30.4 Mitigation Measures for Archaeological Resources
Any archaeological resources are located within the portions of the site which
will be disturbed during construction will be handled using appropriate
mitigation measures (such as archaeological testing or excavation and data
recovery). These will be developed through ongoing consultation with the
SHPO so that no significant adverse impact will result from the disturbances.
At any locations where it is determined that construction activities will result in

potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated via testing, excavation,

data recovery, or removal of artifacts from the site, BP Wind Energy will work
with the SHPO to identify feasible alternative locations/corridors to locate the
disturbance to in order to avoid the impact. A Memorandum of Agreement
and/or Programmatic Agreement will be executed by BP Wind Energy, the
SHPO, and, if necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
outlining the process and measures to be undertaken to avoid any significant
adverse impacts to archaeological resources.
TABLE 2.30-2: Historic Structure Impacts and Cumulative Impacts
Map SHPO Inventory Number Visual Impact Impact from

Code or Name Impact from St.
Category Wolfe Lawrence
Island Wind
26 4547.000036 1 Yes Yes *
421 4505.000139 1 Yes
471 N/A 1 Yes *
479 N/A 2 Yes *
484 N/A 1 Yes Yes *
HR-18 N/A 4 Yes
HR-20 N/A 4 Yes
NRL-1 Jean Philipe Galbrand du Fort 2 Yes*
House
NRL-2 John Borland House 2 Yes *
NRL-3 Otis Starkey House 2 Yes *
NRL-4 Warren Wilson House 3 Yes
NRL-5 Captain Louis Peugnet House 3 Yes Yes *
NRL-6 George Reynolds House N/A Yes
NRL-7 Reuter Dyer House 4 Yes
NRL-8 Nicholas Cocaigne House 2 Yes *
NRL-9 Johnson House 3 Yes Yes
NRL-10 Broadway Historic District 3 Yes Yes *
NRL-11 James Buckley House 1 Yes *
NRL-12 Remy Dezengremel House 4 Yes
NRL-13 Joseph Docteur House 4 Yes
NRL-14 Xavier Chevalier House 2 Yes *
NRL-15 Claude Vautrin House 3 Yes
NRL-16 Fairview Manor N/A Yes
NRL-17 St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church 2 Yes *
NRL-18 Union Meeting House 1 Yes *
NRL-19 Burnham House 1 Yes Yes *
NRL-20 Gen. Sacket House 2 Yes *
NRL-21 Lewis House 1 Yes Yes *
NRL-22 Anthony Levi Building N/A Yes *
NRL-23 Aubertine Building 3 Yes*
NRL-24 Glen Building 3 Yes*
NRL-25 Roxy Hotel 1 Yes *
NRL-26 Cornelius Sacket House 1 Yes Yes *
NRL-27 Rogers Brothers Farmstead 3 Yes Yes
NRL-28 Tibbetts Point Lighthouse 1 Yes Yes

Map SHPO Inventory Number Visual Impact Impact from
Code or Name Impact from St.
Category Wolfe Lawrence
Island Wind
NRL-34 St. Johns Episcopal Church 2 Yes *
NRL-35 Dullivard Mill 1 Yes Yes *
NRL-36 Vincent Le Ray House 1 Yes Yes *
* These properties will have the St. Lawrence Wind Farm turbines between the site and
the Cape Vincent Project turbines.
Unanticipated Discoveries Plan

Archaeological survey cannot eliminate the possibility that unanticipated
discoveries of cultural materials will be made during construction and use of a
facility. Procedures will be established in an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan in
the event that previously unreported and unanticipated historic properties or
human remains are found during construction or maintenance. For each crew
involved in excavation at the site, training will be conducted to assist the crew in
recognizing when they unearth unexpected cultural materials during the
construction process. Where there is significant uncertainty over the possibility
of encountering buried archeological resources at the site, a qualified
archaeologist would monitor the ground-disturbing activities.
If intact archaeological resources or human burials are encountered during

construction, the construction foreman would immediately implement measures
that would prevent additional disturbances. The qualified archeologist or a
representative of BP Wind Energy would then contact the NY SHPO and any
identified tribal representatives who would determine how the materials should
be treated. The area would be secured and placed off limits for anyone but
authorized personnel. All personnel involved in facility construction and
maintenance should be familiar with the Unanticipated Discovery Plan, and a
copy should be readily available for reference during construction. Such a plan
should include, among other information, definitions and descriptions of cultural
materials and emergency contact information for parties to be notified.
2.30.5 Mitigation Measures for Historic Structural Resources
As noted in Section 2.30.3, OPRHP will be provided with the findings of the
requested architectural investigation and asked for concurrence with ERM’s
assessment of which properties or groups of properties will be adversely
impacted. In cooperation with OPRHP, appropriate mitigations for each
property or group of properties will be developed, if avoidance of the impacts is
not feasible.
For historic structures where a determination of adversely impacted is made, the

impact could be avoided or minimized by the following means:

Vegetative Screening
For some properties, particularly those within categories 1 and 2, additional
vegetative screening may be warranted on properties to help reduce the visibility
of the turbines, thereby reducing the impact. In screening, it may be possible to
reduce or eliminate the visual impacts of the Project for some cultural resources
through the planting of vegetation compatible with the resource, which is
positioned and of an adequate size to block portions of the Project from a high
value viewline (e.g., a porch or specific window of a historic structure). By
blocking the view of the project, the contextual integrity of the view would be
preserved. Vegetation will be compatible with the resources, and positioned
and of an adequate size to block portions of the Project from a high value
viewline (e.g., a porch or specific window of a historic structure).
Minimizing Modifications to Site, Architectural, And Landscape Plans

Because so much of the significance of the properties outside of the town is
connected to the spatial relationships of the buildings, roads, and landscapes,
avoiding disruption of as many existing landscape features as is feasible could
reduce impacts.
Retention of historic landscape features and circulation systems could also
minimize impacts. Existing roads and paths will be retained whenever feasible.
Trees, hedges, gardens, and other landscape features will be retained whenever it
is prudent and feasible to do so. Vegetation that is diseased or otherwise cannot
be salvaged will be replaced in kind to restore the historically appropriate visual
screening. Landscape archaeology may prove to be a useful analytical technique
in determining historic planting patterns, plant materials, and features not
currently visible above ground, allowing historically appropriate plantings to
reduce visual impacts.
For those adversely affected historic structures determined for which the effect
cannot be sufficiently minimized, particularly for those structures falling in
impact categories 3 and 4, the following could be considered as potential
mitigations:
• Documentation. Recordation of the buildings and landscapes prior to any
major alterations to the landscape, including the construction of the turbines,
could constitute mitigation. This documentation would include photography
(meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards as well as OPRHP’s
standards) of all buildings, sites, structures, and landscape features. A
historical narrative should accompany these materials. The required level of
documentation is subject to the review of OPRHP.
• Interpretive Exhibit. The creation of a public interpretive exhibit about the
history and the social and architectural significance of the town of Cape
Vincent and the rural properties could be a mitigative measure. The exhibit
should make use of the information gathered as part of the documentation
efforts for the current project, as well as all previously compiled research.
• Walking, Driving, or Bike Tour(s). One, or multiple, self tours could be
developed for the area as a mitigation measure. This could include a walking
tour of the Town of Cape Vincent’s historic properties and a contextual

history; a driving tour that could include the in-town resources as well as the
rural resources; and/or a bike tour focusing on all of these resources and the
historical context particularly documented the landscape.
• Repair or Restoration of Local Historical Resources. There may be
prominent local historical resources which are in disrepair or in need of some
other modification in order to maintain the resource value over time. BP
Wind Energy may contract or fund repair or restoration efforts as a
compensation for visual impacts.

3.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed Cape Vincent Project would have both short- and long-term
unavoidable adverse impacts on environmental resources. In particular, the
following unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated:
Resource Impact Action

Wetlands and Permanent impacts to Project modifications to minimize
Water Quality USACE jurisdictional impacts. Section 404 Permit with
wetlands USACE, compensatory mitigation
Navigable Crossing of USACE Section 10 Permit with USACE,
Waterways navigable Chaumont River design to eliminate potential for
navigational obstruction
Terrestrial and Work in areas which Article 11 Permit with NYSDEC,
Aquatic Ecology support the Blandings specifying realignments for habitat
Turtle avoidance, construction scheduling,
and habitat enhancement
Avian and Bat Potential for taking of ESA Section 7 consultation with
Ecology Indiana Bat during USFWS included in USACE Permit.
operations Post-construction monitoring and
other mitigation as specified in
Permit.
Avian and Bat Potential direct and indirect Article 11 Permit with NYSDEC
Ecology impacts to grassland bird addressing mitigations such as
species development of habitat management
plan and conservation easements
Visual Resources Alteration of rural Impacts may be reduced via project
landscape. layout and materials of construction,
but overall effect on rural character
is unmitigable
Visual Resources Flicker Nuisance Post construction follow-up with
affected residences. Site specific
mitigation based on nature and
magnitude of nuisance.
Sound Elevated sound pressure BP completed project redesign to
levels reduce noise impacts. Post
construction conflict resolution
process.
Traffic and Need to expand existing Coordination with state, county, and
Transportation roadway system (turns and town engineers. Permitting
widening) additional impacts (eg – include
wetland/waterbody impacts in
USACE Section 404 permit). Restore
post-construction.
Traffic and Disruption to local traffic Coordination of construction
Transportation patterns, including during schedule with state, county, and
tourist season town officials.
Communications Potential impact to local Post construction monitoring and
broadcasting (including engineering assessment of any
Mars Hill Broadcast Station) interference and mitigation measures

Resource Impact Action
Land Use and Coastal Zone Consistency Application for determination of
Recreation consistency with NYSDOS Coastal
Zone Management Policy being filed
concurrent with SDEIS
Health and Safety Operational hazards such as Project design and setbacks to ensure
fire, ice shed, tower collapse public safety. Adherence to BP site
specific Health and Safety Plan, and
Emergency Response Plan
Cultural Construction impacts to Pre-construction surveys, removal
Resources cultural resource materials and curation of artifacts,
modifications to project footprint, or
other measures in consultation with
SHPO
Cultural Visual impacts to NRHP Assessment and cataloguing of
Resources and NRHP-candidate sites impacts to sites under consultation
with SHPO. Site specific mitigation
based on nature and magnitude of
nuisance.

4.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF MAN’S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Most of the 164 acres of permanent disturbance from the Cape Vincent Wind
Project will be on lands previously in use for agricultural or livestock purposes.
Of those 164 acres, only a small fraction is designated USDA Prime Farmland
(0.03 acres) or Farmlands of Statewide Importance (0.45 acres).
The income farmers will receive from the wind project will provide a long-term
financial benefit, ensuring a baseline income that will be removed from the
economic uncertainties and variabilities inherent in farming. This guaranteed
income would enable farmers to continue farming rather than sell their property
for other development, thereby enhancing the long-term productivity of these
agricultural lands.
Development of wind energy would also aid in reducing the need for fossil fuels
and other non-renewable resources, thereby reducing the amount of pollutants
added to the air on an annual basis while ensuring a long-term dependable
energy supply.


5.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Development of the proposed Project would irretrievably commit the resources

required for the manufacture of the towers, wind turbines and other Project
components. It would also dedicate the parcels of land on which the towers and
other Project components are located for the life of the project. However the
commitment of these resources is justified by the many benefits that will flow
from the Project.
The Project will also require a commitment of land for the life of the Project.
Specifically, a total of approximately 500 acres of disturbance will need to take
place during construction. Following construction this footprint will be reduced
to a long-term impact of approximately 164 acres after expanded construction
corridors are narrowed to accommodate 16’ permanent access roads, cleared
turbine construction sites are returned to previous land uses up to the turbine
base, and cleared interconnect ROWs, concrete batch plant locations, and the
laydown and parking facility are all returned to previous land use. The 164 acres
of long term impact will include along with access roads and turbine locations
the permanent electrical substation, an operations and maintenance facility, and
overhead transmission corridor.
Even these “permanent” impacts are semi-permanent. Because the turbines can
be removed, the land used for the Project can be fully reclaimed upon Project
termination. Therefore, the commitment of this land to the Project is not fully
irreversible/irretrievable. Meanwhile, while Project development will displace
current agricultural activities from the turbine sites, it will enable farmers to
maintain agricultural production on the balance of their properties by providing
a long-term guaranteed base of income.
Various types of construction materials and building supplies will required for
the Project. Gravel, concrete, steel, etc., will represent a long-term commitment
of these resources, which will not be available for other projects. At the end of
the Project life, wind turbine components may be repurposed for some other
operating facility.
Energy resources will be irretrievably committed to the construction and

operation of the Project, including fuel and electricity:
• required during the manufacture and transportation of materials
• consumed during site preparation and turbine installation activities, and
• used for transportation of workers and equipment to the Project site.
These energy resources expended to construct and operate the Project, however,
represent a fraction of the renewable energy which will be generated by the
Project over its anticipated operating history.


6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND BENEFITS
6.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
An important provision of SEQRA is the requirement for a discussion of

cumulative impacts. In addition to environmental impacts associated with the
proposed Project, cumulative impacts within and in proximity to the Project area
may occur as a result of existing, proposed or future projects and activities. The
subsections below discuss whether there are identified projects for which
cumulative impact analysis is required, and assess the extent to which the
impacts of such projects will be cumulative with the impacts of the Cape Vincent
Project.
Cumulative impacts occur when the individual impacts of one project interact
with the impacts of another project in a manner which compounds or increases
the extent of an impact that either project would have on its own. Cumulative
impacts are most often the result of concurrent actions within the same location
or in an overlapping larger impact area. These actions may vary from temporary
uses associated with construction (e.g., construction traffic, lack of lodging
availability resulting from multiple projects being built simultaneously) to more
permanent impacts simultaneously affecting the same resource (e.g., cumulative
visual impacts caused by turbines from multiple projects being visible from
points in a viewshed).
Currently there is one local wind power project already operational in the area
(Wolfe Island, across the St. Lawrence River from the Village of Cape Vincent).
Further, in addition to the proposed Project, there are three other proposed wind
energy facilities in the area:
• St. Lawrence Wind – an FEIS was accepted by the lead agency, the Town of
Cape Vincent Planning Board, from St. Lawrence Wind Power LLC, on
August 18th, 2010;
• Hounsfield – an FEIS was accepted by the Lead Agency (DEC) from Upstate
NY Power Corp on December 23, 2009; and
• Horse Creek – a Draft Generic EIS was accepted by the Lead Agency, the
Town of Clayton Planning Board, from Iberdrola Renewables on February 22,
2007.
Information on these wind farms is provided in Table 6.1-1 and their locations
are shown on Figure 6.1-1.


o
Cape Vincent\GIS\projects\windfarms.mxd M. Jones/S. King 1/19/2011 0092352
CANADA
Wolfe Island
St. Lawrence Wind

Horse Creek

Galloo Island

Legend
Active and Proposed Windfarms
4 2 0 4 Figure 6.1-1
Miles Active and Proposed Windfarms in Cape Vincent Area
BP Wind Energy

Table 6.1-1: Operating and Proposed Wind Power Projects in Cape Vincent Area
Wind Farm Expected Completion # Turbines Generating

Capacity (MW)
Wolfe Island Commercial Operation on June 86 197.8
26, 2009
St Lawrence Dec 2013? Still pending approval 51 76.5
from Jefferson County and Town
of Cape Vincent
Hounsfield Fall 2012 (3 years from proposed 82 246
(Galloo Island)* start date of 2010)
Horse Creek No date. Still pending approval 62 130
by Jefferson County and Lead
Agency
Cape Vincent October 2012 84 134
(Proposed Action)
*Note: Galloo originally planned for 84 turbines/252 MW, but has since publicly
announced a reduction in the anticipated number of turbines.
6.2 GEOLOGY
Any impacts to geological resources (e.g., from blasting, excavation, or grading
during construction) will be localized in nature and minor with respect to the
effects on regional geological resources. No cumulative impacts should result
from multiple projects.
6.3 SOILS
With mitigation measures (topsoil segregation, following site-specific SWPPP

and SPCC plans, incorporation of other NYSDAM mitigation guidelines) limiting
long-term impacts to soils, the primary impact to soils will be removal of some
small amount of agricultural land from cultivation due to placement of turbines,
support facilities, and permanent access roads. This represents a small fraction
of the quality farmland in Jefferson County, and concurrent development of the
Horse Creek and/or St. Lawrence Wind Farms will not significantly alter the
percentage of farmland removed from active cultivation.
6.4 WATER QUALITY
Water quality impacts from the Wolfe Island and Hounsfield Wind Farms are not
considered for this cumulative impact analysis, since those are unique in their
offshore location and would affect resources isolated from the Project. The Horse
Creek, Cape Vincent, and St. Lawrence projects are located in watersheds
proximal to one another, draining to the eastern edge of Lake Ontario. However,
none of the projects are expected to have an impact to water quality or
availability to a degree which would impact the common receiving water body.

6.5 WETLANDS
Wetland impacts from the Project will be minor (1.07 acres of permanent impact),
and compensatory mitigation – likely in the establishment of replacement
wetlands – will be conducted. It is expected that the proximal Horse Creek and
St. Lawrence projects will face comparable incentives for minimization of
wetland impacts and requirements for compensatory mitigation. Therefore,
there are not expected to be any significant cumulative impacts to wetlands
arising if all three projects are built.
6.6 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
During the construction of the different wind power projects, localized

disturbances to wildlife and wildlife habitats will result. Disturbances to wildlife
and wildlife habitats associated with wind power development are comparable
to disturbances caused by other local activities such as agriculture and logging.
Permanent loss of wildlife habitats caused by development of these five projects
is minimal relative to the habitat coverage in the region. Significant cumulative
adverse effects are not anticipated because none of the projects, when considered
individually, are anticipated to cause significant impacts to wildlife or wildlife
habitats; and the projects, taken together, will not cause impacts that interact
with or increase the extent of the impacts of other projects. Blanding’s turtle is
the primary terrestrial species of concern in the project area. There is a low
potential for temporary or permanent impacts to Blanding’s turtle as a result of
construction or operations of the Project.
6.7 AVIAN AND BAT RESOURCES
Data collected at the Project and nearby wind-energy facilities from comparable
scientifically designed studies to estimate bird and bat use and activity,
respectively, indirect effects and post-construction fatality rates, may be
compared to analyze the cumulative effects of wind-energy on wildlife. Data
from studies conducted may be assessed to estimate the relative impact of the
Project on birds and bats compared with other state, regional and national
facilities.
There is a concern that the semi-continuous swath of turbines noted in Section

6.1, along with the possibility of other future wind power projects being sited in
the region, could result in adverse effects to migratory bird populations than
would not result from any individual project. The concern is that as more
projects are constructed, migrating birds lose the ability to migrate unimpeded
from potential risk of collision. This does not seem likely, considering that
migrating birds generally fly at altitudes well above the top of a wind turbine
blade for the size turbines planned for these projects. In general, while each
individual wind project may have some impacts on migratory birds, the total
impact is spread over numerous species so the impact to individual species is
small. For state listed avian species that may be rare, or threatened and
endangered, BP Wind Energy is developing an Article 11 application that

includes avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures designed to reduce
the likelihood of adverse impacts and therefore, the Project is not expected to
significantly contribute to cumulative impacts.
Unlike birds, there is little information available about population sizes of most
bat species, especially the non-hibernating, solitary tree-roosting species that
comprise most of the wind-energy facility related mortality in North America.
The significance of wind energy impacts on these species of bat populations is
difficult to predict, as there is very little information available regarding the
overall population sizes of these bats. However, hoary bat and silver-haired bat,
two of the most commonly impacted species, are widely distributed throughout
North America. Since these species are migratory, it is likely that populations
from surrounding forested ecoregions or from more northern areas (e.g.,
Canada) are affected at the wind-energy facilities in New York during the fall
migration. The population dynamics and geographic extent of these larger
populations would need to be known to assess cumulative impacts. For large
and stable populations, the level of impact is not expected to be significant,
although impacts are likely greater for less stable populations. As with birds, for
listed bat species BP Wind Energy is working closely with the USFWS and
NYSDEC to develop a minimization and mitigation plan designed to reduce the
likelihood of adverse impacts and minimize the Project’s potential contribution
to significant cumulative impacts.
6.8 VISUAL IMPACTS
Construction of one or more wind energy projects in proximity to one another

does have the potential to create cumulative visual impacts. Due to the height of
the proposed turbine structures and the unique nature of their movement, it is
anticipated that the development of other wind projects may have cumulative
visual impacts, both at specific locations as well as for a motorist traveling
through the Town of Cape Vincent.
While viewshed maps were not prepared for the surrounding projects, it is clear
that there will be an overlap of viewsheds. The most immediate will be the
cumulative impact between the St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Projects, as the
two projects will have turbines located as close as ¼ mile apart, as most of the
two projects viewsheds are overlapping in area. At their closest points, the Cape
Vincent Project is approximately 5 miles from both the Wolfe Island and
proposed Horse Creek Wind Farms, so there will be substantial overlap between
the viewsheds of both projects with the Cape Vincent Project. The Cape Vincent
Project is approximately 12 miles from Galloo Island and the Hounsfield Project,
so technically both projects’ areas of visual impact do not overlap, but the open
water between Cape Vincent and Galloo Island will allow visibility of both
projects from some locations on Lake Ontario, particularly at night.
Considering the extended view opportunities within the Rural Agricultural

Landscape Unit covering much of the Town of Cape Vincent, an observer will
likely view multiple turbines of the Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Projects from

numerous locations. Within the Cape Vincent Village Center, structures, street
signs, and trees and other local vegetation will screen most if not all turbines
from view, but at some locations wind turbines from both projects will be
simultaneously visible. Appendix G includes visual simulations from a number
of points which show current baseline conditions, the viewshed alteration due to
construction of the Cape Vincent Project, and the viewshed alteration that would
result from the construction of both the Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Wind
Farms.
While owned and operated by individual entities, the distinction between the
two projects will not be readily apparent to most observers. As a result, the
cumulative effect of complete build-outs of the Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence
Projects will be to create a visual impact that would be the same as if the Cape
Vincent Project were approximately 40% larger. Combined, the St. Lawrence
and Cape Vincent Projects would encompass a majority of the land area of the
Town of Cape Vincent. Views of the turbines would be dominant and
widespread.
Both Projects propose to a shared transmission ROW connecting to a new

common substation in the Town of Lyme. Therefore there is no “cumulative
impact” from this transmission line and substation as they would be necessary if
either project were built without the other.
Due to the presence of existing woodland and hedgerow vegetation, there are
few inland locations within the Town of Cape Vincent where Wolfe Island or the
St. Lawrence River is presently visible. Views of the Wolfe Island Project from
inland agricultural areas in and around the Project site will likely be limited to
glimpses of blade tips above the intervening tree lines at distances of more than
three miles.
Locations in the Village and Town of Cape Vincent along the St. Lawrence River
will directly view the Wolfe Island Project from across the water. In general,
while there will be coastal vantage points from where it will be possible to view
both the Wolfe Island Project and both the St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent
Projects, in all cases the projects are located in opposite directions. It should be
noted that the primary scenic value of the river and lake front properties in Cape
Vincent are due to views focused toward the River, and therefore the Wolfe
Island Project creates a more direct impact on scenic views in the New York
coastal zone than will the Cape Vincent Project.
Similarly, the proposed 82 wind turbines in the Hounsfield Project on Galloo

Island will be visible across the water from locations in Cape Vincent, although
at a distance of 12 or more miles from the Cape Vincent Project, atmospheric and
linear perspective will substantially diminish the clarity of view, often rendering
turbine framework and rotating blades nearly indistinguishable. The presence of
intervening islands and irregular coastline make views from common
intermediate coastal vantage points unlikely. Where such vantage points exist,
views will be in opposite directions.

There will be locations in the five mile buffer between the Horse Creek Wind
Farm and the Cape Vincent Project where both projects will be simultaneously
visible. Turbines from the closer project would be viewed in the foreground and
dominate the scene, and turbines from the more distant project would be viewed
as part of the distant background where impact is significantly diminished.
Long distance views would generally be restricted to elevated, open
(agricultural) areas. In addition, simultaneous views would be in opposite
directions.
Should all five projects discussed be constructed, the area in an approximately

13-mile radius of the town of Cape Vincent would include over 350 utility scale
wind generating turbines each exceeding 390 feet in height. As a result, someone
traveling northward on Route 12E (the Seaway Trail) would have a view of
turbines for virtually the entire route from Brownsville to the Village of Clayton,
with turbines in the immediate foreground as they pass through the Cape
Vincent Project after passing Three Mile Bay. As noted, however, views of Lake
Ontario and the St. Lawrence River from the Seaway Trail will only be impacted
by the offshore Wolfe Island and Hounsfield Wind Power Projects, and no
cumulative impact will result from addition of the Cape Vincent Project to these
coastal views.
For a boat traveling through the area, through Lake Ontario and into the St.
Lawrence River, there will be a cumulative visual impact both during the
daytime and particularly at night. The first project in evidence will be the
Hounsfield Project, which will be visible well down into Mexico Bay to the south
or Prince Edward Bay to the west. A vessel approaching from the south, upward
along the eastern shore of Lake Ontario, will not begin to have a line of sight of
the Cape Vincent Project as it passes Galloo Island, while a vessel approaching
from the west across Lake Ontario will begin to see the Wolfe Island, St.
Lawrence, Hounsfield, and Cape Vincent Wind Power Projects largely at the
same time, with the Wolfe Island, St. Lawrence, and Cape Vincent Projects in
particular, creating the impression of one large expanse of wind turbines broken
only by the 1-mile wide entry to the St. Lawrence River, with the Hounsfield
Project appearing more isolated as a result of a large expanse of land where no
turbine placement will take place (Point Peninsula) and the seven miles of open
water between Galloo Island and Point Peninsula.
Entering the St. Lawrence River, turbines from the Wolfe Island and St.
Lawrence Projects will be visible in the immediate foreground to either side of
the River, with the Cape Vincent Project in the background behind the St.
Lawrence Project. Again, the combined wind power projects will dominate the
visual surroundings on both sides of the channel approximately up to the Village
of Clayton.
Views from the water will be particularly notable at night, as FAA lighting on all
four projects discussed in detail above, and potentially from some Lake Ontario

vantage points even on the Horse Creek Project, will stand out notably against
the otherwise largely sparsely lit agrarian landscape.
Cumulative project visibility does not increase aesthetic impact in a linear

manner. For example, a view of 20 turbines is not twice as significant an impact
as a view of 10 turbines. The first incidence of project visibility on an
undeveloped landscape creates the greatest degree of aesthetic change. Thus,
particularly in the case of the Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Projects, given their
proximity, construction of one of the projects within the agricultural landscape of
the Town of Cape Vincent will change the landscape’s character. Installation of a
second project of a close size within the same viewshed is compatible with the
character with the first project, and will result in a lesser incremental impact on
the aesthetic quality of the land than that of the original development.
Construction of the Wolfe Island Wind Farm has already had a significant
change on the viewshed of vessels in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.
Addition of the Cape Vincent Project will not have much effect on the number of
locations in that portion of Lake Ontario where industrial scale wind turbines are
visible, and in some ways may be considered complimentary to the Wolfe Island
Project in terms of cumulative impact, rather than the additional turbines
representing an adverse impact.
6.9 IMPACTS TO SOUND
As discussed in Section 2.16, sound impacts resulting from operation of the Cape
Vincent Project will not be harmful to residents or visitors. There will, however,
be some places where sound impacts may represent a nuisance, increasing in
proximity to individual turbines.
Functionally, while wind turbine noise may be perceptible at farther distances at

levels slightly over background, from a nuisance perspective, noise levels
approach significant nuisance levels at distances within 1,000 feet of a turbine.
While noise impacts between adjacent turbines is additive, as turbine noise levels
drop well below any nuisance thresholds, the potential for nuisance resulting
from cumulative impacts decreases rapidly with increasing distance between
turbines.
Because of this, there will be no unacceptable cumulative sound-related impacts

from the Cape Vincent Project and either of the more distant Projects –Wolfe
Island, Hounsfield, or Horse Creek. However, in the southwestern portion of the
Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Projects, the proximity of turbines from both
projects will result under specific wind conditions in a few locations which
would otherwise experience maximum sound pressure levels of 45 dB(A) or less,
instead experiencing levels approaching 47 dB(A) (See Figure 6.9-1).

Figure 6.9-1

In general, the predicted cumulative sound levels are expected to be in the order
of 1-2 dBA over that of the Cape Vincent Project alone. As a change of at least 3
dB(A) is normally required before any real difference in sound level begins to be
perceptible, cumulative increases of up to 2 dB(A) are considered minor.
Much of this area with a potential for impacts accumulating from both the Cape
Vincent and St. Lawrence Projects has no residential structures, as a result of the
large marshy wooded area between Rosiere Road and Favret Road, northeast of
12E. However, between 12E and Pleasant Valley Road, southeast of Deer Lick
Road, there are a small number of residences where there may be a discernable
cumulative impact from the turbines of both projects. In no case is this expected
to result in a sound pressure level greater than 45 dB(A) at any residential
structure on a property that is not part of either project; therefore, the cumulative
impact to any individual receptor should not be significantly greater than the
impact from either project operating independently.
6.10 IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY
Construction-related impacts to air quality will be minimal, and an increased

number of construction vehicles which could operate within the common airshed
were the onshore wind projects to be constructed simultaneously would not
cause any significant rise in any measurements of air quality.
On a long term basis, the potential for a combined addition of almost 800 MW of
capacity to generate electrical power without the combustion of fossil fuels
between the five separate projects would represent a substantial net positive air
quality impact, and the four New York projects (almost 600 MW of combined
capacity) would make a major contribution toward the State of New York
meeting its renewable power generation goals.
6.11 IMPACTS TO COMMUNICATIONS AND AVIATION
The FAA analysis of the Cape Vincent Project (See Appendix J) represents a
cumulative impact of the Cape Vincent Project in combination with the St.
Lawrence and Wolfe Island projects. In considering impacts to flight paths and
aviation radar, the FAA maintains a database which includes all local projects,
including those constructed and those already filed for, and will not report a
finding of no impact for a new project which in combination with existing and
planned projects will create an aviation hazard condition.
Telecommunications impacts are specific to the turbines for each project and not
cumulative across the multiple projects.
6.12 IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
If construction schedules for the Hounsfield Wind Farm or Horse Creek Wind
Power Project were to coincide with that of the Cape Vincent Project, it is

unlikely that similar transportation routes will be used because of the location of
these projects relative to the Project.
In the event that both the Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence wind energy projects
are constructed in the same time frame, it is necessary to evaluate which travel
routes may be common to evaluate the cumulative impacts the two projects may
impose on the existing highway infrastructure. Coordination of transportation
routes would be undertaken by the involved project developers to assure that
duration and extent of the project impact is minimized and that road repair
and/or restoration work is accomplished in an appropriate amount of time.
Temporary increases to traffic volumes are expected as a result of the

construction of the Project. There is a possibility of the construction periods for
the Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Projects overlapping, which would result in a
cumulative impact to traffic and local transportation routes in Cape Vincent. The
regional haul routes described in Section 2.22 will not be affected by the addition
of traffic from both projects in combination.
If construction schedules for these two projects overlap and similar local
transportation routes are used, coordination regarding use of proposed
transportation routes would be undertaken by the involved project developers,
NYSDOT, and local highway authorities to assure that the duration and extent of
impact is minimized and that road repair/ restoration work is accomplished at
the appropriate time. Many of the needed local road improvements would be
identical to support both projects, reducing the cumulative impacts below a
simple sum of the impacts from each project.
Road traffic in the Project Area is currently below capacity and traffic conditions
are light. During operation, a limited number of trucks will access all projects in
the area for service and maintenance. As wind projects typically generate very
few trips during their operational periods, no adverse cumulative impact on
traffic or local roads is anticipated to result from simultaneous operation of the
St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Wind Power Projects.
6.13 LAND USE AND RECREATION IMPACTS
Construction and operation of the proposed projects in the Project Area will have
minimal cumulative impacts to land use, as the wind farms are generally
consistent with the land use patterns within the region. Since the projects will be
primarily located on agricultural and fallow land, they are unlikely to impact
nearby residences/hamlets, villages, and recreation areas within each of the
towns.
Impacts to agricultural land would be greatest during construction of the projects

because additional acreage will be required for workspace and movement of
equipment and material. However, as discussed in Section 6.3, overall
construction-related impacts to agricultural lands will be minimal. On a long
term basis, operation of the projects will be compatible with agricultural land use

and could result in a positive benefit because setback requirements for wind
turbines on agricultural land will discourage encroaching non-agricultural uses.
In addition, lease and royalty payments will provide participating farmers a
reliable supplemental source of income which will supplement their earnings
from farming operations on their property and help to improve the ongoing
viability of existing farms.
Recreational land uses within the region should be unaffected by construction of

multiple wind farms in the area.
6.14 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
During construction, if construction schedules for multiple projects overlap, this

could contribute to a local shortage of suitable worker housing. In this event,
mitigation measures such as installation of temporary housing or busing in
workers from more distant communities may be warranted.
In combination, the proposed projects are not expected to result in a cumulative

negative impact on local property values. As noted in Section 2.26.4 of this
SDEIS, in 2009 Hoen et al completed a study based on hedonistic pricing models
of the following factors which could potentially affect real estate values
following wind farm construction:
• Area Stigma - commonly due to industrialization, land use changes leading
to decreases in tourism and second home desirability;
• Scenic Vista Stigma - decreases in quality of scenic vistas from homes; and
• Nuisance & Health Effects – increase in potential health/well being concerns
of nearby residents.
On a cumulative basis, impacts between the Cape Vincent Project and

surrounding wind farms could contribute to an exaggerated Area Stigma,
particularly when as noted earlier in Section 6.8 a motorist on Route 12E will
have a continuous view of wind turbines for virtually the entire route from
Brownsville to the Village of Clayton.
However, Hoen found a lack of statistical evidence that the dominance of the
views of turbines in a region affects the sale prices. Charting housing sales prices
versus reference values over a time period measured from 2 years before
announcement of a wind project up to 4 years following construction, only
homes less than one mile from the closest turbine showed much variability.
These homes, less than one mile from the closest turbine, are the least likely to be
significantly affected by cumulative impacts from multiple projects because their
visual impact will be dominated by the closest project. For homes more likely to
be affected by cumulative impacts of multiple projects (between 3-5 miles, and
outside 5 miles) real estate values varied very little over time compared to their
reference category. This suggests that there is little potential for area stigma of
multiple projects contributing to a decline in housing values.

Construction of the five projects will have cumulative benefits for the regional
economy. The sustained construction will result in the direct creation of a
number of jobs, as well as indirect impacts on the local economy through the
purchases of goods and services supporting local businesses. In addition, local
lease payments to participating landowners will enhance their ability to purchase
additional goods and services, providing another secondary benefit to the local
economy.
Total construction cost for the four U.S. projects is estimated to be greater than $1
billion. Approximately 15 to 18 percent of this total is the expected to be spent
locally. The local share of annual operating and maintenance costs is estimated to
range between $1.8 million and $2.5 million, providing an ongoing economic
benefit to the region. While these figures are not known for the Wolfe Island
Wind Project, direct and indirect project expenditures will result in cumulative
significant economic benefits to the region during construction and operation of
the projects.
The projects will also have a cumulative beneficial impact on municipal budgets
and taxes, as the taxing jurisdictions will receive additional revenues from the
projects in the form of PILOT revenues. This revenue could total over $5 million
per year if all four projects are built, based on the PILOT agreement entered into
by the Galloo Island project recently.
On a long term basis, the potential for a combined addition of almost 600 MW of
capacity to generate electrical power without the combustion of fossil fuels
between the four New York projects will make a major contribution to the State
of New York meeting their renewable power generation goals.
6.15 HEALTH AND SAFETY
Each project will be responsible for maintaining site Security, Emergency

Response, and Health and Safety Plans which will ensure that health and safety
is not adversely affected. While there is always a possibility for occupational
injuries, these will be only related to the construction and operation of each
project individually, and will not represent any cumulative risk to the workforce
or the community.
6.16 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Construction and operation of the Cape Vincent Project is not expected to have
any negative impacts on archeological resources. However, in combination with
the studies being performed to support the Cape Vincent, St. Lawrence, and
Horse Creek Wind Farms, a substantial amount of new surveys are being
performed and data is being collected which will provide a positive benefit for
future researchers studying the archeological history of Jefferson County.
None of the projects being evaluated will have any direct impacts on
architectural resources through demolition of any NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible

buildings. However, operation of any projects in the region will result in visual
impacts on NRHP-listed and eligible properties as discussed in section 2.30. In
addition, there will be NRHP listed properties which will have a visual impact
from multiple wind farms simultaneously (see discussion in Section 2.30.5).
These impacts will be similar in nature to the cumulative visual impacts
discussed in section 6.8. As the SHPO considers the visual impacts to NRHP-
listed and eligible properties, these cumulative impacts will be factored into their
determination of significance of impact and any need for mitigation measures.
The results of this consultation will be included in the FEIS.


7.0 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE USE AND
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
The proposed project will not consume energy, but will instead provide a new
source of clean, renewable electricity to the New York power grid. This increase
in renewable power will aid in reducing the dependency on other electric
generation fuels and enhancing the reliability of the regional energy supply.


8.0 REFERENCES
A. Breisch, NYSDEC, personal communication; G. Johnson, unpublished data.
Adiorndack Council Website Page on Acid Rain found at

http://www.adirondackcouncil.org/acidraininfo3.html
Algermissen, S.T., D.M. Perkins, P.C. Thenhaus, S.L. Hanson, and B.L. Bender.
1982. Probabilistic estimates of maximum acceleration and velocity in
rock in the contiguous United States. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File
Report 82-1033.
Audubon 2004. The Important Bird Areas Historical Results. National Audubon
Society. Available at
http://iba.audubon.org/iba/stateIndex.do?state=US-NY
Audubon Society – Site Profile, Perch River Complex

http://iba.audubon.org/iba/viewSiteProfile.do?siteId=778&navSite=state
AWEA. 2005. American Wind Energy Association. Facts about Wind Energy and
Noise. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WE Noise.pdf.
Accessed January 2007.
Barnes, James D., Miller, Laymon N., Wood, Eric W. 1977. Power Plant
Construction Noise Guide, Empire State Electric Energy Research Corp.,
New York, Albany.
Baerwald, E.F., J. Edworthy, M. Holder, and R.M.R. Barclay. 2009. A large-scale

mitigation experiment to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities.
Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1077-1081.
BCA 2007. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/bca/
Congdon, J.D., D.W. Tinkle, G.L. Breitenbach, and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1983.
Nesting ecology and hatching success in the turtle Emydoidea blandingi.
Herpetolgica 39:417-429.
Congdon, J.D. and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Relationships of reproductive traits
and body size with attainment of sexual maturity in Blanding’s turtles
(Emydoidea blandingii). J. Evol. Biol.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79-31.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Cryan, P. M. And R. M. R. Barclay. 2009. Causes of bat fatalities at wind turbines:

hypotheses and preditctions. J. Mammal, 90:1330-1340.

DeGaetano, A., Bates, T., Davenport, T., Hecklau, J., and H. Walter-Peterson.
2004. Chautauqua Windpower Project: Report on Potential
Microclimatic Impacts to Vineyards. Report prepared for the Towns of
Ripley and Westfield, New York. December 8, 2004.
Driscoll, C.T., Newton, R.M., Gubala, C.P. et al.; Adirondack Mountains; D.F.
Charles, Ed. 1991. Acidic Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems, Regional
Case Studies, Springer-Verlag, New York; pp. 132-202.
Dunn, E.H. and D.J. Agro. 1995. Black Tern (Chlidonias Niger). In A. Poole and
F. Gill (eds.) The Birds of North America, 147. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. and
Amer. Ornith. Union, Washington D.C
Effects Of Wind Turbines On Upland Nesting Birds In Conservation Reserve

Program Grasslands; Krecia L. Leddy,‘V3 Kenneth E Higgins,2,5 And
David E. Naugle1x4, 1999, The Wilson Bulletin.
Elliot, D.L., L.L. Wendell, and G.L. Gower. 1991. An Assessment of Windy Land
Area Wind Energy Potential in the Contiguous United States. Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
EPA. 2007. Green Book: Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All
Criteria Pollutants website.
http://www.epa.gov/airprogm/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html.
Ernst, C. H., R. W. Barbour, and J. E. Lovich. 1994. Turtles of the United States
and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press Washington, D.C.
Feyerick, D. 2000. Acid Rain Still Endangers Adirondacks.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/04/19/acid.rain.adirondacks/
index.html. Accessed January 2007.
Flora of North America. 2007. Flora of North America: Lilium michiganense.

http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=24210173
8. Accessed January 24, 2007.
GE Energy. The Effects of Integrating Wind Power on Transmission System

Planning, Reliability, and Operations; Report on Phase 2: System
Performance Evaluation; March 4, 2005.
Gibbs, James P, et al; 2007, The Amphibians and Reptiles of New York, Oxford
University Press.
Grigsby, Leonard L. 2001. The Electric Power Engineering Handbook. CRC Press.
Guski, Rainer (1999): Personal And Social Variables As Codeterminants Of Noise

Annoyance. Noise and Health 1, 45-56.

Hoen, B., R. Wiser, P. Cappers, M. Thayer, and G. Sethi , 2009. “The Impact of
Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States:
a Muliti-Site Hedonic Analysis” LBNL-2829E. December 2009.
Illinois Wildflowers. 2007. Carolina Cranesbill Geranium carlinianum.

http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/weeds/plants/carolina_cranebill.h
tm. Accessed January 23, 2007.
Installation Mission Growth Community Profile, Ft. Drum NY, November 2009,
found at
http://www.oea.gov/OEAWeb.nsf/55A4C3C3FA792BB3852576C1005D
A8FA/$File/drum_growth.pdf
ISO 9613-2 Acoustics-Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors,

Part2,"A general method of calculation", International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, Dec. 1989.
Jefferson County. 2006. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy: A

“Blueprint” for Local Action. Jefferson County Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy (CDES) Committee.
Jefferson County Job Development Corp. 2006b. Profile of Selected Economic

Characteristics: 2000, Jefferson County, NY.
http:///www.jcjdc.net/quickfacts.asp?mm-7
Jefferson County Job Development Corporation / Jefferson County Industrial

Development Agency / Watertown Industrial Center Local Development
Corporation; Annual Report 2005/2006.
Jefferson County. 2002. Jefferson County Agricultural and Farmland Protection

Plan. Jefferson County Job Development Corp. 2006a. Quick Facts. June
8, 2006. http:///www.jcjdc.net/quickfacts.asp?mm-7.
Jefferson County Job Development Corp. 2006b. Profile of Selected Economic

Characteristics: 2000, Jefferson County, NY.
http:///www.jcjdc.net/quickfacts.asp?mm-7.
Johnsen, J. H., 1971. The limestones (Middle Ordovician) of Jefferson County,

New York. New York State Museum and Science Service Map and Chart
Series Number 13, Albany.
Johnson, G. and T. Crockett. 2006. Distribution, population structure, habitat

relationships and nesting ecology of Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea
blandingii) populations in northern New York: Final Report to
Biodiversity Research Institute.

Johnson, G. D. 2005. A review of bat mortality at wind-energy developments in
the United States. Bat Research News 46:45–49.
Joyal, L.A., M. McCollough, and M.L. Hunter. 2001. Landscape ecology

approaches to wetland conservation: a case study of two turtle species in
southern Maine. Conservation Biology 15:1755-1762.
Kerns, J., W.P. Erickson and E.B. Arnett. 2005. Bat and Bird Fatality at Wind
Energy Facilities 1007 in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Pages 24-95 in
E.B. Arnett, ed. Relationships Between 1008 Bats and Wind Turbines in
Pennsylvania and West Virginia: an Assessment of Bat Fatality 1009
Search Protocols, Patterns of Fatality, and Behavioral Interactions with
Wind Turbines. A Final 1010 Report Submitted to the Bats and Wind
Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International, 1011 Austin, TX.
Available: http://www.batsandwind.org/main.asp?page=products
Kerlinger, P. 2004. Prevention and mitigation of avian impacts at wind power

facilities. Pages 1002 84-85 in Proceedings of the Wind Energy and
Birds/Bats Workshop: Understanding and 1003 Resolving Bird and Bat
Impacts. Washington, D.C. May 18-19, 2004. Prepared by 1004 RESOLVE,
Inc., Washington, D.C., Susan Savitt Schwartz, editor.
Kofron, C.P. and A.A. Schreiber. 1985. Ecology of two endangered aquatic turtles
in Missouri: Kinosternon flavescens and Emydoidea blandingii. J.
Herpetol. 19(1):27-40.
Kiviat, E., G. Stevens, R. Brauman, S. Hoeger, P.J. Petokas & G.G. Hollands. 2000.
Restoration of wetland and upland habitat for Blanding’s turtle.
Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(4):650-657.
Kiviat, E. 1997. Blanding’s turtle habitat requirements and implications for

conservation in Dutchess County, New York. P. 377-382 in J. Van
Abbema, ed. Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of
Tortoises and Turtles, an International Conference. New York Turtle and
Tortoise Society.
Kiviat, E. 1993. A tale of two turtles; Conservation of the Blanding’s turtle and
bog turtle. News from Hudsonia 9(3):1-6.
Kunz, T. H., et al. 2007a. Assessing impacts of wind-energy development on

nocturnally active birds and bats: a guidance document. Journal of
Wildlife Management 71:2449–2486.
Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, A.R. Hoar, G.D. Johnson, R.P. Larkin.
M.D. Strickland, R.W. Thresher, and M.D. Tuttle. 2007b. Ecological
impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs
and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(6): 315-324.

Linck, M.H., J.A. DePari, B.O. Butler, and T.E. Graham. 1989. Nesting behavior of
the turtle, Emydoidea blandingi, in Massachusetts. Journal of
Herpetology 23:442-444.
Mabey, S., and E. Paul. 2007. Critical literature review: impact of wind energy
and related 1068 human activities on grassland and shrub-steppe birds.
The National Wind Coordinating 1069 Collaborative, RESOLVE Inc.,
Washington, DC.
McCullough, R. NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources-

Region 6. Personal communication with Jason Willey (ERM) January 29,
2007.
Morgan, C., Bossanyi, E., Seifert, H., Assessment Of Safety Risks Arising From
Wind Turbine Icing, 1998 Part of “Wind Energy in Cold Climates”
developed under contract with UK Department of Trade and Industry.
National Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey for Jefferson County New
York.
New York State Ambient Air Quality Report for 2009,

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8536.html
New York Department of Taxation and Finance, Tax Mapping in New York
State, http://www.orps.state.ny.us/gis/taxmap/index.htm
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. 2007.

http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/AP/agservices/agdistricts.html.
NYASS. 2007. Jefferson County Farm Statistics. New York Agricultural Statistics
Service. www.nass.usda.gov/ny.
NYNHP. 2007. Consultation Response Letter, New York Natural Heritage

Program. January 18, 2007.
NYNHP. 2006a. New York Natural Heritage Program Conservation Guidance:

Awned Sedge. June 6, 2006. http://www.nynhp.org/
NYNHP. 2006c. New York Natural Heritage Program Conservation Guidance:

Silver Maple-Ash Swamp. August 10, 2006. http://www.nynhp.org/
NYNHP. 2006d. New York Natural Heritage Program Conservation Guidance:

Limestone Woodland. August 10, 2006. http://www.nynhp.org/
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM), Guidelines

for Agricultural Mitigation for Wind Power Projects.

NYSDEC. 2007b. Lake Sturgeon Fact Sheet.
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/wetbsite/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/lakestu
r.html. Accessed January 24, 2007.
NYSDEC. 2007c. State Wildlife Management Area List.

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wma/wmalist.htm.
Accessed January 29, 2007.
NYSDEC 30 Year Trends In Water Quality Of Rivers And Streams In New York
State, Based On Macroinvertebrate Data 1972-2002, Stream Biomonitoring.
NYSDEC. 2001. Program Policy: Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. DEP-
00-1- Division of Environmental Permits, Albany, New York. Issued
October 6, 2000; revised February 2, 2001.
NYSDEC, July 31, 2000, Program Policy Assessing and Mitigating Visual
Impacts, (DEP 00-2) NYSDEC, Albany, NY.
NYSDEC, 2004. Waterbody Inventory for Eastern Lake Ontario (Chaumont-

Perch) Watershed.
NYSDOS. 2007c. Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Rating Form: Grenadier
Island. New York State Department of State.
http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/waterfront_natural_narratives.asp.
NYSDOS. 2007d. Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Rating Form: Point
Peninsula. New York State Department of State.
http://www.nyswaterfronts.com/waterfront_natural_narratives.asp.
NYSDOT 1988. Engineering Instruction (EI) 88-43 – Visual Assessment.

NYSDOT. Albany, NY.
NYSDPS. 2004. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Case 03-E-

0188 – Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Regarding Retail
Renewable Portfolio Standard.
NYSERDA, 2006-2007 Annual Report.
NYSERDA Main Tier RPS Economic Benefits Report, Prepared by: KEMA Inc.
and Economic Development Research Group, Inc., November 14, 2008
NYISO Integration of Wind Into System Dispatch; October 2008.

New York State Office for Technology. 2004. Geologic Resources, Appendix A.
https://www.oft.state.ny.us/SWNdocs/docs/Geologic%20Resources.pdf
NY Times. Series on Water Quality in the US, found on 12/16/2010 at

http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/ny/jefferson
Nicholson, C.P. 2003. Buffalo Mountain Windfarm Bird and Bat Mortality
Monitoring Report: October 2001 - September 2002. Tennessee Valley
Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. February 2003.
O’Shea, T. J., M. A. Bogan, and L. E. Ellison. 2003. Monitoring trends in bat

populations of the United States and territories: status of the science and
recommendations for the future. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(1):16-29.
Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22 Queen’s Printer

and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 2004.
Reischke, Carol. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York
Natural Heritage Program. March 1990.
Petokas, P.J. and M.M. Alexander. 1980. Geographic distribution: Emydoidea

blandingii. Herpetol.Rev.11:14.
Piepgras, S. A., and J. W. Lang. 2000. Spatial ecology of Blanding's Turtle in

central Minnesota. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(4):589-601.
Polisky, Lester E. Post Digital Television Transition -The Evaluation and

Mitigation Methods for Off-Air Digital Television Reception in-and-
around Wind Energy Facilities, COMSEARCH.
Ross, D. A., and R. K. Anderson. 1990. Habitat use, movements, and nesting of
Emydoidea blandingi in central Wisconsin. Journal of Herpetology 24:6-
12.
Roy S.B., Pacala S.W., and R.L. Walko. 2004. Can Large Wind Turbines Affect
Local Meteorology? Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D190101,
American Geophysical Union.
RSG. 2003. Resource Systems Group, Inc.: Air Emissions Reductions Analysis
for the Proposed Flat Rock Wind Power Project. Prepared for Atlantic
Renewable Energy Corporation. October 31, 2003.
Russell L. Wheeler, Nathan K. Trevor, Arthur C. Tarr, and Anthony J. Crone.

2001. Earthquakes of the northeastern United States and adjacent
Canada, 1638-1998, published by the USGS.
San Martin, R. 1989. Environmental Emissions from Energy Technology Systems:

The Total Fuel Cycle. U.S. Department of Energy, spring 1989.

Simonin, H. 1998. The Continuing Saga of Acid Rain. The Conservationist. Wild
in New York.
SSURGO. 2006. NRCS Soil Survey Geographic data.
Stoilkov, Vlatko, 2008. The Emc/Emf Intrusion Assessment Of Wind Generators,

The Second Symposium on Applied Electromagnetics & PTZE, Zamosc,
Poland, June 1–4, 2008.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation website,

http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/pdf/tonnage2010_en.pdf
accessed on January 12, 2011.
Tidhar, D., C. Nations, and D.P. Young. 2010. What Have We Learned from Pre-
Construction Radar Studies? Presented at the National Wind
Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) Wind Wildlife Research Meeting
VIII, October 19-21, 2010. Lakewood, Colorado.
Tiner, R.W., H. C. Bergquist, G. P. DeAlessio, and M. J. Starr. 2002.

Geographically Isolated Wetlands: A Preliminary Assessment of their
Characteristics and Status in Selected Areas of the United States. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region,
Hadley, MA.
http://www.fws.gov/nwi/Pubs_Reports/isolated/report_files/2_sectio
n/overview.htm. Accessed January 24, 2007.
Town of Cape Vincent. 1998. Zoning Law, 1989. As amended 1998.
Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org
USACE 2009. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland

Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (October, 2009),
ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-09-19.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S Census Bureau. 2000b. General Housing Characteristics: 2000. Census 2000
Summary File 1 (SF1).
USDA, 2007. USDA Forest Service Celebrating Wildflowers: Cypripedium

arietinum.
http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/beauty/cypripedium/cypripedium_
arietinum.shtml. January 12, 2007.
USDA, National Forest Service, 1995. LandscapeAesthetics – A Handbook for

Scenery Management. Agricultural Handbook No. 701. Washington, D.C.

USDA. 1989. Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Jefferson County,
Washington, DC.
USDA National Forest Service. 1974. Forest Service Landscape Management: The
Visual Management System, Handbook #462, Vol.2.
USDOE-Energy Information Administration, AEO 2011 Early Release Overview.
USDOE Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data System 2008,

Released: June 30, 2010.
USDOE. 1997. Total U.S. Consumption for 1996 is estimated at 3.2 trillion kWh.
Annual Energy Review 1996. United States Department of Energy:
Energy Information Administration, July 1997.
USDOI, Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Visual Resource Management

Program. U.S. Government Printing Office 1980 0-302-993. Washington,
D.C.
USDOT, Federal Highway Administration, 1981. Visual Impact Assessment for

Highway Projects. Office of Environmental Policy. Washington, D.C.
Microsoft Streets and Trips (11.00.18.1900), Microsoft Corporation, 1988-
2003 NPS. 2003. National Natural Landmarks. New York State. National
Park Service website:
http://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/Registry/USA_Map/States/NewYork
/new_york.htm
USEPA, Waterbody History Report for NY-0303-0011,

http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_wb_history.control?p_listed_water
_id=NY-0303-0011&p_cycle=2008
USEPA. 2007. Green Book: Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All
Criteria Pollutants website.
http://www.epa.gov/airprogm/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html.
USEPA, March 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to

Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety,
EPA 550/9-74-004.
USFWS. 2002. National Wetlands Inventory: A Strategy for the 21st Century.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. January 2002.
USGS. 2002. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program - New York

Earthquake Information. United States Geological Survey.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states.php?regionID=32&region=
New%20York.

USGS, Seismic-Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States, Map 2883,
Sheet 1 of 6, Version 1.0
USGS Water Use in the United States, County-Level Data for 2005
http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/
WEST. 2007. Draft Avian and Bat Studies for the Proposed Cape Vincent Wind
Project, Jefferson County, New York – Interim Spring Report. Wyoming.
January 23, 2007.
World Health Organization, Geneva. 1999. WHO Guidelines For Community

Noise.
Wikipedia. 2006. Lyme, New York.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme,_New_York. 5/29/06.
Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects, An Expert Panel Review - Prepared for:
American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy
Association, December 2009.
Wood, M., 2004, personal communication from Wood (Dawes Rigging and Crane
Rental, Milwaukee, Wisc.) to F. Monette (Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, Ill.), May 4, cited in Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy
Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States,
US Department of Interior, June 2005.
Young, et al 2007. (complete citation not found – see 2.11.3)


BP SDEIS Feb 2011 Part 3 of 3 Cape Vincent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BP SDEIS Feb 2011 Part 3 of 3 Cape Vincent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Figure 2.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 183 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 184 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 185 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 186 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 187 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 188 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

It is possible that someone standing directly beneath an operating turbine might

120Guski,Rainer (1999): Personal And Social Variables As Codeterminants Of Noise Annoyance.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 189 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 190 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

Wind Maximum Turbine Induced Sound Pressure Measured Background

TABLE 2.16-5: Predicted Attenuation from Residential Building Walls/Windows

Organization/Agency Attenuation with Attenuation with

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 191 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

Relying on the more conservative DEC attenuation factor of 15 dB(A) for

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 192 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

2.16.4 Proposed Mitigation

Substation Operational Noise

Turbine Operational Noise

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 193 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

10m Wind Sound Power Level at Given Wind Speed in dB(A)

Post-Construction Dispute Resolution

2.17 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maintains and monitors

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 194 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

2.17.2 Air Quality

The Project site is located immediately upwind of NYSDEC Region 7; therefore,

Pollutants website. http://www.epa.gov/airprogm/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html. Accessed

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 195 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

2.17.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2.18 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY: IMPACTS

The operation of this Project is anticipated to have a positive impact on air

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 196 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

The region is subject to emissions transported from fossil-fuel burning sources.

A recent preliminary modeling study conducted by Roy, et al (2004)132 suggests

130 NYSDPS. 2004.

Meteorology? Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D190101, American Geophysical Union.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 197 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

During the environmental review process for a project in Chautauqua County,

Based on Degaetano, et al (2004), it is therefore concluded that the operation of

Cycle. U.S. Department of Energy, spring 1989.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 198 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

2.18.3 Proposed Mitigation

137 NYSDPS. 2004.

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 199 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

2.19 COMMUNICATION SIGNAL FAA OBSTRUCTION STUDY: METHODOLOGY

Microwave and TV/Radio Transmission Search

Microwave path data were overlaid on topographic basemaps, and 3 microwave

The results of the Comsearch study is included as Appendix I.

In addition to microwave pathways, FAA databases were consulted in order to

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 200 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

Chaumont Bay Proposed Project Boundary

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 202 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

FAA Obstruction Analysis

2.20 COMMUNICATION SIGNAL STUDY: IMPACTS

2.20.1 Types of Potential Impacts

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 203 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

Obstruction or diffraction occurs when the wind turbine partially or totally

Scattering occurs as the consequence of the reflection of waves from an object

ERM-Southwest, Inc. 204 BP\0092352\A4363 SDEIS Feb 2011.doc

With digital transmissions, television signal will still be attenuated by the

The nearest TV transmission tower is located approximately 10.5 miles to the