Hounsfield Wind FEIS Appendix A Public Comments

Appendix A
Public Comments
From: Stephen Tomasik

To:
Jerry & Linda Allen
Date: 3/9/2009 2:37 PM
Subject:
Re: Hounsfield Wind Farm
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed Hounsfield Wind Farm. The New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will consider your
comments during our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and
permit applications related to this project.
Stephen Tomasik
Environmental Analyst 2
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Permits
625 Broadway - 4th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-1750
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
From: " Jerry & Linda Allen" <allenscamp@verizon.net>

To:
<smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us>
Date: 3/6/2009 11:02 PM
As a long term resident of the town of Hounsfield,I am thrilled to think the wind farm is
being built on Galoo Island.Not only will it begin the long overdue change to nonpoluting power,but it will also help with the taxes in our township where we own
property.There are no negatives that we can see.The fishing will still be good(thanks to
the cormorant control program),andbthe boating will not be affected.Both my wife Linda
and I urge you to approve this project as soon as reasonably possible.Our property is
located on Bedford Creek,and we are the former owners of Allens Campground and
Marina.We have lived in the area for 25 years.......Gerald K. Allen
From: Ken Kogut

To: bbayer@cscos.com
CC: Mark Craig; Richard McDonald; Stephen Tomasik
Date: 3/30/2009 10:31 AM
Subject:
Freshwater Wetlands Mapping on Gallo
Bryan,
Steve Tomasik asked that I respond directly to your question regarding wetlands mapping
on Galloo Island.
The overall wetland mapping and boundary delineation has met Department standards
and will not require additional field verification by Department staff.
However, it does appear that you are mixing DEC regulated wetlands and wetlands
regulated by the ACOE and showing then as one and the same. For permitting purposes
it will be necessary for you to separate these two jurisdictions from each other.
Ken
Kenneth L. Kogut
Natural Resources Supervisor
NYSDEC Region 6
317 Washington Street
Watertown, New York 13601-3787
Telephone: (315) 785-2261
FAX:
(315) 785-2242
Cellphone: (315) 783-1635
Email:
kxkogut@gw.dec.state.ny.us

To: Mike Contino
Date: 3/16/2009 4:35 PM
Subject:
Re: Galloo Draft EIS Comments
Stephen Tomasik
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
>>> Mike Contino <mjcontino@yahoo.com> 3/12/2009 6:14 PM >>>

Dear Mr. Tomasik:
The Galloo Island wind project will change the character of the Henderson area forever.
You will be able to see the wind towers from Henderson and from whole eastern end of
Lake Ontario. This will ruin the sunsets and views of the lake which is what makes this
area so beautiful. Most of the value of our property is on the water, not inland. We will
have to look at towers and blinking lights at night and towers during the day. Also, there
will be ugly power lines running across our beautiful agricultural fields. This will
degrade our area. Few dollars from the wind project will stay to benefit our local
community. These projects are highly subsidized by our tax dollars while people from
outside the area are raking in the profits.
After the power lines ruin many of our open agricultural fields, more wind farms will be
built along the power line corridor exacerbating the degradation of the area. The local
Towns are ill-equipped to regulate these large projects and will be taken advantage of.
Many local politicians own much of the land and will be the ones to profit and therefor
will be easily swayed to say yes. Some people will profit from the towers and others will
just have to look at them every day.
How safe will the power line be under the lake? The bottom of the lake between the
Handerson shore and Galloo Island has many rocky shoals that must be traversed. It is
not flat. That is why the fishing is so good. There are many places such as the Tug Hill
that have low value property where wind towers are more appropriate. Galloo Island,
The Thousand Island area and the eastern shore of Lake Ontario is not an appropriate
area for hundreds of wind farms. If they build the Galloo Island wind farm, more are
sure to follow along the power line corridor. This project is bad for our area.
Mike Contino
Henderson, NY
March 18, 2009

Mr. Stephen M. Tomasik
Project Manager
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway, 4th Floor
Albany, NY12233-1750
Subject: Galloo Island Wind Farm DEIS
Dear Mr. Tomasik,
I wish to take this opportunity to comment on the subject Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). I feel the overriding omission in this DEIS, is its failure to adequately
assess the scarce natural resource, visual and open space impacts of the proposed wind
farm development.
Galloo Island has long been recognized by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation as a scarce Lake Ontario island in need of protection and
open space preservation. Lake Ontario islands are considered critical natural resources
largely due to their lake wide scarcity. A number of years ago the State gained limited
public access to the island when it acquired the former Galloo Island Coast Guard station.
The State in recent years has attempted to purchase the entire island.
Galloo Island has long been listed as a priority protection project in the New York State
Open Space Plan, including the latest 2006 Plan version and the new draft plan currently
being developed.
The DEIS needs to evaluate the environmental impact of converting this scarce and
undeveloped island to an industrial site. Not only does the DEIS inadequately address the
local environmental impact, it fails to assess the impact from a lake wide, state wide and
multi-state perspective. In addition, such assessment should also include an evaluation of
alternative New York wind farm locations suitable for such development without having
to sacrifice such an important Lake Ontario island resource.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Brown
P.O. Box 37
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
Cc: Commissioner Pete Grannis
Region 6 Director Ms. Judy Drabicki
From: Lawrence Ambeau

To: Tomasik, Stephen
CC: Contino, Michael; Kogut, Ken
Date: 3/27/2009 2:53 PM
Subject:
Fwd: Galloo Island Wind Project (DEIS Comments)
Attachments: Document.pdf
Steve,
R6 Real Property Supervisor just sent me the attached concerning DEC property on
Galloo Island. It is relevant to the wind project being proposed for Galloo. Please include
it as a comment to the DEIS review.
Larry
>>> Michael Contino 3/27/2009 2:05 PM >>>
Larry:
FYI.
Just wanted you to know that there is a reversionary clause in the State's deed from the
United States of America to NYSDEC (1234/283). This deed states that the property is
to be continuously used by NYS only as and for the conservation of wildlife, other than
migratory birds, and are conveyed upon the conditions that in the event they are no longer
used for such purposes, or in the event they are used for any purpose that is not
compatible with the use and maintenance of the property as and for conservation of
wildlife, the title shall automatically and immediately revert to the United States, etc.
Any uses of the DEC lands on Galloo Island for the wind project would not be for
wildlife conservation purposes and therefore would probably not be allowed.
See attached letter to Steve Litwhiler from a former owner (Galloo Island Corp.) of the
proposed site for the wind project dated August 4, 1999. Also attached is the first page
of the conveyance from USA to DEC in 1990.
Mike
Michael J. Contino
Real Property Supervisor, Region 6
317 Washington Street, 5th Floor
Watertown, New York 13601-3787
Phone: (315) 785 - 2271
Fax: (315) 785 - 2242
Do not print this e-mail.

To: mikeyg gorman
Date: 5/11/2009 3:53 PM
Subject:
Re: Hounsfield Wind Farm
Stephen Tomasik
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
>>> mikeyg gorman <mgvator3@hotmail.com> 4/2/2009 12:55 PM >>>
No to wind farm it is not needed.
MikeyG
EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD
Join me
In The Matter Of:

Houndsfield WindFarm Project
Public Hearing
May 18, 2009
Original File 5183PH.V1
Min-U-Script with Word Index
TOWN OF HOUNDSFIELD:
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
-----------------------------------------------------X
4
5
6
In the Matter of:

HOUNDSFIELD WINDFARM PROJECT
7
8
9
-----------------------------------------------------X
10
11
SPEAKERS:
12
JACK A. NASCA
STEPHEN M. TOMASIK
RICK GREINER
13
14
HELD AT:
TOWN OF HOUNDSFIELD
411 W. Washington Street
SACKETS HARBOR, New York 13685
MAY 18, 2009
7:00 p.m.
REPORTED BY:
DIANA M. YAUCHLER
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SPEAKERS:
2
3
4
STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
JACK A. NASCA
5
6
7
STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
STEPHEN M. TOMASIK
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BABCOCK & BROWN

1600 Smith Street, Suite 4025
Houston, TX 77002
RICK GREINER
MR. NASCA:
Good evening, everyone.
I would
like to get started with tonight's hearing.
I'm Jack Nasca and I'm with the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, the
Division of Environmental Permits and Chief of
Energy Projects and Management.
We are here tonight to hold a Public
Hearing to accept public comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
10
Houndsfield Wind Project, which is located --
11
or will be located on Galloo Island.
12
A notice that an Environmental Impact
13
Statement was prepared and accepted as complete
14
and available for public review, and that a
15
public hearing will be held on May 18, 2009 at
16
3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. appeared in the March
17
4, 2009 issue of the Department's Environmental
18
Notice Bulletin.
19
the Environmental Notice Bulletin on May 13,
20
2009.
21
Watertown Daily Times on May 4, 2009.
22
A second notice appeared in
Notice was also published in the
This is the second session to accept
23
public comments today; an earlier session was
24
held at 3:00 p.m..
25
equal weight, so you didn't need to be at the
Both sessions are given
3:00 in order to participate at 7:00.
the sessions are individual and you can
participate at one or both.
Each of
What we are going to do tonight is have a
couple of presentations, which will then be
followed by a short question and answer
session.
comments for the public record.
off will be Steve Tomasik.
Then, we will actually accept

Starting us
He is a project
10
manager for the Houndsfield Windfarm.
11
member of my staff and tonight he will talk a
12
little about the purpose of today's meeting,
13
and he will provide a brief overview of the
14
environmental review process.
15
let you know where we are in the process and
16
what opportunities are available as we go
17
forward in terms of public participation in the
18
Environmental Impact Statement and the
19
environmental permitting.
20
followed by a presentation by Rick Greiner, who
21
will be giving us a brief overview of the
22
proposed Houndsfield Wind Project.
23
He is a
Also, he will
That will be
What I would like to do now is turn it
24
over to Steve and he will give us a brief
25
presentation on the process.
MR. TOMASIK:
Thank you, Jack.
What I'm
going to do is briefly cover the information
that is included on the handout.
you did not pick up a copy of the handout,
raise your hand and someone will bring it to
you.
If any one of
Essentially, Jack went over the agenda for
tonight's meeting, just a few very short
presentations just to describe where we are in
10
the process and what it means to be involved in
11
the process, and accept comments from those of
12
you who wish to speak.
13
Let me quickly go down to the bottom of
14
the front page.
15
spoken comments tonight, please go to the table
16
and fill out a card so that we can have a
17
record of it.
18
showing the cards.
19
If anyone does wish to make
Mr. Stephen Litwhiler here is
Essentially, this meeting is part of the
20
State Environmental Quality and Review process,
21
and that is SEQR, which is kind of shorthand
22
for that.
23
regulations that require consideration of
24
environmental issues to be included in the
25
planning and decision process of state and
The purpose of SEQR is state
1
2
local agencies.
So any state or local agency that will
have any type of authorization to approve all
or part of this project is subject to SEQR.
For example, the DEC is likely to have permit
applications that will deal with - if you look
at this map (indicating) - wetlands, water
protection around the island, we understand
that there is some type of housing facility
10
that would require waist water discharge in the
11
lake, that would all be subject to DEC permits.
12
Because we are an agency that needs to
13
issue a permit for this project, under SEQR, we
14
are what is called an involved agency.
15
agency, state or local, that has to issue some
16
kind of approval to make this project happen is
17
an involved agency under SEQR.
18
process needs to be completed in its entirety
19
before any of those agencies are allowed to
20
make a final decision on any of the approvals.
21
So any
The SEQR
So there are several steps in the SEQR
22
process and I quickly want to go through, not
23
to bore you, but to show you where we have been
24
and where we are.
25
was established as the lead agency under the
Back in March of '08, DEC
SEQR process.
took on the role of being the agency that
conducts the environmental review under SEQR on
behalf of all of the involved agencies that are
involved in the project.
Essentially, that means that we
On May 21st, we issued what is called a
positive declaration, a term under SEQR.
An
Environmental Impact Statement is required for
this project and also we issued the draft scope
10
of the EIS.
11
for the outline.
12
process, the applicant prepares the scope, the
13
outline, and we make it available for public
14
review and comment before it becomes a final
15
scope. Then, on May 21, '08, that was noted in
16
our Environmental Notice Bulletin.
17
The scope is simply another word

So what happens in that
In June of last year, we were here in the
18
same building, and we had a scoping meeting.
19
We invited comments from the public on this
20
draft scope.
21
the final scope for the Draft EIS, and that,
22
again, was noticed in the ENB.
23
September of last year and March 1st of this
24
year, the applicant was charged with preparing
25
the Draft EIS according to the scope that was
Then, September of '08, we issued
Between
prepared in September.
DEC, as lead agency, accepted the Draft EIS as
acceptable for public review.
document that has been made available to the
libraries in the area, and also available on
our website.
minute.
On February 27th, the
That is the
I will go through that in a
Tonight's meeting is part of the public
comment period for the Draft EIS, and with the
10
issuance of every Draft EIS, it is required to
11
have a public comment period.
12
expand the comment period beyond what was
13
required, and the deadline of May 29th was
14
accepted for the deadline of comments on EIS,
15
and that meeting is part of the final comment
16
meeting, to have a chance to speak the
17
comments, if you wish to do so, as well,
18
instead of making them available in writing.
19
DEC chose to
Tonight's meeting is meant for you to give
20
us oral comments, or you can provide written
21
comments to us anytime prior to the close of
22
business on May 29th.
23
whether you speak here tonight or send in
24
written comments, all of the comments are
25
treated equally and we will consider all of
I should remind you that
1
2
them.
After the close of the comment period on
May 29th, we will go back, we will look at the
comments we received and we will then, the DEC,
prepare what is called a Final EIS.
statement is what the DEC decides to include in
the statement as comments were received and
certain changes were made in order to prepare a
final product.
10
The final
Part of the Final EIS includes responses
11
to the comments that are made during the public
12
comment period.
13
that date is, because that is -- you know, that
14
takes as much time as necessary to do so.
15
happens after that is that once a Final EIS is
16
prepared and accepted by DEC -- or issued by
17
DEC, I should say, ten days after that day,
18
every involved agency, and if you remember I
19
said an involved agency is any state or local
20
agency that has authorization to issue approval
21
over the project, ten days after the FEIS is
22
completed, each involved agency is then allowed
23
to issue what are called findings.
24
25
Of course, we don't know what
What
Findings are a reasoned statement made by

the involved agency to support its decision
10
regarding its approval of the project.
based on SEQR, every involved agency, including
DEC, will essentially analyze the data that is
in the FEIS and determine whether or not those
data support approval or rejection of that
particular decision on the part of that agency.
That is published as part of the SEQR record.
That agency is then free to act on whatever
approval authorizations they have.
10
So,
I think we have all said if you need to
11
speak today there are cards available.
If
12
after tonight you want to comment in writing, I
13
have contact information on the top of the
14
second page and business cards here if anyone
15
wants to pick one up later.
16
want to speak tonight or even if you don't want
17
to submit the comments, if you want to stay
18
informed of the process as it moves along, make
19
sure that you include your name and address,
20
mailing address, on the sign-in sheet, and we
21
will include your name on all subsequent
22
mailings that go out from the action so that
23
you don't necessarily have to read about it in
24
the paper or look for notices; we will have
25
them sent right to the home address.
Even if you don't
11
The DEIS and all other documents that I
mentioned earlier, the draft scope, final
scope, reside in the two town libraries,
Henderson and Houndsfield, also the Town of
Houndsfield Town Clerk's office.
as well, are located at DEC website, at the web
address.
listed there.
All records,
Upstate New York Power website is
That is really all there is to tonight's
10
meeting, however, I do want to note that in
11
addition to the DEIS or the Galloo Island Wind
12
Generation Project, there is a separate but
13
also necessary component of the project, which
14
involves the transmission line from the island
15
under the -- through underwater cables under
16
the lake and mainland portion of the
17
transmission line that extends to the Town of
18
Mexico.
19
Because of conflicting state law or just
20
the way the state law is written, the
21
environmental review and the permitting
22
authorization for the transmission line of this
23
project is separate from the DEC jurisdiction
24
and involvement and is instead handled solely
25
by the New York State Department of Public
12
Services, also known as Public Service
Commission, and I included information on where
you can access documents related to that
process, even though it's not necessarily part
of the discussion here tonight.
want to know more about that process and where
it is, how to get involved with that, there is
a web address here, as well.
But if you
We have limited copies of the State
10
Department Public Services information booklets
11
on transmission lines and how they review those
12
up here, so if you want to pick one up later,
13
you can do that.
14
Finally, I want to point out that even
15
though we are in the middle of the SEQR process
16
and accepting public comments on the DEIS right
17
now, we will also soon expect to be receiving
18
permit applications for the various permits I
19
mentioned earlier from the applicant, likely
20
wetlands, water protection, waist water
21
discharge.
22
reviewed by DEC under the Uniform SEQR Act,
23
another acronym that you don't need to
24
remember, but it is a separate parallel
25
process, and there is a particular milestone in
Those permits applications are
13
the permit application review process called
the complete application.
Once we determine that the applications
that are submitted to us are complete, that
kicks off another public comment process.
in addition to the public comment period that
exists now for the DEIS, there will also be
another comment period for the applications
once they are received by the agency, and that
10
time frame hasn't been established yet, but we
11
will have you on the list and you will be
12
notified of when that occurs and have another
13
opportunity for comments on the project.
14
With that, I won't say anymore.
So,
I have
15
done enough.
16
who will talk to you a little bit more about
17
the project and what they hope to accomplish.
18
I will introduce Rick Greiner,
MR. GREINER:
My name is Rick Greiner, I'm
19
the manager for Babcock & Brown and the
20
Houndsfield Wind Project, and I will give you a
21
few details on the windfarm.
22
contained in the handout so you will have a
23
copy to take with you, but the plan is to
24
install approximately 84 wind turbines on the
25
island, and right now we are looking at 3.0
It's also
14
Megawatt turbine models, and it is expected to
generate about 252 Megawatts of power, and
power approximately 93,400 homes.
There are a variety of infrastructures
that we will have to build on the island in
order to install the turbines, and that will
include temporary and permanent housing.
Temporary housing would be for workers to build
the permanent housing and for the
10
infrastructures for the construction workers.
11
We will also develop a dock to bring in large
12
equipment and raw materials, and we will have
13
support infrastructures, such as a heliport,
14
and waist water treatment equipment.
15
see.
16
roads both for construction and operation,
17
long-term operation, and electrical collection
18
systems that will both be underground and above
19
ground on the island.
20
Let me
Then, in addition, we will build service
The entire project, also as Steve
21
mentioned, will consist of approximately eight
22
miles of underwater transmission cable under
23
the lake to Henderson and about a 40 mile
24
transmission line down through the substation
25
in Mexico, New York.
15
The farm is proposed to provide
approximately $2 millon in annual payments to
Town of Houndsfield, Jefferson County and
Sackets Harbor Central School District, and the
project will employ approximately 24 people on
a full-time basis, and will have approximately
200 workers during the construction phase.
That's all I have for you.
MR. NASCA:
What we are going to do now is
10
close the record to allow for some informal
11
question and answer as a way of hopefully
12
providing you with some information.
13
not be part of the formal record, but we want
14
to offer this to you, because you may have some
15
questions based upon Steve's presentation or
16
Rick's presentation that we do want to try to
17
answer.
18
This will
Once we have completed the question and
19
answer portion, then we will reopen the record,
20
and if anyone does want to make a statement,
21
official statement, for the record, we will
22
accept those statements then.
23
Thank you.
We will go off the record.
24
(Off the record.)
25
MR. NASCA:
Well, I guess we will go back
16
on the record and allow anyone if they would
like to make a statement -- Steve said we have
no one who indicated they would like to make a
statement for the record.
reconsider?
6
7
8
9
Okay.
Does anyone want to
If not, we will make a few last
remarks and close the hearing.

I would like to thank you for coming out
tonight.
It is interesting to be here and I'm
10
glad to see there is so much interest in the
11
project that you did come out and at least hear
12
our presentations.
13
comments you would like to submit, you can
14
submit them by May 29, 2009, and you should
15
submit those comments to Steve Tomasik, and you
16
have the contact information on the handout
17
sheet.
18
If you do have any written
Following the hearing, we will be around
19
and the representatives from Babcock & Brown
20
will be around, so if you would like to ask
21
questions on a one-on-one basis; we also have
22
our friends from the Department of Public
23
Services here who could respond to any
24
questions if you have them about the
25
transmission lines.
If you have questions
17
about the interaction between the windfarm and
transmission lines, we will be glad to tackle
those.
Thank you very much for coming out tonight
and we look forward to seeing you in the
future.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you.
(Public Hearing is closed.)
18
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3
I, DIANA YAUCHLER, Court Reporter and
Notary Public in and for the State of New York,
that I attended the foregoing proceedings, took
stenographic notes of the same, that the
foregoing, is a true and correct copy of the
same and the whole thereof, to the best of my
ability.
10
11
12
13
14
15
_______________________________
16
DIANA YAUCHLER, Notary Public
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Public Hearing
$
$2 (1)
15:2
0
08 (2)
7:15,20
1
1st (1)
7:23
2
200 (1)
15:7
2009 (1)
16:14
21 (1)
7:15
21st (1)
7:6
24 (1)
15:5
252 (1)
14:2
27th (1)
8:1
29 (1)
16:14
29th (3)
8:13,22;9:3
3
3.0 (1)
13:25
4
40 (1)
14:23
8
84 (1)
13:24
9
93,400 (1)
14:3
A
above (1)
14:18
accept (1)
15:22
Min-U-Script
acceptable (1)
8:3
accepted (3)
8:2,14;9:16
accepting (1)
12:16
access (1)
12:3
accomplish (1)
13:17
according (1)
7:25
acronym (1)
12:23
act (2)
10:8;12:22
action (1)
10:22
addition (3)
11:11;13:6;14:15
address (5)
10:19,20,25;11:7;
12:8
again (1)
7:22
agencies (1)
7:4
agency (11)
7:2;8:2;9:18,19,20,
22,25;10:2,6,8;13:9
allow (2)
15:10;16:1
allowed (1)
9:22
along (1)
10:18
analyze (1)
10:3
annual (1)
15:2
anymore (1)
13:14
applicant (3)
7:12,24;12:19
application (2)
13:1,2
applications (4)
12:18,21;13:3,8
approval (4)
9:20;10:1,5,9
approximately (6)
13:24;14:3,21;
15:2,5,6
area (1)
8:5
around (2)
16:18,20
authorization (2)
9:20;11:22
authorizations (1)
10:9
available (5)
7:13;8:4,5,18;
May 18, 2009

10:11
B
Babcock (2)
13:19;16:19
back (2)
9:3;15:25
based (2)
10:2;15:15
basis (2)
15:6;16:21
becomes (1)
7:14
behalf (1)
7:4
beyond (1)
8:12
bit (1)
13:16
booklets (1)
12:10
both (2)
14:16,18
bring (1)
14:11
Brown (2)
13:19;16:19
build (3)
14:5,8,15
building (1)
7:18
Bulletin (1)
7:16
business (2)
8:22;10:14
C
cable (1)
14:22
cables (1)
11:15
called (4)
7:6;9:5,23;13:1
can (4)
8:20;12:3,13;
16:13
cards (2)
10:11,14
Central (1)
15:4
certain (1)
9:8
chance (1)
8:16
changes (1)
9:8
charged (1)
7:24
chose (1)
8:11
Clerk's (1)
11:5
close (4)
8:21;9:2;15:10;
16:7
closed (1)
17:7
collection (1)
14:17
coming (2)
16:8;17:4
comment (11)
7:14;8:9,11,12,15;
9:2,12;10:12;13:5,6,
8
comments (15)
7:19;8:14,17,20,
21,24,24;9:4,7,11;
10:17;12:16;13:13;
16:13,15
Commission (1)
12:2
complete (2)
13:2,4
completed (2)
9:22;15:18
component (1)
11:13
conducts (1)
7:3
conflicting (1)
11:19
consider (1)
8:25
consist (1)
14:21
construction (3)
14:10,16;15:7
contact (2)
10:13;16:16
contained (1)
13:22
copies (1)
12:9
copy (1)
13:23
County (1)
15:3
course (1)
9:12
D
data (2)
10:3,5
date (1)
9:13
day (1)
9:17
days (2)
9:17,21
deadline (2)
8:13,14
DEC (10)
800.724.0836 - Alliance Court Reporting, Inc. - 585.546.4920
8:2,11;9:4,6,16,17;
10:3;11:6,23;12:22
decides (1)
9:6
decision (2)
9:25;10:6
declaration (1)
7:7
DEIS (4)
11:1,11;12:16;
13:7
Department (3)
11:25;12:10;16:22
details (1)
13:21
determine (2)
10:4;13:3
develop (1)
14:11
discharge (1)
12:21
discussion (1)
12:5
District (1)
15:4
dock (1)
14:11
document (1)
8:4
documents (2)
11:1;12:3
done (1)
13:15
down (1)
14:24
draft (8)
7:9,20,21,25;8:2,9,
10;11:2
during (2)
9:11;15:7
E
earlier (2)
11:2;12:19
eight (1)
14:21
EIS (10)
7:10,21,25;8:2,9,
10,14;9:5,10,15
electrical (1)
14:17
employ (1)
15:5
ENB (1)
7:22
enough (1)
13:15
entire (1)
14:20
environmental (4)
7:3,8,16;11:21
equally (1)
(1) $2 - equally

Public Hearing
8:25
equipment (2)
14:12,14
Essentially (2)
7:1;10:3
established (1)
13:10
Even (4)
10:15,16;12:4,14
exists (1)
13:7
expand (1)
8:12
expect (1)
12:17
expected (1)
14:1
extends (1)
11:17
F
farm (1)
15:1
February (1)
8:1
FEIS (2)
9:21;10:4
few (2)
13:21;16:6
final (9)
7:14,21;8:15;9:5,5,
9,10,15;11:2
Finally (1)
12:14
findings (2)
9:23,24
Following (1)
16:18
formal (1)
15:13
forward (1)
17:5
frame (1)
13:10
free (1)
10:8
friends (1)
16:22
full-time (1)
15:6
future (1)
17:6
G
Galloo (1)
11:11
generate (1)
14:2
Generation (1)
11:12
glad (2)
Min-U-Script
May 18, 2009
16:10;17:2
Greiner (3)
13:15,18,18
ground (1)
14:19
guess (1)
15:25
H
handled (1)
11:24
handout (2)
13:22;16:16
happens (2)
7:11;9:15
Harbor (1)
15:4
hear (1)
16:11
hearing (3)
16:7,18;17:7
heliport (1)
14:13
Henderson (2)
11:4;14:23
home (1)
10:25
homes (1)
14:3
hope (1)
13:17
hopefully (1)
15:11
Houndsfield (4)
11:4,5;13:20;15:3
housing (3)
14:7,8,9
13:24;14:6
instead (2)
8:18;11:24
interaction (1)
17:1
interest (1)
16:10
interesting (1)
16:9
introduce (1)
13:15
invited (1)
7:19
involved (8)
7:4,5;9:18,19,22,
25;10:2;12:7
involvement (1)
11:24
involves (1)
11:14
Island (5)
11:11,14;13:25;
14:5,19
issuance (1)
8:10
issue (2)
9:20,23
issued (4)
7:6,9,20;9:16
J
Jefferson (1)
15:3
June (1)
7:17
jurisdiction (1)
11:23
I
Impact (1)
7:8
include (4)
9:6;10:19,21;14:7
included (1)
12:2
includes (1)
9:10
including (1)
10:2
indicated (1)
16:3
informal (1)
15:10
information (5)
10:13;12:2,10;
15:12;16:16
informed (1)
10:18
infrastructures (3)
14:4,10,13
install (2)
K
kicks (1)
13:5
known (1)
12:1
L
lake (2)
11:16;14:23
large (1)
14:11
last (3)
7:17,23;16:6
later (2)
10:15;12:12
law (2)
11:19,20
lead (1)
8:2
least (1)
16:11
libraries (2)
8:5;11:3
likely (1)
12:19
limited (1)
12:9
line (4)
11:14,17,22;14:24
lines (3)
12:11;16:25;17:2
list (1)
13:11
listed (1)
11:8
little (1)
13:16
local (1)
9:19
located (1)
11:6
long-term (1)
14:17
look (3)
9:3;10:24;17:5
looking (1)
13:25
M
mailing (1)
10:20
mailings (1)
10:22
mainland (1)
11:16
making (1)
8:18
manager (1)
13:19
March (1)
7:23
materials (1)
14:12
May (7)
7:6,15;8:13,22;
9:3;15:14;16:14
means (1)
7:1
meant (1)
8:19
meeting (6)
7:18;8:8,15,16,19;
11:10
Megawatt (1)
14:1
Megawatts (1)
14:2
mentioned (3)
11:2;12:19;14:21
Mexico (2)
11:18;14:25
middle (1)
12:15
mile (1)
14:23
miles (1)
14:22
milestone (1)
12:25
millon (1)
15:2
minute (1)
8:7
models (1)
14:1
more (2)
12:6;13:16
moves (1)
10:18
much (3)
9:14;16:10;17:4
N
name (3)
10:19,21;13:18
NASCA (2)
15:9,25
necessarily (2)
10:23;12:4
necessary (2)
9:14;11:13
need (2)
10:10;12:23
New (3)
11:7,25;14:25
note (1)
11:10
noted (1)
7:15
Notice (1)
7:16
noticed (1)
7:22
notices (1)
10:24
notified (1)
13:12
O
occurs (1)
13:12
off (3)
13:5;15:23,24
offer (1)
15:14
office (1)
11:5
official (1)
15:21
once (4)
9:15;13:3,9;15:18
one (3)
10:15;12:12;16:3
one-on-one (1)
16:21
(2) equipment - one-on-one

Public Hearing
operation (2)
14:16,17
opportunity (1)
13:13
oral (1)
8:20
order (2)
9:8;14:6
out (5)
10:22;12:14;16:8,
11;17:4
outline (2)
7:11,13
over (1)
9:21
P
page (1)
10:14
paper (1)
10:24
parallel (1)
12:24
part (7)
8:8,15;9:10;10:6,
7;12:4;15:13
particular (2)
10:6;12:25
payments (1)
15:2
people (1)
15:5
period (7)
8:9,11,12;9:2,12;
13:6,8
permanent (2)
14:7,9
permit (2)
12:18;13:1
permits (2)
12:18,21
permitting (1)
11:21
phase (1)
15:7
pick (2)
10:15;12:12
plan (1)
13:23
point (1)
12:14
portion (2)
11:16;15:19
positive (1)
7:7
Power (3)
11:7;14:2,3
prepare (2)
9:5,8
prepared (2)
8:1;9:16
prepares (1)
Min-U-Script
May 18, 2009
7:12
preparing (1)
7:24
presentation (2)
15:15,16
presentations (1)
16:12
prior (1)
8:21
process (9)
7:1,12;10:18;12:4,
6,15,25;13:1,5
product (1)
9:9
project (13)
7:5,9;9:21;10:1;
11:12,13,23;13:13,
17,20;14:20;15:5;
16:11
proposed (1)
15:1
protection (1)
12:20
provide (2)
8:20;15:1
providing (1)
15:12
public (14)
7:13,19;8:3,8,11;
9:11;11:25;12:1,10,
16;13:5,6;16:22;17:7
published (1)
10:7
remember (2)
9:18;12:24
remind (1)
8:22
reopen (1)
15:19
representatives (1)
16:19
required (3)
7:8;8:10,13
reside (1)
11:3
respond (1)
16:23
responses (1)
9:10
review (6)
7:3,14;8:3;11:21;
12:11;13:1
reviewed (1)
12:22
Rick (2)
13:15,18
Rick's (1)
15:16
right (3)
10:25;12:16;13:25
roads (1)
14:16
role (1)
7:2
Sackets (1)
15:4
same (1)
7:18
School (1)
15:4
scope (9)
7:9,10,12,15,20,21,
25;11:2,3
scoping (1)
7:18
second (1)
10:14
seeing (1)
17:5
send (1)
8:23
sent (1)
10:25
separate (3)
11:12,23;12:24
September (3)
7:20,23;8:1
SEQR (7)
7:1,3,7;10:2,7;
12:15,22
Service (2)
12:1;14:15
Services (3)
raw (1)
14:12
read (1)
10:23
really (1)
11:9
reasoned (1)
9:24
received (3)
9:4,7;13:9
receiving (1)
12:17
reconsider (1)
16:5
record (9)
10:7;15:10,13,19,
21,23,24;16:1,4
records (1)
11:5
regarding (1)
10:1
rejection (1)
10:5
related (1)
12:3
remarks (1)
16:7
12:1,10;16:23
sheet (2)
10:20;16:17
sign-in (1)
10:20
simply (1)
7:10
solely (1)
11:24
soon (1)
12:17
speak (4)
8:16,23;10:11,16
state (5)
9:19;11:19,20,25;
12:9
Statement (8)
7:8;9:6,7,24;15:20,
21;16:2,4
statements (1)
15:22
stay (1)
10:17
Steve (3)
14:20;16:2,15
Steve's (1)
15:15
submit (4)
10:17;16:13,14,15
submitted (1)
13:4
subsequent (1)
10:21
substation (1)
14:24
support (3)
9:25;10:5;14:13
sure (1)
10:19
systems (1)
14:18
T
tackle (1)
17:2
talk (1)
13:16
temporary (2)
14:7,8
ten (2)
9:17,21
term (1)
7:7
though (2)
12:4,15
today (1)
10:11
Tomasik (1)
16:15
tonight (6)
8:23;10:12,16;
12:5;16:9;17:4
Tonight's (3)
8:8,19;11:9
took (1)
7:2
top (1)
10:13
town (5)
11:3,4,5,17;15:3
transmission (8)
11:14,17,22;12:11;
14:22,24;16:25;17:2
treated (1)
8:25
treatment (1)
14:14
try (1)
15:16
turbine (1)
14:1
turbines (2)
13:24;14:6
two (1)
11:3
U
under (6)
7:3,7;11:15,15;
12:22;14:22
underground (1)
14:18
underwater (2)
11:15;14:22
Uniform (1)
12:22
up (3)
10:15;12:12,12
upon (1)
15:15
Upstate (1)
11:7
V
variety (1)
14:4
various (1)
12:18
W
waist (2)
12:20;14:14
wants (1)
10:15
water (3)
12:20,20;14:14
way (2)
11:20;15:11
web (2)
11:6;12:8
website (3)
8:6;11:6,7
(3) operation - website

Public Hearing
May 18, 2009
wetlands (1)
12:20
Wind (3)
11:11;13:20,24
windfarm (2)
13:21;17:1
wish (1)
8:17
word (1)
7:10
workers (3)
14:8,10;15:7
writing (2)
8:18;10:12
written (4)
8:20,24;11:20;
16:12
Y
year (3)
7:17,23,24
York (3)
11:7,25;14:25
Min-U-Script
(4) wetlands - York
In The Matter Of:

Town of Hounsfield Wind Project
May 18, 2009
Original File 05182009 Town of Hounsfield Wind Project.txt
Min-U-Script with Word Index
1
2
3
4
5
A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF

THE TOWN OF HOUNSFIELD WIND PROJECT,
6
7
8
9
10
11
Held on May 18, 2009, at 3:00 p.m., at
12
Town of Hounsfield Court Building, 411
13
West Washington Street, Sackets Harbor,
14
New York, before Lynn M. LaPan, Court
15
Reporter and Notary Public in and for
16
the State of New York.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
APPEARANCES:
JACK A. NASCA
Chief Energy Projects and Management
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
(518) 402-9172
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
STEPHEN M. TOMASIK
Conservation
(518)486-9955
12
13
14
RICK GREINER
Babcock & Brown
1600 Smith Street, Suite 4025
Houston, TX 77002
(713) 308-4233
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STEPHEN W. LITWHILER
Citizen Participation Specialist
Conservation
Dulles State Office Bldg, 5th Floor
Watertown, New York 13601
(315) 785-2252
In Re: THE TOWN OF HOUNSFIELD WIND PROJECT
MR. NASCA:
Good afternoon and thank you
for coming out.
I am Jack Nasca.
I am with the
Conservation.
Unit, Division of Environmental Permits, and I am
stationed in Albany.
and Steve is also from the Division of
Environmental Permits.
I am chief of the Energy Projects
To my left is Steve Tomasik,
He is the project manager
10
for this project, which is the Town of Hounsfield
11
Wind Project, also known as the Galloo Island Wind
12
Project.
13
What we are here today to do is to accept
14
public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
15
Statement for the proposed Hounsfield Wind Project.
16
A notice that an Environmental Impact Statement was
17
accepted as complete and available for public
18
review and that a public hearing would be held on
19
May 18, 2009 at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. appeared in a
20
March 4, 2009 issue of the Department's
21
Environmental Notice Bulletin.
22
appeared in the Environmental Notice Bulletin on
23
May 13, 2009.
24
hearing in the Watertown Times on May 4, 2009.
25
A second notice
Notice was also published for this
This session at 3 o'clock will be followed by a
second session that will begin at 7 o'clock
tonight.
both sessions, but you are welcome to participate
if you would like.
afternoon is have a few presentations, one
presentation by Steve Tomasik will talk about the
State Environmental Quality Review process, why we
are here today, what types of information we are
It is not necessary for you to speak at
What we are going to do this
10
looking to gather today, and also will tell you
11
what the process is to follow.
12
after today, what will be the next steps in the
13
environmental review process for this project.
In other words,
14
That will then be followed by Rick Greiner, who
15
will be presenting a brief overview of the proposed
16
wind project.
17
will be relatively short.
18
close the formal hearing record to allow for a
19
brief question and answer period so that if people
20
have questions about the project, and either would
21
like to have them answered or have had questions
22
raised by the presentations that either Steve or
23
Rick Greiner had just made, we will give you an
24
opportunity to ask those questions and hopefully
25
get your answers.
Those -- both of these presentations

We are then going to
1
2

Once the Q and A session is over, we will then
reopen the record and allow people to make
statements, formal comments for the record, which
will then become part of the hearing record and
part of the Environmental Impact Statement record,
and those comments which raise substantive issues
will receive a formal response in the final
Environmental Impact Statement.
10
So what we would ask is if you could hold your
11
questions through the few presentations, then we
12
will have an opportunity for you to ask those
13
questions and then that will be followed by the
14
formal public statement session. Thank you and I
15
will turn it over to Steve Tomasik.
16
MR. TOMASIK:
Thanks.
What I am going
17
to be talking about today is included on this
18
handout that was at the back table. If anyone did
19
not receive this when you walked in, if you could
20
raise your hands if anybody did not receive this,
21
and if we could have those passed out to those
22
individuals who weren't able to pick it up on their
23
way in.
24
about is a one page, front and back.
25
try to keep my comments brief, but I do want to
And the -- what I am going to be talking

And I will
cover as much as we can about the overall process
that we are partaking in today so that you can
understand where you fit into that process.
Jack essentially set the agenda, which is the
four presentations that we are talking about.
I am
going to be talking about the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, which is the essentially the
regulation that governs the Environmental Impact
10
Statement process that we are in the middle of
11
right now.
12
consideration of environmental factors into state
13
and local agency decision making process as early
14
as possible a time.
15
what the second bullet says, is that SEQR process
16
needs to play out in its entirety before any agency
17
at the state or local level can issue a permit or
18
decision to fund or directly undertake any action
19
associated with a particular project.
20
Purpose of SEQR is to incorporate the
Essentially what that means,
So for this situation, the New York State
21
Department of Environmental Conservation has a
22
number of permits that would be required to
23
construct this project.
24
be some wetland impacts that would need to be
25
permitted, some protection of water impacts that
We expect that there will
would need to be permitted, waste water treatment;
that kind of thing would all require permits from
DEC.
Hounsfield has a site plan review process that
requires permits from the town, and before any of
those permits can be executed or issued by any of
those agencies, the SEQR process needs to be
completed.
10
And there are local permits as well.
Town of
So SEQR process can be lengthy and has a number
11
of steps, and under the steps of the SEQR
12
process -- you can see that one of the first things
13
that happens under SEQR is that a lead agency is
14
established.
15
established as the lead agency, and on May 21 of
16
last year, a positive declaration, which under SEQR
17
means that an Environmental Impact Statement is
18
required, was made by the agency.
19
scope or essentially the outline of the DEIS was
20
made available for public review.
21
Back in March of '08 DEC was
And the draft
In June of last year, we were here in this
22
building and we accepted comments on that
23
particular scoping document on the outline for the
24
DEIS and we heard public comments on that.
25
based on our review and review of public comments
And
from that meeting, a final scope or outline of the
draft EIS was issued back in September 18 of '08.
And that was again available for public review and
was also noticed in the Environmental Notice
Bulletin.
The DEIS was submitted by the applicants and
upon extensive review by DEC, was accepted for --
adequate for public review on February 27 of this
10
year, at which time, DEC issued the notice of the
11
acceptance of the draft DEIS and established May 29
12
of this year as the deadline for receipt of public
13
comments on the draft.
14
the public comment hearing on the draft EIS where
15
we will accept comments in person on that document.
16
After today what happens is that we receive
17
comments, we look at the comments that have been
18
submitted both in person and in writing, and we go
19
back as an agency and prepare what's called a final
20
DEIS, final Environmental Impact Statement.
21
what that does is to address any of the issues that
22
have been raised by public comments on the process,
23
and provides responses to those public comments to
24
the final DEIS.
25
And, of course, today is
And
Once a final EIS is adopted by DEC as lead
agency, there is essentially a 10 day waiting
period.
involved agency -- and let me go back, quickly say
what involved agency is.
state or local agency that has the authority to
issue what's called a discretionary permit.
permit where -- or discretionary -- make a
discretionary action.
At the end of 10 days, DEC or any other
An involved agency is any
That's where the state or
10
local governmental entity has a choice whether or
11
not to either issue a permit or, you know, grant
12
funding or to dispose of property or whatever it is
13
that the governmental entity has to do.
14
those agencies, called involved agencies, all
15
included under the SEQR process.
16
Any of
Ten days after the final EIS is issued, any of
17
those agencies can then make what are called
18
findings.
19
the environmental factors that have been presented
20
in the EIS, and they come to a reasoned elaboration
21
of the issues that are important to that agency for
22
the issuance of their -- whatever approval they
23
need to make.
24
25
They look at the final EIS, they weigh
Once that finding statement is made by that

agency, that that agency is free to execute
10
whatever action they want to do on the action that
they have before them. So let's say Town of
Hounsfield had a site plan review.
days EIS is issued, they look at the record and
they say on the basis of this record, we have
established for this reason, for that reason, for
that reason, we can either approve or deny the
action based on the SEQR record.
10
If after the 10
Of course, you know, going further down this
11
page, we talked a little bit about if you want to
12
speak at today's session -- again, want to speak at
13
today's session, there are cards to fill out and we
14
will call you in order.
15
Turning to Page 2, if you wish to comment in
16
writing, after today's session we will accept
17
comments until May 29 and you can send your
18
comments to me by anything other than --
19
MR. NASCA: A rock.
20
MR. TOMASIK:
A rock or text message or
21
anything like that.
That doesn't work.
Any of
22
the -- any of the communication media that were in
23
existence up until the last couple years. Fax,
24
e-mail, regular mail all work.
25
can call in and leave messages.
And certainly you

That's fine as
11
well.
And my name and number and contact
information are there.
card, I have them up here as well.
them up at any point in time.
If you need a business

You can pick
Also, if for whatever reason you don't
necessarily want to speak today but -- or even
submit comments, but you want to stay informed of
the process as it moves along, feel free to put
10
your name and address on the mailing list and we
11
will make sure you are part of the list of folks
12
that things get sent to.
13
Copies of the EIS are included in the two town
14
libraries.
Also included in the Town of Hounsfield
15
office of the Town Clerk and reach them online.
16
The web address is shown here.
17
and Upstate New York Power Corporation also has a
18
web site where you can access the full DEIS
19
documents.
DEC has a web site
20
A couple notes not necessarily related to
21
today's process, but may give interest to some of
22
you.
23
field development, there is a companion proposal to
24
transmit that electricity generated from the island
25
to a substation in the Town of Mexico in Oswego
Concurrently with the proposal for the wind
12
County.
And because of New York State regulations,
there are two distinct processes for reviewing and
approving those components of the project.
wind tower generation portion of the project is
governed under the SEQR process as we described
today.
everything from a proposed substation on the island
to -- which includes transmission lines that run
The
The transmission route, which includes
10
along the island under water, under the lake and on
11
land down to the Town of Mexico, is governed by
12
Article 7 of the New York State Public Service Law.
13
And that is regulated by the New York State
14
Department of Public Service and is not under
15
consideration for -- at today's hearing.
16
that's simply by State law.
17
have some interest in that particular portion of
18
the project, there is information here that go to
19
the New York State Department of Public Service's
20
web site where they have included -- they include
21
on their web site every document that's related to
22
that process, including the application, letters
23
they have received regarding that process.
And
However, if you do
24
And then finally, as I said earlier, DEC does
25
expect there will be a number of permits that are
13
resulting from this action, and we expect that
permits will be received by the agency at -- in
fairly short order.
received, they are processed under what's called
the Uniform Procedures Act, which is -- it's an
essentially a time clock that governs our review of
permit applications.
milestone in that process that's called complete
And once those permits are
There is a particular
10
application.
11
is complete, then we open up that application for a
12
public comment period.
13
Once we determine that an application
So in addition to the comment period that we
14
have for the DEIS, which concludes on May 29, and
15
the public hearing we are holding today, once we
16
have determined that the individual applications
17
for permits associated with the project are
18
complete, there will be an additional 30 day public
19
comment period associated with the issues related
20
to those permits.
21
And I think that's all I need to say at this
22
point, and I will now turn it over to Rick Greiner,
23
who will talk a little bit about the actual project
24
details.
25
MR. GREINER:
My name a Rick Greiner.
14
am a permitting manager at Babcock and my area of
responsibility is to coordinate the permitting
process with the development and construction
process of this project.
summary facts of the project that -- the handout
that you have will have most everything that I am
going to say on it, with the exception of initial
answers to your questions that you might ask.
10
I will give you a few
The Hounsfield Wind Farm Project is going to be
11
approximately 84 wind turbines of approximate size
12
3 megawatts each, and we are thinking they are
13
going to be 3.0 models.
14
on the island and for the most part, situated to
15
avoid as much of the wetlands on the island as
16
possible.
17
And they are going to be
We also have in terms of infrastructure on the
18
island, we will have temporary and permanent
19
housing.
20
purposes.
21
and management long-term.
22
dock, which will allow for the receipt of
23
construction materials and people on and off the
24
island. We will have helipad and we will also have
25
service roads that will allow us to construct and
The temporary housing for construction

Permanent housing will be for operations
And we will also have a
15
get around the island for operations.
Also be an
electrical collection system that will be in place
both under ground and above ground.
from each turbine to the substation on the
northeastern portion of the island.
can -- all of these infrastructure buildings and
what not have been represented on the map here.
you can come over and see -- actually see what
They will run
And later you
So
10
exact portion of the island these are planned to be
11
developed.
12
And then a series of operations and maintenance
13
buildings that will do things like house vehicles
14
and spare parts and other infrastructure processes
15
like waste water treatment, things like that that
16
will have to accompany people living on the island.
17
The -- this electricity will be transmitted
18
down a cable, underwater cable about eight miles
19
long.
20
and will go to the northeast of Stony Island and
21
then the above ground transmission line will run
22
from Henderson to the Town of Mexico, New York.
23
About 40 miles long transmission line.
24
percent of that is in existing right-of-way.
25
Going to go from Galloo Island to Henderson
About 50
One benefit that we anticipate from the wind
16
farm will be that it will generate approximately
two million dollars in annual payments that will be
split by Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, and
Sackets Harbor Central School District, as well as
many other environmental benefits that you can read
about.
that the project will generate 252 megawatts, which
will be enough to power about 93,000 households on
10
11
And I think it will also -- it's estimated
an annual basis.
And shall I take any questions or --
12
MR. NASCA:
Thank you, Rick.
What we
13
will do now is we will close the hearing record and
14
this will allow us to do a little bit of an
15
informal question and answer session.
16
Before I do that, though, I would like to again
17
ask if anybody has not filled out a speaker card
18
that would like to speak, you can do that during
19
the time period now that we are in, the Q and A
20
session, for when we close the Q and A session.
21
will go off the record now and open the floor for
22
questions.
23
24
25
(Whereupon there was a question and

answer session.)
We
17
2
3
MR. NASCA:
Reopen the public statement
record and call the speakers.
Steve Litwhiler, who will call the speakers.
he will explain the ground rules for making a
statement.
8
9
MR. LITWHILER:
I will turn that to
Okay.
First
We are going to
be taking the oral statements from the front of the
10
room to the microphone.
11
everyone can hear and our hearing officer and also
12
for the recorder to get your statements down.
13
a reminder that what we talked about during the
14
public -- or the question and answers, are not on
15
the public record.
16
that you would like into the public record, you
17
need to come up front and make that statement here.
18
Comments that address the draft EIS or perhaps
19
omissions from that draft EIS, are most useful to
20
us.
21
to talk about.
22
questions -- responding to questions during the
23
this comment portion of the afternoon.
24
25
We want to do this so
Just
So if you said something there
That's what we are here to -- this afternoon

We are not going to be answering
I do need a card from anyone who wants to get

up front and offer the public comments.
And just
18
when people speak, please be polite and listen to
their comments.
they are going to be very polite.
or multi media presentations.
offer the public your public comments.
Everone is, you know, appears like

No slide shows
So just come up and
If you have it in writing, we will accept it in
writing also.
That's always very helpful and just
to -- reminder that if you have a very long
10
comment, just I only have three people who thus far
11
have expressed interest.
12
going to cut you off until you have gone on a
13
little bit too long, but -- and we will all feel
14
that when someone has gone on a little bit too
15
long.
16
and want to submit them in writing, then we will --
17
you have until the end of the month, the date I
18
think that's on your handout.
19
So I am probably not
And but if you do have additional comments
So the first card that I have is from Mr.
20
Doyle.
21
name and maybe where you are from.
22
also provided the card to the reporter for the
23
spelling.
24
25
So come on up front and please state your
MR. DOYLE:
Doyle.
Thank you.
And then I will
My name is Shawn
I am from Pulaski down in Oswego County.
19
happen to be the majority leader of the county
legislature right now.
be addressed here because they deal with the power
line, but I also share some of the concerns of the
residents here with this beautiful hamlet, historic
battlefield and view of Galloo.
8
9
Most of my concerns cannot
My concern is once again here we are exporting

power from our region.
Why is it that everything
10
that we produce here power-wise is exported for the
11
benefit generally of southern New York State?
12
not against wind farms.
13
turbines in principle, but it would be nice if we
14
could see some benefits in our utility bills, which
15
we all know are among the highest in the nation.
16
I am
I am not against wind
I am also concerned about -- again, I know we
17
can't talk about the transmission line here, but
18
why we could not find a way to transmit the power
19
underground through a cable in the Lake Ontario
20
area.
21
nuclear plants -- that the power could be accepted
22
right down there at the high transmission lines
23
there which go to the center -- to the grid.
24
would be less disruption if this power line was put
25
underwater.
I know -- I am an employee of one of the
There
They are already going eight miles.
20
Additional 20, 22 miles I don't think would be very
harmful, because the transmission line is going to
harm a lot more otherwise going across several of
our townships and right through the heart of my
village. I know we can't talk about that.
I admire, as I said, your village and your
township here.
You have done an awful lot to
preserve and make this just a great area to come,
10
Sackets Harbor.
11
thing in Pulaski, and this vastly disrupts our
12
underground power project that we have already put
13
a million dollars into burying our lines in
14
Pulaski.
15
Want to continue to do the same
I hope that -- this is the tail end of the
16
session, but I hope that the utility can look again
17
at that, what they are doing power line-wise and
18
try to find a way to go under the lake.
19
otherwise, I am for economic development and I
20
would also like to see some of this power given --
21
I know in the towns and county they negotiate the
22
PILOT agreements.
23
agreement now in Oswego County.
24
the table.
25
sitting at the table on these PILOT agreements.
And
We are entering a PILOT

Everything is on
Pressure your representatives who are
21
Make sure that they get something for your area.
We have an agreement right now with Energy
Corporation that we get 10 megawatts of power that
goes to economic development in Oswego County, and
some of that wasn't used.
municipalities were able to tap into that power and
helped our towns and our villages with lower cost
power.
10
Some of the
Everything is on the table.
Make sure to --
11
representatives up here negotiate that and try to
12
get some of that power for at least your businesses
13
or your municipalities, if not for the residents.
14
Thank you very much.
15
MR. LITWHILER:
16
MR. JOHNSON:
Thank you.
Mr. Johnson.
My name is Warren Johnson,
17
and I am from the Town of Lyme.
18
a letter here from our supervisor, Scott Aubertine,
19
in regard to Galloo Island impact statement,
20
specifically section 3.14; noise.
21
I have to deliver
Dear Supervisor Del Signor and Hounsfield Town
22
Board, on June 18, June 17, 2008 Town of Lyme
23
councilman Warren A. Johnson attended the Town of
24
Hounsfield hearing on proposed Galloo Island wind
25
farm impact statement to express his concern
22
regarding the environmental and noise impact the
project may create.
approved the motion to share in his expression of
concern regarding section 3.14 pertaining to noise.
Whereas the impact statement declares the noise
generated by this project poses no significant
noise impact, the Town of Lyme respectfully submits
this letter expressing its concern to the contrary.
10
The Lyme Town Board has
Considering the magnification of noise
11
travelling over water and with prevailing westerly
12
winds, the board is concerned the proposed 84 wind
13
turbine project with the threshold of 50 plus dBA
14
will create a significant noise impact on our
15
residents living on Point Penninsula, only 5 and a
16
half miles east of Galloo Island.
17
We, as an the town board, would like to
18
respectfully request that you conduct a noise study
19
before and after completion of this project to
20
determine the noise impact on our residents on
21
Point Penninsula.
22
a significant impact is found, that you will
23
conform to the New York State DEC standards of
24
ambient plus 5 dBA.
25
We hope that after your study if
Thank you in advance for your time and
23
consideration.
supervisor of the Town of Lyme.
4
5
Respectfully, Scott Aubertine,
MR. LITWHILER:
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next Mr.
Bowers.
MR. BOWERS:
Thank you.
I am Herb
Bowers. I live in Chaumont. I am a member of the
planning board in the Town of Lyme, and we have
discussed this idea that Warren just presented of
10
the effect of noise on Galloo Island.
11
written a letter to Mr. Tomasik regarding this and
12
just like to read a few excerpts from it.
13
And I have
I am a naval architect and my experience with
14
shipboard noises leads me to be concerned about the
15
noise levels produced by large wind turbines.
16
First, the noise of the turbine and its gear train
17
is considerable, being listed in the manufacturer's
18
specifications about 104 decibels.
19
Secondly, there is the aerodynamic noise
20
created by the blades of the turbine as they -- low
21
frequency impulse each time a blade passes the
22
pylon.
23
the hearing threshold.
24
as you feel them.
25
we have on large ships when the propellor passes
These are sounds that are generally below

You don't hear them so much
And it's comparable to phenomena
24
the stern frame and rudder of the ship, you get an
impulse and that's very hard to attenuate.
In my experience we had a lot of suits from
employees on ships for hearing loss over the years.
So we worked very hard to try to minimize noise on
the ships.
sound travelling over water if -- somebody on a
boat quite a distance away and you can actually
Most of us have had the experience of
10
hear their conversation quite clearly, because
11
there is nothing on the water to absorb or
12
attenuate the sounds.
13
I have recently been talking to Don Metzger,
14
who is a pilot on the seaway, and Don described his
15
conversation with some of the ship captains that
16
come up the seaway, that in the Gaspe Peninsula
17
area, they have some offshore wind turbines and he
18
recounted that they were surprised how much noise
19
these turbines make as they pass them at a distance
20
of about three miles in the shipping channel.
21
my reaction to that is if they can hear these
22
things sound noisy on the bridge of a ship three
23
miles away -- the bridge of a ship is not a quiet
24
place, I can tell you, because in addition to all
25
the machinery noise that comes up through the
And
25
ventilating stacks and so on, there is quite a bit
of wind noise.
the bridge of a ship three miles away, I am not
sure that we won't hear significant and annoying
noise components at residences on Point Peninsula
five and a half miles from the site.
8
9
So if they can hear the noise on
The -- therefore, you know, second Warren's

idea to have a sound study done to see just what
10
kind of noise would be transmitted to Point
11
Peninsula, which is really the closest part of the
12
mainland for this project and happens to be part of
13
the Town of Lyme.
14
There is a phenomena known as stable atmosphere
15
where you have -- particularly on quiet nights,
16
very still at the surface, but there can be a
17
considerable velocity of wind up above.
18
turbines can be turning and making quite a racket
19
when it seems like it's a quiet evening on shore,
20
and that would be when it would be annoying to
21
these people.
22
So the
There is one other comment I wanted to make.
23
Mr. Doyle brought up the idea that, you know, best
24
93,400 households.
25
document from the DEC using this kind of -- I think
I am kind of surprised seeing a
26
it's misleading information that's generally put
out by the wind developers, because if you are
going to get 252 megawatts out of this island,
that's really the maximum that it can produce under
ideal conditions of high winds and steady winds.
But you need to have another 252 megawatts of
backup capacity, which could be nuclear power,
could be coal power, could be gas powered, hydro --
10
any of the sources that we use here in New York
11
State.
12
percent of the 252 megawatts over a year's time.
13
So the rest of the other 75 percent or 70 to 75
14
percent would have to be produced by some other
15
source.
16
like coal or nuclear or gas turbines.
17
unlikely that it would be oil, because we use very
18
little oil to generate power in New York State.
19
And the winds might produce 25 to 30
And that source would likely be something

Very
So it's really a false statement to say that
20
all this power is going to be clean and free of
21
pollution because these backup power sources have
22
to operate not just 70 percent of the time.
23
have to operate a hundred percent of the time, and
24
there is -- as an engineer I realize there is a
25
limited ability for the operators of these major
They
27
power plants to follow the variability of wind,
which is kind of a saw tooth affair.
wind is a function of the cube of the wind speed.
So the turbine almost magnifies the variability of
wind.
halved, say you have a wind of 32 miles an hour and
you go down to 16, the power you can get out of
that wind is now one eighth of the power.
10
11
The power of
What that means is if the wind speed is
So there
is a strong variance in the output of the wind.

And there is genuine debate among people who
12
study this as to whether there is, in fact, any
13
savings of fuel or emissions at all from wind
14
power.
15
there is none.
16
Experience in Denmark and Germany suggests

So thank you very much.
MR. LITWHILER:
Thank you.
Other cards?
17
Anyone fill out a card they want to bring up front
18
and have a comment into the official public record?
19
If not, going once -- going to come up?
20
MR. FRANZ:
Sure.
My name is Mitch
21
Franz.
Residence of Henderson.
When I spoke to
22
the gentleman before, I am a fishing guide in the
23
community and the history of Galloo Island has
24
always had a lot of fishing going with it.
25
would like to see mitigation on the Coast Guard
And I
28
station to upgrade for public use with this -- if
this project was to go forward, as a safe harbor.
And also for public use to utilize the property
that the Department owns on the head of the island
around the lighthouse.
Also, if they were going to do any dredging in
Gill Harbor, that they would mitigate any
disturbance to the spawning areas for the small
10
mouth bass and northern pike that populate that
11
area.
12
project.
I would like to see that happen in this
13
That's my comment.
MR. LITWHILER:
Thank you.
Others?
14
have a chance to think about it.
15
movement forward here.
16
to you folks to read a statement and close the
17
hearing.
18
MR. NASCA:
You
I am seeing no
So I will turn it back over
Thank you, Steve.
Okay.
19
Thank you very much for providing your public
20
comments and input into the environmental review
21
process for the proposed Town of Hounsfield wind
22
project.
23
I will remind you one last time that comments
24
can be submitted in writing to Steve Tomasik until
25
May 29, 2009, and all comments that were received
29
either in an oral statement here or in written form
will be given equal weight in the record.
I thank you again for coming out this afternoon
and participating in this public hearing.
And once
the record is formally closed, DEC staff and some
staff from the Upstate New York Wind, and also we
have some guests from the Public Service Commission
are here.
And if you have any questions you would
10
like to ask of any of us, we would be glad to try
11
and answer them.
12
13
So thank you very much for your time and have a

nice day.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Whereupon the proceedings were

adjourned.)
30
2
3
4
State of New York
City of Watertown
Jefferson County
7
8
9
10
11
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
12
13
14
I, Lynn M. LaPan, Court Reporter of New
15
York State, do hereby certify that the foregoing
16
has been a true and correct transcript of the
17
proceedings as taken by me, to the best of my
18
ability, at the time and place noted in the heading
19
hereof.
20
21
22
_______________________________
23
LYNN M. LAPAN
Court Reporter
24
25

May 18, 2009
40 (1)
15:23
08 (2)
7:14;8:3
1
10 (4)
9:2,3;10:4;21:4
104 (1)
23:18
13 (1)
3:23
16 (1)
27:8
17 (1)
21:22
18 (3)
3:19;8:3;21:22
2
2 (1)
10:15
20 (1)
20:2
2008 (1)
21:22
2009 (5)
3:19,20,23,24;
28:25
21 (1)
7:15
22 (1)
20:2
25 (1)
26:11
252 (4)
16:8;26:4,7,12
27 (1)
8:9
29 (4)
8:11;10:17;13:14;
28:25
3
3 (3)
3:19,25;14:12
3.0 (1)
14:13
3.14 (2)
21:20;22:5
30 (2)
13:18;26:11
32 (1)
27:7
4
4 (2)
3:20,24
Min-U-Script
5 (2)
22:15,24
50 (2)
15:23;22:13
7
7 (3)
3:19;4:2;12:12
70 (2)
26:13,22
75 (2)
26:13,13
8
84 (2)
14:11;22:12
9
93,000 (1)
16:9
93,400 (1)
25:24
A
ability (1)
26:25
able (2)
5:22;21:7
above (3)
15:4,21;25:17
absorb (1)
24:11
accept (4)
3:13;8:15;10:16;
18:7
acceptance (1)
8:11
accepted (4)
3:17;7:22;8:8;
19:21
access (1)
11:18
accompany (1)
15:16
across (1)
20:4
Act (2)
6:8;13:6
action (6)
6:18;9:9;10:2,2,9;
13:2
actual (1)
13:23
actually (2)
15:9;24:9
addition (2)
13:13;24:24
additional (3)
13:18;18:15;20:2
address (4)
8:21;11:10,16;
17:18
addressed (1)
19:4
adequate (1)
8:9
adjourned (1)
29:16
admire (1)
20:7
adopted (1)
8:25
advance (1)
22:25
aerodynamic (1)
23:19
affair (1)
27:3
afternoon (5)
3:2;4:6;17:20,23;
29:4
again (7)
8:4;10:12;16:16;
19:8,16;20:16;29:4
against (2)
19:12,12
agencies (4)
7:8;9:14,14,17
agency (15)
6:13,16;7:13,15,
18;8:19;9:2,4,5,5,6,
21,25,25;13:3
agenda (1)
6:5
agreement (2)
20:23;21:3
agreements (2)
20:22,25
Albany (1)
3:7
allow (5)
4:18;5:3;14:22,25;
16:14
almost (1)
27:5
along (2)
11:9;12:10
always (2)
18:8;27:24
ambient (1)
22:24
among (2)
19:15;27:11
annoying (2)
25:5,20
annual (2)
16:3,10
answered (1)
4:21
anticipate (1)
15:25
appeared (2)
3:19,22
appears (1)
18:3
applicants (1)
8:7
application (4)
12:22;13:10,10,11
applications (2)
13:8,16
approval (1)
9:22
approve (1)
10:8
approved (1)
22:4
approving (1)
12:4
approximate (1)
14:11
approximately (2)
14:11;16:2
architect (1)
23:13
area (6)
14:2;19:20;20:9;
21:2;24:17;28:11
areas (1)
28:9
around (2)
15:2;28:6
Article (1)
12:12
associated (3)
6:19;13:17,19
atmosphere (1)
25:14
attended (1)
21:23
attenuate (2)
24:3,12
Aubertine (2)
21:18;23:2
authority (1)
9:6
available (3)
3:17;7:20;8:4
avoid (1)
14:15
away (3)
24:9,23;25:4
awful (1)
20:8
B
Babcock (1)
14:2
back (7)
5:18,24;7:14;8:3,
19;9:4;28:15
backup (2)
26:8,21
based (2)
7:25;10:9
basis (2)
10:6;16:10
bass (1)
28:10
battlefield (1)
19:7
beautiful (1)
19:6
become (1)
5:5
begin (1)
4:2
below (1)
23:22
benefit (2)
15:25;19:11
benefits (2)
16:6;19:14
best (1)
25:23
bills (1)
19:14
bit (6)
10:11;13:23;
16:14;18:13,14;25:2
blade (1)
23:21
blades (1)
23:20
Board (5)
21:22;22:3,12,17;
23:8
boat (1)
24:9
both (4)
4:4,16;8:18;15:4
Bowers (3)
23:5,6,7
bridge (3)
24:22,23;25:4
brief (3)
4:15,19;5:25
bring (1)
27:17
brought (1)
25:23
building (1)
7:22
buildings (2)
15:7,13
bullet (1)
6:15
Bulletin (3)
3:21,22;8:6
burying (1)
20:13
business (1)
(1) 08 - business

May 18, 2009
11:3
businesses (1)
21:12
C
cable (3)
15:18,18;19:19
call (4)
10:14,25;17:4,5
called (6)
8:19;9:7,14,17;
13:5,9
can (27)
6:2,3,17;7:7,10,12;
9:17;10:8,17,25;
11:4,18;15:7,9;16:6,
18;17:11;20:16;24:9,
21,24;25:3,16,18;
26:5;27:8;28:24
capacity (1)
26:8
captains (1)
24:15
card (6)
11:4;16:17;17:24;
18:19,22;27:17
cards (2)
10:13;27:16
center (1)
19:23
Central (1)
16:5
certainly (1)
10:24
chance (1)
28:14
channel (1)
24:20
Chaumont (1)
23:7
chief (1)
3:5
choice (1)
9:10
clean (1)
26:20
clearly (1)
24:10
Clerk (1)
11:15
clock (1)
13:7
close (4)
4:18;16:13,20;
28:16
closed (1)
29:6
closest (1)
25:11
coal (2)
26:9,16
Coast (1)
Min-U-Script
27:25
collection (1)
15:3
coming (2)
3:3;29:4
comment (10)
8:14;10:15;13:12,
13,19;17:23;18:10;
25:22;27:18;28:12
comments (24)
3:14;5:4,7,25;7:22,
24,25;8:13,15,17,17,
22,23;10:17,18;11:8;
17:18,25;18:3,6,15;
28:20,23,25
Commission (1)
29:8
communication (1)
10:22
community (1)
27:23
companion (1)
11:23
comparable (1)
23:24
complete (4)
3:17;13:9,11,18
completed (1)
7:9
completion (1)
22:19
components (2)
12:4;25:6
concern (4)
19:8;21:25;22:5,9
concerned (3)
19:16;22:12;23:14
concerns (2)
19:3,5
concludes (1)
13:14
Concurrently (1)
11:22
conditions (1)
26:6
conduct (1)
22:18
conform (1)
22:23
Conservation (2)
3:5;6:21
considerable (2)
23:17;25:17
consideration (3)
6:12;12:15;23:2
Considering (1)
22:10
construct (2)
6:23;14:25
construction (3)
14:4,19,23
contact (1)
11:2
continue (1)
20:10
contrary (1)
22:9
conversation (2)
24:10,15
coordinate (1)
14:3
Copies (1)
11:13
Corporation (2)
11:17;21:4
cost (1)
21:8
councilman (1)
21:23
County (7)
12:2;16:4;18:25;
19:2;20:21,23;21:5
couple (2)
10:23;11:20
course (2)
8:13;10:10
cover (1)
6:2
create (2)
22:3,14
created (1)
23:20
cube (1)
27:4
cut (1)
18:12
D
date (1)
18:17
day (3)
9:2;13:18;29:13
days (3)
9:3,16;10:5
dBA (2)
22:13,24
deadline (1)
8:12
deal (1)
19:4
Dear (1)
21:21
debate (1)
27:11
DEC (11)
7:4,14;8:8,10,25;
9:3;11:16;12:24;
22:23;25:25;29:6
decibels (1)
23:18
decision (2)
6:13,18
declaration (1)
7:16
declares (1)
22:6
DEIS (8)
7:19,24;8:7,11,20,
24;11:18;13:14
Del (1)
21:21
deliver (1)
21:17
Denmark (1)
27:14
deny (1)
10:8
Department (5)
3:4;6:21;12:14,19;
28:5
Department's (1)
3:20
described (2)
12:6;24:14
details (1)
13:24
determine (2)
13:10;22:20
determined (1)
13:16
developed (1)
15:11
developers (1)
26:3
development (4)
11:23;14:4;20:19;
21:5
directly (1)
6:18
discretionary (3)
9:7,8,9
discussed (1)
23:9
dispose (1)
9:12
disruption (1)
19:24
disrupts (1)
20:11
distance (2)
24:9,19
distinct (1)
12:3
District (1)
16:5
disturbance (1)
28:9
Division (2)
3:6,8
dock (1)
14:22
document (4)
7:23;8:15;12:21;
25:25
documents (1)
11:19
dollars (2)
16:3;20:13
Don (2)
24:13,14
done (2)
20:8;25:9
down (7)
10:10;12:11;
15:18;17:12;18:25;
19:22;27:8
Doyle (4)
18:20,24,25;25:23
Draft (8)
3:14;7:18;8:3,11,
13,14;17:18,19
dredging (1)
28:7
during (3)
16:18;17:13,22
E
earlier (1)
12:24
early (1)
6:13
east (1)
22:16
economic (2)
20:19;21:5
effect (1)
23:10
eight (2)
15:18;19:25
eighth (1)
27:9
EIS (10)
8:3,14,25;9:16,18,
20;10:5;11:13;17:18,
19
either (5)
4:20,22;9:11;10:8;
29:2
elaboration (1)
9:20
electrical (1)
15:3
electricity (2)
11:24;15:17
e-mail (1)
10:24
emissions (1)
27:13
employee (1)
19:20
employees (1)
24:5
end (3)
9:3;18:17;20:15
Energy (2)
3:5;21:3
engineer (1)
26:24
enough (1)
16:9
(2) businesses - enough

May 18, 2009
entering (1)
20:22
entirety (1)
6:16
entity (2)
9:10,13
Environmental (22)
3:4,6,9,14,16,21,
22;4:8,13;5:6,9;6:7,
9,12,21;7:17;8:5,20;
9:19;16:6;22:2;
28:20
equal (1)
29:3
essentially (6)
6:5,8,14;7:19;9:2;
13:7
established (4)
7:14,15;8:11;10:7
estimated (1)
16:7
even (1)
11:7
evening (1)
25:19
Everone (1)
18:3
everyone (1)
17:11
exact (1)
15:10
exception (1)
14:8
excerpts (1)
23:12
execute (1)
9:25
executed (1)
7:7
existence (1)
10:23
existing (1)
15:24
expect (3)
6:23;12:25;13:2
experience (4)
23:13;24:4,7;
27:14
explain (1)
17:6
exported (1)
19:10
exporting (1)
19:8
express (1)
21:25
expressed (1)
18:11
expressing (1)
22:9
expression (1)
22:4
extensive (1)
Min-U-Script
8:8
F
fact (1)
27:12
factors (2)
6:12;9:19
facts (1)
14:6
fairly (1)
13:4
false (1)
26:19
far (1)
18:10
Farm (3)
14:10;16:2;21:25
farms (1)
19:12
Fax (1)
10:23
February (1)
8:9
feel (3)
11:9;18:13;23:24
few (4)
4:6;5:11;14:5;
23:12
field (1)
11:23
fill (2)
10:13;27:17
filled (1)
16:17
final (8)
5:8;8:2,19,20,24,
25;9:16,18
finally (1)
12:24
find (2)
19:18;20:18
finding (1)
9:24
findings (1)
9:18
fine (1)
10:25
first (4)
7:12;17:5;18:19;
23:16
fishing (2)
27:22,24
fit (1)
6:4
five (1)
25:7
floor (1)
16:21
folks (2)
11:11;28:16
follow (2)
4:11;27:2
followed (3)
3:25;4:14;5:13
form (1)
29:2
formal (4)
4:18;5:4,8,14
formally (1)
29:6
forward (2)
28:3,15
found (1)
22:22
four (1)
6:6
frame (1)
24:2
FRANZ (2)
27:20,21
free (3)
9:25;11:9;26:20
frequency (1)
23:21
front (6)
5:24;17:9,17,25;
18:20;27:17
fuel (1)
27:13
full (1)
11:18
function (1)
27:4
fund (1)
6:18
funding (1)
9:12
further (1)
10:10
G
Galloo (8)
3:11;15:19;19:7;
21:19,24;22:16;
23:10;27:23
gas (2)
26:9,16
Gaspe (1)
24:16
gather (1)
4:10
gear (1)
23:16
generally (3)
19:11;23:22;26:2
generate (3)
16:2,8;26:18
generated (2)
11:24;22:7
generation (1)
12:5
gentleman (1)
27:22
genuine (1)
27:11
Germany (1)
27:14
Gill (1)
28:8
given (2)
20:20;29:3
glad (1)
29:10
goes (1)
21:5
Good (1)
3:2
governed (2)
12:6,11
governmental (2)
9:10,13
governs (2)
6:9;13:7
grant (1)
9:11
great (1)
20:9
Greiner (5)
4:14,23;13:22,25,
25
grid (1)
19:23
ground (4)
15:4,4,21;17:6
Guard (1)
27:25
guests (1)
29:8
guide (1)
27:22
H
half (2)
22:16;25:7
halved (1)
27:7
hamlet (1)
19:6
handout (3)
5:18;14:6;18:18
hands (1)
5:20
happen (2)
19:2;28:11
happens (3)
7:13;8:16;25:12
Harbor (4)
16:5;20:10;28:3,8
hard (2)
24:3,6
harm (1)
20:4
harmful (1)
20:3
head (1)
28:5
hear (6)
17:11;23:23;
24:10,21;25:3,5
heard (1)
7:24
hearing (14)
3:18,24;4:18;5:5;
8:14;12:15;13:15;
16:13;17:11;21:24;
23:23;24:5;28:17;
29:5
heart (1)
20:5
held (1)
3:18
helipad (1)
14:24
helped (1)
21:8
helpful (1)
18:8
Henderson (3)
15:19,22;27:21
Herb (1)
23:6
high (2)
19:22;26:6
highest (1)
19:15
historic (1)
19:6
history (1)
27:23
hold (1)
5:10
holding (1)
13:15
hope (3)
20:15,16;22:21
hopefully (1)
4:24
HOUNSFIELD (37)
3:1,10,15;4:1;5:1;
6:1;7:1,5;8:1;9:1;
10:1,4;11:1,14;12:1;
13:1;14:1,10;15:1;
16:1,4;17:1;18:1;
19:1;20:1;21:1,21,
24;22:1;23:1;24:1;
25:1;26:1;27:1;28:1,
21;29:1
hour (1)
27:7
house (1)
15:13
households (2)
16:9;25:24
housing (3)
14:19,19,20
hundred (1)
26:23
hydro (1)
26:9
(3) entering - hydro

May 18, 2009
I
idea (3)
23:9;25:9,23
ideal (1)
26:6
Impact (15)
3:14,16;5:6,9;6:9;
7:17;8:20;21:19,25;
22:2,6,8,14,20,22
impacts (2)
6:24,25
important (1)
9:21
impulse (2)
23:21;24:3
include (1)
12:20
included (5)
5:17;9:15;11:13,
14;12:20
includes (2)
12:7,9
including (1)
12:22
incorporate (1)
6:11
individual (1)
13:16
individuals (1)
5:22
informal (1)
16:15
information (4)
4:9;11:3;12:18;
26:2
informed (1)
11:8
infrastructure (3)
14:17;15:7,14
initial (1)
14:8
input (1)
28:20
interest (3)
11:21;12:17;18:11
into (7)
6:4,12;17:16;
20:13;21:7;27:18;
28:20
involved (4)
9:4,5,5,14
Island (21)
3:11;11:24;12:8,
10;14:14,15,18,24;
15:2,6,10,16,19,20;
21:19,24;22:16;
23:10;26:4;27:23;
28:5
issuance (1)
9:22
issue (4)
Min-U-Script
3:20;6:17;9:7,11
issued (5)
7:7;8:3,10;9:16;
10:5
issues (4)
5:7;8:21;9:21;
13:19
J
Jack (2)
3:3;6:5
Jefferson (1)
16:4
Johnson (4)
21:15,16,16,23
June (3)
7:21;21:22,22
K
keep (1)
5:25
kind (5)
7:3;25:10,24,25;
27:3
known (2)
3:11;25:14
L
lake (3)
12:10;19:19;20:18
land (1)
12:11
large (2)
23:15,25
last (4)
7:16,21;10:23;
28:23
later (1)
15:6
Law (2)
12:12,16
lead (3)
7:13,15;8:25
leader (1)
19:2
leads (1)
23:14
least (1)
21:12
leave (1)
10:25
left (1)
3:7
legislature (1)
19:3
lengthy (1)
7:10
less (1)
19:24
letter (3)
21:18;22:9;23:11
letters (1)
12:22
level (1)
6:17
levels (1)
23:15
libraries (1)
11:14
lighthouse (1)
28:6
likely (1)
26:15
limited (1)
26:25
line (6)
15:21,23;19:5,17,
24;20:3
lines (3)
12:9;19:22;20:13
line-wise (1)
20:17
list (2)
11:10,11
listed (1)
23:17
listen (1)
18:2
little (6)
10:11;13:23;
16:14;18:13,14;
26:18
Litwhiler (6)
17:5,8;21:15;23:4;
27:16;28:13
live (1)
23:7
living (2)
15:16;22:15
local (5)
6:13,17;7:4;9:6,10
long (5)
15:19,23;18:9,13,
15
long-term (1)
14:21
look (4)
8:17;9:18;10:5;
20:16
looking (1)
4:10
loss (1)
24:5
lot (4)
20:4,8;24:4;27:24
low (1)
23:20
lower (1)
21:8
Lyme (7)
21:17,22;22:3,8;
23:3,8;25:13
M
machinery (1)
24:25
magnification (1)
22:10
magnifies (1)
27:5
mail (1)
10:24
mailing (1)
11:10
mainland (1)
25:12
maintenance (1)
15:12
major (1)
26:25
majority (1)
19:2
making (3)
6:13;17:6;25:18
management (1)
14:21
manager (2)
3:9;14:2
manufacturer's (1)
23:17
many (1)
16:6
map (1)
15:8
March (2)
3:20;7:14
materials (1)
14:23
maximum (1)
26:5
May (10)
3:19,23,24;7:15;
8:11;10:17;11:21;
13:14;22:3;28:25
maybe (1)
18:21
means (3)
6:14;7:17;27:6
media (2)
10:22;18:5
meeting (1)
8:2
megawatts (6)
14:12;16:8;21:4;
26:4,7,12
member (1)
23:7
message (1)
10:20
messages (1)
10:25
Metzger (1)
24:13
Mexico (3)
11:25;12:11;15:22
microphone (1)
17:10
middle (1)
6:10
might (2)
14:9;26:11
miles (10)
15:18,23;19:25;
20:2;22:16;24:20,23;
25:4,7;27:7
milestone (1)
13:9
million (2)
16:3;20:13
minimize (1)
24:6
misleading (1)
26:2
Mitch (1)
27:20
mitigate (1)
28:8
mitigation (1)
27:25
models (1)
14:13
month (1)
18:17
more (1)
20:4
most (5)
14:7,14;17:19;
19:3;24:7
motion (1)
22:4
mouth (1)
28:10
movement (1)
28:15
moves (1)
11:9
much (8)
6:2;14:15;21:14;
23:23;24:18;27:15;
28:19;29:12
multi (1)
18:5
municipalities (2)
21:7,13
N
name (7)
11:2,10;13:25;
18:21,24;21:16;
27:20
NASCA (6)
3:2,3;10:19;16:12;
17:3;28:18
nation (1)
19:15
naval (1)
(4) idea - naval

May 18, 2009
23:13
necessarily (2)
11:7,20
necessary (1)
4:3
need (8)
6:24;7:2;9:23;
11:3;13:21;17:17,24;
26:7
needs (2)
6:16;7:8
negotiate (2)
20:21;21:11
New (13)
3:4;6:20;11:17;
12:2,12,13,19;15:22;
19:11;22:23;26:10,
18;29:7
next (2)
4:12;23:4
nice (2)
19:13;29:13
nights (1)
25:15
noise (20)
21:20;22:2,5,6,8,
10,14,18,20;23:10,
15,16,19;24:6,18,25;
25:3,3,6,10
noises (1)
23:14
noisy (1)
24:22
none (1)
27:15
northeast (1)
15:20
northeastern (1)
15:6
northern (1)
28:10
notes (1)
11:20
notice (7)
3:16,21,21,22,23;
8:5,10
noticed (1)
8:5
nuclear (3)
19:21;26:8,16
number (4)
6:22;7:10;11:2;
12:25
O
o'clock (2)
3:25;4:2
off (3)
14:23;16:21;18:12
offer (2)
17:25;18:6
office (1)
Min-U-Script
11:15
officer (1)
17:11
official (1)
27:18
offshore (1)
24:17
oil (2)
26:17,18
omissions (1)
17:19
Once (9)
5:2;8:25;9:24;
13:4,10,15;19:8;
27:19;29:5
one (8)
4:6;5:24;7:12;
15:25;19:20;25:22;
27:9;28:23
online (1)
11:15
only (2)
18:10;22:15
Ontario (1)
19:19
open (2)
13:11;16:21
operate (2)
26:22,23
operations (3)
14:20;15:2,12
operators (1)
26:25
opportunity (2)
4:24;5:12
oral (2)
17:9;29:2
order (2)
10:14;13:4
Oswego (4)
11:25;18:25;
20:23;21:5
Others (1)
28:13
otherwise (2)
20:4,19
out (10)
3:3;5:21;6:16;
10:13;16:17;26:3,4;
27:8,17;29:4
outline (3)
7:19,23;8:2
output (1)
27:10
over (9)
5:2,15;13:22;15:9;
22:11;24:5,8;26:12;
28:15
overall (1)
6:2
overview (1)
4:15
owns (1)
28:5
pick (2)
5:22;11:4
pike (1)
P
28:10
PILOT (4)
page (3)
20:22,22,25;24:14
5:24;10:11,15
place (2)
part (6)
15:3;24:24
5:5,6;11:11;14:14;
plan (2)
25:11,12
7:5;10:4
partaking (1)
planned (1)
6:3
15:10
participate (1)
planning (1)
4:4
23:8
participating (1)
plants (2)
29:5
19:21;27:2
particular (4)
play (1)
6:19;7:23;12:17;
6:16
13:8
please (2)
particularly (1)
18:2,20
25:15
plus (2)
parts (1)
22:13,24
15:14
pm (2)
pass (1)
3:19,19
24:19
point (6)
passed (1)
11:5;13:22;22:15,
5:21
21;25:6,10
passes (2)
polite (2)
23:21,25
18:2,4
payments (1)
pollution (1)
16:3
26:21
Peninsula (3)
populate (1)
24:16;25:6,11
28:10
Penninsula (2)
portion (5)
22:15,21
12:5,17;15:6,10;
people (8)
17:23
4:19;5:3;14:23;
15:16;18:2,10;25:21; poses (1)
22:7
27:11
positive (1)
percent (6)
7:16
15:24;26:12,13,14,
possible (2)
22,23
6:14;14:16
perhaps (1)
Power (24)
17:18
11:17;16:9;19:4,9,
period (6)
18,21,24;20:12,17,
4:19;9:3;13:12,13,
20;21:4,7,9,12;26:8,
19;16:19
9,18,20,21;27:2,3,8,
permanent (2)
9,14
14:18,20
powered (1)
permit (5)
26:9
6:17;9:7,8,11;13:8
power-wise (1)
Permits (12)
19:10
3:6,9;6:22;7:3,4,6,
7;12:25;13:3,4,17,20 prepare (1)
8:19
permitted (2)
presentation (1)
6:25;7:2
4:7
permitting (2)
presentations (6)
14:2,3
4:6,16,22;5:11;
person (2)
6:6;18:5
8:15,18
presented (2)
pertaining (1)
9:19;23:9
22:5
presenting (1)
phenomena (2)
4:15
23:24;25:14
preserve (1)
20:9
Pressure (1)
20:24
prevailing (1)
22:11
principle (1)
19:13
probably (1)
18:11
Procedures (1)
13:6
proceedings (1)
29:15
process (23)
4:8,11,13;6:2,4,10,
13,15;7:5,8,10,12;
8:22;9:15;11:9,21;
12:6,22,23;13:9;
14:4,5;28:21
processed (1)
13:5
processes (2)
12:3;15:14
produce (3)
19:10;26:5,11
produced (2)
23:15;26:14
PROJECT (55)
3:1,9,10,11,12,15;
4:1,13,16,20;5:1;6:1,
19,23;7:1;8:1;9:1;
10:1;11:1;12:1,4,5,
18;13:1,17,23;14:1,
5,6,10;15:1;16:1,8;
17:1;18:1;19:1;20:1,
12;21:1;22:1,3,7,13,
19;23:1;24:1;25:1,
12;26:1;27:1;28:1,3,
12,22;29:1
Projects (1)
3:5
propellor (1)
23:25
property (2)
9:12;28:4
proposal (2)
11:22,23
proposed (6)
3:15;4:15;12:8;
21:24;22:12;28:21
protection (1)
6:25
provided (1)
18:22
provides (1)
8:23
providing (1)
28:19
public (32)
3:14,17,18;5:14;
7:20,24,25;8:4,9,12,
14,22,23;12:12,14,
(5) necessarily - public

May 18, 2009
19;13:12,15,18;17:3,
14,15,16,25;18:6,6;
27:18;28:2,4,19;
29:5,8
published (1)
3:23
Pulaski (3)
18:25;20:11,14
Purpose (1)
6:11
purposes (1)
14:20
put (4)
11:9;19:24;20:12;
26:2
pylon (1)
23:22
Q
Quality (2)
4:8;6:8
quickly (1)
9:4
quiet (3)
24:23;25:15,19
quite (4)
24:9,10;25:2,18
R
racket (1)
25:18
raise (2)
5:7,20
raised (2)
4:22;8:22
Re (27)
3:1;4:1;5:1;6:1;
7:1;8:1;9:1;10:1;
11:1;12:1;13:1;14:1;
15:1;16:1;17:1;18:1;
19:1;20:1;21:1;22:1;
23:1;24:1;25:1;26:1;
27:1;28:1;29:1
reach (1)
11:15
reaction (1)
24:21
read (3)
16:6;23:12;28:16
realize (1)
26:24
really (3)
25:11;26:5,19
reason (4)
10:7,7,8;11:6
reasoned (1)
9:20
receipt (2)
8:12;14:22
receive (4)
5:8,19,20;8:16
Min-U-Script
received (4)
12:23;13:3,5;
28:25
recently (1)
24:13
record (16)
4:18;5:3,4,5,6;
10:5,6,9;16:13,21;
17:4,15,16;27:18;
29:3,6
recorder (1)
17:12
recounted (1)
24:18
regard (1)
21:19
regarding (4)
12:23;22:2,5;
23:11
region (1)
19:9
regular (1)
10:24
regulated (1)
12:13
regulation (1)
6:9
regulations (1)
12:2
related (3)
11:20;12:21;13:19
relatively (1)
4:17
remind (1)
28:23
reminder (2)
17:13;18:9
reopen (2)
5:3;17:3
reporter (1)
18:22
representatives (2)
20:24;21:11
represented (1)
15:8
request (1)
22:18
require (1)
7:3
required (2)
6:22;7:18
requires (1)
7:6
Residence (1)
27:21
residences (1)
25:6
residents (4)
19:6;21:13;22:15,
20
respectfully (3)
22:8,18;23:2
responding (1)
17:22
response (1)
5:8
responses (1)
8:23
responsibility (1)
14:3
rest (1)
26:13
resulting (1)
13:2
review (14)
3:18;4:8,13;6:8;
7:5,20,25,25;8:4,8,9;
10:4;13:7;28:20
reviewing (1)
12:3
Rick (5)
4:14,23;13:22,25;
16:12
right (5)
6:11;19:3,22;20:5;
21:3
right-of-way (1)
15:24
roads (1)
14:25
rock (2)
10:19,20
room (1)
17:10
route (1)
12:7
rudder (1)
24:2
rules (1)
17:6
run (3)
12:9;15:4,21
S
Sackets (2)
16:5;20:10
safe (1)
28:3
same (1)
20:10
savings (1)
27:13
saw (1)
27:3
School (1)
16:5
scope (2)
7:19;8:2
scoping (1)
7:23
Scott (2)
21:18;23:2
seaway (2)
24:14,16
second (4)
3:21;4:2;6:15;25:8
Secondly (1)
23:19
section (2)
21:20;22:5
seeing (2)
25:24;28:14
seems (1)
25:19
send (1)
10:17
sent (1)
11:12
September (1)
8:3
SEQR (10)
6:11,15;7:8,10,11,
13,16;9:15;10:9;12:6
series (1)
15:12
Service (4)
12:12,14;14:25;
29:8
Service's (1)
12:19
session (12)
3:25;4:2;5:2,14;
10:12,13,16;16:15,
20,20,25;20:16
sessions (1)
4:4
set (1)
6:5
several (1)
20:4
shall (1)
16:11
share (2)
19:5;22:4
Shawn (1)
18:24
ship (5)
24:2,15,22,23;25:4
shipboard (1)
23:14
shipping (1)
24:20
ships (3)
23:25;24:5,7
shore (1)
25:19
short (2)
4:17;13:4
shown (1)
11:16
shows (1)
18:4
significant (4)
22:7,14,22;25:5
Signor (1)
21:21
simply (1)
12:16
site (7)
7:5;10:4;11:16,18;
12:20,21;25:7
sitting (1)
20:25
situated (1)
14:14
situation (1)
6:20
size (1)
14:11
slide (1)
18:4
small (1)
28:9
somebody (1)
24:8
someone (1)
18:14
sound (3)
24:8,22;25:9
sounds (2)
23:22;24:12
source (2)
26:15,15
sources (2)
26:10,21
southern (1)
19:11
spare (1)
15:14
spawning (1)
28:9
speak (6)
4:3;10:12,12;11:7;
16:18;18:2
speaker (1)
16:17
speakers (2)
17:4,5
specifically (1)
21:20
specifications (1)
23:18
speed (2)
27:4,6
spelling (1)
18:23
split (1)
16:4
spoke (1)
27:21
stable (1)
25:14
stacks (1)
25:2
staff (2)
29:6,7
standards (1)
22:23
State (18)
3:4;4:8;6:7,12,17,
20;9:6,9;12:2,12,13,
(6) published - State

May 18, 2009
16,19;18:20;19:11;
22:23;26:11,18
Statement (18)
3:15,16;5:6,9,14;
6:10;7:17;8:20;9:24;
17:3,7,17;21:19,25;
22:6;26:19;28:16;
29:2
statements (3)
5:4;17:9,12
station (1)
28:2
stationed (1)
3:7
stay (1)
11:8
steady (1)
26:6
steps (3)
4:12;7:11,11
stern (1)
24:2
Steve (8)
3:7,8;4:7,22;5:15;
17:5;28:18,24
still (1)
25:16
Stony (1)
15:20
strong (1)
27:10
study (4)
22:18,21;25:9;
27:12
submit (2)
11:8;18:16
submits (1)
22:8
submitted (3)
8:7,18;28:24
substantive (1)
5:7
substation (3)
11:25;12:8;15:5
suggests (1)
27:14
suits (1)
24:4
summary (1)
14:6
supervisor (3)
21:18,21;23:3
sure (5)
11:11;21:2,10;
25:5;27:20
surface (1)
25:16
surprised (2)
24:18;25:24
system (1)
15:3
Min-U-Script
T
table (4)
5:18;20:24,25;
21:10
tail (1)
20:15
talk (5)
4:7;13:23;17:21;
19:17;20:6
talked (2)
10:11;17:13
talking (5)
5:17,23;6:6,7;
24:13
tap (1)
21:7
temporary (2)
14:18,19
Ten (1)
9:16
terms (1)
14:17
Thanks (1)
5:16
therefore (1)
25:8
thinking (1)
14:12
though (1)
16:16
three (4)
18:10;24:20,22;
25:4
threshold (2)
22:13;23:23
thus (1)
18:10
Times (1)
3:24
today (11)
3:13;4:9,10,12;
5:17;6:3;8:13,16;
11:7;12:7;13:15
today's (5)
10:12,13,16;11:21;
12:15
Tomasik (7)
3:7;4:7;5:15,16;
10:20;23:11;28:24
tonight (1)
4:3
tooth (1)
27:3
tower (1)
12:5
TOWN (49)
3:1,10;4:1;5:1;6:1;
7:1,4,6;8:1;9:1;10:1,
3;11:1,13,14,15,25;
12:1,11;13:1;14:1;
15:1,22;16:1,4;17:1;
18:1;19:1;20:1;21:1,
17,21,22,23;22:1,3,8,
17;23:1,3,8;24:1;
25:1,13;26:1;27:1;
28:1,21;29:1
towns (2)
20:21;21:8
township (1)
20:8
townships (1)
20:5
train (1)
23:16
transmission (7)
12:7,9;15:21,23;
19:17,22;20:3
transmit (2)
11:24;19:18
transmitted (2)
15:17;25:10
travelling (2)
22:11;24:8
treatment (2)
7:2;15:15
try (5)
5:25;20:18;21:11;
24:6;29:10
turbine (5)
15:5;22:13;23:16,
20;27:5
turbines (7)
14:11;19:13;
23:15;24:17,19;
25:18;26:16
turn (4)
5:15;13:22;17:4;
28:15
Turning (2)
10:15;25:18
two (3)
11:13;12:3;16:3
types (1)
4:9
5:22;10:23;11:4,5;
13:11;17:17,25;18:5,
20;21:11;24:16,25;
25:17,23;27:17,19
upgrade (1)
28:2
upon (1)
8:8
Upstate (2)
11:17;29:7
use (4)
26:10,17;28:2,4
used (1)
21:6
useful (1)
17:19
using (1)
25:25
utility (2)
19:14;20:16
utilize (1)
28:4
under (12)
7:11,13,16;9:15;
12:6,10,10,14;13:5;
15:4;20:18;26:5
underground (2)
19:19;20:12
undertake (1)
6:18
underwater (2)
15:18;19:25
Uniform (1)
13:6
Unit (1)
3:6
unlikely (1)
26:17
up (16)
V
variability (2)
27:2,5
variance (1)
27:10
vastly (1)
20:11
vehicles (1)
15:13
velocity (1)
25:17
ventilating (1)
25:2
view (1)
19:7
village (2)
20:6,7
villages (1)
21:8
waiting (1)
9:2
walked (1)
5:19
wants (1)
17:24
Warren (3)
21:16,23;23:9
Warren's (1)
25:8
waste (2)
7:2;15:15
water (7)
6:25;7:2;12:10;
15:15;22:11;24:8,11
Watertown (1)
3:24
way (3)
5:23;19:18;20:18
web (5)
11:16,16,18;12:20,
21
weigh (1)
9:18
weight (1)
29:3
welcome (1)
4:4
weren't (1)
5:22
westerly (1)
22:11
wetland (1)
6:24
wetlands (1)
14:15
what's (3)
8:19;9:7;13:5
Whereas (1)
22:6
Whereupon (2)
16:24;29:15
WIND (56)
3:1,11,11,15;4:1,
16;5:1;6:1;7:1;8:1;
9:1;10:1;11:1,22;
12:1,5;13:1;14:1,10,
11;15:1,25;16:1;
17:1;18:1;19:1,12,
12;20:1;21:1,24;
22:1,12;23:1,15;
24:1,17;25:1,3,17;
26:1,3;27:1,2,4,4,6,6,
7,9,10,13;28:1,21;
29:1,7
winds (4)
22:12;26:6,6,11
wish (1)
10:15
words (1)
4:11
work (2)
10:21,24
worked (1)
24:6
writing (6)
8:18;10:16;18:7,8,
16;28:24
written (2)
23:11;29:2
Y
year (4)
7:16,21;8:10,12
years (2)
10:23;24:5
year's (1)
26:12
York (13)
(7) Statement - York

May 18, 2009
3:4;6:20;11:17;
12:2,12,13,19;15:22;
19:11;22:23;26:10,
18;29:7
Min-U-Script
(8) Statement - York
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ONE COMMERCE PLAZA
99 WASHINGTON AVENUE
ALBANY, NY 12231-0001
DAVID A. PATERSON
GOVERNOR
LORRAINE
A.
CORT~S-VAZQUEZ
SECRETARY OF STATE
May 26,2009
Stephen M. Tomasik
C/O NYS DEC Central Office
625 Broadway, 4th Floot
Albany, NY 12233-1750
Re:
S-2009-0029
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District Permit
Application
NYS DEC Region 6 Permit Application
Hounsfield Wind Farm project,
Galloo Island, Hounsfield, Jefferson County
SEQRA Comments DEIS
Dear Mr. Tomasik:

The Hounsfield Wind Farm project proposed to be located on Galloo Island, Hounsfield, New York is
the subject of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) submitted to the Department of State
(DOS) for comment. The proposed project is located within the bounds of the New York State coastal
zone and given the nature of the proposed activity, coastal affects may be likely. Pursuant to 15 CFR
Part 930, this proposed project will be reviewed for its consistency with the New York State Coastal
Management Program (CMP) prior to the issuance of any federal permits, licenses or other
authorizations. The DOS offers the following comments in response to the DEIS prepared for the
Hounsfield Wind Farm:
It may be advantageous to ensure that proper financial security mechanisms are in place to assure that
the proposed facility would be operated in an adequate manner and that sufficient funds and procedures
are in place to provide for decommissioning of the proposed project.
State regulated freshwater wetlands should be preserved and protected and as such, destruction should
be avoided. However, the DEIS states that some wetlands impacts are unavoidable and proposes
wetland mitigation. If determined acceptable it should be stipulated that where practical, all wetland
mitigation should be located within the sub-watershed that the original disturbed wetland is located
within and that area to be mitigated should be maximized. Additionally, specific parameters should be
established that define what would constitute a successfully established wetland and at what point
guaranteed remedial action would occur, should success parameters not be met. It may be advantageous
to guarantee proper wetland establishment through bonding or other financial security mechanisms.
Additionally, public comments have been received that identify public recreational uses associated with
various wetland areas on the island through existing agreements with the private landowner; these uses
should be preserved to the extent practical.
It may be advantageous to explore the potential benefits derived from curtailing generation during
periods of increased avian activity. A recent study at the Casselman Wind Power Project in
Pennsylvania indicated that avian and bat impacts may be reduced by raising the minimum "cut-in"
WWW.DOS.STATE.NY.US
E-MAIL: INFO@DOS.STATE.NY.US
wind speed necessary t~ begin turning the wind turbine. An investigation into the viability of such a
procedural shift may indicate that the benefits derived warrant its implementation. Similarly, this
procedure may be useful to curtail potential effects on the viability of proximate Significant Coastal
Fish and Wildlife Habitats (SCFWH).
Several SCFWHs are located within close proximity to the proposed project site and because of the
selected w.ind turbine's significant vertical profiles, avian utilization ofthese SCFWHs may be
affected. Specific pre-construction characterization of avian uses ofthe SCFWHs should be required
along with sufficient post construction monitoring to quantify any potential effects. Appropriate
provisions for operating procedure adaptation should be included in the DEIS should effects on
proximate SCFWHs become evident. These and all other wildlife monitoring data should be presented
to all regulatory agencies and made available for public inspection.
Appropriate best management practices and procedures should be identified that will control
stormwater runoff and associated non-point source pollutants reaching Lake Ontario during the
construction and operation of the proposed facility. Additionally, all point source discharges should be
treated in a manner consistent with current state regulations. These discharges should not effect any
current or proposed potable water supplies.
Specific procedures should be identified that provide for the removal ofthe proposed temporary dock
and groin and established time frames should be proposed.
Several public property parcels are located on Galloo Island with various historic, cultural recreational,
visual and other resources associated with them. Additionally, public areas on the mainland, notably
the historic areas of Sackets Harbor, may have similar resources. The benefits derived by the public
from these properties should not be impacted.
Potential public-access and water-related recreational opportunities that are compatible with the
proposed activity should be identified and considered. These may include providing areas of safe
harbor as identified at the May 18, 2009 public hearing, public docking facilities to encourage
The applicant's analysis of coastal policy states that excavation of the entrance channel would be to a
depth of 14 feet below ordinary high water, however, the document also makes reference to ordinary
low water as the applicable datum. These discrepancies should be addressed.
Additionally, it would be desirable for the Department of State to be included on the distribution list for
all future monitoring reports regarding this proposed project.
Please contact Matthew Maraglio with any questions regarding this project and New York State Coastal
Policies at (518) 474-5290 (email:matthew.maraglio@dos.state.ny.us).
Silt
~erv~lonsistenCY
Unit
Office of Coastal, Local Government
and Community Sustainability
JZ/mm
C.
US ACOE I Buffalo - Steven Metivier

American Consulting Professionals - Mark Colmerauer

To: jane Bardon
Date: 5/27/2009 12:13 PM
Subject:
Re: Galloo Island Windpower Project
Stephen Tomasik
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
>>> jane Bardon <chomka@yahoo.com> 5/19/2009 11:39 AM >>>

I attended yesterday's presentation on the above project in Sackets Harbor and was
disappointed at the paucity of financial data and lack of "selling points" for the local
residents. Nobody answered THE crucial question: How do local residents benefit from
this project?
I need the following:
1. A copy of the agreement between the local governments, the developer, and relevant
power companies;
2. The plans for energy dissemination;
3. Information on the tax and energy price implications for nearby residents.
4. Estimates of positive and negative externalities.
Many thanks,
Jane E. Bardon, Ph.D. (Economics)
Eastern Lake Ontario Salmon and Trout Association

Box 3484 Syracuse, NY 13220
Web Site www.elosta.org
OFFICERS
Charlie Ames
President
Doug Fuegel
Vice President
Tom Lott
Treasurer
Stephen Tomasik
NYS DEC Div. of Env. Permits
625 Broadway, 4th floor
May 27, 2009
Dear Mr. Tomasik,

Mac MacKenzie
Secretary
Web Master
Libby Lougnot
Newsletter Editor
BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
Gerry Bresadola
Jerry Lougnot
Jack Quinlan
Concerning the Hounsfield wind project of 84 wind turbines proposed for

installation on Galloo Island in the Eastern Basin of Lake Ontario our organization
of more than 350 sportsmen families' wishes to convey to you in the strongest
position possible that we are opposed to any such development on this pristine
island.
The Great Lakes stretching across the country's northern tier have aptly been
described by the scientific community as "a jeweled necklace consisting of five
sparkling diamonds". These vast inland seas represent a fresh water resource with
life supporting amenities that are without equal on a global scale. New York State
is indeed wealthy and privileged in this respect. It is one of a few states with the
opportunity to contribute to the management and perpetuation of these National
treasures for generations to come.
Neil Duell
Roy Hunsberger
Bill Thomas
Jay Levy
Zane MacFadden DDS
Joe Wilcznski
Jake & June Howell
Barry Stevens
Skip Geppner
This is an immense task that requires perceptive and knowledgeable leadership. Do

we have the leadership apparently not? Our Governor and representatives are
plunging headlong into development of energy producing alternatives that are
based upon nothing more than thoughtless green generated knee jerk reactions. The
proposed Gallo Island wind farm is a glaring example.
To date existing wind farms have proven to be inefficient, unreliable, a tremendous
burden on the tax paying community through Pilot's and other subsidies and their
ugly appearance totally destroys the landscape on which they sit as will be the case
of our beautiful Gallo Island.
Doug Fuegel
Vice President

To: djo@frontiernet.net
Date: 5/27/2009 12:02 PM
Subject:
Re: Wind Turbine project on Galloo Island
Stephen Tomasik
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
>>> <djo@frontiernet.net> 5/24/2009 9:09 PM >>>

Dear Sirs,
I'm writing to express that we are most emphatically in favor of the Galloo Island wind
turbine project. The more we see of Upstate Power and Babcock and Brown, the more
we are impressed with their professionalism.
We are also concerned about the wildfire spread of Swallow wort--the island's current
owners have spent thousands trying to keep it under control, with little result. We feel
Upstate Power might be better able to keep it in check at least.
Thank you.
Regards,
Deb Johnston
Deputy Chair
Town of Hounsfield Planning Board

To: slwalty@aol.com
Date: 5/27/2009 12:08 PM
Subject:
Re: Wind project Gallo Island & purposed route of transmission line
Stephen Tomasik
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
>>> <slwalty@aol.com> 5/20/2009 9:12 PM >>>
Let me first say, that I think NY State could find a better place other
than beautiful Gallo Island, to build a wind power project. This has been a
fly way for migratory birds and now the state wants to put them in harms
way. Let it be known that I do not support a wind farm on Gallo.
Further more, I live in Henderson Harbor, NY on the water but I also own
property on Route #3, 8155 is the address where my barn is located. I, went
to the Henderson free library and looked over the documents that were
provided to the public, including an aerial over view with the purposed route of
the purposed transmission line. If I am correct the line is directly over
my property and crosses route #3 continuing right through my neighbors
property where he has an approved sub-division to be developed.
My understanding is that this purposed transmission line was defeat three
times south of my property when farmers hired lawyer's. I was informed
that the town clerk of Henderson contacted NY State and made a suggestion to
route the line through Henderson, with the line passing through my neighbors
property, and continuing to the Ross farm on the other side of Little
Stony Creek, where she resides. If the town clerk wants windmills on her
farm, so be it then you can route the purposed line to Mexico, NY from there to
buld your sub-station.
I, will not give permission to cross my land, I'm not in favor of this
newly purposed route and will join my neighbor across from me, the Henderson
Gun Club, who I, also understand told NY State that they don't want the
transmission line going across their property.

To: Janice McClellan
Date: 5/27/2009 12:15 PM
Subject:
Re: Galloo Island
Stephen Tomasik
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
>>> Janice McClellan <jmcclellan61@gmail.com> 5/18/2009 9:22 PM >>>

The island is too unique to cover it with windmills, there is plenty
of open land in the area which would be a better choice for 84 wind
turbines. I believe putting that many on such a beautiful shoreline
is equivalent to putting oil rigs off the beaches of Florida. J.
McClellan, 13658 Bayview Dr. S., Henderson, NY
Surely, there is a better solution to the routing of this power line, than
the one you have purposed going over my property, with all of the
undeveloped land in the north country, why pass through populated area's?
Respectfully,
Raymond S. Walty
P.O. Box #67
8508 Reed Canal Road
Henderson Harbor, NY 13651
315-938-5258
**************Recession-proof vacation ideas. Find free things to do in
the U.S.
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourismweek?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)

To: Pete Price
Date: 5/28/2009 2:12 PM
Subject:
Re: Galloo Island
Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed Hounsfield Wind Farm. Your
comments, however, pertain to the transmission line proposed to connect electricity
generated by the wind project to the power grid. Please note that the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS), for which DEC is accepting comments, only includes
consideration of the proposed wind generation project on Galloo Island. Under New York
State law, the environmental review of the proposed transmission line is conducted by the
New York State Department of Public Service (DPS). Information about this process is
available at the DPS website:
http://documents.dps.state.ny.us/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCase
No=09-t-0049
Stephen Tomasik
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
>>> Pete Price <pete8048@hotmail.com> 5/28/2009 12:19 PM >>>

Hello, my name is Peter Price, I own approx. 35 acres of land on the south east corner
of the intersection of NYS route 3 and NYS route 178. I have not been approached
however a map exists at our public library that depicts the Galloo Island transmission line
going through the center of my land with a 200' ft wide right of way. I vehemently
oppose this route for two major reasons. I have two approved subdivisions, one
commercially zoned subdivision on route NYS 3 with a storage facilty in place and
approved for six more structures, the proposed routing would limit the growth of my
approved project, therefore having a negative effect on my ability to make a living. The
other subdivision is residencial, the proposed routing would take away my ability to
develop one approved lot of which I have made underground power, telephone, and cable
TV available. Much undeveloped land exists on NYS route 3, the selection of this route
exposes the self serving interests of our Village Clerk, Richmond. When looking at the
big picture of this plan, it becomes clear that Frank Ross's land is a destination. Ross is a
former Supervisor in the Town of Henderson and resides with the current Village Clerk
Richmond in Ross's home. Ross's land is due east of mine and my land must be crossed
to get to Ross's land. This town was adversely effected by the Richmond, Ross
connection several years ago with the approval of a cell tower on another parcel of land
owned by Ross, he was Town Supervisor at the time and Richmond the Village Clerk, the
site has proven to give limited cell phone service. The proposed Galloo transmission line
routing was put in place to make the Ross land a candidate for windmills at the expense
of me and many other land owners. The misuse of political positions in NNY to enhance
those individuals personal income needs to be examined by a neutral agency, this practice
is out of control due to lack of oversite.
I support green energy, however this process requires more oversite.
Respectfully: Peter M. Price
8048 NYS route 3 PO box 67
Henderson NY 13650
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009
nsH AND WILDLIFE S E R V I C -~
W ~ I * P&-
a-w
3817 Luker Road

Cartland, NY 13045
Mr. Steve Tomasik, Project Manager

New Y ~ r kState Depwhnent of
Environmental Conservation
Div. of Environmental Permits
625 Braadway, 4' F1.
Albany, WY 12233-1750
Dear Mr. Tomash:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Hounsfield wind energy project dated March 2008. The
project sponsor, Upstate NY Power Corporation, proposes to camtruct up to 84 wind energy
turbines on Galloo Island in the Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, New York.
Our review md comments are being provided under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) process, in which the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) is acting as Lead Agency. We may provide future comments pursuant to the
Migram Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (40 Stat. 755;16 U.S.C.703-712),the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act PGEPA) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA] (87 Stat. 884, as mended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et sq.), the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33
U2S.C. 13441, or the Fish and WiIdlife Coord'mtion Act (48 Stat. 401, as mended; 16 U.S.C.
661 et seq.), as applicable.
The foI1owing represents our specific comments on the text of the DEIS :
Upstate NY Power Corporation is proposing to install up to 84 wind turbines with a capacity of

approximately 252 megawatts (MW). It should be noted that the w i d output from the project
will be approximately 83 MW because of the intermittent nature of wind. The document
describes project components in this section, but we noted &at there were no distances listed for
overhead and below ground 34.5 kilovolt collection lines provided (although it is mentioned later
in the text). We recommend this infomtion be provided in the Executive S-.
In regard to fossil fuel reductions, the DEIS indicates that the project will reduce emissions of
carbon dioxide (Cod, sulfur dioxide (SQ2),and nitrogen oxide NO,) by large mounts.
However, these emissions have been declining steadily in New York State since 1399. The SO2
has declined 77 percent, NO, by 61 percent, and C01 by 28 percent (USEPA 2009). We support
the reduction of fossil fuel emissions; however, we believe development of any energy source
must be prudent. Even if they do not emit pollutants, they may have other detrimental affects,
th.@Jw@wa
&-C>-*a%
%&&idof 23 perceMelektricity
W'W M&e
d <*The pjwt iawto53d&yVtke $tab%

Rea&l~ ~mftiIi9"
~~~
mew&$ &-I
by 2013. P m J : ~ l m e f i &
~TWX
@ d o n of252 NfWofeIe&gity m 4 1 y 3 rBwwqr,.ad~

,
a nwdmumaf
83 M W j d e l e c t r i h
~ ~exto b e g a d . This is due to the v&&k nature o f h w
r&ume. ,C%.~~&q~eniUy,
m d . ' t @ b byill ~d
dpdd~iiy
h W W y and p&w %om
of,$ener&n.lsill k waalmhpdxwk~g
raw wind pi&",
Bas& m m i w Wtdq
~
~ a g e ~ ~ d ~ ewill p m v i & S p p f o ~ I yo W W Q
axm~
e
crfthg8tqb'b e-t
eleGM~i%y
q d
2OMa),
pw
& e a h1
~.0 Pmpw ne&clipi$M
is
1,966
ow
1w
*Q
~~,tbee~,isimQ
~
-m
&e @ p i d - h ofthe
~ ,
p w j w i d & l ~ s M ~ s , ,WLh~d&5&at&ofupb252Whpeak
~ 3
H-&!
tke Dl3;5:=po* W the wiMvj r : w 3 eapaci~
Bfhw&d
e1Me
glid h&wmwt js only 83 MW- i t i ~ m & u & bthat the pmjwte~ddc m & tdfcwef
bbbes. Few& ~k
#add mean h:hpact Iriaturd r q o q q including lass #enW
fabifd ~d b d #jpMiQr We
t
W@
s p m p $ ~ d d ~ ~ a f lw~ ~ W
b p W t o - d mh h gl%aiMt&gm2pd6atddq
>
w~
~en~te~t~~fh&~wn~h~&&mhfrm&
&200&mdnra&d,
ef"&
~~~h6&b d@&&d. me
Tb,er l W h r of @ o y ~ W h h m 9 ~ &
htek&i3mre'~ti@h
d
in&@ki tha?s m e t pealr d q d haginpppsgdby 1,640
MW over the p d o w year md*i

w i n d w d e w e o u k l k & p d f ~ r o m e d e r l p o w&~m g ; ~ p * ~ ~ ~ t $ r
Wdlh New Yotk );M~assuoh,wipd &l&ies dll
pmdding
m de&s?1@
~ q @h,.it.
i~
momdd, WwmteW W i s IW m ~ e k h e ~ j 6 f ~ m w ~ ~ n
wwm4s w a means of p r ~ M h gW n w b s q rdief-rmthe WP,
m &xw
~&
fhepeak
-@.a.
P& 142d
i
st
emidms *& bould be diMltfcad by @egmj- c t e -@
gsb indwss W &e ptoj~dwill r e d m su& &o.ziibPnitragrnoxidedmdd&w &M-dt?
polhh&, smd & s p b d e we dfosil ,!k&b4

A t-+
repitby the N a W d Reswt~hthmd
@RC) W C J W n found that wind
pmjW do not & $ m t ' ~ . g q v h m m ~ &~l Q E B ~ E
F m ~ a m p I d t, m b ~ ~ y ~%
#
~m
Id
m$~d a
I n W y dhmfhql b%
theezrlt~deqmitydrn
M90g4). The aoWofeM&flQ pMkW 'rlqbgbf
s m * men@"andp&daa4+yiII p b a b l y be l e s s T p oPbwq
~
wind speeds. The
i a ~ t , m t ofwimd
m
Eesulb inclsctri~ityheisggemme? d y pMaal&m#&imfm
o h x m , o f~ ~ g f ~ l must
i t bei u~p ~s t i to
q me& dullan&
reduction of this "penhouse gas" is 4 percent. Interestingly, electric generating fwilities only
produce about 39 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States (EM2006).
Project staging and laydown areas are described on Page 1-18. We note that over 9 acres of
forest habitat will be impacted by these areas. No staging areas are proposed in the disturbed
adcultural fields on the northeast portion of the island, Consideration should be given to
reducing impacts to higher q d i t y habitat, instead using disturbed areas. Further, we note that '3 5
turbines are proposed in forest habitat while ody 8 are p ~ p o s e din agricultural areas. A
reduction in the number of turbines, along with associated access roads and electric collection
lines, placed in forest habitat is preferable.
There will be 9 miles of overhead electric collection lines a d 2-6 miles of overhead transmission
line constructed on the island. Overhead lines can cause substantial avian and bat mortaliw due
to collisions with lines and poles (Avery 1978). Avian electrocutians can occur if these
structures are not properly designed. An important resource for planning power line corridors
was produced by the Avian Power Line htemtion Committee (1996) and should be followed.
We recommend that the transmission line be routed around larger tracts of forests, grasslands,
and wetlands to protect existing habitat value, reduce fragmentation, and maintain interior wre
areas.
Turbine foundations will be excavated using blasting due to the prevalence of bsdr~ckon the
island. We believe this method of excavation may be very disruptive to some forms of wildlik,
such as reptiles and amphibians, small mammals, and ground nesting birds, Additional
infomation should be provided an the potential impacts to these animals. Approxhately
600 cubic yards of rock will be removed for each foundation and it is unclear to us where this
quantity of rock (over 50,000 cubic yards in total) will be disposed of if it is not used to wake
concrete.
The document indicates on Page 1-29 that 2.4 miles of overhead transmission line will be needed
on the island, but Page 1-23 indicates that 2.6 miles of overhead line will be needed. This
discrepancy should be reviewed,
Permanent road crossings through streams and wetlands are described on Page 1-43, It is
anticipated that four wetland crossings and no stream crossings will be required. However, we
noted the presence of multiple channels which may be intermittent or ephemeral. Irrstead of
using culverts to cross w e h d s , the project sponsor proposes to use ~ a c k
p l d within the
wetland. We do not support this plan for a number of reasons. First, the rock may limit water
movement when compacted. Second, the rock tends to trap sediment which can also limit water
movement. If heavy loads of sediment are present, it can become labor intensive and expensive
to t o m a i n t a i n the cmsshg. During high flow events, the rock can become dislodged and move,
Hard surfaces can cause erosion in areas adjacent to where the rack is placed. F d e r , the rock
will limit nutrient uptake and vegetation growth (although this could also be true for culverts).
Rock crossings are not recommended in wetlands by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS 2003). Therefore, we recommend the project sponsor review the current design and,
where necessy, replace rock crossings with bottomless culverts.
We are concerned with language m Page 1-46 in .that it is vague and does mt make
commitments to protect the environment. For example, the text states that mitigation far
t e m p m y wetland impacts will likely consist af restoring disturbed areas as close as possible to
preoonstruction conditions. A commitment should be stated that disturbed mas will be restored
to original conditions.
Text on Page 1-46 also indicateb that service roads will be constructed flush with the surrounding
g a l e to minimize intemption of surface flow. However, several portions of the docum&t
discuss dumping stone to create gravel w e s s roads. A flush surface will not be created by
dumping stone on the ground; however, it would cause a blackage to surfhce water flow,
Page 1-49 indicates that security lighting will be installed with lighting shielded in a downward
direction, We suppert that measure but also suggest that mot is^ sensors be placed on outside
lighting to save electricity and limit the amount af time lights are on at night. This will further
reduce avian attraction. Sodium vapor lights should be avoided.
Recent research at c o m u n i d o n towers in Michigan indicates that steady, burning red lights
(L-8 10) contribute to p a k t avian co1lisions. Minimum intensity and maximum offdmation
white or red strabe or flashing lights reduced mortality up to 71 prcent (Gerhring 2006).
Canstruction afthis p m j e will require a work farce of approx"~z~ate1y
220 M,Xn addition, 24
permanent staff will handle routine turbine operation and maintemmca, This level of human
presence and activity will be extremely disruptive to wildlife, especially those species on the
island which are secretive md are~egativelyaffected by human presence (i.e. h & c m bittern).
Because the project will be com~ctedon an island, there is limited arm for refuge from these
activities. The DEIS s&ouIdreview this issue in greater detail.
The consultationrecord on Table 1.6-2 is out of date and should be updated after Mky 2008.
Other statutes under our jurisdiction, ia addition to those: listed on Page 1-59, include the MBTA
md the BGEPA. The text should be revised to reflect these law.
Section 2.0 Rmurce Characterizaticru, Impact Assessment and Mitigation The DEIS
indicates that up to 168 acres of the island has been used for agriculture, It is important to note
that large numbers of gulls have been observed &ding in these areas. However, the report also
indicates that agricultural practices will be Mted upon project cmstnaction but available for
future use. Given that productive @r;ultute can attract some birds in large ~lurnbers~
we
recommend against planting crops which attract birds to the island. Tnis will avoid attracting
wildlife to an area with turbines.
While the DEIS indicates, on Page 2-22, that one stream is mapped on the island, a review af
aerial photography reveals what applears to be other channels. During a recent sik visit, we noted
several channels, although they may be intermittent or ephemeral in nature.
Work within Lake,Ontario includes blading and dredging ta create a vessel slip. We recommend
that silt curtains be required to cantah turbidity and prohct water quality in t h work
~ areas,
Apprmimately 650' large boat trips, 216 large b q e trips, 51 small boat trips, and the arrival of
mechanized landing craft on another 41 trips durifig ;eomtruction, will result in impacts to
shoreline areas and water quality. Slip and dock areas should be monitored regularly far erosion
during the construction period and corrective measures taken if necessary.
Un Page 2-30, the text states that concrete slurry disposal and washout procedures will protect
stream, pond, and lake water quality, but does not specifically mentiofi wetlands. F&,
the
report indicates a de minimu5 mount af fluids could leak from vehicles and equipment, but does
not consider hazardow fluids in turbine nacelles or transformers. This should be addressed in
this section.
Reference is made to a landfill on Page 2-33, but we saw no ather information for this type of
facility. If a landfill is proposed an the island, additional details on potential wildlife impacts
should he provided.
Lake sediments are described on Page 2-36 and testing indicates that of 17 sampIes, 10 had no
appreciable contamination, but the other samples had moderate c o n ~ t i o n The
. DEIS should
provide a better swnrtlary of the sampling results and do a more thorough evaluation of the
potential contaminantsthat may occur in proposed dislurbd asens. This should inclyde a more
in-depth analysis of the potential impacts to fish and wildlife,
Wetlands are described in Section 2.4.3, which indicates that approximately 361 acres of this
habitat type are found on the island. Qne area, Wetland J, m y not be jurisdictional due to its
isolation h m a navigable waterway. The report should be updated and pro.vi& infunnation on
whether ar not this area has been deemed jurisdictional.
Placement of fill into wetlands will mostly result fiom the construction of access roads and
clearing for electric lines. A total of 0,79 acres will be permanently impacted. As mentioned
above, the placement of rock into wetlands for crossings is not recommended. Instead culverts
should be considered as a means of crossing these areas. W e the project design does avoid
most of the site wetlands, many of these m a s will be completely swrounded by roads and
turbines, thereby decreasing the habitat value. We do not klieve &at the project &sign avoids
wetlands to the patest extent practicable. Several mads and electric lines can be moved to
avoid wetrands (between Turbines 64 and 65154 for example). Also, the overhead line between
Turbines 71 and 77 could be moved to folIow the access road and avoid crossing Wetlad F.
As mitigation for 0.79 m wetland impact, the project sponsor proposes to create 0.27 acre of
wetland fram an upland area. We found no explanation as to why the wetlands would not be
replaced in their entirety. Tmically, wetlands are replaced at a ratio higher than what is being
impacted. Forested wetlands are usualIy replaced at a ratio of 2 acres created for every 1 acre
impacted, due to the time it takes to replace wetland functions. It is stated that few l o d o n s are
mailable to create more wetlands. We have not seen information which supports the notion that
additional wtlmds c m n t be created on the island. In fact, we observed several suitable areas,
such as adjacent to Wetlands D or F. We recommend the wetland mitigation plan be reevaluated
and at least 1.5 acres of created wetland be built or restored, since most of the impacted wetI-d
is forested in nature.
Measures to protect wetlands are listed on Pages 2-53 and 2-54. However, measures are
suggested rather than committed to in the text. We suggest changes to the text, fm example,
rather than stating that clay ditch plugs can be used to prevent dram@ of wetlands, the text
should say they will be used. Also, seeding with appropriate grasses should be changed to
seeding with native species, if appropriate.
Section 2.5 describes wildlife and habitat and lists the attributes of the @em Lake Ontario
region and its importance to wildlife, particularly birds. In discussing the various habitat types
found on the island and associated wildlife dependent upon h m ,the DEIS concludes that there:
will be minor wildlife impacts, Given the long time W e for construction (3 years) and the
constant human activity, we expect impacts to be substantial, ifnot sigmficant, to sensitive
species. Also, given the web of infrastructure and turbines to be- constructed throughout the
island, remaining habitat will be degraded Further, we believe that the permanent presence of
project staff on the island who will be constantly inspecting, operating, repairing, and moving
equipment throughout the island, will permanently affect wiIdlife*especially those species not
accustomed to or tolerant of human presence. Also, there may be potetltid impacts to birds on
nearby Little Galloo Island, including State-listed species, fmn construction activity and boat
trafEc.
On Page 2-61 it is indicatd t . the project wiIl not adversely affect adjaent Little Galloo Islmd
or the species that transit between h e two islands, We found insufficient data in the report to
support this statement. It is noted in the avian report that "Little Galloo colonid waterbirds were
documented .to making regular feeding flights across Big Gallao Island''. Visual surveys were
only conducted for 20 minutes once a week between April and November. Additional visual
observatiam are needed tu confirm movement3 of Caspian terns, gulls, and cormorants. We
recommend repeating the studies to cormfirm results.
We note that the Executive S-?

on Page ES-10, indicates that impacts to Stablisted rare,
threatened, and endangered species are possible if the project is constructed and operated on
Galloo Island. It is important to paint out that the project also includes a 50,6-mile transmission
line component, which may impact State ancV~tFederally-listed species. That portion of the
project is king evdwated separately under the Public Service Law Article VII process, Prior to
any permit decisions or project approvals, the results of surveys and evaluation of the
transmission line component should be completed and evaluated in the Final EIS document.
It is also stated that bird collisions will be minor with the implementation af proper mitigatiofi
meawes. However, we know of few effective measures,outside of lighting and operation
adjustments, which will be eflective in reducing avian impacts. We advocate proper study and
careful turbine placement as the most e k t i v e means of avoiding avian impacts. This issue
should be M e r evaluated in a Final EIS. A list of proposed mitigation measures is provided in
tbis section. One measure not listed is the perfomatlce of post-constrwtion monitoring to
hprove the understanding of avian impacts, While a noteworthy task, monitoring alone is noi a
form of mitigation to alleviate avian loss. As slated above, this section does not provide effective
mitig~tionmeasms, such as turbine o~rationaladjustments during migration, to reduce wildlife
mortality. We do not support introducing red fox to the island for rodent control and suggest this
be removed from tke surmmy. Red fox can be a predator an ground nesting birds md also do
not compete well with the already established coyote.
It is stated on Page ES-13 that a small population of migratory bats may be at risk ofcollision
with turbines. However, it is not clear how the migratory bat population s h e was determined.
We recommend the term "small" not be used in this context. Mitigation measures do not
mention operational adjustments which, to date, is the d y h w n technique to reduce bat
fatalities.
The first p g r a p h on Page ES-22 has contradictory statements with the first sentence,indicating
a minimal impact on birds and bats, and the second sentence signifying there will be impacts of
m d m significance. This should be clarified.
It is mentioned that impacts to reptile and amphibian habitat will be minimal due to the low
amo,untof wetland loss. However, upland areas represent significant habitat during some portion
of herpafaunalife cycles. The DEIS needs to consider the impact to upland areas as well as the
network of roads and utility corridors upon habitat conditions. Although the report states there
will be habitat fragmentation from roads and electric lines, it does not quantify the efkcts on
habitat quality. This should be dded to the document.
On Page 2-73, it is mentioned that the substationwill be built within deciduous forest and
because there is no unique habitat or wildlife, an alternative location is not necessw. We
disagree with that statement. An n p field is located adjacentto the forested site where human
disturbance, such as deer feeding stations and trails, are found. We believe this would be a more
appropriate location and reduce the need for forest clearing.
Bald eagles bave been observed on the project site, particularly on the northern shore near North
Pond. A gdden eagle was also observed near the center of the island. On August 8,2007,the
bald eagle was re~ovsdfram the Federal Endangered Species list md is no longer protected
under the ESA; however, bald eagles remain on the New York State list as a threatened speciesBald and golden eagles are also pr~tectedunder the MBTA and the BGEPA. The Service is
currently -finalizingregulations r e h d to eagle take, and we suggest the project sponsors review
that i n f o d o n when available. D i d movement studies of the project area were conducted
over 43 days for only 1 year (2008). The Service typically recornmends that avian studies be
conducted for more than one season in separate years to account for seasonal and annual
variation. Therefore, we recommend additional monitoring be conducted to determine eagle and
other raptor use of the project area
Data is lacking on wintering birds on and near the island, Only 5 avian surveys were completed
during the winter of 2007-2UO8 wnd these were conducted at a quick pace due to adverse weather
conditions. Severe weather caused the cancellation of 8 other surveys. We understand the
difficultyin accessing the project site in winter; however, there is a lack of data for Wintering
birds. This is especially troubling since large concentrations of waterfowl use @e lake around the
island and bald eagles use the area in winter as well. In fact, bald eagles were o b m e d on ewh
of the five winter survey dates. For these reasons, we recommend additional surveys be
conducted in the winter to determineavian use during that time. We recommend weekly surveys
be conducted from November through March and encompass all times of the day. Several
stations should be monitored simultaneously throughout the island.
Eighty bird species were documented on the project site duringbreeding bird surveys, inclding
eight State-listed species. Another 42 species were observed during the surveys, but it was
determined they were not breeding an the island. Although this is a goad indication of species
richness, many af the breeders are common species (American robin, yellow warbler, house
wren>etc.). Still, the island currently pmvides habitat for some rare species which have
experienced population declines and c~nstructionof the project may reduce or eliminate heeding
opporhmities for species of concern (upland sandpiper, northern harrier, and bald eagle). While
these species are not known to nest on the island, they were ohserved several times and are
potential nesters. We d i m p with the statement &at the p j , t m y open up some m a s and
make them nzui~blefor northern Met nest@. The network of road&,dectric lines, and
t w b k will limit nesting o p p t d t i e s for this species Additional breeding bird suweyf &odd
bb p e ~ with
~ a
d emphasis on swiaa of special concern d their preEemd nesting habitats.
We ~~d weekly survey9 b ~ e e June
h ahd August eovefhg both early morning and late
ahmoon -time periods.
m Page 2-79 indicates that the haldtat impam from the project will he low, so the
bidogical i m p t fivill be low as welt We disagree with that notion, prhwiIy because -tke
project infrastructure [roads,electric and overhead lines, turbines, subsmtion, and buildings) wiU
twi any remaining habitat into a patchwork of fiqmnted habitat, b y species wuld be
nerntively impad& by this s c m i a There will be5'me speoies tIiaa.hse m a t e d habitat ad
are accustomed to human disturbance which may ben& them (such as the European starling and
Tk
h e r i ~ a Jcrow).
I
&bile W e radar surveyswere co11ducted from April 15 to June 2,2008, and whib the survey
was designed to study spring migration, we believe that the survey8 WE M e d too late md
missed m y esly migrants (we m o m e n d a March 1 shtat).l'he study was comjucted an 43
nights af a dgradon period w h h lasts at least 90 days in the spring. However, it is unkn~wn
if
peak migration nighis w w sampled. It should tld noted that the m a n passage &te of 624 targets
per lci1met.w per hour is one of the highest Peoorded in New Yo&, While the @portindicates
that most targets flew above the turbiae height, qproxbtefy 19 p e n t flew within the mtbr
swept zaw and would be at risk af cdision. The report does not Mikate the import an^^ &.the
island as a mi-gatory stopover habitat, particularly during inglment weather mnditiom,but
should address this issue,
h 16ththe spring migration, we believe the Mi m h sampling period missed a key paion of
migration. This sampling occurred h m August 8 to Qmkr7,2008; howeverI fdl mimtion
geriedy stark in July and ex'tefids into DecemM. Birds such as shoreh'uds, water birds,
raptors, #d wateffowl were pbably miss4 W n g these. surveys. Some late passeritre migrants
-wouldnot have been counted as well. Om recommendation is that a d d i t i d radar m e y s be
conducted f i q July to mid December ta cover the entireperid of fdI migmtiarr.
We note:that the NYSDEC Guidelines far Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wnd
Energy Projcxts (2009)specifies that far certain areas ofthe Stafe: w h w a higher risk to-Gldlife
is possiMe, expanded prwarrstruction m e p s should be completed. The Hou~~sfield
Wid
Projet falls within twa of tlie criteria which necessitate addirioiwl study, i d d i n g , 2 .b.& w i k
5 miles ofthe Great Lakes, a d Zb..iii, within 2 znilw of slreas which concentrate raptars,
waterfowl, ,or specks of special mncem. Therefore, the projat sponsor should adhere to the
guidklirres and conduct tst least one addititianajyear of radar surveys. Doing so will prMQea
mow robust data set and account for antlusrl Y
~ invthe
~ data* Q
~
The d i W avian m ~ ywere

s ioonduc$edapproximately w I d y h m late March through July.
Five stations =re established and surveyed for 20 to 30 mhtltes each. Data an individual
species was ~01lectedand ihdicates tbat gulls (ring-billed anB herring) were most nufllmous over
the idand. These species dong with Caspian terns could ha at risk of ~olliaionb a d on flight
altitudes and patterns. Passerims we= ohrved in pulse4 and e r n e fall-out onto the i s W was
noted. ~~t
data on passage rates, flight behqviom,h b i a t w ,
and timing wew obtained.
Noteworthy, is the passerine behavior when birds reached the end of the island and some tumed
around and flew back along the length of the island. If flying though turbines, this would
increase the risk for collision s h e the birds would be flying through or around them twice. We
believe this survey effort is worth repeating to contirrn study findings. The study should be
initiated in early March to capture more of the early spring migration.
Included in ihs study were radar images fjrortl a local weather station which showed a large mass
of waterfowl moving along the eastern end of Lake Ontario on March 27,2008. We raise the
question whether similar weather data can be reviewed for other portions of the year, and/or other
years, to gain knowledge of migration over the project area. The report states that it is unknown
if waEerfowl movements will be affected by the proposed project. X the project is builtJ we
suggest that post-construction monitoring evaluate this issue.
Impacts to birds are discussed on Page 2-92, and while there is a section on forest habitat
fragmentation and displacement of sensitive spwies, little is mentioned abut ~ s l a n species.
d
While no very large blocks of this habitat type exist oh the island, there are blocks which
currently exist but may be hgmented and made unsuitable for obligate species (such as
bobolinks). Grassland breeding bird surveys should be conducted in these areas to determine the
extent of breeding activity and use. Surveys should be conducted from early June through
August at least once per week. This should be reviewed and discussed in the report. As
previously mentioned, despite the lower number of habitat impacts for the project when
compared ta similar wind energy projects, the patchwork of roads, electric lines, and turbines
across the island m y result in greater habitat impacts to species sensitive to these structures than
reported.
It is reported on Page 2-95 that the project has been designed to lessen the impact on avian
habitat, such as forest, wetland, and grassland habitats, to the extent pmticabIe. We dtu not find
this statement to be substantiated. It appears the project is designed to fit the greatest amount of
turbines on the island and only avoid wetlands. Clmsequently, the other habitats are bisected in a
regular pattern. No portion of the island has been set aside to preserve wiIdlife habitat. Ow
mcommendation is b reduce the number of turbines in those areas that are of the most
importance to birds.
Collision risk fiom project operation is discussed on Page 2-96 and concludes that there is no
information to suggest impacts will be anything but low. However, W l o o Island is a unique
setting, there are very few examples of avian studies with which to compare to (none in the
nofiast), and the brief study period (1 year) makes it extremely difficult to predict risk.
Considering that many State-listed species and species of conservation concern are found on the
island, including the Caspian tern (which is found adjacent to the project, in one of only two
colonies in the State), more careful study is warranted. Further, several listed raptor species may
be at risk of collision, including the bald eagle, and warrant a cautious approach.
Studies to determine bat activity included acoustic monitoring and summer mist netting. Mist
netting revealed tha~little h w n bats are the most comman resident species on the island (only 1
silver-haired bat captured) during the summer. A colony of approximately 200 bats was found in
a barn, Migratory bats were monitored during fall migration ushg acoustic monitors located on
two meteorological towers at three heights aboveground, including near the rotor swept zone, a
d
at various locations on the island. Hoary bat calls were identified in the data, including near the
.adfie, ASthefeport p
ihtT out* givm h e species identifiedan GaUo'o Idand,
is
p a W d fhmigratory
&sident.bats to be negafivply. h m
by the pmpos& wind
turbines. The-rqodpredicts tf& fatdip numbers may be simflr b u ~are likelp to be-<hi&r h
mgnitudeIW
other s o r t h wi
~nd energy pr~jects-
Swmd rni~gxtimmasuma e list& in themit i m l d ~ pg o ~ - ~ moni~~ing,

n ~ ~ Thb
m
Service uiEl w ~ r kwith the projwt sponsor on &vetoping approprigte rno&winggpmQcoIs.
HQWGV~J,
the we ofadqti~emmgment .as: a memss~srait.ig&ing
impacts to bats [mdbirds) is
mt listed. Prior to project appaotrali thb NYSDEG, a+ha$&$ency> &odd require meastvks
whi& w ~ d o&t
d
umvaidabk impants, Thi$ wodd include3kt i;stbe l i m d toF-sum
such as turbine shut dawn duringcertain times ot during migat4on.season. The feafhejringaf
bladesPand adjusting the out-ia &bed a f t u r b h s during muds when wind speed is low and
IitUe energy is be& gematd but whm k t a c t i h~ bigbest.
~
This is t k p d d wbm mmi
kits are killkd as dolEmmtd by rec& resea& (&nett 2005).
The 8ervke typidly mc1n3rnm&wt these SWiia ?xWnducWd ovsr fnuliipk y m ifprdject
apwattm md'beWdrtrckd atdl h e s ~f the ymr and under varied weatherconditim. E
~ b h ewill
s be l w e d within trl*
dgrgwlmj habitat*we m m e n d t&informatian be
g&ered on dispiwemmt o f grtssland nesdng Bif&, Ta-mitigatep ~ h t i i~pacts
d
to bats,
hirbine *atid 9hoUf.d W l e d whbn &Ware mst:a t b e sflld at &her Tisk\cafcallidon.
This bdu&s dwhg MI migration (between July I $A and Beptmber 151,s hours after m e t , md
Whm w i d @ ~ d we
$ k s thm 6meters p& sewd ( j m b k s 3liould k v e a --in tipeed of
.&fat@tbm 6 w b r g per m m d L &%fit wewrch at the Meymsdal~Wid Project in
P e ~ 1 t ~ a , s h b wthat
e d bat m&ty
is r e d u d when tmbines are ncPt+tpratidd d n g bw
wind pepid [Ameft ZQ@Q Aka, pmject a~gmvd& p a he cgnd3im.d upon an~adaptiv~
mmagmmt plan tQ address wildlife mortdiiy e a r e d t g f turbine u~pemti~ars,
A camtmSrticm
emirbmental monitoring pfogmm shadd be hplefnmtedf& this p m w . We suggest that the
pr~gfartrIrmc1uck a W n g mhporient for warkets on haw to identify an$r hqndi$ injmd OF &ad
WiIdife-
An W e Iha d l b iqs2:alJdta supply potable wMer. Detdis ~nthe wakr line are lacking and
have been ~dmmgedsmad .tibht the text i n d b that intake velocities will b~ sad1 and m
imp& & axpemd $0 quatic life, We qtmf@atadequate sqmiting data b e ~ ~ v i d e d ,
M ~ 5 ; t ' ~ . f & e h ~ e h e m ~ b e 3 Q f @ t wb~1a o~t b~ i n
~ ~ee ~r e~w d
i f h~ h-a ~l
navigathn, An m i h o r n quantity ofmtef wPuIa be df%idi+awn
ffom the l&e- Iry me of a gump,
A sgpmte chmiql f w l line w ~ d beg@
d
ta clean the i n t g h . m ~ n .
We-no~e-thatthe DEIS dam
pmde idomation about Vie exact sim of t
k pa& intake nor
the size~ p n i n,of
g any serwn m&. kwas not - c hif bpprspsi'de hydraulic wnluatitionsw h q ~
mfnnpletal ta determine p&nW water w1~52Ztiesat W ifit&& m~-i3ira&ys&cis.needed
to
-debmineif'pdmtid ihpmheat or m m m t of aqua ti^ life mula a m during w&
wi@&wd. ~~k
the kappbg uf quatic ]life against the intake screen, c;m result in
iqq, pedatim,ar death tb orgmisrn~wable,
tookmp intake flow velaciw'. The S M m
typically rgcammends,tbat apprdacb velddcs at the.intake net ex-d Z feet per second so that
qwfic life -willbe aiJe =cap the.int&e flow, Entrdmmt is&e mavd 'ofaquatic.life ifiM
thi intake pipe. A wi=& wire s r e a or similar device i;4 used to prwrrtcenw i n t ~ t pipy
h ~ 3vt
if the apningswe too large, s&km fi* b d fi&, ~ggs,
and h v m t d w t e ~a n b
inta&fie pip. We typically recmmemd a 2 mi11imetejr cles spacing in the mesh .spenine, The
shodd be set p r p e d i d a r to flow. We recommend that thk DEIS provide rime

infomatian regarding the dmiw of the water in&.
intake o@*g
S d b n 3,QAlfehatbw - Vdbkis alternatives were m i m e d by fie projat slpomor to

dekmine the;.mosipmfitable p d ~ i Thq
. app1iutn.t did lqwep the, number ~ f t m b 'toi reduce
wetland loss, h the Altemtives. S u m n r q , the p r ~ j w tsp~nsarhas pr,avided.aiangt in potmiaI
e l d c i t y @eration output bat did not indicate the n~ihimu.mmount of eie~Qic%y
that must he
generat& to t a the
~pmj.mtvin.&. This idomation s4~uldbe p~videdin k,DEB. We
b o w of,wv&alprojekts in Mew Ybrk &ate which are of shdler
presumably profitakih, .and
a p p a d hy the New Y q k &ate,hdqe,ndent S;-Jqte~popera to^ fm cdpmmctian to the pri& For
exatuplo, the Ftnner W i d PrdJect
MW), Madison Wind Frojeot (1 lMW), and Pmttsburgh
Wind E m [?9 MW) were dl appro~tda d we much mdei b i p
~ lthispojwt. The data
supptingthe project &a has not bmn provided. %e suggest the project sponso~provide W
PO
idormatian.
Bawd on habitat 80rm.ation and the wildlife ~ d i ~ ~ ~ r n pto~date;

e t ei%
dsews ta to that
pla&g turbines in celtaih meas may pose m a of a risk. For m f $ l e Iduiing OWsie'irisit,we
plated that wacent~tionaf birds C.corn~rmis,gulls, W ~ w i were
] @und basking on the
e m t m tip d,GstlIoa:Island &ere Turbine 83 is pr~posd.Survqs nored m m e qeie
~
of
sha~birds
attracted ta the beach area adjacent to Turbine 1, W&nc@ and opm water sffen
attract wncmtrations of x&d-~:wl,
but we did aot>fiqdinformation in the repat which
r ~ m m m d&movirig
s
tufbinas ~tw
these areas (only p l a e m l t outside af ttrese habitats).
Movment or e ~ r r m ~ taf
i othem
~ turbines h r n b
i
d qnceairation areas w qeciesvof warn
habitat could redwe the callision risk. We remmend that the ~
i srromor
k reducfi
~ the
project size by removing W b b s , particularb those locateti near mas identified as impartant for
wildid.
V
Section 6=OCxmu!ative Imp&cts- SweraJwindenetgy projects have been camtmtd in

Y Q Pa~d smdwe+ bed far rUtw constructia. The b p l e Ridgepmj-ectisthe
&lo&stto the project site* yet m y uthers are planed, as fie~1tioh&lin the text. Wowem,
pmj& m y k proposed in the Towns of Hedexson, Harim& y ~ Hawfield,
d
f i e Qblm
anid text in this section <sha^rad
be mvise,d to mflect these pmjem. F&ekI he puimtid impa&s
the appra'ximately-50-mile transmission l i e should be krpmidmd in this d y d s b We
-cadthat a&ithaal data &-gathered for the tm$rniphn line a
d h c l u d d in the DEfS.
Menfly, the Dl% d m not provib a completk pkmaf the potentiid ~ ~ t l l a t iwildlife
m
mowzy,
(A+we hated above, beailed studies fsrmoa of the traiwdssiorr h e prtim afthe project have
nut been completed d,
therefore, IIQ &"is available rn @e impacts tcr reswces; Era!wwerPthis
-sectians
m %:oni:I,usima
~ an mulative itflpts, It is dm no1 cla& why the tmt abw
theremwill
be no cun&tive irhfiactsfiofn #he trsmsmiission lime md mbine.partipns -d?e
prpja
baawe they do not avnrlag gwgraphi~ally.TOwdd@stmdcmulativo b p ~ta twildlifeJ
~
i n f o m i a n mi boih the ~ m i s d o lixi0
n and wind tmhine projects needs to be imlud& in M s
section.
In swixdqbwe find that the DEE does mt contain adequate hfmaEion regadiag pomial
hp&ts of the pe@&
an wildlifeyand additiofd mvhomfital review is necessary1 Baseline
Xopnation ~n biologid reso-wesis incomplete,~e omi#&. Dataare lacking far w m p t e t e
~derstmdjngof @rig,
br&ing, aird wintering birds. Surveys d h g the migmtion and
breeding mmm were conducted for only 1 year.
Qvmdl,we Fmd that insuEdent data wete wlkcted at the pMe& sit^ b determine the bpaiid
an4 temporal uv afthe pmj& ,airspace<
by flying mim,as.\( 3recpmmdatiorn
~
f;ar wildlife
studies at wind prbjects generally sp&&
that datd he collected over multip~~seasom
&id j f m s
to ddewnin-eaverage annual aonditbns. Because of v&biliq in migration a d mqther4
~allwihgdata f ~ 1r year likely d ~ e not
$ rdwt typical wildlife u s b the project m a
Therefom, 'we find that im&ci;ent.data cm@g exist to adetpitely Conduct a rlsk assesm'mt
md pfedi~twildlife m~ftdityfmthis p r ~mt,
j
The,Wim&m-&
b t all w i d power pfojects that proceed to wmtru&ion&buld l~
monitored fwimpacts to wildlife fallowing cons@u&onmd during turbine opetation.
Post-wnstrudbn bat and bird m o ~ i t monitor*
y
sRoa o m for a miisimufll of 3 years.
Propsds for e~ncfudingmonitoring should b aoodmted with Ba* the Serrlce arjd eE?e
NBDEC to emure b y m ~:ompehmive,mmtq,a d -tly
timed. Inftlnnatian gained
from posGCbnSti116tio~rnt)~I&~& will con.tim10 aid fie %rvicbkd pt$ect s'ponsd a%: We
lem more about potential i n i p ~ &or
~ lack thereof, to wildlife in the pmje~tma.We
reammend that gmJ~ctappro.al not be g i v e until a t h the d&&b,sfthepost-~mstsw:ti~n
Jhdtoring plan have b e n re~ik& and a p p r M by&e Bewke and the NYSDEC, Furtl~er,we
racammend o,pera~opd
modificatiws he mmdqiwy during hw wind a p e d nights between
Jrtly f5 ,adSegbinb T 5 mitigate predict&$im@ek ta kts.
The pmjwtqmmr has bdiwted ii~

the D E B that mit+g&n m ~ a ssuch
, as ek
p o s ; t ~ b ~ ~ c i t iwildlife
' o n rnonitohgplan*will be devdap'e. However, few d 6 1 s rn
pmyidd at Behis paint in h e . Further, nwdhrigg, in ,mdof itselfI is wt an adeqtwtt mitigati~n
measqre. We r m o w n d thgdocm~atmt be apnrowd until theproject sWx1m devdops ah
adequate-mohitorifigplan which indudes adaptive management m m e s which can be
implemwfed to reduce wiMlib.mmtdity. TI& w ~ d ddu & - mitigation measures such as
turbine shut d o m during c&
timw or dwihg a mijpa6on semriTthe &thering of blades,
adjusting the cut-in speed of turbines d w g perids when d n d s p d is low a d little mew is
being generated but when ;bat wtiGty Is hi&&, md the.rernaval ofturbines in 1ac:ationswhich
may result iri higher mortality* Ody afterthem comittl.ltnrtshaye hempmvid~din writing
shoxald the psojj& h a p ~ v d .
We a p p m i a W oytb provide comments OII the DEIS. y e lo& f m s d to work&,
with the po@t sparnor and thp Lead Amn~yOD &wing &i.tiond project infomatian so t&
p~mtialimpacts to wildliP~,ambe adqme'1ywatlmted.
Please contact Timothy R. Sullivan at 607-753-9334 if there, are any questions regarding this
&m*.
Sincerely,
David A. Stilwell
Field Sypervisor
References:
Arnett, E.3. (ed). 2005. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania and
West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and
behavioral inteaions with wind turbines. A final report submitted to the Bats and Wid
Energy Cwperative? Bat Conservation International. Austin, Texas.
Amett, E,B., M. Schirmacher, M.M.P. Huso, and J.P. Hayes, 2009. Effectiveness of changing
wind turbine cut-in speed to reduce bat fatalities at wind facilities. An annual repart
submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat Conservation International.
Austin, Texas, USA.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1 996. Suggested practices for mptor protection on
power line$: the state of the art in 1996 (Edison Elwtric Institutehptor Research
Foundation, Washington, D.C.).
Avery, M.L. (ed). 1 978. hpacts of trrnmission lines on birds in flight: prbceedifigs of a
workshop. Oak Ridge associated universities, Oak Ridge- TN. January 3 1February 2, 1978. U .S. Fi~b~.&~Wd1fifqS~Mce,
Bial~gicalSewias Program
FWSIOBS-78/48. 15 1pp.
EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2004. Form El&-i4Y%U'iD'ahbase:
2004 Annual
Electric Generator Repart. Energy Information Administration, U. S . Department of
Energy [online]. Available at: http:/lwww.eia.doe.g~v/~neaf/electrieity/pageIei~86Q~
htm1
EIA
.-.-=
(Energy
.
Information Administration). -2806, Annual Energy Review. DQEmA0384(2005). July 2006 [online]. Available at:
http://~.eia.doe.gavIemeu/aer/eleck.
ktmlEIA 2006
e
EL4 (Energy Information Administration). 2 0 0 9 ~U.S. Electricity Use Data Report. Energy
Infomation Administration, U.S. Department of Energy [onIhe]. Available at:
h~://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.
htd
EM (Energy Informatioh Administration). 21303b. Electric Power Annual 2007 Report. Energp
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy [online]. Available at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cnea-El~lec~ci~/epdepa~sprdshts.
html
Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Clean Air Markets - Data and Maps, Available at:
http://camddat~dmaps.ega.gov/gM~~d,~~~~fm?fu~ea~tion=emissi~~.quickreport~
output
Gerhring, J. 72006. Michigan State Police Communication Tower Study: Resulfs Applicable to
Wind Turbines. Toward Wildlife-Friendly Windpowes Conference. Toledo, OH
Research Council.
-qatignal
,s-,
2007. Environmental impzts of a b e r g y pz9jects. Report of

the National Academies of Science. Washingon, D.C.
*
,%
RahdKesoup~:es
Conservation Servli;Le. 2003. ~onservationFractke "s"tm&& % e m
Crossings ftp:i/~p-fc.sc.~ov.usda.govlNHQlpractice-s~ndar~istandardd5~8.pdf
&w,York State Deparhent of Errviranmexltal Consemtion. 2009. Final Guidelines for
Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects.
,
Albany, NY
c
' T i NYSDEC, Albany, NY (EndaKgErid Species; Attn: P. Nye)

NY SDEC, Watertown, NY (Env. Pemits)
COE, Buffalo, NY (Attn: S. Metivier)
w
,k
.7
,..
F-
May 29, 2009

Mr. Stephen Tomasik
Dear Mr. Tomasik:

This letter is to express our comments on the Hounsfield Wind Farm project proposed for
Galloo Island, New York. The Nature Conservancy supports investment in renewable
energy sources. But accelerating energy change will have a big impact on the landscapes
that we share with nature and therefore we must make the change thoughtfully, informed
by the best possible science on the ecological impacts of these new energy sources.
We have three comments on the proposed Galloo Island wind farm:
1)
The proposed transmission line connects to the mainland on Stony Point. This
area is heavily infested with swallow-wort, a highly invasive plant. Swallow-wort needs
to be listed in Upstate New York Power Corporations EIS as a priority invasive species.
The Nature Conservancy is concerned that the transmission line could become a vector
for the further spread of swallow-wort. Upstate New York Power Corporation will need
to make sufficient investment to monitor and control swallow-wort and other invasive
plants at Stony Point and along the entire right-of-way of the transmission corridor. Any
permit also should include strict regulations regarding hygiene of construction vehicles,
including boats and barges, to prevent spreading of invasive plant materials.
2)
The Nature Conservancy is concerned about impacts on spawning areas and
shoals used by lake trout, lake herring and whitefish in the vicinity of Galloo Island and
between Galloo Island and the mainland. Any underwater cables need to be located away
from these areas. These areas also should be protected during the construction phase. In
addition, we express concern about the exact design of the transmission cables, and urge
that final design be required before permits are considered.
3)
Galloo Island is an important route for migrating birds and bats, and we
encourage Upstate New York Power Corporation to consider operational closures to
protect birds and bats during critical migratory periods.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Jim Howe
Executive Director
The Nature Conservancy
Central and Western New York Chapter
585-546-8030, ext. 26
jhowe@tnc.org
From: "Whittington, Gordon" <Gordon.Whittington@IMOutdoors.com>

To: <smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us>
Date: 5/29/2009 12:27 AM
Subject:
comment on EIS for Hounsfield Wind Farm project
Stephen Tomasik
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
>>> "Whittington, Gordon" <Gordon.Whittington@IMOutdoors.com> 5/29/2009 12:27

AM >>>
Mr. Tomasik:
As editor in chief of North American Whitetail magazine and co-host of North American
Whitetail Television, as well as an associate editor of New York Game & Fish magazine,
I wish to comment on some of the potential environmental consequences of the proposed
Hounsfield Wind Farm project.
Most conservationists will focus on avian impacts, both literal and figurative. My own
concern, however, lies primarily with the island's white-tailed deer population. Having
hunted and observed whitetails in more than half the states in the U.S., as well as three
states in Mexico, six provinces in Canada and its only two introduced locations in
Oceania, I have had many opportunities to witness and study man's impact on this
species, as well as the species' impact on its own habitat.
Relative to a number of species of threatened/endangered status, the draft EIS makes
scant mention of the island's whitetails. While some disparity is to be expected, given the
legal ramifications of not adequately accounting for threatened/endangered species in any
EIS, I believe it is important to acknowledge how much of an impact the deer have on the
ecosystem they share with these more vulnerable species.
As far as I can determine, the draft EIS gives no detailed indication of how whitetails
have shaped the Galloo ecosystem since their introduction. Thus, one is largely left to
speculate as to any long-term environmental impact culling the herd would have.
Regardless, even with the presumed ongoing presence of a natural predator (the coyote)
after any deer culling has been done, history suggests that in absence of continued hunter
harvest and/or extreme winter conditions, the deer population will rapidly rebound to
high levels. Indeed, I believe it is likely to soon exceed any reasonable carrying capacity,
whether or not there is a total loss of the agricultural crops historically cultivated to
provide whitetail forage. This almost assuredly risks a loss of floral (and possibly faunal)
biodiversity, potentially including at least some of the threatened/endangered species
mentioned in the draft EIS.
While I would hardly suggest the whitetail is "native" to Galloo Island, it presumably is
now the single most impactful species on that ecosystem. As such, I believe it prudent to
develop a plan for ongoing hunter harvest of deer, particularly if agricultural
subsidization and supplemental feeding of the herd are soon to cease.
Yes, I understand the issues involved in allowing the public some level of access to a
major power installation, even under highly restrictive rules. However, I have seen
bowhunting in particular be tremendously effective in controlling deer numbers in similar
situations. For example, I was involved for a number of years with the special herdcontrol bowhunting program at Clinton Power Station in DeWitt County, Illinois.
Knowing how the hunt at this active nuclear power plant was set up and administered,
and having seen how effective it was at reducing whitetail damage to the habitat while
simultaneously fostering goodwill in the sporting community, I consider it a textbook
example of industry, state government and the public working together toward a mutually
beneficial goal.
Please accept my observations for the record during the public comment period on the
Hounsfield Wind Farm project, and feel free to contact me at any time regarding further
developments with this deer herd. As a staunch professional and personal supporter of
sound wildlife management, I only want to see the Galloo Island whitetail story move
forward on a positive note for all concerned.
Sincerely,
Gordon Whittington
Editor in Chief
North American Whitetail
2250 Newmarket Pkwy., Ste. 110
Marietta, GA 30067
678-589-2034
gordon.whittington@imoutdoors.com
www.NorthAmericanWhitetail.com

To: Doug McClellan @ Verizon
Date: 6/2/2009 9:56 AM
Subject:
Re: Galloo Island
Stephen Tomasik
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
>>> "Doug McClellan @ Verizon" <drmcclellan@verizon.net> 6/1/2009 7:48 PM >>>

Stop and look at what you are doing before approving this project. Look at the former
Miller Brewing site and ethanol. Already in Chapter 11. If wind was a cost efficiency
project, some entrepreneur would have already invested in it, because it made economic
sense and money was made. I have not seen many project where the government made
the correct choices.
Do NOT ruin a beautiful island in the eastern basin of Lake Ontario.
Doug McClellan
5130 Brookhaven Drive
Clarence, NY 14031
drmcclellan@verizon.net

Division of Environmental Permits, 4th Floor
625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-1750
Phone: (518) 402-9167 FAX: (518) 402-9168
Website: www.dec.state.ny.us
Alexander B. Grannis
Commissioner
Hounsfield Wind Farm

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
DEC Comments
July 20, 2009
DEIS Executive Summary, Abandonment and Decommissioning Mitigations.

It is stated in this section that a Decommissioning Plan has been prepared and would be
put in place in order to mitigate adverse impacts from abandonment. Key elements of the
Decommissioning Plan include: 1) Removal of the WTG and towers, removal of each of the
tower pad transformers, and removal of foundations/pedestals to a minimum depth of 36 below
grade or to bedrock, whichever is less; 2) A bond or fund will be established to ensure that
sufficient funds are available to decommission and restore the Project site (DEIS page ES-18).
For all other wind farms in the state, this issue has been handled at the local level, usually
through a local wind siting or other ordinance. According to a conversation with the Hounsfield
Town Supervisor, the developer will prepare a decommissioning plan in consultation with the
Town, and this issue will be fully addressed within the Town Planning Boards site plan review
of the project. Nonetheless, given the unique nature of this project site, DEC would recommend
to the Town that complete restoration of the site to pre-existing conditions be evaluated, and
development of the final decommissioning plan should be made only after consideration is made
of the activities that would be necessary to accomplish complete restoration. Complete
restoration would include, but not be limited to, removal of all concrete structures, buildings and
maintenance facilities, all underground interconnect cables or transmission lines, and all
components of the wind tower/turbine.
Subsection 1.4, Project Construction, Environmental Monitoring Plan.

On page 1-47 of this section, it is stated, Upon completion of the Statement of Findings
and environmental permitting, the relevant conditions and best management practices pertaining
to construction and restoration will be incorporated into the final EMP. DEC will include, as a
condition of permits issued by the agency, submission of a Final Environmental Monitoring Plan
that includes all relevant conditions and best management practices pertaining to construction
and restoration contained within the SEQR Findings Statement and permits and approvals from
all involved agencies. This condition will require submission of the final EMP within 30 days of
project commencement.
Subsection 2.1, Topography, Geology and Soils, Geology.

This section states, Limestone is subject to dissolution by acidic groundwater along
bedding planes, fractures, joints and faults. While no limestone (karst) hazards are mapped on
Galloo Island, the Trenton Group is comprised of carbonate rocks that are susceptible to
dissolution and sinkhole formation, especially with joint and fractures common in limestone
(DEIS page 2-2). Geotechnical investigations performed prior to construction start should
include identification of karst features, and the Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (DEIS
Appendix D) and the Conceptual Spill, Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (DEIS
Appendix E), should be revised to include measures to prevent discharge of stormwater,
sediment and construction/operation chemicals into karst inlets, in addition to surface waters and
wetlands (see also section below regarding State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Industrial Activities (GP-0-06-002)).
Subsection 2.4.2, Sediment.

On page 2-42 of this subsection it cites: As discussed in Section 2.5.5, Blasting, in water
blasting work will be limited to avoid sensitive fish spawning dates. No project construction will
occur in sensitive fish habitat. The Article 15 permit required for Excavation and Fill in
Navigable Waters will include a condition that blasting in protected waters is prohibited, except
during the period from July 15 October 15, to avoid adverse impacts to important fish species
during the spawning and incubation periods.
Subsection 2.4.3, Wetlands.

The statement on DEIS page 2-44, On August 12, 2008 the USACE and NYSDEC
accompanied C&S and TES to the Island to verify the delineated wetland boundaries, should be
corrected. The site visit conducted that day was a general tour of the project development area by
agency staff; not a specific delineation-verification site visit. Subsequent to that date, however,
DEC has agreed to the delineations prepared for the project, as stated by Ken Kogut, Region 6
Natural Resources Supervisor, in an email to the project sponsors consultant dated March 30,
2009, which reads, The overall wetland mapping and boundary delineation has met Department
standards and will not require additional field verification by Department staff. DEC continues
to advise that state and federal wetland jurisdictions be clearly defined for purposes of the Joint
Application for Permit.
Subsection 2.5, Wildlife and Habitat.

On page 2-60 of this subsection, it cites: It is important to note that Galloo Island does
not represent a pristine type of habitat or support highly diverse wildlife populations since this
island has historically been disturbed by agricultural activities, deer management practices, clear
cutting of cedar forests and pervasive invasions by pale swallow-wort (Cynanchum rossicum), an
-2-
invasive plant species. This invasive species is found throughout the island and wherever it is
found it dominates and out-competes all other ground cover plants important to wildlife species.
The Invasive Species Control Plan included as Appendix M in the DEIS fails to mention pale
swallow-wort and the measures needed to manage this invasive species. Measures proposed to
remove and control the spread of this invasive plant within the project development area should
be described and included in this plan. Additionally, a survey should be conducted to quantify
the current areal extent of this species on the property under control by the project sponsor.
2.5.1 Flora and Fauna.

The statement on DEIS page 2-63, Galloo Island is privately owned and not currently
accessible by the public, should be corrected. While most of the island is under single
ownership, there is one private parcel (containing the lighthouse), one small parcel owned by the
U.S. Coast Guard, and two parcels owned by DEC (one including the former Coast Guard
station). DEIS Figure1.2-3 shows existing land use, including current ownership. Not identified
on this map is the small U.S. Coast Guard property (located just north of proposed Turbine # 71).
Also shown on this map is a small parcel and island adjacent to North Pond owned by the Galloo
Island Corporation, with no proposed improvements. Will this parcel remain under current
ownership or will it be purchased as part of the project? This figure should be revised to more
completely describe the current ownership of properties on the island.
Ecological Resources Report (Appendix N)

The Breeding Bird atlas data for at least 2000-2005 surveys for Galloo Island, as
referenced on pages 1-2 of this report, is limited as only two small parcels were covered. There
was not good coverage on the island as a whole. This limitation should be noted in the report and
subsequent survey reports.
The report states that a turtle trapping survey was conducted on July 21-24, 2008 (page
4). Four (4) days of turtle trapping is not adequate to determine the presence or absence of these
species. DEC has advised the project sponsor, in a memo to the project attorney dated 06/08/09,
to include a 2009 trapping study work plan that will provide additional data sufficient to
determine which species of turtles inhabit the study area.
Breeding Bird Survey (Appendix P3)

The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) states that there were 176 point counts at 84 turbine
locations with each point count visited about twice during the breeding season (page 2). DECs
Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects
(Guidelines) state that point counts should be conducted at least once per week from May-June
-3-
and September. This deficiency should be addressed with additional breeding bird surveys. On
page 3 of this report, it states that the objective is to collect baseline breeding species data that
can be compared to similar data collected after construction to determine the project impacts.
That is one of the objectives, but another objective is to collect breeding bird data so we know
what species are nesting there or utilizing the area and determine how we can avoid impacting
the species especially when we consider endangered and threatened species. An additional
limitation to this study is identified on page 10, where it states, Weather conditions on Big
Galloo tend to be windy and limit the range of acoustic bird surveys. While several of the
mornings in which this bird survey was conducted had substantial wind and surf noise, and
therefore limited acoustic survey capabilities at some point counts, the bulk of the point counts
and transect surveys in this study were carried out under good bird survey conditions.
Additional point counts need to be conducted to offset the number of point counts conducted in
these poor survey conditions.
The project sponsor has provided a work plan for an additional Breeding Bird Survey to
be conducted in 2009. In a memo to the project attorney dated 06/08/09, DEC concurred that the
scope of this plan, which includes a Breeding Bird Survey and an additional Diurnal Bird
Movement Study, is satisfactory to provide supplemental information necessary for DEC to
assess avian impacts for these resources.
On page 9 of the BBS, there is a reference to the large number of snakes on Galloo
Island, which may act as an impediment for successful colonization of small ground-nesting
birds (e.g., Grasshopper Sparrow, Vesper Sparrow, Ovenbird), which are fairly common
breeders on the mainland adjacent to the island. Further discussion should be included regarding
the basis for this conclusion, including the species of snakes observed and the number of snakes
observed. Additionally, describe if any formal survey methods (such as herpetofauna surveys)
were used to identify the type and number of snakes.
Diurnal Bird Movement Study (Appendix P6)

The Diurnal Bird Movement Study states that five migrating bird stations were operated
for 20-30 minutes (page 3). According to the Guidelines, observations should be made
throughout the day until two hours before sunset from a series of prominent points within the
project area. This deficiency should be addressed with additional surveys. On page 5 of the
report, it is stated that of the Five-Point Surveys conducted for migrating species, there were no
count sites at the northwestern end of the island. Clarification needs to be made as to why all of
the five count sites were on the southeastern edge of the island. The project sponsor has provided
a work plan for an additional Breeding Bird Survey to be conducted in 2009. In a memo to the
project attorney dated 06/08/09, DEC concurred that the scope of this plan, which includes a
Breeding Bird Survey and an additional Diurnal Bird Movement Study (including a requirement
to address the comment regarding location of count sites), is satisfactory to provide supplemental
information necessary for DEC to fully assess avian impacts for these resources.
-4-
Spring 2008 Radar Survey Report (Appendix P4)

Provide a graph of flight heights and passage rates for the Spring Radar Survey similar to
the one in the Fall Radar Survey (Fig. 14 in the Fall Radar Study).
Avian Risk Assessment (Appendix P1)

On page 2 of the Avian Risk Assessment, it is stated that Short-eared Owl (NY:
Endangered) could be subject to collision risk. No Short-eared Owls were found in the 2008 bird
surveys on Galloo Island but the species is likely a regular migrant and occasional wintering
resident on the Island. The Avian Risk Assessment failed to reference the Ecological Resources
Report (DEIS Appendix N), which states that Short-eared owl, northern harrier, and Caspian tern
were all observed by TES on the Galloo Island site (page 23 & Table 3, p. 3). The TES report
including the observations of Short-Eared Owls should be referenced in a revised Avian Risk
Assessment. This reference should also be included in background information used for
preparation of the 2009-2010 Winter Bird Survey report.
On page 15, it is stated that Based on the 2008 data, Galloo may have the highest usage
of wintering Bald Eagles of any currently proposed or existing wind project site in New York
State, and No incidences of Bald Eagle fatalities have been documented in
North America. While bald eagles do not nest on Galloo Island, eagles are observed in the
vicinity during the summer months. Of equal or greater concern might be the number of eagles
counted on the island during the months of February and March. A high count of 12 recorded on
February 14, 2008 indicates that the area provides important winter habitat for the eagles. The
findings note that, because of weather conditions it wasn't possible to determine if their use is
limited to feeding and perching on the island or if it is also an important winter night roost
location for the birds as well. This is an important question which needs to be answered. In
addition to the collision danger, which is unknown at this time, but could prove to be high, taking
away traditional winter habitat used by foraging and or roosting bald eagles should be addressed.
Also, it has recently been reported that there was a Bald eagle killed by turbines on Lake Erie
shores, Ontario (personal communication, P. Nye). In light of this, potential impacts to this
species on Galloo Island should be re-evaluated.
On page 17, it is stated that the Double-crested Cormorant nesting population on Little
Galloo is managed by NYDEC to be around 1,500 pairs. DECs goal or target is to have 1,500
nesting pairs, but there are currently 2,500 nesting pairs with little reproduction (due to egg
oiling).
Page 21 of the Avian Risk Assessment includes the statement, Reintroducing fox and
allowing coyote to repopulate Galloo will help reduce the size of vole population maxima and
may lead to lower winter raptor numbers. Though note that adding additional predators to the
Island could adversely affect the Upland Sandpiper and Harrier. Introducing fox and coyote to
the island to control vole populations is not an option. NYS Standard Operating Procedures do
-5-
not allow for the trap-and-transfer of coyotes. In addition, this is not a well thought-out
recommendation. What will keep these mammals from leaving the island? Even if they did target
voles and not the ground nesting bird species, what happens when the vole numbers decrease?
Also on page 21, the statement that the overall effect of the wind project (including the
transmission line corridor) will increase habitat for these species (Upland Sandpipers and
Northern Harriers - both NY threatened species), and potentially benefit their status in the region,
needs to be supported by a more thorough rationale. For example, does the project anticipate
clearing large patches of habitat and managing them for grasslands? It is also recommended on
Page 22, Eliminate agricultural operations at the north end of Galloo to reduce or eliminate
foraging areas for Canada Geese and migratory shorebirds. This action might presumably
decrease the amount of grasslands on the island and reduce habitat for these species. These
recommendations should be revisited in light of these questions, and be discussed in the context
of an overall habitat management plan for the island (see State Lands and Open Space
Conservation Plan, below).
2007-2008 Winter Bird Studies

This report states that no Short-eared Owls were observed during the diurnal perimeter
surveys or during the dusk surveys of the islands grassland areas that occurred on the December
20 and January 16 visits (page 7). Two days of dusk surveys are inadequate to detect short-eared
owls. Additionally, the TES report including the observations of Short-Eared Owls (see comment
on the Avian Risk Assessment, above) should be included in background information used for
preparation of the 2009-2010 Winter Bird Survey report. The project sponsor has provided a
work plan for an additional Winter Bird Study to be conducted from November 2009 through
March 2010. In a memo to the project attorney dated 06/08/09, DEC concurred that the scope of
this study is satisfactory to provide supplemental information necessary for DEC to assess avian
impacts for these resources.
Appendix B: Conceptual Design Report for Selected Infrastructure Improvements on

Galloo Island, Water Intake Structure and Pipeline
In this report, it is stated that the water intake structure and pipeline would be constructed
to draw Lake Ontario water from an offshore location at a recommended depth of 30 feet below
the mean lake water level. The offshore distance necessary to achieve this depth is approximately
400 to 500 feet. The water intake would consist of a 12-inch diameter pipeline extending out into
the lake. A single intake pipe would be used for potable water and for fire protection (pages 2223). DEC will require, as part of permit review for this project, that a plan to sample lake
sediments at the intake location be prepared and submitted to DEC, consistent with the sampling
requirements of TOGS 5.1.9, unless it is determined that no sediment exists at the potable water
intake location.
-6-
The design report additionally states that a screen would be installed on the end of the
pipeline intake to prevent seaweed or fish from being drawn into the pipe. The screen would be
constructed of a metal alloy that is designed to resist biofouling by zebra mussels or other
nuisance plants or animals. Eastern Lake Ontario is a prime spawning area for lake trout, walleye
and alewife, and the proposed water intake location is important in particular due to the offshore
shoal created by the island. DEC will require a water intake screening system with no greater
than openings and intake velocity of foot/sec or less, to prevent impingement of juvenile
fish into the system. A screen of this size is likely to require periodic cleaning to maintain water
flow.
Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact of the Upstate NY Power Transmission Line Article VII
Application, 4.6.7 Subaquatic Cable Construction.
It is stated in this section that construction of the subaquatic cable will be conducted by
jet plow embedment in the bottom of Lake Ontario and details regarding the installation of the
subaquatic cable and associated transitions are provided within Exhibit E-3. This exhibit should
be included as an attachment to Exhibit 4. Additionally, during a recent conference call with the
project sponsor, it was stated that due to concerns for thermal dispersion, the project will involve
placement of four smaller subaquatic cables rather than one larger cable. Placement of four
cables would result in 4X the disturbance of sediment than a single cable route. This needs to be
addressed further and associated impacts of multiple cable routes analyzed in greater detail.
DEIS Section 2.11, Blasting Issues, and Appendix A, Blasting Plan.

The project now anticipates creation of a small quarry for purposes of providing roadgrade gravel materials. This operation will involve blasting. The DEIS discussion on blasting
does not address blasting in terms of the protocols to reduce ground vibration, noise, etc. The
Blasting Plan should be revised to incorporate DECs Guidelines for Evaluating Mining
Applications that Propose to Use Blasting Including Best Management Practices, Division of
Mineral Resources, June 2009.
State Lands and Open Space Conservation Plan.

Figure 1.2-1, Project Layout, shows Turbine # 1 and the associated access
road/interconnect located on a parcel of land owned by DEC. There is a reversionary clause
regarding this parcel in the State's deed from the United States of America to DEC (1234/283).
This deed states that the property is to be continuously used by NYS only for the conservation of
wildlife, other than migratory birds, and is conveyed upon the condition that in the event it is no
longer used for such purposes, or in the event it is used for any purpose that is not compatible
with the use and maintenance of the property and for conservation of wildlife, the title shall
-7-
automatically and immediately revert to the United States, etc. Any uses of the DEC lands on
Galloo Island for the wind project would not be for wildlife conservation purposes and therefore
would not be consistent with the terms of the deed. On page 2-62 of the DEIS, it states, Galloo
Island has been identified in the New York State Open Space Plan as a part of the Great Lakes
Shorelines and Niagara River priority conservation project area. (NYSDEC et. al., 2006). The
2009 New York State Open Space Conservation Plan, released June 2009, continues to list
Galloo Island as an important natural resource. On page 102 of the Plan, it states, Galloo Island,
the largest undeveloped island in Lake Ontario measuring approximately 3 miles by 1 mile
or 1,934 acres is just one of the undeveloped islands worthy of attention. DEC has in the past
expressed interest in acquisition of Galloo Island but was not able to negotiate terms sufficient to
carry out this plan. Nonetheless, DEC continues to hold interest in exploring opportunities for
wildlife conservation, public use and access of existing state lands on Galloo Island consistent
with the management objectives of those properties, and other opportunities that may be
available for overall management of the island consistent with the Open Space Conservation
Plan.
DEIS Appendix G, Operations and Management Plan, identifies a number of
environmental factors to be considered during the operational life of the facility, including
restoration, maintenance, repairs, decommissioning, spill management, wetland mitigation
management, invasive species management, and ice management. DEC typically recommends
that all wind projects consider creation of additional environmental enhancements during the life
of the project beyond those required for restoration and mitigation, through cooperative
partnerships with landowners, local governments, educational and conservation organizations.
The Galloo Island project is unique in that the entire project development area will be under the
control of the project sponsor and, being a resource identified as worthy of attention in the Open
Space Conservation Plan, provides an unparalleled opportunity for a cooperative arrangement
between the project sponsor and DEC in the development of management plans for the island
that accomplish the objectives of the project sponsor, promote activities consistent with the Open
Space Plan, and further the resource management objectives of the Department. These may
include invasive species management and control, grassland/forest management for wildlife
conservation, and limited public access for safe harbor, educational or recreational purposes.
DEC will continue discussions with the project sponsor to identify specific opportunities for
cooperative management, and will include a commitment to engage in this process as a condition
to permits issued for project construction.
Appendix E, Conceptual Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan.

Overall, the report appears written specifically to address federal requirements of the Oil
Pollution Act and Clean Water Act. The report should address NYS Navigation and
Environmental Conservation Laws as well.
A broad question to answer is the States definition of Facility. Generally under NYS
Petroleum Bulk Storage (PBS) regulations (promulgated pursuant to Article 17 Environmental
Conservation Law Title 10), Facility means the entire site where >1,100 gallons of petroleum
is stored in bulk. This definition has ramifications in terms of spill reporting and cleanup.
-8-
Whereas typically wind farms are located primarily on leased private land, the Hounsfield Wind
Farm is proposed to be located on land wholly owned by the project sponsor. Therefore the
entire project development area would constitute a Facility for purposes of this regulation. The
main difference between this situation and a typical wind power project is that anyone with
knowledge of spill event is obligated to notify DEC according to established reporting
procedures (see Sec. 2.7, below). This includes contractors or other personnel who may not be
directly employed by or represent the project sponsor.
Page 1-2 states that, Even though the facilitys total oil capacity will be greater than
42,000 gallons and it will receive oil over water, the checklist in Appendix A determined that the
facility will not require a Facility Specific Response Plan (40 CFR 112 Appendix F) because the
ASTs are greater than 1.8 miles inland from the slip, and the amount of oil transferred over water
is less than 5,000 gallons per week. DEC has contacted the U.S. Coast Guard to get a clearer
understanding of this regulatory requirement, and will provide additional guidance following this
consultation. However, somewhere between a few 90-gallon spill kits and a full-blown FRP, the
facility needs to maintain appropriate resources for response to significant spills. Spills may
occur due to accidents with fuel delivery vehicles, even when the actual transfer of fuel is not in
progress.
Page 2-1 Sec. 2.1 Definitions This section should cite Article 12 Navigation Law and
should include its legal definitions of petroleum and discharge.
Page 2-2 Listing of stored petroleum This section lists (5) 6,000 gallon above ground
tanks. All tank storage of petroleum will be regulated by PBS Regulations at 6 NYCRR Parts
612-614, and must be registered with the Department. Tanks must meet SPOTS (Spill Prevention
Operations and Technology Series) Memo #14 for secondary containment requirements due to
the proximity to surface waters. The Department accepts four specific double-wall above ground
tank models as complying with this requirement. These models are specifically designed to
provide overfill protection. Most double-wall tanks do not meet this standard. Although the plan
does not specify the tank model, the description of the tank systems appears to be of a type that
does not comply with DEC requirements. This should be clarified, and/or changed to meet DEC
requirements.
Page 2-3, Sec. 2.7 The correct local phone number for NYS DEC Spill Response is
315-785-2513. DECs preference is to strike this number for any part of the SPCC Plan that
discusses proper reporting procedures. The only number that should be used to report a spill is
1-800-457-7362.
Page 4-1, Sec. 4.1 describes potential routes for spills to reach surface water. This section
neglects the potential for spills to follow a subsurface path, either directly to surface water, or via
groundwater migration. State regulations clearly address spills to the land and spills to
groundwater, in addition to spills to surface water.
-9-
Page 4-10, Sec. 4.10 This section states that drums are not refilled. What about used
motor oil? If equipment will be maintained on the island, drums will be filled with spent
petroleum. This should be clarified or revised as appropriate.
Pages 4-12 & 13, Sec. 4.12.1 The term Discharge, as it is used in this document, does
not conform to the definition in Article 12 Navigation Law. In addition, the PBS regulations use
a distinct definition for Spill. Reporting of discharges is discussed further in the appendix on
page 83 of 92. The Departments guidance states, All petroleum spills that occur within New
York State (NYS) must be reported to the NYS Spill Hotline (1-800-457-7362) within 2 hours of
discovery, except spills which meet all of the following criteria:
1. The quantity is known to be less than 5 gallons; and
2. The spill is contained and under the control of the spiller; and
3. The spill has not and will not reach the State's water or any land; and
4. The spill is cleaned up within 2 hours of discovery.
A spill is considered to have not impacted land if it occurs on a paved surface such as asphalt
or concrete. A spill in a dirt or gravel parking lot is considered to have impacted land and is
reportable. Therefore, ALL spills to the land are reportable. Essentially, the only spills that do
not need reporting are those spills <5 gallons that are to a properly designed and maintained
secondary containment system AND which are cleaned up within two hours.
Additional Comments:
1.
The SPCC Plan does not describe a Spill Kit in detail. A typical spill kit uses a 90gallon poly overpack drum (which can be used to pack a standard 55-gallon drum
inside), which is filled with absorbent booms, pillows, and/or pads, safety glasses, and
gloves. The potential for large spills exists both in the construction and operation phases
of the project. In lieu of a full-blown Facility Response Plan, the SPCC plan should
describe, in a reasonable level of detail, the resources available to respond to these spills.
Due to the location of the facility, it is unlikely that contracted spill response services can
arrive in a reasonable time frame. Some of the equipment and materials that should be on
hand include:
For Spills to Land:

Tracked Excavator (likely present during construction, but less likely during operation)
Backhoe/Loader (likely present during all phases of operation)
Dump Truck
Vacuum Truck (minimum 3,500 gallon) Though expensive, this is a critical piece of
equipment needed to respond to any spill larger than 100 gallons, and the facility should
consider having one available on site at all times.
For Spills that affect Water:

Harbor Boom (at least 500 feet)
Absorbent Boom (at least 500 feet)
Work Boats (at least 3)
-10-
If this equipment is not immediately available, spills that reach the water will likely be
unrecoverable.
2.
The cleanup of spills at the facility will result in the generation of cleanup debris (oil
soaked booms, pads, speedi-dry, soil, etc.). Generally the owner is allowed 60 days to
effect proper disposal, provided the debris is stored properly. It is recommended that
provisions be made for the storage of a rolloff container stored in a pole barn or under a
pavilion. This would allow for accumulation of small quantities of debris as it is
generated, and then hauling the rolloff for proper disposal. In addition, it may be a good
idea to provide a 6,000 gallon tank for waste liquid containment and storage.
3.
Secondary Containment (other than for petroleum storage tanks):
4.
The containment structures for transformers should be described in greater detail.

Often the challenge lies in providing an adequate containment capacity while
keeping the containment structure free from storm water.
While the SPPC Plan describes containment for above ground storage tanks, this
containment does not protect against all types of spills, especially delivery
overfills. The Plans should provide specific tank models and installation plans.
The Plan does not reference containment for the fuel delivery vehicles. The
greatest chance for spills is during product transfer. Federal SPCC requirements
may include secondary containment for the delivery vehicle.
Spill Reporting and Documentation: DECs experience with other wind farms shows that
spills can be expected during the construction and operational phases. Though many of
these spills may be small, they must be properly reported, cleaned up, and documented.
The DEC Regional Spill Response Unit lacks the resources to respond to Galloo Island to
oversee the cleanup of every spill. Therefore, the project sponsor must develop
procedures for DEC approval that address proper reporting, cleanup, and documentation.
This includes a requirement to keep a written summary that includes Spill Date, Time,
Product, Quantity, GPS Location, Debris Quantity, Confirmation Sampling Results, and
Disposal Confirmation. This information should be made available to the Department in
ESRI GIS format with a geographic data and data tables.
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit

(MSGP) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (GP-0-06-002).
Review of the DEIS identified industrial activities defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i-ix
and xi), which are eligible for coverage under this general permit. The proposed activities
identified to date include:
-11-
Limestone Quarrying and related activities (Sector J)

Activities related to Water Transportation and Marine Cargo Handling (Sector Q)
Concrete Batch Plant (Sector E)
Heliport/Air Transportation (Sector S)
Land Transportation related activities (Sector P)
All general requirements of GP-0-06-002 are applicable to drainage areas discharging
stormwater associated with any covered industrial activity. In addition, sector-specific
requirements included in Part VIII of the permit apply to the specific drainage areas in which
activities are conducted, and the outfalls discharging stormwater from those drainage areas. To
obtain coverage under MSGP, a complete Notice of Intent (NOI) must be submitted to the
Department at least 30 days prior to commencement of industrial activities at the facility. Upstate
NY Power Corporation is responsible for reviewing 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i-ix and xi) and GP0-06-002 to identify activities not included in the list above.
-12-
Comments Received
During Public Comment Period for
Permits Submitted to DEC
From: "Karl R. Williams" <thechamberpresident@gmail.com>

CC: beccaflur@gmail.com
Excursion Charters
Geo Real Estate Services
Henderson Consulting Services
Henderson Storage Pete Price
Stebbins Engineering & Manufacturing
Westview Lodge & Marina & Saiff Outdoors
Date: 11/9/2009 10:41 AM
Subject:
HHACC Request of Six Month Extension
November 9, 2009
Stephen M. Tomasik
DEC Headquarters
Subject:
Hounsfield Wind Power Project Galloo Island

UPSTATE NY POWER CORPORATION
Application ID 6-2238-00193/00001
Dear Mr. Tomasik:

The Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Commerces (HHACC) Economic
Development
Committee is writing this letter to you to request a six-month extension to
the comment period, extending the deadline from the current December 4, 2009
to the requested June 4, 2010.
We are a very small, struggling community, overwhelmed with the immediate
need to assess and provide appropriate input to you regarding the very
large, complex Hounsfield Wind Power Project. Only very recently was the
Town of Henderson named an interested party; to be involved in the project
processes.
Our concerns are many but mainly stem from our initial review of the massive
DEIS when compared with the Public Scoping Document published in Draft form
May 14, 2008 and finalized on September 17, 2008. The process of comparison
is overwhelming, especially when we cannot be directly involved in the
project; since the Wind Project is under the Town of Hounsfield jurisdiction
and the Transmission line is considered a Type II action under SEQRA with
little information available to our Town.
The Scoping study offers very little information about the single 230kV
transmission line that is now planned to intersect our Town, plus now
proposed to handle two 230kV transmission lines. The scoping study also does
not offer any alternatives of consideration of a subaquatic transmission
line more directly to the NYS Power Grid, avoiding the intersection and
destruction of historic, agrarian and recreational use lands in several
townships. Also, the scoping study promises view shed simulations from at
least 10 vantage points which are not offered in the DEIS, including many in
our Township.
We are gravely concerned about the information that is not available,
attainable, or part of the public record. It will take additional time to
liaise with the DEC and PSC to adequately provide our concerns.
We appeal to your office to allow our Town, which will be devastated by this
project, to have adequate time to state our concerns.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Yours truly,
Karl R. Williams, President

Copy to: Ms. J. Drabicki, Director, NYS DEC Region 6
R. Aliasso, HHACC Economic Development
R. Ashodian, HHACC Economic Development
November 10,2009
Memorandum To:
Stephen M. Toms&
NYSDEC Headquarters
625 Broadway
Albany, WY 12233
Copy to:
Ms. Judy Drabicki, Director

DEC Region 6 Office
377 W ~ g t o fStreet
l
Watertown, NY 13601
From:
The Heart of Henderson

P.O. Box 31
Henderson, NY 13650
Subject:
Hounsfield Wind Power Project - Gdloo Island

Application 3D 6-2238-00193100001
The Heart of Henderson organization is writing this letter to request a six-month extension to the
comment petiod, extending the W i n e h m the current December 4,2009 to the requested
June 4,2010.
As a small community only recently having become an 'interested partytin the Hounsfield Wind
Power Project, we find omelves in the unenviable position of having to analyze a very large and
complex amount of data. Since we are so newly an 'interestedparty' due to circumtaaces
beyond our control, we are Hsking to have time to review all pertinent information.
We have many concerns not the least is the the review of the huge amount of DEIS material as
mmpad to the Public Scoping Docurnent initially published in draft form on May14,2008 and
finalized September 17,2008. The process of comparison is massive, considering that the Wind
Project is under the auspices of the T a m of Howfield jurisdiction and the T m s s i o n Line is
considered a Type I1 action under SEQRA. Very little information is available to tba Town of
Henderson.
The Scoping study gives little information about the single 230kV trammission line that has been
planned to cut though t h Town

~
of Henderson, now proposed to M e TWO 230kV
trammission Ilines. There are no d&matives presented. T h alternative consideration of a
subaquatic trammission directly to the N Y S Power Grid is not explored. Doing so would avoid
d e s ~ o of
n historic, agrarian and mmtional use lands all the way to the Grid. The scoping
study also promises simulations h m Een vantage points. These are not offered in the DEIS,
many of which are in the Town of Henderson.
The Heart of Henderson is mtmmly alarmed regarding the dearth of information available, or
even attainable as part of the public recurd. And what was placed in local libraries promptly
disappeared. We need more time to connect with the DEC and the PSC to adequately state our
concerns. W e @lore the DEC to give us the time we need to adequately prepare rrur concerns.
We fear without that time,our community will be devastated by the Hounsfield Wind Power
pmject.
Thank you for your considmation of this matter.
Margaret Golovey
Heart of Henderson
hcat1365O@yahoo,com
To:
NYS Department of Public Service

Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12223-1350
November 16,2009
Honorable Jeffrey E. Stockholm - Administrative Law Judge
Jehv stbcilth_Qlrn~.s~-n~-us
Honorable Kevin J. Casutto -Administrator Law Judge
Kev~nc a s u ~ ~ ~ . s t nv.us
ate.
Mr Andrew Davis DPS Project Manger
Andrew DaV!s@dn&state.nu.us
To:

625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12223-1750
Mr. Stephen Tamasik, Environmental Analyst
s t m a d ~ 7- -& -a . -n~dg
~ Y
From: Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce
Economic Development Committee
SUWECT:
Case 09-T-0049 Application of Upstate NY Power Corp. for Certificate of Environmental

Compatibility and Public Need for a 50.6 mile 230kV Transmission Faclllty
This letter and its attachment are entered into the public record of the November 16, 2009 Public Hearing an subject case,
hosted by the DPS in the Town of Henderson and shall be made part of the permanent Case records.
Our Board and the business members we represent are opposed to the project adjoined with Case 09-T-0049 and find
many sources of expected negative socio-economic benefit if the DPS determines public need of said Case. We also are
opposed to the project based on the environmental incompatibility when considering the ecological and environmental
resources that will be devastated, damaged, or irreversibly altered.
After review of the published data associated with this Case, as well as VVTG project DEIS, and data available from
knowledgeable third party reference sources, we are very concerned about the negative impact to our area's delicate
economy, highly dependent on tourism, recreation and agriculturat sectors, should the subject project proceed. The need
fur dependable alternative energy is very important, but not at the expense of negative socioeconomic ham leff in the
wake of developers, such as Upstate NY Power Corporation.
We have studied knowledgeable reference sources such as, Beacon Hill Institute's Cost Benefit Analysis of Wind Projects
and Appraisal Group One Wind Turbine Impact Study to postulate the extent of negative socio-economic impact to our
business members and to this diverse area commonly referred as the Golden Crescent. The attached letter from one
business member, Association island RV Resort and Marina, LLC is attached and made part of this letter. This business
Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce

PO Bax 468 - Henderson Harbor, NY 13651-0468 (3 151 938-5568 fo1lfi.e~:(888) 938-5568
~
~e m conbac
v f :t h e c h. m n b m ~ r e ~ ~ & L c a r n
is one of the highest assessed properties in Henderson, physically the closest to the W G project, the majority of the
subaquatic cable, and the landing point of the subaquatic cable. Ms. Shim's letter summarizes many points very well, that
substantiate the project developer's ineffectiveness in their project data to recognize the economic impact to the Town of
Henderson, and in some case recognition at all. The main points of her letter clearly outline the irreparable economic
harm they we will be faced with should this project proceed. The overall effect will be the reverse of Economic
Development that our Chamber of Commerce is promoting - resulting in economic sunrival. The developer provides no
indepth economic impact analysis in their project data, and we respectfully request this data be provided for the benefit of
review by the DPS, DEC and the affected Towns. The decision by our New York State lead agencies should be
delayed, until which time adequate factual data can be provided by the developer and analyzed by said parties. If b i s
project is as robust technically and camrnercially as the seasoned developer Upstate MY Power claims in their project
data, this request should be easily and timely submitted.
The creation of jobs and supply chain associated with the construction of this project is also an unknown benefitlimpact.
The W G project will have many components from foreign sources, or supplied within the developer's overall corporate
structure. This is a contentious issue, one which has received national attention, especially the recent request from
Senator Schumer to halt a project in west Texas due to large Federal subsidy essentially creating jobs on foreign shores.
We implore the DPS to consider both the VVTG project and the transmission line construction as one project when
determining job creation, effective use of federal money and long-term economic impact to the host area.
Today, you will also hear from our Chamber President, Mr. Karl Williams, who will read several other member letters, and
a Town of Henderson Planning Board member, Mr. Bob Ashodian. The latter will discuss in depth the synergy between
the Economic Development Committee and the Town of Henderson Comprehensive Land Use Plan, developed at
substantial expense and forethought as to the quality and character of development that closely matches our areas
presetvation of resources and future business expansion plans. The proposed project will severely harm our ability to
follow our Town's Plan for Economic Development, limit our Committee's ability to attract or maintain business, and
degrade our tax base by an expected sharp decline in property values, and thus business viability.
Regarding the agricultural and dairy industry, prevalent in the area, and essential to the routing of the proposed Upstate
NY Power Corporation's transmission line, we have interviewed several farmers, a few of which are candidates for the
routing of the transmission line. Overwhelmingly, their feelings to this project are very negative and considered a personal
attack on their freedoms, as a small family owned business owner. They cite disruption to their crops and livestock as
highly probable outcomes, both of which may force several of these businesses to the brink of extinction. We understand
from these interviews that the small subsidy they would receive for either lump sum settlement or lease payments would
be outstripped several fold by loss of revenue due to decreased milk production. Jefferson County has prided itself on its
well-established dairy and agricultural industry a decision to allow this project to proceed would undo two centuries of
blood, sweat and tears building a proud legacy of these farms passed from parent to child and so on.
If this project proceeds, we will be faced with an irreversible and devastating effect to our environment, local business,
dairy and agricultural economies, a degraded tax base and sharply declining real estate value. We ask that NYSDPS
rule against the public need for a 5Q.6 mile transmission facility associated with Case 09-T-0049.
Sincerely,
4,/&
C,- t +,-& d t p Robert E. Aliasso, Jr.
'
Economic Develop Committee Board Member
-7
flT..
--
Attachment: November 16, 2009 letter from Association Island RV Resort and Marina LLC
PO Box 468 F-lenderson H a r k NY

-
1 W51-0468
(315) 938-5568 tollfiee: (8831 018-3568
From: Karen West <cwest@twcny.rr.com>

CC: Bob & Paula Ashodian <bashodian@aol.com>
Date: 11/21/2009 4:27 PM
Dear Sir,
Please extend the public comment period for the projects in Eastern Lake Ontario area
(Town of Houndsfield, Jefferson County, etc.) that involve wind turbines and power
transmission lines.
Good government is careful and responsible, listens to the public and takes into account
scientific research. At the current time, there is a lot of emotion flying about the proposed
projects, the damage they might do to the environment and to the scenic beauty of the
east end of the lake. It makes good sense to give people time to consider all the options
available and to understand the science involved before making decisions about both
projects. It also makes ultimate sense, given the needs of the people, to seek Win-Win
solutions rather than solutions that enrage the public. There are, for certain, ways to bring
sustainable power to this region and to the state that do not compromise the beauty of our
wilder areas.
As a native of this state and proud to have lived and worked here, I would like to think
that our government is sensitive to the needs of its people, the environment, and our
children's and grandchildren's futures. All those factors are wrapped up in what these
projects entail. More time to consider public comments and ideas makes sense.
Thank you,
Karen West
PO Box 531
8531 Reed Canal Road
From: "julie a. dixon" <sabrebv@aol.com>

Date: 11/21/2009 8:24 AM
Subject:
henderson harbor area
Please urge extension of the public comment time for the wind generator project.
Thank You
Steve & Julie Dixon
6 West Oneida St'
Baldwinsville, NY 13027
From: "Charles Clarkson" <cbclarkson@tampabay.rr.com>

Date: 11/22/2009 12:25 PM
Subject:
Wind Turbines and Transmission Lines
Sir:
As a summer resident of Henderson Harbor, I wholeheartedly agree with Robert
Ashodian, whom you have recently heard from. Please don't let the momentum
associated with "green energy" (the political correctness du jour) move the Galloo Island
wind project ahead before the very real concerns raised by Mr. Ashodian have been
examined thoroughly by both the public and the DEC.
Thanks for your efforts in this regard.
Charles Clarkson
PO Box 56
From: <DDopeters@aol.com>
Date: 11/22/2009 8:32 AM
Subject:
Galloo Wind Farm
Stephen Tomasik
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
_smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us_ (mailto:smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us)
Please consider this request to extend the public comment period for the
Galloo Wind farm. I believe the developer did what was legally necessary to
complete his DEIS, but I also believe that many people were not aware of
the time line and the activity going on for the past couple of years. Why did
this project not receive more press? How many people attended the
meetings? Were the people who own camps in the view shed informed? Was the full
intention of expanded development revealed, i.e. wind farms on other islands
and in the offshore waters in the "Golden Crescent"?
I've just started to review the documents on line and it will be a time
consuming event to thoroughly review them all in detail. Please consider this
request to extend the review period so I can have more time to review and
to allow concerned citizens to notify stakeholders of the impending
development.
Donald Peters
126 Circle Road
Syracuse, NY 13210
From: <OLESALTD@aol.com>
Date: 11/23/2009 10:02 PM
Subject:
Request to Extend Public Comment Period for Hounsfield (Galoo) Wind
Farm Project
To: Stephen Tomasik

625 Broadway - 4th floor
Albany, NY 12233-1750
RE: Request to Extend the Public Comment Period Hounsfield Wind Farm Project.
Dear Mr. Tomasik:
Please extend the public comment period on the Hounsfield Wind Farm Project (Galoo
Island) By six (6) months. We are not registered as interested parties but, we do have an
interest in this huge project that has come to our attention only within the last few weeks.
We have suddenly realized that this massive project is well along in the approval process
and it will have an enormous negative effect on us personally, as well as the ecology,
the economy and the history of this region. Our most significant natural resource is at
stake.
There are many reasons why we were not fully aware that this project was so far along in
the approval process. Regardless of that, we feel that a thirty (30) day public comment
period is not sufficient for us or our community to evaluate the impact thoroughly.
We urge the DEC to extend the public comment period which is scheduled to end on
December 4, 2009, to June of 2010.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours truly,
David G. and Polly P. Brown
15126 Snowshoe Road
Henderson, New York 13650
To:
Stephen Tomasik
N Y S Department of Environmental Conservation
Albany, New York 12233- 1750
pH: (518)486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
smtornasi@gw.dec,state.ny.us
Re: Request to Extend the Public Comment Period Hounsfield Wind Farm Project
Please extend the public comment period on the Hornsfield Wind Farm Project (Gdloo
Island) by six (6)months. I arn not registered as an interested party, but I surely have an
interest in this massive project that has come to my attention only within the last few
weeks. Like many others in this community, I have suddenly realized this project is well
along in the approval process and will have an enormous impact on me personally, and
the ecology, history and economy of this region. Our most significant natural resource,
the very reason I live here, is at stake.
The reasons why we were not Mly aware that this project was so far along in the
approval process are many. Regardless ofthat issue, a thirty (3 0)day public comment
period is simply not sufficient for me or my community to evaluate the impact.
I urge the DEC to extend the public comment period which is scheduled to end on
December 4,2009, by six months, to June of 2010.
Copy to:

N Y S DEC Region 6 Ofice
3 17 Washington Street
Watertown NY 13601
From: <DBald31624@aol.com>
CC: <Bashodian@aol.com>
Date: 11/25/2009 3:14 PM
Subject:
Galloo Island Wind Power Project
Dear Mr. Tomasi,
My wife and I are members of the Henderson Harbor Yacht Club and over the
years have spent a considerable time boating in the so called Golden
Crescent part of Lake Ontario. The beauty of this area is unsurpassed.
Recently it has come to our attention that a significant wind power and
transmission line project is proposed for Galloo Island and environs. I am
writing to respectfully request that the time for comment to the DEC on this
project be extended for at least 6 months to provide a fairer opportunity
for every concerned person to more fully study the implications of the
proposal and make their informed comments known to the DEC before an irrevocable
decision is made.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dennis and Gail Baldwin
From: Elyda Gladle

To: Tomasik, Stephen
Date: 11/25/2009 12:05 PM
Subject:
Galloo Island Project
Attachments: Document_6.pdf
Please see attached correspondence and response regarding Galloo Island. Thank you.
Please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
From: Melanie Chapman <melaniechapman@gmail.com>

Date: 11/25/2009 9:50 PM
Subject:
Galloo Island Wind Farm & Transmission Lines
Dear Mr. Tomasik,
I am writing you to request that the DEC give a six month extension to allow
additional public comment before developers alter the scenic landscape of
eastern Lake Ontario forever.
My husband and I, and our family, spend summers in the Henderson and Sackets
Harbor area. We are often out on the water and cannot imagine more wind
towers visually ruining the area. The natural beauty of eastern Lake Ontario
is one of our most important natural resources that should be preserved for
future generations. We feel that rushing this agenda, without giving enough
time for people to voice their opinions, consider other options, or even
learn about the long term benefits, is unfair and unwise, and could have
long term repercussions that are irreversible.
As an educator in a school district that borders eastern Lake Ontario, I
feel strongly that the DEC must act responsibly and provide enough time and
opportunity for an informed discussion and study on any decisions that will
have such a tremendous future impact on so many people and on such an
important and large geographic area. No matter what happens, it is our
children's future, and needs to be studied and understood by all.
Thank you for considering the responsible action of providing at least a 6
month extension for furthur consideration of this very complex, and also
devisive and controversial issue, that will not only affect energy, but will
also affect the future of this beautiful area that we are so fortunate to
enjoy and appreciate.
Yours truly,
Melanie Chapman
From: <Jweber7@aol.com>
Date: 11/27/2009 10:19 AM
Subject:
Galloo Island Wind Farm Project
Sir,
Please agree to a 6 month extension to the Galloo Island Wind Farm Project.
The importance of this project deems it necessary to extend time for
public comment.
.
Thank you,
James & Barbara Weber
To:
Stephen Tomsik
N Y S Department ofEnvironmental C o m a t i o n
625 Broadway 4th Floor
pH: (518) 486-995 5
FAX: (5 1 8) 402-9 168
s~masi@gw.dec.state.ny,us
Re: Request to Extend the Public Comment Period Houmfield Wind Farm Projet3
Please extend the public comment period on the H o d e l d Wind Famx Project (Gatloo
Island) by pix (6)months. I am not rudered as an i n t d party, but 1 surely have an
Wht~s&eplrojeEththm~~qEittentiQElewitbnthefa&h
w&.
Like many 0 t h ~
in ~
this mmmdy, I have d d d y r d i d this project is d
l
dong in the approval process and d l have m efiormomimpact on me p s m d y , and
the d o g y , Wary a
d ecwnamy of this region. Our must significmi mural r m c e ,
the very F ~ S U Z II live h e , isat d e .
~ ~ s ~ y w e m f l O t ~ U y a m e t h a t t h i s p e o j msofardong
was
inthe
qpmdptmsmmany. ~ & e s a o f t h ; a t i ~ a ~ ( 3 0 ) d a y p l b ~ c o ~
period is simply not d c i e n t fm me or my cornto evaluate h e impact.
I r q e the DEC to extend the public comment perid which is scheduled to end on
r k e m k 4 2009,by six lncmh, to Jim of2010.
Copy to:
Pvis. Judy Dmbicki, Director

P ? Y S ~ ~ 6 0 & m
317 Washington S m
W-NY
13601
From: <dbgamble@westelcom.com>
CC: <dbgamble@westelcom.com>
Date: 11/27/2009 8:59 AM
Subject:
Extension of Comment Period
Mr. Tomasik:
I strongly urge you to extend the public comment period for the Galloo Island wind
power project to allow more people to express their views on this enormous project. If
build, this wind development project will forever change the quality of life and the vistas
that the people of Jefferson County and the many thousands of people who come to our
area have come to enjoy. It seems to me that there must be areas, even in Jefferson
County, that could be potential sites for such development that would not have such a
negative impact on the economy, tourism and quality of life. Please extend the public
comment period, so as to allow a full consideration and discussion of the scope of such a
development. Thank you.
Robert Gamble
Henderson Harbor, NY
From: <dldp@frontiernet.net>
Date: 11/28/2009 8:22 PM
Subject:
Dear Sir,
Please extend the public comment period to allow local residents to research the impact.
thanks
David Poulin
12962 County Rt 123
From: "Lee Cagwin" <lcagwin1@twcny.rr.com>

Date: 11/30/2009 1:30 PM
Subject:
Galloo Island Wind Mill Project
Sir;
As a summer boating resident of Henderson Harbor, NY for the past 28 years I
request that you extend the Public Comment Period regarding the project for
six months.
Respectfully
Lee T. Cagwin
From: Sara Deming Wason <sdwason@syr.edu>

To: "'smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us'" <smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us>
Date: 11/30/2009 9:18 AM
Subject:
Galloo Island
Dear Mr. Tomasik,

I urge you to grant a 6 month extension to the public comment period for the Galloo
Island wind turbine project. This project will change the future of the eastern end of
Lake Ontario, affecting the livelihood of the region. It is imperative that the public is
given enough time to discuss the implications of the project. Please extend the public
comment period!
Thank you.
Sara Wason
From: Sara Deming Wason <sdwason@syr.edu>

To: "'smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us'" <smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us>
Date: 11/30/2009 9:18 AM
Subject:
Galloo Island
Dear Mr. Tomasik,

I urge you to grant a 6 month extension to the public comment period for the Galloo
Island wind turbine project. This project will change the future of the eastern end of
Lake Ontario, affecting the livelihood of the region. It is imperative that the public is
given enough time to discuss the implications of the project. Please extend the public
comment period!
Thank you.
Sara Wason
From: "Karl R. Williams" <thechamberpresident@gmail.com>

To: <jxdrabic@gw.dec.state.ny.us>, <smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us>
CC: Henderson Consulting <bashodian@aol.com>, Stebbins Engineering <REAliass...
Date: 12/1/2009 1:12 PM
Subject:
December 1, 2009
To:
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation - Division of
Environmental Permits
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12223-1750
Mr. Stephen Tomasik, Environmental Analyst
smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Copy To:
NYSDEC Region 6 Office

Watertown, NY 13601
jxdrabic@gw.dec.state.ny.us <jdrabicki@gw.dec.state.ny.us>
From:

Subject:

NYSDEC Application ID 6-2238-00193/00001
NYSDPS Case 09-T-0049
1.
Through our continued review of the very complex subject project,
we note an abnormality that we request be investigated. This project, when
considered cumulatively with the other five (5) Jefferson County projects
(see attached Interconnection Request for Jefferson County), and the public
agency announcement by NYPA of an additional 1,000 WTG, should be considered

under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act regulations, Part
617.7.(c)(1)(xii) as a whole. Specifically we cite two or more related
actions undertaken, funded or approved by an agency, none of which has or
would have a significant impact on the environment, but when considered
cumulatively would meet one or more of the criteria in this subdivision.
We ask the NYSDEC to complete the impact analysis to their satisfaction, as
to the cumulative effects of these multiple projects as suggested in SEQRA
Part 617.7.
2.
Portions of Galloo Island are included in the NYSDEC Open Spaces
Plan, as are close proximity islands, Little Galloo, and Gull Island. How
does this affect the request by the developer, Upstate NY Power Corporation
to completely cover Galloo Island with an industrial WTG complex? Has the
NYSDEC modified their Open Spaces Plan to accommodate the substantial
industrial complex cited very close to three (3) notable sites?
*Henderson** Harbor** Area Chamber of Commerce*
*PO Box 468** Henderson Harbor, NY 13651-0468** (315) 938-5568 toll free:
(888) 938-5568 www.hendersonharborny.com contact:
thechambertreasurer@gmail.com*
*NYSDEC SEQRA Abnormality
December 1, 2009*
HHACC-EDC
*NYSDEC Open Spaces Criteria*

3.
Several years ago, the NYSDEC considered purchase of Galloo Island
and proceeded with a final negotiation that did not result in the purchase.
During the NYSDEC review of Galloo Island leading up to their purchase
offer, we understand from discussions, the island was considered, fragile
and delicate and shall remain in its current state. Has this previous
determination and review by the NYSDEC been considered, or made available to
the present NYSDEC evaluating team? If so, has the NYSDEC found new
information to consider the island suitable for an industrial WTG complex?
Thank you for your consideration of this new request, which does not modify
our previous request for a six (6) month extension of the existing public
commenting period of the DEIS.
Sincerely,
Karl Williams - President
Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce **
Robert Ashodian Chair

Peter Price, Bill Saiff, Robert Aliasso - Members
Attached: Interconnection Requests and Transmission Projects Jefferson
County (Source NYISO)
INTERCONNECTION REQUESTS AND TRANSMISSION PROJECTS / NEW YORK
CONTROL AREA
*
Page 1 of 1
*
Queue Date SP WP Type/ Location Interconnection Availability
Pos. Owner/Developer Project Name of IR (MW) (MW) Fuel County/State Point
Utility S of Studies Original Current
166 *AES-Acciona Energy NY, LLC St. Lawrence Wind Farm 2/8/05 79.5 79.5 W
Jefferson, NY E Lyme Substation 115kV NM-NG 10 9/1/09 SRIS 2006/12 2009/12
*
189 *PPM Energy, Inc. Clayton Wind 4/8/05 126 126 W Jefferson, NY E Coffeen
St-Thousand Island 115 NM-NG 8 10/14/08 FES, SRIS 2006/12 2010/12
*
207 *BP Alternative Energy NA, Inc. Cape Vincent 1/12/06 210 210 W
Jefferson, NY E Rockledge Substation 115kV NM-NG 9 10/14/08 FES, SRIS
2009/Q4 2009/Q4
*
246 *PPM Energy, Inc Dutch Gap Wind 6/1/07 250 250 W Jefferson, NY E Indian
River Substation 115kV NM-NG 5 10/14/08 FES 2010/12 2010/12
*
270 *Wind Development Contract Co LLC Hounsfield Wind ###### #### #### W
Jefferson, NY E Fitzpatrick - Edic 345kV NYPA 7 9/1/09 FES/SRIS 2010/09
2010/09
*
Last
Update
**
NOTES: * *The column labeled 'SP' refers to the maximum summer megawatt
electrical output. The column labeled 'WP' refers to the maximum winter
megawatt electrical output.
*
*Availability of Studies Key: None=Not Available, FES=Feasibility Study
Available, SRIS=System Reliability Impact Study Available, FS=Facilities
Study and/or ATRA Available
*
*Proposed in-service dates are shown in format Year/Qualifier, where
Qualifier may indicate the month, season, or quarter.
**
Z
*
*The column labeled 'Z' refers to the zone
*
*Type / Fuel. Key: ST=Steam Turbine, CT=Combustion Turbine, CC=Combined
Cycle, CS= Steam Turbine & Combustion Turbine, H=Hydro, PS=Pumped Storage,
W=Wind, NU=Nuclear, NG=Natural Gas, M=Methane, ST-SW=Steam Turbine-Solid
Waste, S=Solar, Wo=Wood,
F=Flywheel ES=Energy Storage, O=Oil, C=Coal, D=Dual Fuel, AC=AC
Transmission, DC=DC Transmission, L=Load
**
Proposed In-Service
*
*The column labeled 'S' refers to the status of the project in the NYISO's
LFIP. Key: 1=Scoping Meeting Pending, 2=FES Pending, 3=FES in Progress,
4=SRIS/SIS Pending, 5=SRIS/SIS in Progress, 6=SRIS/SIS Approved, 7=FS
Pending, 8=Rejected Cost Allocation/Next FS Pending,
9=FS in Progress, 10=Accepted Cost Allocation/IA in Progress, 11=IA
Completed, 12=Under Construction, 13=In Service for Test, 14=In Service
Commercial, 0=Withdrawn
nyiso_interconnection_queue Jefferson County Updated: 10/28/2009
*
THE V Of THE GULDEN CRESCENT

www,hendersmhollbmy.corn
"Where your rmat+mal&.eitrm come twV

December 1,2009
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation - Division of Environmental Permits
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12223-1750
To:
Mr. Stephen Tornasik, EnvironmentalAnalyst
srntoma-w
l/Copy To:
nv.mi
NYSDEC Region 6 Office

Watertown, NY 13601
Ms.Judy Drabicki, Director
From:

Subject:
Hounsfield Wind Power Project - Galloo Island

UPSTATE MY POWER CORPORATION
NYSDEC Application ID 6-2238-00 193100001
1. Through our continued review of the very complex subject project, we note an abnormality that we request be
investigated. This project, when considered cumulatively with the other five (5) Jefferson County projects (see
attached Interconnection Request for Jefferson County), and the public agency announcement by NYPA of an
additional 1,000 W G , should be considered under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
regulations, Part 617.7.(c)(l)(xii) as a whole. Specifically we cite "two or more related actions undertaken, funded
or approved by an agency, none of which has or would have a significant impact on the environment, but when
considered cumulatively would meet one or more of the criteria in this subdivision".
We ask the NYSDEC to complete the impact analysis to their satisfaction, as to the cumulative effects of these
multiple projects as suggested in SEQRA Part 617.7.
2.
Portions of Galloo Island are included in the NYSDEC Open Spaces Plan, as are close proximity islands, Little
Galloo, and Gull Island. How does this affect the request by the developer, Upstate NY Power Corporation to
completely cover Galloo Island with an industrial VVTG complex? Has the NYSDEC modified their Open Spaces
Plan to accommodate the substantial industrial complex cited very close to three (3) notable sites?

PO BOX468 - Henderson Harbor, NY 13651-0468 (3 15) 938-5568 t o l l f i ~ e (888)
:
938-5568
m
r
m contuuf :@ ~ ~ ~ r C ~ @ i , c v m
NYSDEC SEQRA Abnormality

NYSDEC Open Spaces Criteria
HHACC-EDC
December I , 2009
3. Several years ago, the NYSDEC considered purchase of Galloo Island and proceeded with a final negotiation that
did not result in the purchase. During the NYSDEC review of Galloo Island leading up to their purchase offer, we
understand from discussions, the island was considered, 'fragile and delicate" and shall remain in its current
state. Has this previous determination and review by the NYSDEC been considered, or made available to the
present NYSDEC evaluating team? If so, has the NYSDEC found new information to consider the island suitable
for an industrial WTG complex?
Thank you for your consideration of this new request, which does not modify our previous request for a six (6) month
extension of the existing public commenting period of the DEIS.

Sincerely,
&
L
1c ' & a / m d
Karl Wllliams - President

Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Cammerce
Robert Ashodian - Chair
Peter Price, Bill Saiff, Robert Aliasso - Members
Attached: lnterconnedon ' ~ e q u e s kand Transmisshn Projects - Jefferson County (Source NYISO)
INTERCONNECTION REQUESTS AND TRANSMISSION PROJECTS I NEW YORK CONTROL AREA

Page 1 of 1
Date
Project Name
of lR
SP WP Type1
(MW) (MW) Fuel
Locatlon
CountylState
lnterconnectlon
Polnt
Utlllty
~~~t
AvaHablllty
Update of Studles
Proposed In-Servlce
Orlgtnal ) Current
166 AES-Accrona Energy NY, LLC
St. Lawrence Wlnd Farm
28/05 79.5 79.5
Jefferson, NY
Lyrne Substation 1 l5kV
NM-NG
ID
109 PPM Energy, tnc.
Clayton Wind
418105
126
126
Jefferson, NY
Coffeen St-Thousand Island 115
NM-NG
10114108 FES, SRIS
2006122
2010112
BP Alternatrve Energy NA. Inc. Cape Vlncent
1/12/08
210
210
Jefferson, N Y
Rockledge Substation 115kV
NM-NG
10114108 FES. SRIS
20091Q4
20091Q4
250
250
NM-NG
10114108
FES
2010112
2010112
NYPA
911109
FESISRlS
2010109
2010109
207
246 PPM Energy, Inc

270
NOTES.
Dutch Gap Wind
Wind Development Contract Co LLC Hounsfiald Wind
611107
W M
JeRerson. NY
Indian River Substat~on115kV
Jefferson,NY
Fitzpatrlck Edic 345kV
911109
SRlS
2006112
2009112
The cdurnn labeled ' S f ' n r h s to :he rnafJmurnsumme~mEgawattelectric#! ovlput. The column labeled 'Wf' relea to the maximum *~nlsrmegavial1 ekctrtcat w!pui
Tfp9 / Fusl Key. ST=SMsm Turbme. CT=CmhusDon TurMns. CC=Combimd Cycle, CS=Steam Tvhine & ComSvstion Turbive, H ~ i f f d m PS-Pvmssd
.
Slornge. WWod, FIU=Nvcl8sr. NG=Nstufal Gss. M.MefhsTe.ST-SWzSream Turnme.Solid Waste. S d o h f . Wo=WDD11
F=Flywheel ES=Eflergy Slurage, O=W C=Cbal, D=OuslFoel.AC=AC Tlsvsm1$61on,DCsDC Transm~ss~on
L=Load
Tha colurno kbeW '7refers lo the zone
a T h column labeled 'S'mfers lo :he ststus o: :he pqecr 1n !he NYlSOh LFIP, Key, l=scopog Meehog Pend~ng.2 F E S Peodty, 3 z F E S in Pmgrsas, d=SRIS/SIS Pend~ng.5=SRIS.SlS In Prcgress. fi=SRISIS/SAppm&. 7=FSPerd~ng8=Re)sd& Cmt AJbcatmn/NexfFS Peodhg.
S=FS in Pfcgrass, IO~AccepredCast Alloca!~on~lA
In Pregfess. 7 1 =/A Completed, rz=undsr Cwshvctton. 13.117 Service tor Tesl, 14=ln Serv~ceCommercst, O=W~!hdrawawrr
AvaflabJ~ly0lStudles Key: Nooe*Nuf AvaPaole. FES=Fear~b/l:!yRudyAvallableSRIS=Sptsm Re11ab:lIty Im,oar Study Aus~lable,FS=Fsoblias Study snd?or A TRA Available
Pr~poppaedi,?-servlceOats8 a w sbown to l o m r Yerrr/Qualinsr, where Qualilisr may ~ n d ~ c alhe
a mwrlh, season, or quaner.
~ction-queue Jefferson County
Updated: 7 0/29/20OQ
December 1,2009
Peter Price
Owner Henderson Storage
8048 NYS Rt. 3
Henderson NY 13650
Mr. Alexander 'Pete" Grannis

Commissioner
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12223-1750
Re:
Hounsfield Wind Power Project - Galloo Island

NYSDEC Application ID 6-2238-00193100001
I am a business owner and resident living in the area directly affected by the Hounsfield Wind Power Project. 1 am
writing to advise you of serious deficiencies in the SEQR review process and to request that the public comment
period for the DEIS be re-opened to allow for adequate public input on matters that were either ignored or given
inadequate attention in the DEIS. 1 am specifically seeking a written reply from DEC with regard to such
deficiencies and whether the record will be re4pened.
The deficiencies include, but are not limited to:
1. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Project does not consider a thorough analysis of the
cumulative impacts of all five (5) planned projects in the affected area. Amongst other projects, the New
York Power Authority has publicly announced its intention to construct a massive wind farm in the same
region. Although the NYPA plan was announced prior to completion of the public comment period for the
Hounsfield Wind Power Project DEIS the document fails to address this large project proposed by a sister
state agency. The wind power projects currently proposed for the eastern end of Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River will mllectively change the face of this important region forever. This is particularly true
where the associated transmission lines are already segmented from the project by virtue of a legal
technicality. The failure to address the cumulative impacts of the other large wind projects and the
transmission lines renders the DEIS for the Hounsfield Wind Power Project an improper exercise of
selective environmental review. The spirit and the letter of SEQR demand that DEC conduct an honest
assessment of these projects on a cumulative basis.
2. The Draft EIS does not address the issue of Environmental Justice as it relates to the low income residents
of Jefferson County, New York. If a major energy project were proposed for an urban area in downstate
New York the DEC's environmental justice policies would be applied. This project and its associated
projects and transmission lines will permanently deface a large swath of northern New York in order to
provide power to largely downstate interests. If the tables were turned and a power generation project was
proposed for Brooklyn, the Bronx, or Long Island in order to deliver power to Jefferson County the DEC
would analyze the environmental justice issues during its SEQR review. Your failure to include this issue in
the DEIS reveals a selective and discriminatory application of the DECs environmental justice requirements
and deprives the local community members of equal protection under the law.
3. The project as proposed is inconsistent with the petroleum and spill hazards presented in the DEIS. It is my
understanding that each wind turbine may contain up to 320 gallons of a petroleum lubricant that is highly
toxic to aquatic environments. The grouping of these petroleum storage devices in one small area
surrounded by a sensitive aquatic habitat should, at a minimum, require permitting under the DECs
petroleum andlor chemical bulk storage regulations. On this basis alone, the project must be denied a
permit outright. If any other business owner were to propose locating over 100 hundred 300+ gallon
storage petroleum/chemical storage containers on Galloo Island it is inarguable that the DEC would deny
them the right to do so. There does not appear to be an exemption for wind turbines in the petroleum or
chemical bulk storage regulations and yet the DElS ignores the issue and no permits have been required.
4. Portions of Galloo Island are included in the NYSDEC Open Spaces Plan, as are close proximity islands,
Little Galloo, and Gull Island. Several years ago, the NYSDEC considered a purchase of Galloo Island.
During the NYSDEC review of such action, the island was considered to be 'fragile and delicate" and the
recommendation in the report was that the island should remain it its current state. Such analysis is highly
inconsistent with the allowance of industrial wind turbine projects on the island and proximate to other
islands in the Open Space Plan. This issue must be addressed in the DElS and the public must be allowed
to comment.
5. The socioeconomic impact section of the DElS is highly misleading when compared to the actual intentions
of the project sponsors. In discussions of the project and its associated transmission line the DElS seems
to indicate that the project will "negotiate" with land owners when in fact, as the sponsors have since
confirmed, they intend to utilize the power of eminent domain to take land from its rightful owners against
their will. The taking of property against the will @flandowners would be a highly irnpacfful event upon the
socioeconomic make up of northern New York. The DElS does not include an assessment of the impacts
upon local people who have lived in the same view shed for generation upon generation, and which will
now be changed forever without even a cursory discussion of those socioeconomic impacts by the New
York DEC.
The residents of Jefferson and St. Lawrence counties do not oppose the development of renewable energy
resources. In fact, the vast majority of all of the renewable power that has been, or ever will be, generated in New
York State was generated at great cost to our local environment by virtue of the hydroelectic dams on the Great
Lakes system. It is inappropriate for the DEC to abdicate its responsibilities to conduct a thorough and Fair
environmental review in the headlong rush to develop even more renewable power for the benefit of others on the
backs of our region and its irreplaceable resources.
Please consider this letter to be a specific request to re-open the record to allow true public input into the DElS
process on the above and other issues. I also respecthlly request that you respond to this letter in a timely manner
and provide copies of your response to New York State Senator Darrel Aubertine.
Sincerely,
Peter Price
CC:
Ms. Judy Drabicki, Director NYSDEC Region 6 Office

New York State Senator Darrel Aubertine
The Institute for Justice, Washington D.C.
The Watertown Daily Times
From: brandtsail <brandtsail@juno.com>

Date: 12/2/2009 3:02 PM
Subject:
Request to Extend the public comment period for the Hounsfield Wind
Farm Project (Galloo Island) by 6 months.
2136 Wyatt Circle
Punta Gorda, FL 33950
December 2, 2009
Stephen Tomasik
Project Manager
Energy Projects and Management
Dear Mr. Tomasik:
I am writing to request the DEC extend by 6 months the public comment
period for the Hounsfield Wind Farm Project (Galloo Island). My family
has been summer residents at Clarks Point, Henderson, NY since 1939. Our
property is on the lake shore and faces directly west with a full view of
Stony Point, SW Stony Island and Galloo Island. My summers there date
back to my 1939 birth year and to the 5 months I now spend there each
summer. The view has changed minimally in all those years with our
westerly views of gorgeous sunsets off the end of Galloo Island, the
night sky full of stars, the blinking of the Stony Point light and the
more faint Galloo Island light. Tourists spend lots of money to travel
to exotic places such as Key West, FL to view those same sunsets. It
would be a shame to destroy such a sight and the pristine beauty of
eastern Lake Ontario for the benefit of a few land owners and purveyors
of wind generating machinery. One can only imagine what a plethora of
blinking red and white strobe lights, certainly visible for at least a 30
mile radius, would do to this scene!
I write this not as anti alternative forms of energy, as I favor such. I
just believe there are better and more isolated places in Northern NYS
away from an area having such raw beauty and rich recreational assets. I
hope you will see fit to extend the comment period so all factors and all
voices can be heard on this potentially damaging alteration to the
landscape in this pristine area. I would like my unique view to be there
for my children and grandchildren.
Very truly yours,
Donald C. Brandt
Summer Address:
5118 Clark Point Road
Henderson, NY 13650
P.S. I will send a hard copy of this letter via US Postage.
From: "James M. Cosgrove" <j.cosgrove1@verizon.net>

Date: 12/2/2009 3:23 PM
Subject:
Lake Ontario Wind Farms
Mr. Stephen Tomasik
Dec.2, 2009
Project Manager
625 Broadway-4th Floor
Albany, NY 12233-1750
Dear Mr. Tomasik:
I must express strong opposition to a current proposal to erect wind turbine structures
in the eastern region of Lake Ontario, especially on Galoo Island or elsewhere in the
Towns of Hounsfield and Henderson. Having resided for many summer seasons in this
historic and pristine area, and having sailed in these waters for more than 40 years as a
member of the Henderson Harbor Yacht Club, I am dismayed that any such scheme be
suggested. Not only do these devices pose an ugly intrusion on the natural beauty of the
region, they inevitably will bring substantial decreases in local property values and result
in other negative economic impacts. The area's recreational fishing attractions and its
renown tourism industry --based on its historic importance in the War of 1812 -- and the
popular Seaway Trail are certain to suffer from the intrusion of such ungainly structures
slashing the skyline.
Your agency must heed its environmental obligation to protect and preserve this unique
"Golden Crescent" of Lake Ontario. The DEC must altogether reject this offensive
scheme. Meantime, I accordingly urge you to extend for six months the scheduled public
hearings for comments on the matter.
I express these concerns with encouragement and support from my many Lake Ontario
sailing associates and fellow members of the Henderson Harbor Yacht Club.
Respectfully,
James M. Cosgrove
Liverpool NY
Henderson Harbor NY
j.cosgrove1@verizon.net
From: "John M. Irwin" <jmirwin@verizon.net>

Date: 12/2/2009 1:54 PM
Subject:
Galloo Island Wind Farm
Stephen Tomasik
Project Manager
I urge you to extend the public comment period for the Galloo Island
Wind Farm by six months. This project is inextricably tied to the
transmission line southward, and as you know, the developer is not
required to notify property owners that they are affected. Many are
just now discovering what is happening, and should have an opportunity
to be heard. The public hearing for the transmission line, conducted by
the Public Service Commission on November 16, 2009, alerted many
stakeholders for the very first time. Also, as reported in the
Watertown Daily Times on November 29, 2009, the New York Independent
System Operator is currently conducting a study of renewable energy
development, to address the significant issue of energy deliverability.
These results, expected in early 2010, should be available for rational
and pertinent public comment on the Galloo Island project.
In fairness to the public, who are much more impacted than 250
white-tailed deer on Galloo Island, the public comment period should be
extended.
John M. Irwin
7985 Trina Circle
Clay, NY 13041-9160
(315) 699-2926
jmirwin@verizon.net
From: <jsalovitch@aol.com>
Date: 12/2/2009 11:07 AM
Subject:
Galloo Island
Mr. Tomasik,
I am writing to request and extension on the public comment period for the Hounsfield
Wind Farm project on Galloo Island.
As a summer resident, I am opposed to this project and hope that we can somehow stop it
from happening. I grew up in the area, but now live in New Jersey. We spend our
summers there because of the natural beauty of the lake. A wind farm would detract from
the beauty of the area as well as effect our property values on the lake.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Janet Salovitch
14754 Snowshoe Road
Henderson, NY
From: "Wason, Jay" <Jay_Wason@unity-life.com>

CC: "Sara Deming Wason" <sdwason@syr.edu>
Date: 12/2/2009 8:52 AM
Subject:
Extension of the Public Comment Period
Dear Mr. Tomasik,
I am writing to request an extension to allow additional public comment
on the Hounsfield Wind Farm Project (Galloo Island). I believe a six
(6) month extension would be appropriate. This project will have a
major impact on businesses, personal property values and a way of life
on the eastern end of the lake and many of us are just now becoming
informed about it. There are still many, many unanswered questions. My
wife and I own a seasonal home on the lakeshore and we are Henderson
Harbor Yacht Club members. We spend 8 months a year enjoying the many
activities and beautiful vistas offered on the eastern end of Lake
Ontario, and believe that an extension of the public comment period
would give everyone a chance to voice their views.
Jay W. Wason, Jr.
8436 Brae Leure Road
Manlius, New York 13104,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-BINDING NOTICE: This email is ONLY for the

person(s) named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains
information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender of the error and delete the
message. Also, nothing in this email is intended to result in the formation of a contract, or
the modification of an existing contract, until such time as definitive documentation is
prepared and manually signed by the party to be bound. Thank you.
<img src="http://www.unity-life.com/images/19035.jpg">
From: Kris King <kking356@yahoo.com>

Date: 12/2/2009 10:46 AM
Subject:
Hounsfield Wind Farm Project
Dear Mr. Tomasi,
I'm requesting a six week extension on the public comment forum.
Thank you,
Kristin King
From: <mvmarburger@aol.com>
Date: 12/2/2009 11:13 AM
Subject:
request extension for public comment Hounsfield Wind Farm Project
Mary M Hoffman
PO Box 444
Mr. Stephen Tomasik
Project Manager
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
Albany, NY 12233-1750
December 2, 2009
Dear Mr. Tomasik:
The purpose of this letter is to request an extension to allow public comment on the
Hounsfield Wind Farm Project. As a property owner in the region, I am concerned about
the impact this project will have on environmental issues, agricultural use of land,
property valuation, and tourism. This project will benefit the Town of Hounsfield
financially, without impacting their farm land, their property values, or their
infrastructure. It will impact all those areas, excepting, financial gain, within the Town of
Henderson. This does not seem fair or reasonable, and therefore I believe more time is
needed to assess the costs to Henderson, both financial and otherwise, before a decision is
reached.
Thank you for your consideration,

Mary M Hoffman
From: "Rich Mangan" <rich.mangan@emailncc.com>

Date: 12/2/2009 11:50 AM
Subject:
Galloo Island wind project
Dear Mr. Tomasik,
I am a tax paying resident of the Town of Henderson and also own property in
the town of Watertown. I am writing to express my real concern about the
impact of the proposed wind project on Eastern end of Lake Ontario. I moved
to Henderson 11 years ago because of the beauty of the region and its large
undisturbed natural settings, and have since invested over $900K in real
estate that I pay taxes on in Jefferson county. The project on Gallo Island
in my estimation will decrease all of my property values. It is also my
opinion that such a project will dramatically decrease the tourism revenues
that the area currently enjoys. From my property on Snowshoe road I am able
to see the wind towers in Canada- on Wolfe Island- with the naked eye during
daylight hours- at night their lighting is easily visible under all
conditions.
I strongly urge the DEC to extend the public comment period for an
additional 6 months and take a strong stance against this project. The
Eastern basin of Lake Ontario is a wonderful Natural resource- let's not
destroy it.
Regards,
Rich Mangan
14992 Snowshoe Road

Henderson, NY 13650
315 938 7481
From: "Mr William Arnold" <wja1000@verizon.net>

CC: "Bob & Paula Ashodian" <bashodian@aol.com>
Date: 12/1/2009 10:34 PM
Subject:
I encourage you to grant an extension for the comment period on the Galloo
Island Wind Farm Project. For whatever reason the activity associated with
this was initially very poorly publicized thus limiting the opportunity for
interested parties to provide comments.
The impact of this initial project and the proposed expansion of it will
have a significant short and long term impact on the economy of the area and
therefore all impacted parties should have the opportunity to be heard.
W. J. Arnold
From: Bert Bowers <bertna@twcny.rr.com>

To: Stephen Tomasik <smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us>
CC: <wind>
Date: 12/3/2009 3:44 PM
Subject:
Galloo Island Cumulative Effects
December 3, 2009
Stephen Tomasik
Project Manager
Galloo Island Cumulative Impact
Dear Mr. Tomasik

I have previously corresponded with you about my concerns with
various issues surrounding the proposed Hounsfield Wind Farm Project
(Galloo Island) through my interest as a member of the planning board
in the Town of Lyme and as Co- Chair of the recently formed Coalition
for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent, an organization that
includes representation from the various towns included in the Golden
Crescent.
There are a number of issues that have not been adequately explored
and for these reasons, the public comment period must be extended:
I recently attended a presentation in Oswego by the NYPA about

its intention to ask developers to bid on installing offshore wind
turbine facilities in areas of Lake Ontario immediately adjacent to
Galloo Island. This changes everything. It will be essential to
consider the cumulative impact of the proposed Galloo Island Project
with the offshore WTG fields proposed by NYPA and also the nearby and
essentially contiguous onshore developments currently proposed in the
towns of Cape Vincent, Lyme, Clayton, Orleans, and Hammond.
These projects, if they go forward, will have a profound and

enormous effect on everyone who calls the eastern end of Lake Ontario
home. This area has been referred to historically as the Golden
Crescent because of the beauty and uniqueness of the area

Because of New Yorks home rule system, the enormity of the
combined effects of these proposed projects has heretofore not been
fully appreciated by the communities that will be impacted. The
potential implications have only been recognized very late in the
approval process. Only recently has there been any community reaction
and only recently have the citizens of these communities begun to
push back
There are many, many unanswered questions about the effects of

these multiple proposed projects. Some of our concerns are related to
the potential destruction of the delicate ecosystem of Lake Ontario,
Galloo Island, the nearby islands, the Lakeshore and the rivers and
streams flowing into the Lake.
There is concern about the destruction of the view-shed, the

recreational use of the Lake, its islands and beaches, including the
many State Parklands that will be adversely affected
The area's fisheries will be negatively impacted.
There will be a serious devaluation of lake front property and

the seasonal based businesses such as cottages, campsites and marinas
that are so significant to the local economy. This will also reduce
the assessed values of the regions most valuable properties causing a
painful realignment of tax revenue for the towns.
Many of us have only recently learned that portions of Galloo

Island are included in the DEC open space plans and that the DEC had
attempted only a few years ago to acquire and preserve Galloo Island
because of its habitat significance for a wide variety of living
creatures. Other near by islands and Lakeshore areas are also
included in the open space plan for similar ecological reasons.
As I and others in the area have learned more about this developing
situation, we are appalled at the prospect of turning eastern Lake
Ontario and Galloo Island, as well as many of our towns into an
industrial complex for wind generation. Regardless of any so called
mitigating actions, the combined effect of these proposed projects,
on top of the already accomplished destruction on Wolfe Island, will
seriously and negatively impact our local economy as well as the
ecology and natural beauty of Eastern Lake Ontario and Galloo Island.
Proposals bringing cumulative change of this magnitude need to be
considered very carefully in their entirety before any decisions are
made to proceed with any of the individual projects. Please extend
and appropriately augment your review. The residents of the area call
upon the DEC to conduct a proper review of the cumulative effects of

these proposed actions.
Sincerely,
Albert H. Bowers III
Co-Chair, The Coalition to Preserve the Golden Crescent
Albert H. Bowers III
Naval Architect & Maritime Consultant
PO Box 177
11891 Academy Street
Chaumont, NY 13622-0177
315-649-2191
315-408-8507 cellular
bertna@twcny.rr.com
From: Charles Mackey <mackeyc@juno.com>

Date: 12/3/2009 9:18 PM
Subject:
Galloo Island Power Project
Dear Mr. Tomasik
I am requesting an extension of the decision on the Galloo Island wind
farm power project for 6 months. There are answers to questions such as
economic and environmental impacts which have yet to be fully explored.
Thank you,
Charles Mackey
P.O. Box 415
14649 Lower Hovey Tract Rd.
From: Jim Farrell <jwf1952@gmail.com>

To: Stephen Tomasik <smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us>
CC: John DeFrancisco <jdefranc@senate.state.ny.us>
Date: 12/3/2009 9:40 PM
Subject:
Galloo Island Windmill Farm
Mr. Tomasik,
I request that the DEC extend the public comment period on the Galloo Island
project. We have only quite recently become aware of this project. As
central New York residents who spend a significant amount of time in the
Henderson Harbor area each year, my wife and I are quite interested in
learning more about the project. At first glance, we have significant
concerns regarding what I perceive as the "industrialization" of the area.
Without doubt, the project will have significant negative effects on the
area and its residents and visitors. The question in my mind is if the
benefits outweigh these negative effects. For that reason, and knowing that
many others are just now becoming aware of the significance of the project,
we ask that the public comment period be extended so that we can become more
knowledgeable and offer more informed comments.
Thank you,
James & Christine Farrell
403 Bass Street
Liverpool, NY 13088
PO Box 525
www.AssociationIslandResort.com
December 3, 2009
To:
Stephen Tomasik
Project Manager
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168
smtomasi@gw.dec.state.ny.us
From:
Louise Shim, as Representative for

Association Island RV Resort & Marina, LLC and LJS Properties, LLC
PO Box 525
Cell: (315) 771-3501
louise@airesort.com or louise_shim@msn.com
Subject:
Public Comment On:

Upstate NY Power Corps (UNYPCs) Hounsfield Wind Farm on Galloo Island
Association Islands Opposition to the Hounsfield Wind Farm on Galloo Island
My family owns and operates Association Island RV Resort & Marina, LLC and owns LJS Properties, LLC, the
property owner of Snowshoe Island and Association Island. Dr. Nak K. Shim and So Ok Shim are the Managing
Members of both LLCs. In this letter, I will collectively refer to any or all related family entities as just
Association Island. Association Island strongly opposes the development of the Hounsfield Wind Farm on
Galloo Island on the grounds that: 1) the negative visual impact of the wind farm will irreparably damage
an existing critically important and irreplaceable natural resource the beautiful waterfront viewshed over
the eastern shores of Lake Ontario; 2) the proposed telecommunications towers and transmission lines
may interfere with satellite telecommunications and FCC-regulated air waves; and 3) that destroying our
beautiful viewshed will irreparably harm the environment, our business, and the economy in the whole
1000 Islands Region.
Building wind farms to replace the countrys reliance on fossil fuels and foreign oil should not come at the
expense of sacrificing an existing natural resource and harming a regions business activity and livelihood. There
are many forms of alternative energy and you can build a wind farm in many alternative locations, but you will
never again be able to build such a beautiful waterfront viewshed as we currently have here in the waters of
eastern Lake Ontario, and particularly in the Henderson Harbor and Golden Crescent area. We ask the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) as lead agency, the Public Service
Corporation (PSC), and the many other local, county, state and federal regulators and public officials to
deny the request of UNYPC, or any developer, to build a wind farm on Galloo Island, or on any other
property, in the waters of eastern Lake Ontario.
Page 1 of 8
Physical Address (No USPS Mail):
15530 Snowshoe Road
Tel: (800) 393-4189, (315) 955-6522

Fax: (315) 955-6858
Henderson, NY 13650
Email: Info@AIResort.com
PO Box 525
For background about Association Island: we are physically located at the end of Snowshoe Road in Henderson,
NY and are located 5.6 miles directly east of Galloo Island. On 65-acre Association Island, we offer a top-rated
resort for recreational vehicles (RVs) with 305 RV sites (all with full hook-ups for potable water, sewer,
20/30/50 amp electric, and basic cable TV service), marina with 70 boat slips, five 2-bedroom cottages,
Conference Center, convenience store and office, laundry, and many other facilities for recreation and amenities.
We rent our rv sites, slips, and cottages by the night, weekend, week, month, and even for the full season. After
our own long and arduous regulatory approval process which started in 1990 and after investing several million
dollars in developing our facilities, we opened for business in 2002 and just completed our eighth season. Our
season generally runs from May 15th to October 15th of each year. Our customers come to Association Island to
enjoy our unique island setting with beautiful waterfront and sunset views and to enjoy all the recreation and local
tourist attractions offered in the whole 1000 Islands Region. We are a member of the Henderson Harbor Area
Chamber of Commerce (HHACC), Sackets Harbor Chamber of Commerce, Watertown Chamber of Commerce,
Syracuse Chamber of Commerce, and active supporter of the Thousand Islands International Tourism Council.
In this letter, I will repeatedly reference statements and exhibits provided by UNYPC in their Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (Draft EIS), which is downloadable from their website at
www.upstatenypower.com/images/Hounsfield_Wind_Farm_Draft_EIS.pdf.
In support of our opposition to UNYPCs development of the Hounsfield Wind Farm at Galloo Island,
please consider the following 15 points:
Point #1: The serene, beautiful, natural, waterfront viewshed in eastern Lake Ontario provides public
enjoyment for millions of viewers and serves to attract property ownership and commerce, in the form
of tourism, to the whole 1000 Islands Region in Northern New York State. Developing one natural
resource, namely the harnessing of wind, for alternative energy should not come at the expense of
sacrificing an already existing and critically important natural resource, our waterfront viewshed.
According to the NYS DEC which is quoted in UNYPCs Draft EIS on page 2-136, the NYS DEC Visual
Policy states:
Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a place or
structure. Significant aesthetic impacts are those that may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment
and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or one that impairs the character or quality of such a place.
Proposed large facilities by themselves should not be a trigger for a declaration of significance. Instead,
a Project by virtue of its siting in visual proximity to an inventoried resource may lead staff to conclude
that there may be a significant impact.
On page 2-136 and 2-137 of their Draft EIS, UNYPC falsely states, Given the significant distance of the
project from virtually all publicly accessible vantage points, the project will not cause the diminishment of
public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or impair the character or quality of such a
place. UNYPCs own photo simulations in their Draft EIS Appendix Q: Visual Resources Report and
Line-of-Sight Drawings, verify the clear visibility of the wind turbines from Ellisburg to Henderson
(including simulations specifically at Association Island) to Sackets Harbor and Cape Vincent in Exhibits A5a to A14-b (copies of which are attached). Additionally, the photo simulations fail to depict how the FAArequired red-blinking lights will turn our waterfront horizon into an industrial red-light zone at night a
severely negative aesthetic impact. The wind farm project at Galloo Island will forever damage our
waterfront and direct westward sunset views, a waterfront horizon that has been lauded for its un-touched
Page 2 of 8
15530 Snowshoe Road
Tel: (800) 393-4189, (315) 955-6522

Fax: (315) 955-6858
Henderson, NY 13650
PO Box 525
beauty since the historic battles of the War of 1812. The wind farm will damage the aesthetic appeal, public
enjoyment, and character of the waterfront enjoyed by the millions of visitors to 4 nearby state parks
(Southwick Beach, Robert G. Wehle, Westcott Beach, Sackets Harbor Battlefield) and the Seaway Trail, to
the thousands of annual visitors to Association Island, and to the thousands of homeowners and businesses in
the region. The Hounsfield Wind Farm will clearly violate the NYSDEC visual policy on aesthetic
impact, and will harm the public enjoyment and quality of life of our residents and businesses.
Point #2: UNYPC failed to show simulations of the FAA-required red-blinking lights which must flash in
unison on top of the 400+ feet wind turbine towers. We ask that regulators and public officials require
that UNYPC to provide these same photo simulations showing the red-blinking lights, and we ask that
the regulators and public officials imagine having the same red-lights blinking in their backyard as
they make their decision regarding the development of the wind farm.
Point #3: On page 2-138 of the Draft EIS, UNYPC states that Due to the height of the WTG, the Federal
Aviation Administration requires red flashing aviation obstruction lighting be placed atop the nacelle on
approximately 23 of the 84 turbines to assure safe flight navigation in the vicinity of the Project. Lighting
will be at the lowest intensity required for pilot safety. This federally mandated safety feature cannot be
omitted or reduced. UNYPC expects to use L-864 lighting, which they suggest are low intensity red lights
emitting 2000 candelas, on 23 of 84 wind turbines. The FAA requires the red lights to all flash in unison.
UNYPC suggests that these lights will have limited visual impact due to the distance of 5.6 miles to the
nearest shoreline and due to earths curvature. In late summer and fall of 2009, when water levels were
lower, the red lights blinking from the wind turbines at Wolfe Island (required to have red lights on ~30 out of
86 wind turbines and situated ~20 miles north-west) were clearly visible from Association Islands shoreline.
We countered our customers complaints about the obnoxious red-blinking lights by saying that at least the
red-lights are not obstructing our westward sunset views over Lake Ontario and they are only visible during
periods of low lake levels (due to the earths curvature). With the much closer proximity of 5.6 miles to
Galloo Island (versus 20 miles to Wolfe Island), distance and earths curvature will not diminish the
negative aesthetic impact. The wind turbines and FAA-required red lights will clearly be visible yearround by all areas along our shoreline, especially when you consider that the lights at Galloo Island will
be at a stronger 2000 candelas than the lights at Wolfe Island, which have brightness of 1800 candelas.
Point #4: Association Island has its own water treatment plant on-site. Our water treatment plant extracts
water from our western shoreline, purifies the water, and provides potable water to our customers which can
number up to 1,000 people during peak periods. Our 150-feet water in-take pipe is on the western shores of
Association Island facing directly toward Stony and Galloo Islands. The dispersion of sediment due to
underwater dredging and/or any oil spills from the wind turbine reservoirs will negatively harm our water
treatment filters and plant purification process, posing a health hazard to our customers if not contained or
expeditiously mitigated.
Point #5: Association Island operates a capital-intensive and labor-intensive business. In addition to the
multi-million dollar development costs, we spend several hundred thousand dollars per year in expenses for
goods and services and payroll to support our business, for upgrades in our facilities and for operations. Any
decline in Association Islands business will negatively impact our vendors and payroll needs, and
subsequently reduce county and state tax revenues.
Page 3 of 8
15530 Snowshoe Road
Tel: (800) 393-4189, (315) 955-6522

Fax: (315) 955-6858
Henderson, NY 13650
PO Box 525
Point #6: During Association Islands own regulatory approval process, we were required to submit an
Economic Impact Statement. Our studies showed that the economic impact of our business has a 7-to-1
multiplier impact. In other words, for every $1 dollar spent at our resort, $7 dollars are spent in the local area.
Our RV customers have RVs that range in price from a couple thousand dollars, to a couple hundred
thousand dollars, and even to 45-foot motorcoaches that cost up to two million dollars. Our customer base
has above average incomes with above average discretionary spending abilities. We can cite numerous
examples of how actual customer experience has justified this 7-to-1 multiplier effect, as our customers
regularly spend their vacation and discretionary dollars in Henderson, Henderson Harbor, Adams, Sackets
Harbor, Cape Vincent, Clayton, Watertown, Oswego, Alexandria Bay, and Syracuse. Any decline in
Association Islands business as a result of the diminished waterfront viewshed will have a 7-fold
negative impact on local businesses, with the potential of a more than a million dollars hit to the local
economy, along with the loss of associated county and state tax revenues.
Point #7: We request that regulatory authorities require UNYPC to conduct and submit a full
Economic Impact Statement, representing not only the positive effects of the wind farm on the local
and state economy, but also the negative impact on local businesses and tourism to the region and NY
state. On page 2-151 of the Draft EIS, UNYPC states that Due to the remote location of the Project, no
impact to tourism or tourism-related employment on the mainland is anticipated. Regardless, a survey
conducted in 2003 for the East Haven Windfarm in Vermont revealed that 95 percent of visitors to the states
Northeast Kingdom would not be deterred from further visits by the existence of wind turbine generators.
The survey was conducted by the Institute for Integrated Rural Tourism. We argue that the survey results in
Vermont should not be taken into consideration here, since they were evaluating a rural in-land area without
the unique waterfront viewshed which we have here on the Great Lake of Lake Ontario. We ask that prior
to approving the development of the Galloo Island wind farm, regulators must require UNYPC to
engage an independent consultant to conduct a survey to determine the impact of tourism to the Cape
Vincent area, which is situated directly across from the newly built Wolfe Island wind farm, and to
conduct a survey to Association Islands customers of the perceived impact of wind turbines and their
red lights on the waterfront horizon. On page 2-151 of their Draft EIS, after lauding their positive impact
on the economy including $2.016 million PILOT payments to the Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, and
the Sackets Harbor Central School District, they state No significant adverse impact in the form of net
economic losses is anticipated for commercial businesses in the Town of Hounsfield or Jefferson County.
Per our Points #4 and #5, UNYPC has neglected to analyze the negative impact to tourism to the 1000 Islands
Region. Furthermore, UNYPC does not expect the wind turbines to generate increased tourism, and due to
the remote offshore location of Galloo Island and their proposed development of internal infrastructure (onsite housing, commissary, transportation of employees via helicopter, shipping via the port of Oswego), their
employees will have little opportunity to spend time nor patronize businesses in Jefferson County. UNYPCs
arguments that the wind farm project will only add positive benefits to the economy without any
negative impacts to tourism and local businesses are capricious at best, and authorities must require
UNYPC to provide a more accurate and comprehensive analysis of the economic impact.
Point #8: In their Draft EIS Appendix Q page 8, UNYPC inaccurately states This portion of New York
State is generally rural with [only, my words not theirs] two (2) village centers located within the study area;
Cape Vincent and Sackets Harbor. The Village of Cape Vincent (population 760) is located more than 14
miles from the nearest turbine . . . The Village of Sackets Harbor (population 1,386) is approximately 12.2
miles east of Galloo Island. UNYPC completely failed to recognize Henderson within its study area
Page 4 of 8
15530 Snowshoe Road
Tel: (800) 393-4189, (315) 955-6522

Fax: (315) 955-6858
Henderson, NY 13650
PO Box 525
when Henderson is the closest mainland town at only 5.6 miles east of Galloo Island with a population
of 1,377 which is larger than Cape Vincent and equivalent to Sackets Harbor. How could UNYPC
neglect to recognize Henderson as an effected population when Henderson is the closest town to Galloo
Island, when Henderson is the location where their infrastructure for transmission lines and
telecommunications will come on-shore, when Hendersons properties will be dissected by their transmission
lines, and when Hendersons viewshed is the most closely and directly impacted? While Galloo Island
somehow falls under the jurisdiction of the Town of Hounsfield, how can UNYPC neglect to recognize
Henderson as a critically important jurisdictional authority? Adding further insult, UNYPCs plans for
transmission lines do not physically enter or lie within any portion of the mainland of the Town of
Hounsfield. Hounsfield will receive all the financial benefit of the wind farm, without any disruption to the
municipalitys infrastructure or residents properties.
Point #9: In the section for Inventory of Aesthetic Resources (Draft EIS on page 2-127), UNYPC fails
to fulfill the requirement that states The DEC Visual Policy requires that all aesthetic resources of
Statewide Significance by identified with any potential adverse effects on those resources resulting from
the Project. In Table 2.6-1 Potential Aesthetic Resources, they inaccurately characterize Association Island
as only having local significance. Association Island has been rated by Woodalls, a leading ratings agency
in the RV industry, in the top 3% of over 8200 private campgrounds that Woodalls rates across the United
States and Canada. With our commitment to top-rated facilities, we are considered a destination resort for
RVers and have successfully attracted customers from all 50 U.S. states, Canada, and even Europe and
Australia. While most RV campgrounds draw from a local customer base, only a small fraction of our
business is generated by local customers and an overwhelming majority of our business comes from outside
Jefferson County. Our major markets not only include the in-state regions surrounding Watertown, Syracuse,
Rochester, Buffalo, Albany, and Binghamton, but we also have a strong customer base from Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, Texas, and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The negative
impact of wind farms to our business is not just of local significance, but will have far-reaching state-wide
significance particularly when you factor in the 7-to-1 multiplier impact. Not only will businesses suffer, but
the county and state will lose the sales taxes, gasoline taxes, highway tolls, and income taxes generated by the
revenues from our customers during their stays at, and while enroute to and from, Association Island.
Counter to the NYS DEC requirement, UNYPC completely failed to include the analysis of the adverse
economic impact for the inventoried resources that they already listed with statewide significance (including
the state parks at Southwick Beach, Robert G Wehle, Westcott Beach, Sackets Harbor Battlefield), and they
failed to characterize Association Island as having statewide significance. We ask that you require UNYPC
to complete this analysis of the potential adverse impact on inventoried resources of statewide
significance both aesthetically and economically, and in an accurate manner.
Point #10: Association Island is the largest taxpayer in the Town of Henderson and one of the largest
taxpayers in Jefferson County. After vacationing at Association Island, many of our customers have bid on
and/or purchased properties and businesses in Henderson and other local towns. Our business and our
customers help improve property values and contribute significantly to the town and countys property tax
base. A decline in Association Islands business will ultimately negatively impact the town and
countys property tax base.
Point #11: Association Island offers basic cable TV service to our customers, and our customers rely on
over-the-air HDTV service, radio, NOAA emergency weather alerts, cellular phone service, and wireless
Page 5 of 8
15530 Snowshoe Road
Tel: (800) 393-4189, (315) 955-6522

Fax: (315) 955-6858
Henderson, NY 13650
PO Box 525
internet data service. Within our cable system, we receive satellite service from DirecTV and over-the-air
HDTV transmissions from major US networks and transmit the signals through underground cabling to our
sites. Our customers also independently utilize their own satellite services and over-the-air HDTV
transmissions from both US and Canadian networks. According to the NOAA newsletter for Winter 2006
The Lake Breeze, The Newsletter of the Buffalo Forecast Office in the attached Exhibit B, the article titled
The Effect of Wind Power Farms on the Weather Radar, Thomas Niziol, Meteorologist in Charge,
describes how the turbines at Maple Ridge Wind Farm negatively impact data quality and so degrade the
performance of radar algorithms, and concludes the rapidly increasing number of wind farms used to
generate electricity is beginning to impact weather surveillance radar data. To date, the impacts appear to be
minimal. However experiences to date indicate the expected near-exponential growth in the number of such
installations is cause for concern. The proposed wind turbines, telecommunications towers and transmission
lines will likely interfere with satellite reception and over-the-air transmissions and create safety concerns, not
only for Association Islands customers but also for local residents and boaters in the Henderson Harbor area.
We ask the PSC to stop UNYPCs interference with weather radar, satellite TV communications, and
FCC regulated and protected airwaves. We also ask the PSC to require UNYPC to thoroughly analyze,
disclose the impact of, and eliminate any impairment resulting from their project on satellite TV, overthe-air HDTV, radio, NOAA emergency weather service, cellular service, and wireless internet data
service signals.
Point #12: Under Section 3.0 of the Draft EIS page 3-1, the SEQRA must contain a discussion of
alternatives to the proposed action. Two of their alternatives included:
a. No Action: there are approximately 21 wind power projects currently operating or under
construction in New York State. There are already 4 project proposals for wind farms, all within a
40-mile radius to Galloo Island: including 1) the Cape Vincent Wind Farm with 140 turbines on 335
acres situated 10.5 miles north of Galloo Island, 2) the St. Lawrence Wind Power Project with 86
turbines on 289 acres situated 15 miles north of Galloo Island, 3) the Horse Creek-Clayton Wind
Farm with 62 turbines on 714 acres situated 20 miles northeast of Galloo Island, and 4) the Roaring
Brook Wind Project with 39 turbines on 211 acres situated 39 miles east southeast of Galloo Island.
With all these alternative locations which are situated on in-land properties, the need for a wind farm
at this particular location, situated offshore on an island 5.6 miles into the waters of eastern Lake
Ontario, is greatly diminished. We ask that the regulators and public officials recognize No
Action as the Preferred Action, to save our natural resource of the beautiful waterfront
viewshed. We further ask that regulators and public officials force developers to seek the
development of alternative energy away from offshore locations, which will irreparably damage
the viewshed of eastern Lake Ontario, to on-shore and in-land locations.
b. Lower Turbine Height: UNYPC provides a discussion of using shorter turbines at a maximum tip
height of 339.5 feet versus the current proposal of 410 feet. Even at 339.5 feet, the project will be
required to have the FAA-required aviation obstruction lights. We ask that the regulators request
that UNYPC propose an alternative solution at much lower turbine heights that will not be
required to have the FAA-required lighting and that will not impair the visual aesthetics of our
viewshed.
Point #13: Based on the numerous negative aesthetic and economic impacts listed in Association
Islands previous Points #1-10, UNYPCs wind farm proposal may be in violation of New York States
Coastal Management Program Policy #18: To Safeguard the Vital Economic, Social and
Page 6 of 8
15530 Snowshoe Road
Tel: (800) 393-4189, (315) 955-6522

Fax: (315) 955-6858
Henderson, NY 13650
PO Box 525
Environmental Interests Of The State and Of Its Citizens, Proposed Major Actions In The Coastal
Area Must Give Full Consideration To Those Interests, And To The Safeguards Which The State Has
Established To Protect Valuable Coastal Resource Areas (see Draft EIS page 4-5). Contrary to
UNYPCs opinion, the Project will adversely affect the social, economic or environmental interests of the
State and its Citizens.
Point #14: The National Research Council of the National Academies prepared a report in 2007 titled
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects, downloadable from the internet at
http://www.vawind.org/Assets/NRC/NRC_Wind_Report_050307.pdf. This project was supported by
Contract No. EC25C001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Executive Office of the
President, Council on Environmental Quality. In the report, they list factors for the Determination of
Unacceptable or Undue Aesthetic Impacts and state:
Among the factors to consider are:
Has the applicant provided sufficient information with which to make a decision? These would
include detailed information about the visibility of the proposed project and simulations
(photomontages) from sensitive viewing areas. New Yorks SEQRA process offers an example of
clearly identifying the information required and the mitigation measures that need to be considered.
Are scenic resources of local, statewide or national significance located on or near the project site?
Is the surrounding landscape unique in any way? What landscape characteristics are important to the
experience and visual integrity of these scenic features?
Would these scenic resources be significantly degraded by the construction of the proposed project?
Would the scale of the project interfere with the general enjoyment of scenic landscape features
throughout the region? Would the project appear as a dominant feature throughout the region or
study area?
Has the applicant employed reasonable mitigation measures in the overall design and layout of the
proposed project so that it fits reasonably well into the character of the area?
Would the project violate a clear, written community standard intended to protect the scenic or
natural beauty of the area? Such standards can be developed at the community, county, region, or
state level.
The development of the Hounsfield Wind Farm on Galloo Island and the proposed transmission line will
violate all of these factors. Specifically, on the last factor listed, the wind farm turbines and transmission
lines violate the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the Town of Henderson. Any wind farm development on
the eastern shores of Lake Ontario will violate all of these factors.
Point #15: What is the point of building additional wind energy in northern and western New York,
when the electric transmission grid in New York State is deficient and cannot transmit such additional
capacity to downstate? On December 1, 2009, the New York Power Authority (NYPA) made an
announcement that the NYPA is seeking requests for proposals to construct wind power projects on the Great
Lakes of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lowville, NY already generates 321
megawatts of electricity, which is enough to power 125,000 homes and businesses, or more than enough to
power all the homes and businesses in Jefferson County, St. Lawrence County, and Lewis County.
Additional wind farms are therefore on the NYPAs agenda to supply the downstate New York City
metropolitan area. However, the congestion and capacity constraints of the electric grid have already forced
Page 7 of 8
15530 Snowshoe Road
Tel: (800) 393-4189, (315) 955-6522

Fax: (315) 955-6858
Henderson, NY 13650
PO Box 525
the wind turbines to shut down at Maple Ridge Wind Farm on numerous occasions. Furthermore, after 5
years of seeking regulatory and public approvals, on April 6, 2009, the New York Regional Interconnect
(NYRI) terminated its proposal to construct a $5 billion state-of-the-art 190-mile, 1200 megawatt electrical
transmission line to run from the Town of Marcy, NY in Oneida County to the Town of New Windsor, NY in
Orange County. The NYRI project faced severe opposition from homeowners and public officials. It should
be obvious that upstate New Yorkers (private and public entities) do not want to have our property, farmland,
businesses, tourism, and beautiful viewsheds sacrificed for the sake of downstate New Yorkers power needs.
In Conclusion: The unintended consequences of supporting wind farms as a source of alternative

energy are many and will be extremely costly to Association Island, to the regions homeowners, to the regions
tourism-related businesses, and to the local, county, and state taxing authorities. Not withstanding the fact that
Association Island generally supports the development of alternative clean energy to reduce our countrys reliance
on fossil fuels, Association Island overridingly advocates that the development of alternative energy must not
come at the expense of an existing and critically important natural resource, at the expense of obstructing our
existing telecommunications systems, nor at the expense of the quality of life in and tourism to New York States
1000 Islands Region. In closing, please stop UNYPCs development of the Hounsfield Wind Farm at Galloo
Island. The regulators and public officials who have the power to approve or deny the wind farm can
afford to force prospective developers to pursue alternative forms of energy in alternative locations, but we
can not afford to lose this critical and irreplaceable natural resource of our beautiful waterfront viewshed
here on the eastern shores of Lake Ontario. Thank you for your consideration.
Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit A5-a to A14-b of Appendix Q of Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Exhibit B: NOAA Winter 2006 The Lake Breeze, The Newsletter of the Buffalo Forecast Office
Page 8 of 8
15530 Snowshoe Road
Tel: (800) 393-4189, (315) 955-6522

Fax: (315) 955-6858
Henderson, NY 13650
Exhibit A:
Visual Simulations
Hounsfield Wind Farm (08-009.10M)
Existing Condition
FIGURE A5-a
Photo Simulation
VP#64Robert G. Wehle State Park (Cliff View)
Town of Henderson
Approximately 6.4 miles from the nearest turbine
Visual Resource Assessment
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A5-b
Photo Simulation
VP#64Robert G. Wehle State Park (Cliff View)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A6-a
Photo Simulation
VP#X67Robert G. Wehle State Park
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A6-b
Photo Simulation
VP#X67Robert G. Wehle State Park
Town of Henderson
January 200908
Existing Condition
FIGURE A7-a
Photo Simulation
VP#68Southwick Beach State Park
Town of Ellisburg
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A7-b
Photo Simulation
VP#68Southwick Beach State Park
Town of Ellisburg
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A8-a
Photo Simulation
VP#70Black Pond WMA
Town of Ellisburg
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A8-b
Photo Simulation
VP#70Black Pond WMA
Town of Ellisburg
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A9-a
Photo Simulation
VP#78Association Island
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A9-b
Photo Simulation
VP#78Association Island
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A10-a
Photo Simulation
VP#80Westcott Beach State Park (Camping AreaNorth End)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A10-b
Photo Simulation
VP#80Westcott Beach State Park (Camping AreaNorth End)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Existing Condition
FIGURE A11-a
Photo Simulation
VP#80.1Westcott Beach State Park (Overlook)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Photo Simulation
FIGURE A11-b
Photo Simulation
VP#80.1Westcott Beach State Park (Overlook)
Town of Henderson
January 2009
Exhibit B
NOAAs National Weather Service
Volume 2, Issue 2
Winter 2006
The Lake Breeze

The Newsletter of the Buffalo Forecast Office
Thomas Niziol, Meteorologist In Charge

Judith Levan, Warning Coordination Meteorologist
David Zaff, Science and Operations Officer
The Effect of Wind Power Farms on the Weather Radar

Wind power is a lot more than a gentle
breeze that causes trees to sway or
waves to move across a lake. We all
know that the power in the wind can blow
a semi tractor-trailer truck off the road
and flatten buildings. However, it can also
be harnessed to be a non-polluting,
never-ending source of energy to meet
electric power needs around the world.
Tug Hill is in many respects the ideal location for New York's largest wind energy
project. This site consists of approximately 12,000 acres at an average elevation of 1600-1800 feet. The Tug Hill plateau experiences strong lake-effect
weather patterns and has long been
known not only for tremendous snowfall
but for its exceptional wind resource.
Wind power is converted to electricity by

a wind turbine. In a typical, modern,
large-scale wind turbine, the kinetic energy in the wind (the energy of moving air
molecules) is converted to rotational motion by the rotor - typically a three-bladed
assembly at the front of the wind turbine.
The turbine eventually sends this energy
to a generator that converts the rotational
movement into electricity.
The Maple Ridge Wind Farm, located on

Tug Hill is the largest alternative-energy
project east of the Mississippi, The project will eventually consist of nearly 200
wind turbines, each stretching over 300
feet into the sky, covering approximately
12 miles of leased, privately-owned land.
Parts of western and northern New York

provide excellent conditions for tapping
the energy of the wind. An area between
Watertown and Syracuse, known as the
Other projects completed or underway

throughout upstate New York include the
western portion of the state in rural Wyoming county and the Lake Erie shoreline
south of Buffalo. Studies are also being
conducted for additional wind farms in
Jefferson county east of Lake Ontario.
This move is all part of a White House

Advanced Energy Initiative to have
American wind farms produce 20% of the
nations electricity consumption.
The presence of the wind farms is not just
apparent to those who live in the area.
The large profile that several large wind
turbines clustered together
provides,
may actually create interference or blockage of the signals emitted by weather
radars located close by. As a result, the
wind farms may produce an erroneous
pattern on those weather radars.
According to an article entitled Impacts
of Wind Farms on WSR-88D Operations
and Policy Considerations experience
has shown that when wind farms are located close to weather radar systems, the
turbine towers, rotating blades, and the
wake turbulence induced by the blades
negatively impact data quality and so
degrade the performance of radar algo(Continued on page 2)
INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
Maple Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill
Enhanced Fujita Scale
Friendship Weather Observer
Winter Weather Safety
Upgraded Radiosonde System
Computer Models
Frewsburg NOAA Weather Radio
Personnel Changes at WFO Buffalo
SKYWARN Recognition Day
SKYWARN Training
Page 2
The Lake Breeze
The Effect of Wind Power Farms on the Weather Radar (cont.)
Figure 1. Montague Radar before wind farm
Figure 2. Montague Radar after wind farm
(Continued from page 1)
rithms. One example of the effect is shown in Figures 1 and 2,

which shows a radar display from the Montague WSR-88D
weather radar located only about 10 miles from the Maple
Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill Plateau. Figure 1 shows the
radar display before the wind farm was constructed in 2005.
Figure 2 shows the same radar after the wind farm was partially
constructed in the fall of 2006. In that image, the Maple Ridge
Wind farm is readily apparent to the east of the radar as a cluster of erroneous radar echoes.
The NWS and the WSR-88D Radar Operations Center (ROC),
on behalf of the Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD)
Program, are part of a federal interagency working group
charged with finding ways to improve collaboration with the
wind energy industry. This group will address wind farms impacts on federal interests, including weather radar operations
and will develop criteria for wind farm siting and expansion to
allow co-existence of both systems with minimal interference.
In addition, the University of Oklahoma is currently sponsoring

study to develop advanced techniques to discount wind turbine
signatures on the weather radars while being able to maintain
those signals produced by the weather.
In summary, the rapidly increasing number of wind farms used
to generate electricity is beginning to impact weather surveillance radar data. To date, the impacts appear to be minimal.
However, experiences to date indicate the expected nearexponential growth in the number of such installations is cause
for concern. NOAAs NWS has become involved in studying the
impacts of wind farms and mitigation opportunities to ensure the
network of WSR-88Ds can continue to provide mission-critical
support to forecast and warning operations.
Thomas Niziol
Meteorologist In Charge
Thomas.Niziol@noaa.gov
From: <Bashodian@aol.com>
Date: 12/3/2009 10:57 AM
Subject:
Request for Public Hearing Extension - Hounsfield Wind Farm Project
Attachments:
Letter to Editor November 29.doc; Letter to the Editor Outrage and Apathy.doc
December 3, 2009
To:
Stephen Tomasik
Project Manager
I have been deeply involved in the various issues surrounding the proposed
Hounsfield Wind Farm Project (Galloo Island) through the Henderson Harbor
Area Chamber of Commerce and the recently formed Coalition for the
Preservation of the Golden Crescent, an organization that includes representation
from the various towns included in the Golden Crescent.
Two issues are very clear:
- the project if it goes forward will have a profound effect on
everyone that makes the eastern end of Lake Ontario their home, an area referred
to for decades as the Golden Crescent because of the beauty and uniqueness
of the area
- for many reasons, the progress of this project went relatively
un-noticed by the communities it would impact, the potential implications were
not recognized until very late in the approval process, only recently has
there been any community reaction and only recently have the citizens of
these communities begun to push back
There are many, many unanswered questions especially related to the
potential total destruction of the delicate ecosystem on Galloo Island, the
nearby islands, the area's fisheries and the much feared negative impact on lake
front property valuations and the seasonal based businesses that are so
significant to the local economy.
Many of us have only recently learned that portions of Galloo Island are
included in the DEC open space plans and that the DEC had attempted only a
few years ago to acquire and preserve Galloo Island because of its habitat
significance for a wide variety of living creatures. Similarly near by
islands are also included in the open space plan for similar ecological
reasons.
As I and others around me have learned more about this situation, we are
appalled at the prospect that turning Galloo Island into an industrial
complex for wind generation, regardless of so called mitigating actions, will
virtually destroy the ecology of Galloo Island and can't help but have a
negative impact on other nearby islands.
In an effort to make this project more visible to a largely unsuspecting
public, our local newspaper, the Jefferson County Journal, has provided me
the opportunity of a weekly column to discuss a broad range of issues.
These articles are printed under a general heading Henderson Harbor Area
Chamber of Commerce, comments of the Economic Development Committee, which I
chair.
I have attached two recently published articles. One addresses the
potential economic significance of the Galloo Island project. The second
addresses the outrage of those who have become aware of what is going on and the
apathy of those who do not.
I have attached both columns to support my urging that the public comment
period be extended an additional six months. There are far too many people
impacted by the outcome of the project to be making hasty decisions and
far too many people who have only most recently become aware and still wish
to provide their comments.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Ashodian
PO Box 544
Henderson Harbor NY 13651
HHACC Economic Development Committee

Preserving the Golden Crescent
Robert Ashodian
The Golden Crescent is an area of unique beauty. We are now at risk that commercial
interests motivated by very lucrative federal and state subsidies will destroy the very
attributes that draw people to this area.
Our local communities, with the help of Jefferson County Planning have developed
comprehensive land use plans to preserve and protect our most valuable resource the
natural beauty of the eastern end of Lake Ontario. Many of us can feel sentimental about
our star filled skies, open rolling hillsides and magnificent views across the lake.
Its a lot more than that those vistas are Hendersons and other nearby towns most
valuable asset. We are talking about big money. We are talking about the reasons why
people want to come to this unique place. It is the product we sell. That product, that
inventory of recreation and the quality of life we cherish is our financial future.
We feel that no transmission lines and no commercial wind turbines should be approved
until there is a complete Economic Impact Study of what wind turbine related
development will have on the fragile economy of the communities that make up the
Golden Crescent.
Our seasonal and recreation based industries are economic multipliers. Its a simple
principle. For example, a dollar spent for campsite rental generates seven dollars spent in
the community at local restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores, repair facilities,
entertainment, etc., all of which adds value and generates sales tax revenue.
Similarly in Henderson Bay, every boat at a dock or on a mooring represents far more in
sales than the price of the dock or the mooring. The additional net benefit to the
community from boat hauling, storage and launch, repair and maintenance, gas,
groceries, entertainment all follow the multiplier principle. The same principle applies to
the fishing charter business and to all our seasonal businesses.
People vacation here and live here because we have something totally unique to sell.
How can we not evaluate the impact of destroying the very reason why they come?
The potential decline in property values is an enormous risk - not only to the property
owners themselves, but in the decline of the tax base. For most families their land and
their homes are their most significant asset. Our most valuable properties in the Golden
Crescent are those along the shoreline and especially those that face the open lake.
Increasingly, we are seeing homes with an assessed value of more than a million dollars.
The proposed Galloo Island wind project is huge. Only six (6) miles off the high
shoreline of Stony Point, the project will result in industrial machinery dominating the
horizon by day and by night. It is only rational to ask: what is the economic impact of
destroying the very features that make our waterfront and water view properties so
valuable?
Where is the Economic Impact Study that shows any net economic benefit to our
residents in terms of their property values, their energy costs, the net taxes they will pay
now and in the future? The PILOT appears to forgive taxes for some, allocate the
benefits through some sort of negotiated formula to others in a complex process that is far
from clear to those that would be negatively impacted by the project. It is only fair to
inquire into the details and be provided a thorough explanation.
Where are the figures that show wind energy, without massive subsidies paid for by tax
payers, is efficient or cost effective? And where is there any study that shows wind
power will reduce the cost of energy for anybody in this region. And, where is there any
study showing we need additional energy production to serve the needs of this region?
A lot more work is needed to evaluate the impact of populating this region with industrial
complexes for wind generation vs. the countys own Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy and Hendersons Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The developer is in a big rush and he is pushing us to meet his deadlines based on his
requirements. No decisions should be made at any level of government or any agency
until the unanswered questions are fully answered.
A company with a valuable and truly unique product to sell, protects that product,
supports that product, promotes that product and enhances the appeal of that product.
That product is its future; you nurture and grow that product. You do not cannibalize the
product by making its most attractive features ugly and unwanted. You dont make hasty
decisions about your most important product. We need to do all we can to protect that
product, not rush to give it away to the greedy interests who time after time have
destroyed forever what was once beautiful.
Released by: Robert Ashodian, November 29, 2009

Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce Economic Development
Committee
HHACC Economic Development Committee

Outrage and Apathy - Galloo Island Wind Farm & Transmission Lines
By Robert Ashodian
The realization that two key projects, the Galloo Island wind farm consisting of up
to ninety (90) 400 foot wind turbines and the transmission line to bring that power
ashore, exploded in this community October 6, 2009. The industrialization of
Galloo Island brings tax revenue to Hounsfield, but destroys the viewshed from
Hendersons most valuable property its waterfront facing to the north all along
Stony Point and along Harbor Road.
The wind project will degrade property values, cause massive disruptions during
the construction phase and result in the destruction of what keeps this
community alive recreation based businesses that exist because of the natural
wonder of the northeastern end of Lake Ontario, often referred to as the Golden
Crescent.
A transmission line is proposed to bring Galloo Island power ashore near the socalled Hovey Tract, adjacent to Little Marsh, on the northern face of Stony Point.
The line will then travel inland directly through the Corridor Overlay Zone
identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Henderson. The
transmission line crosses the most likely properties that would be developed for
residential and commercial use, as well as prime agricultural lands. It then turns
south and passes through some of the most productive farm land in the county, if
not country. It destroys the dreams of farmers and the dreams of everyone that
love their land, the quiet, the scenic wonder and the very reasons people are
here for many, many generations.
Both projects are well along in the approval process. The DEC is the lead
agency for the Galloo Island project. The application is complete. The public
comment period, unless extended, ends December 4; our fate is then in the
hands of the DEC. The application for the transmission line is also well along in
the approval process. The first Public Service Commission public hearing was
November 16. Sadly, we were all witness to solid, good, hard working people
choking up explaining to the judges their love of the land. Jay Matteson of the
JCADA made a strong case that use of eminent domain on any agricultural lands
should be avoided at all costs.
For those that have taken the time to look at what is about to be imposed on this
region, they are outraged, they are incredulous, they see the very real prospects
that their property values will decline, that their quality of life will be changed
forever. They look at what the federal, state and county government is doing and
they are angry.
Those that have looked see total madness the destruction of the very reason
this community and the Golden Crescent area exists. They see a project, only
viable as a result of massive federal and state subsidies, totaling over
US$300,000,000, paid for by our own tax dollars, extracted from us by our distant
governments. In our county there is pressure to approve the PILOT program,
even when no in-depth economic impact study exists. Our County Legislators
and the JCIDA have been blinded by the US$25,000,000 payments that the
developer would pay back to their coffers. In turn the County and the JCIDA
would only pay out US$3,000,000 to the Town of Hounsfield. As you can see
this is reminiscent of a Ponzi scheme, made legal by green energy credits and
the mandate to reach certain levels of Renewable Power Sources, obviously at
any cost.,
We call for the insanity to cease, stop spending Federal funds that create very
few permanent jobs and provide no economic growth potential. We also ask the
developer and its supporters to stop hiding behind Green Energy what about
the irreparable damage to our Green-Scape? Also, the argument commonly
used for wind is to rid ourselves of dependency from foreign oil sources. If one
would look, we generate very little electricity from oil, our largest trading partners
for oil are Canada and Mexico, and we have unbelievably large reserves of oil in
ANWR. You may recall, ironically, ANWR cannot proceed due to expected
damage to the environment.
For sure there are those that feel good about wind energy and justify its
subsidized existence as good for America, clean and, to some, even attractive.
Sit up, listen up and smarten up the wind projects only benefit is to the
developer and a few landowners.
But, for those who have seen what is coming they are afraid, very afraid. They
should be afraid. Galloo Island is only the trunk of the elephant. Plans are being
considered to build 2,200 wind turbines on islands and in the waters of the
eastern end of Lake Ontario.
While such angst is tearing some of us apart, there is a much larger group that
seems totally unaware and unconcerned. They might have heard towers and
transmission lines are under discussion. But, this is an issue not of interest to
them.
Hendersons town board totally neglected the implications until October 6, 2009.
The developers have done what they are legally required to do. Notices were
published, hearings were held. But, nobody cared. Nobody was looking. The
Henderson board had to know, but opted to ignore it. The original documentation
for the transmission line was sent to the Town Office. Updates and key dates
were similarly ignored. Documentation sat on a shelf in the Town Clerks office.
A town councilperson was assigned to monitor the wind tower project, which is
under the jurisdiction of Hounsfield. He attended a few meetings. If he did report

back, the town board opted to ignore the entire issue.
Talking to a lot of people, we are appalled that people are so poorly informed, so
lacking of any awareness of what is going on and what the long term implications
to this entire region may be. They dont know or they seem not to care. Our
local town government knew, but did not seem to care.
Several groups, recently organized to push back on both projects, have similarly
found other towns that seem completely unaware of what is going on. This is
exactly the way the developers want it and groups like the JCIDA, until only very
recently, appear to want it. The developers have an enormous advantage with a
poorly informed, apathetic citizenry who have neither the time nor the inclination
to push back.
We make the following plea wake up, find out what is really going on and
review what these projects mean to you personally. If you like wind and
transmission lines, then God bless. If you dont, you better start working on
pushing back.
Released by: Robert Ashodian, Economic Development Committee, Henderson

Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, November 22, 2009
From: Ginny and Bick <ginnyr46@yahoo.com>

CC: BOB ASHODIAN <Bashodian@aol.com>, BICK & GINNY BICKNELL
<ginnyr46@yahoo....
Date: 12/4/2009 2:27 PM
Subject:
SIX MONTH EXTENSION REQUESTED ON GALLOO IS. WIND
TURBINES
My wife and I are vehemently against wind turbines being placed on Galloo Island since
it will cause more problems for Henderson residents than for those of the town of
Hounsfield. Our view both from the water as well as from land will be destroyed by the
size and number of the turbines which also will cause property values, tourism, and
quality of life to decline.
REQUEST THAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD BE INCREASED SIX
MONTHS to insure a rational and well thought out decision is made.
Hilton Bicknell, P.E.
POB 466
cell 315-486-0596
From: Louise Shim <louise_shim@msn.com>

Date: 12/4/2009 2:32 AM
Subject:
Association Island's Opposition to Hounsfield Wind Farm at Galloo Island
Attachments:
PublicCommentToDEC-HounsfieldWindFarm-AssocIsland-20091203.doc;
ExhibitA_APPENDIX_Q_Visual_Resources_Report 65-78.pdf;
ExhibitB_NOAA-WindFarmDisturbance-2006Winter.pdf
Dear Mr. Tomasik:
Association Island RV Resort & Marina, LLC and LJS Properties, LLC strongly opposes
Upstate NY Power Corp's development of the Hounsfield Wind Farm at Galloo Island on
the grounds that: 1) the negative visual impact of the wind farm will irreparably damage
an existing critically important and irreplaceable natural resource the beautiful
waterfront viewshed over the eastern shores of Lake Ontario; 2) the proposed
telecommunications towers and transmission lines may interfere with satellite
telecommunications and FCC-regulated air waves; and 3) that destroying our beautiful
viewshed will irreparably harm the environment, our business, and the economy in the
whole 1000 Islands Region. Please accept the attached Word document and pdf exhibits
as part of the Public Comment period for your review of Upstate NY Power Corp's Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. We ask that you deny Upstate NY Power Corp's
application to develop the wind farm on Galloo Island.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 315-771-3501 or email
louise_shim@msn.com. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Louise Shim
Business Manager of Association Island RV Resort & Marina, LLC
Vice President of LJS Properties, LLC
(315) 771-3501
From: maureen johnson <mojo7981@yahoo.com>

Date: 12/5/2009 8:06 AM
Subject:
galloo island.
I am thoroughly against the wind mill project that you are encouraging to be done. I am a
sailor and spend summers on the beautiful waters of Lake Ontario. I would greatly
appreciate you looking into this matter more carefully and do what is best for the
residents and travelers in that area. I would hate to see you ruin such a wonderful,
peaceful area. Thank you, Maureen Johnson

Hounsfield Wind FEIS Appendix A Public Comments

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Hounsfield Wind FEIS Appendix A Public Comments

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Appendix A

From: Stephen Tomasik

From: " Jerry & Linda Allen" <allenscamp@verizon.net>

From: Ken Kogut

From: Stephen Tomasik

>>> Mike Contino <mjcontino@yahoo.com> 3/12/2009 6:14 PM >>>

March 18, 2009

From: Lawrence Ambeau

From: Stephen Tomasik

In The Matter Of:

May 18, 2009

Original File 5183PH.V1

Min-U-Script with Word Index

STATE OF NEW YORK

In the Matter of:

STATE OF NEW YORK

STATE OF NEW YORK

BABCOCK & BROWN

Good evening, everyone.

like to get started with tonight's hearing.

Department of Environmental Conservation, the

Division of Environmental Permits and Chief of

Energy Projects and Management.

We are here tonight to hold a Public

Hearing to accept public comments on the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed

Houndsfield Wind Project, which is located --

or will be located on Galloo Island.

A notice that an Environmental Impact

Statement was prepared and accepted as complete

and available for public review, and that a

public hearing will be held on May 18, 2009 at

3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. appeared in the March

4, 2009 issue of the Department's Environmental

the Environmental Notice Bulletin on May 13,

Watertown Daily Times on May 4, 2009.

A second notice appeared in

Notice was also published in the

This is the second session to accept

public comments today; an earlier session was

held at 3:00 p.m..

equal weight, so you didn't need to be at the

Both sessions are given

3:00 in order to participate at 7:00.

the sessions are individual and you can

participate at one or both.

What we are going to do tonight is have a

couple of presentations, which will then be

followed by a short question and answer

comments for the public record.

off will be Steve Tomasik.

Then, we will actually accept

manager for the Houndsfield Windfarm.

member of my staff and tonight he will talk a

little about the purpose of today's meeting,

and he will provide a brief overview of the

environmental review process.

let you know where we are in the process and

what opportunities are available as we go

forward in terms of public participation in the

Environmental Impact Statement and the

followed by a presentation by Rick Greiner, who

will be giving us a brief overview of the