August 15, 2016

Hon. Kathleen H. Burgess

Secretary to the Commission
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350
Kevin Casutto
Presiding Examiner
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350
Dear Secretary Burgess and Presiding Examiner Casutto:
I am writing with concern for the future of one of the few islands within the Great Lakes,
Galloo
Island. I am a retired biologist with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYDEC). Galloo Island was within the geographic bounds of my job
responsibilities. My last task before retiring was to guide studies evaluating the impact
of doublecrested
cormorants on Little Galloo Island. Galloo Island is a unique, irreplaceable natural
resource and one that deserves our collective protection.
My concern is NYSDEC's past support and collaboration with the wind industry, in
particular
Upstate NY Power's Hounsfield Wind Farm proposal on Galloo Island. There were a
number of
statements and comments from both Upstate NY Power and NYSDEC officials during
the SEQRA
process (2009 - 2010) that suggested a close, collaborative partnership rather than an
Arm's
Length relationship. The public expects NYSDEC to be independent from wind
developers to
provide responsible oversight even though the two may have some similar, shared
goals.
My major concern, and the reason I am writing, is NYSDEC's current relationship with
the newest
wind developers of Galloo Island. The second iteration of developing a wind farm on
Galloo Island
began with an Article 10 application by Hudson North Country Wind 1 LLC on June 16,
2015
(Case No. 15-F-0327). Subsequent to initiating the Article 10 process Hudson sold its
interest in
the Galloo Island Wind Farm to Apex Clean Energy on December 18, 2015.
Unfortunately, at the

outset of this second project proposal there is once again evidence of a close,
collaborative
relationship. I believe there is sufficient evidence to indicate NYSDEC's advocacy role in
protecting valuable land and wildlife resources was compromised in its fervor for
promoting
renewable energy, particularly wind.
The following list outlines some of the examples of NYSDEC's unusually close
relationship with
the wind industry and Galloo wind developers:
1. NYSDEC's most vigorous advocacy for the protection of Galloo Island came from
Commissioner Grannis's Determination on Lead Agency for the Hounsfield Wind Project
(NYSDEC April 24, 2008). The importance of the Galloo Island resource was outlined in
detail for both its local, regional and statewide importance. The underlying intent was to
justify taking control of the SEQR process from local municipal planning authorities. One
of the points in Grannis's Determination was "...twenty-eight acres of the island were
conveyed to the DEC by the U.S. Coast Guard as a reserve for the conservation of
wildlife
other than migratory birds." Remarkably, this was the last reference to the special
significance of NYSDEC's Galloo Island property. It was never mentioned again
throughout
the entire SEQR process, nor in any Article 10 comments by NYSDEC.
2. NYSDEC also neglected to make public the fact if its Galloo Island lands were not
used for a
wildlife reserve they would automatically revert back to federal ownership:"In the event
they are used for any purpose which is not compatible with the use and maintenance at
the
property as and for the conservation of wildlife, the title thereto shall automatically and
immediately revert to the United states..." In spite of a stipulation that NYSDEC use and
manage their Galloo Island property as a wildlife reserve, NYSDEC did not take the
position that extensive industrial wind development of the island may be incompatible
with deed restrictions. The issue should have been publicized and discussed in the
impact
and findings statements.
3. In the Hounsfield DEIS (Figure 1.2-1), where NYSDEC was the lead agent in the
SEQR
process, Upstate NY Power's initial project layout specified WTG-1 placement and
associated cable and access road development within NYSDEC's wildlife reserve parcel
at
the southern tip of the island (yellow trianglular outline). How could Upstate take such
license with NYSDEC lands and how could NYSDEC tolerate the cooperative
association?

4. Not only was a turbine located on NYSDEC property in the project layout, but it was
also
noted in the Hounsfield DEIS: "WTG-1 is proposed to be located on the State owned
parcel
located at the south west end of the island." Both the map and description of
Department
collaboration suggest developing NYSDEC's parcel on Galloo was a mutual agreement
by
both Upstate and NYSDEC in early meetings and negotiations. This was a mistake in
judgment, not a typo or placement error on a map. Later, Upstate NY Power and
NYSDEC
had the better judgment to remove all references to NYSDEC's collaboration,
nevertheless
it sent a message the regulator and regulated had a close, unusual relationship.
5. On March 6, 2010 NYSDEC issued a 30-year license to Upstate NY Power for the
take of
endangered/threatened species (including Bald Eagle) on Galloo Island. The license
allowed "the take of listed bird species incidental to the activities proposed by the
licensee,
may occur through direct killing, harassment or disturbance of individual birds,
destruction
of birds nests or the destruction or adverse modification of breeding, roosting and/or
foraging habitats during construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed wind
project." An unusual feature of the permit was supplemental material attached to the
license that was prepared by Upstate NY Power Corp's attorneys, Young/Sommer LLC
(noted in the properties section of the file). They quoted the testimony of Jared Snyder,
Assistant Commissioner Air Resources, Climate Change and Energy1:"In fact, the
NYSDEC
has underscored the salience that government should give to advancing policies
addressing
renewable energys role in combating climate change and incorporating that policy in
agency decision-making by stating: Wind energy is a key component of a clean energy
future for New York. (pg. 4). Fighting climate change is without question the most
substantial environmental challenge facing this State, this nation and the world today.
Commissioner Grannis has made the fight against climate change a top priority. . . .
development of wind energy is vital to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Upstate NY
Power's attorneys go on to note: "As the NYSDEC has observed, decisions on wind
projects
cannot proceed in a vacuum. Rather Agency decision-makers must take into account
the
many policies that have been put in place that favor wind development and will heavily
depend on wind energy production in order to achieve critical State and Federal
goals.2" I am
left wondering why is the regulated party (i.e., Upstate NY Power) writing anything as
part

of their take permit? This is questionable, being equivalent to someone writing

conditions
to their hunting or fishing license. But, why did NYSDEC include this supplemental
material as an attachment to their license? This just adds more questions pointing to a
supporting relationship.
6. What Upstate NY Power attorneys' failed to share about NYSDEC officials' support of
wind
in the 30-year take permit was the venue for their testimony. Assistant Commissioner
Snyder and Associate Counsel Sampson testified as interveners in a NYS Public
Service
Commission Hearing regarding the merger of Iberdrola S.A. and Energy East (Case No.
07M-0906, see attachments). The above cited support appears crafted specifically to
influence the NYS Public Service Commission to endorse the merger, since Iberdrola
was a
big, important player in wind development. Commissioner Snyder gives NYSDEC's
fullhearted
support for Iberdrola becoming bigger and more influential in NY energy markets,
"We support an outcome that would take full advantage of the potential offered by
Iberdrola
for the siting of clean and renewable energy in New York. In its determination, we call
on the
PSC to give due consideration to Iberdrola's experience exercise in developing
renewable
energy." The intervention of NYSDEC in the Iberdrola hearing sends a message further
than just the PSC. It adds to the view that NYSDEC and wind developers are in
proverbial
bed together. It also leaves me questioning if Galloo Island ever stood a chance for
protection rather than development.
1 The references are from testimony by the NYSDEC before the New York
Department of Public Service
(NYDPS) on January 11, 2008 (Jared Snyder, Assistant Commissioner Air
Resources, Climate Change and Energy)
and in Briefs filed before NYDPS on April 11, 2008.
2 This point was not given proper attribution by Young/Sommer. It occurred in the
testimony of NYSDEC
Associate Counsel David Sampson, April 11, 2008.
7. In the second iteration of industrial wind development for Galloo, NYSDEC again
appears
to be represented as a cooperator, this time with Hudson Energy Development. In their
initial layout the WTG at the furthest southern tip of the island appears to be in or on the
border of NYSDEC's Galloo property.

8. Hudson North Country Wind 1 LLC (HNCW) also noted the cooperation of NYSDEC
in their
project in the second wind project proposal for Galloo Island, Hudson's Article 10 Public
Involvement Program Plan (PIP, June 2015). Hudson noted it used regulations and
guidance from the Department of Public Service (DPS) to identify stakeholders, which
included "Host landowners who have a land agreement with HNCW." Hudson went on
to
define host landowner and describe the types of agreements between Hudson and
these
host landowners, "host landowners are landowners with whom the Applicant has
entered
into a lease, easement or purchase option agreement." In Exhibit 5 of Hudson's PIP
they
then list NYSDEC as a Host Landowner. Hudson also reported they had met with and
communicated with NYSDEC staff several times prior to submitting their PIP, so it
seems
unlikely these cooperative agreements were oversights or typos in reporting. Similar to
what occurred in the Hounsfield project, NYSDEC later dropped any direct involvement
in
Hudson's project, presumably after some public scrutiny.
In contrast to NYSDEC's overt support of Galloo Island industrial wind projects are two
major
resource protection policies for Galloo Island that have been largely ignored by
Department
policy makers. First is the 2002 Lake Ontario Islands Wildlife Management Area
Management
Plan (LOIWMA). After NYSDEC acquired Little Galloo Island in 1998 NYSDEC decided
to treat
Little Galloo Island, Gull Island and two parcels of land on Galloo Island as one Wildlife
Management Area to facilitate the coordinated management of all four offshore parcels.
The primary goal of LOIWMA is to, "Limit disturbance to colonial waterbirds on Little
Galloo and
Gull Islands through posting,consolidation of research and management activities and
other
protective measures." Little Galloo Island is the crown jewel in terms of colonial
waterbird nesting
habitat (largest nesting colony of Ring-billed Gulls in North America). The wildlife
reserve use
stipulation for the two Department parcels on Galloo Island is a good fit with the
management
goals for Little Galloo and Gull Islands in LOIWMA
LOIWMA outlines a special implementation concern for Little Galloo and Gull Islands:
"The

unique colonial waterbird resources found on Little Galloo and Gull Islands merit
protection from
unregulated disturbance. Colonial nesting species are prone to colony abandonment
from both
repetitive and inappropriate levels of disturbance." The fact Little Galloo is only one mile
from
Galloo Island should have raised serious concerns, especially the blasting proposed on
the Little
Galloo side of Galloo for a temporary harbor to off load turbine components.
Disturbance and
abandonment risks to Little Galloo colonies are not only from construction, but may
come from
the operation of the wind farm as well.
From the perspective of the Lake Ontario Islands Wildlife Management Plan, islandwide
industrial wind development for Galloo is not a good fit. The threats and risks associated
with
construction and operation of a wind farm on Galloo and the near proximity of Little
Galloo
should cause far more caution, since there is no guarantee that negative impacts from
industrial
wind development will be nil. Yet NYSDEC, as lead agent in the SEQR application for
Hounsfield,
not only approved the project, but also licensed harassment, killing, injury and habitat
distruction
of endangered and threatened avian species on Galloo Island, including Bald Eagle.
The taking
permit sends a clear message that efforts to abate climate change take precedence in
NYSDEC's
managing the islands of Lake Ontario. It is hard to imagine a permit being issued for any
other
type of industrial development project on Galloo Island where NYSDEC would have
been so
supportive of the proposal.
NYS Open Space Management Plan: The second major policy directive affecting Galloo
Island is
2014 New York's Open Space Plan. Open space planning began in 1990 with the intent
to involve
the public in the process so that NYSDEC and NY Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic
Preservation could make informed land acquisition decisions. Among the goals are the
protection
of habitat, provide public access, and "to address global climate change by sustainable
stewardship

of our forests for climate mitigation and adaptation."

A unique piece of the Open Space Plan was the formation and involvement of Regional
Advisory
Committees. These committees identified important local projects "that encompass
exceptional
ecological, wildlife, recreational, scenic, and historical values." The Region 6-9 Advisory
Committee
considered projects requiring special protection for Lake Ontario, Lake Erie shorelines.
One of the
resources the committee identified with special need and added protection was Galloo
Island,
"Galloo Island, the largest undeveloped island on Lake Ontario, measuring
approximately 3 miles
by 1 miles or 1,934 acres, is just one of the undeveloped islands worthy of attention."
The 2009
draft plan also included the warning, "An example of current development pressures on
these
shorelines is the proposed wind farm development on Galloo Island which will
encompass the entire
island," however, the reference to wind farm development on Galloo as a threat was
later deleted.
NYSDEC recognized the special scenic value of Galloo early in the process and was
actively
involved in acquiring Galloo Island in order to afford the protections necessary to thwart
incompatible future development, such as wind farms. Unfortunately the purchase was
never
completed due to staff changes and delays that failed to complete the purchase.
In NYSDEC's Open Space Plan there is a section that discusses the very conflict that
faces us in
Jefferson County, i.e., conflicting land and energy policies :
"It is important to recognize that current State energy policies, which include exploration,
extraction, and transmission of natural gas, as well as emphasize developing
alternatives to
fossil fuels, may directly conflict with key objectives of the State Open Space Plan.
Specific
examples of these conflicts include much publicized potential adverse impacts
associated
with high-volume hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking) and development of transmission
pipelines, (but also impact of wind farms on scenic vistas and migratory birds and bats;
damming of rivers and streams for hydro power; and depleted soil productivity resulting
from monocultures of corn and other biofuel sources. It is, therefore, critical that our
compelling need for energy resources be advanced within the context of the

conservation goals identified in this Open Space Conservation Plan concurrent

with a
comprehensive plan toward reduced energy consumption." (emphasis added)
The Open Space Plan and the Lake Ontario Islands Wildlife Management Plan both
recognized the
conflicts between managing the islands of Lake Ontario and combating climate change.
Those
plans also forewarned that NYSDEC's goals for climate change should not be advanced
at the
expense of long-standing protections of critical, local resources.
Upstate vs Downstate - Energy Demand and Production:
In NYSDEC's rush to develop wind in Jefferson County and the North Country it is worth
considering how Galloo Island's development would fit into the bigger picture of New
York's
energy future. The following are some essential facts that were missing in the
discussion of
turning Galloo Island into an industrial wind power generation site:
Electric energy requirements downstate exceeded upstate beginning in 2001 and
since
then annual growth in electric energy use is 11 times greater than upstate, with "an
increased need for additional energy resources in the downstate areas."(Energy to
Lead,
2015 New York State Energy Plan, NYS Energy Planning Bd., vol.2, p. 27)
As of Spring 2014, twenty wind projects are operating with a rated capacity of a little
more
than 1,812 MW (http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/40966.html).
None of the twenty wind farms operating in 2014 are located downstate, all are
upstate
(http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/40966.html).
New York's Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River have hydro-electric generating
capacity of
3,300 MW (https://www.nypa.gov).
It is quite clear for those of us living in Jefferson County that there is an upstatedownstate
imbalance in renewable energy production and growing electric demand. Downstate is
where
demand is greatest and growing, but where there is little if any renewable energy
production none from industrial wind. At the same time upstate growth in electric demand is flat and
a
fraction of downstate growth, all the renewable energy production in New York comes
from

upstate. Moreover, the disparity in industrial wind energy production is not, as some
might think,
related to the wind resources, as the map below shows.
The 50-m wind power map for New York identifies equivalent, if not better, offshore
wind speeds
along Manhattan and Long Island than Galloo Island (U.S. Dept. Energy, National
Renewable
Energy Lab., May 14, 2009). The added advantage of using downstate wind resources
to meet the
growing demand for energy downstate is the proximity of supply and demand - there will
be no
need for additional transmission lines scarring New York's rural landscapes.
Currently, there is a serious plan to develop a major wind farm project off New York's
Atlantic
Coastline (New York Times, March 16, 2016). The plan calls for 194 turbines, each with
a
nameplate capacity of 3.6 MW. This project makes far more sense than sacrificing
Galloo Island,
an upstate resource highlighted as one that needs protection, not development.
Conclusion:
I believe NYSDEC's embrace of renewable energy, specifically wind power, over the
last decade
has probably left much of the traditional management and preservation programs
languishing,
Galloo Island being an excellent example. It has also left me questioning the line drawn
between
overseeing development and cooperating with developers. The two examples
highlighted, where
NYSDEC lands on Galloo were included in the initial plans for both Hounsfield and
Galloo Wind
Farms, suggest that wind developers first stop at Environmental Conservation is the
Office of
Climate Change. Why not begin with the lobbyists who helped Iberdrolas acquisition
plans for
New York.
I feel NYSDEC needs to take a more pro-active stance in support of the Open Space
Plan and the
Lake Ontario Islands Wildlife Management Plan. These policies were developed with
strong, local
support and input. The Department needs to put them on the front burner. NYSDEC
also needs to

recognize geographically that upstate New York has more than its fair-share of
renewable energy
production and there are now plans in place where downstate projects can begin to tap
into their
own abundant wind resource. This is where NYSDEC can be an advocate of the wind
industry
without conflicting with important, local land use policies here in Jefferson County. I urge
those in
NYSDEC who passionately want to develop wind power in New York to place
development where
it is needed, not where they believe it will be tolerated.
I presume the composition of the Article 10 Siting Board was established to provide a
diverse
composite of state agency perspectives, e.g. public health, energy production,
agricultural policy,
environmental interests. I expect NYSDEC's representation on this board would be
supportive
and protective of public lands and their scenic and natural resources. The public would
not expect
NYSDEC to be a conspicuous supporter of the wind industry at the expense of our local
natural
land and wildlife resources. For all of the above mentioned examples of collaboration, I
believe
NYSDEC should step aside and not participate in any vote involving wind energy and
signficant
environmental issues, such as Galloo Island.
Again, I emphasize that NYSDEC should revisit its local planning initiatives and more
actively
support their goals and protections. This is what the public expects of the Department,
not to
appear brother-in-arms of the wind industry. That role is more appropriately embraced
by the
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, not NYSDEC.
Sincerely yours,
Clifford P. Schneider
NYSDEC Lake Ontario Unit Leader - Retired
Wellesley Island, NY
(clif.schneider@gmail.com)

Before The
New York State
Public Service Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Joint Petition of IBERDROLA, S.A.,
Energy East Corporation, RGS Energy Group, Inc.,
Green Acquisition Capital, Inc.,
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation and
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation for
Approval of the Acquisition of
Energy East Corporation by IBERDROLA, S.A.
Case No.
07-M-0906